CAR_Public/070626.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 26, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 125

                           Headlines
     

ADROSKY CORP: Faces Fla. Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
ALLIANZ SE: Faces Minn. Lawsuit Over Life Insurance Policies
AMERICAN FAMILY: $17M Award in Mo. Car Insurance Suit Overturned
AMERICAN HOME: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
APPLE COMPUTER: Settlement of Calif. Suit Over Monitors Okayed

APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Wireless Products Fraud Suit in Calif.
APPLE COMPUTER: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. iPod Hearing Loss Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: Discovery Ongoing in “Branning” Litigation
BUSINESS REPRESENTATION: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Work
DIEGO’S RESTAURANT: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations

FAR EAST IMPORTS: Recalls Fireworks Posing Eye Injury Hazard
FIRST UNION: Settles Pa. Suit Over Unbranded ATM Fees for $1.35M
GATEWAY INC: Recalls Notebook Computer Batteries for Fire Hazard
GILLS ONIONS: Recalls Yellow Onions for Listeria Contamination
IKANOS COMMS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Securities Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: "Gold Guarantee" Purchaser Accuses Firm of Fraud
JAKES FIREWORKS: Recalls Fireworks Due to Burn, Injury Hazards
NATURAL HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Cal. Securities Suit for $14M

PIER I: Recalls Dual Glassware Pieces Posing Laceration Hazard
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Four Securities Suits in Calif.
QWEST CORP: Minn. Suit Aims to Collect Overtime Compensation
RANGELEY PROPERTY: Fla. Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
RC2 CORP: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Recalled Railway Toys

SOUTHERN PUMP: Fla. Suit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
STARBUCKS COFFEE: December Trial Set in “Jou Chau” Labor Suit
TEAM ONEY: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
THOMAS WEISEL: Faces Calif. Securities Suit Over U.S. Auto’s IPO
USANA HEALTH: Distributors Sue in Calif. Over Fraud, Deception

VILA AND SON TREE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
WILLIAM PENN: Wins Favorable Ruling in $108M Policyholders Suit

* Baron & Budd is Among The Legal 500's Top Toxic Tort Firms


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPTIONABLE INC: Cohen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.


                            *********


ADROSKY CORP: Faces Fla. Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrosky Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 21 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News
Service Reports.

Named plaintiff Tony Boyles alleges unpaid overtime compensation, a violation
of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Boyles v. Adrosky Corp., Case No. 0:07-cv-60870-ASG,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Alan
S. Gold.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Stacey Hope Cohen
          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


ALLIANZ SE: Faces Minn. Lawsuit Over Life Insurance Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Allianz SE is facing class action in a Minnesota state court over its
marketing of life insurance policies, Forbes reports, citing Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung.

According to the report, the lawyers of the two women who filed suit claim
Allianz's (NYSER: AZ) U.S. life insurance unit made false bonus promises when
selling pension insurance products.  It added that according to Lehman
Brothers (NYSE: LEH) analyst Nick Holmes, Allianz could be facing costs of
about EUR900 million in this matter.

A Minnesota state court decided that the case has the status of a class
action, which means that a future ruling in the matter may be applicable to
up 400,000 people similarly affected, the report said.

Allianz SE (NYSER: AZ) -- http://www.allianz.com– is one of the world's  
biggest insurers.  It offers a range of insurance products and services --
including life, health, and property/casualty -- through some 100
subsidiaries and affiliates.


AMERICAN FAMILY: $17M Award in Mo. Car Insurance Suit Overturned
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson County Circuit Judge Edith Messina overturned a jury's decision
ordering American Family Mutual Insurance Co. to pay $17 million in a class
action involving after-market auto parts, The Associated Press reports.

Filed in May 2000 and certified as a class action in December 2001, the suit
challenges the company's policy of specifying after-market auto parts and
omitting certain repair procedures in its repair estimates.

It alleged that American Family specified non-original equipment manufactured
parts in paying to repair policyholders' damaged vehicles.

Further, it alleged that the use of aftermarket crash parts, including
fenders, doors, hoods and panels, were inferior to original equipment and a
potential safety hazard.

In March, a Missouri jury awarded more than $17 million to approximately
315,000 Missouri residents with claims for vehicle repairs between May 1990
and December 2004 (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2007). Jurors determined
American Family allowed repair shops to use inferior, third-party equipment
to repair policyholders' damaged vehicles.

American Family is based in Madison, Wisconsin.  Representing it is attorney
David Oliver.


AMERICAN HOME: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
American Home Mortgage Investment Corp is facing a class-action complaint
filed June 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, the CourtHouse News Service Reports.

Named plaintiffs -- Edward Abram, Jr., Najla Waheed, Richard Zemel and
Rosalyn Ceasar -- allege unpaid overtime compensation, a violation of the
Labor Code.

The suit is “Abram et al. v. American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-03252-MJJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District Court of California, under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Matthew C. Helland
          Paul J. Lukas
          Donald H. Nichols
          Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz
          Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th St
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 415-277-7235 or (612) 256-3200
          Fax: 415-277-7238 or (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: helland@nka.com or lukas@nka.com or
                  nichols@nka.com or schwartz@nka.com

          - and -

          Adam T. Klein
          Jack A. Raisner
          Outten & Golden LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-245-1000
          Fax: 212-977-4005


APPLE COMPUTER: Settlement of Calif. Suit Over Monitors Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California finally approved a settlement of
the consumer fraud class action "Allen v. Apple Computer, Inc."

The purported nationwide class action, which was filed in Jan. 28, 2005,
initially alleged that a defect in the company's 17" Studio Display monitors
results in dimming of half of the screen and constant blinking of the power
light.  

