CAR_Public/071004.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, October 4, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 196

                            Headlines


BHP BILLITON: Nixing of Cerrejon Privatization Suits Appealed
CLEVELAND CLINIC: Ohio Court Certifies Suit Over Unpaid Work
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Expects Ruling on “Bufil” Suit Appeal by 2008
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Faces Canadian Payday Loans Litigation
FORD MOTOR: "Apparent Resolution" Seen in $2B Explorers’ Suit

FORTUNE BRANDS: Dismissed Underage Drinking Suits on Appeal
INDONESIA: Jakarta Court Rejects Lawsuit Over February Flood
LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
MIDAS CANADA: Faces $168M Franchisees' Suit in Ontario Court
OWENS-ILLINOIS: Faces Pa. Suit for Alleged Violations of ERISA

PATRIOTS: Sued by New York Jets Fan Over Videotaping Incident
SABANERO INC: Recalls Cheese on Possible Contamination
SALTON INC: Recalls Electric Toasters Due to Fire Hazard
SEARS HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Complaint in N.Y.
SEARS ROEBUCK: Makes Final Payments in Ill. ERISA Suit Agreement

SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Underway in “Ong” Securities Litigation
SEARS ROEBUCK: Briefing Underway in “Fischer” Dismissal Appeal
SEARS ROEBUCK: Written Discovery Underway in “Levie” Litigation
SPRINT NEXTEL: Parties Accept Proposal to Settle Kans. Lawsuit
TARGET CORP: Blind Group’s Suit Over Internet Access Certified

TEXAS: Denton Fire Dept. Sued Over Alleged Hiring Discrimination
TIMBERLAND CO: Recalls Boots that Fall Short of Intended Use
TRIBUNE CO: Continues to Face Advertisers’ Lawsuits in N.Y.
TYSON FOODS: Faces Labor Lawsuit by Former Boise Plant Workers
WAL-MART STORES: N.M. Court Upholds Class in Workers’ Lawsuit

WAL-MART STORES: “Braun/Hummel” Plaintiffs Win Another $62M
WASHINGTON: Thurston Jail Officers’ Suit Goes to High Court
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Dismissal of Suit Sought After Stay Lift

* Louisiana CLE Offers 7th Annual Class Action Symposium
* Quarles & Brady Associate Joins AB Data as Claims Supervisor


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Suit
MICRUS ENDOVASCULAR: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


BHP BILLITON: Nixing of Cerrejon Privatization Suits Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in suits concerning the privatization of BHP Billiton’s Cerrejon
Zona Norte mining complex in Colombia in 2002 are appealing decisions
nullifying the cases.

An NGO, Corporacion Colombia Transparente (CCT) brought three separate class
actions:

     * Popular Action 1,029,
     * Popular Action 1,032, and
     * Popular Action 1,048

against various defendants in connection with the privatization of 50 percent
of the Cerrejon Zona Norte.

The complex is currently owned by Cerrejon Zona Norte S.A. and Carbones del
Cerrejon Limited. BHP Billiton Group’s subsidiary Billiton Investment 3 B.V.
owns a 33 percent share in Carbones Del Cerrejon, and its subsidiaries
Billiton Investment 3 B.V. and Billiton Investment 8 B.V. (BHP Billiton
Shareholders) collectively own a 33.33 percent share in Cerrejon Zona Norte.

The BHP Billiton Shareholders have been named as defendants in Popular Action
1,048, and BHP Billiton Company B.V., BHP Billiton’s original bidder for the
complex, has been named as a defendant in Popular Action 1,029.

BHP Billiton Company B.V. was served with process in 2005 and filed a response
in Action 1,029. None of the BHP Billiton Shareholders have been served with
process.

CCT alleges, in part, that the defendants failed to comply with the
privatization process, and that the offer price for shares in Cerrejon Zona
Norte between Stages 1 and 2 of the privatization process was not correctly
adjusted for inflation.

CCT claims that:

     -- an additional Col$25,487,367,179, which would be an
        adjustment of the Cerrejon Zona Norte share price and if
        converted to year 2000 U.S. dollars would yield the
        amount of approximately US$12,000,000 (our share US$4
        million), is due

or, in the alternative,

     -- a declaration that the privatization is null and void
        and forfeiture of the transfer price paid of
        Col$849,554,231,321, which if converted to year 2000
        U.S. dollars would yield the amount of approximately
        US$400,000,000 (our share approximately US$133 million),

and in both instances, together with unquantified sanctions, including payment
of stamp taxes, an award of 15 per cent of all monies recovered by the
defendants, together with interest on all amounts at the maximum rate
authorized by law.

On 8 May 2007, a further action (Action number 1667) was filed against
Cerrejon Zona Norte.  Cerrejon Zona Norte has sought to have this new but
related action dismissed on the basis that it is a replica of Popular Action 1032.

During the first quarter of 2005, the Council of State applied a new legal
interpretation applicable to popular actions in Colombia providing that
plaintiffs may not file additional class actions based on the same facts and
legal arguments as existing actions.

As a consequence, the court nullified all proceedings in Popular Action 1,029
with effect from 20 May 2004 (also being the date that Popular Actions 1,028,
and 1,048 were joined) and dismissed Popular Action 1,048. All shareholder
defendants contend that the nullification means that the service of process in
Action 1,029, and respective responses, which would include process served on
BHP Billiton Company BV and its response, are null and void.

The plaintiff appealed the court’s decision in relation to Popular Actions
1,029, and 1,048, and the Council of State confirmed the previous decision by
which all proceedings of Popular Actions 1,029, and 1,048 had been nullified.
The plaintiff was granted the right of a second appeal, and a decision on this
second appeal is now pending, according to BHP Billiton’s form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Popular Action 1032 is in the discovery stage. This matter was transferred to
an Administrative Judge. The plaintiff filed a petition to annul the
proceedings, which petition was rejected by the Administrative Judge. The
plaintiff has appealed this decision.


CLEVELAND CLINIC: Ohio Court Certifies Suit Over Unpaid Work
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted class-action
status to a lawsuit filed against The Cleveland Clinic over allegations that
Ohio's second-largest employer fails to pay respiratory therapists and
technicians who work during their 30-minute lunch break, Sarah Jane Tribble of
the Plain Dealer reports.

The suit was filed by retired respiratory technician Ron Berger.  

