CAR_Public/070903.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, September 3, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 174

                            Headlines

AMNEW YORK: Accused by Promoters of Paying Below Minimum Wages
APPLE INC: Florida Suit Alleges Monopoly of Digital Content
ARIBA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Complaint in Calif. Litigation
ATLAS AIR: Faces Several Suits Over Air Cargo Pricing Practices
ATLAS AIR: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for N.Y. Suit Settlement Agreement

CALUSA INVESTMENTS: Suit Alleges Illegal Use of Credit Reports
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Plans to Appeal “Tawney” Case Judgment
CHUBB CORP: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Contingent Commissions
CYNOSURE INC: Still Faces Mass. TCPA Suit on Unsolicited Ads
DENDREON CORP: Faces 4 Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Washington

EBAY INC: Accused of Defaulting Student Loan in Calif. Lawsuit
ENERGY PARTNERS: “Farrington” Plaintiffs' Counsel Seeks Fees
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Suit by TEPPCO Unitholder
EPSON AMERICA: Faces Lawsuit in Florida Over Printers
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Lawsuit in Tex. Over Improper Premiums

ILLINOIS: Suit Seeks Home, Community Care for Disabled
LA WEIGHT: Faces Tenn. Fraud Suit Over Lites Bars, Supplements
LENDING FIRST: Lawsuit in California Alleges Lending Violations
LOUISIANA: U.S. Army Corps Can Assert Immunity in Katrina Suit
METROPOLITAN INSURANCE: N.Y. Suit Over Rent Increases Dismissed

MITSUBISHI DIGITAL: Lawsuit in California Alleges Consumer Fraud
NAVISTAR INT’L: Lawyer Expects Distribution of $9M Settlement
OMNICOM GROUP: NY Securities Suit Exclusion Deadline Set Oct. 5
REPSOL YPF: Reaches $8MM Settlement for Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SAN DIEGO: Superior Court Sued Over Overtime FLSA Violations

SOUTH DAKOTA: Claims Against Sioux Falls Traffic Cameras Junked
SPM PAINTING: Former Worker Alleges Labor Law Violations
TD BANKNORTH: N.Y. Lawsuit Claims Undisclosed ATM Cards Fees
AMERICAN HOME: Susman Heffner Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
QIAO XING: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY




                            *********

AMNEW YORK: Accused by Promoters of Paying Below Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seven promoters of amNew York newspaper filed a lawsuit against
the company and its parent The Tribune Co. in the state Supreme
Court, David Pomerantz of the New York Sun reports.

The promoters filed a class action on behalf of all the
individuals who hand out the newspapers –- at least about 100,
according to a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Daniel Kirschenbaum.

Mr. Kirschenbaum said the promoters are paid a flat rate of $20
a day, regardless of the number of hours they work.  Because
they work as many as four hours a day, the pay translates to
below the New York State minimum wage of $7.15 an hour,
according to him.

A spokeswoman from the Tribune Company said the company has no
knowledge of the suit, the report relates.

For more information, contact:

          Dan G. Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Kirschenbaum Law Offices Co., L.P.A.
          The Keith Building, 1621 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1750
          Cleveland, Ohio 44115
          (Cuyahoga Co.)
          Phone: 216-621-0890
          Toll Free in Ohio: 1-877-822-4402
          Fax: 216-621-3590


APPLE INC: Florida Suit Alleges Monopoly of Digital Content
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed August 27 in
the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida alleging Apple monopolizes the online
digital content business by illegally tying two product lines,
iTunes and iPods, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Lead plaintiff Frederick Black claims Apple controls more than
80% of the online music and video market through iTunes.  He
says Apple has made it impossible to transfer digital content
bought from iTunes to any music or video players but iPods, and
impossible to download digital content to an iPod from any other
online vendor.

Apple’s deceptive and unfair business practices place an
unconscionable burden on the class of more than 100,000 Florida
consumers, Mr. Black says.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.220(b)
on behalf of any Florida consumer who has purchased an Apple
iPod or any Florida consumer who has purchased and downloaded
digital content (music, video, etc) from the iTunes Store.

Plaintiff requests that the court rule:

     (a) whether defendant conducted itself in a manner that was
         deceptive and unfair under the Florida Deceptive and
         Unfair Trade Practices Act;

     (b) whether defendant maintain a monopoly in the relevant
         markets discussed;

     (c) whether defendant has conducted itself in such a manner
         as to attempt to maintain a monopoly in the relevant
         markets as discussed;

     (d) whether the definition of the relevant markets as
         discussed are satisfied;

     (e) whether the relevant class period is satisfied;

     (f) whether the market influence and power defendant has in
         each of the relevant markets discussed are satisfied;

     (g) whether the restrictions defendant places on its
         customers are unconscionable; and

     (h) whether plaintiff and the class have been damaged by
         defendant's practices.

Plaintiff requests judgment against defendant as follows:

     -- declaring defendant to be in violation of the Florida
        Antitrust Act;

     -- treble damages;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- any further relief the court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Frederick Black et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
0721186," filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Edward R. Curtis
          William T. Cotterall
          Tripp Scott, P.A.
          110 S.E. Sixth Street, 15th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-7500
          Fax: (954) 761-8475


ARIBA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Complaint in Calif. Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Ariba, Inc. wants the second amended complaint in the purported
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed.

On Oct. 31, 2005, a purported class action, alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company’s Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer and a former president and director
of the Company.  The action is brought on behalf of stockholders
who purchased the Company’s stock from June 10, 2003 to Feb. 7,
2005.

That case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and an Amended Complaint was
filed on November 30, 2006, adding the Company as a defendant.  

