CAR_Public/070604.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 4, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 109

                            Headlines

        
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Sued Over Lens Solution Causing Eye Infection
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Allowed to Hear Lakin’s Motion in “Strassen”
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Suit by Financial Plan Buyers Remains Stayed
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Moves for Summary Judgment in “Gallus”
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: June 4 Hearing Set in $100M Settlement

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in “Good” Litigation
AMGEN, INC: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif.
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: June 15 Hearing Set in $28M Natural Gas Deal
BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Fourth N.Y. Suit Over Warburg Pincus Deal
CLAYTON HOMES: Tenn. Suit Claims Discrimination Against Women

DELL INC: Ind. Lawsuit Claims No-Interest Finance Offer is Fake
DOMEGA INT’L: Recalls Lily Flowers With Undeclared Sulfites
EHARMONY: Sued in Calif. for Excluding Gays From Dating Service
FREMONT GENERAL: Lockridge Grindal Files ERISA Suit in Calif.
INNOVATIVE SCUBA: Recalls Defective Scuba Regulator Swivels

JUSTIN INDUSTRIES: Fla. Lawsuit Seeks Overtime Wage Payment
MARYLAND: High Court to Tackle Ethics Issue in Impact Fee Suit
MINNESOTA: Airports Commission Proposes to Settle Noise Lawsuit
NRS: Recalls Inflatable Paddle that Could Break, Deflate
OLDCASTLE GLASS: Sued in Fla. Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

OSCAR MAYER: Workers Sue Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
ROYAL PRODUCTS: Recalls Candles with Flammable Coating, Beads
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: 21 Workers File Age Bias Lawsuit in Minn.
SPRINT NEXTEL: Settles Age Discrimination Suit in Kans. for $57M
SUNRISE TREE: Ill. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Compensation

TEMBEC & BTLSR: Melamine-Containing Feed Ingredient Recalled
TICKETMASTER: Sued in Cal. Over Entertainment Rewards Program
TRIBUNE CO: Paper Distributor Sues Over Minimum Wage Non-Payment
TWEEN BRANDS: Recalls Children Jewelry Due to High Lead Content
TYSON FOODS: Employees’ Ga. Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations

TYSON FOODS: Workers File Ga. Suit Over Alleged FLSA Violations
WAL-MART STORES: N.J. Suit Over 'Off-the- Clock' Work Certified


                            *********


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Sued Over Lens Solution Causing Eye Infection
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rochon Genova LLP filed a class action on behalf of users of
Advanced Medical Optics Inc.'s (AMO) Complete All-in-one MoisturePlus
Solution, a contact lens cleaning solution.

Earlier, AMO, in response to information received from the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding eye infections from
Acanthamoeba -- a naturally occurring water-borne organism which can
contribute to serious corneal infections -- immediately and voluntarily
recalled its Complete MoisturePlus contact lens solutions (Class Action
Reporter, May 30, 2007).

The Solution was recalled in Canada and the U.S. after it had been linked by
the CDC to a rare but serious infection called Acanthamoeba Keratitis.

The claim, filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleges that the
Defendants knew or ought to have known that the Solution caused the
Acanthamoeba Keratitis, but failed to recall the Solution in a timely
manner.  It is further alleged that the Defendants only recalled the product
because of the results of an investigation done by the CDC.

AK is normally a rare infection of the cornea caused by a waterborne organism
and is characterized by extreme pain, light sensitivity and eye redness. In
serious cases the infection can ultimately lead to blindness and may require
cornea transplant surgery.

The Proposed Representative Plaintiff, a Toronto school teacher, has been
diagnosed with Acanthamoeba Keratitis and likely will require a cornea
transplant.  In September, 2006, she discontinued use of the Solution as a
result of eye irritation.  "I have been living with excruciating pain since
November, 2006 and am now legally blind in my right eye as a result of the
[Acanthamoeba Keratitis] infection," she said.

"[Acanthamoeba Keratitis] infections can have a devastating effect on a
person's quality of life.  AMO had a positive obligation to recall the
product as far back as 2005; it is completely unacceptable that this
defective product was left on the market until this week," said Joel P.
Rochon, a partner at Rochon Genova LLP.

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in court.

The plaintiff and the prospective class members are represented by the
Toronto based law firm of Rochon Genova LLP.

For further information, contact:

          Rochon Genova LLP
          121 Richmond St. W, Suite 900
          Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2K1
          Phone: (416) 363-1867 or 1-866-881-2292 (toll-free)
          Website: http://www.rochongenova.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Allowed to Hear Lakin’s Motion in “Strassen”
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron denied Lakin Law Firm's motion to
hold a secret hearing on a secret motion in a suit against Allstate Insurance
over claims for injuries in car crashes, Steve Korris of the Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

The Lakin Law firm represents Dennis Strasen, who sued Allstate in 1999,
claiming the insurer cheated when paying claims for injuries in car crashes.

Judge Byron in 2002 certified Mr. Strasen to represent a plaintiff class,
though he did not decide how many states to include in the class.

Allstate Insurance attorney Troy Bozarth said the plaintiff wanted to exclude
Allstate from arguments, evidence and determination of a motion.  He said the
motion might pertain to his motion to decertify the class.  

Lakin attorney Jeffrey Millar told Judge Byron the motion related solely to
the organization of plaintiff's counsel.  He said they were not asking for
any determination about Allstate or on the merits of the case, and is not
seeking to resolve the matter immediately.  "We are only seeking to file a
pleading [] in camera," he said.  He said Allstate had no legal interest in
the motion.  

Judge Byron said Mr. Bozarth's objection was well taken.  He said the motion
might affect Allstate.

"We have issues we didn't have seven or eight years ago," Judge Byron said.  
He denied the motion for proceedings "in camera."

Although the Lakin firm did not persuade Judge Byron to exclude Mr. Bozarth,
it convinced the judge to exclude from the case Richard Burke, who used to
work for the Lakins, but now teams with Freed & Weiss of Chicago in their bid
to control cases they helped the Lakins file.

Judge Byron said that the lead counsel for the class was the Lakin Law Firm.  
According to him, the participation of others was up to them.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Suit by Financial Plan Buyers Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action, "Haritos et al. v. American Express Financial
Corp. and IDS Life Insurance Co.," which was originally filed in June 2004
against American Express, known as Ameriprise Financial, Inc., remains stayed.

The suit, which was filed in November 2002, was brought by plaintiffs who
purport to represent a class of all persons that have purchased financial
plans from the Company’s financial advisors from November 1997 through July
2004.

Plaintiffs allege that the sale of the plans violates the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940.  

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, rescission of the investment
advisor plans and restitution of monies paid for such plans.

On Jan. 3, 2006, the Court granted the parties joint stipulation to stay the
action pending the approval of the proposed settlement in the putative class
action, “In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation.”

The company reported no development in the case at its May, 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Haritos, et al v. American Express Fin, et al., case no. 02-CV-
2255," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under
Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt.  

Representing plaintiff John Haritos are:

         Robert C. Moilanen, Esq.
         Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq.
         Anne T. Regan, Esq.
         Zimmerman Reed PLLP
         651 Nicollet Mall, Ste. 501
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: (612) 341-0400

         Jon E. Drucker, Esq.
         Moss Gropen, Esq.
         Law Offices of Jon E. Drucker
         8306 Wilshire Blvd. #638
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Phone: (323) 931-6363

Representing the Company are:

         Eric Mogilnicki, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
         2445 M St. NW
         Washington, DC 20037-1420
         Phone: (202) 663-6000

         Robert S. Stern, Esq.
         James P. Maniscalco, Esq.
         Joseph T. Hahn, Esq.
         Morrison & Foerster LLP
         555 W 5th St., Ste. 3500
         Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024
         Phone: (213) 892-5200


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Moves for Summary Judgment in “Gallus”
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the purported class action, “John E. Gallus et al. v. American
Express Financial Corp. and American Express Financial Advisors Inc.,” which
was originally filed in June 2004 against American Express - now known as
Ameriprise Financial, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.

Plaintiffs allege that they are investors in several of the Company’s mutual
funds and they purport to bring the action derivatively on behalf of those
funds under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

They also allege that fees allegedly paid to the defendants by the funds for
investment advisory and administrative services are excessive.  

Plaintiffs seek remedies including restitution and rescission of investment
advisory and distribution agreements.  

They later would voluntarily agree to transfer this case to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  

In response to the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the Court
dismissed one of plaintiffs’ four claims and granted plaintiffs limited
discovery.

In April 2007, the Company moved for summary judgment on all claims, and is
now awaiting a decision by the Court, according to Ameriprise Financial,
Inc.’s May, 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. -- http://www.ameriprise.com/-- is engaged in  
providing financial planning, products and services that are designed to
offer solutions for its clients’ asset accumulation, income and protection
needs.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: June 4 Hearing Set in $100M Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York set a June 4,
2007 final fairness hearing for the settlement in the purported class
action, “In re American Express Financial Advisors (AEFA) Securities
Litigation,” which was filed against AEFA - now known as Ameriprise Financial
Advisors.

In October 2005, the Company reached a comprehensive settlement regarding the
consolidated securities class action filed against the Company, its former
parent and affiliates in October 2004 called, “In re American Express
Financial Advisors (AEFA) Securities Litigation.”

Among the allegations in the AEFA Securities Litigation, the Plaintiffs
contend that they were sold financial plans and/or advice that contained one-
size-fits-all recommendations, in order to generate fees for AEFA.

