CAR_Public/070702.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 2, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 129

                           Headlines
               

1ST UNITED: Sued in Fla. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
ABM INDUSTRIES: Settles Calif. Labor Litigation, Faces More
ALLSTATE INVESTIGATIONS: N.Y. Suit Claims Denial of Overtime Pay
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces FACTA Violations Litigation in Calif.
ASHWORTH INC: Seeks Dismissal of FCRA Violations Suit in Calif.

CERIDIAN & PILOT: Truck Cos. File Suit Over Fleet-card Fees
COOPER COS: July Hearing Set on Motion to Junk Securities Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals $5.3M Judgment in “Marin” Litigation
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor-Related Suits
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Approves $7.5M “Doty” Labor Suit Deal

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Discovery Ongoing in “Alvarado” Labor Suit
CUMMINS POWER: Recalls Generators with Faulty Shut-Off Valve
DYNAMEX INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Decision in Calif. Overtime Suit
DYNAMEX INC: Settles “Delesline” Labor-Related Lawsuit in N.Y.
ELI LILLY: N.Y. Court Allows Zyprexa Litigation to Go Forward

EXCEPTIONAL CARE: Ga. Lawsuit Alleges Denial of Overtime Pay
FARMERS INSURANCE: Sued Over Uninsured Auto Insurance Claims
HOMEBRIDGE MORTGAGE: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
LABATT & AMBEV: Retirees File CAD$45M Suit over Health Benefits
LASKO PRODUCTS: Recalls Heaters with Cord that can Overheat

NEW WORLD: Sued in N.Y. for Alleged Labor Code Violations
NIAGRA CLEANING: Fla. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Pay
OIL COMPANIES: Face Suit Alleging Violations of the Sherman Act
PHARMA COS: Sales Reps Sue Bristol, Abbott for Overtime Pay
ROBERT'S AMERICAN: Recalls Snack Foods Tainted with Salmonella

SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
SYNERON INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
TARGET: Recalls Toy Barbeque Grills Posing Laceration Hazard
TOLL BROTHERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in E.D. Pa.
TOTAL CALL: Faces Cal. Suit Over Alleged Rates Misrepresentation

TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Faces FATA Litigation in N.D. Ind.
VAN DER MOOLEN: Faces N.Y. Antitrust, Securities Violations Suit
WASHINGTON: Metro Settles Lawsuit Over MetroAccess for $2.2M


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

BRISTOL-MYERS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
DENDREON CORP: Susman Godfrey Files Securities Suit in Wash.
                

                            *********


1ST UNITED: Sued in Fla. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
1st United Bank is facing a class-action complaint filed June 12 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Heidi A. Fritz alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Fritz v. 1st United Bank, Case No. 9:07-cv-80513-WPD,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge
William P. Dimitrouleas.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Christopher Charles Copeland
          Christopher C Copeland P.A.
          4590 PGA Blvd., Suite 204
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
          Phone: 561-691-9048
          Fax: 866-259-0719 (fax)
          E-mail: ChrisCopeland@MyFloridaCounsel.com


ABM INDUSTRIES: Settles Calif. Labor Litigation, Faces More
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc. settled one of several purported class actions related
to alleged violations of federal or California wage-and-hour laws, however
its still continues to face more.  

Several suits were filed against the company:

      -- the consolidated cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v.
         American Commercial Security Services (ACSS) filed July
         12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los
         Angeles County;

      -- "Augustus and Hernandez v. ACSS" filed on Feb. 23,
         2006, in Los Angeles Superior Court;

      -- "Bucio, Morales and Salcedo v. ABM Janitorial Services"
         filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of
         California, County of San Francisco;

      -- the recently consolidated cases of "Batiz v. ACSS" and
         "Heine v. ACSS," filed on June 7, 2006 and Aug. 9,
         2006, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the
         Central of California;

      -- "Martinez, Lopez, Rodriguez and Godoy v. ABM Janitorial
         Services" filed on Nov. 28, 2006 in Los Angeles
         Superior Courtt;

      -- "Joaquin Diaz v. Ampco System Parking" filed on Dec. 5,
         2006, in Los Angeles Superior Court; and

      -- “Castellanos v. ABM Industries” filed on April 5, 2007,
         in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
         California.

The plaintiffs generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief, or both.  

On April 25, 2007, a settlement was reached in “Augustus and Hernandez v.
ACSS,” according to the company’s June 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30,
2007.

San Francisco, California-based ABM Industries, Inc. --
http://www.abm.com/ilwwcm/connect/ABM/Home/-- is a facility services  
contractor for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail facilities in
a number of cities throughout the United States and in British Columbia,
Canada.  The Company conducts its business through a number of subsidiaries,
which are grouped into five segments based on the nature of the business
operations.


ALLSTATE INVESTIGATIONS: N.Y. Suit Claims Denial of Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Investigations, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June
27 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Jonathan Elliott alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Elliott v. Allstate Investigations, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-
cv-06078-DLC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Denise L. Cote.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb
          Berger & Gottlieb
          150 E. 18 St.
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212)-228-9795
          Fax: (212)-982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com

          - and -

          William Coudert Rand
          Law Office of William Coudert Rand
          711 Third Avenue, Suite 1505
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-286-1425
          Fax: 212-599-7909
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces FACTA Violations Litigation in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

The suit, “Michael Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (No. CV07-00171,”
was filed on January 2007.  

FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more than the last 5
numbers of a credit or debit card may be printed on electronic receipts given
to customers.

It imposes significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed
to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses
incurred by the cardholder.

The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Gary A. Feess with referral to Judge Fernando M.
Olguin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
         Ira Spiro, Esq.
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468
         E-mail: greg@spirmoss.com
                 ira@spiromoss.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David E. Novitskim, Esq.
          Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
          Phone: 213-576-8097
          Fax: 213-576-8080


ASHWORTH INC: Seeks Dismissal of FCRA Violations Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashworth, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported class action alleging
that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by printing on credit
or debit card receipts more than the last five digits of the credit or debit
card number and/or the expiration date.

The suit was filed on Feb. 27, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  Plaintiff seeks statutory and punitive
damages, attorney's fees and injunctive relief on behalf of the purported
class.