A second amended complaint was filed on May 18, 2007.  It
alleges that the defendants artificially inflated the Company’s
stock price between those dates by failing to disclose, in
public statements that the Company made about its products,
market position and performance, that some of those products
allegedly infringed patents belonging to a third party.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second
amended complaint on July 20, 2007, according to the company's
Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

Ariba, Inc. -- http://www.ariba.com-- provides spend management  
solutions that allow enterprises to manage the purchasing of
non-payroll goods and services required to run their business.
The Company refers to these non-payroll expenses as spend.  Its
solutions include software, network access, professional
services and expertise.  They are designed to provide
enterprises with technology and business process improvements to
manage their spend, and in turn, save money.  Ariba's software
and services streamline and improve the business processes
related to the identification of suppliers of goods and
services, the negotiation of the terms of purchases, and the
management of ongoing purchasing and settlement activities.


ATLAS AIR: Faces Several Suits Over Air Cargo Pricing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., and Polar LLC are defendants
in a number of class actions in the U.S. that relate to the U.S.
Department of Justice’s investigation into the pricing practices
of a number of air cargo carriers and that have now been
consolidated for pre-trial purposes, according to the company's
Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

The consolidated complaint universally alleges, among other
things, that the defendants, including the Company and Polar
LLC, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold
domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges.

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.atlasair.com/
-- is a holding company with two principal wholly owned
operating subsidiaries Atlas Air, Inc. and Polar Air Cargo, Inc.  
The Company is a provider of outsourced aircraft operations and
related services, serving the global air freight industry by
operating aircraft on behalf of the international airlines,
freight forwarders and the United States Military, as well as
for its own account.  The Company’s geographic operating regions
include Asia, Europe, the Middle East, South America and the
U.S.   AAWW is the operator of Boeing 747 freighter aircraft
with an operating fleet totaling 38 aircraft at December 31,
2006.  The Company operates its business through four segments:
Aircraft operations outsourcing, Scheduled air-cargo, Military
charter services and Commercial charters.  In addition to these
primary services, the Company also leases aircraft to other
commercial cargo airlines without other support services (dry
leasing).


ATLAS AIR: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for N.Y. Suit Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 9, 2007 hearing is set for the proposed settlement in a
securities fraud class actions filed against Atlas Air Worldwide
Holdings, Inc. and certain of its former directors and officers.

The suits, filed with the U.S. District Court of the Southern
District of New York, generally alleges the parties violated
certain provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The court had recently entered an order approving the settlement
of these actions on a preliminary basis.

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.atlasair.com/
-- is a holding company with two principal wholly owned
operating subsidiaries Atlas Air, Inc. and Polar Air Cargo, Inc.  
The Company is a provider of outsourced aircraft operations and
related services, serving the global air freight industry by
operating aircraft on behalf of the international airlines,
freight forwarders and the United States Military, as well as
for its own account.  The Company’s geographic operating regions
include Asia, Europe, the Middle East, South America and the
U.S.   AAWW is the operator of Boeing 747 freighter aircraft
with an operating fleet totaling 38 aircraft at December 31,
2006.  The Company operates its business through four segments:
Aircraft operations outsourcing, Scheduled air-cargo, Military
charter services and Commercial charters.  In addition to these
primary services, the Company also leases aircraft to other
commercial cargo airlines without other support services (dry
leasing).


CALUSA INVESTMENTS: Suit Alleges Illegal Use of Credit Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calusa Investments, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed
August 28 with the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin.

Named plaintiff Jessica Allee accuses the company of illegally
using credit reports to solicit people for mortgage sales.

The suit is “Allee v. Calusa Investments LLC, Case No. 2:07-cv-
00772-JPS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, under Judge J. P. Stadtmueller.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          John D. Blythin
          Robert K. O'Reilly
          David M. Victor
          Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
          3620 E Layton Ave
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: 414-482-8000
          Fax: 414-482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com or roreilly@ademilaw.com
                  or dvictor@ademilaw.com


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Plans to Appeal “Tawney” Case Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., formerly known as Columbia
Natural Resources, LLC, and an affiliate of Chesapeake Energy
Corp., will appeal a judgment in the purported class action,
“Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.,” unless it
is substantially reduced as a result of post-trial motions.

The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Roane
County, West Virginia filed in 2003 by royalty owners.  In it
plaintiffs allege that CNR underpaid royalties by improperly
deducting post-production costs, failing to pay royalty on total
volumes of natural gas produced and not paying a fair value for
the natural gas produced from their leases.

The plaintiff class consists of West Virginia royalty owners
receiving royalties after July 31, 1990 from CNR.  Chesapeake
acquired CNR in November 2005, and its seller acquired CNR in
2003 from NiSource Inc.  

NiSource, a co-defendant in the case, has managed the litigation
and indemnified Chesapeake against underpayment claims based on
the use of fixed prices for natural gas production sold under
certain forward sale contracts and other claims with respect to
CNR’s operations prior to September 2003.

On Jan. 27, 2007, the Circuit Court jury returned a verdict
against the defendants of $404 million, consisting of
$134 million in compensatory damages and $270 million in
punitive damages.

Most of the damages awarded by the jury relate to issues not yet
addressed by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,
although in June 2006 that Court ruled against the defendants on
two certified questions regarding the deductibility of post-
production expenses.

The jury found fraudulent conduct by the defendants with respect
to the sales prices used to calculate royalty payments and with
respect to the failure of CNR to disclose post-production
deductions.

On June 28, 2007, the Circuit Court sustained the jury verdict
for punitive damages.

After judgment has been entered, Chesapeake and NiSource intend
to file additional post-trial motions seeking to set aside the
judgment.

Chesapeake and NiSource maintain CNR acted in good faith and
paid royalties in accordance with lease terms and West Virginia
law, and will appeal unless the judgment is substantially
reduced as a result of post-trial motions, according to the
company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed in West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County
under Judge Thomas Evans III.

Representing the plaintiffs is:
       
         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St., P.O. Box 1791         
         Charleston, West Virginia 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


CHUBB CORP: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Contingent Commissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Chubb Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries continue to face
purported class actions arising out of the investigations into
market practices in the property and casualty insurance industry
involving the payment of contingent commissions to brokers and
agents, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Purported class actions arising out of the investigations into
the payment of contingent commissions to brokers and agents have
been filed in a number of state and federal courts.

