/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/061005.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 5, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 198


BLACK DIAMOND: Fla. Appeals Court Decertifies Club Members' Suit
BOEING CO: Faces ERISA Lawsuit in Ill. Over 401(k) Plan Fees
CALIFORNIA: School Retirees Sue FUSD Over Healthcare Benefits
CERVELO CYCLES: Recalls R2.5 Model Bicycles to Replace Frame
COLORADO: County Sheriffs Deny Prisoner Abuses in Garfield Jail

CORDIS CORP: Fla. Man Files Suit Over Drug in Implanted Stent
FEDERAL MATERIALS: Court Mulls Class Status for Concrete Suit
FELTEX CARPETS: Investors Plan Suit Against Firm in Receivership
HOLZER CLINIC: Sued in Ohio County Over Debt Collection Method
LASSEN COMMUNITY: College Pres. Faces Discrimination Complaints

MORELAND AUTOMOTIVE: EEOC Files Job Discrimination Suit in Colo.
OAK HOLLOW: N.J. Condo Association Sues President, Board Members
OHIO: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Protracted ADA Litigation
PANASONIC CORP: Settles Suit Over Faulty Lamps for Some LCD TVs
PENNSYLVANIA: District Judge Hears Jail Overcrowding Lawsuit

PHILIP SERVICES: Devlin & Robinson Joins Suit Over Chemical Odor
RYAN'S RESTAURANT: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Buffets Merger
SCUBAPRO USA: Recalls Scuba Regulators to Replace Din Retainer
STRASBURGER & PRICE: Removes Fraud Suit to Tex. District Court
TRANSPORTATION COS: Ind. Judge to Hear ADA Suit Settlement Fri.

UNITED AIRLINES: EEOC Files ADA Violation Lawsuit in Washington
UNITED STATES: Lawsuit Planned to Challenge Immigration Law
UNITED STATES: Priest, Immigration Activist Plan to Sue Govt.
VERMONT: Suit Hampers Sale of Old Burlington School Building

VIRGINIA: VOPA Files ADA Litigation Over State Election Law
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH: Student Files Racial Discrimination Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVO INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit Filing
ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Brower Piven Announces Suit Filing
JABIL CIRCUIT: Finkelstein, Thompson Announces Securities Suit
MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing


BLACK DIAMOND: Fla. Appeals Court Decertifies Club Members' Suit
The 5th District Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that
granted class-action status to a lawsuit against Black Diamond
Properties and its developer-owner, Stan Olsen, St. Petersburg
Times reports.

The case stems from a suit filed Oct. 30, 2003 by seven Black
Diamond Club members.  It claimed that the management company
for the Black Diamond Ranch in Lecanto "deceived and tricked"
residents with misleading advertisements about their ability to
own a stake in the club.

Plaintiffs in the suit, which was granted class-action status on
April 2005, argued that they bought nothing more than an
"illusory option" and will never actually own a portion because
of the way Black Diamond Properties structured the memberships.

Thus, the plaintiffs along with about 500 other members asked
for a refund of their golf and country club memberships, which
cost an average $35,000.

However, in an opinion issued on Sept. 29, 2006, the three-judge
panel reversed Circuit Judge Patricia Thomas' determination that
the group of seven plaintiffs represented the interests of all
the club members.

In it's ruling, the appellate panel pointed out that a class
action is reserved for a group with common issues.  It decided
that this case requires proof from each member of the lawsuit,
making it unmanageable as a class-action complaint.

Writing on behalf of the panel, Judge Vincent G. Torpy explains
that at the very core of the plaintiffs' complaint is the
allegation that oral and written misrepresentations took place
in 500 separate oral contract transactions spanning many years
and involving numerous sales personnel.

He explains that given the varied circumstances and span of time
over which the transactions occurred, defenses applicable to
some plaintiffs would not be applicable to others.

Concurring were Judge William D. Palmer and Chief Judge Robert
J. Pleus, who also wrote a brief concurring note.  Judge Pleus
wrote that while he is sympathetic to the trial court's desire
to dispose of these numerous claims, the conclusion reached by
the majority is a correct one under current law governing class

Essentially, the appellate court's ruling spared the defendants
from owing about $17 million in damages.  However, it does not
prevent individual club members from filing suit.

After the ruling was handed down, John Crabtree, the attorney
who represented the club members, told The St. Petersburg Times
that he plans to seek clarification on it and will petition the
Florida Supreme Court to take the case.  He claims that the
ruling conflicts with previous decisions made by the Florida's
appellate courts.

For more details, contact John G. Crabtree, Florida Bar No.
886270, of John G. Crabtree, P.A., 328 Crandon Boulevard, Suite
225, Key Biscayne, FL 33149, Phone: (305) 423-4350, Fax: (305)

BOEING CO: Faces ERISA Lawsuit in Ill. Over 401(k) Plan Fees
Four employees of Boeing Co. filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois claiming
that the company charged fees and expenses to their 401(k) plan
that were unreasonable, the St. Claire Record reports.

Named plaintiffs are:

     -- Gary Spano of Godfrey,
     -- John Bunk of Shipman,
     -- James White of St. Peters, Missouri, and
     -- Victor Dubbs of St. Clair, Missouri

The 401(k) plan provides a number of investment alternatives
into which employees place a portion of their current income
with the hope of earning, over time, a return sufficient to
support themselves and their families in retirement.

Plaintiffs claim the return on their investments is critical and
even seemingly small reductions in a participant's return in one
year may substantially impair his or her accumulated savings at

Plaintiffs claim that Boeing:

    -- charged fees and expenses to the plan that were, or are,
       unreasonable or not incurred solely for the benefit of
       plan participants;

    -- caused the plan to enter into agreements with third-
       parties that caused or allowed the Plan to pay fees and
       expenses that were, or are, unreasonable or not incurred
       solely for the benefit of plan participants;

    -- failed to monitor the fees and expenses paid by the plan
       and, by such failure, caused or allowed the Plan to pay
       fees and expenses that were, or are, unreasonable or not
       incurred solely for the benefit of plan participants;

    -- failed to inform them of the various methods by which
       vendors in the 401k collect payments and other revenues
       from plans;

    -- failed properly to inform, or disclose to, plan
       participants the fees and expenses that are, or have
       been, paid by the plan; and

    -- in charging, causing to be charged or paid, and failing
       to monitor the fees and expenses of the Plan, failed to
       exercise the care, skill, prudence, and diligence that a
       prudent person would when acting in like capacity and
       familiar with such matters.

Plaintiffs are seeking to recover losses suffered by the plan
and to obtain injunctive relief from Boeing.

The suit is "Spano et al. v. Boeing Company, The et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00743-JLF-DGW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois under Judge James L. Foreman,
with referral to Judge Donald G. Wilkerson.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jerome J. Schlichter of
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, 100 S. Fourth St., Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-621-6115, Fax: 314-621-7151, E-
mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com.