In response, on May 8, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
contending that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.  

The suit is "Burnis L. Simon Jr. v. Ashworth Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-01324-GHK-AJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge George H. King with referral to Judge
Andrew J. Wistrich.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Farris E. Ain, Esq.
         Herbert Hafif Law Offices
         269 West Bonita Avenue
         Claremont, CA 91711-4784
         Phone: 909-624-1671
         E-mail: farris.ain@hafif.com

Representing the defendants is:
        
         J. Scot Kennedy, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
         4 Park Plaza, 17th Floor
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Phone: 949-451-3805
         E-mail: skennedy@gibsondunn.com


CERIDIAN & PILOT: Truck Cos. File Suit Over Fleet-card Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two truck companies in Louisiana have filed a lawsuit June 15 against Comdata
and its parent company, Ceridian, as well as Pilot Travel Centers and
TravelCenters of America, eTrucker.com’s Jill Dunn reports.

The complainants Riverbend Truck Stops and Palace Casinos allege that the
defendants got involved in anti-competitive fleet-card practices that don’t
support independent truck stops.

The suit, which seeks class action status on behalf of the lead plaintiffs
and those who are similarly situated, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee in Nashville.  

It seeks to recover damages at no specific amount.  Aside from that, it also
seeks “injunctive relief on behalf of plaintiffs and a nationwide class of
independent truck stops which have been forced to pay artificially high
prices for trucker fleet card processing services.”  

The complaint further says the defendant’s practices already have led to a
Federal Trade Commission consent decree and a $49 million settlement with a
rival truck-stop chain, Flying J.

Based on the report, a similar suit has also been filed by two other truck-
stop companies last March in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

The courts will have to determine whether to let the suits proceed as class
action and whether to consolidate them.

The suit is “Riverbend Truckstops & Palace Casinos, Inc. et al v. Ceridian
Corporation et al, Case No: 3:07-cv-00647,” under Judge Robert Echols with
referral to Juliet E. Griffin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Sidney A. Backstrom, Esq.
          Scruggs Law Firm, P.A.
          120-A Courthouse Square
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Phone: (662) 281-12

               -  and  -

          John C. Hayworth, Esq.
          Walker, Tipps & Malone
          2300 One Nashville Place
          150 Fourth Avenue, N
          Nashville, TN 37219-2415
          Phone: (615) 313-6000
          E-mail: jhayworth@walkertipps.com


COOPER COS: July Hearing Set on Motion to Junk Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A July 16, 2007 hearing was scheduled for a motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against The Cooper Cos., Inc., and
certain of its officials.

On Feb. 15, 2006, Alvin L. Levine filed a putative securities class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. SACV-
06-169 CJC, against:

     -- the company;

     -- A. Thomas Bender, its chairman of the board, president
        and chief executive officer and a director;

     -- Robert S. Weiss, its executive vice president, chief
        operating officer and a director; and

     -- John D. Fruth, a director.

Shortly after the filing of the Levine lawsuit, two similar putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Case Nos. SACV-06-306 CJC and SACV-06-331 CJC.

On May 19, 2006, the court consolidated all three actions under the
heading, "In re Cooper Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation," and selected a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 31, 2006.  The
consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
securities between July 28, 2004 and Dec. 12, 2005, including persons who
received company securities in exchange for their shares of Ocular in the
January 2005 merger pursuant to which the company acquired Ocular.

The consolidated complaint names as defendants:

      -- the company,

      -- Messrs. Bender, Weiss, and Fruth, and also

      -- Steven M. Neil, the company's vice president and chief
         financial officer;

      -- Gregory Fryling, the president and chief operating
         officer of CooperVision;

      -- Carol R. Kaufman, the company's senior vice president
         of legal affairs, secretary and chief administrative
         officer;

      -- B. Norris Battin, the company's vice president of
         investor relations and communications;

      -- John J. Calcagno, CooperVision's chief financial
         officer and vice president of business development;

      -- James M. Welch, the former president of international
         operations for Coopervision;

      -- John A. Weber, CooperVision's vice president of
         Worldwide Manufacturing & Distribution;

      -- Nicholas J. Pichotta, chief executive officer of
         CooperSurgical; and

      -- directors Moses Marx and Steven Rosenberg.

The consolidated complaint purports to allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by,
among other things, contending that:

      -- the company improperly accounted for assets acquired in
         the Ocular merger by improperly allocating $100 million
         of acquired customer relationships and manufacturing
         technology to goodwill (which is not amortized against
         earnings) instead of to intangible assets other than
         goodwill (which are amortized against earnings);

      -- the company's earnings guidance reflected the improper
         accounting for intangible assets and was inflated by
         (among other things) the amount of the understated
         amortization expense;

      -- contrary to certain alleged statements, Ocular had
         "flooded the trade channel" with its older products as
         its Premier lenses were not being well received by
         customers;

      -- the company's aggressive revenue and growth targets for
         2005 and beyond lacked any reasonable basis when made
         and did not reflect realistically achievable results
         primarily because of the absence of a two-week silicone
         hydrogel product;

      -- the company's internal controls were inadequate making
         it possible to misstate earnings by improperly
         accounting for the merger with Ocular; and

      -- sales force integration was not materializing and was
         fraught with dissension and acrimony.

This lawsuit, which is in a very preliminary stage, seeks unspecified
damages.  

On Sept. 29, 2006, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated complaint.  A hearing on the motion is currently scheduled
for July 16, 2007, according to the company’s June 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re Cooper Companies Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 8:06-cv-00169-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:

         X. Jay Alvarez, Esq.
         Rudman and Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

         Michiyo Michelle Furukawa, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2350
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         E-mail: mfurukawa@ssbla.com

              - and -

         Eben O. McNair, Esq.
         Schwarzwald and McNair, 1330 East
         Ninth Street, 616 Penton Media Building
         Cleveland, OH 44114-1503
         Phone: 216-566-1600

Representing the defendants is:

         Charles W. Cox, II, Esq.
         Latham and Watkins
         633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
         Phone: 213-485-1234
         E-mail: chuck.cox@lw.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals $5.3M Judgment in “Marin” Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is appealing the $5.3 million judgment handed down in
favor of the plaintiffs in the case, “Anthony Marin v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., Case No. RG-04150447,” which was filed in the Superior Court for the
County of Alameda.