These recommendations were, in part, designed to place investors' money into
non-proprietary "Preferred" or "Select" mutual funds, as well as AEFA
proprietary funds, which included:

      -- AXP Global Technology n/k/a RiverSource Global
         Technology;
        
      -- AXP Global Technology F n/k/a RiverSource Global
         Technology F;
        
      -- AXP Equity Select A n/k/a RiverSource Mid Cap Growth;
        
      -- AXP Growth A n/k/a RiverSource Growth A;

The settlement, under which the Company denies any liability, includes a one-
time payment of $100 million to the class members.

The class members include individuals who purchased mutual funds in the
Company’s Preferred Provider Program, Select Group Program, or any similar
revenue sharing program, purchased mutual funds sold under the American
Express or AXP brand; or purchased for a fee financial plans or advice from
the Company between March 10, 1999 and through April 1, 2006.

On Feb. 14, 2007, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set a
Final Fairness Hearing for June 4, 2007.

The parties estimate that approximately 2,450,000 persons are eligible to
claim a share of the settlement fund.  Minimum recovery is $20 to $50.  
Deadline to file proof of claim is July 10, 2007.  Deadline for exclusion is
May 7.

Settlement Web site: http://financialfeesettlement.com/.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. -- http://www.ameriprise.com/-- is engaged in  
providing financial planning, products and services that are designed to
offer solutions for its clients’ asset accumulation, income and protection
needs.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in “Good” Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action alleging Ameriprise
Financial, Inc. miscalculated advisors' fees.  

The lawsuit, "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al.
Case No. 00-cv-01027," was filed in March 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.  It has been brought as a putative class action
and plaintiffs purport to represent all of the company's advisors who sold
shares of Real Estate Investment Trusts and tax credit limited partnerships
between March 22, 2000, and March 2006.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and restitutionary damages as well
as injunctive relief, alleging that the company incorrectly calculated
commissions owed advisors for the sale of these products.

The Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss, and the matter is in the
discovery stage, according to Ameriprise Financial, Inc.’s May, 9, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al.
Case No. 00-cv-01027," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota under Judge Donovan W. Frank with referral
to Judge Susan R. Nelson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bryan L. Crawford, Esq.
         Samuel D. Heins, Esq.
         Stacey L. Mills, Esq.
         Brian L. Williams, Esq.
         Heins Mills & Olson, PLC
         80 S. 8th St., Ste. 3550
         Mpls, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-338-4605
         Fax: 612-338-4692
         E-mail: bwilliams@heinsmills.com
                 sheins@heinsmills.com
                 smills@heinsmills.com
                 magarian.edward@dorsey.com
                 bcrawford@heinsmills.com

Representing the defendant is:
        
         Edward B. Magarian, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-7873
         Fax: 612-340-2807
         E-mail: magarian.edward@dorsey.com


AMGEN, INC: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen, Inc. faces purported class actions in the U.S. in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California that were filed by the company’s
shareholders.

The suit was filed on April 17, 2007, against Amgen, Inc., Kevin W. Sharer,
Willard H. Dere, Richard D. Nanula, Dennis M. Fenton, Roger M. Perlmutter,
Brian M. McNamee, George J. Morrow, Edward V. Fritzky, Gilbert S. Omenn and
Franklin P. Johnson, Jr.

The complaint alleges that Amgen and these officers and directors made false
statements that resulted in a fraudulent scheme and course of business
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Amgen publicly traded
securities in that:

      -- it temporarily deceived the investing public regarding
         Amgen’s prospects and business;

      -- it artificially inflated the prices of Amgen’s
         publicly traded securities; and

      -- it caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to
         purchase Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated
         prices.
        
The complaint also makes off-label marketing allegations.  Amgen was served
with the complaint on April 20, 2007.  

A second shareholder complaint was filed against the defendants on May 1,
2007, also in the same court.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, Defendants failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s marketing of Aranesp and
EPOGEN.

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following:

      -- that Amgen was improperly marketing Aranesp and EPOGEN
         for off-label uses; and

      -- that the defendants were aware of the negative results    
         of studies which showed more cancer reoccurrences and
         an increased number of patient deaths in studies that
         tested Aranesp.

This suit, as well as additional related securities suits, if filed, will be
consolidated into a master complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District Court of California.

Also on May 1, 2007, a third shareholder complaint was filed in the same
court.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false statements that resulted
in a fraudulent scheme and course of business operated as a fraud or deceit
on purchasers of Amgen publicly traded securities in that:

      -- it temporarily deceived the investing public regarding
         Amgen’s prospects and business;
    
      -- it artificially inflated the prices of Amgen’s publicly
         traded securities; and

      -- it caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to
         purchase Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated
         prices.

The complaint also makes off-label marketing allegations. In the three
shareholder complaints, plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory
damages, legal fees and other relief deemed proper.

California-based Amgen, Inc. -- http://www.amgen.com/-- is a global  
biotechnology company.  It discovers, develops, manufactures and markets
human therapeutics based on advances in cellular and molecular biology.  It
markets human therapeutic products in the areas of supportive cancer care,
nephrology, inflammation and oncology.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: June 15 Hearing Set in $28M Natural Gas Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a
fairness hearing on June 15, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed
$28,087,500.00 settlement by the remaining defendants in the class
action, “In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-06186-VM-
AJP.”

The remaining defendants are:

      -- American Electric Power Co., Inc. and AEP Energy
         Services, Inc.;

      -- Aquila Energy Marketing Corp. and Aquila Merchant
         Services, Inc.;

      -- Coral Energy Resources, LP

      -- Dominion Resources, Inc.; and

      -- El Paso Marketing, L.P. (formerly known as El Paso
         Merchant Energy, L.P.)

The hearing will be held before Judge Victor Marrero in Courtroom 20B, U.S.
District Courthouse, New York, New York.

Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim form is on Aug. 17, 2007.  
Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or
before June 4 and May 29, 2007 respectively.

Generally, the action alleges that the defendants manipulated the prices of
NYMEX natural gas futures and options contracts during the Class Period by
allegedly reporting inaccurate, misleading and false trading information to
trade publications.  

The defendants have denied the allegations and deny any and all liability to
the Plaintiff and the Class, but the Remaining Settling Defendants have
agreed to settlements totaling $28,087,500.

For more details, contact:

         In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation
         c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC
         P.O. Box 24626
         West Palm Beach, FL 33416
         Phone: 1-877-741-1231
         E-mail: NaturalGas@CompleteClaimSolutions.com
         Web site: http://www.naturalgascase.com/

The suit is "In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-06186-
VM-AJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Victor Marrero and Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ali Oromchian, Esq.
         Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran
         601 Montgomery Street
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415)-398-8700

         Christopher J. Gray, Esq.
         Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C.
         460 Park Avenue 21st Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 838-3221
         Fax: (212) 508-3695
         E-mail: gray@cjgraylaw.com;

         Christopher Lovell, Esq.
         Gary S. Jacobson, Esq.
         Lovell, Stewart, Halebian, L.L.P.
         500 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10110,
         Phone: (212) 608-1900

              - and -

         Louis F. Burke, Esq.
         Louis F. Burke, P.C.
         460 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 682-1700
         Fax: (212) 808-4280


BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Fourth N.Y. Suit Over Warburg Pincus Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb Inc. and its directors are facing a fourth class action filed
in Monroe County (New York) Supreme Court seeking to block a proposed
purchase of the company by Warburg Pincus LLC, Matthew Daneman of The
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reports.

Defendants include:

     -- B&L chief executive Ronald Zarrella, and
     -- executives:
             * William H. Waltrip,
             * Barry W. Wilson,
             * Paul A. Friedman,
             * Jonathan S. Linen,
             * Alan M. Bennett,
             * Ruth R. McMullin,
             * Linda Johnson Rice,
             * Domenico De Sole,
             * Catherine M. Burzik and
             * Kenneth L. Wolfe.

The latest lawsuit also names Warburg, the New York City private investment
firm that wants to purchase B&L, as a defendant.

Named plaintiff Bob Palmer charges that B&L and its executives agreed to a
deal with Warburg Pincus that unfairly precludes any better bid for the
company.

Specifically, the agreement with Warburg Pincus gives the New York City firm
access to rival bidders’ information and lets it top any better offer, the
suit says.

“As we have seen time and time again, when a company’s stock price is
depressed as a result of debilitating recent current events, the private
equity vultures begin to loom, looking for the opportunity to entice
management to join them in security the company’s future value at the expense
of the company’s public stockholders,” the suit claims.

Earlier, Philadelphia-based First Derivative Traders L.P. accused B&L's board
of settling for too little in accepting Warburg's $65 per share offer (Class
Action Reporter, May 22, 2007).


CLAYTON HOMES: Tenn. Suit Claims Discrimination Against Women
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Homes, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed May 25 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee accusing it of
discriminating against women by refusing to hire them at its White Pine,
Tenn., plant since 2003.

Named plaintiffs Shirley Ingle, Angela Collins and Priscilla Henson seek to
represent a class of female applicants similarly situated to redress the
defendant's continuing systemic gender discrimination in hiring since at
least 2003.

They allege Clayton Homes, Inc., has discriminated, and continues to
discriminate, against the representatives plaintiffs as well as similarly-
situated female persons on a class-wide basis in its hiring practices.  
Clayton Homes intentionally discriminates against female applicants by
arbitrarily denying them employment for positions for which they are
qualified.  Clayton Homes' hiring practices also have a disparate impact upon
female applicants.  