An estimated 165 employees and former employees could take part in the suit.
Of those, 80 to 100 now work at the Clinic, according to the suit.  The class
period could date back to at least 2003.  It is aimed at ensuring that
employees are paid for all the time they work.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jason R. Bristol  
          Gary, Naegele & Theado  
          446 Broadway
          Lorain, OH 44052-1797
          Fax:  (440) 244-3462


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Expects Ruling on “Bufil” Suit Appeal by 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. expects decisions by 2008 on an appeal in a
labor-related class action in California, which is alleging that the company
failed to provide non-management employees with meal and rest breaks required
under state law.

Caren Bufil filed the suit on Sept. 11, 2006, which seeks class certification
of the action against the company for failure to provide meal and rest
periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements and unlawful, unfair and
fraudulent business practices under California law.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and other relief.

The company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the
Bufil case is duplicative of a similar case and should be dismissed.  

Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification.  The company's motion was
granted, and Bufil’s motion was denied.

Ms. Bufil has appealed both rulings and her appellate brief will be filed
shortly.  The company expects briefing to be completed by the end of October
2007 with a decision on the issues in early 2008, according to the company's
Sept. 18, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com-- Dollar Financial Corp. (Dollar
Financial) is an international financial services company serving under-banked
consumers.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Faces Canadian Payday Loans Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. (DFG) and its Canadian subsidiary continue to face
several purported class actions filed by customers who were allegedly
subjected to usurious charges in payday loan transactions, according to the
company's Sept. 18, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

                        Smith Litigation

On Aug. 19, 2003, a former customer in Ontario, Canada, Margaret Smith,
commenced an action against the company's Canadian subsidiary on behalf of a
purported class of Ontario borrowers who, Smith claims, were subjected to
usurious charges in payday-loan transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleges
violations of a Canadian federal law proscribing usury, seeks restitution and
damages, including punitive damages, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting
further alleged usurious charges.

The Canadian subsidiary’s motion to stay the action on grounds of
arbitrability was denied.  

DFG’s motion to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction was denied and the
appeal was dismissed.

On Oct. 25, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class.  The
judge granted the certification motion on Jan. 5, 2007.  

Leave to appeal from the decision was refused.  The action is presently in the
discovery phase and a trial, while not yet scheduled, is expected in 2008.

                     Mortillaro Litigation

On Oct. 21, 2003, another former customer, Kenneth D. Mortillaro, commenced a
similar action against the company's Canadian subsidiary, but this action has
since been stayed on consent because it is a duplicate action.

The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the Mortillaro action are
substantially the same as those in the Smith action.

                        Young Litigation

On Nov. 6, 2003, Gareth Young, a former customer, commenced a purported class
action in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada on behalf of a class
of consumers who obtained short-term loans from the company's Canadian
subsidiary in Alberta, alleging, among other things, that the charge to
borrowers in connection with such loans is usurious.

The action seeks restitution and damages, including punitive damages.

On Dec. 9, 2005, the company's Canadian subsidiary settled this action,
subject to court approval.  On March 3, 2006 just prior to the date scheduled
for final court approval of the settlement the plaintiff’s lawyers advised
that they would not proceed with the settlement and indicated their intention
to join a purported national class action.  No steps have been taken in the
action since March 2006.

Subsequently, the company's Canadian subsidiary commenced an action against
the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s lawyer for breach of contract.  That action
has not proceeded past the pleadings stage.

                         Day Litigation

On or about March 5, 2007, a former customer, H. Craig Day, commenced an
action against the company's Canadian subsidiary and several of the company's
franchisees in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada on behalf of a
putative class of consumers who obtained short-term loans from the company's
Canadian subsidiary in Alberta.

The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the Day action are
substantially the same as those in the Young action but relate to a claim
period that commences before and ends after the claim period in the Young
action and excludes the claim period described in that action.

                      MacKinnon Litigation

On Jan. 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced an action
against the company's Canadian subsidiary and 26 other Canadian lenders on
behalf of a purported class of British Columbia residents who, MacKinnon
claims, were overcharged in payday-loan transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, alleges
violations of laws proscribing usury and unconscionable trade practices and
seeks restitution and damages, including punitive damages, in an unknown amount.

Following initial denial, MacKinnon obtained an order permitting him to
re-apply for class certification which was appealed.  The Court of Appeal
granted MacKinnon the right to apply to the original judge to have her amend
her order denying certification.

On June 14, 2006, the original judge granted the requested order and the
company's Canadian subsidiary’s request for leave to appeal the order was
dismissed.

The certification motion in this action proceeded in conjunction with the
certification motion in the Parsons action described below.

                      Parsons Litigation

On April 15, 2005, the solicitor acting for MacKinnon commenced a proposed
class action against the company's Canadian subsidiary on behalf of another
former customer, Louise Parsons.

Class certification was granted on March 14, 2007.  An appeal from this
certification decision is pending.  The action is presently in the discovery
phase and a trial, while not yet scheduled, is expected in 2008.

                       Other Lawsuits

Similar purported class actions have been commenced against the company's
Canadian subsidiary in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.  

The claims in these additional actions are substantially similar to those of
the Ontario actions referred to above.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com-- Dollar Financial Corp. (Dollar
Financial) is an international financial services company serving under-banked
consumers.


FORD MOTOR: "Apparent Resolution" Seen in $2B Explorers’ Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Sacramento Superior Court judge said an "apparent resolution" is close in a
$2 billion lawsuit filed against Ford Motor Co. over its Explorers, The
Sacramento Bee reports.

"The court is satisfied that parties are working diligently," Judge David De
Alba said after emerging from a closed-door meeting with attorneys the same
day that closing arguments after three months of testimony were to start in
the class action.

Details of any tentative terms or agreements were not made public in court
Monday, Oct. 1, and attorneys on both sides declined to comment, the report said.

A hearing is scheduled to resume Oct. 22, when an agreement is to be presented
to the court.

                           Case Background

The class action was brought on behalf of all people and entities residing in
California who bought, owned or leased, a new or used 1991-2001 model year
Ford Explorer in California between 1990 and August 9, 2000, and who either
still own their Explorer or who sold, ended their lease, or otherwise disposed
of it after August 9, 2000.

Filed in 2003, plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that defendant,
Ford Motor Co., violated California's statutory Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs say that Ford knew about a dangerous design flaw that made the
Explorer unsafe and too likely to roll over, yet concealed it, and instead
marketed and sold the Explorer as a safe vehicle.

The plaintiffs want class members to get compensation from Ford for the excess
money they say they paid for their Explorers, as well as money from the
profits Ford earned on California Explorer sales, and other legal costs.

Sacramento Superior Judge David De Alba is hearing the case without a jury.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers are urging Judge Alba to rule on their motion to
recover some $2.135 billion once he finds that the company’s behaviors are
"reprehensible and highly profitable."