The overtime compensation case certified as a class action on behalf of
present and former hourly employees in California, in which plaintiffs
principally allege that Costco’s semi-annual bonus formula is improper with
regard to retroactive overtime pay.

Costco has filed an appeal challenging both the entry of a $5.3 million
judgment in favor of the class and the accompanying award of attorneys’ fees.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates membership  
warehouses that offer a selection of nationally branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories in self-service warehouse
facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two cases were purportedly brought as class actions on behalf of certain
present and former Costco Wholesale Corp. managers in California, in which
plaintiffs principally allege that they have not been properly compensated
for overtime work.

The suits are:

      -- “Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., U.S.
         District Court (San Diego), Case No. 02-CV-2003 NAJ
         (JFS);” and

      -- “Greg Randall v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court
         for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-296369.’

The Randall matter is currently in the class certification-briefing phase.  
The Williams case has been stayed pending the class certification outcome in
the Randall case.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates membership  
warehouses that offer a selection of nationally branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories in self-service warehouse
facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Approves $7.5M “Doty” Labor Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court has approved the proposed settlement in the class
action, “Kevin Doty and Sarah Doty v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV-05-
3241 FMC (JWJ).”

The case was brought as a class action on behalf of present and former hourly
employees in California, in which plaintiffs principally allege that Costco
did not properly compensate and record hours worked by employees and failed
to provide meal and rest breaks.

On May 14, 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $7.5 million class
wide settlement, according to the company June 15, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 13, 2007.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates membership  
warehouses that offer a selection of nationally branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories in self-service warehouse
facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Discovery Ongoing in “Alvarado” Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the case, “Elizabeth Alvarado v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., Case No. C-06-04015-MJJ.”

The case was purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of present and
former hourly employees in California, in which the plaintiff principally
alleges that Costco did not properly compensate and record time worked by
employees during routine closing procedures, including security searches.  

Discovery is ongoing in this case, according to the company June 15, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended May 13, 2007.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates membership  
warehouses that offer a selection of nationally branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories in self-service warehouse
facilities.


CUMMINS POWER: Recalls Generators with Faulty Shut-Off Valve
------------------------------------------------------------
Cummins Power Generation Inc., of Fridley, Minnesota, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,300 units of
stationary natural gas and propane fueled generators.

The company said the generator’s fuel shut-off valve can fail to close,
resulting in a gas leak from the unit. This poses a risk of fire and burn
injuries to consumers. Cummins Power has received one report that the fuel
shut-off valve failed to close. No injuries or damages have been reported.

The recall involves both commercial and residential model Cummins Power
Generation gaseous-fueled stationary generator sets (fueled by propane or
natural gas). They have the following model numbers listed on the generator
nameplate which is located at the front base of the unit: commercial models
GGDB, GGMA/B/C, and GNAA/B/C, and residential models RS15000, RS20000, and
RS30000.

These units also have serial number A050734102 through L068998479
and “Cummins Power Generation” listed on the generator nameplate.

These recalled stationary natural gas and propane fueled generators were
manufactured in the United States and are being sold at Cummins Power
Generation’s authorized distributors and dealers nationwide and
http://www.costco.comfrom January 2005 through February 2007 for a retail  
cost of between $8,000 to $25,000 (depending on the model, retail outlet, and
date of purchase).

Consumers are advised to stop using these generators immediately, place the
Operators switch in “OFF” and maintain this status until the upgrade is
completed. The local distributor or dealer should be contacted to schedule a
free, on-site repair by a Cummins Power Generation authorized trained
technician.

For more information, contact Cummins Power Generation Inc. at (800) 888-
6626, Option 3, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


DYNAMEX INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Decision in Calif. Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action against Dynamex, Inc. is appealing
a decision by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County in which
it denied a motion for class certification of the case.

A company driver filed the suit on April 15, 2005.  It alleges that the
company unlawfully misclassified its California drivers as independent
contractors, rather than employees.

It asserted, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of the purported class
claimants to overtime compensation and other benefits under California wage
and hour laws, reimbursement of certain operating expenses, and various
insurance and other benefits and the obligation of the company to pay
employer payroll taxes under federal and state law.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Nov. 2,  
2006.  The company responded in a memorandum of points and authorities in
support of defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion for class
certification on Nov. 29, 2006.   

A hearing was held on Dec. 12, 2006, and on Dec. 14, 2006, the Plaintiff’s
Motion for Class Certification was denied.  The Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal on Jan. 5, 2007.

The company reported no development in the case at its June 8, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2007.

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com-- is a provider of same-day delivery  
and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada. Through its network of
business centers, the Company provides same-day, on-demand, door-to-door
delivery services utilizing its ground couriers.  For many of its inter-city
deliveries, Dynamex uses third-party air or motor carriers in conjunction
with its ground couriers to provide same-day service.  In addition to on-
demand delivery services, the Company offers local and regional distribution
services, which encompass recurring, often daily, point-to-point deliveries
or multiple destination deliveries. It also offers outsourcing services, as
well as fleet and facilities management services.  These services include
designing and managing systems for transporting, sorting and delivering
customers' products on a local and multi-city basis.  With its fleet
management service, the Company manages and may provide a fleet of dedicated
vehicles at single or multiple customer sites.


DYNAMEX INC: Settles “Delesline” Labor-Related Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex, Inc. has reached a settlement in the purported class
action, “Delesline v. Dynamex, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-00417-LTS-THK.”

On Jan. 19, 2006, a purported class action was filed against the Company by
an employee in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging that the Company unlawfully failed to pay wages for work performed,
for which they received no compensation as well as for overtime work for
which they received no overtime pay to which the employees were entitled
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.

The plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid wages, overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, additional liquidated damages for unreasonably delayed
payment of wages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the action.  

The Company and the plaintiff has settled the purported class action,
according to the company’s June 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30,
2007.