The representative plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive and other
equitable relief for the proposed hiring class, as well as nominal and
punitive damages at law related to defendant's violations of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tennessee Code
Annotated Section Section4-21-101 et. seq.

The proposed hiring class consists of all female persons who applied, and/or
had active applications for employment, and were rejected for employment, or
were deterred or discouraged from applying for employment, with Clayton
Homes' White Pine, Tennessee plant at any time since 2003 to the present.

The purported class raises the questions of:

     (a) whether Clayton Homes has engaged in
         unlawful, intentional gender discrimination in its
         hiring policies, practices, and procedures;

     (b) whether Clayton Homes is liable for a continuing
         systemic violation of Title VII and THRA;

     (c) identification of the proper standards for proving a
         pattern or practice of discrimination by Clayton Homes
         against its female applicants;

     (d) whether Clayton Homes has engaged in employment
         practices that result in an adverse impact on female
         applicants; and

     (e) identification of the prope methodology for proving
         adverse impact of Clayton Homes' hiring selection
         process against female applicants.

Plaintiff request the following relief:

     -- acceptance of jurisdiction of this case;

     -- permissive joinder of the individual and class-wide
        claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a),
        b(2) and/or (b)(3), on behalf of the proposed hiring
        class, and designation of plaintiffs as representatives
        of such class and their counsel of record as class
        counsel;

     -- a declaratory judgment that the defendant's employment
        practices challenged by the plaintiffs herein are
        illegal and in violation of the THRA and 42 U.S.C.
        Section 2000e;

     -- a permanent injunction against Clayton Homes and its
        officers, owners, agents, successors, employees, and
        representatives and any all persons acting in concert
        with them, from engaging in any further unlawful
        practices, policies, customs, usages, and gender
        discrimination by Clayton Homes as set forth;

     -- an order of injunctive relief requiring Clayton Homes to
        initiate and implement programs that:

        (i) will provide equal employment opportunities for
            female applicants;

       (ii) will remedy the effect of Clayton Homes' past and
            present unlawful hiring policies, practices and
            procedures; and

      (iii) will eliminate the continuing effects of Clayton
            Homes' discriminatory hiring practices;

     -- an order requiring Clayton Homes to initiate and
        implement systems of recruiting and hiring female
        applicants in a non-discriminatory manner;

     -- an order establishing a task force on equality and
        fairness to determine the effectiveness of the programs
        described, which would provide for:

        (i) monitoring, reporting, and retaining of jurisdiction
            to ensure equal employment opportunity

       (ii) the assurance that injunctive relief is properly
            implemented; and

      (iii) a quarterly report setting forth information
            relevant to the determination of the effectiveness
            of the programs described;

     -- an order placing or restoring the representative
        plaintiffs and the members of the hiring class into
        those jobs they would now be occupying, at the
        appropriate adjusted wage rates and benefits levels, but
        for Clayton Homes' discriminatory policies, practices
        and procedures;

     -- an order directing Clayton Homes to adjust the
        seniority, wage rates, and benefits for the
        representative plaintiffs and the hiring class to the
        level that they would be enjoying but for Clayton Homes'
        discriminatory policies, practices and procedures;

     -- an award of back pay, front pay, lost benefits,
        restoration of seniority, nominal and punitive damages,
        lost benefits, preferential rights to jobs, and other
        relief for lost pay and job benefits suffered by the
        representative plaintiffs and the hiring class;

     -- an award of litigation costs and expenses, including
        reasonable attorneys' fees, to the representative
        plaintiffs and the hiring class;

     -- pre-judgment interest;

     -- such other and further relief as the court may deem just
        and proper; and

     -- retention of jurisdiction by the court until such time
        as the court is satisfied that Clayton Homes has
        remedied the practices complained of and is determined
        to be in full compliance with the law.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2084

The suit is "Ingle et al v. Clayton Homes, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00210,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under
Judge Thomas A Varlan with referral to Judge C. Clifford Shirley.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jennifer B. Morton, Esq.
          Law Offices of Jennifer B. Morton
          8217 PicKens Gap Road
          Knoxville, TN 37920
          Phone: (865) 579-0708
          Fax: (865) 579-0787

and-

          Eric Bachman, Esq.
          Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC
          7 Dupont Circle, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 467-4123
          Fax: (202) 467-4489
          E-mail: tfleming@wcqp.com


DELL INC: Ind. Lawsuit Claims No-Interest Finance Offer is Fake
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Inc. is facing a class action complaint in the Marion Circuit/Superior
Court in Indiana alleging Dell and Dell Financial Services deceived consumers
by advertising “no-interest financing” but then turning down 85 percent of
the people who apply for it, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Angela Girolami claims that after Dell rejects a large
percentage of applicants, even those with excellent credit ratings, it tells
them they have been approved for “Dell Preferred” financing, a
misrepresentation, as it contains no preferred terms at all, but interest
rates of 24 percent or higher. “Dell sales associates also fail to disclose
the interest rate on the account,” the complaint states.  It said the New
York Attorney General has sued Dell to enjoin it from this deception, and
fine it.

This action is brought on behalf of hundreds of Indiana residents against
Dell, Inc. and Dell Financial Services Limited Partnership, who
misrepresented that they had been approved of no-interest financing of a Dell
personal computer or product, but who had actually been rejected for no-
interest financing and instead were financed under Dell Financial's "regular"
financing, which included exorbitant interest rates -- often greater than
20% -- and no interest-free period.

Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and as a class action on
behalf of all persons in the State of Indiana to whom Dell Inc. or Dell
Financial misrepresented that such persons had been approved for no-interest
financing, but who did not receive such no-interest financing.  She wants the
court to determine whether:

     (a) Dell and Dell Financial engaged in incurable
         deceptive practices;

     (b) Dell and Dell Financial engaged in incurable
         deceptive practices willfully; and

     (c) the type and amount of relief to which class members
         are entitled.

Plaintiff prays that the court enter judgment against defendants and in favor
of the plaintiff and class members in an amount equal to the greater of three
times actual damages or $1,000 per class member per violation, and for
attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, the costs of this action, and for all
other relief as the court finds just and proper.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2080

The suit is Angela Girolami et al. v. Dell, Inc. et al.,” filed in the Marion
Circuit/Superior Court in the State of Indiana.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          Cohen & Malad, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Ste 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 636-6481
          Fax: (317) 636-2593


DOMEGA INT’L: Recalls Lily Flowers With Undeclared Sulfites
-----------------------------------------------------------
Domega International Ltd., Inc., of 98 Bay 35th Street, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11214,
is recalling King Chief brand Dried Lily Flowers because it contains
undeclared sulfites.  People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the
risk of serious or life threatening allergic reactions if they consume this
product.

The recalled King Chief brand Dried Lily Flowers is sold in uncoded 6 ounce,
transparent plastic bags and is a product of China.  The product was sold
nationwide.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department
of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the
product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in
King Chief brand Dried Lily Flowers in packages which did not declare
sulfites on the labels.  The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per
serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.  
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon
ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased King Chief brand Dried Lily Flowers should
return them to the place of purchase.  Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-646-938-7345.


EHARMONY: Sued in Calif. for Excluding Gays From Dating Service
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf gays and lesbians
excluded from eHarmony dating service, Jill Serjeant of Reuters reports.

The suit, which is seeking class-action status, was filed on behalf of Linda
Carlson against eHarmony, an online dating Internet site, which an
evangelical and conservative Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren, founded
sometime in year 2000.

The complaint claims eHarmony refused to extend its dating service to gays,
lesbians and bisexuals.

The company said the claims are all false and reckless.  It also said that
it’s not a service they offer currently, based upon the research they have
conducted.

The lawsuit says Linda Carlson was denied access when she tried using the
site’s dating service in February.  She wrote to eHarmony telling them that
its anti-gay policy is discriminatory under the state’s law.  The company
didn’t heed her and never changed it.

Attorney Todd Schneider said the suit seeks to change the landscape and make
a statement that gays and lesbians have the right and desire to meet with
other people with whom they can fall in love with.  It also seeks to force
eHarmony to end its policy and to pay unspecified damages for those similarly
situated.

For more information, contact plaintiff’s lawyer:

          Todd Schneider, Esq.
          Schneider & Wallace  
          180 Montgomery Street Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone:  (415) 421-7100
          Fax:  (415) 421-1655


FREMONT GENERAL: Lockridge Grindal Files ERISA Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against Fremont General Corp.
(FMT) for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
from January 1, 2005 to the present.  

This is a class action brought on behalf of participants in two pension
plans, the Fremont General Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP)
and the Fremont General Corp. and Affiliated Companies Investment Incentive
Plan (401(k) Plan).

The lawsuit alleges that, as a consequence of the 401(k) plan's investment in
company stock, employee-participants have suffered millions of dollars in
losses to their retirement savings while Fremont top executives were dumping
their own Fremont stock.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their fiduciary duties to the
Plans during the Class Period by allowing imprudent investment of the Plans'
assets in Fremont Stock when they knew or should have known that such
investment was improperly risky and irresponsible in light of the Company's
improper business practices.

For more information, contact:

         Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN  55401
         Phone: (612) 339-6900
         E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com


INNOVATIVE SCUBA: Recalls Defective Scuba Regulator Swivels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Innovative Scuba Concepts Inc., of Colorado Springs, Colo., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary
recall of about 170 units of Swivel for a Scuba Regulator.