CALIFORNIA: School Retirees Sue FUSD Over Healthcare Benefits
The Fresno Unified School District faces a purported class
action in Fresno County Superior Court over allegations that it
robbed school retirees of a free healthcare benefit that was
supposed to last their lifetime.

The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 29, 2006 by about 20 retirees and
the Fresno Unified Retirees' Association.  It seeks class-action
status on behalf of about 3,500 retirees who qualified for
district-paid health care for themselves, their spouses and

According to the retirees' lawsuit, Fresno Unified originally
agreed to pay for retiree health care in 1977.  The district
altered that benefit in 2005 after negotiating with employee

Retirees are seeking a court order that will:

      -- stop Fresno Unified from billing retirees for health

      -- return money the retirees had paid with interest, and

      -- restore the district-paid plan to its original form.

One of the plaintiffs is retired district Superintendent Glen

Representing the plaintiffs is Robert Bezemek of Oakland,
California (Alameda Co.).

CERVELO CYCLES: Recalls R2.5 Model Bicycles to Replace Frame
Cervelo Cycles Inc., of Toronto, Canada, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 650
units of 2005 R2.5 model carbon fiber bicycles and bicycle

The company said the bicycle frames can loosen or separate,
causing the rider to lose control, fall and be injured.  No
injuries were reported.  

This recall only involves the 2005 model year R2.5 model
bicycles and bicycle frames with serial numbers higher than
R251700.  The model numbers and serial numbers are printed on
the bicycle frame tubes.  The frames have clear coating over a
carbon fiber with either red and white "Cervelo" decals on the
down tube, seat tube and head tube, or blue and white decals in
the same locations.

These carbon fiber bicycles and bicycle frames were manufactured
in Taiwan and are being sold at authorized Cervelo retailers
nationwide sold the bicycles with these frames and the frame
sets from December 2004 through May 2005 for about $2,200 for
the frame set and between $3,100 and $3,900 for the complete
bicycle, depending on the components selected.

Pictures of the recalled carbon fiber bicycles and bicycle

Consumers are advised to stop using these bicycles with the
recalled frames and contact Cervelo to receive a free
replacement frame.

Media Contact: Peter Donato at Special Assignment Inc. at (416)

For additional information, contact Cervelo toll-free at (866)
296-3137 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or
visit http://www.cervelo.com/R25recall.

COLORADO: County Sheriffs Deny Prisoner Abuses in Garfield Jail
Attorneys for Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario and county
sheriff commander Scott Dawson have filed a response to a
lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado
over treatment of prisoners at the county jail, the Post
Independent reports.

The two deny allegations that the jail has abused prisoners
through the use of restraint chairs, pepper spray, pepper ball
guns and electric shock belts, and has kept mental health care
from indigent prisoners and imposed harsh discipline without due

In a 61-page response to the ACLU suit, defendants said the
jail's actions "were taken in good faith and for legitimate
reasons and did not violate any constitution or any regulatory,
statutory, common law or other legal provision of any kind."

The response called for a judgment in Mr. Vallario and Mr.
Dawson's favor and the dismissal of the suit.  It also noted the
officials' immunity from suit under the Colorado Government
Immunity Act.  Further, it argued that some or all of the suit's
claims aren't allowed under the federal Prison Litigation Act.

In July, ACLU filed the original class action complaint in U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of
prisoners in the Garfield County Jail (Class Action Reporter,
July 21, 2006).  

It alleges that the jail's use pepper ball guns, restraint
chairs, Tasers, pepper spray, and electroshock belts violates
widely accepted standards of law enforcement and corrections
professionals, as well as the manufacturers' and vendors'
training and recommendations for safe and appropriate use.  

It claims that prisoners shot with pepper balls or drenched with
pepper spray are regularly strapped into the restraint chair-
sometimes for hours-without being provided any opportunity to
Court documents claimed that prisoners going to court are often
forced to wear a remote-controlled electroshock belt during
transport to court and during hearings.  With a push of a
button, a deputy can deliver an incapacitating and painful
eight-second-long electric shock of 50,000 volts.   

The suit alleges that deputies deliberately taunt prisoners to
heighten their anxiety while they are wearing the electroshock
belt by playing "mind games" and suggesting that the prisoners
are about to be shocked.  
It notes that electroshock weapons, pepper spray, and restraint
chairs have all been associated with a number of in-custody
deaths, and that the jail's unregulated use of these devices in
combination poses especially serious risks to prisoners' safety.

Two of the four named plaintiffs have serious mental health
problems, but the jail has allegedly denied their repeated
requests for mental health care.   They have been reportedly
strapped into the restraint chair a total of 12 times between
them, sometimes for over six hours.

The organization amended its suit on Aug. 1 to include
allegations that the sheriff denies mental health care to
indigent county jail prisoners and imposes harsh discipline
without due process (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2006).

In the amended complaint, ACLU said the policy violates U.S. and
Colorado constitutions and Colorado law, requiring that serious
mental health needs of prisoners should be treated even when
they don't have money.  The county waives the $100 requirement
in cases in which the prisoner asking psychiatric help is
hallucinating or suicidal.

The original complaint is available for free at:

The suit is "Vandehey, et al. v. Vallario, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01405-PSF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Phillip S. Figa.

Representing the plaintiffs are Taylor Scott Pendergrass and
Mark Silverstein of American Civil Liberties Union - Colorado,
400 Corona Street, Denver, CO 80218, U.S.A, Phone: 303-777-5482,
Fax: 303-777-1773, E-mail: tpendergrass@aclu-co.org and

CORDIS CORP: Fla. Man Files Suit Over Drug in Implanted Stent
Cordis Corp., a division of Johnson & Johnson Co., faces a
purported class action filed by Herbert Entenberg, because of
what he described as a severe allergic reaction to the drug used
in a Cordis-made stent implanted into him, The South Florida
Sun-Sentinel reports.

In the suit, Mr. Entenberg, 72, claims that since the stent was
implanted, he has experienced constant itching in his back,
shoulder, chest, arms, and at the back of the head.  The
itching, according to him, keeps him awake at night, and that
scratching it so much made him bleed through his pants.  He also
claims that the device failed to prevent a coronary artery graft
from closing after surgery.

The suit was filed in August and was amended in September to
seek class-action status.  Mr. Entenberg's attorney, Gary
Betensky of Richman Greer Weil Brumbaugh Mirabito & Christensen
filed the suit.