The suit is “Delesline v. Dynamex, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-00417-LTS-THK,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Laura Taylor Swain with referral to Judge Theodore H. Katz.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
         Berger & Gottlieb
         150 E. 18 St.
         New York, NY 10003
         Phone: (212)-228-9795
         Fax: (212)-982-6284
         E-mail: nyjg@aol.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Paul J. Siegel, Esq.
         Jackson Lewis LLP
         58 South Service Road
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-247-0404
         Fax: 631-247-0417
         E-mail: siegelp@jacksonlewis.com


ELI LILLY: N.Y. Court Allows Zyprexa Litigation to Go Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York issued a decision allowing a class action that alleged Eli Lilly
& Co. fraudulently marketed the atypical antipsychotic drug, Zyprexa, for
uses not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The judge’s 14-page order denied Eli Lilly's motion for summary judgment, as
well as a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiffs.  It highlighted
the importance of the Courts in protecting the public in the arena of
prescription drugs.

The Judge stated, "Under the present organization of the pharmaceutical
industry, the official federal Food and Drug Administration, and the
plaintiffs' bar, the courts are arguably in the strongest position to
effectively enforce appropriate standards protecting the public from
fraudulent merchandising of drugs."
In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York purporting to be nationwide class actions on behalf of
all consumers and third-party payors
-- excluding governmental entities -- that have made or will make payments
for their members or insured patients being prescribed Zyprexa.  

These actions have now been consolidated into a single lawsuit, which is
brought under certain state consumer protection statutes, the federal civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act statute, and common law
theories, seeking a refund of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees.

Four additional lawsuits were filed in 2006: two in the Eastern District of
New York, one in the Southern District of Indiana, and one in Indiana state
court, all on similar grounds.

These lawsuits allege that the company inadequately tested for and warned
about side effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted the drug.

The lawsuit, brought by the New York-based Sergeants Benevolent Association
Health and Welfare Fund and others in 2006, alleged that Eli Lilly illegally
marketed Zyprexa for "off-label" purposes (i.e. for uses not approved by the
FDA), as well as withholding information about Zyprexa's safety and efficacy.

Doctors may prescribe prescription drugs for "off-label" uses but drug
companies are prohibited from marketing or promoting drugs for such uses. A
2006 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that more than 1 in 7
prescriptions for commonly-used drugs were for off-label uses that lacked
scientific support. A study released in January 2007 by the federal Agency
for Healthcare Quality and Research found that there was little scientific
evidence to support the off-label use of Zyprexa and other atypical
antipsychotics.

The plaintiffs in this case alleged that Lilly's marketing allowed it to
charge a higher price than the drug would have been able to command. Lilly
sold $4.4 billion worth of Zyprexa in the U.S. in 2006.

According to a MarketWatch article, "While U.S. sales of Zyprexa rose 19% in
the fourth quarter 2006, Lilly attributed this jump largely to higher
prices." ("Lilly CEO: 2007 Zyprexa sales seen flat," Val Brickates Kennedy,
MarketWatch, March 14, 2007).

The Court further said in its opinion, "Allowing this and like suits to
proceed may or may not increase the cost of pharmaceuticals and the efficacy
of medical treatment in this country. It does, however, furnish backstop
protection against under-regulated potentially dangerous activity by a market
where caveat emptor largely rules."

"This ruling underscores the important role that Courts play in protecting
patients from illegal drug company tactics," said Alex Sugerman-Brozan,
director of Prescription Access Litigation, a national coalition of which the
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund is a member.

"Unfortunately, the FDA has been trying to slam the courthouse doors in the
public's face by arguing that consumers' legal claims are 'preempted' by the
FDA's authority."

"We are very excited about this success and are grateful to all those who
worked diligently defending the interests of our members," said Ed Mullins,
President of the Sergeants Benevolent Association. "We will continue to
pursue any action of wrongdoing that impacts on a NYPD Sergeant or their
family."

The suit is “Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund v. Eli
Lilly and Co., Case No. 1:06-cv-06322-JBW-RLM,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New Yorkm, under Judge Jack B. Weinstein,
with referral to Judge Roanne L. Mann.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          David S Nalven
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          One Main Street, 4th Floor
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Phone: 617-482-3700
          Fax: 617-482-3003
          E-mail: davidn@hbsslaw.com


EXCEPTIONAL CARE: Ga. Lawsuit Alleges Denial of Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Exceptional Care, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 7 in the
U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Sheria Hale alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Hale v. Exceptional Care, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-01319-WSD,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under
Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kevin E. Hooks
          Kevin E. Hooks & Associates, LLC
          41 Park of Commerce Way, Suite 107
          Savannah, GA 31405
          Phone: 912-233-8105
          Fax: 912-233-8101
          E-mail: khooks@kehlaw.com

          - and -

          Benjamin H. Terry
          Law Offices of Benjamin H. Terry, P.C.
          312 Crosstown Road, Suite 355
          Peachtree City, GA 30269
          Phone: 770-394-1502

Representing defendant is:

          Betty Bush Walker
          Bush & Miller
          P.O. Box 492293
          1745 Phoenix Boulevard
          Atlanta, GA 30349
          Phone: 770-994-3600
          Fax: 770-994-0014
          E-mail: bbwalker@bellsouth.net


FARMERS INSURANCE: Sued Over Uninsured Auto Insurance Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers Insurance Exchange is facing a class-action complaint filed June 1 in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Also named in the suit are:

          -- Farmers Group Inc.,  
          -- Farmers Insurance Company of Washington,  
          -- Farmers Insurance Company Inc.,  
          -- Illinois Farmers Insurance Company Inc.,  
          -- Farmers New Century Insurance Company,  
          -- Farmers Direct Insurance Company Inc.,  
          -- Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona,  
          -- Farmers Insurance Company of Columbus Inc.,  
          -- Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon,  
          -- Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company,  
          -- Texas Farmers Insurance Company,  
          -- Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas,  
          -- Mid-Century Insurance

Named plaintiff Ashik Patel accuses Farmers Insurance Exchange and 13
affiliates of refusing to pay valid claims for uninsured auto insurance.