The firm said the swivel, which is attached to a diving regulator, could
separate while diving.  This will result in a complete and sudden loss of the
diver’s air supply, causing the diver to engage in emergency ascent
procedures.  This poses a risk of decompression sickness due to rapid ascent,
and air embolism or drowning if the diver panics or the emergency ascent
procedure fails.

The firm has received one report where the swivel separated during a dive and
caused the diver to ascend using the buddy breathing technique.  No injury
was reported.

The recall involves the HO110 Swivels sold as an aftermarket regulator
component.  There are no markings such as a date or production code embossed
on the unit.  Contact Innovative Scuba Concepts for information on where the
recalled units were sold.

These swivels were manufactured in Taiwan and sold through specialty retail
dive stores nationwide from January 2006 through March 2007 for about $40.  
They also could have been installed by a dive shop regulator technician.

Consumers should stop using regulators with the swivel attached and contact
the dive store where purchased for a refund.

Click on the link to view the photo of the HO110 Swivel:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07200.html

For additional information, contact Innovative Scuba Concepts Inc. at (800)
472-2740 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm’s Web site at http://www.innovativescuba.com.


JUSTIN INDUSTRIES: Fla. Lawsuit Seeks Overtime Wage Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justin Industries, Inc. is facing a class action filed May 30 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code
violations.

Named plaintiff Pedrito Gonzalez –- a former driver/delivery person of Justin
Industries -- brings this action for overtime compensation and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

He brings this action on behalf of all other employees of the defendant who
worked on excess of 40 hours during one or more work weeks on or after May
2004, but who did not receive time and a half for such overtime hours worked.

The complaint alleges defendant failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-
209, in that plaintiff and those similarly situated were made by defendant to
properly pay plaintiff for those hours worked in excess of 40 within a work
week.

In the course of employment, plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
at any of defendant's locations or facilities throughout the U.S., were not
paid time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per work week during one or more work weeks.

Plaintiff demand judgment against defendants for the payment of all overtime
hours at one and one-half their regular rate of pay due them for the hours
worked by them for which they have not been properly compensated, liquidated
damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit, and such further
relief the court deems just and appropriate.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2087

The suit is “Gonzalez v. Justin Industries, Inc. et al., Case No. 9:07-cv-
80467-KLR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp, with referral to Judge Ann E.
Vitunac.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Stacey Hope Cohen, Esq.
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com


NRS: Recalls Inflatable Paddle that Could Break, Deflate
--------------------------------------------------------
NRS, of Moscow, Idaho, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, announced a voluntary recall of approximately 1,000 NRS Sea Kayak
Paddle Floats.

According to the firm, the plastic tubes used to inflate the paddle float
could break and deflate, posing a drowning hazard to consumers.

NRS has received five reports of paddle floats breaking and deflating.  No
injuries have been reported.

The NRS Sea Kayak Paddle Float is an inflatable device that is attached to
one side of the paddle to help the kayaker re-enter the kayak in open water.  
The paddle float is yellow and black and measures 15” wide by 28” long,
before inflation.  The NRS logo is on one side.  This recall involves those
paddle floats with inflation tubes that are clear or translucent.  Paddle
floats with black tubes are not included.

These paddle floats were manufactured in China and sold through NRS stores
nationwide and NRS catalogs from July 2006 through March 2007 for about $40.

Consumers should stop using the paddle floats immediately and contact NRS to
determine if you have one of the recalled models.  NRS will provide a free
replacement paddle float for consumers with recalled units.

To view the photo of the product subject to recall, click:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07201.html

For more information, consumers should call NRS toll-free at (877) 677-4327
between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. PST Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web
site at http://www.nrsweb.com.


MARYLAND: High Court to Tackle Ethics Issue in Impact Fee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Maryland Supreme Court will today hear arguments to determine whether
former top decision-makers in Anne Arundel County violated ethics laws by
using insider knowledge to sue the county over its impact fee program, Andrea
F. Siegel of Baltimore Sun reports.

Attorney Phillip F. Scheibe, who oversaw the law office of the government,
sued the county in 2001 on behalf of homebuyers in Seven Oaks (Odenton)
community.  The class action claimed the county should refund as much as $27
million to property owners because it misspent impact fees collected or
improperly gave itself an extension on the time limit by which the county
should return money left unspent for roads and other improvements.

The suit was filed by Robert J. Dvorak, who served as planning and zoning
chief, among other administrative jobs in the county.  Mr. Dvorak also used
to work on the department that was involved in the impact fee program.  
Together with Mr. Scheibe’s law partner, John R. Greiber Jr., they won a $4.7
million judgment.

If the court rules against the defendants, Mr. Scheibe could lose his share
of the lawyers' 30 percent fee in the award, which is about $1.5 million.


MINNESOTA: Airports Commission to Settle Noise Suit for $65M
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) representatives have reached a
tentative agreement with citizens in a certified class action regarding
airport noise mitigation and are urging the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield
and Eagan to support the proposal.

The agreement would provide nearly $65 million in noise mitigation benefits
to the more than 4,400 homeowners in the class.

Under the proposed settlement, owners of homes currently without central air
conditioning would receive it -- including ducting and finishing work -- free
of charge. In addition, they would receive a $1,750 value for the purchase
and installation of noise mitigation products or cash reimbursement for
eligible improvements made within the past five years. Up to $750 of that
amount may be applied to the attorneys' fees of the citizens in the class
action if approved by the court.

Owners of homes that already have central air conditioning would receive
$9,250 for the purchase and installation of noise mitigation products or cash
reimbursement for eligible improvements made within the past five years.
Again, up to $750 of that amount may be applied to the attorneys' fees of the
citizens in the class action if approved by the court.

In 2006, Minneapolis and Richfield homeowners asked Hennepin County District
Judge Stephen Aldrich to certify a class action against the operator of
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (Class Action Reporter, June 28,
2006).

The residents accuse the Metropolitan Airports Commission of reneging in its
promise to install noise protection for more homes under airplane flight
paths.  Judge Aldrich certified the case in the later months of 2006.

On May 31, 2007, the class representatives and the MAC jointly petitioned the
Hennepin County District Court to delay the June 18, 2007 scheduled start of
the class action trial pending approval of the proposed settlement. Judge
Stephen Aldrich approved the delay.

The mediated settlement would benefit owners of 4,413 single-family homes
located within the 60 to 64 DNL (day-night noise level, a metric used by the
Federal Aviation Administration to measure noise around airports). Included
homes would be based on the projected 2007 mitigated noise exposure map the
MAC submitted to the FAA in November 2004 using a property-specific "parcel
intersect" methodology.

"The proposed agreement builds on the Metropolitan Airports Commission's
standing as a world leader in airport noise mitigation," said MAC Chairman
Jack Lanners. "I support this proposed settlement, representatives of
citizens in the class action support this settlement, and I hope city leaders
in Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan will support this settlement as well."

In 2005, Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan filed a separate lawsuit against
the MAC regarding airport noise and are believed to have expended well over
$1 million in municipal funds for legal fees. Under the proposed settlement
in the class action, the MAC would pay a portion of the citizens' attorney
fees in the class action. If the cities had joined in the agreement, the MAC
would have reimbursed them for a portion of their legal fees as well.

The MAC would use federal airport improvement grants and passenger facility
charges or other airport revenue to fund the settlement agreement, pending
approval of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Owners of homes built after October 1, 1998 would not be eligible.

"This settlement would bring the Metropolitan Airports Commission's total
capital expenditures on noise mitigation over the past 15 years to more than
$400 million and bring the total number of homes receiving noise mitigation
to more than 12,000," Mr. Lanners said.

"I know of no other airport in any country that has provided that level of
per capita noise mitigation."

"I believe this settlement is a fair solution to an issue the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and its neighbors have long sought to resolve. I urge
city leaders to work with us to settle this matter rather than continuing
legal battles that could delay or jeopardize the implementation of any
mitigation that the settlement would provide."

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert Moilanen, Esq.
          Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P.
          651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (Hennepin Co.)
          Phone: 612-341-0400
          Toll Free: 800-755-0098
          Fax: 612-341-0844


OLDCASTLE GLASS: Sued in Fla. Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oldcastle Glass, Inc. is facing a class action filed May 30 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code
violations.

Named plaintiff Ioan Avram -- a former maintenance person at Oldcastle Glass -
- brings this action for overtime compensation and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

He brings this action on behalf of all other non-exempt salaried employees of
the defendant throughout the U.S., who worked on excess of 40 hours during
one or more work weeks on or after May 2004, but who did not receive time and
a half for such overtime hours worked.

The complaint alleges defendant failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-
209, in that plaintiff and those similarly situated were made by defendant to
properly pay plaintiff for those hours worked in excess of 40 within a work
week.

In the course of employment, plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
at any of defendant's locations or facilities throughout the U.S., were not
paid time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per work week during one or more work weeks.

Plaintiff demand judgment against defendant for the payment of all overtime
hours at one and one-half their regular rate of pay due them for the hours
worked by them for which they have not been properly compensated, liquidated
damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit, and such further
relief that the court deems just and appropriate.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2085

The suit is “Avram v. Oldcastle Glass, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-21378-AJ,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under
Judge Adalberto Jordan.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Stacey Hope Cohen, Esq.
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com


OSCAR MAYER: Workers Sue Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Kurt Kobelt of Lawton & Cates, representing Oscar Mayer Foods
employees Jason Knudtson, Jeff Spoerle, Nick Lee and Kathi Smith, filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Madison against Oscar Mayer parent
company Kraft Foods, The Capital Times reports.