An amended complaint in the Allen case was filed on Oct. 24,
2005, adding additional named plaintiffs and expanding the alleged class to
include purchasers of the 20-inch Apple Cinema Display and the 23-inch Apple
Cinema HD Display.  

The amended complaint alleges that the displays have a purported defect that
causes dimming of one-half of the screen, and that the Company misrepresented
the quality of the displays and/or concealed the purported defect.

Plaintiffs assert claims under California Business & Professions
Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business &
Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising), and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The amended complaint seeks remedies including
damages and equitable relief.

On Nov. 14, 2005, the company filed an answer to the amended complaint as to
the allegations regarding the 17-inch display and a demurrer/motion to strike
as to the allegations regarding the 20-inch and 23-inch displays on the
ground that plaintiffs failed to allege that they purchased those displays.

At a status conference on Nov. 1, 2005, the court ordered plaintiffs to amend
their complaint.  Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Dec. 12, 2005, and
the company answered on Jan. 5, 2006 denying all allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.  

The company has reached a settlement in this matter, which was given
preliminary approval by the court on Sept. 18, 2006.  

At the final approval hearing on Feb. 15, 2007, the court required the
Company to extend the claims period and provide additional published notice.  

At the continued final approval hearing on March 1, 2007 the court approved
the settlement but did not approve the fee award. After additional briefing
the court approved a reduced fee award to Plaintiffs’ counsel on March 13,
2007.

Settlement of this matter will not have a material effect on the Company’s
financial position or results of operations.

Under the settlement, the company will provide a cash refund to those
customers who paid for a repair related to the inverter board and who send in
a valid claim form.  

The amount of the cash refund will vary depending on who performed the
repair, how much the customer paid for the repair, and how old the display
was when the repair was performed.

In essence the settlement stipulates that:

      -- customers who had their 17-inch Studio Display repaired
         by the company during the second year of ownership will
         be entitled to a $400 refund, while those who had their
         unit repaired in the third year will receive $350; and

      -- customers who had repairs done by a party other than
         the company will receive the actual amount they paid up
         to $150 during the second year and $75 thereafter.

However, in order to receive the refund, customers who had their
17-inch Studio Display repaired on or before Nov. 13, 2006 were required to
mail a claim form postmarked on or before Feb. 12, 2007.  

If the repair occurs after Nov. 13, 2006, a claim form must be mailed and
postmarked within 90 days after the date the covered repair occurred or by
Aug. 31, 2007, which ever is the earlier.

For more details, contact:

         The Settlement Administrator
         Phone: 1-888-826-3082
         Web site: http://www.Apple17inchLCDdisplay.com

              - and -

         Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
         Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
         35 E. State Street
         Media, PA 19063-2917
         Phone: (610) 891-9880 and (877) 891-9880
         Fax: (610) 891-9883
         E-mail: sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com
         Web site: http://classactioncounsel.com/


APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Wireless Products Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. settled the purported consumer class
action, "Baghdasarian, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," which was filed in
the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County.

Plaintiffs filed this action on October 31, 2005, on behalf of a purported
nationwide class of all purchasers of all Apple wireless products (router,
modem, or adaptor) sold at any time.
  
The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented the transmission rates
of these products.  It alleges causes of action for breach of express
warranty and for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and California
Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising).

The complaint seeks damages and equitable remedies.  On Dec. 15, 2005, the
Company filed an answer denying all allegations and asserting numerous
affirmative defenses.  

The parties have reached a settlement and the matter is concluded, according
to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Apple Inc., -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc.,  
designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software,
services, peripherals and networking solutions.  

    
APPLE COMPUTER: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. iPod Hearing Loss Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. has yet to respond to a purported class action filed
against it in California claiming that defects in its iPod causes hearing
loss to users.

The action, "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc.," alleges that the company's
iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently
defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the
risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users.  

The Birdsong action was initially filed on Jan. 30, 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana.  It asserts causes of action on
behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers.  

A similar action, "Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed on Jan. 31,
2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all
iPod purchasers within the four-year period before Jan. 31, 2006.   

The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California,
and the Patterson action was dismissed.  An amended complaint was
subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and
adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson.  

After the company filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2006, plaintiffs
agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on Jan.
16, 2007.  

That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied
and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code
Section 17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a
Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub- class.  

On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law
based claims, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007.


APPLE COMPUTER: Discovery Ongoing in “Branning” Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, "Branning et al. v. Apple
Computer, Inc.," which is pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court in
California.

Plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action in San  
Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005.  

The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business & Professions
Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act regarding a variety of purportedly unfair and unlawful conduct
including, but not limited to, allegedly selling used computers as new and
failing to honor warranties.  

Plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of trade
secrets, breach of contract, and violation of the Song-Beverly Act.  
Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other relief.  

On May 9, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to transfer the case
to Santa Clara County Superior Court.   

On May 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a claim for treble
damages under the Cartwright Act – California Business & Professions Code
Section 16700 et seq. -- and a claim for false advertising.  

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the court
sustained in its entirety on Nov. 10, 2005.  The court granted plaintiffs
leave to amend and they filed an amended complaint on Dec. 29, 2005.  

Plaintiffs' amended complaint added three plaintiffs and alleged many of the
same factual claims as the previous complaints, such as the selling of used
equipment as new, failure to honor warranties and service contracts for the
consumer plaintiffs, and fraud related to the opening of Apple Retail
stores.   

Plaintiffs continued to assert causes of action for unfair competition
(Section 17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract, misappropriation
of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright Act and alleged new causes of
action for fraud, conversion and breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.  

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on Jan. 31, 2006, which
the court sustained on March 3, 2006 on 16 of 17 causes of action.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding one new plaintiff. The Company
filed a demurrer, which was granted in part on Sept. 9, 2006. Plaintiffs
filed a further amended complaint on September 21, 2006.  