Mr. Betensky believes that the case is the first lawsuit in the
country seeking class status against a stent maker.  According
to him, the company failed to warn patients about the inherently
dangerous nature of the Cypher stent.  These dangers are:

      -- it increases the risk of fatal blood clots,

      -- does not reduce the risk of narrowing of coronary
         arteries, and

      -- causes severe hypersensitivity reactions

Though it has yet to file its response with the court, the
company noted that the Cypher stent, which is coated with the
drug Sirolimus, has been used in 2 million patients worldwide.  
The drug is essentially used to reduce inflammation and quash
rejection of transplanted organs.

According to company spokesman Christopher Allman, who refused
to comment about the pending litigation, "The Cypher stent has
been proven safe and effective in treating coronary artery

For more details, contact Gary S. Betensky of Richman Greer Weil
Brumbaugh Mirabito & Christensen, PA, Miami Center, Suite 1000,
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Miami, Florida 33131, Phone: 1-305-373-
4000, Fax: 1-305-373-4099, E-mail: gbetensky@richmangreer.com,
Web site: http://www.richmangreer.com.

FEDERAL MATERIALS: Court Mulls Class Status for Concrete Suit
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, "Adams et al. v. Federal Materials
Co., Inc., et al.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, are awaiting a decision
regarding their request for class-action status to the case,
according to The Paducah Sun.

The suit is about defective concrete purchased from a Federal
Materials plant in Princeton.  Besides Federal Materials, which
produced concrete from a mixing plant at Princeton Quarry, other
defendants in the case are:

      -- Hanson Aggregates Midwest, Inc., former owner of the
         quarry; and

      -- Rogers Group, Inc., owner of the quarry since 2000.

The suit alleges the concrete is deteriorating because of
Alkaline Carbonate Reaction (ACR).  According to the suit, the
ACR is a chemical reaction believed to be caused by limestone
from Princeton Quarry that did not meet standards necessary for
western Kentucky's severe winter weather.

Furthermore, it claims that the limestone deteriorates when
mixed with cement, and that winter precipitation and cycles of
freezing and thawing cause it to crack and become unstable at a
rapid rate.  The suit contends that the only way to fix it is to
replace it.

John Whitfield, the lead attorney in the case, told The Paducah
Sun that a hearing is scheduled in November at which time Judge
Thomas Russell will determine if the lawsuit should be
classified as a class action.  He adds that as of the moment he
has around 346 people who are awaiting the decision that will
let them join the suit.

Mr. Whitfield explains that the case has moved at a slow pace
since it was necessary to hire experts to prove that the
concrete was defective and caused by defective rock.  

The suit is "Adams et al. v. Federal Materials Co., Inc. et al.,
Case No. 5:05-cv-00090-TBR-JDM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge Thomas B.
Russell with referral to Judge James D. Moyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John C. Whitfield of Whitfield & Cox PSC, 29 E. Center
         Street, Madisonville, KY 42431, Phone: 270-821-0656,
         Fax: 270-825-1163, E-mail: jcw@vci.net;

     (2) Alexander Barnett of The Mason Law Firm, PC, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4632, New York, NY 10119, US,
         Phone: 212-362-5770, Fax: 917-591-5227, E-mail:
         abarnett@masonlawdc.com; and

     (3) Daniel K. Bryson Lewis & Roberts, 1305 Navaho Drive,
         Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27609-7482, Phone: 919-981-0191,
         Fax: 919-981-0431, E-mail: dkb@lewis-roberts.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Julie M. Burnstein of Boult, Cummings, Conners & Berry,
         PLC, 1600 Division Street, Suite 700, P.O. Box 340025,
         Nashville, TN 37203, Phone: 615-252-2338, Fax: 615-252-
         6338, E-mail: jburnstein@boultcummings.com;

    (ii) Joseph Coomes of Phears & Moldovan, 4725 Peachtree,
         Corners Circle, Suite 375, Norcross, GA 30092, Phone:
         770-446-2116, Fax: 770-263-5715, E-mail:
         jcoomes@pmlawfirm.com; and

   (iii) P. Blaine Grant of Greenebaum Doll & McDonald, PLLC,
         3500 National City Tower, 101 South Fifth Street,
         Louisville, KY 40202-3103, Phone: 502-587-3550, Fax:
         502-588-1323, E-mail: pbg@gdm.com.

FELTEX CARPETS: Investors Plan Suit Against Firm in Receivership
A shareholder of New Zealand company Feltex Carpets Ltd., which
recently went into receivership, is organizing a class action
against parties involved in the company's flotation two years
ago, reports say.

Tony Gavigan, an auditor, is preparing a suit against several
parties associated with the flotation that brought the company's
owner a profit of more than $200 million.  The company was sold
to the public by Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant
Partners, an associate of CS First Boston.  The Securities
Commission has investigated the float and found no wrongdoing.

On Sept. 22, 2006, Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.
named Colin Nicol, Peter Anderson and Kerryn Downey, of
McGrathNicol+Partners as receivers and managers of Feltex
Carpets, Bloomberg says (Troubled Company Reporter-Asia Pacific,
Sept. 25, 2006).

The appointment of receivers and managers follows the
deterioration in Feltex's financial performance, which has led
to unsustainable debt levels and a share price collapse.  
Bloomberg relates that Feltex failed to repay its NZ$135
million-debt to ANZ Bank.

Mr. Gavigan is accusing Australia & New Zealand Banking of
putting Feltex's interests second to its international banker
client, Credit Suisse First Boston.

Credit Suisse First Boston, Feltex's directors, its auditors,
First NZ Capital and Forsyth Barr -- the two organizing brokers
-- as well as individual brokers who recommended it to
investors, could be named defendants in the suit, Mr. Gavigan
said, according to the Manawatu Standard.

HOLZER CLINIC: Sued in Ohio County Over Debt Collection Method
Holzer Clinic, Inc. in Gallia County, Ohio and its attorney, are
facing lawsuits in state and federal courts over the clinic's
debt collection practices, Jim Phillips of Athens News reports.

Pamela M. Tedrow of Athens and Tonya N. Pallo of Glouster in
Athens County filed a suit in September against Holzer Clinic in
Athens County Common Pleas Court, alleging the clinic used
illegal methods to try to collect on hundreds of overdue medical
bills.  The suit asks for an injunction to stop the allegedly
illegal debt collection, and for the maximum judgment allowed by
state law, plus legal fees.

Ms. Tedrow previously filed a separate suit against Holzer
attorney Douglas M. Cowles of Gallipolis in U.S. District Court
on related issues.

Mr. Cowles is accused of violating Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act that
require a debt-collection action to be filed in a court located
either where the debt was incurred, or where the debtor lives.  
He has allegedly filed debt-collection actions in Gallia County
Municipal Court, even though the debtors might live up to 100
miles away, according to Kentucky attorney Steven C. Shane, who
represents the plaintiff.

Holzer runs clinics in Ohio and West Virginia, including one on
Columbus Road in Athens.