On April 23, 2007 class counsel requested that the court voluntarily and
permanently dismiss, with prejudice, the claims against Ford for violations of
the CLRA.

Ford continues to deny all the claims and allegations in the lawsuit.

Ford Explorer Cases on the net: http://www.explorercasuit.com

Copies of the 2003 Complaint, the detailed notice and an updated notice are
available free of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?202a
               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?202b
               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?202c

The case is "Ford Explorer Cases, JCCP Nos. 4226 and 4270."

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Henry Rossbacher, Esq.
          The Rossbacher Firm
          611 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1650
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 895-6500
          Fax: (213) 895-6161
          E-mail: hhr@rossbacher.xhost.com
          Web site: http://www.rossbacherlaw.com


FORTUNE BRANDS: Dismissed Underage Drinking Suits on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of several class actions filed against
Fortune Brands, Inc., its Spirits and Wine business, and numerous other
manufacturers and importers of beer, spirits and wine over alleged marketing
of beverage alcohol to people under the legal purchase age for alcohol.

The purported class actions were filed in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and West
Virginia.  They are seeking damages and injunctive relief.

All of these actions were terminated at the trial court level and are
currently pending on appeal.

The company reported no development in the case at its Aug. 27, 2007 Form 10-k
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

Fortune Brands, Inc. -- http://www.fortunebrands.com-- is a holding company
with subsidiaries engaged in the manufacture, production and sale of home and
hardware products, spirits and wine, and golf products.  The Company operates
through three segments: Home and Hardware, Spirits and Wine, and Golf.  


INDONESIA: Jakarta Court Rejects Lawsuit Over February Flood
------------------------------------------------------------
The Central Jakarta District Court dismissed a class action brought by victims
of the February flood in Jakarta, saying the governor and five mayors had
performed their duties in accordance with procedures to help the flood
victims, The Jakarta Post reports.

Eleven flood victims filed the suit in April accusing Gov. Suityoso and
Jakarta's five mayors of failing to properly manage the flooding.  The suit
also alleges that the administration commercialized flood aid and failed to
quickly distribute them.

The plaintiffs demanded IDR100 million ($11,000) for each flood victim and
IDR5.16 trillion ($571.7 million) to rebuild the ruined city.  They also
sought a public apology to be printed in national newspapers and aired on
television stations (Class Action Reporter, June 22, 2007).

The Central Jakarta District Court allowed the suit to proceed, dismissing a
claim by the defense that the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the
case (Class Action Reporter, July 18, 2007).

Lawyers for the governor and the five mayors argued in court they had
fulfilled their responsibility in anticipating and handling the disaster in
accordance with a 2002 gubernatorial decree on disaster management.  The flood
victims, however, claimed there was neglect and discriminatory treatment in
the assistance provided by the government.

In its recent decision, a panel of judges, said "There was no negligence
during the flood disaster." He said the plaintiffs failed to prove the accused
had caused victims to suffer during the floods.

Made Suarjaya represents the governor.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Nurkholis Hidayat.


LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. and certain officers and directors were named
as defendants in six purported class actions filed between August 8, 2007 and
September 12, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging violations of federal securities laws.

These lawsuits seek certification of classes composed of stockholders who
purchased the Company’s securities during certain periods, starting as early
as October 10, 2006 and concluding as late as August 6, 2007. The lawsuits
allege generally, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making material misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company’s
operations and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of the
Company’s common stock. The complaints seek unspecified damages.

These cases involve complex issues of law and fact and have not yet progressed
to the point where the Company can predict their outcome; estimate damages
that might result from such cases; or predict the effect that final resolution
of any litigation might have on its business, financial condition or results
of operations, although such effect could be materially adverse.

The Company believes these allegations to be without merit. The Company
intends to seek dismissal of these lawsuits for failure to state a valid legal
claim, and if the case is not dismissed on motion, to vigorously defend itself
against these allegations. The Company maintains directors and officers
liability insurance which the Company believes should provide coverage to the
Company and its officers and directors for most or all of any costs,
settlements or judgments resulting from these lawsuits.

In addition, a stockholder derivative action was filed on August 31, 2007 in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, in
which an individual stockholder purports to assert claims on behalf of the
Company against numerous directors and officers for alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, abuse of control and other similar claims.

The Company believes the allegations in the stockholder derivative complaint
to be without merit. Furthermore, any recovery in the derivative lawsuit would
be payable to the Company, and this lawsuit is therefore unlikely to have a
material negative effect on its business, financial condition or results of
operations.

The first identified complaint is "Joseph Leone et al. v. Luminent Mortgage
Capital Inc., et al., Case no. 07-cv-04073" filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


MIDAS CANADA: Faces $168M Franchisees' Suit in Ontario Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Midas Canada, Inc., and Midas International Corp. face a lawsuit in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice that seeks class certification, according to
Midas Inc.'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 suit was filed on June 29, 2007 by two Canadian franchisees:

     * Landsbridge Auto Corp., and
     * 405341 Ontario Limited

claiming, among other things, that the defendants breached its franchise
agreement with them and Canadian franchise statutes when it closed its
manufacturing and distribution operations and entered into third party supply
arrangements for the supply of automotive parts to franchisees.

The filing seeks class certification, monetary damages of approximately $168
million, and a declaratory order requiring Midas to pay to Canadian dealers
all rebates and allowances received from suppliers and abatement of royalties.

Midas, Inc. -- http://www.midasinc.com-- is a provider of automotive repair
and maintenance services with over 2,600 shops globally.  Midas retail shops,
which are operated by the Company, its franchisees and licensees, offer an
array of automotive repair and maintenance services.


OWENS-ILLINOIS: Faces Pa. Suit for Alleged Violations of ERISA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Mager & Goldstein LLP and Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C.
announce that on behalf of their clients Robert Sessions, Linda Sessions and
John Roman, they have filed a class action against Owens-Illinois, Inc., in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The class action complaint was brought on behalf of Owens-Illinois (O-I)
Salary Retirement Plan Participants employed at O-I in its Brockway Plastic
Products Group, who were denied early retirement benefits when the O-I
Brockway Plastic Products Group was sold to Graham Packaging Company in
October, 2004.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
failed to provide benefits to the Class, and that Owens-Illinois purposefully
changed and mischaracterized the employment status of the Class in connection
with the sale to Graham with the intent to deprive the Class of the Enhanced
Retirement and retiree health benefits.

The suit is “Sessions et al. v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. et al., Case Number:
1:2007cv01669,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, under the Honorable Christopher C. Conner.