The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of about 1,500 production and
maintenance workers represented by United Food and Commercial Workers Local
538.

According to Mr. Kobelt the case is one of many being filed after a recent
ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that employees must be paid for time spent
putting on and taking off their personal protective equipment and walking to
and from their workstations.

Mr. Kobelt said Oscar Mayer employees change into the equipment -- such as
footwear, smocks and headgear -- in a locker room and walk to their posts
before punching in, then punch out before walking back to the locker room to
change.

Under the law, employees are entitled to seek payment for a three-year
period, and the practice has been going on for "at least that period of
time," Mr. Kobelt said.  In addition, the law provides for a penalty that
doubles any money that plaintiffs are awarded, he said.

"We did have a communication with the company and asked if they would be
willing to change the policy, and they declined, so we had no choice but to
file the lawsuit," Mr. Kobelt said.  Total damages could be in the millions
of dollars.

Sydney Lindner, associate director of corporate affairs for Kraft, said in a
statement e-mailed to The Capital Times that the company hadn't seen the
lawsuit and is "unable to comment on pending litigation.

"We believe we are in compliance with all applicable federal and state
employment laws," Lindner wrote. "In addition, we follow all terms of the
collective bargaining agreement we have with UFCW Local 538. We offer market-
leading manufacturing job opportunities that include competitive pay and
benefits."

Plaintiffs’ attorney is:

          Kurt Kobelt, Esq.
          Lawton & Cates
          10 E Doty St Ste 400
          Madison, WI 53703-5103
          Phone: (608) 282-6200


ROYAL PRODUCTS: Recalls Candles with Flammable Coating, Beads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Products Inc., of Brooklyn, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling nearly 2,700 Vivre Royale
Pine Cone Candles.

The firm said the candle’s exterior coating and beads can ignite and catch
fire.  The fire resulting from the coating and beads on the exterior of the
candle could ignite nearby combustibles.

The firm has received one report of a candle fire causing minor property
damage.  CPSC has received one report of a flare up with damage contained to
the candle.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Vivre Royale Pine Cone Candle, Item Number 41419.  
The item number is located on the packaging of the product.  The warning
label on the bottom of the packaging states, “Made in China. Royal Products
Inc.”  The candle is shaped like a pine cone.  The candle wax is purple
inside and the coating on the outside of the candle is brown and gold.  There
are small clear beads all over the outside of the candle.

These candles were manufactured in China and were sold through specialty
stores nationwide from October 2005 through December 2006 for between $12 and
$15.

Consumers should immediately stop using the candles and return them to the
place of purchase for an exchange or full refund.

Click on the link for the photo of the product subject to recall:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07198.html

For additional information, call Royal Products at (800) 693-1199 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at
http://www.royalproducts.com.


SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: 21 Workers File Age Bias Lawsuit in Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-one employees have filed a class-action complaint on May 27 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota accusing Seagate
Technology, Inc. of discriminating against workers older than 40 by firing
them.

Named plaintiffs:

     -- James Peterson
     -- David Olson
     -- Paul Calcagno
     -- Rebecca Chwialkowski
     -- Gary Egbert
     -- Narenda Garg
     -- Luana Goodnough
     -- William Grunwald
     -- David Hurd
     -- Rick Kehrwald
     -- David Legut
     -- Karen Lieberg
     -- charles Lucas
     -- Daniel Michael McDaniel
     -- Theresa Raskob
     -- Thomas Schaff
     -- Jane Thomes
     -- Keith Turnbull
     -- Susan Walseth
     -- Lee Walter
     -- Ronald Wrase

seek relief under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
621 et. seq.

According to the complaint each plaintiff was terminated pursuant to the same
corporate pattern or practice, including but not limited to:

     -- being over age 40,
     -- treated adversely,
     -- terminated in mass terminations in 2004,
     -- geographic location,
     -- similar untruthful reasons given for termination
     -- qualified for the position or positions he or she held,
        and
     -- able to perform his or her duties in a satisfactory
        manner.

The complaint further alleges that despite plaintiffs' qualifications,
Seagate subjected plaintiffs to adverse treatment in the terms, conditions
and privileges of their employment and termination due to their age. Specific
alleged adverse treatment, pattern or practice, and policy infected by age
discrimination includes, but is not limited to, the following:

     (a) terminating the plaintiffs' employment;

     (b) transferring older workers to jobs or departments which
         were planned to be phased out or eliminated;

     (c) consciously deciding not to comply with the Older
         Workers Benefit Protection Act;

     (d) taking responsibilities away from older employees and
         giving them to younger, less qualified employees;

     (e) claiming to "eliminate" jobs that were not eliminated;

     (f) instructing older employees to train in their younger
         replacements;

     (g) telling older employees that they lacked skills that
         they in fact had;

     (h) hiring younger employees shortly before and after
         firing the plaintiffs;

     (i) failing to transfer older employees into open
         positions;

     (j) terminating older employees with worse performance
         records that older employees;

     (k) retaining younger employees with worse performance
         records than older employees;

     (l) responding (a Seagate executive) to a question about
         criteria used for termination decisions with: "If they
         are older they do not need to be around here any
         longer.";

     (m) failing to hire, to interview and at times to even
         acknowledge the applications of qualified, terminated
         older plaintiffs for open positions;

     (n) asking (Seagate management) older employees "why don't
         you retire?";

     (o) using systemic, company-wide criteria and/or rankings
         for terminations that were subjective and that
         evidenced ageism;

     (p) excluding recently hired younger employees from the
         mass firings;

     (q) pressuring older employees to choose between retiring
         (Special Incentive Retirement Program) or firing;

     (r) transferring younger employees to "safe" positions
         before and during the terminations; and

     (s) indicating a preference for a younger workforce by
         using such terms as, "new blood" and "new degrees".

Plaintiffs claim they and other terminated Seagate employees received a
package of materials from the company, including a Special Separation
Agreement and General Release of claims which purported to release all claims
against Seagate, including claims of age discrimination under the ADEA.

Seagate Human Resources employees asked the terminated employees to sign the
releases immediately, without allowing them to consider it or consult with an
attorney, the suit claims.

The company failed to comply with the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act,
which includes, but are not limited to:

     (1) misrepresenting the number of employees selected for
         termination;
     (2) omitting employees from the list of employees selected
         for termination;
     (3) failing to write the materials in a manner calculated
         to be understood by the average individual eligible to
         participate; and
     (4) ignoring other requirements of the OWBPA, including,
         but not limited to, failing to disclose the selection
         criteria/eligibility factors used to select the
         individuals chosen for termination.

Seagate also violated the OWBPA because plaintiffs were induced to sign the
release by Seagate's misrepresentations.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment in their favor and against
Seagate as follows:

     -- finding in favor of plaintiffs and all those similarly
        situated that Seagate violated the ADEA;
     -- finding in favor of plaintiffs and all those similarly
        situated that Seagate willfully violated the ADEA;
     -- permanently restraining Seagate from ever again
        discriminating against plaintiffs or any other
        individuals on the basis of that individual's age;
     -- awarding each of the plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs
        back pay and other appropriate compensation and benefits
        under the ADEA, together with interest;
     -- restoring each of the plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs
        to positions comparable to those from which they were
        terminated or, in lieu of reinstatement, awarding each
        plaintiff and opt-in plaintiff front pay and benefits
        under the ADEA from the period remaining until that
        person's expected retirement age;
     -- awarding each plaintiff and opt-in plaintiff liquidated
        damages pursuant to the ADEA in an amount equal to that
        person's back pay and benefits award, together with
        interest thereon;
     -- declaring that plaintiffs are entitled to test the
        validity of the releases of age discrimination under the
        ADEA in a court of law without tendering back any
        benefits received, or suffering a discontinuation of
        benefits to be received, pursuant to said release,
        regardless of whether said release is ultimately
        determined to comply with the OWBPA;
     -- declaring that the release of age discrimination under
        the ADEA presented by Seagate to plaintiffs and other
        similarly situated employees of Seagate are invalid as a
        matter of law, that said releases were not and cannot as
        a matter of law be ratified, and that plaintiffs and
        other opt-in plaintiffs who signed such releases are
        entitled to keep the benefits received and to continue
        to receive said benefits while pursuing rights under the
        ADEA;
     -- awarding attorneys fees and costs as appropriate
        pursuant to the relevant statutes;
     -- awarding prejudgment interest, costs and disbursement as
        appropriate; and
     -- awarding such other and further relief as the court
        and/or jury deems equitable, appropriate and just.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

                  http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?208b

The suit is “Peterson et al v. Seagate US LLC et al., Case No.: 0:07-cv-02502-
MJD-AJB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,
under Judge Michael J. Davis, with referral to Judge Arthur J. Boylan.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Beth Bertelson, Esq.
          Andrea R. Ostapowich, Esq.
          Bertelson Law Office
          333 Washington Ave N Ste 101
          Mpls, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-278-9832
          Fax: 612-340-0190
          E-mail: beth@bertelsonlaw.com or
                  andrea@bertelsonlaw.com

          - and -

          Dorene R. Sarnoski, Esq.
          Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office
          333 Washington Ave N, Ste 101
          Mpls, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-359-0050
          Fax: 612-340-0190
          E-mail: dsarnoski@qwest.net


SONG LIN: Recalls Sleigh Round Cribs With Incomplete Manuals
------------------------------------------------------------
Song Lin Industrial Inc., of Oklahoma City, Okla., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 180 Sleigh Round
Cribs.