On Oct. 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer denying all allegations and
asserting numerous affirmative defenses.

The case is in discovery, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

Apple Inc., -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc.,  
designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software,
services, peripherals and networking solutions.  


BUSINESS REPRESENTATION: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Representation International, Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed June 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs -- Jose Almonte, Luis Barrera, Mario Lomba and Oscar E.
Garcia – allege they were denied overtime compensation, a violation of the
Labor Code.

The suit is “Almonte et al. v. Business Representation International, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21572-CMA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Florida under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jamie H. Zidell
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Phone: 305-865-6766
          Fax: 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


DIEGO’S RESTAURANT: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diego's Restaurant, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 21 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Ricardo Rodriguez alleges denied overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Rodriguez v. Diego's Restaurant, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
21575-JLK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge James Lawrence King.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jamie H. Zidell
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Phone: 305-865-6766
          Fax: 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


FAR EAST IMPORTS: Recalls Fireworks Posing Eye Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Far East Imports, of Pittsburg, Kansas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 13,600 units of 300 Shot Saturn
Missiles Battery Fireworks.

The company said these fireworks devices can travel in an unexpected and
dangerous direction, which could pose eye and other injury hazards to
bystanders.

These fireworks devices can travel in an unexpected and dangerous direction,
which could pose eye and other injury hazards to bystanders.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recalled fireworks are a 200 gram multi shot device that consists of 300
individual missiles with a single fuse for ignition. The device measures 2
1/2” by 23 7/8” by 3 1/4” and its packaging has a red and yellow label and
the words “Saturn Missiles-Battery-300 Shots Finale” printed on it.

These recalled 300 Shot Saturn Missiles Battery Fireworks were manufactured
in China and are being sold by Boomer Distributors nationwide from April 2006
through July 2006 for $10.

Picture of recalled 300 Shot Saturn Missiles Battery Fireworks:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07217.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using this fireworks and contact
Far East Imports for a replacement product.

For additional information, contact Far East Imports at (800) 766-1277
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.fareastimporting.com.


FIRST UNION: Settles Pa. Suit Over Unbranded ATM Fees for $1.35M
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Union National Bank has agreed to settle the class action “Bruce Wong
v. First Union National Bank, Civil Action No. May Term, 2003 No. 1173,”
filed against it in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, for
$1,350,000.

Originally filed in 2003, the lawsuit claims that First Union charged
transaction fees, including surcharges and foreign fees to First Union
customers, for using unbranded automated teller machines (ATMs) owned and/or
operated by First Union.  Unbranded First Union ATMs were defined as ATMs
that did not bear any external sign or other marking identifying the
terminals as owned and/or operated by First Union.

The lawsuit claims that the Plaintiff’s customer agreement with First Union
stated that First Union will not charge him fees for withdrawals, balance
inquiries or transfers of funds when using First Union ATMs, but will charge
him $1.00 for each such transaction at a non-First Union ATM. It further
claims that from 1996 – 2002 approximately 250 unbranded ATMs were owned
and/or operated by First Union and approximately 1,170,000 cash withdrawals
were made by First Union cardholders at unbranded First Union ATMs.

The lawsuit alleges First Union cardholders were charged surcharges and
foreign fees for these withdrawals. The lawsuit claims breach of contract,
consumer fraud, and unjust enrichment for the surcharges and foreign fees
charged to First Union customers by First Union for these cash withdrawals at
the unbranded First Union ATMs.

The recent settlement provides a refund of all or a portion of the surcharges
and foreign fees charged to all persons who made a cash withdrawal from an
unbranded automated teller machine (ATM) from July 15, 1996 to 2002 at
certain locations and were a customer of First Union National Bank.

The cash paid into the settlement fund by First Union, after payment of
attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and Settlement administration costs
(Settlement administration costs are estimated to not exceed $200,000), shall
be distributed to claimants who file a proper claim form. If funds remain in
the settlement fund after payment of attorneys’ fees, litigation and
Settlement administration costs and claims, those remaining funds will be
distributed to various charitable institutions to be used for community
improvement service programs such as financial literacy programs approved by
the Court.

The settlement will create a fund of $1,350,000 for payment of claims and
expenses. Attorney's fees and litigation and settlement administration costs
will be paid out of this fund upon Court approval. Any money remaining in
this fund after all class member claims have been processed for payment will
be donated to charitable institutions to be used for community improvement
service programs such as financial literacy programs approved by the Court.

The settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether First Union National Bank, its
corporate predecessors and/or corporate successors, collectively known as
First Union, inappropriately charged surcharges and foreign fees to its
customers who used unbranded ATMs owned or operated by First Union.

First Union vigorously denies any wrongdoing and maintains that it is not
liable under any of the causes of action alleged.

The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiff or Defendant. Instead, both
sides agreed to a settlement. That way, they avoid the cost of a trial, and
the people affected could receive all or part of the surcharges and foreign
fees paid while a customer at First Union at the unbranded ATMs owned by
First Union.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on August 24, 2007.

The Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County will hold a Fairness
Hearing on Sep. 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Court Room 246 of the Court of Common
Pleas, Philadelphia County, at City Hall in Philadelphia Pennsylvania.

The suit is “Bruce Wong v. First Union National Bank, Civil Action No. May
Term, 2003 No. 1173,” filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia
County.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106

Representing defendants is:

          William C. Cagney, Esq.
          Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, L.L.P.
          120 Albany Street Plaza, 6th Floor
          New Brunswick, NJ 08901


GATEWAY INC: Recalls Notebook Computer Batteries for Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gateway Inc., of Irvine, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 14,000 units of lithium ion
battery packs.