On Aug. 1, 2005, Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a putative class action entitled, “In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation” in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

This action, brought against several brokers and insurers on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased insurance through the
broker defendants, asserts claims under the Sherman Act and
state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act arising from the alleged unlawful use of contingent
commission agreements.

Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries have also been named as
defendants in two putative class actions relating to allegations
of unlawful use of contingent commission arrangements that were
originally filed in state court.  

The first was filed on February 16, 2005 in Seminole County,
Florida.  The second was filed on May 17, 2005 in Essex County,
Massachusetts.

Both cases were removed to federal court and then transferred by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey for consolidation
with “In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”

Since being transferred to the District of New Jersey, the
plaintiff in the former lawsuit has been inactive and the latter
lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed.

On April 5, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismissed the complaint in “In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation,” without prejudice, granting plaintiffs
one further opportunity to amend their complaint.  

Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on May 22, 2007.
Motions to dismiss that complaint are currently pending.

In December 2005, Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries were
named in a putative class action similar to “In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and has been assigned to the judge who is
presiding over “In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”
The complaint has never been served in this matter.

Separately, in April 2006, Chubb and one of its subsidiaries
were named in an action similar to “In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation.”

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia and subsequently was transferred by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey for consolidation
with “In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”

On May 21, 2007, Chubb and one of its subsidiaries were named in
another putative class action similar to “In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”  

It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.  Consolidation of this action with In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation is pending.

In these actions, it was generally alleged that the defendants
unlawfully used contingent commission agreements.  The actions
seek treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and
attorneys’ fees.

The Chubb Corp. -- http://www.chubb.com-- is a holding company  
for a family of property and casualty insurance companies known
as the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (the P&C Group).  The
P&C Group is divided into three business units: Chubb Commercial
Insurance, Chubb Commercial Insurance and Chubb Specialty
Insurance.  Chubb Commercial Insurance offers a range of
commercial customer insurance products, including coverage for
multiple peril, casualty, workers’ compensation, property and
marine.  Chubb Specialty Insurance offers a variety of
specialized professional liability products for privately and
publicly owned companies, financial institutions, professional
firms and healthcare organizations.  Chubb Specialty Insurance
also includes the Company’s surety business.  Chubb Personal
Insurance offers products for individuals.  The P&C Group
provides insurance coverages principally in the United States,
Canada, Europe, Australia, and parts of Latin America and Asia.


CYNOSURE INC: Still Faces Mass. TCPA Suit on Unsolicited Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. continues to face a purported class action filed
in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County over
allegations that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

In May 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a lawsuit against the
company under the TCPA.  

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated the TCPA by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile.  It is seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys fees.

The complaint alleges that Cynosure violated the TCPA by sending
unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff and
other recipients without the prior express invitation or
permission of the recipients.

Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile
advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per
facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 per
facsimile for knowing or willful violations.

Cynosure, Inc. -- http://www.cynosurelaser.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets treatment systems, which are used by
physicians and other practitioners to perform non-invasive
procedures to remove hair, treat vascular lesions, rejuvenate
skin through the treatment of shallow vascular lesions and
pigmented lesions, and temporarily reduce the appearance of
cellulite.  The company markets and sells its products to the
dermatology, plastic surgery and general medical markets,
domestically and internationally.


DENDREON CORP: Faces 4 Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dendreon Corp. faces four purported securities fraud class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

Three of these suits name Dendreon and its chief executive
officer as defendants and allege a proposed class period of
March 30, 2007 through May 8, 2007.

One suit names Dendreon, four of its executive officers, and two
members of our board of directors and alleges a proposed class
period of March 1, 2007 through May 8, 2007.

All four proposed class action suits purport to state claims for
securities law violations stemming from the company's
disclosures related to Provenge and the FDA’s actions regarding
its pending biologics license application for Provenge.  

The actions seek compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and
expenses, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Dendreon Corp. -- http://www.dendreon.com-- is a biotechnology  
company focused on the discovery, development and
commercialization of therapeutics that harness the immune system
to fight cancer.  Dendreon’s most advanced product candidate is
Provenge (sipuleucel-T), an active cellular immunotherapy that
has completed two Phase III trials for the treatment of
asymptomatic, metastatic, androgen-independent prostate cancer.
On Aug. 24, 2006, the Company submitted the clinical and non-
clinical sections of its biologics license application (BLA) and
on Nov. 9, 2006, the Company submitted the chemistry,
manufacturing and controls (CMC) section, completing its
submission of its BLA to the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for Provenge.  On Jan. 12, 2007, the FDA
accepted the Company’s BLA filing and assigned Priority Review
status for Provenge.


EBAY INC: Accused of Defaulting Student Loan in Calif. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
eBay, Inc. is facing a class-action unfair competition claim
filed Aug. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Named plaintiff The Missing Link, Inc. alleges defaulted student
loans.

The suit is “The Missing Link, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., Case No.
5:07-cv-04487-PVT,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Patricia V.
Trumbull.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kevin K. Eng
          Edward Scott Zusman
          Markun Zusman & Compton LLP
          465 California Street, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415 438-4515 or 415-438-4449
          Fax: 415 434-4505
          E-mail: keng@mzclaw.com or ezusman@mzclaw.com


ENERGY PARTNERS: “Farrington” Plaintiffs' Counsel Seeks Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs’ counsel in a putative securities class action filed
in Delaware against Energy Partners, Ltd. filed a petition for
an award of fees and expenses, according to the company's
Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

On Sept. 12, 2006, Thomas Farrington, a purported stockholder of
the Company, filed a putative class action suit against the
Company, all of the Company’s directors, EPL Acquisition Corp.
LLC, and Stone Energy Corp. in the Delaware Court.  The suit is
in relation to the company’s terminated merger agreement with
Stone Energy Corp.

As amended on Oct. 19, 2006, the complaint in the Farrington
Action alleges that the Company’s directors breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to the termination fee provisions
in the Merger Agreement, adopting the sixth-month stockholders
rights agreement, amending and extending coverage to all full
time employees of its change of control severance arrangements,
and paying a fee to Stone in connection with the termination of
the Merger Agreement.