The suits are seeking class-action status.  Mr. Shane claims he
has a list of some 500 people affected by Mr. Cowles' debt-
collection practice, according to the report.

                       Federal Court Case

In the federal court case, Mr. Cowles' attorney, Jeffrey C.
Turner, refutes that the case does not qualify as a class
action.  He argued that Mr. Cowles' actions were not
intentionally meant to violate federal or state debt-collection
laws, but was a result of a "a bona fide error."

He rejected claims of "false or misleading representation" by
Mr. Cowles to Ms. Tedrow when he tried to collect the debt,
which was, he said, after all, legitimate.  According to him,
Mr. Cowles does not qualify as a "supplier" and that plaintiff
Tedrow wasn't involved in a "consumer transaction" as defined in
the law.

The federal suit asks for a declaration that Mr. Cowles'
practices are unlawful and an injunction to stop them, as well
as unspecified damages and attorney fees.

LASSEN COMMUNITY: College Pres. Faces Discrimination Complaints
The president of the Lassen Community College in California is
facing a discrimination complaint filed by nine women, including
administrators, faculty members and classified employees,
reports Sam Williams of the Lassen County Times.

Named in the suit are:

     -- Dr. Homer Cissell, president and superintendent of
        Lassen Community College,

     -- Rocky Deal, president of the LCC Board of Trustees, and

     -- members of the LCC board:

        * Doc Blevins,
        * Christopher Click,
        * Jay S. Dow, Jr.,
        * Thomas E. Holybee,
        * Dan Rickert, and
        * Sophia Wages

The complaint was filed on Sept. 11.  It alleges that women
employees in the school were discriminated against men
colleagues in the same positions and under similar
circumstances.  Specifically, they claim, among others, that:

     -- they were required to assume the job duties of men in
        addition to their own duties and were not compensated
        for those increased duties nor have the men who lost the
        duties been demoted or had their pay deducted; and

     -- they were being forced to 'obey' the president even to
        do acts that are unprofessional, unethical and not
        within the job description of women, and were terminated
        for failing to do so;

Their men colleagues have been allegedly allowed to become
violent and critical toward women in the workplace.  The
president allegedly not only failed to protect them, but also
allowed the harassment to continue.  

The president himself had allegedly publicly humiliated and
criticized the women employees without giving them notice of the
criticism and an opportunity to respond to clear their name.

The complainants claim they have suffered emotional distress,
adverse employment actions, loss of wages, loss of employment,
public humiliation, professional slander and interference in
their professional contracts and positions as a result of the
president's negligence and actions.

Should the school fail to address and correct the issues, the
complainants plan to file a class action in U.S. Federal
District Court, Eastern District of California for an
injunction, declaratory relief and damages of at least $1
million, according to the report.

MORELAND AUTOMOTIVE: EEOC Files Job Discrimination Suit in Colo.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Moreland Automotive Group alleging sexual
harassment, a hostile work environment and retaliation against
female employees who complained, the Rocky Mountain News

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of former female employees,
Georgene Wayne and Nancy Castonon, identifies the group as doing
business under the names of Kids Auto, Kids Financial and
Brandon Financial.

In the complaint, the women accuse the company of allowing male
employees, including several managers, to sexually harass female
employees since 1996.

The lawsuit claims that male co-workers were allowed to use
office computers to view pornographic Internet sites, to keep
pornographic magazines at work stations and to make lewd sexual
comments at work events, including management meetings.

It also alleges that, beginning in 2003, the company retaliated
against the two female former employees because of their
complaints about the work environment.

According to Mary Jo O'Neill, the EEOC's regional attorney in
the Phoenix office, employees are entitled to work in an
environment free of sexual harassment.

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Moreland
Auto Group, LLP, Case No. 1:06-cv-01903-EWN-MEH," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge
Edward W. Nottingham with referral to Judge Michael E. Hegarty.

Representing the plaintiffs are Lynn L. Palma and Nancy A. Weeks
both of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-Colorado,
303 East 17th Avenue, #510 Denver, CO 80203, Phone: 303-866-
1374, Fax: 303-866-1375, E-mail: lynn.palma@eeoc.gov or

OAK HOLLOW: N.J. Condo Association Sues President, Board Members
Members of the Oak Hollow Condominium Association in Kings
Grants initiated a purported class action against the
association president and members of the board, claiming that
they used fees collected from condo owners over the past five
years for personal gain, The Burlington County Times.

Filed in the Superior Court in Mount Holly, New Jersey, the suit
accuses the board of theft, racketeering, extortion, fraud and
conspiracy.  It also alleges that the association president,
Michael Meglino, has repeatedly harassed and intimidated

Last week, Judge Ronald A. Bookbinder issued an order freezing
all assets of the Oak Hollow Condominium Association and a
company owned by Mr. Meglino.

Also accused in the suit are:

      -- Attorney Paul H. Scull of Pennsville and his P.H.S.       
         Property Management;

      -- Mr. Meglino's wife, Susan Hernandez Meglino;

      -- the Meglinos' SGM Construction and Landscaping LLC of
         Evesham; and

      -- board members: Gary Bernstein, Tom Copestick and
         Matthew Kadlubowski.

Essentially, the suit contends that Mr. Meglino and other board
members have no legal authority to govern the association since
there has not been an election for the offices since 2001, the
year the association was founded.  According to the suit, the
association's by-laws require elections annually.

Residents also contend in the suit that their association fees
have not gone to maintaining the property.  They are claiming
that they have been charged special assessments of $500 on three
separate occasions since 2004 for improvements that have not
been completed.  In addition, they pay monthly maintenance fees.

According to the suit, SGM Construction and Landscaping, which
is wholly owned and controlled by the Meglinos, was paid for
work in the neighborhood that was never done.

The suit alleges that SGM then issued checks in excess of
$30,000 to "Mr. Meglino and family members in the form of cash,
goods such as television equipment, services such as limousines,
vehicles and school-related expenses."  It also alleges that the
defendants took trips to Mexico and Canada with association

In addition, the suit claims that Mr. Meglino demanded
"kickbacks" from service contractors for work done in the

John Orr, the president of KSC Construction of Maple Shade, is
quoted in the suit as saying that Mr. Meglino required a "10-
percent commission of more than $2,000" for work on the
condominiums last year.

The suit also outlines a dozen or so incidents involving Mr.
Meglino that resulted in police involvement.  According to the
lawsuit, he allegedly said last month he was involved with the
"Mexican Mafia" and that anyone who attempted to challenge his
authority "would end up in the Delaware River, which implied he
would murder people."

Attorney Paul Leodori of Medford filed the lawsuit on behalf of
37 named residents, who are asking for class-action status on
behalf of all condo owners in the 276-unit subdivision.

For more details, contact Paul A. Leodori, Suite 304, 220 Lake
Dr. E, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165, Phone: (609) 667-2080, Fax:
(609) 667-2210.