The company said these lithium-ion battery packs can overheat, which could
pose a fire hazard to consumers. This is not an internal battery cell defect.

Gateway has received four reports of battery packs overheating, including
minor property damage. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled battery packs were shipped as the primary or spare battery pack
for some Gateway 400VTX and 450ROG series notebooks, and are identified by
part numbers: 6500760 or 6500761. The part number and “made by SMP” are
printed on a label on the underside of the battery pack.

These recalled battery packs were manufactured in China and are being sold
through Gateway’s professional and direct distributors and Gateway Country
stores nationwide from May 2003 through August 2003.  The computers with
these batteries sold for between $1,200 and $2,400 and individual batteries
sold for between $60 and $90.

Pictures of recalled battery packs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07219a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07219b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these recalled batteries immediately and
contact Gateway to receive a replacement battery.  Consumers can continue to
use the notebook computers safely by turning the system off, removing the
battery pack, and using the AC adapter and power cord to power the system
until the replacement battery is received.

For additional information, contact Gateway at (800) 292-6813 between 7 a.m.
and 10 p.m. CT seven days a week or visit the company’s Web site:
http://www.gateway.com/battery.


GILLS ONIONS: Recalls Yellow Onions for Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gills Onions, LLC of Oxnard, California is recalling diced yellow onions
with "Lot #2017-R and a Best if used by 06/16/07." The recall comes after the
Washington State Department of Agriculture, during routine testing, detected
Listeria monocytogenes in one retail bag of diced yellow onions.

Gills Onions is working with both State and Federal officials to determine
the cause. At this time there have been no reported illnesses associated with
this product.

Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-
term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea. Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women. Anyone with these symptoms, are encouraged
to contact their physician.

The identified lot 2017-R is no longer in production at Gills Onions. As a
precautionary measure, both retail and food service diced packs are being
recalled. The retail product was labeled with the Trader Joe's brand name and
was distributed to stores in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon
and Washington.

The Trader Joe's brand diced onions were packaged in a 10 oz. bag with the
Lot 2017-R and a best if used by date of 06/16/07. The lot information for
the 10 oz diced retail product can be found printed directly on the back of
the package. The foodservice packages were packed in 4/5 lb cartons and
labeled under the Gills Onions Brand and the Sysco Natural Brand, both with
the Lot 2017-R and the best-if-used by date of 06/16/07 printed directly on
the front of the 5 lb bag as well as on the outside carton label.

Consumers and Retailers that have this recalled product should either destroy
or return to place of purchase.

"Although no illnesses have been reported and only one 10 oz. retail bag of
diced onions tested positive, we want to be sure that all diced products
associated with the production lot are accounted for," said Nelia Alamo, VP
of Marketing. "We are committed to food safety at all levels and we will
always put our customers and our consumer first."


IKANOS COMMS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ikanos Communications, Inc. faces a consolidated securities fraud class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In November 2006, three putative class actions were filed against the
company, its directors, an executive officer and a former executive officer.  

These lawsuits allege certain misrepresentations by the company in connection
with its initial public offering in September 2005, the follow-on offering in
March 2006, and thereafter concerning its business and prospects.  The
lawsuits seek unspecified damages.  

The lawsuits were consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on April
24, 2007, according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April
1, 2007.

The first identified complaint is "Panther Partners Inc., et al. v. Ikanos
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-12967-
PAC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Paul A. Crotty.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

         Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910
         New York, NY, 10119
         Phone: 212.279.5050,
         Fax: 212.279.3655
         E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com

              - and -

         Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy
         265 Llwyds Lane
         Vero Beach La, FL 32963
         Phone: 561.231.4202


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. reached a settlement in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

From Jan. 10, 2006 through Feb. 28, 2006, six purported class action
complaints were filed against the company and its senior officers and all but
one of its directors.   

The plaintiffs in the suits are:  

     -- Earl Schriver, Jr. (filed Jan. 10, 2006),  
     -- Jeff Dayton (filed Jan. 13, 2006),  
     -- Joseph Mathieu (filed Jan. 18, 2006),  
     -- Fred Safir and Wilma Libar (filed Jan. 26, 2006),  
     -- Ronald Kelner (filed Feb. 1, 2006), and  
     -- Miroslav Bardos (filed Feb. 9, 2006).  

The complaints were brought on behalf of persons who acquired the company's
common stock during the period of May 13, 2005 through Aug. 9, 2005.   

The plaintiffs allege claims against all defendants for violations under
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  
They also claim against the individual defendants of violations of Section 20
(a) of the  
Exchange Act.  

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants caused the company's common stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices through false and misleading statements
related to the company's financial condition and future prospects and that
the individual defendants improperly sold holdings.  

The complaints seek compensatory damages for all damages sustained as a
result of the defendants' actions, including interest, reasonable costs and
expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On May 1, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California approved the consolidation of the federal securities class actions
and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  A consolidated complaint was
filed in this action on  
July 24, 2006.

In April 2007, the Company entered into a preliminary agreement to settle the
matter, according to the company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re Impac Mortgage Holdings Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case no. 8:06-cv-00031-CJC-RNB," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Central District of California under  
Judge Cormac J. Carney with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.

Representing the plaintiffs are:
  
         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

         David Goldberger, Esq.
         Scott and Scott
         600 B. Street, Suite 1500
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-233-4565
         
              - and -  

         Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
         Labaton Sucharo and Rudoff
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0857

Representing the defendants is:

         Peter W. Devereaux, Esq.
         Latham & Watkins
         633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
         Phone: 213-485-1234
         E-mail: peter.devereaux@lw.com


JACKSON HEWITT: "Gold Guarantee" Purchaser Accuses Firm of Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action was filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.,
the nation's second largest income tax preparation service, claiming that the
company knowingly defrauded customers in order to maximize profits.