For more information, contact:

          Mager & Goldstein LLP
          Toll Free: 866-284-3280
          E-mail: info@magergoldstein.com
          Website: http://www.magergoldstein.com


PATRIOTS: Sued by New York Jets Fan Over Videotaping Incident
-------------------------------------------------------------
A New York Jets fan filed a class action against the New England Patriots and
its coach for alleged deception of customers, reports say.

Consumer lawyer and Jets season ticket holder Carl Mayer of Princeton, N.J.
filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Newark, N.J.  He is suing for $184
million in damages on behalf of Jets ticket holders for an incident in which
the Patriots videotaped Jets coaches giving signals in the two team's season
opening game.  New England won 38-14.

"They violated the integrity of the game," according to Mr. Mayer’s attorney
Bruce Afran.  Mr. Mayer has filed similar injustices suits with little
success, reports noted.


SABANERO INC: Recalls Cheese on Possible Contamination
------------------------------------------------------
Sabanero Inc. is voluntarily recalling FOR FRYING and GRATING Cheese 5.5
pounds loafs with lot number 177, expiration date of October 22/07 made by
COOPERATIVA  COLANTA in their San Pedro Plant in Colombia South America.  

Only products with lot number 177 and expiration date: October 22, 2007 are
subject to this recall. Products containing any other dates or references like
in 10 oz. or 5.5 Lb. Regular, low Fat or For Frying Cheese are not subject to
this recall and should not be returned.

This recall was initiated because the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services revealed a potential for the presence of Staphylococcus aureus.

This recall is being conducted to the consumer level. It extends to the
consumer level.

Consumers are advised to immediately examine their inventory to include this
5.5 Lb. loaf lot #177 of FOR FRYING CHEESE and if they have any of the
recalled date in stock, quarantine and discontinue dispensing the product.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services.

For more information, contact Alfonso Ibańez at 305-588-0277 or Fax: 305-482-8218.


SALTON INC: Recalls Electric Toasters Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
Salton Inc., of Lake Forest, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 5,200 Cook’s Essential Electric
Toasters.

The company said the toaster can turn on without bread in the slots and ignite
items placed on top of it, posing a fire hazard.

QVC has received information that ten toasters reportedly turned on
spontaneously, including one incident of fire damage to kitchen cabinets and
two incidents of toaster covers burned. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the “Cook’s Essential” four-slice wide slot electric
toasters model CET 401. These toasters are made of stainless steel and measure
12 inches long, 13 inches wide and 8 inches high. Each toaster has Cook’s
Essentials Classic Look Toaster, Model: CET401 printed on a plate located on
the underside of the toaster.

These recalled oven toasters were manufactured in China and are being sold by
QVC Inc., of West Chester, Pennsylvania, through its television station, its
Web page; its toll-free number, outlet, and its employee and Studio stores
from January 2003 through June 2003 for between $63 and $69 plus about $8 for
shipping and handling. Some recalled toasters may have been sold at various
retailers.

Consumers are advised to stop using the toaster immediately, unplug it, and
cut off the power cord where it enters the body of the toaster. Consumers who
return the power cord in the prepaid envelope that will be provided will
receive a full refund.

Picture of recalled oven toasters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08001.jpg

Consumers who bought a toaster from a QVC’s television program or at QVC.com
were sent a package by mail containing information on how to receive a refund.
Consumers who have not received the information packet should call QVC at
(800) 367-9444, from 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. ET, seven days a week or visit QVC’s Web
site: http://www.qvc.com.

Consumers who bought a toaster at a QVC outlet or retail store should return
the toaster at the store where it was purchased to receive a full refund. For
all non-QVC purchases, contact Salton at (800) 233-9054 between 8:30 a.m. and
5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the firm’s Web site:
http://www.esalton.com


SEARS HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Complaint in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated securities
fraud complaint filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In May and July 2006, two putative class actions, which each name as
defendants Sears Holdings Corp. and Edward Lampert, were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of
a class of persons that sold shares of Kmart Holding Corp. stock on or after
May 6, 2003 through June 4, 2004.

The plaintiffs in each case allege that Kmart’s Plan of Reorganization and
Disclosure Statement filed on Jan. 24, 2003 and amended on Feb. 25, 2003
misrepresented Kmart’s assets, particularly its real estate holdings, as
evidenced by the prices at which Kmart subsequently sold certain of its stores
in June 2004 to Home Depot and Sears.  They seek damages for alleged
misrepresentations.

On Dec. 19, 2006, the Court consolidated the actions.  The plaintiffs have
filed their consolidated complaint.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, according to
the company's Aug. 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

The suit is “Fred P. Campo, et al. v. Sears Holdings Corporation, et al., Case
No. 06-CV-4053,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
          320 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212.983.9330
          Fax: 212.983.9331
          E-mail: Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
          Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com/


SEARS ROEBUCK: Makes Final Payments in Ill. ERISA Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears, Roebuck, and Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sears Holdings Corp.,
made its final payments to settle the matter, "In re: Sears, Roebuck and Co.
ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-08324."

On and after Nov. 15, 2002, several actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Sears, certain officers
and directors, and alleged fiduciaries of Sears' 401(k) Savings Plan, seeking
damages and equitable relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 .

The plaintiffs purport to represent participants in the Plan, and allege
breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in connection with the Plan's
investment in Sears' common shares and alleged communications made to Plan
participants regarding Sears' financial condition.

The court has consolidated these actions and certified the consolidated action
as a class action.

Pursuant to an agreement dated Feb. 13, 2007 defendants have agreed to settle
the matter.  On June 26, 2007, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment
as to the consolidated action.  

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Sears subsequently made its
final payment to plaintiffs, according to the Sears Holdings Corp.'s Aug. 30,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

The suit is "Kehr v. Sears Roebuck & Co., et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-08324," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steven E. Cauley, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          200 Broadhollow Road, #406
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 367-7100

               - and -

          Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq.
          Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 782-4880
          E-mail: csanchez@millerfaucher.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Harold C. Hirshman, Esq.
          Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 876-8000
     
               - and -

          Elissa Eun Choo Rhee-Lee, Esq.
          Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears Law Department
          3333 Beverly Road
          Hoffman Estates, IL 60179
          Phone: (708) 286-9214


SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Underway in “Ong” Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is under way in the class action, “Ong, et al. v. Sears Roebuck &
Co., et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-04142,” which names a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sears Holdings Corp., as a defendant.  

On June 17, 2003, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Sears and certain officers, purportedly
on behalf of a class of all persons who, between June 21, 2002 and Oct. 17,
2002, purchased the 7% notes that Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp. (SRAC) issued
on June 21, 2002.