The suit is “Ashik Patel v. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-03573-R-MAN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge Manuel L. Real, with referral to Judge Margaret A.
Nagle.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          H Sullivan Bunch
          Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint
          57 Carriage Hill
          Signal Mountain, TN 37377

          Patricia N. Syverson
          Todd D. Carpenter
          Andrew S. Friedman
          Elaine A. Ryan
          Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint
          2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-274-1100
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com or afriedman@bffb.com

          Stephen M. Hansen
          Lowenberg Lopez and Hansen
          Rust Building
          950 Pacific Avenue Suite 405
          Tacoma, WA 98402-4441
          Phone: 253-383-1964

          - and -

          Debra Hayes
          Reich and Binstock
          4625 San Felipe Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: 713-622-7271


HOMEBRIDGE MORTGAGE: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Homebridge Mortgage Bankers Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed
June 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs:

          -- Anatoley Zamoshchik,
          -- Darrell Burnam, Jr.,
          -- Jermaine Johnson,
          -- John Williams,
          -- Joseph Chiofalo,
          -- Kirk Meyerson,
          -- Paul McDermott

allege denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Meyerson et al v. Homebridge Mortgage Bankers Corp., Case No.
9:07-cv-80560-DTKH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley, with referral to Judge
James M. Hopkins.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Donald Joseph Jaret
          Donald J Jaret PA
          2697 Botticelli Drive
          Henderson, NV 89052
          Phone: 305-740-3383-fax-800
          Fax: 616-1685
          E-mail: mwot2000@yahoo.com


LABATT & AMBEV: Retirees File CAD$45M Suit over Health Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former executives and a group of non-union Labatt & Ambev retirees filed a
class action against the beer maker Wednesday, Colin Perkel of Canadian Press
reports.

The suit, filed in the Ontario Supreme Court, alleges that Labatt and its
Brazilian parent company AmBev, failed to grant them nearly unlimited health
benefits.

Apart from breach of contract, the group also charges the company of
conspiracy and of enriching themselves at the expense of the retirees by
limiting their benefits.  

The suit further claims the company acted arbitrarily and callously.

The complaint specifically states "This unilateral change constituted a
breach of each (employee's) contract and violates his or her vested
retirement rights and health protection benefits and those of their eligible
dependants."

The approximately 900 plaintiffs and 700 dependents, seek CAD$50,000 in
punitive damages for each class member or for a sum of CAD$45,000,000.

Bob Smith, one of the plaintiffs, was director of information technology
before he retired in 2005.  He had a kidney transplant in 2006 and fears his
health benefits would only be good for five years.  He needs to maintain
expensive anti-rejection drugs.

The claims against the defendants Labatt and AmBev have not been proven yet.

Canadian Press has obtained Labatt’s letter to its retirees in December
saying the changes to their benefits would take effect on March 1, 2007,
which include a cap on cumulative lifetime health and drug benefits at
CAD$50,000.


LASKO PRODUCTS: Recalls Heaters with Cord that can Overheat
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lasko Products Inc. of West Chester, Pa., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of about
1.2 million Lasko Ceramic Heaters.

According to the company, the heater’s cord can overheat where it enters the
base of the unit, which could pose a fire hazard to consumers.

Lasko has received 28 reports of failed power cords, including six reports of
minor property damage.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Lasko ceramic heaters manufactured in 2005.  Model
numbers included in the recall are: 5132, 5345, 5362, 5364, 5420, 5532, 5534
and 5566.  Model numbers are located on the bottom of the unit or at the rear
of the base of the heaters.

These heaters were manufactured in China and sold at major retailers, home
centers and discount department stores nationwide from September 2005 through
April 2006 for between $20 and $50.

Click on the link below to view photo of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07227.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the heaters and contact Lasko to
receive a free replacement heater.

For additional information, contact Lasko at (800) 984-3311 anytime, or visit
the firm’s Web site at http://www.Laskoproducts.com.


NEW WORLD: Sued in N.Y. for Alleged Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
New World Mortgage, Inc. and New World Capital Holdings, Inc. are named
defendants in a class-action complaint filed May 31 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named defendant Gary Hosking alleged denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Hosking v. New World Mortgage, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
02200-ADS-ARL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, under Judge Arthur D. Spatt, with referral to Judge Arlene R.
Lindsay.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Erik H. Langeland
          500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1610
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: (212) 354-6270
          Fax: (212) 898-9086
          E-mail: erikhlangeland@ren.com


NIAGRA CLEANING: Fla. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Niagra Cleaning Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June
19 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Monterez Floyd alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Floyd v. Niagra Cleaning Services, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-21554-
UU,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
under Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Andrew Ross Frisch
          Rosenthal & Levy PA
          1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 350
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-478-2500
          Fax: 561-478-3111


OIL COMPANIES: Face Suit Alleging Violations of the Sherman Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oil companies are facing a class-action complaint filed June 27 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois over alleged violation
of antitrust law by fixing petroleum prices.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Saudi Arabian Oil Co.,
     -- Saudi Petroleum International.,
     -- Aramco Services,
     -- Saudi Refining,
     -- Motiva Enterprises,
     -- Petroleos de Venezuela,
     -- PDV America,
     -- Citgo Petroleum,
     -- PDV Holding,
     -- PDV Midwest Refining,
     -- Open Joint Stock Co.,
     -- Oil Company Lukoil,
     -- Lukoil Americas Corp. and
     -- Getty Petroleum Marketing.

Plaintiff Green Oil Co. brings this action for treble damages and injunctive
relief under the antitrust laws of the U.S. against defendants.

The claims are brought under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C.
Sections 15 and 26, to recover treble damages and costs of suit, including
reasonable attorney's fees, against defendants for the injuries sustained by
plaintiff and members of the class by reason of the violations of Section 1
of the Sherman Act 915 U.S.C.

Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, defendants and their co-
conspirators participated in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize the prices of Refined Petroleum Products' (RPP) sold in the U.S. at
the refinery level in violation of the antitrust laws.  The conspiracy
affected billions of dollars in interstate commerce.  Because of defendants'
anticompetitive conduct plaintiff and other members of the class paid
artificially inflated prices for RPP's and, as a result, have suffered
antitrust injury to their business or property.

Plaintiff brings this action, under the provisions of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons
(excluding governmental entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and
affiliates, and their co-conspirators) who purchased RPPs in the U.S.
directly from any of the defendants at any time during the period from Nov.
30, 2002 to the present.