Jackson Hewitt provides general income tax filing services and offers a "gold
guarantee" for an additional fee that claims all prepared income tax returns
will be filed accurately. If that isn't the case the company states they will
bear any costs or penalties a customer receives from the Internal Revenue
Service.

In 2004 and 2005, named plaintiff James Chapman sought Jackson Hewitt's tax
services and purchased the company's "gold guarantee." Mr. Chapman was
penalized by the IRS after Jackson Hewitt filed for an improper earned-income
credit and despite its guarantee did not pay the IRS fines, the complaint
alleges.

"Through our investigation we believe Mr. Chapman's experience is very common
among Jackson Hewitt's customers, and is part of an intentional scheme by the
company in play across the country," said Steve Berman, lead counsel and
managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

According to the complaint, when Mr. Chapman discovered he was being audited
by the IRS, he attempted to exercise his right to protection under the "gold
guarantee" but was denied any assistance from Jackson Hewitt. The tax
preparation service instead accused him of providing false information,
therefore forfeiting him from his protection. Jackson Hewitt held Mr. Chapman
responsible for their mistake, and as such, Mr. Chapman was obligated to
reimburse the IRS the complaint states.

The complaint against Jackson Hewitt goes on to say that the company did not
take the proper steps to determine if Mr. Chapman was eligible for an Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC) which led him to improperly claim a refund of $4,500.

By law, earning an EITC requires that the tax payer claim a qualifying child
as a dependent. In Mr. Chapman's case, the dependent did not meet all IRS
criteria.

According to Mr. Berman, James Chapman was unaware that the child did not
qualify as a dependent. The complaint states that Jackson Hewitt should have
verified that the child met each of the IRS's criteria for determining
dependency by obtaining documents and conducting an interview with the
customer. Jackson Hewitt did neither, but did convince Chapman to purchase
its "gold guarantee" for an additional fee of $39.00.

Mr. Berman adds that this isn't the first time Jackson Hewitt's business
practices have been called into question, "They've been charged with
facilitating tax fraud schemes numerous times and this sort of deception just
can't continue."

The government charged Jackson Hewitt in Mich., Ga., and Illinois for similar
abuses, citing that when the company knows there is chance of an audit, they
recommend their "gold guarantee" and then claims that the customer is at
fault, the complaint states.

"James Chapman trusted that his return was being prepared by an expert," Mr.
Berman said. "Instead Jackson Hewitt blamed him for their intentional mistake
and then fell through on their promise to protect him."

The complaint alleges that Jackson Hewitt violated the Consumer Fraud Act, is
guilty of breach of contract, and unjustly enriched as a result of the
unlawful collection of payments for their "gold guarantee."

The suit seeks full restitution for Jackson Hewitt's ill-gotten gains and
punitive damages for those who were failed by the "gold guarantee."

Jackson Hewitt reports that it files 3.7 million tax returns a year, all
prepared by trained individuals who know and adhere to United States tax
laws. The service, which has nearly 6,000 offices and franchises in the
country, promises to protect all customers if a tax return is prepared in
incorrectly.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com

          - and -

          Mark Firmani
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: (206) 443-9357
          E-mail: Mark@firmani.com


JAKES FIREWORKS: Recalls Fireworks Due to Burn, Injury Hazards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jakes Fireworks Inc., of Pittsburg, Kansas, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 4,000 March or Die
Mine/Shell Fireworks Devices.

The company said the tubes on these fireworks devices could become loose,
making the devices unstable during use. If the device tips over during use,
it could pose burn and injury hazards to bystanders.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled fireworks are a 500 gram mine/shell device that consists of
nine, 3-inch tubes with a single fuse for ignition. The device measures
16”x16”x13” and its packaging is a dark blue cardboard label with the
words “March or Die” printed in red.

These recalled March or Die Mine/Shell Fireworks Devices were manufactured in
China and are being sold by World Class Distributors nationwide from April
2006 through May 2006 for $40.

Picture of recalled March or Die Mine/Shell Fireworks Devices:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07216.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the product and contact Jakes
Fireworks for a replacement product.

For additional information, contact Jakes Fireworks at (800) 766-1277 between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the company’s Web site:
http://www.jakesfireworks.com.


NATURAL HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a securities fraud
class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

On Sept. 11, 2006, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. filed a putative class action
purportedly on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's common stock to
recover damages caused by alleged violations of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit names the company and certain current and former officers and
directors as defendants.  

On Dec. 20, 2006, the court granted an unopposed motion to designate The
Rosen Law Firm P.A. as lead counsel.  

On Feb. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On April 23,
2007, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss.

The suit "Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-01654," is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas under Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/227-7720
         Fax: 713/227-9404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com
  
         Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.
         The Hinton Law Firm
         350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 646/723-3377
         Fax: 212/202-3827

              - and -

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm
         350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212/686-1060
         Fax: 214/202-3827


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Cal. Securities Suit for $14M
--------------------------------------------------------------
A $13.75 settlement was reached in a consolidated securities class action
filed against OmniVision Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

On June 10, 2004, the first of several putative class actions were filed
against the company and certain of its present and former directors and
officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company's common stock at
various times from February 2003 to June 9, 2004.

Those actions were consolidated as, "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No.
C-04-2297-SC."  It asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock between June 11, 2003 and June 9, 2004.  It is seeking
unspecified damages.

The suit generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly engaging in improper
accounting practices that purportedly led to the company's financial
restatement.  