OHIO: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Protracted ADA Litigation
The State of Ohio has reached a proposed settlement for a
federal class action filed in 1989 on behalf of Ohio's mentally
retarded and developmentally disabled adults, The Columbus
Dispatch reports.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, the suit, "Martin, et al. v. Ohio Governor, et al.,"
pushed the state to offer less-restrictive housing, as required
by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Under the proposed deal, as many as 1,500 disabled men and women
could move out of institutions and into someplace more like home
in the next two years.

The state has been closing institutions and moving residents out
for several years, but the proposed agreement would add another
$41 million into the effort from 2007 to 2009.

Gov. Bob Taft and the Ohio Legal Rights Service, which filed the
suit back in April 27, 1989, announced the proposed settlement.  
Judge Edmund A. Sargus must approve the deal.  The next governor
and General Assembly also would have to approve the plan.

After 2009, Ohio Legal Rights and the next administration would
assess whether the plan has been effective and decide whether to
continue an agreement.  Without an agreement, the issue could
end up in court again.

The suit is "Martin, et al. v. Ohio Governor, et al., Case No.
2:89-cv-00362-EAS-NMK," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A. Sargus with
referral to Judge Norah McCann King.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Kirkman of Ohio Legal Rights Service, 8 East
         Long Street, Columbus, Oh 43215, Phone: 614-466-7264,
         E-mail: mkirkman@olrs.state.oh.us; and

     (2) Harry Blair Keith, II, 1850 Andover Road, Columbus, OH
         43212, E-mail: hkeith@olrs.state.oh.us.

PANASONIC CORP: Settles Suit Over Faulty Lamps for Some LCD TVs
Panasonic Corp. of North America offered to replace the
defective lamps found in many of its LCD projection TV models as
settlement of a class action filed by The Garden City Group,
Inc., a law firm in Melville, New York, ConsumerAffairs.com

The suit, commenced on Feb. 17, 2006, was filed on behalf of all
persons who purchased in the U.S. Panasonic 2003 model year
Multimedia Projection Display LC-Series television sets, model
numbers PT-50LC13, PT-60LC13, PT-50LCX63 and PT-60LCX63.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek damages and/or rejection of the
TVs at issue, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Generally, the settlement makes three remedies available to
eligible Settlement Class Members:

     -- an extended warranty remedy;

     -- a lamp cost reimbursement remedy; and/or

     -- if the consumer has had three or more issues with the
        TV, they can get a replacement TV, or if the consumer
        chooses, a $1,000 rebate certificate toward the
        purchase of a new Panasonic TV with a retail price of
        $1,500.00 or more.

In order to receive any reimbursement, consumers need to keep
all receipts including the original purchase receipt.

Deadline to file claims is Nov. 30, 2007.

The goal of the settlement is to provide relief to Settlement
Class Members who have experienced, or may in the future
experience, problems with the lamps in their TV at Issue.

The settlement is still subject to final court approval.   

The suit "Matt Aragachi v. Panasonic Corp. of North America, et
al., Case No. CGC-06-449612" filed on Feb. 17, 2006 in the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco
under Judge A. James Robertson, II.

Plaintiffs' counsel is The Garden City Group, Inc., 105 Maxess
Road, Melville, New York 11747, Phone: 631-470-5000, Fax: 631-
470-5100, Toll Free: 1-800-327-3664, E-mail:

A copy of the Settlement Notice is available free of charge at:


Panasonic Television Class Action Settlement on the net:


PENNSYLVANIA: District Judge Hears Jail Overcrowding Lawsuit
Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania is hearing a motion that seeks
to stop the indefinite holding of inmates at police district
cells and at the Police Administration Building because of
overcrowding in the Philadelphia's prisons, The Philadelphia
Daily News reports.

Attorneys for the inmates want Judge Surrick to order an
immediate halt to the practice.  Five plaintiffs who currently
jailed are testifying at the hearing.

David Rudovsky filed the suit back in July 24, 2006 on behalf of
four prisoners at Philadelphia jails.  Plaintiffs in the suit
are Lee Bowers, Brandon Bucci and Darius McDowell and James
Walker.  At least nine more plaintiffs have been added to the
case since its filing.

Mr. Rudovsky raises not only the problem of overcrowding in
cells, but also of people being forced to sleep in common areas,
as well as increased tensions among inmates, inadequate
screening and health care, lack of access to their attorneys,
denial to their right to a speedy hearing, and inadequate toilet
and shower facilities (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2006).

The suit comes five years after state and federal courts ended
30 years of supervision prompted by earlier lawsuits over prison
conditions.  Named as defendants are:

     -- the City of Philadelphia;
     -- Leon A. King, II, Commissioner of Prisons; and
     -- Sylvester Johnson, City Police Commissioner.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and a jury trial.  In
September, Judge Surrick granted class certification to the case
and permitted District Attorney Lynne Abraham to intervene.

On Sept. 26, the city and District Attorney Abraham jointly
asked Judge Surrick to throw out the case.  They are arguing
that none of the eight plaintiff inmates had filed grievances
with the city's prison system over conditions alleged in the
suit.  Also, they argued that failure to pursue all
administrative remedies precludes any civil action in the

However, in court papers filed on Sept. 29, 2006, plaintiffs
countered that that requirement applies only to persons in
custody at the time they file a lawsuit.  The four original
plaintiffs filed their case after they were released.

With regards to the remaining plaintiffs who are jailed, the
suit contends that the city's argument is "entirely frivolous,"
since the police department has no grievance procedures for
those in temporary detention in holding cells.

The suit is, "Bowers v. City of Philadelphia, et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-03229-LDD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

   (1) David Rudovsky OF Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg, The
       Cast Iron Building, Suite 501, South 718 Arch Street,
       Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: 215-925-4400, Fax: 215-
       925-5365, E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com; and

   (2) Angus R. Love of Institutional Law Project, 718 Arch St.,
       Ste. 304S, Philadelphia, PA 19106, E-mail:

Representing the defendants is Lynne A. Sitarski, City Of
Philadephia Law Department, Acting Chief Deputy City Solicitor,
1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Phone:
215-683-5442, E-mail: lynne.sitarski@phila.gov.

PHILIP SERVICES: Devlin & Robinson Joins Suit Over Chemical Odor
Environmental attorneys Stack & Associates and class action
trial attorneys Devlin & Robinson, PC are included in the
litigation team pursuing a suit against Philip Services Corp.
and American Vanguard Corp. over odors at Philip's waste plant
in Georgia, The Fayette Citizen reports.