The Farrington action also alleges that the Company’s directors
failed to adequately disclose material information relevant to
the Company stockholders’ decision whether to accept the
Woodside Tender Offer.  It seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief as well as unspecified damages.

On Oct. 19, 2006, the Delaware Court denied a motion filed by
plaintiff seeking expedited consideration of these claims.   On
July 26, 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a petition for an award
of fees and expenses based on the Company’s termination of the
Stone merger agreement following the commencement of the
litigation.

Energy Partners Ltd. -- http://www.eplweb.com/-- is an oil and  
natural gas exploration and production company.  The Company’s
operations are concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico Shelf, the
deepwater Gulf of Mexico, as well as the Gulf Coast onshore
region (the Gulf of Mexico Region).


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Suit by TEPPCO Unitholder
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. remains a defendant in a
purported class action filed by a unitholder of its TEPPCO
Partners, L.P. affiliate, a publicly traded Delaware limited
partnership.

On Sept. 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of
TEPPCO Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of
New Castle County in the State of Delaware, in his individual
capacity, as:

     * a putative class action on behalf of other unitholders of
       TEPPCO, and

     * derivatively on behalf of TEPPCO,

concerning, among other things, certain transactions involving
TEPPCO and Enterprise Products or its affiliates.

The complaint names as defendants TEPPCO, its directors, and
certain of its affiliates; Enterprise Products and certain of
the company's affiliates; EPCO, Inc.; and Dan L. Duncan, the
chairman and controlling shareholder of EPCO.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
have caused TEPPCO to enter into certain transactions with the
company or its affiliates that are unfair to TEPPCO or otherwise
unfairly favored the company or the company's affiliates over
TEPPCO.  

These transactions are alleged to include the joint venture to
further expand the Jonah Gas Gathering System -- located in the
Greater Green River Basin of southwestern Wyoming -- entered
into by TEPPCO and one of the company's affiliates in August
2006 and the sale by TEPPCO to one of the company's affiliates
of the Pioneer gas processing plant in March 2006.

The Jonah system gathers and transports natural gas produced
from the Jonah and Pinedale fields to regional natural gas
processing plants and major interstate pipelines that deliver
natural gas to end-use markets.

The complaint seeks:

     -- rescission of these transactions or an award of
        rescissory damages with respect thereto;

     -- damages for profits and special benefits allegedly
        obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged
        wrongdoings in the complaint; and

     -- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees
        and expenses of his attorneys and experts.

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

Enterprise Products Partners L.P. -- http://www.epplp.com-- is  
a North American midstream energy company providing a range of
services to producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas
liquids, crude oil, and certain petrochemicals.  It is engaged
in the development of pipeline and other midstream energy
infrastructure in the continental United States and Gulf of
Mexico.  It conducts substantially all of its business through
its wholly owned subsidiary, Enterprise Products Operating L.P.
The Company is owned 98% by its limited partners and 2% by its
general partner, Enterprise Products GP, LLC (Enterprise
Products GP).  Enterprise Products GP is owned by Enterprise GP
Holdings. The Company operates in four business segments: NGL
Pipelines & Services, Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services,
Offshore Pipelines & Services and Petrochemical Services. In
September 2006, the Company formed Duncan Energy Partners, to
acquire, own and operate a diversified portfolio of midstream
energy assets from the Company.


EPSON AMERICA: Faces Lawsuit in Florida Over Printers
-----------------------------------------------------
Epson America, Inc. is facing a complaint filed in the Circuit
Court in and for Orange County, Florida, alleging it defrauds
customers by selling printers with a computer chip that makes
the machine inoperable just after the warranty expires, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff David Basher dba Magic Moment, who says he will
amend the complaint to make it a class action, says he bought
three Epson printers, each with a year warranty, and all of them
stopped working just after the warranty expired.  He further
claims that he found, through Internet research, that Epson
programs the printers to break after the warranty expires.

Mr. Basher requests that the court enter judgment against
defendant for compensatory damages, treble damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, attorney fees and such other relief as in just
and under the circumstances and demands trial by jury.

The suit is "David Basher dba A Magic Moment et al. v. Epson
America, Inc.," filed in the Circuit Court in and for Orange
County, Florida.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Chobee Ebbets, P.A.
          Ebbets, Armstrong & Traster
          210 South Beach Street, Suite 200
          Daytona Beach, Florida 32114
          Phone: (386) 253-2288


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Lawsuit in Tex. Over Improper Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Fidelity
National Financial, Inc. faces a purported class action
generally alleging that improper premiums were charged for title
insurance.

The suit, “McGee v. FNTIC,” was filed filed June 18, 2007 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  It
alleges that the defendant failed to provide notice of premium
discounts to consumers refinancing their mortgages, and failed
to give discounts in refinancing transactions in violation of
the filed rates.  

The suits seek refunds of the premiums charged and punitive
damages, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “McGee et al v. Fidelity National Title Insurance
Company, Case No. 3:07-cv-01089,” filed in the  U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Ed
Kinkeade.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Eric G. Calhoun, Esq.
          Travis & Calhoun
          1000 Providence Towers East, 5001 Spring Valley Rd.
          Dallas, TX 75244
          Phone: 972/934-4100
          Fax: 972/934-4101
          E-mail: eric@travislaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

          Karin Britt Torgerson, Esq.
          Locke Liddell & Sapp
          Chase Tower, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2200
          Dallas, TX 75201-6776
          Phone: 214/740-8000
          Fax: 214/740-8800
          E-mail: ktorgerson@lockeliddell.com


ILLINOIS: Suit Seeks Home, Community Care for Disabled
------------------------------------------------------
Five people with disabilities living in nursing homes across
Cook County are accusing the state of violating federal law by
not providing adequate resources for them to live in their
communities instead of institutions, Monique Garcia of the
Chicago Tribune reports.