On July 29, 2005, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss the
complaint and discovery commenced thereafter.  The parties engaged in
settlement discussions and in November 2006, the parties reached an agreement
in principle to settle this litigation (Class Action Reporter, March 26,
2007).

Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on August 14, 2007.  
Deadline to file claims is October 9, 2007.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California will
hold a hearing on September 7, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable
Samuel Conti.

The suit is "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-CV-2297," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California under Judge Samuel L. Conti with referral to Judge Joseph C.
Spero.

The Claims Administrator is:

          In re OmniVision Securities Litigation
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 990 Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990
          Phone: (800) 447-7657
          Web site: http://www.gilardi.com

Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel is:

          Jeff S. Westerman Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP
          One California Plaza 300 South Grand Avenue
          Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071


PIER I: Recalls Dual Glassware Pieces Posing Laceration Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports of Fort Worth, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 219,000 blue/green dual
glassware pieces -- with about 180,000 orange and red glassware pieces
recalled on.

The company said the glassware can crack or break unexpectedly, posing a
laceration hazard to consumers.

Pier 1 Imports has received 21 reports in total of glassware that cracked or
broke, including one injury involving a minor cut from broken glass
associated with a previous recall.

The recalled glassware pieces involve large and small tumblers, goblets and
margaritas. The bottom half of the tumblers is aquamarine and the top half is
yellow. The bottom of the margaritas and the goblets is clear and the top is
aquamarine and yellow.

These recalled dual glassware pieces were manufactured in China and are being
sold by Pier 1 Imports stores nationwide, its Web site –
http://www.pier1.com-- and its June 2007 catalog from January 2007 through  
April 2007 for about $6.

Picture of the recalled dual glassware pieces:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07221a.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the glassware pieces immediately and
return them to their nearest Pier 1 Imports retail store for a refund or
merchandise credit.

For additional information consumers can contact Pier 1 Imports at (800) 245-
4595 between 8 a.m. and 11 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday and between 9 a.m.
to 9 p.m. Sunday, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.pier1.com.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Four Securities Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Powerwave Technologies Inc. faces several purported securities fraud class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Several purported shareholder class action complaints were filed in January,
February and March 2007, against the company, its president and chief
executive officer, its executive chairman of the board of directors and its
chief financial officer.

The complaints are:

      -- "Jerry Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
         al.,"

      -- "Kenneth Kwan v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
         al.,"

      -- "Achille Tedesco v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
         al.," and

      -- “Farokh Etemadieh v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc. et.
         al.”

These were brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The complaints purport to
state claims on behalf of all persons who purchased Powerwave securities
between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9, 2006.

The essence of the allegations is that the defendants made misleading
statements or omissions concerning the company's projected and actual sales
revenues, the integration of certain acquisitions and the sufficiency of the
company's internal controls.

Powerwave Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.powerwave.com/-- is a global  
supplier of end-to-end wireless solutions for wireless communications
networks.  The company’s business consists of the design, manufacture and
marketing and sale of products to improve coverage, capacity and data speed
in wireless communications networks, including antennas, boosters, combiners,
filters, radio frequency power amplifiers, repeaters, tower-mounted
amplifiers and coverage solutions.


QWEST CORP: Minn. Suit Aims to Collect Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed June 20 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Darcy Jones and Paul Larsen allege denial of overtime
compensation, a violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Jones et al v. Qwest Communications International, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 0:07-cv-02979-DWF-AJB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, under Judge Donovan W. Frank, with referral to Judge
Arthur J. Boylan.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Barbara A Bagdon
          Dady & Garner, PA
          80 S 8th St Ste 5100
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-359-5495
          Fax: 612-359-3507
          E-mail: bbagdon@dadygarner.com



RANGELEY PROPERTY: Fla. Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Rangeley Property Maintenance, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
June 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the
CourtHouse News Service Reports.

Named plaintiff Clothaire Thelemaque alleges unpaid overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Thelemaque v. Rangeley Property Maintenance, Inc. et al, Case
No. 0:07-cv-60868-KMM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge K. Michael Moore.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gregg I. Shavitz
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com


RC2 CORP: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Recalled Railway Toys
-------------------------------------------------------
A Chicago parent filed a proposed class action in U.S. District Court in
Illinois against RC2 Corp. (Nasdaq: RCRC), the 'Thomas the Train' toy
manufacturer, on behalf of all purchasers after learning the toys were
manufactured using highly toxic lead paint putting children at a serious
health risk.

According to the complaint, RC2 distributed at least 1.5 million toys
containing lead paint between January 2005 and June 2007. Among the products
in question is the popular Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway.

Despite marketing its toys as 'Safe and Quality Playthings' RC2 distributed
toys that had red and yellow surface paint containing lead, which is
extremely toxic if ingested, the complaint states.

Earlier, the Oak Brook, Ill. company, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, voluntarily recalled nearly 1.5 million Various
Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway Toys (Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2007).

The firm said the surface paints on the recalled products contain lead.  Lead
is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects.

"We think RC2's response to this dangerous health issue is far short of what
is necessary," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro and the attorney representing the named plaintiffs. "There are
legions of children that may have ingested lead paint from these toys, and we
think the company should stand up to its responsibility to help identify
these kids."

Named plaintiff Channing Hesse purchased a number of the lead-tainted toys
for her toddler boys beginning in 2006 believing the toys were safe. Now,
according to Berman, she wonders about the long-term health effects on her
children.

"The biggest horror of this story is that parents know their toddlers often
put toys in their mouths,' Mr. Berman noted.
"Consumers trust that companies like RC2 will live up to the promise it makes
in its advertising, promising "safe and quality playthings."

The complaint states that children under six years of age will absorb about
50 percent of the lead they ingest and exposure can lead to a wide range of
health effects, including IQ deficits, learning disabilities, behavioral
problems, stunted or slowed growth and impaired hearing.