Scott Zahler of Goetz, Allen & Zahler, represents 75 residents
in south Fulton and Fayette counties who filed a lawsuit seeking
class-action status in Fulton County Superior Court in Georgia
over a nauseating odor coming from an industrial waste plant
owned by the Philip Services (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1,

In late June, the company received the chemical pvropyl
mercaptan from Axis, Alabama-based AMVAC.  The chemical, which
is used to give an offensive smell to otherwise odorless
chemicals, is added to warn people of the presence of a
dangerous substance.  The smell was so strong that the trucks
were sent away, but not before one was unloaded, releasing the
chemical into the air.

Residents claimed in the suit that they have suffered migraine
headaches, nosebleeds, rashes, nausea, sore throats, diarrhea,
eye irritation, dizziness and respiratory problems over the

According to The Fayette Citizen, timelines for the case show
the fact-finding or discovery phase to be concluded by Jan. 31,
2007.  The class certification for the lawsuit is expected to be
filed on or before March 31, 2007, Mr. Zahler said.

For more details, contact Scott Zahler of Goetz, Pierce &
Zahler, Overlook III, Suite 1740, 2859 Paces Ferry Road,
Atlanta, Georgia 30339, (DeKalb & Fulton Cos.), Phone: 770-431-
1107, Fax: 770-431-1101, Web site: http://goetzallenzahler.com.

RYAN'S RESTAURANT: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Buffets Merger
Ryan's Restaurant Group, Inc. reached an agreement in principle
for the settlement of the putative shareholder class action that
was filed on July 28, 2006 in connection with the anticipated
merger between Ryan's and Buffets, Inc.

On July 28, Ryan's shareholder Marjorie Fretwell, with the help
of law firm Motley Rice LLC, filed a class action in the Court
of Common Pleas in Greenville, South Carolina alleging the
purchase price didn't result from a fair and open process.

The deal would combine Ryan's 340 restaurants with Buffet's 337
to form what the two companies said would be the nation's
largest buffet restaurant chain.

The suit alleges Ryan's and its directors breached their
fiduciary duty to shareholders by failing to disclose material
information about the sale.

On Aug. 28, Ryan's and its directors filed an answer denying the
substantive claims of the shareholder action, and also filed a
motion to dismiss the case.   

On Sept. 14, the first amended class action complaint was filed
in the shareholder action.  

Ryan's has reached an agreement in principle with plaintiff's
counsel, subject to court approval, to resolve the litigation by
responding to certain allegations in the amended complaint.

Although plaintiff believes the information is material, Ryan's
does not consider any of such information to be material to the
merger or otherwise.

The special committee created by Ryan's board of directors to
evaluate potential transactions, such as the merger, was formed
to avoid any conflict of interest that might arise with respect
to members of the board of directors who are also members of
Ryan's executive management team in connection with a possible
acquisition of Ryan's.  

The board of directors did not determine and did not believe
that there was any actual conflict of interest at the time the
special committee was formed.

The special committee selected Brookwood Associates, LLC to be
its financial advisor based on Brookwood's experience in
connection with transactions involving the restaurant industry,
the specific industry experience of the representatives of
Brookwood who would be performing services for the special
committee and the recommendation of the chairman of the special
committee based on discussions he had with representatives of
Brookwood.   The special committee did not interview other
prospective financial advisors.

The process that the special committee agreed upon to evaluate
the offer made by the entity identified in Ryan's proxy
statement with respect to the Merger as "Company A" and upon
which to make a recommendation to the board of directors in
connection therewith was to:

     -- retain Brookwood as its financial advisor;

     -- have Brookwood conduct due diligence and provide a
        preliminary value analysis of Ryan's;

     -- negotiate with Company A in an effort to obtain Company
        A's highest offer; and

     -- have Brookwood contact on a confidential, "no names"
        basis certain  other parties to be identified by
        Brookwood that had sufficient resources and relevant
        industry experience and that Brookwood believed
        might have an interest in acquiring  Ryan's.

In response to Brookwood's request for highest and best offer,
each of Company A, Company B and Caxton-Iseman Capital, Inc.,
which organized an investment partnership that owns Buffets,
Inc., made offers of $15.25 per share.  

In considering these same price offers, the special committee
determined that Company A's offer was the most favorable,
because Company A had conducted the most due diligence, had
significant equity available to commit to the transaction and
offered the best equity incentive plan for the Company's

On June 2, 2006, Brookwood notified Caxton-Iseman and Company B
that the special committee had determined to enter into
exclusive discussions with another party.  

As previously disclosed, on the evening of June 2, Caxton-Iseman
contacted Brookwood and increased its proposed purchase price
from $15.25 to $16.75 per share.  Company B did not ask for
additional time or revise its offer.  

Ryan's considers the shareholder action to be without merit.  It
has, however, concluded that settling the shareholder action is
advisable in order to avoid the expenses and distractions
associated with litigation.  

Ms. Fretwell sought a preliminary injunction barring Ryan's from
holding the shareholders' vote.

Shareholders of Ryan's Restaurant Group Inc. are scheduled to
vote Oct. 5 on the $876 million proposed sale to Buffets.

The suit is "Marjorie Fretwell v. Ryan's Restaurant Group, Inc.
et al., Case No. 06-CP-23-4828," filed in the Greenville County,
South Carolina Circuit Court.

SCUBAPRO USA: Recalls Scuba Regulators to Replace Din Retainer
Scubapro USA, of El Cajon, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
48,500 units of Scubapro MK 20 First Stage Regulators.

The company said over-tightening of the Yoke or Din retainer
during annual servicing of these regulators could result in a
stress crack and failure of the regulator.  If this occurs
during a dive, air supply could be interrupted, posing a
drowning hazard.  No injuries or underwater incidents have been

Scubapro has received eight reports of units that failed after
being serviced.

The recall involves first stage regulators that are marked with
the Scubapro brand and identified as the MK20.

These recalled MK 20 First Stage Regulators were manufactured in
Italy and the U.S. and are being sold at authorized Scubapro
dealers nationwide from January 1996 through December 2001 for
about $260.

Picture of the recalled MK 20 First Stage Regulators:

Scubapro USA has been providing a service upgrade kit via the
authorized dealer network since May 2005, which contains a Yoke
or Din retainer that prohibits over-tightening during annual
service.  Consumers can easily identify if the service upgrade
has been completed by counting the vents on the plastic saddle
located on the regulator.  If the service upgrade has not been
completed, the consumer should bring the regulator to any
authorized Scubapro dealer to have the service upgrade completed
free of charge.

For assistance in locating the nearest authorized Scubapro
dealer or for more information, contact Scubapro USA toll-free
at (800) 731-6685 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit: http://www.scubapro-uwatec.com.

STRASBURGER & PRICE: Removes Fraud Suit to Tex. District Court
Strasburger & Price LLP removed from a state court to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas a class action
accusing it of helping clients defraud investors, the Texas
Lawyer reports.