The main plaintiff in the suit is Lenil Colbert, who was
admitted to an Oak Park nursing facility in February 2006 after
a partial paralysis.  He said he was never presented with the
option of staying at home and receiving community care.

The class-action suit claims people with disabilities are being
segregated and forced into nursing homes because the state
dedicates most of its long-term care funding to the institutions
instead of home and community-care options, according to the
report.

Ed Mullen, an attorney representing the plaintiffs agreed that
the state has the discretion to determine its spending, but he
said the Americans with Disabilities Act requires the state to
provide care in the most integrated setting possible.

The plaintiffs want the state to assess at admission and during
their stay whether nursing home residents are eligible for
community-care services; provide residents with information
about alternative home and community-based care options; and
give eligible nursing home residents the necessary community
support and care, according to the report.

Disability-rights organizations Access Living and Equip For
Equality, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union are
supporting the lawsuit.


LA WEIGHT: Faces Tenn. Fraud Suit Over Lites Bars, Supplements
--------------------------------------------------------------
A resident of Jefferson County, Tennessee filed a class action
against LA Weight Loss Centers, Inc., LA Weight Loss Franchise
Company, and T-Knox, LLC, and/or T-Knox, Inc. for alleged
violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff Paula Gibson seeks declaratory, injunctive and
monetary relief on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated.

Her complaint states:

“LAWL engaged in deceptive acts and practices when it
intentionally and willfully misrepresented and/or omitted
essential information regarding the costs of LAWL’s weight loss
program and the nature of its products including but not limited
to LA Lites Bars and LA Supplements.  LAWL misrepresented and
omitted this essential information as part of its scheme to
induce vulnerable consumers into paying for LAWL produces and
services.

“The company’s sales representatives frequently failed to
disclose to its customers that they had to purchase certain LAWL
products, including but not limited to LA Lites Bars and LA
Supplements, until after they had paid the initial fee for the
program, signed the membership contract, and started the program
–- after their three day right to cancel had expired.  LAWL
sales representatives were trained to, and regularly did,
insist, that the LA Lites Bars were required for participation
in the diet program, and that the diet would not work without
them.

“LAWL routinely made representations regarding its LA Lites Bars
and LA Supplements as to their health or weight loss benefits or
effects that it did not have competent, credible and/or reliable
scientific evidence to substantiate.”

The plaintiff brought the purported class action on behalf of
herself and on behalf of the following similarly situated class
consisting of all persons in Tennessee who purchased LAWL’s
weight loss products or services from April 16, 2002 to the
present.

The Class excludes Defendants, its subsidiaries, affiliates,
dealers, officers, directors, members of Defendants’ affiliates,
officers, dealers’ and directors’ immediate families any
entities in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and
the officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives,
heirs, successors and/or assigns of any of the individuals or
entities mentioned in this paragraph, and any judge assigned to
here this action.

The plaintiff wants the court to issue:

     -- an order certifying this matter as a class action with
        Plaintiff as the Class Representative and designating
        Plaintiff’s counsel as Class Counsel;

     -- an order declaring that LAWL has engaged in unfair acts
        and practices in the sale of its weight loss products
        and services in violation of the Tennessee Consumer
        Protection Act;

     -- an order that LAWL be enjoined from its improper acts
        and practices;

     -- damages to the Plaintiff and the Class members resulting
        from LAWL’s deceptive acts and practices;

     -- three times the actual damages sustained by Plaintiff
        and the Class members resulting from LAWL’s willful or
        knowing violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection
        Act;

     -- disgorgement by LAWL of all profits and compensation
        emanating from the unfair and/or fraudulent business
        practices;

     -- prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

The suit is “Gibson v. LA Weight Loss Centers, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00172,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of under Judge J. Ronnie Greer with referral to
Dennis H. Inman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          P. Richard Talley, Esq.
          P. Richard Talley & Associates
          P.O. Box 950
          Dandridge, TN 37725
          Phone: (865) 397-9878

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Donna F. Solen, Esq.
          The Mason Law Firm, L.L.P.
          1225 19th Street N.W., Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20036

          Doffermyre, Shields, Canfield,
          Knowles & Devine, L.L.C.
          Everette Doffermyre
          1355 Peachtree St., Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          Whatley Drake & Kallas, L.L.C.
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, Alabama 35203


LENDING FIRST: Lawsuit in California Alleges Lending Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lending 1st Mortgage is facing a class-action complaint filed
August 29 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

Named plaintiff Armando Plascencia accuses Lending 1st Mortgage
of lending violations, bad faith and unfair business practices.

The suit is “Plascencia et al v. Lending 1st Mortgage et al.,
Case No. 5:07-cv-04485-JW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge James Ware,
with referral to Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David M. Arbogast
          Robert Ira Spiro
          Spiro Moss Barness LLP
          5th Floor, 11377 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: 310-235-2468
          Fax: 310-235-2456
          E-mail: david@spiromoss.com or ira@spiromoss.com

          Jeffrey Keith Berns
          19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Phone: (818) 961-2000

          - and -

          Patrick DeBlase
          Michael C. Eyerly
          Paul R. Kiesel
          Kiesel,Boucher & Larson LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: 310-854-0812
          E-mail: Kiesel@kbla.com


LOUISIANA: U.S. Army Corps Can Assert Immunity in Katrina Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr. said the law may grant
immunity to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the failure of
a flood wall and levee during Huricane Katrina, but he has not
yet ruled on whether the suit can go forward, The Jurist
reports.

Residents of New Orleans, whose homes were destroyed by waters
from the 17th Street Canal, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern of Louisiana against the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12, 2007).

The lawsuit alleges numerous instances of negligence and cites
expert reports warning the Corps of the failure of the canal due
to weak soils as far back as 1974.

According to the lawsuit, that was the year that the New Orleans
Sewerage and Water Board began seeking a permit to dredge the
17th Street Canal to increase drainage in uptown New Orleans.  

In a recent hearing, the corps claims that it can’t be sued for
negligence because the project falls under the Flood Control
Act, rendering it immune to lawsuits.