Pursuant to a subsequently filed amended complaint, plaintiffs named as
additional defendants certain former Sears officers not originally named, SRAC
and several investment banking firms, which had acted as underwriters for
SRAC’s March 18, May 21, and June 21, 2002 notes offerings.

The complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and, as against the individual defendants,
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint purports to allege that defendants made a number of false and
misleading statements in one or more prospectuses for debt securities
offerings and in SEC filings and other public statements, concerning the
adequacy of reserves for uncollectible accounts, and the condition of Sears’
former credit business, among other things.

On July 2, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

Discovery is underway, according to the Sears Holdings Corp.'s Aug. 30, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

The suit is “Ong, et al. v. Sears Roebuck & Co, et al., Case No.
1:03-cv-04142,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 357-0370
          Fax: (312) 357-0369
          E-mail: cgilden@cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Harold C. Hirshman, Esq.
          Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, 7800 Sears Tower
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 876-8000
          E-mail: hhirshman@sonnenschein.com

          Walter C. Carlson, Esq.
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: wcarlson@sidley.com

               - and -

          Robert Y. Sperling, Esq.
          Winston & Strawn LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Phone: (312) 558-5600
          E-mail: rsperling@winston.com


SEARS ROEBUCK: Briefing Underway in “Fischer” Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing is underway on an appeal against the dismissal of the suit, "William
Fischer, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et al.," a class action in
connection with Sears' merger with Kmart Holding Corp.

Sears Holdings was formed as a Delaware corporation in 2004 in connection with
the merger of Kmart and Sears that was announced on Nov. 17, 2004.  

Originally, the Fischer case -- filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois -- was one of three actions that were filed and then later consolidated.

The actions assert claims on behalf of a purported class of Sears'
stockholders against Sears and certain of its officers and directors, together
with Kmart, Edward S. Lampert, William C. Crowley and other affiliated
entities, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the merger and
seeking damages.

The plaintiffs allege that the merger favors interested defendants by awarding
them disproportionate benefits, and that the defendants failed to take
appropriate steps to maximize the value of a merger transaction for Sears'
stockholders.

On Sept. 7, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's Aug. 8,
2006 order dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint.  

Briefing on the appeal is underway.  The case has not been set for oral
argument, according to the Sears Holdings Corp.'s Aug. 30, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

Sears Holdings Corp. -- http://www.searsholdings.com/-- is a broadline
retailer with approximately 2,300 full-line and 1,100 specialty retail stores
in the U.S. operating through Kmart Holding Corp. and Sears, Roebuck and Co.,
and approximately 370 full-line and specialty retail stores in Canada
operating through Sears Canada Inc.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Written Discovery Underway in “Levie” Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Written discovery is underway in the matter, "Maurice Levie, et al. v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., et al.," a class action in connection with Sears' merger with
Kmart Holding Corp.

Sears Holdings was formed as a Delaware corporation in 2004 in connection with
the merger of Kmart and Sears that was announced on Nov. 17, 2004.  

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  It asserts claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of a
purported class of Sears' stockholders against Sears and Alan J. Lacy, for
allegedly failing to make timely disclosure of merger discussions with Kmart
during the period Sept. 9, 2004 through Nov. 16, 2004, and seeks damages.

On July 17, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’
motion for class certification, certifying a class of Sears stockholders who
sold shares of Sears stock between Sept. 9, 2004 and Nov. 16, 2004, excluding
short sellers who covered their positions during the class period.

On July 30, 2007, defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal the class
certification with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  

Plaintiffs have filed their response to the petition.  The parties await a
ruling from the Court of Appeals.  

Meanwhile, written discovery is underway, according to the Sears Holdings
Corp.'s Aug. 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

The suit is “Levie v. Sears Roebuck Co., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-07643,”
filed in  the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge Robert W. Gettleman with referral to Judge Arlander Keys.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark Richard Miller, Esq.
          Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP
          One North LaSalle, Suite 2000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: mrm@wtwlaw.us

               - and -

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Cener, 401 East Pratt St., Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: (410) 332-0030

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark A. Flessner, Esq.
          Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, 7800 Sears Tower
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 876-8000
          E-mail: mflessner@sonnenschein.com

               - and -

          Alexander Dimitrief, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 861-2000
          E-mail: alex.dimitrief@kirkland.com

   
SPRINT NEXTEL: Parties Accept Proposal to Settle Kans. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Sprint
Nextel Corp. in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas accepted a
mediator’s proposal that would settle the matter.

Back in March 2004, eight purported class actions relating to the
recombination of the company's tracking stocks were filed against the company
and its directors by holders of Sprint PCS common stock.

Seven of the lawsuits were consolidated in the District Court of Johnson
County, Kansas.  The eighth, pending in New York, has been voluntarily stayed.

The consolidated lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty in connection with
allocations between the wireline operations and the wireless operations before
the recombination of the tracking stocks and breach of fiduciary duty in the
recombination.  It seeks to rescind the recombination and monetary damages.

In December 2006, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss the
complaint and for summary judgment, and granted a motion to certify the class.  

In February 2007, the court, upon reconsideration, dismissed a count of the
complaint related to intracompany allocations, which requires dismissal of the
complaint against three of the company's former directors and reconsideration
of the class definition.

In April 2007, the Kansas Court of Appeals accepted interlocutory appeal of
the District Court’s class certification and stayed proceedings in the trial
court pending the decision on appeal.

In July 2007, the parties accepted a mediator’s proposal that the litigation
be settled, 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.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- Sprint Nextel Corporation
(Sprint Nextel) is a communication company offering a range of wireless and
wireline communications products and services for individuals, business and
government customers.


TARGET CORP: Blind Group’s Suit Over Internet Access Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California certified a class action filed on behalf of blind
Internet users throughout the country.

Originally filed on Feb. 2006, in Alameda County Superior Court, the National
Federation of the Blind initiated claimed that Target Corp., discriminates
against them because its Web site is inaccessible to blind customers (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2006).

The lawsuit claims, "Target thus excludes the blind from full and equal
participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a
fundamental part of daily life."  Specifically, it charges that the alleged
lack of access violates two California laws, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and
the Disabled Persons Act.

The suit also charges that Target failed and refused to make its Web site -–
http://www.target.com-- accessible to the blind and, therefore, violated the
American Disabilities Act as well as two California civil rights statutes: the
California Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act.

In its recent ruling, the court also held that Web sites such as target.com
are required by California law to be accessible.