The suit, "Downie et al. v. Strasburger & Price and Lee Polson"
was originally filed in Austin state district court on Aug. 10.  
The defendant is accused of aiding and abetting the sale of
unregistered securities through misrepresentation, conspiracy to
commit securities fraud, conspiracy to violate the Texas
Securities Act, attorney malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty
and negligent misrepresentation among other things, the report

The suit arose out of Strasburger & Price's and partner Lee
Polson's representation of CKG Energy Inc. and CKG Pipeline
(CKG), and the owner of both companies, Michael D. George, after
a regulatory investigation into the companies' share dealings.

Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. George continued selling securities
despite a ban from regulators.  From March 2002 until mid-2004,
CKG accepted $11 million from investors and told them the money,
which would generate large returns, would be used to fund wells
CKG was drilling in New Mexico.  But the returns did not

In 2002, the Texas State Securities Board notified CKG and Mr.
George that the agency was investigating them regarding the
potentially fraudulent sale of unregistered securities.  Mr.
Polson agreed to represent CKG and George in the case.  

In the suit, Mr. Polson and Strasburger are accused of being
fully aware that Mr. George and CKG could not comply with Texas
securities law, and that Mr. George was misusing investors
money, but they did not instruct CKG or Mr. George to disclose
that information to the securities board.  The firm and Mr.
Polson, also, allegedly, did not inform investors or the
securities board that their clients were committing fraud.

The suit is "Downie et al. v. Strasburger & Price LLP et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00734-SS" filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas under Judge Sam Sparks.

Representing the defendants are Jennifer Knauth and Daniel C.
Bitting at Scott, Douglas & McConnico, L.L.P., 600 Congress
Avenue, Suite 1500, Austin, TX 78701, Phone: (512) 495-6300,
Fax: (512) 474-0731, E-mail: dbitting@scottdoug.com.

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Gary L. Lewis at George & Brothers, LLP, 1100 Norwood
         Tower, 114 W. Seventh St., Suite 1100, Austin, TX
         78701, Phone: (512) 495-1400, Fax: 512/499-0094, E-
         mail: glewis@georgeandbrothers.com; and

     (2) Nanneska N. Hazel at George & Brothers, L.L.P., 114 W.
         7th St., Suite 1100, Austin, TX 78701, Phone: (512)495-
         1400, Fax: 512/499-0094, E-mail:

TRANSPORTATION COS: Ind. Judge to Hear ADA Suit Settlement Fri.
Judge Phillip Simon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana is set to decide on Oct. 6, 2006, whether
the proposed settlement of a class action filed against local
transportation providers should be approved, according to The
Post Tribune.

Filed in 1996, the suit alleges that the transportation
providers failed to provide readily accessible bus services to
people with disabilities in violation of the American with
Disabilities Act.  

The transportation providers named in the case include:

      -- Gary Public Transportation,
      -- Hammond Transit System,
      -- East Chicago Public Transit,
      -- Tradewinds Rehabilitation Center,
      -- the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission,
      -- the Indiana Department of Transportation

Each of the defendants has agreed to a consent decree to end the
federal class action.  Under the consent decree, the defendants
will pay more than $235,000 in damages and attorney fees to
eight individual plaintiffs and Everybody Counts, a
Merrillville-based advocacy group for the disabled.

Also, as part of the decree, an independent committee of bus
riders will also be established to review and make
recommendation about each of the municipal transportation
systems.  The decree will also require, bus drivers and
dispatchers in each of the communities to attend sensitivity

The settlement, according to Ms. Teresa Torres, executive
director of Everybody Counts, has the potential to greatly
improve transportation service for people with disabilities.

The suit is "Everybody Counts, et al. v. NIRPC, et al., Case No.
2:98-cv-00097-PPS-APR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana under Judge Philip P. Simon with
referral to Judge Andrew P. Rodovich.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Nada Djordjevic of Jenner & Block, LLP, - Chi/IL, 330
         N. Wabash Ave., Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: 312-222-9350,
         Fax: 312-840-7334, E-mail: ndjordjevic@jenner.com; and

     (2) Edward A. Voci of 1111 S. Boulevard, Oak Park, IL
         60302-2812, Phone: 708-358-8624.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Willie Harris of Willie Harris & Associates, 201 E.
         Fifth Avenue, Suite A, Gary, IN 46402, Phone: 219-882-
         3424, Fax: 219-882-5939; and

    (ii) David L. Hollenbeck of Blachly Tabor Bozik & Hartman,
         Indiana Federal Building, 56 S. Washington, Suite 401,
         Valparaiso, IN 46383, Phone: 219-464-1041, Fax: 219-
         464-0927, E-mail: dlh@btbhlaw.com.

UNITED AIRLINES: EEOC Files ADA Violation Lawsuit in Washington
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class
action against United Airlines over allegations it violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act by its implementation of a
minimum working hour policy, the Business Insurance reports.  

The suit was filed on Sept. 28 in federal court in Seattle on
behalf of three women who were terminated from their positions
in United's Honolulu and Seattle offices after the introduction
of a minimum 30-hour work week policy in 2003, according to H.
Joan Ehrlich, director of the EEOC's San Francisco district.  

The plaintiffs are Maria Lovell, Shelly Kia and Janet Lawhead.  
They had medical conditions that prevented them from working
that many hours, said Ms. Ehrlich.

UNITED STATES: Lawsuit Planned to Challenge Immigration Law
A coalition of immigrants' rights groups is planning to file a
class action against the U.S. government on behalf of U.S.-born
children of undocumented immigrants, Mensnewsdaily.com reports.

Alfonso Oviedo, leader of American Fraternity, announced the
plan at a rally in Miami in September.  At the demonstration, he
brought up the case of three young girls whose mother was
deported to Honduras in August.  The removal of these children's
parents constitutes a violation of the kids' civil rights, he

Under U.S. immigration law, children of illegal immigrants born
on U.S. soil automatically receive American citizenship, but
their undocumented parents are still subject to deportation.  

Mr. Oviedo said he believes what is needed is comprehensive
immigration reform to give legal status to the estimated 12
million undocumented immigrants already in the U.S., according
to the report.

The coalition invites other families to join the suit.  It is
representing 10 children so far.

UNITED STATES: Priest, Immigration Activist Plan to Sue Govt.
The Rev. Walter L. Coleman and Elvira Arellano, an immigration
activist who took refuge in a church after the U.S. government
ordered her deported to Mexico, are considering the possibility
of filing a class action, The Associated Press reports.

Ms. Arellano, 31, who remains with the custody of the church, is
considering the legal action, after a federal judge dismissed a
lawsuit filed on her behalf.

The suit against the government had contended that deporting her
would effectively deport her son Saul, a U.S. citizen, and would
violate his rights.

However, U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled on Sept. 29
against Ms. Arellano.