The Corps is accused of negligently approving sheet pilings to
depths just two feet higher than the bottom of the canal,
allowing water to travel underneath the sheet pilings.

The suit further contends that the Corps abandoned the so-called
"Barrier Plan" which would have protected metropolitan New
Orleans from deadly storm surge from Lake Pontchartrain.   
Instead the Corps implemented another plan, the 'High-Level
Plan" which posed numerous known problems.

The suit is "Greer et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Case
No. 2:07-cv-00647-SRD-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Stanwood R. Duval,
Jr., with referral to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Joseph M. Bruno, Esq.
          Bruno & Bruno
          855 Baronne St., New
          Orleans, LA 70113
          Phone: (504) 525-1335
          E-mail: jbruno@brunobrunolaw.com


METROPOLITAN INSURANCE: N.Y. Suit Over Rent Increases Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action over rent increases at Stuyvesant
Town and Peter Cooper Village has been dismissed, according to
the Associated Press.

The complex, which was previously owned by Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co., was later sold to Tishman Speyer, which bought it
for $5.4 billion in 2006.

The tenants, who are represented by attorney Stuart M. Saft, are
seeking are roll back of their rents, claiming that the
complex's owners illegally charged market-rate rents for more
than 3,000 apartments in the complexes while benefiting from tax
breaks that should have precluded them from doing so.

One of the suits filed is "Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer
Properties, et al. (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed Jan. 22,
2007)."  The suit also names Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity
Co.

Metropolitan Life was initially a named defendant but the action
has been discontinued as to Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
since it did not own the properties during the time period in
question.

This group of tenants claims that the MetLife entities, and
Tishman Speyer, improperly charged market rents when only lower
regulated rents were permitted.

The allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax
abatements.  The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages.

A second purported class action, originally titled, "Carroll v.
Tishman Speyer Properties, et. al (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed
Feb. 14, 2007)," was filed against the same defendants alleging
similar claims as in the Roberts case and, in addition, includes
a claim of unjust enrichment and purported violation of New York
General Business Law Section 349.  

The Carroll action was consolidated into the Roberts action.  A
motion to dismiss was filed in the consolidated lawsuit and oral
argument was heard on May 15, 2007.

Judge Richard Lowe recently dismissed the suit because although
the complex had been rent stabilized, it didn't start receiving
tax breaks until 1992.  The complex was allowed to rent some
apartments at market rate under luxury deregulation rules.

For more details, contact:

         Stuart M. Saft, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 545-4710
         Fax: (212) 686-0114
         Web site: http://www.whafh.com


MITSUBISHI DIGITAL: Lawsuit in California Alleges Consumer Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America Inc. is facing a class-
action complaint file August 9 with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California for diversity fraud.

Named plaintiff Kelly Johnson accuses Mitsubishi of selling
high-definition TVs with 1080 pixel display that cannot accept
1080 pixel signals from any available source.

The suit is “Kelly Johnson v. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics
America Inc et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-00931-CJC-MLG,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
under Judge Cormac J. Carney, with referral to Judge Marc L.
Goldman.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Brian S. Kabateck
          Richard L. Kellner
          Alfredo Torrijos
          Kabateck Brown Kellner
          644 South Figueroa St
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-217-5000
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com

          - and -

          Darren T. Kaplan
          Gregory E. Keller
          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com


NAVISTAR INT’L: Lawyer Expects Distribution of $9M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff lawyer in a discrimination suit against Navistar
International Corp. expects that settlement checks will finally
be mailed to class members in the case, Danya Hooker reports in
an Aug. 15 issue of the GateHouse News Service.

“The company, to its great credit, agreed to pay them the money
and pay it right away,” Chicago-based civil rights attorney Fay
Clayton said, according to the report.

Employees of the Warrenville, Ill.-based company filed the suit
in 2000 alleging discrimination and harassment against black
employees.

After one week of trial, the plant agreed in September to pay
out a $9 million settlement, $4.5 million of which will go to
the plaintiffs.  The $9 million was put into an escrow account.

The settlement also calls for five years of monitoring which
will include extensive employee training and oversight by a
third party.

According to Ms. Hooker, Navistar spokesman Roy Wiley is
forbidden under the settlement from confirming whether the
checks had already been paid out.

For more information, contact:

          Fay Clayton, Esq.
          Robinson Curley & Clayton, P.C.
          300 South Wacker Drive
          Suite 1700
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          (Cook Co.)
          Phone: 312-663-3100
          Fax: 312-663-0303


OMNICOM GROUP: NY Securities Suit Exclusion Deadline Set Oct. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has set an October 5, 2007 deadline for exclusion from the class
in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
Omnicom Group, Inc. and certain senior executives.

Beginning on June 13, 2002, several putative class actions were
filed.  The actions have since been consolidated under the
caption, “In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
02-CV-4483 (RCC),” on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers
of our common stock between Feb. 20, 2001 and June 11, 2002.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
company’s public filings and other public statements during that
period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to
state material information relating to:

      -- the company’s calculation of the organic growth
         component of period-to-period revenue growth,

      -- the company’s valuation of and accounting for certain
         internet investments made by its Communicade Group,
         which it contributed to Seneca Investments LLC in 2001,
         and

      -- the existence and amount of certain contingent future
         obligations in respect of acquisitions.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages plus costs and attorneys’ fees.  Defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint and on March 28, 2005, the court dismissed
portions (1st) and (3rd) of the complaint detailed above.

The court’s decision denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss
the remainder of the complaint did not address the ultimate
merits of the case, but only the sufficiency of the pleading.

Defendants have answered the complaint.  Discovery concluded in
the second quarter of 2007.

On April 30, 2007, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for
class certification, certifying the class proposed by plaintiffs
(Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007).