The company said the assembly instructions included with the crib direct
consumers to assemble the crib with the mattress support in the highest
position and do not indicate that the mattress support can be moved to a
lower position.  This poses a fall hazard to children who are able to sit or
stand up in the crib.

Sin Lin has not received any incidents or injury reports.

The Sleigh Round Crib, model #2005, measures approximately 42 inches in
diameter, is made of solid wood and comes in a mahogany finish.  The crib has
four posts that are 31 inches in height and a portion of the side of the crib
can be raised and lowered.

The cribs were manufactured in China and were sold through children’s
furniture stores nationwide from January 2005 through March 2007 for about
$600.

Consumers should move the mattress support to the lower setting if their
child is able to sit or stand up in the crib.  Consumers should also contact
Song Lin Industrial Inc. to obtain a revised version of the assembly
instructions, which includes directions on how to lower the mattress support.

Click on the link to view the picture of the product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07199.html

For additional information, contact Song Lin Industrial Inc. toll-free at
(888) 589-0088 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT, Monday through Friday, or visit
the firm’s Web site at http://www.songlinfurniture.com.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Settles Age Discrimination Suit in Kans. for $57M
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum granted preliminary approval to a $57
million an agreement entered by Sprint Nextel Corp. to settle the class
action "Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas, reports say.

The settlement covers 1,697 former employees who were laid off between Oct.
1, 2001, and March 31, 2003.
  
Under the agreement, 11 people who have served as lead plaintiffs in the case
would receive an average of $155,000 each.

The plaintiff's attorneys would receive $19.4 million in fees, plus an
additional $1.65 million to cover the process of confirming the settlement.  
The remaining 1,686 plaintiffs would split the leftover $34.3 million, or an
average of $20,332 apiece.

In 2003, about 2,300 former Sprint Corp. employees filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Sprint over age
discrimination (Class Action Reporter,
October 19, 2004).

The suit alleged Sprint engaged in a "pattern and practice of age
discrimination" by lowering performance evaluations of over- 40 workers or
moving them into positions slated for elimination.

It also contended that Sprint wrongly used age information in making
performance rankings and job assignments in advance of impending mass layoffs.

Sprint Nextel agreed to the settlement "without admission or finding of
liability or wrongdoing."

The settlement covers almost 1,700 former employees.  A fairness hearing is
set Sept. 10.

The suit is "Williams v. Sprint/United Management Company, Case
No. 2:03-cv-02200-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum with referral
to Judge David J. Waxse.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Matthew C. Billips, Esq.
          Miller, Billips & Ates, PC
          730 Peachtree St. - Ste. 750
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: 404-969-4101
          Fax: 404-969-4141
          E-mail: mbillips@mbalawfirm.com

          - and -

          Dennis Egan, Esq.
          The Popham Law Firm, P.C.
          323 West 8th St.-Ste. 200
          Kansas City, MO 64105-1679
          Phone: 816-221-2288 x219
          Fax: 816-221-3999
          E-mail: cmolteni@pophamlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas A. McCarthy, Esq.
          Christine F. Miller, Esq.
          James F. Monafo, Esq.
          Tamara M. Spicer, Esq.
          Harry B. Wilson, Jr.
          Husch & Eppenberger, LLC- St Louis
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105-3441
          Phone: 314-480-1500
          Fax: 314-480-1505
          E-mail: thomas.mccarthy@husch.com or
                  chris.miller@husch.com or jim.monafo@husch.com  
                  or tamara.spicer@husch.com or
                  harry.wilson@husch.com

          - and -

          David A. Schatz, Esq.
          John J. Yates, Esq.
          Husch & Eppenberger, LLC - Kansas City
          1200 Main Street, Suite 2300
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-421-4800
          Fax: 816-421-0596
          E-mail: david.schatz@husch.com or
                  jack.yates@husch.com


SUNRISE TREE: Ill. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Tree Service, Inc. is facing a class action filed May 30 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging Labor Code
violations.

Named plaintiff Everardo Hernandez brings this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq.; and the Portal-to-Portal Act,
29 U.S.C. Section 251 et seq.; the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1
et seq.; and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS Section
115/1 et. seq.

He brings this action as an opt-in representative action, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), for and on behalf of
himself and other past and present hourly employees similarly situated, who
have been or will in the future be damaged by defendants' failure to comply
with 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. and Section 251 et seq.

Plaintiffs claim they were treated as hourly employees for purposes of
payroll compensation, but were paid at a straight time rate (not overtime
rate) for some or all hours over 40 per work week.

In addition, plaintiffs experienced unauthorized weekly deductions from their
pay checks for such things as uniforms and cell phones, the suit alleges.  
These unauthorized weekly deductions were unlawful and without written
authorization by plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class as required by
the federal and state statutes herein relied upon.

The complaint alleges defendant has, at all times, made improper deductions
from compensation. It further alleges defendants have also failed and refused
to pay compensation to its employees, including the named plaintiff, at the
rate of one and one-half times the regular hourly wage rate for hours worked
over 40 in a work week, all as required by the FLSA.

Plaintiff requests the court to enter an order:

     -- declaring and decreeing that defendants' compensation               
        practices and illegal deductions, and such other
        violations which may come to light during the
        prosecution of this matter, violate the provisions of
        the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act;

     -- awarding an amount of damages, to be shown by the
        evidence, to which plaintiff is entitled; and

     -- mandating that this court retain jurisdiction of the
        case until such time as it is assured that defendants
        have remedied the compensation policies and practices
        complained of and are determined to be in full
        compliance with the law;

Plaintiff further requests that:

     -- the court order defendants to pay to plaintiff the
        reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the Billhorn Law
        Firm, all costs, and litigation expenses, as provided by
        statute; and

     -- the court award whatever additional relief it deems just
        and appropriate under the circumstances.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2084

The suit is “Hernandez v. Sunrise Tree Service, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
03017,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, under Judge John A. Nordberg.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Vincent H. Beckman, Esq.
          Illinois Migrant Legal Assistance Project of Legal
          Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago
          111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: 312-423-5901
          E-mail: vbeckman@lafchicago.org

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          Billhorn Law Firm
          515 N. State Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Phone: (312) 464-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

          - and -
          
          Michael C. Keberlein Gutierrez, Esq.
          Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago
          111 West Jackson, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312)423-5902
          E-mail: mkeberle@lafchicago.org


TEMBEC & BTLSR: Melamine-Containing Feed Ingredient Recalled
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting livestock and
fish/shrimp feed manufacturers about a voluntary recall of products used in
feed production because several have been found to contain melamine and
related compounds.

The feed ingredients were made by Tembec BTLSR Inc. of Toledo, Ohio and
Uniscope, Inc. of Johnstown, Colo.

Tembec, a contract manufacturer for Uniscope, makes AquaBond and Aqua-Tec II,
which it distributes for Uniscope.  Uniscope makes Xtra-Bond using
ingredients supplied by Tembec.  All of the products are binding agents that
are used to make pelleted feed for cattle, sheep, and goats, or fish and
shrimp.

The companies have confirmed that Tembec added melamine as part of the
formulation of the products to improve the binding properties of pelleted
feed.  Melamine is not approved as an additive for animal or fish/shrimp
feed.

The companies have stopped adding melamine to the feed products.

Based on the levels of melamine and related compounds in the initial
ingredients, FDA estimated the probable level of melamine and related
compounds in livestock feed as less than 50 parts per million (ppm) based on
the recommended mix rate of two to four pounds of binding agent per ton of
livestock feed.  The estimated levels in fish and shrimp feed are less than
233 ppm and 465 ppm, respectively, of melamine and related compounds.  The
estimated levels of melamine and related compounds vary in the livestock feed
and the fish and shrimp feed because of differing levels of melamine in the
binding agents used for each type of feed.

FDA advises feed manufacturers and others who mix their own feed not to use
these products, and to contact the manufacturers.  FDA advises feed
manufacturers to recall finished feed that is made from AquaBond or Aqua-Tec
II due to the estimated levels of melamine and related compounds in the
finished products.  FDA believes that no recall is warranted of the finished
feed made from Xtra-Bond based on the estimated levels of melamine and
related compounds in the finished product and based on currently available
data and information.

The estimated melamine levels in feed made with these binding agents are
similar to the levels discussed in the interim safety/risk assessment of
melamine and related compounds made available by FDA earlier this month.  In
that assessment, federal scientists determined that, based on currently
available data and information, the consumption of pork, chicken, domestic
fish, and eggs from animals inadvertently fed animal feed contaminated with
melamine and its analogues is very unlikely to pose a human health risk.

The interim safety/risk assessment concludes that in the most extreme risk
assessment scenario, when scientists assumed that all the solid food a person
consumes in an entire day contained melamine and the melamine compound
cyanuric acid in equal amounts, the potential exposure is about 250 times
lower than the dose considered safe.  This is a large safety margin.  
Translated to consumption levels, this means that a person weighing 132
pounds would have to eat more than 800 pounds per day of food containing
melamine and its compounds to approach a level of consumption that would
cause a health concern.

FDA is encouraging domestic feed suppliers to be vigilant in quality control
in their supply chain and to monitor for any improper additives, including
melamine and its analogs.