"We know that lead poisoning affects children differently but experts agree
that there is no such thing as a 'safe' level of lead exposure," said Berman.

RC2 states on its Web site "We understand that what matters most to parents
is keeping their children healthy, happy and safe. What mattes most to us is
helping parents to just that by offering products for every stage of your
child's development ... "

Since there is no effective treatment available for lead poisoning the CPSC
has declared that "toys and other articles intended for use by children that
bear lead-containing paint are banned hazardous products."

The filed suit claims RC2 violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and
Consumer Fraud Laws of other states, breached the implied warranty by selling
goods that were unfit, is strictly liable for damages and acted negligently
in product design.

RC2 designs, produces and markets a wide range of infant and toddler toys and
accessories including Soothie bottles, sippy and straw cups, feeding
accessories and healthcare products and markets under The First Years and
Lamaze brands, Thomas & Friends, Bob the Builder, Winnie the Pooh, John
Deere, Nickelodeon and Sesame Street.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com

          - and -

          Mark Firmani
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: (206) 443-9357
          E-mail: Mark@firmani.com


SOUTHERN PUMP: Fla. Suit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Pump and Sprinkler Repair, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed June 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, the CourtHouse News Service Reports.

Named plaintiff Philip Gonin alleges unpaid overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Gonin v. Southern Pump and Sprinkler Repair, Inc. et al., Case
No. 0:07-cv-60871-WPD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Stacey Hope Cohen
          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


STARBUCKS COFFEE: December Trial Set in “Jou Chau” Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego County Superior Court scheduled a December 2007 trial for the
class action, "Jou Chau v. Starbucks Coffee Co."  

On Oct. 8, 2004, a former hourly employee of the company filed the suit,
which alleges that the company violated the California Labor Code by allowing
shift supervisors to receive tips.   

More specifically, the suit alleges that since shift supervisors direct the
work of baristas, they qualify as "agents" of the company and are therefore
excluded from receiving tips under California Labor Code Section 351, which
prohibits employers and their agents from collecting or receiving tips left
by patrons for other employees.  

It is further alleged that because the tipping practices violate the Labor
Code, they also are unfair practices under the California Unfair Competition
Law.  

In addition to recovery of an unspecified amount of tips distributed to shift
supervisors, the suit seeks penalties under California Labor Code Section 203
for willful failure to pay wages due.  Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and
costs.   

On March 30, 2006, the court issued an order certifying the case as a class
action, with the plaintiff representing a class of all persons employed as
baristas in the state of California since Oct. 8, 2000.   

The size of the class has yet to be determined.  Trial is currently set for
December 2007, according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2007.

Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and roasts whole  
bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh, rich-brewed coffees, Italian-
style espresso beverages, cold blended beverages, various complementary food
items, coffee-related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium teas
and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-operated retail
stores.  


TEAM ONEY: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Team Oney, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 21 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Armando Diaz alleges denied overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Diaz v. Team Oney, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21573-UU,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under
Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jamie H. Zidell
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Phone: 305-865-6766
          Fax: 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


THOMAS WEISEL: Faces Calif. Securities Suit Over U.S. Auto’s IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. faces a purported class action arising out
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.’s Initial public offering.

The suit, “In re U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. Securities Litigation,” was
filed on March 2007. It was filed with respect to the initial public offering
of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. on Feb. 8, 2007, and subsequent public
disclosures by U.S. Auto Parts.

Thomas Weisel was an underwriter and a co-book manager of the U.S. Auto Parts
initial public offering.  

The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California alleges violations of various federal securities laws
against U.S. Auto Parts and certain of its directors and officers as well as
U.S. Auto Parts’ underwriters, including the Thomas Weisel, based on, among
other things, alleged false and misleading statements.

U.S Auto Parts Network -- http://www.usautoparts.com-- is an online provider  
of aftermarket auto parts, including body parts, engine parts, performance
parts and accessories.  The Company sells its products, identified as stock
keeping units (SKUs), to individual consumers through its network of Websites
and online marketplaces.  U.S. Auto Parts Websites provide customers with a
selection of approximately 550,000 SKUs with detailed product descriptions
and photographs.  It has developed a product database, which maps its 550,000
SKUs to over 4.3 million product applications based on vehicle makes, models
and years.
U.S. Auto Parts principally sells its products to individual customers
through its network of Websites and online marketplaces.


USANA HEALTH: Distributors Sue in Calif. Over Fraud, Deception
--------------------------------------------------------------
Independent distributors filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in
California state court accusing vitamin marketer USANA Health Sciences Inc.
of fraud and deception, Paul Foy of Forbes reports.

Veteran San Diego class-action lawyer Alexander M. Schack filed the suit on
behalf of hundreds of low-level distributors in California.  

The plaintiff in the suit is 23-year-old Christopher Crane who said he lost
$500 from his $3,500 investment in his USANA business.  Mr. Crane was brought
into the business by a former top USANA executive Ladd McNamara.  His suit is
the first proposed class-action filed on behalf of distributors after San
Diego investigator Barry Minkow came out with a report criticizing USANA in
February.  Investors have also filed suits against the USANA.

The lawsuit alleges Usana failed to disclose “material adverse facts” to
recruits, notably that 87 percent of active distributors are losing money and
that the company's business model amounts to a pyramid scheme.  It is seeking
an injunction stopping Salt Lake City-based USANA from doing business in
California, one of the company's biggest markets; as well as damages
for "downline" distributors.