The plaintiff want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contract, combination, and conspiracy to fix, raise,
         maintain and stabilize the prices of RPP's sold in the
         United States;

     (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination
         violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or
         combination alleged;

     (d) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the
         contract, conspiracy or combination alleged;

     (e) whether the defendant's conduct caused the prices of
         RPP's to be set at higher levels than they would have
         been absent the conspiracy;

     (f) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or
         combination upon United States interstate commerce;

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages; and

     (h) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to declaratory or injunctive relief.

Plaintiff pray:

     -- that the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a),
        (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful conspiracy alleged be adjudged and               
        decreed to be an unreasonable restraint of trade or
        commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
        15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- that plaintiff and members of the class recover treble
        damages, as provided by law, determined to have been
        sustained by each of them and that joint and several
        judgments in favor of plaintiff and members of the class
        be entered against defendants;

     -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents, and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from continuing the
        unlawful contract, combination and conspiracy alleged;

     -- that defendants be enjoined from continuing their
        unlawful activity and ordered to cease and desist from
        participating in any unlawful conduct or agreements    
        which has as their purpose increasing the prices of
        RPP's;

     -- that defendants be permanently enjoined from unlawful
        actions intended to raise the prices of RPP's sold in
        the United States upon finding that defendants
        participated in the conspiracy;

     -- that the United States subsidiaries of defendants, Saudi
        Aramco, PdVSA and Lukoil divested from the ownership and
        control of Saudi Aramco, PdVSA and Lukoil upon finding
        that defendants participated in the conspiracy as
        described and that a timetable for sale and divestiture
        of these subsidiaries be ordered by the court;

     -- that plaintiff and members of the class recover their
        costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys'
        fees, as provided by law; and

     -- that plaintiff and members of the class be granted such
        other, further and different relief as the nature of the
        case may require or as may be deemed just and proper by
        the court.

The suit is “Green Oil Co. v. Saudi Arabian Oil Company et al., Case No. 1:07-
cv-03617,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, under Judge Charles P. Kocoras.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          James B. Sloan
          Pedersen & Houpt, P.C.
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601-3224
          Phone: (312) 261-2113
          E-mail: jsloan@pedersenhoupt.com


PHARMA COS: Sales Reps Sue Bristol, Abbott for Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical representatives filed lawsuits against the pharmaceutical
giants Bristol-Myers Squibb and Abbott Laboratories.

Plaintiff Beth Amendola of Coconut Creek, Florida, who was at Bristol-Myers
Squibb from 1998 until 2006, won top regional sales awards five of the eight
years she worked at the company.

"We would be in the field from 8 AM until 5 PM, and then have 3-4 hours of
paperwork to complete at night. I was always at their beck and call. I felt
like the Sorcerers' Apprentice where all the pails and buckets kept coming,
no matter how much work I did. Overtime was mandatory; overtime pay was not
an option."

The suits are the latest in a series of class actions by employees for
violation of state and federal overtime laws by drug companies. All of the
largest drug companies are now facing national overtime lawsuits filed in
state and federal courts in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and
Connecticut.

The lawsuits against Bristol-Myers are being filed in federal court in New
York and in state court in California; the suit against Abbott is being filed
in federal court in Chicago. The new lawsuits charge that the companies -
like others in the industry - unlawfully characterize pharmaceutical
representatives as "exempt" under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other
labor laws, thus depriving the reps of overtime pay earned and owed.

Although pharmaceutical reps are often given fancy titles, they have little
or no decision-making responsibility and their jobs should be covered by
state and federal overtime laws, the lawsuits charge.

These and earlier cases filed in recent months – against:

     -- AstraZeneca,
     -- Johnson & Johnson,
     -- Amgen, Eli Lilly,
     -- Hoffman LaRoche,
     -- Novartis,
     -- Merck,
     -- Wyeth,
     -- GlaxoSmithKline,
     -- Bayer,
     -- Boehringer-Ingelheim,
     -- Schering-Plough and
     -- Sanofi Aventis

are being litigated by the Los Angeles based-firms of Kingsley & Kingsley,
LLP and Spiro Moss Barness LLP, the New York firm of Joseph and Herzfeld, LLP
and/or the Washington, DC law firm of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP.

The New York firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP is also litigating
the Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Eli Lilly action, in which it is joined by
the New York office of Seeger Weiss.

"The industry as a whole employs about 100,000 reps," said Eric Kingsley of
Kingsley & Kingsley. "They routinely work very long hours, often 60 hours a
week and sometimes up to 70 or more."

"Although the companies claim that the representatives are salespersons and
therefore not protected by overtime laws, with some exceptions, they actually
don't sell anything," explained Charles Joseph of Joseph & Herzfeld. "Rather,
they are tasked to influence the prescribing behaviors of doctors. Many
employees in all industries are under the mistaken impression that being
salaried means that they are not protected under the overtime laws. But a
salaried employee is entitled to overtime unless they fit within one of the
closely defined exceptions to the rule."

"These are loyal, hardworking employees who play by the rules," said Ilann
Maazel of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP.

"There is no excuse for Bristol-Myers' failure to properly compensate its
employees."

Recent class actions have won multimillion-dollar settlements for insurance
adjusters and computer technicians who were illegally denied overtime by
employers who claimed they were exempt.

Class certification has been granted in the case against Novartis (“Lopes v.
Novartis”), which was originally filed by Sanford Wittels in March
2006.  "Hundreds of Novartis reps have joined the suit and we expect shortly
that many more will," said attorney David Sanford, who has also filed a sex
discrimination lawsuit against the company.

Pharma companies’ overtime lawsuits on the net:
http://www.pharmarepovertime.com

For more information, contact:

          Eric Kingsley
          Kingsley & Kingsley, APC
          Phone: 818-990-8300

          Charles Joseph
          Joseph & Herzfeld LLP (except BMS)
          Phone: 866-348-7394

          David Sanford
          Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP
          Phone: 202-742-7777

          - and -

          Ilann Maazel
          Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP (BMS and
Lilly)                    
          Phone: 212-763-5000


ROBERT'S AMERICAN: Recalls Snack Foods Tainted with Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert's American Gourmet Food, Inc. of Sea Cliff, New York is recalling all
lots and sizes of Veggie Booty Snack Food because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting
into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

Veggie Booty was distributed nationwide and also in Canada through local
distributors, internet sales, phone orders, mail orders and retail outlets.