The President of the National Federation of the Blind, Dr. Marc Maurer,
commented on the court's ruling: "This is a tremendous step forward for blind
people throughout the country who for too long have been denied equal access
to the Internet economy. All e-commerce businesses should take note of this
decision and immediately take steps to open their doors to the blind."

Larry Paradis of Disability Rights Advocates, one of the lead counsel for the
class, commented on the court's decision: "Target Corporation has led a battle
against blind consumers in a key area of modern life: the Internet economy.
The court's decision today makes clear that people with disabilities no longer
can be treated as second-class citizens in any sphere of mainstream life. This
ruling will benefit hundreds of thousands of Americans with disabilities."

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class under
the ADA for injunctive relief. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion
to certify a California subclass for both injunctive relief and statutory
minimum damages. The court denied Target's motion for summary judgment.

The court certified, as counsel for the class, the following law firms:

     -- Disability Rights Advocates –- http://www.dralegal.org  
        -- a Berkeley-based nonprofit law firm that specializes
           in high-impact cases on behalf of people with
           disabilities;

     -- Brown, Goldstein & Levy -– http://www.browngold.com--
        a leading civil rights law firm in Baltimore, Maryland;

     -- Schneider & Wallace – http://www.schneiderwallace.com–  
        a national plaintiffs' class action and civil rights law
        firm based in San Francisco, California; and

     -- Peter Blanck, chairman of the Burton Blatt Institute and
        university professor at Syracuse University –-
        http://www.bbi.syr.edu.

Dan Goldstein of Brown, Goldstein & Levy noted that, "The blind of America
seek only the same rights and opportunities as others take for granted. This
case should be a wake-up call to all businesses that their services must be
accessible to all."

Josh Konecky of Schneider & Wallace also noted, "This has been a hard-fought
case addressing fundamental issues of access and equality. The judge's
decision today is a great step forward."

The suit is “National Federation of the Blind, et al. v. Target Corporation,
et al., Case No: C 06-1802 MHP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under the Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel.


TEXAS: Denton Fire Dept. Sued Over Alleged Hiring Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Dallas firefighter who lives in Denton has filed a federal job
discrimination class action against the Denton Fire Department and the city of
Denton, Donna Fielder of the Denton Record-Chronicle reports.

David Johnson filed the suit on Sept. 21 in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, alleging that the department discriminated by not
hiring him in 2006.  Representing Mr. Johnson are attorneys Kevin Wiggins and
Tracey Wallace.

Denton city attorney Ed Snyder confirmed the existence of the lawsuit but did
not comment because he has not reviewed it, according to Ms. Fielder.

The suit says the fire chief exercises undue authority in the hiring system,
resulting to bias decisions against African-American firemen.  It alleges that
the department has "written and unwritten policies and practices for hiring
that allow biased and inconsistent determinations to the detriment of
African-Americans."  It seeks class-action status.

Fire Chief Ross Chadwick has been criticized for years because there are no
black firefighters in the Denton department, Ms. Fielder noted.  Last year, he
hired a recruiter tasked to get qualified black applicants to come to Denton.  

The department employs three blacks, but none as a firefighter.  It has six
Hispanics, one American Indian and 148 white firefighters.  A total of eight
Hispanics and 166 whites work in the department.

The suit is “Johnson v. The City of Denton Fire Department et al., Case No.
2007cv00449,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas under Judge Michael H. Schneider with referral to Judge Don D. Bush.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Kevin B. Wiggins, Esq.
          Adorno Yoss White & Wiggins
          1999 Bryan Street, 34th Floor
          Dallas, Texas 75201
          (Collin, Dallas & Denton Cos.)
          Phone: 214-665-4150
          Telefax: 314-665-4160

          Tracey Wallace, Esq.
          Adorno Yoss White & Wiggins
          1999 Bryan Street, 34th Floor
          Dallas, Texas 75201
          (Collin, Dallas & Denton Cos.)
          Phone: 214-665-4150
          Telefax: 314-665-4160

Representing the defendants is:

          Edward M. Snyder, Jr., Esq.
          Law Offices of Edward M. Snyder, Jr.
          3333 Lee Parkway, 10th Floor
          Dallas, Texas 75219
          (Collin, Dallas & Denton Cos.)
           Telephone: 214-696-0600
          Fax: 214-780-1403
          Web site: http://www.edwardmsnyder.com


TIMBERLAND CO: Recalls Boots that Fall Short of Intended Use
------------------------------------------------------------
The Timberland Company, of Stratham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 193,000 pairs of
Timberland PRO Direct Attach Steel Toe Boots.

The company said the boots could fail to provide the intended protection
against compression and impact, posing the risk of a foot injury to consumers.
No injuries have been reported. This recall is being conducted to prevent the
possibility of injuries.

This recall involves the Timberland PRO Direct Attach Steel Toe Boots with
model numbers 26002 (wheat nubuck leather), 65016 (wheat nubuck leather),
26038 (black full-grain leather), and 38021 (brown oiled full-grain leather).
The model number is printed on a green loop tag on the inside of the boot,
just below the size. The boots have a four digit date code ending in 35 and
beginning with the numbers 25 through 45 (e.g. 2535, 2635?4535) which can also
be found on the loop tag below the model number. Direct Attach Steel Toe boots
made in China are not subject to this recall.

These recalled steel-toe boots were manufactured in the Dominican Republic and
are being sold at shoe stores and other independent retailers nationwide from
September 2005 through September 2007 for between $90 and $115.

Pictures of recalled steel-toe boots:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08500a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08500b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop wearing the recalled boots immediately and
contact The Timberland Company to receive a free replacement pair of boots.

For more information, contact The Timberland Company at (800) 445-5545 between
8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday, and Friday between 8 a.m. and
5 p.m. ET, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.timberland.com.


TRIBUNE CO: Continues to Face Advertisers’ Lawsuits in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Co. still faces several purported class actions for allegedly
overcharging advertisers in its Newsday and Hoy, New York, publications.

In February 2004, a purported class action was filed in New York Federal Court
by certain advertisers of Newsday and Hoy, New York, alleging that they were
overcharged for advertising as a result of inflated circulation numbers at
these two publications.

The purported class action also alleges that entities that paid a Newsday
subsidiary to deliver advertising flyers were overcharged.

In July 2004, another lawsuit was filed in New York Federal Court by certain
advertisers of Newsday alleging damages resulting from inflated Newsday
circulation numbers as well as federal and state antitrust violations.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 9, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 1, 2007.