The Tembec and Uniscope products also reportedly contain a urea formaldehyde
resin-type ingredient, a raw ingredient used to make the binding agent in
these products.  FDA is investigating this use of the urea formaldehyde resin-
type ingredient in the Tembec and Uniscope products, and will take
appropriate regulatory action if warranted.


TICKETMASTER: Sued in Cal. Over Entertainment Rewards Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster is facing a class action filed May 25 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging violations of the California
Business and Professions Code and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
for alleged fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation and conversion, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Taylor Myers claims Ticketmaster has scammed thousands of
people out of $9 a month for years.  She further claims that since January
2003, the world’s largest ticket company has tricked customers into signing
up for “an unwanted online coupon service,” the complaint states.

Ticketmaster allegedly achieved this by providing customers with a deceptive
Web screen that requested them to re-enter their email address for what they
thought was to confirm their order or to learn how to save money on a future
purchase.  In fact, by providing their email addresses consumers were
unknowingly being signed up for a so-called ‘online coupon service’ run by
Ticketmaster’s affiliate, Entertainment Rewards.

Defendants, including Entertainment Rewards, would then either charge the
customer’s credit card or withdraw from the customer’s bank account without
the customer’s knowledge or approval, an amount of approximately $9 per month.

Complaints about this deceptive practice by Defendants are so widespread that
a Web site called entertainmentrewardscam.com has been set up by consumers
injured by this practice.  And the online “coupons” Ticketmaster offered were
widely available elsewhere, for free, the complaint states.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all persons in the U.S. who purchased
from TicketMaster, or any TicketMaster's affiliates, goods from Jan. 25, 2003
to present and were subsequently enrolled in the Entertainment Rewards
Program and are charged a fee without consumers' permission or authority.  
The plaintiff asks:

     (a) if defendants' actions in signing up and charging     
         customers for a service, that they did not want,         
         receive, request or use is false, deceptive, misleading   
         and/or unfair;

     (b) if defendant violated the California Consumers Legal
         Remedies Act;

     (c) if in signing up and charging customers for a service,
         that they did not want, receive, request or use,
         defendant committed fraud, deceit and/or
         misrepresentation;

     (d) if in signing up and charging customers for a service,
         that they did not want, receive, request or use,
         defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing;

     (e) if in signing up and charging customers for a service,
         they breached the covenant of googd faith and fair
         dealing;

     (f) if the scope of injunctive relief that should be
         imposed against defendants to prevent such good conduct
         in the future.

Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

     -- for restitution and disgorgement pursuant to, without
        limitation, the California Business and profession Code
        Section 17200, et seq and 17500, et seq and California
        Civil Code Section 1780;

     -- for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to,
        without limitation, the California Business &
        Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq and 17500, et
        seq and California Civil Code Section 1780;

     -- an award of compensatory damages, the amount of which is
        to be determined at trial;

     -- for the value of the unlawful charges;

     -- for punitve damages;

     -- for interest at the legal rate on the foregoing sum from
        and after the date of the unlawful charges;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees according to proof
        pursuant to, without limitation, the California Legal
        Remedies Act and California Code of Civil Procedure
        Section 1021.5;

     -- for costs incurred; and

     -- for such further relief as the court may deem just and
        proper.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?207e

The suit is "Taylor Myers et al. v. Ticketmaster et al., Case No. CV07-
03344RGK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Adam J. Gutride
          Seth A. Safier
          835 Douglas Street
          San Francisco, California 94114
          Phone: (415) 271-6469
          Fax: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com or            
                  seth@gutridesafier.com


TRIBUNE CO: Paper Distributor Sues Over Minimum Wage Non-Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Allen, a paper distributor for the last three years at Tribune Co.’s
free daily newspaper amNewYork filed a suit in the U.S. District Court in
Manhattan against Tribune claiming the newspaper publisher refused to pay
minimum wage and overtime to its newspaper distributors, Reuters reports.

The suit, filed by lawyer Maimon Kirschenbaum on behalf of Mr. Allen, seeks
class-action status and monetary damages for loss of earnings for all paper
distributors and anyone holding any similar positions within Tribune.

Mr. Allen claims workers get paid a flat fee of $21 a day. After four hours,
they would receive an additional $1.50 per bundle. Minimum wage in New York
State is $7.15 an hour.

The class action asked for unspecified damages from amNew York and its parent
company, the Tribune Co.

A spokesman for Tribune said he could not comment on pending litigation.

Chicago, Ill.-based Tribune Co. (NYSE: TRB) --http://www.tribune.com/-- is a  
media company, operating businesses in publishing and broadcasting.  In
publishing, Tribune operates 11 daily newspapers including the Los Angeles
Times, Chicago Tribune and Newsday, plus a wide range of targeted
publications.  The company's broadcasting group operates 26 television
stations, Superstation WGN on national able, Chicago's WGN-AM and the Chicago
Cubs baseball team.

For more information, contact:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Joseph & Herzfeld LLP
          Toll Free: 866-348-7394
          E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


TWEEN BRANDS: Recalls Children Jewelry Due to High Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tween Brands Inc., of New Albany, Ohio, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling about 103,000 Children’s
Metal Jewelry.

The firm said the jewelry contains high levels of lead which can cause
adverse health effects and is toxic if ingested by young children.

Tween Brands has received neither injury nor incident reports.

Some of the recalled necklaces, bracelets, earrings, and charms are metallic,
multi-colored, and have “High School Musical” or pictures of “High School
Musical” actors printed on them.  Others have frogs, hearts, stars, dogs with
dog bones, flowers, and monkeys that hang from silver, black or brown chains
or cords.

These jewelry were manufactured in China and sold through Limited Too and
Justice retail stores nationwide, the Limited Too catazine (catalog), and at
http://www.limitedtoo.com from September 2005 through May 2007 for between  
$2 and $10.

Consumers should immediately take this recalled jewelry away from children
and return it to any Limited Too or Justice stores for a full refund and a
coupon for a 15 percent discount off a future purchase.

For additional information, call Tween Brands at (800) 934-4497 between 9
a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web sites at
http://www.limitedtoo.comand http://www.justicejustforgirls.com.


TYSON FOODS: Employees’ Ga. Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed May 22 in the U.S.
District court for the Middle District of Georgia alleging Labor Code
violations.

Named plaintiffs -- Dorothy Laney, Beverly Devorce, Janet Jernigan and Tony
Mayo -- seek to recover for the company's violations of the Fair labor
Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq.

This is a representative action brought pursuant to FLSA Section 216(b) by
plaintiffs on behalf of all current and former production employees Tyson
Foods at its Buena Vista, Georgia, facility located in Marion County,
Georgia, for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA for unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the court
may deem appropriate.

The complaint alleges Tyson uniformly denies hourly wages and overtime
premium pay to its employees by requiring them to perform "off the clock"
work.  Tyson's deliberate failure to pay employees earned wages and overtime
compensation violates federal law as set out in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs perform multiple tasks, but are victims to the same illegal policy
and practice of failing to pay workers for all time worked, including unpaid
but compensable break periods, unpaid hourly wage times and unpaid overtime
premium wage times.

Tyson deducts from plaintiffs' daily time worked, without regard for the
actual time spent on break, two uncompensated breaks of fixed duration.

Plaintiffs allege that the time for which they are paid is significantly less
than the time they spend at work between the time they begin their integral,
essential and indispensable work duties and the time they arrive at their
workstations on the line.  The work time for which plaintiffs are allegedly
not paid includes, but is not limited to:

     (1) changing into the protective required work uniforms,
         sanitary clothing and protective safety equipment;

     (2) walking to and from security, changing areas, work
         areas and break areas; washing activities; and

     (3) breaks that are effectively compensable.

In addition to depriving plaintiffs and others similarly situated of hourly
wages for compensable time pursuant to the FLSA, Tyson's failure to
accurately account for and report all compensable time worked by the
plaintiffs and others similarly situated has deprived plaintiffs and others
of what would otherwise be overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA.

The unlawful compensation system at issue in the complaint has affected
Tyson's former and present hourly production employees at its Dawson facility.

Plaintiffs bring this as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), on behalf of all similarly situated former and current
employees of Tyson's Dawson, Georgia, facility paid under a master time
compensation system in which individuals' time card punches are not the basis
for starting and ending hours worked, within the three years from the date of
filing of this complaint, and who were not paid for all the time spent
performing compensable time.

Questions raised, includes:

     (a) if plaintiffs are compensated for time spent clearing
         security and time spent walking from security to their
         changing areas and from changing areas to security;

     (b) if the security activities at issue are integral or
         indispensable to defendant's business activities;

     (c) if plaintiffs were compensated for time spent donning
         and doffing clothing and protective gear, washing, and
         walking to and from his job posts;

     (d) if the donning, doffing and washing activities at issue
         are integral or indispensable to defendant's business
         activities;

     (e) if plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for time
         spent donning and doffing, washing activity time, and
         walking time to and from "the line";

     (f) if plaintiffs' donning and doffing, washing activity,
         and walking time is integral and indispensable to their
         principal activities;

     (g) if defendant failed to pay employees for unpaid breaks
         that were effectively compensable;

     (h) if defendant's compensation policy and practice
         accurately accounts for the time plaintiffs are
         actually working;

     (i) if defendant's compensation policy and practice is
         illegal;

     (j) if defendant had a policy and practice of willfully
         failing to record and compensate employees for all time
         worked; and

     (k) if defendant failed to accurately record all
         compensable time, resulting in a failure to compensate
         plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of
         regular hourly wages and overtime pay, in violation of
         defendant's policies and procedures and the mandate of
         the FLSA.