Veggie Booty is sold in a flexible plastic foil bag in a 4 oz., 1 oz., and
l/2 oz. package.  The brand name is Robert's American Gourmet, and all codes
and expiration dates of Veggie Booty are being recalled.

Robert's American Gourmet has been notified by the U. S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) of 51 cases of Salmonella across 17 states, associated or related to
the consumption of the Veggie Booty, predominately in children of three years
of age or younger.  Based on the information provided by the CDC and FDA
Robert's American Gourmet has decided to conduct this recall as a
precautionary measure, even though there are no confirmed positive results in
the finished product yet.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp., Nextel of New York Inc., Sprint/United Management Co.
and Sprint Nextel Inc. are named defendants in a class-action complaint filed
June 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Johnny Almonte alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Almonte v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
06065-NRB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court
of New York, under Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Cara Elizabeth Greene
          Adam T. Klein
          Justin Mitchell Swartz
          Outten & Golden,LLP (NYC)
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212)-245-1000
          Fax: (212)-977-4005
          E-mail: ceg@outtengolden.com or atk@outtengolden.com
                  or jms@outtengolden.com


SYNERON INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Syneron Inc., a subsidiary of Syneron Medical Ltd., is seeking for the
dismissal of a purported class action filed against it alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The suit was filed on Nov. 10, 2005. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages and attorney’s fees and costs as a result of the
violations.

Syneron has answered the Complaint and the parties have engaged in discovery
relating to the appropriateness of proceeding with the action on behalf of a
class, as well as discovery on the merits of the claim.

On Feb. 7, 2007, Syneron Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack
of federal jurisdiction.  All further discovery is stayed pending a ruling on
this motion, according to the company’s June 15, 2007 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31,
2006.  

Syneron Medical Ltd. -- http://www.syneron.com/-- designs, develops and  
markets aesthetic medical products based on its electro-optical synergy
(ELOS) technology, which uses the synergy between electrical energy and
optical energy to provide aesthetic medical treatments.  


TARGET: Recalls Toy Barbeque Grills Posing Laceration Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Target of Minneapolis, Minn., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling nearly 2,300 Play Wonder Toy
Barbeque Grills.

The firm said the circular ash tray attached to the stainless steel legs of
the grill could contain sharp edges, posing a laceration hazard.

Target has received neither incident nor injury report.

This recall involves the Play Wonder Barbeque Grill.  The grill is metal and
has an orange metal base and top, along with stainless steel legs and a
removable circular ash tray.  The grill set also includes tongs and a
spatula.  The “Play Wonder” logo is located on the lower right corner of the
packaging.

These toy barbeque grills, manufactured in China by Schylling, of Rowley,
Mass., were sold at Target Stores nationwide from December 2006 to February
2007 for about $20.

Click on the link to view photo of the recalled grill:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07226.html

Consumers should immediately take the toy grills away from children and
return them to Target for a full refund.

For more information, consumers can contact Target at (800) 440-0680 between
7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or log on to the firm’s Web site
http://www.target.com.


TOLL BROTHERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toll Brothers, Inc., and two of its current officers were named as defendants
in a securities class action filed on April 17, 2007 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
the Company’s common stock between Dec. 9, 2004 and Nov. 8, 2005.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and
misleading statements.

The plaintiff class seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
according to the company’s June 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30,
2007.

The suit is “Lowrey v. Toll Brothers, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01513-
JG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge James T. Giles.

Representing the plaintiff is:

        Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
        Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP
        655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
        San Diego, CA 92101
        Phone: 619-231-1058
        E-mail: ramzia@lcsr.com

Representing the defendant is:

        Steven B. Feirson
        Dechert, Price & Rhoads
        1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
        Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
        Phone: 215-994-2749
        E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com


TOTAL CALL: Faces Cal. Suit Over Alleged Rates Misrepresentation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Call International Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June
15 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Nora Monday accuses Total Call of misrepresenting the rates,
charges and other attributes of its prepaid telephone cards.

The suit is “Nora Monday v. Total Call International Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
03913-ODW-RC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge Otis D Wright, II, with referral to Judge Rosalyn M.
Chapman.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Tod Aronovitz
          Steven R. Jaffe
          Aronovitz Trial Lawyers
          Museum Tower
          150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-372-2772

          Eric C. Brunick
          William M. Sweetnam
          Paul M. Weiss
          Freed and Weiss
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          312-220-0000

          Lionel Z Glancy
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

          Seth Lehrman
          Lehrman and Lehrman
          1801 North Pine Island Road, Suite 103
          Plantation, FL 33322
          954-472-9990

          - and -

          Eric Stoppenhagen
          Eric Stoppanhagen Law Offices
          285 Avenue C, Suite MB
          New York, NY 10009
          646-594-8669


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Faces FATA Litigation in N.D. Ind.
------------------------------------------------------------
Travelcenters of America LLC faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, alleging violations of
Fair and Accurate Transactions Act (FATA).

The suit, “Bonner v. Travelcenters of America LLC et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00142-AS-PRC,” was filed on May 2, 2007.

FATA limits certain credit and debit card information that may appear on
electronically printed receipts provided to the cardholder.

The plaintiff purports to represent a class of all persons provided with
electronically printed receipts for transactions occurring at our travel
centers in Indiana after Dec. 4, 2006, which receipts allegedly violate
FATA.  

The complaint seeks damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and costs.

The suit is “Bonner v. Travelcenters of America LLC et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00142-AS-PRC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana under Judge Allen Sharp with referral to Judge Paul R. Cherry.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
         Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC
         120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800,
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-739-4200
         Fax: 312-419-0379
         E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Bruce de'Medici, Esq.
         Mandell Menkes LLC
         333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 300,
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: 312-251-1000
         Fax: 312-251-1010
         E-mail: Bdemedici@mandellmenkes.com


VAN DER MOOLEN: Faces N.Y. Antitrust, Securities Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Van der Moolen Holding N.V. faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that it
violated the U.S. anti-trust and federal securities laws.