Tribune Co. -- http://www.tribune.com-- is operating businesses in
publishing, interactive and broadcasting.  It reaches more than 80 percent of
U.S. households and is the only media organization with newspapers, television
stations and websites in the nation’s top three markets.


TYSON FOODS: Faces Labor Lawsuit by Former Boise Plant Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods Inc. is facing a class action in Idaho District Court over alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Bryan Dooley of Idaho-Press Tribune
reports.

The suit was filed by Miguel Victorio and Leonila Victorio against Tyson
Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. on Sept. 11.  The plaintiffs seek to
represent former employees of the company’s Boise plant.  The suit alleges
that the companies did not pay workers for some of the time they worked,
including work off the clock for at least an hour a day on a daily basis.

Nampa attorney Bruce Skaug, with Goicoechea Law Offices, said more than 300
people have similar experiences.  Mr. Skaug said those who complained were
fired.  

“Ninety-nine percent of these clients are Spanish speakers but legal
residents. They were taken advantage of because of their language and their
fear of losing their jobs.”

Mr. Skaug said many workers weren’t aware that the practice is illegal.
Workers reported being made to work 30 minutes in the morning before clocking
in and clean up for 30 minutes or longer after they clocked out, he said.

In a brief statement, Tyson denied any wrongdoing, according to Mr. Dooley.
Tyson’s Boise plant permanently closed in October 2006.

The suit is "Victorio et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:2007cv00383," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
under Judge Edward J. Lodge.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Bruce Skaug, Esq.
          Goicoechea Law Offices
          1226 East Karcher Road
          Nampa, ID 83687
          Phone: (208)466-0030
          Fax: (208) 466-8903


WAL-MART STORES: N.M. Court Upholds Class in Workers’ Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed a certification of a class of
employees who claimed they were forced by company policy to work after
clocking out and during meal and rest breaks, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The appeals court upheld a lower court decision granting class-action status
in a case filed by two workers from Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores.

In his recent ruling, Judge Pickard said the plaintiffs met the typicality and
other class prerequisites, but the lower court had improperly defined three
subclasses of workers.

The appeals court modified the definitions because they depended on the merits
of the employees’ claims.

The case is “Gilbert Armijo and Maria Casaus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and
Sam's Club, No. 26,322.”

Representing the Appellees are:

          Shane Youtz
          Youtz & Valdez, P.C.
          Albuquerque, NM

          Gerald L. Bader, Jr.
          Renee B. Taylor
          Bader & Associates, LLC
          Denver, CO

          - and -

          Franklin D. Azar
          Rodney Bridgers
          Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C.
          Denver, CO.

Representing the Appellants are:

          Charles R. Peifer
          Cerianne L. Mullins
          Peifer, Hanson & Mullins, P.A.
          Albuquerque, NM.


WAL-MART STORES: “Braun/Hummel” Plaintiffs Win Another $62M
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Philadelphia Common Pleas Court awarded Wal-Mart workers $62.3 million in
damages in addition to a $78.5 million award they previously won for working
off the clock, the AP WorldStream reports.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the jury awarded back-pay damages to the plaintiffs for
off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks.  The plaintiffs consist of 187,000
current and former employees who worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs from March
1998 through May 2006.  

The plaintiffs additionally sought an award of approximately $62 million in
statutory penalties, plus prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees, and got
it.  In the recent ruling, about 125,000 people will receive $500 each in
damages under a state law invoked when a company, without cause, withholds pay
for more than 30 days.  

                        Case Background

The suit, "Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," was certified in January 2006.
In October 2006, a jury awarded nearly $78.5 million to the class comprising
of some 186,000 current and former employees of Pennsylvania stores who
claimed they weren't properly paid for missed rest breaks and off-the-clock work
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2006).

The case involves labor practices at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores between
March 1998 and May 1, 2006.  The lead plaintiff is Dolores Hummel, who worked
at a Sam's Club in Reading from 1992-2002.  

Ms. Hummel charged that she had to work through breaks and after quitting time
to meet work demands in the bakery.  She said that she worked eight to 12
unpaid hours a month, on average, to meet work demands.

For more details, contact plaintiff’s lawyer:

          Michael Donovan, Esq.
          Donovan Searles
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, (Philadelphia Co.)
          Phone: 215-732-6067
          Fax: 215-732-8060


WASHINGTON: Thurston Jail Officers’ Suit Goes to High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The state Supreme Court heard a suit filed by Thurston County jail officers
complaining against the county over its payroll practices, Brad Shannon of The
Olympian reports.

The suit was filed by officers Gene Champagne, Cary Brown, Roland Knorr and
Christopher Scanlon.  The plaintiffs are suing to force the county not to wait
for an extra pay period to pay overtime.  They are hoping to ultimately turn
the case into a class action that could result in double damages for as many
as 1,400 workers.

Portland, Ore.,-based lawyer Will Aitchison told the court that by waiting an
extra pay period for paying overtime, the county had in effect willfully
denied pay, according to the report.

Attorney Doug Smith of Seattle who represented the county argued that the jail
officers' claim had no basis under the law allowing double damages, because no
payment was ever willfully withheld.  He also said that the case was correctly
thrown out by lower courts because lawyers for the four officers failed to
file their claim properly. The original claim was filed as a lawsuit in
Superior Court rather than as a damages claim with the county government,
which rules require, according to Mr. Shannon.

A joint friend-of-court brief was filed in the case by Columbia Legal
Services, Centro de Ayuda Solidaria a los Amigos, Washington Employment
Lawyers Association, the National Employment Law Project and the King County
Bar's Newcomers Wage Claim Project.

The judges who heard the case were Justices Mary Fairhurst, Jim Johnson, and
Bobbe Bridge.


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Dismissal of Suit Sought After Stay Lift
-----------------------------------------------------------
Individual defendants in securities fraud and Employee Retirement Income
Security Act violations suits against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. filed motions to
dismiss the suits after a stay on the suits were lifted this year.

In February 2004, several putative class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Company and
certain present and former executive officers alleging claims under the
federal securities laws.

In March and April 2004, three other putative class actions were filed in the
District Court against the Company and certain present and former executive
officers and employees of the Company alleging claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended related to the Company’s
Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan.

By separate court orders, both the securities laws claims and the ERISA claims
were consolidated and were to proceed as separate, single actions.  The
consolidated complaint has not yet been filed in either action.

As a result of the Company’s Chapter 11 filing, the automatic stay prevented
the plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits from proceeding against the Company.

Any such claims against the Company were subordinated under the Plan pursuant
to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 510(b) and were treated in the same
manner as the Company’s existing shares, which were cancelled without any
distribution, and such claims were discharged as against the Company.  The
discharge injunction imposed by the Plan will protect the Company from the
assertion of these claims in the future.