The suit is "In Re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge John Keenan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Max W. Berger, Esq.
          Douglas M. McKeige, Esq.
          Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P.
          Phone: (212) 554-1400 and (212) 554-1481

          - and -

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100 and 631-367-1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com and
                  srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          David Harold Braff, Esq.
          Stacey Rubin Friedman
          Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-558-4705 and 212-558-4000
          Fax: 212-558-3333 and 212-558-3588
          E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com and
                  friedmans@sullcrom.com


REPSOL YPF: Reaches $8MM Settlement for Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spanish petrochemicals group Repsol YPF has reached a settlement
for $8 million with US shareholders in a class-action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all securities purchasers of Repsol YPF, S.A. (REP)
between July 28, 2005 and Jan. 27, 2006 inclusive, EL PAIS
reports.

Under the terms of an agreement, the Spanish group will pay
shareholders $8 million, an almost symbolic amount, well below
the $352.6 million paid out by Shell in a similar case, the
report said.

The complaint, filed in early 2006, charges Repsol and certain
of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2006).  

The complaint alleges that defendants' issued a series of false
and misleading statements to the market artificially inflating
the company's stock.  More specifically, the Defendants failed
to disclose these materially adverse facts to the market:

     (1) that the company's proven reserves were materially
         overstated;

     (2) that changes in Bolivia's legal framework, were
         negatively effecting the company's Bolivian gas
         production operation;

     (3) that the company was experiencing production problems
         in Argentina;

     (4) that the company had to take an asset impairment charge
         of EUR50 million; and

     (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the company's
         positive statements about its reserves and business
         growth lacked in all reasonable basis when made.

On Jan. 26, 2006, the company announced that it was reducing its
proven oil and gas reserves estimates by 25%.  On this news,
shares of Repsol ADRs fell $2.12 per share, or 7%, on Jan. 26,
2006, to close at $27.99 per share.  The company's stock
continued to decline on Jan. 27, 2006, when it fell $1.34 per
share, or 4.79%, to close at $26.65 per share.  

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages.

By mid-year, the law firm Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed an
amended class action claiming company executives "knowingly or
recklessly made numerous false and misleading statements
concerning the company's business and financial results," (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006).

Repsol engages in the exploration, development, and production
of crude oil and natural gas primarily in Spain and Argentina.

The suit is “Reynolds v. Repsol YPF, S.A. et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-00733-DAB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Deborah A. Batts.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr
          David Avi Rosenfeld
          Samuel Howard Rudman
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins,
          LLP(LIs)
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173
          E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com or
                  drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com or
                  srudman@lerachlaw.com

          Joyce Szuyun Huang
          Brad Scott Karp
          Douglas M. Pravda
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (NY)
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-373-3000
          Fax: 212-7573990
          E-mail: jhuang@paulweiss.com or bkarp@paulweiss.com or
                  dpravda@paulweiss.com

          - and -

          Kay E. Sickles
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 667-7706
          Fax: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: ksickles@sbtklaw.com


SAN DIEGO: Superior Court Sued Over Overtime FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson DeMarco Tidus Petersen Peckenpaugh filed a lawsuit in
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of employees of the San Diego County
Superior Court and the San Diego County Court Employees
Association.

The lawsuit, “Tran, et al. v. San Diego County Superior Court,
County of San Diego, et al.” ("Tran"), asserts that the court
employees were required to work overtime without compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  It also asserts on
behalf of the court employees and the SDCCEA a breach of
contract claim as to the parties' written Memorandum of
Agreement that governs the employment relationship between the
court employees and the San Diego County Superior Court.

JDTPP has petitioned the court to certify the lawsuit as a
collective action, with approximately 1,000 similarly situated
Superior Court employees potentially eligible to join the
lawsuit as members.  As a result of its initial research, JDTPP
believes that court employees holding the position of Children's
Waiting Room Assistant, Collection Officer, Court Administrative
Clerk, Court Interpreter, Court Operations Clerk, Courtroom
Clerk, Exhibits Custodian, Independent Calendar Clerk, Material
Specialist Paralegal, SARMS Coordinator, Senior Court
Administrative Clerk, Senior Data Entry Operator, Senior
Exhibits Custodian, Senior Material Specialist, Superior Court
Worker, Probate Examiner, Probate Investigator, Court Operations
Supervisor, Material Supervisor and Senior Court Operations
Clerk were subject to similar work environments.

The Tran lawsuit asserts that the San Diego County Superior
Court required the court employees to work before and after
their scheduled work hours and through meal and rest periods
without compensation in violation of federal labor laws. The
required activities include:

     -- performing pre- and post-shift responsibilities;

     -- attending legal seminars on court operations, policies
        and procedures related to their work;

     -- obtaining, reviewing and completing paperwork related to
        their cases;

     -- calling counsel to discuss hearing schedule matters; and

     -- performing various other required tasks.

The lawsuit asserts that the court employees regularly worked
overtime without compensation and that the department's managers
were aware of such practices, which is in violation of the FLSA
and in breach of the contract between the SDCCEA and the court.

“Tran, et al. v. San Diego County Superior Court, County of San
Diego, et al.” FLSA Overtime lawsuit on the net:
http://www.jdtplaw.com/CM/CurrentandRepresentativeCases/Tran.asp

The suit is “Tran et al v. San Diego County Superior Court et
al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01683-IEG-JMA,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, under Judge Irma
E. Gonzalez, with referral to Judge Jan M. Adler.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Roger Mark Franks
          Donald E. Leonhardt
          Jackson DeMarco Tidus and Peckenpaugh
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1200
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949)752-8585
          Fax: (949)752-0597
          E-mail: rfranks@jdtplaw.com or dleonhardt@jdtplaw.com


SOUTH DAKOTA: Claims Against Sioux Falls Traffic Cameras Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minnehaha County Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell dismissed most
claims in a suit filed against Sioux Falls over its red light
cameras, including class allegations by plaintiffs saying he had
not stated adequate grounds for certifying a class, Melanie
Brandert of the Argus Leader reports.

The only counts left are due process violations for the city and
Redflex, provider of cameras and equipment in the city.  Judge
Caldwell also granted Redflex's motions to dismiss the
plaintiff's contention that it improperly modified the right
turn on red and improperly positioned traffic lights.  The
plaintiff did not show a connection between the company and the
city's ability to exceed state authority to issue civil
penalties for stoplight violations, the judge said.