Plaintiffs pray that the court grant the following relief:

     -- at the earliest possible time, issue an order allowing
        Notice or issue such court supervised Notice to all
        similarly situated current and former Tyson hourly
        employees of this action and their rights to participate
        in this action.  Such Notice shall inform all similarly
        situated current and qualified former employees of the
        pendency of this action, the nature of this action, and
        of their right to "opt-in" to this action if they worked
        "off the clock" for times not paid, including time that
        may be paid overtime rates;

     -- issue an order, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act
        28 U.S.C. Sections 2201-2202, declaring Tyson's actions
        as described in the complaint are unlawful and in
        violation of the FLSA and applicable regulations and are
        and were willful as defined in the FLSA;

     -- issue an order directing and requiring Tyson to pay
        plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees
        damages in the form of reimbursement for unpaid hourly
        and premium overtime wages (past and future) for all
        time spent performing compensable work for which they
        were not paid pursuant to the rate provided by the FLSA;

     -- issue an order directing and requiring Tyson to pay
        plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees
        liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA in an amount
        equal to, and in addition to the amount of wages and
        overtime wages owed to them;

     -- issue and order directing defendant to reimburse
        plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees for
        the costs and attorneys fees expended in the course of  
        litigating this action, pre-judgment and post-judgment
        interest; and

     -- provide plaintiffs with such other and further relief,
        as the court deems just and equitable.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?208d

The suit is “Laney et al v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:07-cv-00092-CDL,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, under
Judge Clay D. Land.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Richard Celler, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan
          284 South University Drive
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324
          Phone: 877-435-9243
          Fax: 954-333-3515 (fax)
          E-mail: Richard@cellerlegal.com

          - and -

          Deirdre Stephens Johnson, Esq.
          Suite 42, 191 Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 3030
          Phone: 404-965-8811
          E-mail: djohnson@forthepeople.com


TYSON FOODS: Workers File Ga. Suit Over Alleged FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed May 22 in the U.S.
District court for the Middle District of Georgia alleging Labor Code
violations.

Named plaintiff Mary Williams sues over the company's violations of the Fair
labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq.

This is a representative action brought pursuant to FLSA Section 216(b) by
plaintiff on behalf of all current and former production employees Tyson
Foods at its Dawson, Georgia, facility, located in Terrell County, Georgia,
for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA for unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the court may deem
appropriate.

The complaint alleges Tyson uniformly denies hourly wages and overtime
premium pay to its employees by requiring them to perform "off the clock"
work.  Tyson's deliberate failure to pay employees earned wages and overtime
compensation violates federal law as set out in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs perform multiple tasks, but are victims to the same illegal policy
and practice of failing to pay workers for all time worked, including unpaid
but compensable break periods, unpaid hourly wage times and unpaid overtime
premium wage times.

Tyson deducts from plaintiffs' daily time worked, without regard for the
actual time spent on break, two uncompensated breaks of fixed duration.

Plaintiffs allege that the time for which they are paid is significantly less
than the time they spend at work between the time they begin their integral,
essential and indispensable work duties and the time they arrive at their
workstations on the line.  The work time for which plaintiffs are allegedly
not paid includes, but is not limited to:

     (1) changing into the protective required work uniforms,
         sanitary clothing and protective safety equipment;

     (2) walking to and from security, changing areas, work
         areas and break areas; washing activities; and

     (3) breaks that are effectively compensable.

In addition to depriving plaintiffs and others similarly situated of hourly
wages for compensable time pursuant to the FLSA, Tyson's failure to
accurately account for and report all compensable time worked by the
plaintiffs and others similarly situated has deprived plaintiffs and others
of what would otherwise be overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA.

The unlawful compensation system at issue in the complaint has affected
Tyson's former and present hourly production employees at its Dawson facility.

Plaintiffs bring this as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), on behalf of all similarly situated former and current
employees of Tyson's Dawson, Georgia, facility paid under a master time
compensation system in which individuals' time card punches are not the basis
for starting and ending hours worked, within the three years from the date of
filing of this complaint, and who were not paid for all the time spent
performing compensable time.

Questions raised:

     (a) if plaintiffs are compensated for time spent clearing
         security and time spent walking from security to their
         changing areas and from changing areas to security;

     (b) if the security activities at issue are integral or
         indispensable to defendant's business activities;

     (c) if plaintiffs were compensated for time spent donning
         and doffing clothing and protective gear, washing, and
         walking to and from his job posts;

     (d) if the donning, doffing and washing activities at issue
         are integral or indispensable to defendant's business
         activities;

     (e) if plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for time
         spent donning and doffing, washing activity time, and
         walking time to and from "the line";

     (f) if plaintiffs' donning and doffing, washing activity,
         and walking time is integral and indispensable to their
         principal activities;

     (g) if defendant failed to pay employees for unpaid breaks
         that were effectively compensable;

     (h) if defendant's compensation policy and practice
         accurately accounts for the time plaintiffs are
         actually working;

     (i) if defendant's compensation policy and practice is
         illegal;

     (j) if defendant had a policy and practice of willfully
         failing to record and compensate employees for all time
         worked; and

     (k) if defendant failed to accurately record all
         compensable time, resulting in a failure to compensate
         plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of
         regular hourly wages and overtime pay, in violation of
         defendant's policies and procedures and the mandate of
         the FLSA.

Plaintiffs pray that the court grant the following relief:

     -- at the earliest possible time, issue an order allowing
        Notice or issue such court supervised Notice to all
        similarly situated current and former Tyson hourly
        employees of this action and their rights to participate
        in this action.  Such Notice shall inform all similarly
        situated current and qualified former employees of the
        pendency of this action, the nature of this action, and
        of their right to "opt-in" to this action if they worked
        "off the clock" for times not paid, including time that
        may be paid overtime rates;

     -- issue an order, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act
        28 U.S.C. Sections 2201-2202, declaring Tyson's actions
        as described in the complaint are unlawful and in
        violation of the FLSA and applicable regulations and are
        and were willful as defined in the FLSA;

     -- issue an order directing and requiring Tyson to pay
        plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees
        damages in the form of reimbursement for unpaid hourly
        and premium overtime wages (past and future) for all
        time spent performing compensable work for which they
        were not paid pursuant to the rate provided by the FLSA;

     -- issue an order directing and requiring Tyson to pay
        plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees
        liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA in an amount
        equal to, and in addition to the amount of wages and
        overtime wages owed to them;

     -- issue and order directing defendant to reimburse
        plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees for
        the costs and attorneys fees expended in the course of  
        litigating this action, pre-judgment and post-judgment
        interest; and

     -- provide plaintiffs with such other and further relief,
        as the court deems just and equitable.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

                 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?208c

The suit is “Mary Williams et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00093-WLS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District court for
the Middle District of Georgia, under Judge W. Louis Sands.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Richard Celler, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan
          284 South University Drive
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324
          Phone: 877-435-9243
          Fax: 954-333-3515 (fax)
          E-mail: Richard@cellerlegal.com

          - and -

          Deirdre Stephens Johnson, Esq.
          Suite 42, 191 Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 3030
          Phone: 404-965-8811
          E-mail: djohnson@forthepeople.com


WAL-MART STORES: N.J. Suit Over 'Off-the- Clock' Work Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court certified a lawsuit filed by employees of Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. that alleges non-payment to workers of hours worked through
breaks, Jeffrey Gold of Associated Press reports.

The suit was originally filed by two former Wal-Mart cashiers, Michelle
Iliadis and Angela Nelson- Croxton, on behalf of themselves and all other
past and present employees of Wal-Mart and its subsidiary, Sam's Club.  

Plaintiffs alleged the "were made to work 'off-the- clock' and that they did
not receive the rest breaks and meal breaks to which they were entitled."

In 2006, Appellate Division Judge Dorothea Wefing said that the lawsuit was
not appropriate as a class action because "individual factual determinations
would have to be made of the circumstances under which a particular employee
missed a break or worked off the clock."

In the ruling, which Appellate Division Judges Barbara Byrd Wecker and Ronald
Graves joined, Judge Wefing said Wal-Mart "should be entitled to establish,
if it can, that employees voluntarily chose to work through rest breaks or
meal breaks for personal reasons."

                      Supreme Court Ruling

Chief Justice Zazzali delivered the opinion of the Court.  In this appeal,
the court must determine whether the putative class of current and former
employees may be certified pursuant to Rule 4:32-1. The court found that
common questions of law and fact predominate over individualized questions
and that the class action device is superior to other available methods of
adjudicating this dispute.

The court reverse and remand for the entry of an order certifying the class.  
By allowing this manageable litigation to proceed, the court permit a class
of hourly, retail employees to unite and -- on an equal footing with their
adversary –- to seek relief for their “small claims” that arise from
defendant’s alleged violation of contractual promises, statutory enactments,
and regulatory mandates.

The suit was filed against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Sam's Club, an operating
segment of Wal-Mart, Inc., Derrick Zimmer and Glen Spencer.

Plaintiff attorney Judith L. Spanier said the class would contain about
80,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees, according to the report.

A copy of the ruling is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2089

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Judith L. Spanier, Esq.
          Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP  
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700
          Fax: (212) 684-5191
          E-mail: jspanier@abbeyspanier.com


                            *********


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
liabilities.                        


                            *********


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, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, and Mary
Grace Durana, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  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  * * *