CAR_Public/070911.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, September 11, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 180

                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY: Expects Fla. Securities Suits to be Consolidated
99c ONLY: Vargas Plaintiff Opposes Cal. Labor Lawsuit Settlement
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Deadline to Serve Toxic-Tort Lawsuit Expires
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Miss. Court Considers Dismissal Bid in “Comer”
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Md. Court Approves $4M ERISA Suit Settlement

ALLIANCE IMAGING: Calif. Court Orders Dismissal of Labor Lawsuit
ALLIED CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Served in D.C. Securities Suit
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: 6th Circuit Reinstates Ohio ERISA Lawsuit
AT&T CORP: Mo. Landowners File Lawsuit Over Property Rights
BODEE LLC: Recalls Potentially Harmful Dietary Supplements

CALIFORNIA: Suit Against LAPD Over May 1 Demonstration Builds up
CIRCUIT CITY: High Court Sets Aside Class Arbitration Waiver
DEL MONTE: Circuit Court Rules on Coverage of Insurance Policy
DJO INC: Calif. Suit Challenges Merger with ReAble Affiliate
ECOLOGY AUTO: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Suit Over Paxil Settlement Objection Junked
HARRY SINGH: Paying $2.5M to Settle Lawsuit Over Back Wages
ILLINOIS: Civil Rights Groups’ Suit Seeks Home Care for Disabled
L.A. WEIGHT: Dismissal Motion in Discrimination Suit Rejected
METZ FRESH: Recalls Bagged Spinach Over Salmonella Contamination

MIVA INC: Settlement Talks in Ark. Click Fraud Suit Ongoing
MIVA INC: Fla. Court Wants Further Briefing in Securities Suit
MIVA INC: Click Fraud Suit by Payday Advance Continues in N.Y.
MIVA INC: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Online Gambling Ads
PAYDAY LENDERS: Five Firms Sued for "Unconscionable Loans"

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Sued Over Municipal Taxes Collection Fees
RAMBUS INC: Agrees to Settle Calif. Securities Suit for $18M
SPRINT NEXTEL: $57M Settlement of Age Bias Suit Gets Final OK
VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles Suit Over Cellphone Call Tax for $30M


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Bernard Gross Files Securities Suit


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Expects Fla. Securities Suits to be Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Holding Co. is expecting that two purported securities fraud
class actions filed against it will be consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

On July 27, 2007 and Aug. 7, 2007, two securities class actions were filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased the Company's securities between Oct. 3, 2007
through May 3, 2007.

While the specific factual allegations vary slightly in each case, the
complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to accurately project the Company's business and financial
performance during the putative class period.

The complaints seeks an unspecified amount of damages and claim violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5.

The Company expects that these two actions will be consolidated into one case
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

21st Century Holding Co. -- http://www.21stcenturyholding.com/-- is an  
insurance holding company, which, through its subsidiaries and its
contractual relationships with its independent agents and general agents,
controls substantially all aspects of the insurance underwriting,
distribution and claims process.  


99c ONLY: Vargas Plaintiff Opposes Cal. Labor Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in one of two purported labor-related class actions filed against
99c Only Stores is opposing a settlement agreement reached in the matter,
according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

The two suits are:

      -- "Vargas v. 99c Only Stores," filed in the Ventura
         County Superior Court in California, and

      -- "Washington v. 99c Only Stores,” which was filed in the  
         Los Angeles County Superior Court in California.

“Vargas” was filed on June 19, 2006.  Joanna Vargas filed the suit was as a
putative class action against the company and is seeking to represent its
California retail non-exempt employees.

The lawsuit alleges non-payment of wages, non-payment of overtime wages,
failure to provide or pay for meal or rest breaks, and associated claims.

It seeks compensatory, special and punitive damages in unspecified amounts,
as well as injunctive relief.

"Washington" was filed on Oct. 31, 2006.  The plaintiff, Chantelle
Washington, filed the putative class action against the company seeking to
represent its California retail non-exempt cashier employees.

The lawsuit alleges the failure to provide or pay for meal or rest breaks and
associated claims.  It seeks compensatory damages and/or penalties in
unspecified amounts, as well as equitable relief, attorney fees and interest.

The Vargas and Washington actions have now been coordinated in Ventura County
Superior Court.
  
Following mediation in March 2007, counsel for Plaintiff Vargas and a Company
representative executed a settlement agreement, which anticipated a more
thorough (but not inconsistent) settlement agreement and was conditioned upon
Court approval.  

In April 2007, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling concerning the
pertinent statute of limitations for meal and rest period claims.  

Although a ruling on this issue was anticipated by all parties, counsel for
Plaintiff Vargas informed counsel for the Company that they would now oppose
Court approval of settlement that they themselves had previously agreed upon.

Following such statement by counsel for Plaintiff Vargas, the Company reached
a class action settlement agreement with Plaintiff Washington, which is
subject to Court approval.  

The settlement, which the Company and Washington have jointly presented to
the Court for preliminary approval, provides for a maximum settlement payment
of $3.2 million.  

If the Court approves the Washington settlement, in addition to settling the
claims in the Washington action, that settlement would (in large part or in
full) moot the claims in the Vargas action.   

Based on the initial settlement negotiations with Plaintiff Vargas and her
counsel, the Company had reserved $1.5 million for potential liability in
these cases.  

Because the Washington settlement is also claims-made in nature but provides
less for attorney fees than the Vargas agreement, the Company has determined
that this prior reserve continues to be adequate, pending the Court’s
decision on the Washington settlement.  

On Aug. 6, 2007, Plaintiff Vargas filed an opposition to the Washington
settlement, which may result in the Court rejecting the Washington
settlement.  

If the Court rejects the Washington settlement, the parties will likely
return to the litigation of both lawsuits, and, in such event, the Company
cannot predict the outcome of these matters, and cannot predict whether or
not the outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s
financial condition or results of operations.

99 Cents Only Stores -- http://www.99only.com/-- is a deep-discount retailer  
of consumable general merchandise.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Deadline to Serve Toxic-Tort Lawsuit Expires
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC (AE Supply) reported that it has not been
served with a purported toxic-tort class action –- filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice -- until the time for service of the original
action has expired.  

On June 30, 2005, the company along with its regulated subsidiary Monongahela
Power Co. and its unregulated subsidiary Allegheny Generating Co., plus 18
other companies with coal- fired generating plants, was named as defendants
in the suit.

The suit was brought on behalf of all persons residing in Ontario within the
past six years (and/or their family members or heirs).  Plaintiffs allege
that the defendants negligently failed to prevent their generation facilities
from emitting air pollutants in such a manner as to cause death and multiple
adverse health effects, as well as economic damages, to the plaintiff class.  