Sea Carriers, LP I, and Sea Carriers Corp., filed the suit on June 1, 2007
against Van der Moolen Holding NV, Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC (VDM
Specialists), other New York Stock Exchange specialists and their affiliates,
eight large brokerage firms and their affiliates, and NYSE Euronext.   

The plaintiffs allege that, during the period between October 17, 1998 and
the date of the complaint, the defendants violated the U.S. anti-trust and
federal securities laws by misrepresenting the market for execution services
and costs of execution of trades on the New York Stock Exchange, manipulating
trading on the New York Stock Exchange, and colluding to raise, fix and
maintain at anti-competitive levels the costs of executions services on the
New York Stock Exchange, all with respect to market orders sent to the New
York Stock Exchange floor by means of the Exchange’s  SuperDOT system.  

The company has not yet been served in this action, which seeks unspecified
monetary damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, pre-
judgment interest, and treble damages for any violations of anti-trust laws,
according to the company’s June 22, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007

Van Der Moolen Holding N.V. -- http://www.vandermoolen.com/-- is a  
securities trading firm, principally engaging in trading equities,
derivatives, equity index options, futures, exchange traded funds (ETF) and
bonds on many of the securities exchanges in the U.S. and Europe.  The
Company operates in three business segments: US Trading, European Trading and
Holding and unallocated, which consists of four principal subsidiaries.


WASHINGTON: Metro Settles Lawsuit Over MetroAccess for $2.2M
------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, commonly known as Metro,
settled a class action brought against it by disabled customers, according to
ABC7 News.

Equal Rights Center, a nonprofit organization, together with the Washington
Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, brought the action in
2004.  They originally sought for $14 million under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The complaint alleged late and unpredictable service for MetroAccess
customers who are mostly blind or in wheelchairs.  

It further cited that in some instances, drivers didn’t show up at all or use
long routes.  Riders were often denied of food, water, medication and
bathrooms for long hours.

The $2.2 million partial settlement includes:

     -- 10 free rides for 17,000 registered disabled passengers;

     -- door-to-door service for riders rather than just
        curbside pick up and drop off;

     -- requests for the company to hire consultants to monitor
        the management responsible for the MetroAccess service;
        and

     -- $5,000 compensation for each of the 14 plaintiffs named
        in the suit.

Besides the settlement, Metro allotted a budget of $4 million a year for the
next three years to render door-to-door service.

Plaintiff lawyer Elaine Gardner said "It's a showing of good faith by Metro."

The transit agency didn’t admit any of the allegations, maintaining it
complied with the ADA.

For more information about the suit, contact:

          Elaine Gardner, Esq.
          Director, Disability Rights Project, Washington       
          Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs
          Phone: 202-319-1000
          E-mail: Elaine_Gardner@washlaw.org

                            
                    New Securities Fraud Cases


BRISTOL-MYERS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action on June 19 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
class of all persons who purchased securities of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
between March 22, 2006 and August 8, 2006, inclusive and alleges violations
of the federal securities laws by BMY and certain of its present and/or
former executives.

As alleged in the Complaint, on March 22, 2006, BMY announced that it, along
with Sanofi-Aventis SA, entered into a settlement agreement with Apotex, Inc.
to resolve a patent infringement lawsuit related to the drug Plavix. The
Complaint further alleges that throughout the Class Period, BMY failed to
disclose material facts regarding the Apotex Settlement including:

     (1) that BMY had relinquished material rights in connection
         with the settlement, including the right to treble
         damages;

     (2) that if the Apotex Settlement was not approved, Apotex
         could flood the market with its generic version of
         Plavix; and

     (3) that BMY had negotiated improper side agreements in
         connection with the Apotex Settlement.

On July 27, 2006, BMY revealed that the Antitrust Division of the United
States Department of Justice ("DOJ") was conducting a criminal investigation
into the Apotex Settlement and, as alleged, as a result of this disclosure,
the price of BMY's securities declined $1.95 per share, or 7.5%, to close at
$24.04 per share. On August 8, 2006, BMY disclosed additional material facts
regarding the Apotex Settlement. As a result of this disclosure, it is
alleged that BMY's securities declined $1.56 per share, or approximately 7%,
to close at $21.21 per share.

The Complaint also alleges that on May 10, 2007 BMY issued a press release
disclosing that the Company agreed to plead guilty to federal charges of
making false statements to a government agency in connection with the Apotex
Settlement.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 27, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Frederic S. Fox
          Joel B. Strauss
          Jeffrey P. Campisi
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          805 Third Avenue
          22nd Floor New York
          NY 10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714

          - and -

          Laurence D. King
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax: (415) 772-4707


DENDREON CORP: Susman Godfrey Files Securities Suit in Wash.
------------------------------------------------------------
Susman Godfrey L.L.P. filed a class action against Dendreon Corp. and certain
of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington on June 8.  The action is on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the common stock of Dendreon
between March 1, 2007 and May 8, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges Dendreon and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the progress of the Company's Biologics License
Application for Provenge. According to the complaint, the FDA conducted a pre-
approval Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) inspection of Dendreon's
Hanover, New Jersey manufacturing facility in mid- February 2007 and issued
to Dendreon what is known as an FDA Form 483, Inspectional Observations
Report, which cited various violations of FDA regulations at the Dendreon
facility. Pursuant to FDA regulations, the complaint alleges, the issuance of
a Form 483 made it highly likely that FDA approval would be delayed
substantially past May 15, 2007, the anticipated FDA review date.

According to the complaint, the defendants repeatedly failed to disclose this
information to investors and made false and misleading statements, thereby
artificially inflating Dendreon's stock price. The complaint further alleges
that certain officers and directors traded on this information without
disclosing it to the investing public.

The complaint alleges that the Company only began disclosing this information
as part of its May 9, 2007 announcement that the FDA had issued a Complete
Response letter denying approval for Provenge, which letter cited the same
CMC issues allegedly known to the defendants in February.

As a result of this disclosure, Dendreon stock lost nearly 70% of its market
value, causing significant losses to investors.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 7, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: 713-650-4349
          E-mail: dndn@susmangodfrey.com
          Website: http://www.susmangodfrey.com


                            *********


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  * * *