The suit was filed by Sioux Falls, South Dakota resident, I.L.
Wiedermann, who alleges that the city conspired with the camera
company to alter the traffic signals so more people get caught.  
It also questions whether Sioux Falls even has the authority to
even impose the tickets on drivers (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
17, 2006).  Mr. Wiedermann had sought to represent 17,000
motorists who were ticketed based on photos taken by cameras
that catch red-light violations.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Aaron D. Eiesland, Esq.
          Johnson Eiesland Law Offices, P.C.
          4020 Jackson Boulevard PO Box 6900
          Rapid City, SD 57702-6900
          Phone:  348 7300
          Fax:  3484757


SPM PAINTING: Former Worker Alleges Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
A St. Tammany Parish (La.) resident who worked for SPM Painting
Co. of Plano, Texas filed a collective action on August 2
against the company and project contractor Catastrophe Services
International LLC of Denver, alleging labor law violations,
KATC3 reports.

Oscar Madrid went to work as an infiltrator at a non-union work
site painting a school, according to the report.  He was later
fired "for talking to others on the worksite about wages and
working conditions."  When he demanded overtime pay for 58 hours
of work over seven days, plus five hours on a sixth day, he was
reportedly denied.  He alleged that SPM isn't listed in public
records as a corporation licensed in Texas or Louisiana.

SPM Painting is not listed in the Louisiana State Licensing
Board for Contractors' database, according to the report.  
Catastrophe Services has a Louisiana contractor's license.

Mr. Madrid is a St. Tammany Parish resident and naturalized
citizen from Honduras, according to the report.  He was used as
an infiltrator by painters local in its effort to crack on an
“underground cash-only economy,” that emerged after Hurricane
Katrina damages increased demand for construction work.  Mr.
Madrid is affiliated with the International Union of Painters
and Allied Trades.

Mr. Madrid asked the court to order that he and other employees
be properly compensated and that contractors also pay federal
unemployment insurance and Social Security payroll taxes for
them.  He said employers are underpaying and overworking
Hispanic workers, many of whom are undocumented new arrivals to
the U.S., according to the report.


TD BANKNORTH: N.Y. Lawsuit Claims Undisclosed ATM Cards Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
TD Banknorth, N.A. is facing a class-action complaint filed
August 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

Named plaintiff Nachum Zager accuses the company of failing to
disclose fees for using ATM cards.

The suit is “Zager v. TD Banknorth, N.A., Case No. 7:07-cv-
07500-KMK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Kenneth M. Karas.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Shmuel Berel Klein
          Law Office of Shmuel Klein, PC
          268 Route 59 West
          Spring Valley, NY 10977
          Phone: 845-425-2510
          Fax: 845-425-7362
          E-mail: shmuel.klein@verizon.net


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN HOME: Susman Heffner Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susman Heffner & Hurst LLP has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of shareholders who purchased American Home
Mortgage Investment Corp. (OTC: AHMIQ.PK) common stock in AHM's
April 30, 2007, secondary offering for four million (4,000,000)
shares of AHM common stock at $23.80 per share.

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued numerous positive
financial statements, annual and quarterly financial reports
filed with the SEC and incorporated by reference into the
Offering Materials for the April 30, 2007, secondary offering
that described AHM's financial performance. These statements
were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among
others:

     (a) AHM was experiencing an increasing number of loan
         delinquencies;

     (b) AHM failed to take adequate reserves against known or
         knowable future losses, including losses as a result of
         loan delinquencies;

     (c) AHM failed to write down on its financial statements
         the value of certain loans that had substantially
         declined, thereby increasing AHM's overall exposure to
         loss;

     (d) as a result of the increased delinquencies, it was
         becoming increasingly more difficult for AHM to sell
         its loans absent sharp price discounts, thus reducing
         profit margins and profit;

     (e) even at reduced prices, AHM was unable sell many of its
         loans and was forced to hold them, thereby increasing
         its exposure; and

     (f) as a result, AHM reported overstated financial results
         and concealed from the investing public, including
         plaintiff and other members of the Class, the true
         nature and extent of the undisclosed credit risk facing
         AHM.

The Complaint charges that the defendants failure to disclose
these facts, among others, violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and
15 of the Securities Act of 1934.

On July 31, 2007, when AHM issued a press release announcing its
true financial condition and its inability to fund its lending
obligations, AHM's stock price plummeted to an all time low of
$1.04 per share.

The Offering Materials consisted of the Prospectus Supplement
dated April 30, 2007 (the "Prospectus Supplement"); the
Registration Statement dated December 15, 2004; the Prospectus
dated January 6, 2005; and all documents incorporated by
reference into the above materials.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 1,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Matthew T. Heffner
          Susman Heffner & Hurst LLP
          Phone: (312) 346-3466
          Fax: (312) 346-2829
          Email: mheffner@shhllp.co


QIAO XING: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Qiao Xing Universal Telephone, Inc. from June 20,
2006 through July 16, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Qiao Xing and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income for the years ended December 31, 2003, December
         31, 2004, and December 31, 2005;

     (2) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         reporting controls; and

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

The Company shocked investors on July 17, 2007 when it disclosed
that it was forced to restate its previously issued financial
statements for the years ending December 31, 2003, 2004, and
2005. The Company stated that "certain misstatements" were not
detected due to multiple deficiencies in the Company's system of
internal controls over financial reporting, including an
insufficient complement of personnel with accounting knowledge,
lack of an effective enterprise risk management system, lack of
an effective anti-fraud program and whistleblower system, and
lack of an independent and effective internal audit function. On
this news, shares of Qiao Xing fell $2.93 per share, or 21
percent, to close on July 17, 2007 at $11.04 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 9,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

Qiao Xing, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the sale
of telecommunication terminals and equipment, including cord and
cordless telephone sets, in Mainland China.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.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, 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  * * *