VILA AND SON TREE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vila and Son Tree Farms, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June
21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Mario Melo alleges denied overtime compensation, a violation
of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Melo v. Vila and Son Tree Farms, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-21574-
MGC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
under Judge Marcia G. Cooke.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jamie H. Zidell
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Phone: 305-865-6766
          Fax: 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


WILLIAM PENN: Wins Favorable Ruling in $108M Policyholders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susman Godfrey, LLP, obtained a unanimous jury verdict for its client William
Penn Life Insurance Co. of New York with regards to the litigation, “Beller,
et al. v. William Penn Life Insurance Co. of New York.”

The case was brought by class action firm Harwood Feffer and alleged breach
of contract claims on behalf of a class of 25,000 policyholders, seeking $108
million in damages from William Penn.

Plaintiffs alleged that William Penn had overcharged policyholders for cost
of insurance rates.  A jury in Mineola, New York, ruled on June 20 that the
company has not breached a contract, and thus, refused to award damages.

Although the case had been litigated for five years, Susman Godfrey was hired
only six days before trial to take over as lead counsel.  The jury’s verdict
was a complete victory for William Penn.  

Susman Godfrey's Bill Carmody and Tibor Nagy, both of the firm’s New York
office, served as trial counsel.

For more details, contact:
    
         Bill Carmody, Esq.
         Tibor Nagy, Esq.
         Susman Godfrey, LLP
         Phone: 212-336-8334 and 646-369-0500
         E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
                 tnagy@susmangodfrey.com
         Web site: http://www.susmangodfrey.com


* Baron & Budd is Among The Legal 500's Top Toxic Tort Firms
------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas-based Baron & Budd, P.C. has earned selection to The Legal 500 listing
of the country's top law firms based on the firm's work in mass tort claims
and class action litigation.  The firm is included in The Legal 500's
recently published third volume, which ranks the country's top litigation
firms. Firm clients, other attorneys and judges were interviewed by The Legal
500 staff to determine which firms would be included in the listing.

Baron & Budd is ranked as one of the top three law firms in the nation for
toxic tort claims.

Russell Budd, managing shareholder of Baron & Budd, is noted in the
publication for his "considerable renown for his trial and negotiation
abilities." Firm attorney Alan Rich also is highlighted as a "heavyweight in
the asbestos and toxic tort arena."

"We are honored to be recognized for the legal accomplishments of our many
fine attorneys," says Mr. Budd. "I believe the talent and achievements of our
attorneys truly qualify our firm as one of the top mass tort/class action
firms in the country, and it is very nice to receive the recognition from a
publication like The Legal 500."

In addition to highlighting Mr. Budd and Mr. Rich, the publication also notes
Baron & Budd's extensive work in asbestos-related cases, water contamination
claims, and incidences of exposure to hazardous materials in the workplace.

Since 1977, the law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has championed the rights of
people and communities harmed by corporate misconduct. With more than 50
attorneys and offices in Texas, California, Ohio and Louisiana, Baron & Budd
enjoys a national reputation as a leader of the plaintiffs' bar.

The firm represents individuals with mesothelioma and other diseases caused
by asbestos; leukemia caused by benzene; and injuries caused by other toxic
substances and pharmaceuticals.

The firm also represents water authorities seeking clean-up costs for
drinking water contamination; municipalities and securities investors
defrauded by corporate wrongdoing; and consumers.

For more information, contact:

          Bruce Vincent
          Baron & Budd, P.C.
          Phone: 800-222-2766 or 800-559-4534
          E-mail: bruce@legalpr.com
          Website: http://www.baronandbudd.com


                        New Securities Cases


OPTIONABLE INC: Cohen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Optionable Inc. shares (OTC BB:OPBL.OB)
during the period from September 27, 2005 to May 14, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that throughout Optionable's history, the Company
understated its dependence on BMO Financial Group (BMO), also known as Bank
of Montreal. In its latest quarterly report, Optionable stated that BMO
accounted for approximately 30% of its revenues during the three-month period
ended March 31, 2007. BMO, however, actually accounted for approximately 60%
of the Company's potential revenue.

Moreover, the Company failed to tell investors that its business with BMO was
tied intimately to David Lee (Lee), a natural gas trader at BMO. Unbeknownst
to investors, Lee had a close personal relationship with executives at
Optionable, including Defendant Kevin Cassidy, the company's Vice Chairman
and CEO.

According to reports, Lee's trading alone in the first quarter of 2007
amounted to $2.73 million, or 30% of Optionable's revenue.

On April 27, 2007, BMO issued a press release announcing that its mark-to-
market commodity trading losses were estimated to be between $350 million and
$450 million (pre-tax) in the second quarter of 2007, due in part to
positions held by BMO in the energy market which were negatively impacted by
changes in market conditions. Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock
fell $1.45 per share, or almost 21%, to close at $5.56 per share after
investors recognized that BMO accounted for 24% of the Company's revenues in
2006.

On May 8, 2007, BMO issued a statement announcing that it was suspending its
business relationships with Optionable, as well as all derivatives trading
through the Company, pending the results of an external review of its
commodity trading losses.

In response to this news, the price of Optionable stock declined
precipitously, falling from $4.64 per share to $2.81 per share - a decline of
approximately 40% - on heavy trading volume.

Shares of the Company's stock continued to decline as investors learned that:

     (i) NYMEX Holdings, Inc. (NYMEX) had resigned its board
         representation of Optionable;

    (ii) Cassidy had resigned as Vice Chairman and CEO; and

   (iii) Cassidy served time in prison for a felony conviction
         on credit card fraud in 1997 and for income tax evasion
         in 1993.

Optionable provides natural gas and other energy derivatives trading and
brokerage services to brokerage firms, financial institutions, energy
traders, and hedge funds.

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C.  20005
          Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cmht.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  * * *