As to the individual co-defendants, on May 10, 2005, the District Court
entered an order staying both lawsuits as to all parties and all issues in
light of the Company’s Chapter 11 filing.

On April 5, 2007, and May 1, 2007, the District Court entered orders lifting
the stays in both lawsuits. On June 4, 2007, and June 11, 2007, the plaintiff
in both lawsuits filed amended and consolidated complaints against the
individual defendants. On June 25, 2007, and July 22, 2007, the individual
defendants filed motions to dismiss both lawsuits. These motions remain
pending before the District Court.

The ERISA suit is "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No.
3:04-cv-00194-HES-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Ave., Suite 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212/682-1818

              - and -

         Emerson Poynter LLP
         2228 Cottondale Ln., Suite 100
         Little Rock, AR 72202-2037
         Phone: 501/907-2555

Representing the defendants in both litigation are:

         King & Spalding LLP
         191 Peachtree St., Suite 4900
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763
         Phone: 404/572-4600
       
              - and -

         Liles, Gavin, Costantino & Murphy
         225 Water St., Suite 1500
         Jacksonville, FL 32202
         Phone: 904/634-1100
         Fax: 904/634-1234

            
* Louisiana CLE Offers 7th Annual Class Action Symposium
--------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana State Bar Association will present its 7th Annual Class
Action/Mass Tort Symposium on Friday, October 19 at the Sheraton New Orleans
Hotel, 500 Canal Street, New Orleans. The course will be held from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., including coffee/refreshment breaks.

Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett, Beard & Arsenault, is the seminar chairman. He
will be joined on the faculty by the Hon. Carl J. Barbier, the Hon. Ivan L.R.
Lemelle, and the Hon. Jay C. Zainey, all of U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of LA in New Orleans; Dawn M. Barrios, Barrios, Kingsdorf &
Casteix, and Edward F. Sherman, Tulane University School of Law and other
attorneys from other jurisdictions.

For information on registration fees and CLE credits, see the Bulletin Board
on The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Web site at www.metrocorpcounsel.com.

To register for the program, telephone (504) 566-1600 or visit
http://www.lsba.org/cle.


* Quarles & Brady Associate Joins AB Data as Claims Supervisor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Benjamin, Co-Managing Director of A.B. Data, Ltd. announces that "James
Schoenecker, Esq., has joined the Company as Securities Claims Supervisor. The
addition of Mr. Schoenecker to A.B. Data's senior management is part of the
Company's ongoing commitment to offer its clients unparalleled service in
securities class action administration."

Prior to joining A.B. Data, Mr. Schoenecker was an Associate in the Commercial
Litigation Practice Group at Quarles & Brady, LLP. While at Quarles & Brady,
Mr. Schoenecker litigated a variety of complex cases, including cases
involving misappropriation of trade secrets, non-competes and confidentiality
agreements, disputes under Wisconsin's Limited Liability Company Act,
insurance coverage law, and securities law.

Mr. Schoenecker also honed his legal skills in the courtroom, having drafted
and argued numerous motions at every stage of litigation, including, but not
limited to: motions for protective orders, motions to compel, motions for
judgments on the pleadings, summary judgment motions, motions in limine, and
motions to strike. Mr. Schoenecker also has extensive trial, appellate and
pro-bono experience on both the State and Federal levels. Prior to Quarles &
Brady, Mr. Schoenecker was an Associate at the New York firms of Sonnenschein
Nath & Rosenthal LLP and Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP.

In 2003, Mr. Schoenecker received his Juris Doctorate from Columbia Law
School, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, a Notes Editor of the
Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, a member of the Clinical Staff of
Columbia Law School's Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic, a Senator in the
Law School's Student Senate, recipient of the CALI Award in Jurisprudence, and
a member of the Phi Delta Phi Legal Ethics Fraternity. In 1999, Mr.
Schoenecker received his Bachelor of Arts in History from Boston College where
he graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa as a member of the College of
Arts and Sciences Honor's Program.

Mr. Schoenecker is admitted to practice in New York, Washington D.C. and
Wisconsin as well as before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern
Districts of New York, and the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of E*TRADE Financial
Corporation between December 14, 2006 and September 25, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges E*TRADE and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Exchange Act. E*TRADE, through its subsidiaries, offers
financial solutions to retail and institutional customers worldwide. In
addition, the Company offers mortgage, home equity, and margin and credit card
products; real estate loans; and various consumer loans, including
recreational vehicle, marine, commercial, automobile, and credit card loans.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to
disclose:

     (a) that the Company was experiencing a rise in delinquency
         rates in its mortgage and home equity portfolios;

     (b) that the Company failed to timely record an impairment
         on its mortgage and home equity portfolios;

     (c) that the Company's securities portfolio, which includes
         assets backed by mortgages, was materially overvalued;            
         and

     (d) that based on the foregoing, Defendants' positive
         statements about the Company's earnings and prospects
         were lacking in a reasonable basis at all times.

On September 17, 2007, the Company announced that it will exit the wholesale
mortgage and it is revising its guidance for 2007, among other things. Upon
this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $2.32 per share, or over 15%,
over the next six trading days as the investing public digested the news.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a Class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased the common stock of E*TRADE
between December 14, 2006 and September 25, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Exchange Act.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman,
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com


MICRUS ENDOVASCULAR: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Micrus Endovascular
Corp between February 12, 2007 and September 17, 2007, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Micrus and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Exchange Act. Micrus develops, manufactures, and markets
implantable and disposable medical devices used in the treatment of cerebral
vascular diseases.

According to the complaint, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period and failed to disclose:

     (i) that sales at Micrus Design, one of the Company's key
         subsidiaries, were slowing dramatically and not meeting
         internal expectations as the subsidiary was
         encountering increasing competition;

    (ii) that the Company was experiencing increased regulatory
         issues in China and Japan which would delay and impede
         its ability to get its full complement of products
         approved for sale in those countries; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
         statements about the Company, its earnings, products
         and prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
         times and materially false and misleading.

On September 17, 2007, Micrus issued a press release announcing that it was
revising its financial guidance and now expects fiscal 2008 revenues to be
between $65 million and $75 million because of expected product approval
delays in China as well as Japan and slower-than-anticipated sales in North
America. In response to the announcement the price of Micrus common dropped
from $23.57 per share to $17.37 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a Class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased the common stock of Micrus between
February 12, 2007 and September 17, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Exchange Act.

For more information contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.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  * * *