They are seeking damages in the approximate amount of CAD$49.1 billion
(approximately $41.6 billion, assuming an exchange rate of CAD$1.18 per U.S.
dollar), along with continuing damages in the amount of CAD$4.1 billion per
year and punitive damages of CAD$1.0 billion (approximately $3.5 billion and
$850 million, respectively, assuming an exchange rate of CAD$1.18 per U.S.
dollar) along with such other relief as the Court deems just.  

Allegheny Energy, Inc., the parent of AE Supply, Monongahela and AGC reported
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 that it has not yet
been served with this lawsuit, and the time for service of the original
action has expired.

Allegheny Energy, Inc. -- http://www.alleghenyenergy.com-- is a diversified  
utility holding company that operates primarily through directly and
indirectly owned subsidiaries.  The Company is an integrated energy business
that owns and operates electric generation facilities and delivers electric
services to customers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia.
Allegheny has two business segments: the Delivery and Services segment, which
includes its electric transmission and distribution (T&D) operations, and the
Generation and Marketing segment, which includes its power generation
operations.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Miss. Court Considers Dismissal Bid in “Comer”
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi has yet to
rule on motions seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action filed
against Allegheny Energy, Inc., and numerous other companies with coal-fired
generation facilities.

The suit was filed on April 19, 2006 on behalf of a purported class of
residents and property owners in Mississippi who were harmed by Hurricane
Katrina.  

The named plaintiffs allege that the emission of greenhouse gases by
defendants contributed to global warming, thereby causing Hurricane Katrina
and plaintiffs' damages.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

On Dec. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint
on jurisdictional grounds and joined a motion filed by other defendants to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.  

A hearing was scheduled for Aug. 30, 2007 on the motion to dismiss that
Allegheny Energy joined.  No hearing has been set on the other motion,
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 "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 1:05-
cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Mississippi under Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H.
Walker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         F. Gerald Maples, Esq.
         Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq.
         F. Gerald Maples, PA
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504/569-8732
         E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
                 mmayberry@geraldmaples.com

             - and -

         Randall Allan Smith, Esq.
         Stephen M. Wiles, Esq.
         Smith & Fawer
         201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
         New Orleans, LA 70170
         Phone: 504/525-2200
         Fax: 504/525-2205
         E-mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net
                 smwiles@smithfawer.com


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Md. Court Approves $4M ERISA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted final approval
to a settlement of a suit alleging Employee Retirement Income Security Act
violations by Allegheny Energy Inc.

In February and March 2003, two putative class actions were filed against
Allegheny Energy in U.S. District Courts in New York and Maryland alleging
that the company violated ERISA by breaching fiduciary duties with respect to
the Allegheny Energy Stock Ownership and Savings Plan.  The cases were
subsequently consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.

On Feb. 13, 2007 the district court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement.  The District Court gave final approval to the settlement on
June 25, 2007.

Under the settlement, the consolidated ERISA class actions were dismissed
with prejudice against all defendants in exchange for a cash payment of $4
million, of which approximately $3.9 million was made by AE’s insurance
carrier.

The suit is "Keesecker v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-00843-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland under Judge Andre M. Davis.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Thomas J. Hart, Esq.
          Slevin and Hart PC
          1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW Ste. 450
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 12027978700
          Fax: 12022348231
          E-mail: tjh@slevinhart.com

Representing the company are:

          Christa D. Haas, Esq.
          Groom Law Group Chtd.
          1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 12028570620
          Fax: 12024594503
          E-mail: cdh@groom.com

          Gabrielle S. Moses, Esq.
          Venable Baetjer and Howard LLP
          Two Hopkins Plz., Ste. 1800
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Phone: 14102447400
          Fax: 14102447742
          E-mail: gsmoses@venable.com

               - and -
  
          Bradley P. Smith, Esq.
          William J. Snipes, Esq.
          Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad St.
          New York, NY 10004-2498
          Phone: 12125581660
          Fax: 12125583588
          E-mail: smithbr@sullcrom.com
                  snipesw@sullcrom.com


ALLIANCE IMAGING: Calif. Court Orders Dismissal of Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alameda County Superior Court ordered the dismissal of a settled class
action against Alliance Imaging, Inc. over allegations that the company
violated labor laws in its dealings with approximately 400 former and current
California employees.

On May 5, 2005, the company was served with a class action complaint.  On
Aug. 19, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the company
answered on Sept. 23, 2005.

In this suit, "Linda S. Jones, et al. v. Alliance Imaging, Inc., et al.," the
plaintiffs allege violations of California's wage, meal period, and break
time laws and regulations.

Plaintiffs sought recovery of unspecified economic damages, statutory
penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit.  On or about March 10, 2006,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding a cause of action for
conversion and a plea for punitive damages.

The company filed a demurrer and motion to strike seeking to dismiss the new
claim and plea.  On July 19, 2006, the company and the plaintiffs entered
into a tentative settlement of the class action complaint pursuant to which
the company has agreed to pay $2.5 million, which is included in other
accrued liabilities at Sept. 30, 2006, in exchange for a dismissal with
prejudice of all claims brought on behalf of the putative class under the
class action complaint.

On Sept. 8, 2006, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and a
conditional class was certified for purposes of seeking class approval of the
settlement.

On Oct. 2, 2006, notice was mailed to the conditional class members outlining
the terms of the settlement and providing all class members with an
opportunity to opt out of the settlement prior to the final approval hearing
scheduled for Nov. 27, 2006.  Two putative class members opted out of the
class, and there were no objections submitted.

The final approval hearing was held on Nov. 27, 2006 as scheduled, and the
Court granted final approval of the settlement.

The settlement amount was distributed by the class settlement administrator
on Feb. 16, 2007.  On July 24, 2007, the Court ordered the case dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to the Class Settlement Agreement.

Alliance Imaging, Inc. -- http://www.allianceimaging.com-- is a provider of  
shared-service and fixed-site diagnostic imaging services.  The Company’s
principal sources of revenue are derived from magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) and positron emission tomography and positron emission
tomography/computed tomography (PET and PET/CT).  It provides imaging and
therapeutic services primarily to hospitals and other healthcare providers.  
The Company also provides services through a number of fixed sites primarily
to hospitals or health systems.  


ALLIED CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Served in D.C. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported securities fraud class action pending against
Allied Capital Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
have served an amended complaint.

On Feb. 26, 2007, Dana Ross filed a class action complaint in which she
alleges that the company and certain members of management violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  

The complaint, "Dana Ross v. Walton, et al., CV 00402," claims that, between
March 1, 2006, and Jan. 10, 2007, Allied Capital either failed to disclose or
misrepresented information concerning the loan origination practices of
Business Loan Express, LLC, an Allied Capital portfolio company.

Thereafter, the court appointed new lead counsel and approved new lead
plaintiffs.  On July 30, 2007, plaintiffs served an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs claim that, between Nov. 7, 2005, and Jan. 22, 2007, Allied
Capital either failed to disclose or misrepresented information about its
portfolio company, Business Loan Express, LLC.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and other damages, as well as other
relief.

The suit is "Ross v. Walton, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00402-EGS," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G.
Sullivan.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Steven Richard Freeman, Esq.
          Freeman, Wolfe & Greenbaum, P.A.
          409 Washington Avenue, Suite 300
          Towson, MD 21204
          Phone: (410) 321-8400
          Fax: 410-321-8407
          E-mail: srf@fwglaw.com


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: 6th Circuit Reinstates Ohio ERISA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has reinstated the ERISA 401
(k) class action against American Electric Power Co., Inc.

In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003, three putative
class actions were filed against AEP, certain executives and AEP's ERISA Plan
Administrator alleging violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as
an investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP stock.  The
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.  

Defendants are American Electric Power Co., Inc., American Electric Power
Service Corp., E. Linn Draper, Jr., and Thomas V. Shockley, III.

In July 2006, the court entered judgment denying plaintiff's motion for class
certification and dismissing all claims without prejudice.

In August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  Briefing of this appeal was completed in
December 2006.  

The Court of Appeals heard oral argument in July 2007 (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 27, 2007).  On Sep. 10, Stull, Stull & Brody announced that the Circuit
Court reinstated the ERISA 401(k) class action.

The class action was brought on behalf of all participants in AEP's 401(k)
defined contribution retirement plan who purchased and/or held shares of the
AEP Stock Fund at any time between December 9, 1998 and December 31, 2002.  

The case will now proceed in the trial court to seek to recoup losses to the
plan and the participants' individual accounts in the plan resulting from the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00067-
ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
under Judge Algenon L. Marbley with referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          Stull, Stull and Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-687-7230
          E-mail: ssbny@aol.com

          James Edward Arnold, Esq.
          Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
          471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-469-1400
          E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com

              - and -         

          Joseph J. Braun, Esq.
          Strauss & Troy - 1
          The Federal Reserve Bldg.,
          150 E Fourth St., 4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120
          E-mail: jjbraun@strausstroy.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
          Charlie L. Divine, Esq.
          Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq.
          Issa Mikel, Esq.
          George S. Wang, Esq.
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3954
          Phone: 212-455-2000
          Fax: 212-455-2502
          Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/


AT&T CORP: Mo. Landowners File Lawsuit Over Property Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed Sept. 6, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, accusing it of profiting
from burying fiber optic cables on private land without permission, Joe
Harris of the Courthouse News Service reports.

Lead plaintiffs William and Priscilla Martin brought the action on behalf of
all Missouri landowners who had a railroad easement in which AT&T buried
cables.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) Whether AT&T adopted policies, procedures and a pattern
         of practice to install and operate fiber optic or other
         telecommunications cable through the right-of-way land
         without seeking or obtaining the consent of the Class
         members;

     (b) Whether it was AT&T’s policy and practice to disregard
         the rights of underlying landowners when negotiating
         for and purporting to obtain occupancy rights in the
         right-of-way land and when entering and occupying the
         right-of-way land;

     (c) Whether AT&T acted toward the Class with a reckless
         indifference to the rights of the Class members;

     (d) Whether AT&T intentionally entered the Class members’
         land or caused a thing, such as a telecommunications                 
         cable, to do so, or remained on the Class members’ land
         or failed to remove from the Class members’ land a
         thing, such as a telecommunications cable, which it was
         under a duty to remove;

     (e) Whether AT&T published false statements disparaging the
         Class members’ property rights in land, which             
         statements AT&T should have recognized were likely to
         result in pecuniary harm to the Class members;

     (f) Whether AT&T acted in heedless disregard of the
         consequences to the Class members when it published
         false statements disparaging the Class members’
         property rights in land that AT&T should have
         recognized were likely to result in pecuniary harm to
         the Class members;

     (g) Whether AT&T knew that it could not obtain occupancy
         rights in the right-of-way land from the railroad,
         pipeline or utility company that held merely a right-
         of-way easement, license or other limited occupancy
         right for railroad, pipeline or utility purposes
         ("right-of-way user") or whether AT&T acted with
         reckless disregard of whether it could obtain occupancy
         rights in the right-of-way land from the right-of-way
         users;

     (h) Whether AT&T asserted any ownership interest or
         occupancy rights in the right-of-way land and whether
         AT&T knew that such assertions were false at the time
         those assertions were made, or whether such assertions
         were made recklessly and without adequate investigation
         of their truth;

     (i) Whether AT&T negotiated for or entered into contracts
         that purported to transfer occupancy rights or
         ownership interests in entire corridors of railroad
         right-of-way land and corridors of utility right-of-way
         land and whether AT&T knew or should have known that
         such purported transfers were wholly ineffective
         because the granting party had no legal interest in the
         right-of-way land that it could transfer to AT&T for
         fiber optic or other telecommunications cable purposes;

     (j) Whether AT&T obtained revenues from its use and
         occupancy of the right-of-way land;

     (k) Whether AT&T exercised dominion and control over the
         right-of-way land or attempted to restrict access to
         the right-of-way land;

     (l) Whether AT&T adopted a common nationwide course of
         conduct of threats and intimidation, including threats
         of civil liability, money damages, and criminal
         prosecution of persons who interfere with AT&T’s fiber
         optic or telecommunications cables in land belonging to
         members of the Class;

     (m) Whether AT&T maintains signs in visible locations along
         the right-of-way land where its cable is located and
         whether AT&T did not obtain permission from the
         underlying landowner when placing the signs on the
         landowner’s property;

     (n) Whether AT&T’s signs carry a substantially uniform
         message that threatens everyone, including the
         underlying landowners, with prosecution if they disturb
         AT&T’s buried cables; and

     (o) Whether AT&T sends out mailings to addresses near the
         right-of-way land to anyone who may be within sight of
         the cable to make the general public aware of the
         presence of AT&T’s cable and AT&T’s claim of right to
         maintain the cable on the Class members’ land.

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class pray for:

     (1) an award of common damages sufficient to compensate
         them for their pecuniary losses, including reasonable
         costs necessary to obtain a declaration of law that
         AT&T has no legal interest in their land and the
         reasonable value of the use of the land;

     (2) punitive damages;

     (3) an award of special damages, including damages for the
         injury to the value of their land, including diminution
         of the value of the residual estate caused by AT&T’s
         claim of occupancy rights in their land and deprivation
         of the full use and enjoyment of their land; and

     (4) all other just and proper relief.

The suit is “Martin et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-01564-JCH,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, under
Judge Jean C. Hamilton.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Elizabeth V. Heller
          Goldenberg and Heller, P.C.
          2227 S. State Route 157
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Phone: 618-656-5150
          Fax: 618-656-6230
          E-mail: elizabeth@ghalaw.com


BODEE LLC: Recalls Potentially Harmful Dietary Supplements
----------------------------------------------------------
Bodee LLC of Century City, Cal., is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall
of all the company's supplement product sold under the name Zencore Tabs.

The company is conducting the recall after being informed by representatives
of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that lab analysis by FDA of Zencore
Tabs samples found the product contains potentially harmful, undeclared
ingredients. FDA asserts that its chemical analysis revealed that one lot of
Zencore Tabs contains aminotadalafil, an analog of tadalafil, the active
ingredient of a FDA-approved drug used for Erectile Dysfunction (ED).

FDA maintains Aminotadalafil is close in structure to tadalafil and is
expected to possess a similar pharmacological and adverse event profile.
Further, FDA declares another lot of Zencore Tabs contains sildenafil, the
active ingredient of another FDA-approved drug used for ED, as well as
sulfosildenafil and sulfohomosildenafil, both are analogs of sildenafil. All
of these undeclared chemicals pose a threat to consumers because they may
interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs (such as
nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels.

Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart
disease often take nitrates. ED is a common problem in men with these
conditions, and consumers may seek these types of products to enhance sexual
performance.

Zencore Tabs is sold in health food stores and by mail order nationwide and
in Canada. The Zencore Tabs product is sold as a 2-capsule blister pack
packaged in a retail booklet with five booklets in a box.

Customers who have this product in their possession are advised to stop using
it immediately and contact their physician if they have experienced any
problems that may be related to taking this product.

The company advises that any unused portion be returned to Bodee LLC for a
full purchase price refund by calling (800) 935-0296 for instructions on the
return and refund process.

The Company is taking this voluntary action because it is committed and is
always concerned with the health of persons who have consumed this product.
The Company is reviewing the procedures and policies of all firms involved
with the manufacture of the product to ensure that there will be no future
issues with regard to Zencore Tabs’ composition. The Company is working
closely with the FDA in the recall process and is committed to the quality
and integrity of its products. It sincerely regrets any inconvenience to
consumers and its other customers.


CALIFORNIA: Suit Against LAPD Over May 1 Demonstration Builds up
----------------------------------------------------------------
Immigrant rights groups and more than 170 people who say they were brutalized
by police after a May 1 immigration march joined a lawsuit against the Los
Angeles Police Department, the Associated Press reports.  The group also
filed documents seeking approval to pursue the case as a class action.

In May, The National Lawyers Guild along with attorneys from the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
the community groups who organized a May Day immigrants rights rally at
MacArthur Park in Los Angeles' heavily Latino immigrant community (Class
Action Reporter, May 14, 2007).

The suit seeks changes in how the LAPD responds to demonstrations, as well as
damages for all of the peaceful participants in the rally who were allegedly
beaten and shot by the police and chased from the park.  According to the
lawsuit, the police broke up the demonstration without justification.  

Lawyers for the class action estimate that they have received reports from
dozens of individuals injured that day as they were chased from the park,
including reports of broken bones, concussions, and other contusions.

Organizational plaintiffs are:

      -- MIWON - Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing
         Network;

      -- CHIRLA - Coalition for Humane Immigrants Rights Los
         Angeles;

      -- KIWA - Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance;

      -- IDEPSCA - Institute of Popular Education of Southern
         California;

      -- GWC - Garment Workers Center; and

      -- PWC - Philipino Workers Center.

Individual plaintiffs include Kevin Breslin, Luis Galvez, Jorge Lopez, and
Leopoldo Ortiz.

For more details, contact:

         Carol Sobel
         Cyntha Anderson-Barker
         Jorge Gonzalez
         National Lawyers Guild - Los Angeles Chapter
         8124 West Third Street, Suite 101
         Los Angeles, CA 90048
         Phone: 310 393-3055, 213 381-3246, and 213 670-0063
         Web site: http://www.nlg.org


CIRCUIT CITY: High Court Sets Aside Class Arbitration Waiver
------------------------------------------------------------
California’s State Supreme Court allowed employees suing Circuit City Stores
Inc. for unpaid overtime to sue the company as a class despite an arbitration
policy.

The ruling was made in a suit filed by Robert Gentry on August 29, 2002 in
superior court against Circuit City Stores.  Mr. Gentry is seeking damages
for violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, as well
as for conversion.  He filed the suit on behalf of salaried customer service
managers such as himself whom Circuit City had allegedly “illegally
misclassified” as “exempt managerial/executive employees” not entitled to
overtime pay.

The Supreme Court of California considered whether class arbitration waivers
in employment arbitration agreements may be enforced to preclude class
arbitrations by employees whose statutory rights to overtime pay pursuant to
Labor Code sections 500 et seq. and 11941 allegedly have been violated.

The court concluded that at least in some cases, the prohibition of classwide
relief would undermine the vindication of the employees’ unwaivable statutory
rights and would pose a serious obstacle to the enforcement of the state’s
overtime laws.  It said that accordingly, such class arbitration waivers
should not be enforced if a trial court determines that class arbitration
would be a significantly more effective way of vindicating the rights of
affected employees than individual arbitration.

The court therefore reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal upholding
the class arbitration waiver and remand for the above determination.  

Another issue posed by this case is whether a provision in an arbitration
agreement that an employee can opt out of the agreement within 30 days means
that the agreement is not procedurally unconscionable, thereby insulating it
from employee claims that the arbitration agreement is substantively
unconscionable or unlawfully exculpatory.  

The court said a finding of procedural unconscionability is not required to
invalidate a class arbitration waiver if that waiver implicates unwaivable
statutory rights.  But such a finding is a prerequisite to determining that
the arbitration agreement as a whole is unconscionable.  Plaintiff in this
case argues that other terms of the arbitration agreement were substantively
unconscionable and that the entire agreement should not be enforced.  
Contrary to the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the present
agreement has an element of procedural unconscionability notwithstanding the
opt-out provision, and therefore remand for a determination of whether
provisions of the arbitration agreement were substantively unconscionable.

The ruling is available at:
www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S141502.PDF

The case is Gentry vs. Superior Court, S141502.


DEL MONTE: Circuit Court Rules on Coverage of Insurance Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Seventh Circuit ruled that an insurance policy of six Del Monte companies
excludes class actions accusing them of monopolizing the “extra-sweet”
pineapple market, CourtHouse News Service reports.

A series of suits filed in U.S. District Courts in New York and Massachusetts
in 2004 accuses Del Monte of misrepresenting its Fresh Del Monte Gold
pineapples as extra-sweet and patenting the genetic sibling to the Gold
pineapple.  

The Del Monte companies then claimed their general liability policies with
Transportation Insurance Co. covered personal and advertising injury claims,
but Judge Wood said it fell under the insurer’s “knowledge of falsity”
exclusion because the class-action allegations were based on fraud.

Del Monte has sued competitors for patent infringement, though it knew its
claims about the “extra-sweetness” of the new pineapple were false, the
ruling states.  

Del Monte Foods Co. and its subsidiaries (Del Monte) --
http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a producer, distributor and marketer of  
branded food and pet products for the U.S. retail market.  The segments in
which the Company operates include The Consumer Products segment and The Pet
Products segment.


DJO INC: Calif. Suit Challenges Merger with ReAble Affiliate
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder class action was filed on August 31, 2007 in the
California Superior Court in the County of San Diego challenging DJO Inc.’s
proposed merger with an affiliate of ReAble Therapeutics, Inc., reports say.

The complaint names the Company, ReAble Therapeutics, Inc. and the current
members of the Company's board of directors as defendants.

According to a San Diego Business Journal report, DJO, on July 16, entered
into a merger agreement with Austin-based ReAble Therapeutics Inc. and a
subsidiary for a deal worth a potential $1.6 billion. The Blackstone Group is
the controlling shareholder of ReAble.

Under the agreement, DJO shareholders would receive $50.25 in cash for their
shares of DJO common stock under the proposed merger agreement. The lawsuit
alleged that amount was “significantly below the 52-week high price of
$53.55.”

DJO recommended the stockholders approve the merger. It announced it had
obtained the necessary antitrust approvals early, on Aug. 9.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith and loyalty by approving
the proposed merger with an allegedly inadequate price, without adequately
informing themselves of the company's highest transactional value, and
without adequately marketing the Company to other potential buyers.

It further alleges that the individual defendants and the Company failed to
make full and adequate disclosures in the preliminary proxy regarding the
proposed merger. The complaint also alleges that ReAble Therapeutics aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

The lawsuit prays for:

     (a) a determination that the action is a proper class
         action, and that plaintiff is a proper class
         representative;

     (b) a declaration that the defendants have breached their
         fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the class and/or           
         aided and abetted such breaches;

     (c) an injunction of the proposed merger and, if the merger
         is consummated, an order rescinding it;

     (d) an order requiring defendants to make corrective and
         complete disclosures;

     (e) compensatory and/or rescission damages as allowed by
         law;

     (f) interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs;
         and

     (g) such other relief as the court may find just and
         proper.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously oppose it. The Company believes that one or more additional
lawsuits of a similar nature will be filed.

DJO Inc. is a global medical device company specializing in rehabilitation
and regeneration products for the non-operative orthopedic and spine
markets.  


ECOLOGY AUTO: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ecology Auto Parts is facing a class action seeking millions in compensation
for hundreds of past and present employees who might have been denied work
breaks and overtime pay, The San Diego Union-Tribune reports.

Named plaintiff Samuel Nunez, who worked as an auto dismantler for Ecology
from 2000 to 2004, said his supervisors denied him breaks, even after he
lodged a complaint with the California Labor Commission. He also said he
wasn't paid for overtime.

According to the report, State labor laws mandate paid 10-minute breaks for
every four hours of work, regardless of the employee's immigration status.
Generally, overtime pay is required when workers are on the job more than
eight hours a day.

Mr. Nunez also alleged that the company unjustly fired injured workers.

"There is a greater degree of education about workers' rights," said Paul
Jackson, one of the lawyers representing the Ecology employees.

The lawsuit, originally filed in December 2004 in San Diego Superior Court,
also accuses the company of not paying workers' final paychecks in a timely
manner.

The lawsuit could affect nearly 600 people who worked for the company from
January 2001 to the present, say the plaintiffs' lawyers, the report said.

When the plaintiffs said that Ecology pressured workers not to join the
lawsuit, a judge found that there were irregularities in the company's
actions.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say they could settle the suit with Ecology for $5
million to $10 million.  They are looking for more people who worked for
Ecology since January 2001.

A trial is expected to begin in January if a settlement is not reached.

The used-car parts company, which has locations in Oceanside, Chula Vista and
San Diego, denied the allegations in its response to the lawsuit.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Suit Over Paxil Settlement Objection Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian dismissed without prejudice a
class action filed against lawyers who objected to a $63.8 million Paxil
class action settlement, Steve Gonzalez of the Madison County Record reports.

On June 7, Teri Hoormann and Mary Kopsie, class representatives in the Paxil
litigation, filed the suit in Madison County Circuit Court against lawyers N.
Albert Bacharach, Jr. and Paul S. Rothstein, and citizen Lillian Rogers
(Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2007).

They claim the defendants filed frivolous objection that delayed their
receipt of their lawful benefits, thus causing them damage.

"As a result of these illegal activities, defendants are individually liable
for three-times the amount that they have gained," the complaint stated.

Plaintiffs have one year from the date of Judge Matoesian's Aug. 24 order, to
re-file their complaint.

The plaintiffs are represented by Stephen Swedlow of Chicago, who is also one
of the class attorneys in the Paxil case along with Stephen Tillery.

                  Paxil Litigation Settlement

The Paxil suit accuses GlaxoSmithKline of promoting the drug for use by
children and adolescents while withholding negative information about the
medication's safety and effectiveness.
The class consists of all U.S. residents who bought Paxil and
Paxil CR, a controlled-release version of the drug.  

Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn approved on Oct. 6 and
unsealed on Oct. 27 the $63.8 million settlement (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
7, 2006).

Under the deal, parents with proof that they bought GlaxoSmithKline Paxil and
Paxil CR for their children can recoup out-of-pocket expenses.

Under the new settlement, anyone who purchased Paxil for someone under 18
will get 100 percent of their out-of-pocket expenses reimbursed if they have
proof and file a claim by Aug. 31.

Anyone who does not have proof of purchase is still entitled to receive up to
$100 if the claim is supported by an affidavit swearing that Paxil was
purchased.

Plaintiffs' attorneys can claim more than $16 million in fees, which will be
deducted from the settlement fund, with the remaining money available for
payments to consumers.

Any money left over in the settlement fund is to be returned to
GlaxoSmithKline.

The Settlement on the Net:

         http://www.paxilpediatricsettlement.com
         http://www.paxilprogress.org
         http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com


HARRY SINGH: Paying $2.5M to Settle Lawsuit Over Back Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oceanside (Calif.) vegetable grower Harry Singh & Sons has settled a labor
class action in June, it emerged in a report by Leslie Berestein of San Diego
Union Tribune.  Attorneys who represented the workers said the company had
not admitted wrongdoing, but agreed to the settlement.

The suit was filed in September last year over allegations the company failed
to properly compensate employees for off-the-clock work, overtime and for
missed or interrupted meal and rest breaks.

The settlement entitles nearly 3,800 current and former workers to back wages
totaling $2.5 million, attorneys and Mexican government officials said in
August, according to Ms. Berestein.

Claims filing deadline is Oct. 12.  The class consists of employees who
worked for the company between Sept. 21, 2002, and June 17, 2007.  Slightly
more than 3,700 claim forms have been mailed, said settlement administrator
Troy Hoffman.

A problem in the distribution of the settlement right now is locating class
members because the company uses foreign guest workers with H-2A visas.  An
estimated 700 former guest workers are believed to be out of the country,
about 400 to 500 live in company-provided housing, while the rest live in the
U.S., Ms. Berestein reports.

For more information, contact:

          L. Tracee Lorens, Esq.
          Lorens & Associates
          1202 Kettner Blvd., #4100
          San Diego, CA  92101
          Phone: 239-1233


ILLINOIS: Civil Rights Groups’ Suit Seeks Home Care for Disabled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three public interest agencies -- Access Living, Equip for Equality, and the
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois –- on behalf of a group of
disabled individuals has filed a class action against the state of Illinois
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), asking the state to permit
them to receive long-term care services at home rather than in a nursing
home, the ElderLawAnswers.com reports.

The lawsuit alleges the state has been violating the ADA by not providing
enough resources to allow the individuals to receive care in their homes or
communities and has been discriminating disabled individuals by segregating
them in nursing homes.  Unnecessary institutionalization is discrimination
under the ADA, it said.  According to the lawsuit, 60 percent of disabled,
non-elderly nursing home residents would rather receive care at home.

The individuals are asking the court to order Illinois officials to assess
nursing home residents for community long-term care services, inform
residents of home and community based options, and provide eligible residents
with services and support in the community instead of requiring them to move
into a nursing home.

Representing the plaintiffs is Ed Mullen of Ross, Dixon & Bell, LLP
(http://www.rdblaw.com).


L.A. WEIGHT: Dismissal Motion in Discrimination Suit Rejected
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William D. Quarles, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland rejected motions by L.A. Weight Loss Centers to dismiss a class
action alleging it discriminated against male applicants, HR.BLR.com reports.

Judge Quarles ruled that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may
proceed to trial with the case.

In Feb. 2002, the EEOC filed the suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of1964, alleging that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of
disparate treatment against men in its recruiting, hiring, and assignment of
employees.

In its suit, the EEOC also alleged that L.A. Weight disciplined and
ultimately terminated employee Kathy Koch, a trainer with the company, in
retaliation for attempting to hire male applicants and for her complaints
that L.A. Weight failed to hire qualified male applicants because of their
gender.

With over 450 locations worldwide, including centers in the U.S., Canada,
Costa Rica and Puerto-Rico, LA Weight Loss -- http://www.lafreetolive.com/--  
is one of the fastest growing center-based Weight Loss Company in the world!
They’ve helped over a million clients worldwide to achieve their weight loss
goals and finally live the healthy, high-energy lifestyle, they’ve dreamed
of.


METZ FRESH: Recalls Bagged Spinach Over Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metz Fresh, LLC is voluntarily recalling bagged spinach as a result of a
positive test for Salmonella found during routine company testing.

The spinach is distributed under the label Metz Fresh, in both retail and
food service packages. These include 10 and 16 oz bags as well as 4-2.5 lb.
and 4 lb. cartons. The only Metz Fresh product affected is spinach that bears
the tracking codes 12208114, 12208214 and 12208314. It was distributed in the
continental United States and Canada.

There have been no reports of illness or problems related to this spinach.

Salmonella is a common food borne pathogen that can cause severe illnesses,
including fever, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. While most individuals
recover in three to five days without medical intervention, the infection can
be life-threatening to young children, the elderly and those with compromised
immune systems. Consumers with any of these symptoms should call their
physician.

Consumers are advised to discard this product or return it to the place of
purchase for a refund. Consumers with questions about the recall should
contact 831-386-1018.

"Nothing is more important to Metz Fresh than the safety of our consumers,
period," said Andrew Cumming, President of Metz Fresh. "As soon as we learned
of the presumptive positive test, we directed all customers to hold all boxes
of the spinach affected as a precaution. Now, with this positive test
confirmation, there is no question that we would recall and destroy all
spinach bearing these three codes."

The positive test came during independent lab testing Metz Fresh conducts on
all of its products. Through its labeling and numbering system, Metz Fresh
has already tracked, located and put 'holds' on the vast majority of the
cartons of spinach affected. That spinach will not be released into the
marketplace.

While the positive test came from only one sample of many on three packing
lines, Metz Fresh has, as a precaution, chosen to recall all of the spinach
from the ‘field lot’ packed that day on all three lines.

Metz Fresh is keeping appropriate authorities updated on the status of the
voluntary recall.


MIVA INC: Settlement Talks in Ark. Click Fraud Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings in the purported class action, "Lane's Gifts LLC, et al. v.
Yahoo! Inc., et al.," which names MIVA, Inc., formerly Findwhat.com, Inc., as
a defendant, remained stayed while settlement discussions continue.

On Feb. 17, 2005, a putative class action was filed in Miller County Circuit
Court, Arkansas, against that company and others in its sector by:

     -- Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, LLC,
     -- U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc.,
     -- Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and
     -- Max Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations, on behalf
        of themselves and all others similarly situated.

Savings 4 Merchants and U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc.
voluntarily dismissed themselves from the case, without prejudice, on April
4, 2005.

The complaint names 11 search engines, web publishers, or performance
marketing companies as defendants, including the company.  It alleges breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.

All of the plaintiffs’ claims are predicated on the allegation that the
plaintiffs have been charged for clicks on their advertisements that were not
made by bona fide customers.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a putative class of individuals who
allegedly “were overcharged for [pay per click] advertising,” and seeks
monetary damages, restitution, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and
other remedies.

The company believes that it has no contractual or other relationship with
either of the remaining plaintiffs.

On Oct. 7, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which relief
may be granted.  

On Oct. 14, 2005, the company timely filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.  

The court has not yet ruled on both these motions.  

Google, Yahoo, and certain other co-defendants in the case who were customers
of Google and Yahoo have reached settlement terms with the plaintiffs that
have been approved by the Court.

The court has stayed the case as to the remaining defendants, including MIVA,
to allow them to continue settlement discussions with the plaintiffs, which
are ongoing, 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.



MIVA, Inc. -- http://www.miva.com-- together with its wholly owned  
subsidiaries is an online media and advertising network company.  The Company
provides targeted and measurable online advertising campaigns for its
advertiser and agency clients, generating qualified consumer leads and
sales.  

The Company's solutions provide a range of products and services through
three customer-facing divisions: MIVA Media, MIVA Direct and MIVA Small
Business.  MIVA derives its revenue primarily from online advertising by
delivering relevant contextual and search ad listings to its third-party ad
network and its MIVA-owned consumer audiences on a performance basis.  The
Company offers a range of products and services through three divisions: MIVA
Media, MIVA Direct and MIVA Small Business.


MIVA INC: Fla. Court Wants Further Briefing in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has requested
additional briefing on a scienter issue in a consolidated securities class
action filed against Miva, Inc., formerly Findwhat.com, Inc., and certain of
its officers and directors.

Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class action were
filed, alleging that the company and the individual defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control
persons" of MIVA.   

Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of the
company's investors who purchased company stock between Jan. 5, 2004 and May
4, 2005.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class period, the
company made misleading statements and omitted material information regarding
the goodwill associated with a recent acquisition and certain material
weaknesses in its internal controls.  

Plaintiffs assert that the company and the individual defendants made these
misstatements and omissions in order to keep its stock price high to allow
certain individual defendants to sell stock at an artificially inflated
price.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On June 13 and July 7, 2005, the company and the other defendants moved to
dismiss each of these complaints for failure to comply with the mandatory
pleading requirements of the Reform Act and also served answers to the
complaints.  In response to the motions to dismiss, plaintiffs requested
leave to file a consolidated amended complaint.

On July 27, 2005, the court consolidated all of the outstanding lawsuits
under the case as, "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation," selected lead
plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated cases, and granted plaintiffs
leave to file a consolidated amended complaint.   

The company and the other defendants then had until Sept. 6, 2005 to file an
answer and/or a motion to dismiss.  The company and the other defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 8, 2005.
  
On Dec. 28, 2005, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.  The court
granted plaintiffs leave to submit a further amended complaint, which was
filed on Jan. 17, 2006.   

On Feb. 9, 2006, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss. On March 15,
2007, the Court granted in large part Defendants’ motion to dismiss.  

However, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to certain
statements relating to:

       -- removal of traffic sources,

       -- spyware,

       -- implementation of screening policies and procedures,
          and

       -- amounts of traffic purchased from distribution
          partners.

On March 29, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for amendment to the March 15,
2007 order to include certification for interlocutory appeal or, in the
alternative, for reconsideration.

On July 17, 2007, the Court denied the motion for amendment to the March 15,
2007 order to include certification for interlocutory appeal and granted the
motion for reconsideration as to the issue of whether Plaintiffs pled a
strong inference of scienter in light of intervening precedent.  

The Court requested additional briefing on the scienter issue, 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 "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
2:05-cv-00201-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          Chris A. Barker, Esq.
          Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
          300 W. Platt St., Suite 150
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: 813/489-1001
          Fax: 813/489-1008
          E-mail: cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com

               - and -
  
          Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
          Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP
          5200 Town Center Circle, Ste. 600, Tower One
          Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018
          Phone: 561-361-5000
          Fax: 561-367-8400
          E-mail: cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendant is:

          Joseph G. Foster, Esq.
          Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, P.A.
          5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300
          Naples, FL 34108
          Phone: 239/593-2900
          Fax: 239/593-2990
          E-mail: jfoster@porterwright.com


MIVA INC: Click Fraud Suit by Payday Advance Continues in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIVA, Inc., formerly Findwhat.com, Inc., continues to face a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over
allegations of “click fraud.”
  
On March 10, 2006, Payday Advance Plus, Inc. filed a putative class action
against the company and Advertising.com, Inc.  The complaint alleges that
Advertising.com, a MIVA Media Network distribution partner, engaged in click
fraud to increase revenues to themselves with MIVA's alleged knowledge and
participation.  

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a putative class of individuals who have
allegedly been overcharged by the defendants and seeks monetary damages,
restitution, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and
other remedies.   

On May 12, 2006, MIVA moved to dismiss the Complaint.  In an order dated
March 12, 2007, the Court denied MIVA’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s
breach of contract claim but granted the motion as it related to the
remainder of the plaintiff’s claims.

On April 2, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which it
dropped its claims against Advertising.com.  The amended complaint asserts
only a claim for breach of contract claim against MIVA, 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 "Payday Advance Plus, Inc. v. Findwhat.com, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01923-JGK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge John G. Koeltl.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robin Bronzaft Howald, Esq.
          Robert M. Zabb, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP
          Phone: (917) 510-0009 and (310)-201-9150
          Fax: (646) 366-0895 and (310)-201-9160
          E-mail: hobbit99@aol.com
                  info@glancylaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Karl Geercken, Esq.
          Alston & Bird, LLP
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-210-9400
          Fax: 212-210-9444
          E-mail: kgeercken@alston.com


MIVA INC: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Online Gambling Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIVA, Inc., formerly Findwhat.com, Inc., continues to face a putative class
action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco.

Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight filed the suit on Aug. 3, 2004, on behalf
of themselves, all other similarly situated, and/or for the general public.  
The suit also names other Internet search sites and service providers.

The complaint alleges that acceptance of advertising for Internet gambling
violates several California laws and constitutes an unfair business
practice.  

The complaint seeks unspecified amounts of restitution and disgorgement as
well as an injunction preventing the company from accepting paid advertising
for online gambling.   

Three of the company's industry partners, each of whom is a co-defendant in
the lawsuit, have asserted indemnification claims against the company for
costs incurred as a result of such claims arising from transactions with the
company.

On Oct. 11, 2005, Judge Kramer held a bifurcated trial on the issue of
whether California public policy and the doctrine of in pari delicto are
defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims for restitution for the gambling losses
Internet gamblers purportedly incurred on Internet gambling sites, and Judge
Kramer ruled that California public policy barred Plaintiffs’ claim for
restitution.

On April 13, 2007 the Court ruled that Plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement
of revenues earned from ads for online gaming.  The remaining issue is
whether the Court should issue an injunction barring companies in MIVA’s
industry from displaying ads for online gaming.  

In addition, three of MIVA’s industry partners, each of which is a
codefendant in the lawsuit, have asserted indemnification claims against MIVA
for costs incurred as a result of such claims arising from transactions with
MIVA, and MIVA entered into an agreement with one of these industry partners
to resolve such claims.

Subsequently the partner with which MIVA entered into an agreement was
dismissed from the litigation, as well as several additional of MIVA’s co-
defendants.

In addition, Plaintiff Cisneros has been voluntarily dismissed from the case,
but two plaintiffs remain, 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 "Mario Cisneros et al., v. Yahoo! Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-04-
433518," filed in the California Superior Court in San Francisco County under
Judge Richard A. Kramer.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Ira P. Rothken, Esq.
          The Rothken Law Firm
          1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 520
          San Rafael, CA 94903
          Phone: (415) 924-4250
          E-mail: feedback@techfirm.com
          Web site: http://www.techfirm.com


PAYDAY LENDERS: Five Firms Sued for "Unconscionable Loans"
-----------------------------------------------------------
A South Carolina couple is suing five payday lenders for allegedly granting
loans to borrowers who can’t afford them, The (Charleston) Post and Courier
reports.  

Lawyers for Mark and Rebecca Morgan filed the suit in Horry County court
against Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of South Carolina Inc.,
Carolina Payday Loans Inc., Check Into Cash of South Carolina Inc., Check 'N
Go of South Carolina Inc. and Local Cash Advance of S.C. LLC.

They allege that through negligent practices, defendants breach their
obligations of good faith and make "unconscionable loans," violating the
Deferred Presentment Services Act and the Consumer Protection Act, among
others.

State Sens. John Hawkins, R-Spartanburg, and Vince Sheheen, D-Camden, both
lawyers, filed the suit along with Charleston lawyers Alan Sloan and Joseph
Wilson.  The attorneys have asked the court to classify the case as a class
action.

The lawsuit seeks financial damages, and an order preventing payday lenders
from making loans in South Carolina until they comply with state law
requiring that lenders take steps to determine a borrower's ability to repay
before granting loans.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph C. Wilson, IV, Esq.
          Pierce, Herns, Sloan & McLeod, LLC
          The Blake House, 321 East Bay Street
          P.O. Box 22437
          Charleston, South Carolina 29413
          (Berkeley & Charleston Cos.)
          Phone: 843-722-7733
          Fax: 843-722-7732


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Sued Over Municipal Taxes Collection Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. is accused of fraudulently charging
customers for municipal taxes collection, Brandon Ortiz of The Lexington
Herald-Leader.

Northern Kentucky couple, Jeff and Heather Hassan, filed the suit in U.S.
District Court in Covington.  They claim the company charge customers for
municipal taxes they do not owe and collect from customers an illegal 15%
collection fee on top of that.  

State law allows municipalities and counties to tax premiums paid to
insurance companies and to keep 15 percent of the tax or 2 percent of the
total premium, whichever is less, as compensation for collecting the tax.  
But the fee is supposed to come from the taxes Progressive remits to local
governments and not charged to consumers, said Christopher S. Nordloh, a
Covington lawyer who represents the plaintiffs.

Mr. Nordloh said Progressive is charging a 10 percent tax to customers who do
not live in places that tax premiums.  And Progressive is over-charging
customers in cities that have less than a 10 percent tax, he said.

The lawsuit asks for the taxes to be refunded to customers, and for punitive
damages.  The plaintiffs seek to represent thousands who were allegedly
overcharged.

The suit is Hassan et al. v Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
Case Number 2:2007cv00139," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Kentucky
Eastern District Court under Judge David L. Bunning.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher S. Nordloh, Esq.
          28 W. Fifth Street
          Covington, KY 41011
          Phone: (859) 491-9331


RAMBUS INC: Agrees to Settle Calif. Securities Suit for $18M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rambus Inc. has reached an agreement in principle to settle a consolidated
securities class action filed over the company's accounting for option grants
and related disclosures.

The complaint filed in 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California alleges that Rambus and certain officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning Rambus' improper and undisclosed practice
of backdating options given to Rambus executives.  

Such a scheme allegedly improperly provides the executive with an unearned
benefit -- instead of the option being priced at the market price of the
shares, it is priced at a lower price.  

The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only potentially lines
the pockets of the executives, but here resulted in the overstatement of
Rambus's earnings between 2003 and 2005, according to the complaint.

Under accounting rules, back-dating the option is deemed the payment of
additional compensation and must be accounted for as an expense, but Rambus
allegedly did not properly account for the options granted.  

As a result, Rambus has been forced to restate its previously issued
financial statements for the fiscal years 2003-2005.  In addition, the
company has stated that the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with respect
to each of these fiscal years, and the financial statements included in the
company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of fiscal year
2006, should no longer be relied upon, and will be restated

The settlement, which is subject to final documentation as well as review by
the court, provides for a payment by Rambus of $18 million and would lead to
a dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all defendants in the
litigation. In addition, Rambus has been and will continue to be in
discussions with its insurers concerning their contribution of a portion of
the settlement amount.

This settlement is subject to final documentation as well as preliminary and
final court approval.

For more information, contact:

          Linda Ashmore
          Rambus Inc.
          Phone: 650-947-5411
          E-mail: lashmore@rambus.com
          Website: http://www.rambus.com


SPRINT NEXTEL: $57M Settlement of Age Bias Suit Gets Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum granted final approval to a $57 million an
agreement entered by Sprint Nextel Corp. to settle the class action "Williams
v. Sprint/United Management Co.," Kansas City Business Journal reports.

The settlement covers 1,697 former employees who were laid off between Oct.
1, 2001, and March 31, 2003 (Class Action Reporter, May 21, 2007).
   
Under the agreement, 11 people who have served as lead plaintiffs in the case
would receive an average of $155,000 each.

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

In 2003, about 2,300 former Sprint Corp. employees filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Sprint over age
discrimination.  The original suit was brought by Shirley Williams.

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

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

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

John Phillips, a Blackwell Sanders LLP lawyer who served as special master
for the case.

John Phillips, a Blackwell Sanders LLP lawyer, served as special master for
the case.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

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

          - and -  

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

Representing the defendants are:  

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

          - and -  

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

VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles Suit Over Cellphone Call Tax for $30M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Wireless agreed to pay two years of back taxes plus lawyers' fees,
worth about $30 million in total, to settle a suit filed by a group of
Missouri municipalities trying to charge cellphone companies a tax
traditionally levied on telephone companies, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The lawsuit was filed by 23 municipalities against six large cellphone
providers in 2001.  The Missouri municipalities say that landline calls and
cellphone calls are essentially the same and must therefore pay the same
business license taxes.

So far, Verizon’s settlement was the first.  AT&T Inc., Sprint-Nextel Corp.,
T-Mobile USA Inc., U.S. Cellular Corp. and Alltel Corp. Wireless carriers
remain defendants in the suit.

Verizon’s settlement has already received preliminary approval by a St. Louis
County judge.  Notice of the settlement will go out to all cities by Sept.
19, and the cities will have until Nov. 18 to submit claims.  The court is
set to hold a final approval hearing in mid-December.

Of the $30 million in settlement, $12.5 million has accumulated in the escrow
account.  In exchange, Verizon will avoid paying a further eight years' worth
of back taxes the local governments had sought.  The carrier also agreed to
tax rates ranging from between less than 1% to 11% of their customers'
bills.  The carrier passes these fees on to customers as surcharges on their
bills.

On Sept. 12, St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Bernhardt Drumm Jr. is to
determine if the case deserves class-action status.  If it does, it would
automatically include more than 200 other municipalities.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Bernard Gross Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. between July 9, 2007 and July
16, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1934.

The complaint charges NWBO and Dr. Alton Boynton with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a materially false and
misleading statement. Specifically, on July 9, 2007, the Company issued a
press release entitled "World's First Therapeutic Vaccine for Brain Cancer
Commercially Available to patients in Switzerland."

Defendants announced that they received an Authorization for Use from the
Swiss Authorities for the Company's lead drug product which treats brain
cancer. As a result of this announcement, the price of NWBO stock shot up
from $2 to $7. One week later, on July 16, 2007, NWBO issued another press
release explaining that the authorization it received was really just for
import/export purposes, and was conditional even for those limited purposes.

Additionally, in that press release, the Company stated that the Swiss
government had not yet reviewed DCVax for safety or efficacy. As a result of
investors learning the truth, that the Swiss government had not approved
DCVax-Brain for marketing, NWBO's stock dropped to below $3 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the
securities of NWBO between July 9, 2007 and July 16, 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 12, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Susan R. Gross, Esq.
          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600
          E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
                  debbie@bernardmgross.com
          Website: http://www.bernardmgross.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  * * *