In her order, Judge St. Eve pointed out that the question before
the court is whether the hardship that the child would
undeniably suffer without his mother is of constitutional
magnitude.  She concluded that under any construction of the
alleged facts, it is not.

Ms. Arellano and her son have been living at the Adalberto
United Methodist Church since mid-August after failing to
surrender to federal authorities for deportation on Aug. 15.  
She has already been arrested twice, one in 1997 after crossing
into the U.S., and again in 2002.

Vancouver chartered accountant Daniel Barbour filed a lawsuit
against the University of British Columbia over the $200 parking
ticket he got in 2004, News1130 reports.

He claims the school is unlawfully collecting fines, and wants
his lawsuit certified as a class action.

Mr. Barbour is seeking to have millions of dollars worth of
parking fines and towing charges collected by the university
reimbursed to those who paid them.  His lawyers estimate the
school has collected close to $4 million in fines and towing
charges since 1998.

VERMONT: Suit Hampers Sale of Old Burlington School Building
The city of Burlington is facing a class action aimed at
preventing the government from selling a school building in a
donated property, Andy Potter of Channel 3 News reports.

The property was donated by Elihu Taft in the 1938.  Mr. Taft
has stipulated in his will that if the building ever stopped
being used as a school, it would become a home for elderly,
indigent men.

In 1980 officials closed the school and moved in the schools'
administration offices.  They have since been trying to undo the
covenant for years so that it could sell the building.  The sale
would net the district more than $3 million and save over
$100,000 a year in heating and maintenance, according to the

But a petition seeking class-action status filed in Chittenden
Probate Court insists that Mr. Taft's will should be followed.  
The city could not purse the sale unless the class action is

Lawyer Norman Blais, representing people who went to the school
decades ago and want the school preserved, claims the schools
have neglected the building, which needs extensive maintenance.

The petition does not seek money.

The city has not yet formally responded to the petition in
court, the report said.

VIRGINIA: VOPA Files ADA Litigation Over State Election Law
The Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy has filed a
federal class action alleging that a state law surrounding
absentee ballots unfairly restricts the mentally disabled,
stripping those confined to mental hospitals of voting rights,
The Associated Press reports.

The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, specifically targets a state law
that says "any person who is unable to go in person to the polls
on the day of election because of physical disability or
physical illness" can vote via mail-in, absentee ballot.

According to VOPA, the law doesn't extend to those with mental
disabilities or illnesses who can't reach the polls because they
are confined.  They contend that the law violates the federal
Americans with Disabilities Act.  Thus, they are seeking a
revision to the law.

Plaintiffs in the suit are David Harvey and King D. Monroe, who
have both been confined to Central State Hospital in Petersburg.
The men are described in the suit as persons with "severe mental
illness" who have not, however, been deemed incompetent.

According to the suit, both men applied for absentee ballots in
May, hoping to vote in the Nov. 7, 2006 election.  However,
according to Colleen Miller, director of VOPA, their
applications were denied based on their mental illness.

The defendants in the suit include:

      -- Gov. Timothy M. Kaine,
      -- Viola Baskerville, secretary of administration, and
      -- the state Board of Elections

The suit is "Harvey, et al. v. Kaine, et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00653-HEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia under Judge Henry E. Hudson.

Representing the plaintiffs are Julie Colemon Kegley, Steven
Michael Traubert and Jonathan Gerald Martinis of Virginia Office
for Protection and Advocacy, 1910 Byrd Ave., Suite 5, Richmond,
VA 23230, Phone: (804) 225-2042.

VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH: Student Files Racial Discrimination Suit
Emily Smith, a Monacan High School student, filed a purported
racial discrimination class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia over her exclusion from a
minority journalism program at Virginia Commonwealth University.

In the suit, Ms. Smith, 15, claims that she was accepted last
spring to the Urban Journalism Workshop at the university.  But,
a week later, she was rejected after program sponsors learned
she was white.  

Specifically, the Center for Individual Rights, which is
representing Ms. Smith, alleges that the program violates the
right of non-minority individuals to equal protection under the
laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In addition, the program illegally discriminates on the basis of
their race in violation of federal law, specifically sections
1981, 1983 and 2000d, et. seq. of The Public Health and Welfare

The advocacy group is seeking to enjoin the defendants from
continuing to exclude Caucasian students from these programs.  
It is also asking for unspecified damages.

The program is offered at more than two-dozen campuses across
the country.  VCU, the Dow Jones Newspaper Fund, and the
Richmond Times Dispatch sponsored the minority-only summer
journalism workshop.

The complaint is available free of charge at:


For more details, contact:

     (1) Elliot Bender, 6 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia
         23220, Phone: (804) 648-8000; and  
     (2) Michael E. Rosman and Michelle A. Scott of Center for
         Individual Rights, 1233 20th Street, NW, Ste. 300,
         Washington, D.C. 20036, Phone: (202) 833-8400, Web
         site: http://www.cir-usa.org/.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVO INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit Filing  
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Sept. 11, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut against ADVO, Inc.  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from July 7, 2006 through Aug. 30, 2006.

Interested parties have until Nov. 10, 2006, in which to move
for lead plaintiff status.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web site:

ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Brower Piven Announces Suit Filing
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Encysive Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. between Feb. 19, 2004 and Mar. 24, 2006.

The case is pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against defendant Encysive and one or more of
its officers and/or directors.  The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the class period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the company's
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above

Interested parties have until Nov. 27, 2006, in which to move
for lead plaintiff status.

For more details, contact Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-
Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:

JABIL CIRCUIT: Finkelstein, Thompson Announces Securities Suit
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran announces that
a lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Jabil
Circuit, Inc.

The putative class action alleges that Jabil Circuit and certain
officers and directors violated federal securities laws related
to the backdating of stock options.

Specifically, the complaint asserts that Jabil Circuit violated
the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
public statements regarding its financial results, and that the
company omitted to disclose that it was engaging in the
backdating of stock option grants to executives and other

On May 3, 2006, the company disclosed that it had been contacted
by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and that the SEC
would be requesting information regarding past stock option
grant practices.

On June 21, 2006, Jabil Circuit announced that it had received a
subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern
District of New York requesting stock option related material.
The market responded sharply to this news with Jabil Circuit's
share price plummeting approximately 39% from a closing price of
$40.78 per share on May 3, 2006 to a closing price of $24.79 on
June 22, 2006.

For more information, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, Phone:
+1-877-337-1050, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com.

MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action has
been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Meade Instruments Corp. between Sept. 27,
2001 and Aug. 29, 2006.  The class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by misrepresenting or omitting material facts to
the market during the class period concerning the company's
stock-option granting practices.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

Interested parties have until Nov. 27, 2006, in which to move
for lead plaintiff status.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esq. of Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 and (888) 638-4847, E-
mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *