CAR_Public/071213.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, December 13, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 247

                            Headlines


ALTANA PHARMA: N.J. Suit Claims Patent Fraud Related to Protonix
ATRICURE INC: N.Y. Court Denies Motion to Junk Securities Suit
BIGBAND NETWORKS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
BIG DOG: Subsidiary Faces FACTA Violations Suit in Pennsylvania
BRIDAS ENERGY: Asks Court to Deny Class Status to Explosion Suit

BROOKLINE BANK: Suit Over Collateral Sale Notices in Discovery
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Employee's Lawsuit
CAPTARIS INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of TCPA Suit in Ill.
CBRE REALTY: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Connecticut
CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Investors Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Lawsuit

CHIRON CORP: Cal. Court Rejects $30M Securities Suit Settlement
COLLINS INT'L: Recalls Ceramic Heaters Posing Fire Hazard
DEAN FOODS: Faces Dairy Farmers' Antitrust Lawsuits in Tenn.
DOBSON COMMS: $3.4M Okla. Securities Suit Settlement Upheld
DOMINION HOMES: Still Faces Ohio Suit Over Down Payment Program

DOMINION HOMES: Certification of VPP Homeowners' Suit Appealed
DOMINION HOMES: Rulings in Ohio Consumer Suit Under Appeal
DOT HILL: Cal. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
FMS INC: Accused of Violating Debt Collection Law in Fla. Suit
GENERAL STEEL: Customers File Fraud Suit in Col. Federal Court

ISRAEL: Dismissal of Suit Over Shelling of U.N. in Qana Appealed
NEW JERSEY: Newfield Asks Court to Settle School Rent Dispute
NEWS CORP: Faces Cal. Suit Over Gemstar-TV Sale to Macrovision
PUBLISHERS: Court Junks Settlement of Freelance Writers Suit
SEARS: Recalls Kids' Pants with Belt Posing Entrapment Hazard

SOUTH DAKOTA: Winner School District Bias Suit Deal Approved
SPRINT NEXTEL: Kans. Court Okays $57.5M Investor Suit Settlement
STARBUCKS CORP: Court Orders Trial in Sherman Act Violation Suit
UNITED STATES: Groups Sue to Stop Excessive Citizenship Delays
VALLEY HEALTH: Faces Complaints Over Full-time Workers Layoffs
WEB SITES: Plaintiffs Claiming Fake Online Auctions to Settle


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

GENESCO INC: Wolf Popper Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Berger & Montague Files Securities Fraud Suit
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Lawsuit
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Suit
ZUMIEZ INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.


                            *********  


ALTANA PHARMA: N.J. Suit Claims Patent Fraud Related to Protonix
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altana Pharma and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals are facing a class-
action complaint filed Dec. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging it committed patent fraud to
prevent generic forms of Protonix (pantoprazole sodium), an
acid-reflux drug, from coming into the market, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

This civil action arises out of defendants' unlawful scheme to
illegally maintain their monopoly in the United States market
for their brand name prescription drug Protonix and its AB-rated
generic equivalents.

Named plaintiffs DIK Drug Company and King Drug Company of
Florence, Inc. bring this action on behalf of all persons and
entities in the United States who purchased Protonix directly
from defendants from April 19, 2006 through the present.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants had monopoly power in the relevant
         market;

     (b) whether the '579 Patent was obtained as a result of
         fraud committed by defendants upon the PTO;

     (c) whether defendants improperly submitted the '579 Patent
         to the FDA for listing in the Orange Book;

     (d) whether the patent infringements suits defendants
         initiated against generic competitors Teva and Sun
         constituted sham litigation;

     (e) whether defendants' actions illegally maintained its
         monopoly power in the relevant market;

     (f) whether defendant's activities as alleged have
         substantially affected interstate commerce; and

     (g) whether, and to what extent, defendants' conduct caused
         antitrust injury to the business or property of its
         direct purchaser customers and if so, the appropriate
         measure of damages.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

     -- a declaration that defendants have committed the
        violations alleged;

     -- a judgment for the damages sustained by plaintiffs and
        the other members of the class defined, and for treble
        damages;

     -- the costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys'
        fees; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court deems just
        and proper.

The suit is "DIK Drug Company et al. v. Altana Pharma AG et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
jersey.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Peter S. Pearlman
          Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP
          Park 80 Plaza West-One
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Phone: (201) 845-9600
          Fax: (201) 845-9423

          - and -

          Bruce E. Gerstein
          Barry S. Taus
          Brett Cebulash
          Kevin Landau
          Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP
          1501 Broadway, Suite 1416
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 398-0055
          Fax: (212) 764-6620


ATRICURE INC: N.Y. Court Denies Motion to Junk Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a renewed bid by AtriCure, Inc. to have the
purported securities class action, “Levine v. AtriCure, Inc.,
Case No. 06 CV 14324” dismissed.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and
seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock during the period from the company's Initial Public
Offering in August 2005 through Feb. 16, 2006.

The Company’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction was denied in September 2007, and a motion
for reconsideration of that denial is pending, according to
company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Levine v. Atricure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
14324-RJH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Richard J. Holwell.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

         Douglas M. Kraus, Esq.
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
         Four Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-735-3000 x2510
         Fax: 917-777-2510
         E-mail: dkraus@skadden.com


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
BigBand Networks, Inc. is facing several purported securities
fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Since Oct. 3, 2007, six purported shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed against the company, certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public
offering.  One such suit was subsequently dismissed.

The lawsuits allege that company officers and directors made
false or misleading statements to investors in connection with
the company's initial public offering and thereafter, and that
its registration statement and prospectus contained false or
misleading statements regarding its business prospects.

The plaintiffs purport to represent anyone who purchased the
company's common stock in the initial public offering, or
purchased the company's common stock between March 14, 2007, and
Sept. 27, 2007. The lawsuits assert causes of action for
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  

The company anticipates that the remaining five lawsuits will be
consolidated and that defendants will respond to a consolidated
complaint during the first half of 2008.  

BigBand Networks, Inc. -- http://www.bigbandnet.com/--  
develops, markets and sells network-based platforms that enable
cable operators and telephone companies to offer video, voice
and data services across coaxial, fiber and copper networks.  


BIG DOG: Subsidiary Faces FACTA Violations Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Walking Co. (TWC), a subsidiary of Big Dog Holdings, Inc.,
faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the
of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

The suit was filed on April 2007 by Marlene Korman.  It
generally claims a violation of FACTA in regard to
electronically printed receipts previously used at TWC's Oxford
Valley, Pennsylvania store.

The suit is brought a class action on behalf of certain other
customers of TWC’s Oxford Valley store, though the Plaintiff's
ability to bring such suit a class action has not yet been
certified by the court.  

The complaint seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs
and attorneys fees.  

The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 13,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Korman v. The Walking Company, Case No.  2:07-cv-
01557-ER,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Eduardo C. Robreno,

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James A. Francis
          Francis & Mailman, PC
          Land Title Bldg., 19th Fl., 100 S. Broad St.,
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Phone: 215-735-8600
          Fax: 215-940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          David A. Searles
          Donovan Searles, LLC
          1845 Walnut St., Ste. 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-732-6067
          Fax: 215-732-8060
          E-mail: dsearles@donovansearles.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Carol Choate Carty, Esq.
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-5331
          E-mail: ccarty@morganlewis.com


BRIDAS ENERGY: Asks Court to Deny Class Status to Explosion Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action against Bridas Energy over a well explosion in
Iberville Parish will now be heard in Lafayette Federal Court,
Eyewitness News reports.  A court date has not yet been set in
the case.

The company is asking the court to deny class status to the
suit.  It has filed documents claiming there are too many
individual issues for a class action to fit and that the well
blowout was unpreventable because it was an act of God.

The suit was filed by the Owners of Silver's Travel Center who
are claiming back lost profit due to the loss of customers when
detour routes were set up after the emergency, taking away
traffic from their place of business.  Many business owners say
they lost more than half of their customers during the process,
according to the report.


BROOKLINE BANK: Suit Over Collateral Sale Notices in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action against
Brookline Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of Brookline Bancorp,
Inc., over missing information on its notice of sale of
collateral for delinquent loans.

On Feb. 28, 2007, the company received a complaint that was
filed against it in the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts by Carrie E. Mosca.

Ms. Mosca, an attorney, defaulted on a loan obligation on an
automobile that she co-owned.  She alleges that the form of
notice of sale of collateral that the bank sent to her after she
and the co-owner became delinquent on the loan obligation did
not contain information required to be provided to a consumer
under the Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
individuals to whom the bank sent the same form of notice in
connection with transactions documented as consumer transactions
during the four-year period prior to the filing of the action.

The action seeks statutory damages, an order restraining the
Bank from future use of the form of notice sent to Ms. Mosca, an
order barring the bank from recovering any deficiency from other
individuals to whom it sent the same form of notice and
attorneys' fees and costs.

It is in the discovery phase, according to company's Nov. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Brookline Bancorp, Inc. -- https://www.brooklinebank.com/ -- is
a state-chartered savings and loan holding company and the
parent of Brookline Bank.  


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Employee's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action accusing
California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. of violating laws that require
employers to provide specific meal and rest periods.

The class action was filed on March 21, 2007 in the San Diego
County Superior Court.  In it, plaintiff claims the Company
failed to provide its employees with uninterrupted meal periods
when required, and that it deprived its employees of second meal
periods and paid rest periods as required by law.

Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. -- http://www.cpk.com-- is a  
casual dining restaurant chain with a particular focus on the
pizza segment.


CAPTARIS INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of TCPA Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit against a subsidiary of
Captaris, Inc. in Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois filed
an appellate brief in connection to the dismissal of their case.

The lawsuit was filed by Travel 100 Group, Inc. against
Mediterranean Shipping Co.  The complaint alleges violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in connection with the
receipt of facsimile advertisements that were transmitted by
MediaTel Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Captaris, on behalf
of travel service providers, including Mediterranean.  

All of the assets of MediaTel were sold to a subsidiary of PTEK
Holdings, Inc. on Sept. 1, 2003.

The Travel 100 complaint sought injunctive relief and
unspecified damages and certification as a class action on
behalf of Travel 100 and others similarly situated throughout
the U.S. that received the facsimile advertisements.

Mediterranean named Captaris as a third-party defendant and
asserted that, to the extent that it is liable, Captaris should
be liable under theories of indemnification, contribution or
breach of contract for any damages suffered by Mediterranean.

Both Captaris and MediaTel have denied any liability in the
cases because, among other facts and defenses, MediaTel
understood that the database and lists of travel agent
recipients to whom faxes were sent had authorized that
information could be sent to them by fax.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court in the Mediterranean case granted
summary judgment in favor of Mediterranean and Captaris and
dismissed the case.

In granting summary judgment, the court ruled that Travel 100
had invited the facsimile advertisements and there was no
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Travel 100
filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied.

Travel 100 then filed a notice of appeal on Dec. 29, 2006.  On
July 20, 2007, Travel 100 filed their Appellate brief, according
to the company's Nov. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Captaris, Inc. -- http://www.captaris.com-- develops software  
products that automate business processes, manage documents
electronically and provide efficient information delivery.  With
a comprehensive suite of software and services, Captaris
specializes in automating the slow and inefficient unstructured
and paper-based document processes that are found in every
organization.  

Its products and services address business needs in the fax
server and electronic document delivery market; the workflow and
business process automation market, and the enterprise content
management market.  The Company's products run on off-the-shelf
personal computer servers and Microsoft software platforms,
including Microsoft Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows 2003 and
Windows XP.  Captaris utilizes Microsoft.NET development tools
in its suite of products and integrate with a variety of
hardware equipment and enterprise software products.


CBRE REALTY: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBRE Realty Finance, Inc. faces a purported securities fraud
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut on Oct. 30, 2007.

The suit was filed against CBRE Realty Finance, Inc. and its
chief financial officer and former chief executive officer,
seeking remedies under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement and
prospectus relating to the company's October 2006 initial public
offering contained material misstatements and material
omissions.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that management had
knowledge of certain loan impairments and did not properly
disclose or record such impairments in the financial statements.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between Sept.
29, 2006 and Aug. 6, 2007, and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

CBRE Realty Finance, Inc. -- http://www.cbrerealtyfinance.com--
is a commercial real estate specialty finance company.  The
Company's business primarily focuses on originating, acquiring,
investing in, financing and managing a diversified portfolio of
commercial real estate-related loans and securities.


CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Investors Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action filed against
Chaparral Network Storage, Inc. have yet to file their opening
papers in an appeal against the dismissal of their case.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, alleges violations of federal securities
laws and purports to seek damages on behalf of a class of
shareholders who purchased Chaparral securities during a defined
period prior to Dot Hill Systems Corp.'s acquisition of the
company.  In May 2005, the second amended complaint was
dismissed with leave to amend.  

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which the court
again dismissed with leave to amend in November 2005 as to the
company and certain other defendants.  Plaintiffs declined to
amend within the proscribed period, and final judgment was
entered in February 2006.

Plaintiffs filed a notice appeal in the U.S. District Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit, though they have not filed their
opening papers, according to owner Dot Hill's Nov. 9, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007

The suit is “In re Robert T. Harvey Securities Litigation, 8:04-
cv-00876-DOC-PJW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, under Judge David O. Carter.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brian Barry, Esq.
         Jill Levine Betts, Esq.
         Brian Barry Law Offices
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 307
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-788-0831
         E-mail: bribarry1@yahoo.com
                 jilllevine1@yahoo.com

         Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Esq.
         Jim T. Tice, Esq.
         Catanzarite Law Offices
         2331 W Lincoln Ave.
         Anaheim, CA 92801
         Phone: 714-520-5544
         E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com
                 jtice@catanzarite.com

              - and -

         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         Rosen Law Firm
         350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Representing the company is:

         Eric H. Macmichael, Esq.
         Meghan Oryan Spieker, Esq.
         Cooley Godward
         4401 Eastgate Mall
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Phone: 858-550-6000
         E-mail: mspieker@cooley.com


CHIRON CORP: Cal. Court Rejects $30M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Chief District Judge Vaughn Walker rejected a $30
million settlement of the class action "In Re Chiron Corp.
Securities Litigation," Zusha Elinson of The Recorder reports.

In the suit, plaintiffs accused the drug company of not
disclosing facts about its failure to bring a flu vaccine to
market in 2003 and 2004.  In March, plaintiffs and the drug
company reached a settlement amounting to $30 million plus
interest.

Judge Walker also rejected plaintiffs lawyers' request for $7.5
million in settlement fee -- a 25 percent cut of the settlement.  
He as well questioned whether the lead plaintiff --
International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 825 Pension
Fund -- was an adequate class representative because.  He wrote,
by approving the big fee for the lawyers, it didn't appear to be
trying to maximize recovery for the class, according to the
report.  

Judge Walker has set a case management conference for Dec. 20.

The suit is “In Re: Chiron Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-04293,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP
          One California Plaza. 300
          S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA, 90071
          Phone: 213..617.1200
          Fax: 213..617.1975

The company is represented by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom.  On the Net: http://www.skadden.com/.


COLLINS INT'L: Recalls Ceramic Heaters Posing Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Collins International Co., Ltd., of Fair Lawn, N.J., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 20,000 oscillating ceramic heaters.

The company said the heaters can overheat, smoke, or ignite
which could pose a fire hazard to consumers.

Collins International has received seven reports of the heaters
overheating, smoking, or igniting, including four reports of
minor property damage to carpets and floors. No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves 1500 watt oscillating ceramic heaters
model EB38005. The heater has a white plastic housing with the
name "Heat-Wave" in black on its top. A label on the bottom of
the product contains the model and the control number "ETL
3090262."

The heaters were made in China and sold at Menards' stores
nationwide from September 2006 through March 2007 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the heaters and return
them to the nearest Menards' store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Collins International toll-
free at (866) 877-1889 between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.collinsinternational.com

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the
recalled product, please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08115.html


DEAN FOODS: Faces Dairy Farmers' Antitrust Lawsuits in Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Co. faces five purported antitrust class-action
complaints in Tennessee alleging that the company and others in
the milk industry worked together to limit the price the  
Southeastern dairy farmers are paid for their raw milk and to
deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing
facilities.

The first two suits were filed on July 5, 2007 in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.  

The third, fourth and fifth purported class actions were filed
respectively on Aug. 9, 2007, Aug. 27, 2007, and Oct. 3, 2007.  
All three of the newer complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The allegations contained in the third complaint are similar to
those in the first and second complaints except that the new
suit added a claim that defendants’ conduct also artificially
inflated retail prices for direct milk purchasers.   The two
newer class actions assert allegations that are similar to those
in the first and second complaints.

Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and  
beverage company.  The Company has two segments: the Dairy Group
and WhiteWave Foods Company.  The Dairy Group manufactures and
sells its products under a variety of local and regional brand
names and under private labels.  Its WhiteWave Foods Co.
develops, manufactures, markets and sells a variety of
nationally branded soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such
as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy
products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O’LAKES
creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel’s Organic dairy
products.


DOBSON COMMS: $3.4M Okla. Securities Suit Settlement Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal of the Final Order and
Judgment approving a $3.4 million settlement of a consolidated
securities fraud suit against Dobson Communications, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

The class consists of all persons and their beneficiaries who
purchased or acquired publicly traded Dobson Communications,
Corp. securities between May 6, 2003 to Aug. 9, 2004.

Beginning on Oct. 22, 2004, securities class actions were filed
against the defendants.  Most of them allege violations of the
federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages.  

The suits allege among other things:

      -- that the company concealed significant decreases in
         revenues and failed to disclose certain facts about its
         business, including that the company's rate of growth
         in roaming minutes was substantially declining, and
         that the company had experienced negative growth in
         October 2003;

      -- that AT&T Wireless, the company's largest roaming
         customer, had notified the company that it wanted to
         dispose of its equity interest in the company that it
         had held since the company's initial public offering,
         significantly decreasing their interest in purchasing
         roaming capacity from the company;

      -- that Bank of America intended to dispose of its
         substantial equity interest in the company as soon as
         AT&T Wireless disposed of its equity interest in the
         company;

      -- that the company had been missing sales quotas and
         losing market share throughout the relevant period; and

      -- that the company lacked the internal controls required
         to report meaningful financial results.

The suits further allege that the company issued various
positive statements concerning its financial prospects and
subscriber information, the speed of the deployment of its GSM
network and the continued growth in its roaming minutes, and
that those statements were false and misleading.

The court consolidated these actions into “In Re: Dobson
Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CIV-04-
1394-C.”

On July 5, 2005, motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint
were filed.  Plaintiffs filed their response to the motions to
dismiss on Sept. 6, 2005.  The company filed its reply briefs on
Oct. 3, 2005.

In November 2006, Dobson reached a settlement agreement for the
consolidated securities class action (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 15, 2006).

The company said the $3.4 million settlement, if approved, would
settle all claims from investors who bought shares between May
6, 2003 and Aug. 9, 2004.  A substantial portion of the
settlement amount is covered by insurance, according to the
company.

On March 20, 2007, after a hearing, the trial court approved the
settlement agreement and issued a Final Order and Judgment.

On April 19, 2007 an individual (who had filed an objection to
the settlement and who was not a class member) filed a purported
appeal of the Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the appeal was dismissed for lack of
prosecution by the Court of Appeals.

The suit is “In Re: Dobson Communications, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. CIV-04-1394-C,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J.
Cauthron.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stuart W. Emmons, Esq.
         William B. Federman, Esq.
         Jennifer F. Sherrill, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         120 N Robinson Ave., Suite 2720
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         Fax: 405-239-2112
         E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com
                 wfederman@aol.com
                 jfs@federmanlaw.com

              - and -

         Trevan Borum, Esq.
         Gregory Castaldo, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: tborum@sbclasslaw.com
                 gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Jeffrey A. Berger, Esq.
         Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
         Chicago, 71 S. Wacker Dr.
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: 312-701-8583
         Fax: 312-706-8400
         E-mail: jberger@mayerbrownrowe.com

              - and -   

         Warren F Bickford, IV, Esq.
         Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens
         100 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 1700
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820
         Phone: 405-232-0621
         Fax: 405-232-9659
         E-mail: wbickford@fellerssnider.com


DOMINION HOMES: Still Faces Ohio Suit Over Down Payment Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Homes Financial Services, Ltd., its chairman and chief
executive officer, certain affiliates and current and former
officers, and The Nehemiah Corp. of America continue to face a
purported class action filed by plaintiff homeowners, who
purchased homes from the company using Nehemiah down payment
assistance funds.  

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on Feb. 23, 2006.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that plaintiffs suffered financial injuries as a
result of the defendants' participation in fraudulent conduct by
the company related to the Nehemiah down payment assistance
program in violation of Federal statutes and Ohio law.  

The complaint further alleges that defendants fraudulently
misrepresented and concealed the cost and operation of the
Nehemiah program from plaintiffs.   

Plaintiffs purport to bring the claim on behalf of customers of
the company who purchased a home from 1999 to present using down
payment assistance from Nehemiah.  They seek monetary damages
and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 9,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Rudawsky, et al. v. Borrer, et al., Case No. 2:06
cv-00144-ALM-MRA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Michael H. Watson with
referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Amy Gullifer, Esq.
         Gary Michael Smith, Esq.
         Graham & Graham Co., L.P.A.
         17 North Fourth Street, P.O. Box 340
         Zanesville, OH 43702-0340
         Phone: 740-454-8585
         Fax: 740-454-0111
         E-mail: gmsmith@grahamlpa.com
                 aegullifer@grahamlpa.com
  
Representing the defendants are:  

         James Edward Arnold, Esq.
         Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-469-1400
         Fax: 614-469-0900
         E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com

              - and -

         Joseph William Ryan, Jr., Esq.
         Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
         41 S. High Street, Suite 2800
         Columbus, OH 43215-6194
         Phone: 614-227-2000
         Fax: 614-227-2244
         E-mail: jryan@porterwright.com


DOMINION HOMES: Certification of VPP Homeowners' Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
National City Mortgage Co., one of the defendants in the suit
“Stuart, et al. v. Dominion Homes Financial Services, Inc., et
al.,” is appealing a certification of the suit as a class
action.  The suit is before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

Filed on Feb. 21, 2006, the complaint includes claims for breach
of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent
representations and material omissions in connection with the
financing of plaintiffs' condominium homes located in the
Village at Polaris Park (VPP), where the company has been unable
to obtain final Department of Housing and Urban Development
approval for Federal Housing Administration insured mortgages to
be sold to its customers.  

The plaintiffs purport to bring the claim on behalf of
homeowners in VPP who purchased FHA mortgages through and from
the defendants.   

The complaint seeks damages, including actual damages, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, for, among other things,
the alleged loss of certain FHA-insured mortgage features,
including loan assumability, and for the defendants' failure to
notify plaintiffs of the status of their mortgages.  

On Sept. 26, 2007, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to
certify a class which the court defined as all persons who on or
after Sept. 14, 2002:

     -- applied to defendant DHFS for an FHA mortgage to
        purchase a home in VPP;

     -- received notice from defendant National City Mortgage
        approving the application for an FHA loan;

     -- subsequently closed and signed documents with defendant
        DHFS which referenced an FHA loan and/or an FHA
        identifying case number, only later to discover their
        mortgage was not FHA eligible.

The company believes that the maximum number of qualifying
plaintiffs under said class definition would not exceed 41.

On Oct. 11, 2007, defendant National City Mortgage filed a
motion appealing the class certification decision.

The suit is “Stuart, et al. v. Dominion Homes Financial
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00137-MHW-MRA,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
under Judge Michael H. Watson with referral to Judge Mark R.
Abel.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Gary Michael Smith, Esq.
         Graham & Graham Co. L.P.A.
         Graham Law Building
         17 N. 4th Street, P.O. Box 340
         Zanesville, OH 43702-0340
         Phone: 740-454-8585
         Fax: 740-454-0111
         E-mail: gmsmith@grahamlpa.com

Representing the defendants are:  

         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

         James Eugene Burke, Esq.
         Keating Muething & Klekamp
         One E. Fourth Street, Suite 1400
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-579-6400
         Fax: 513-579-6429
         E-mail: jburke@kmklaw.com

              - and -

         Joseph William Ryan, Jr., Esq.
         Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
         41 S. High Street, Suite 2800
         Columbus, OH 43215-6194
         Phone: 614-227-2000
         Fax: 614-227-2244
         E-mail: jryan@porterwright.com

    
DOMINION HOMES: Rulings in Ohio Consumer Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action against Dominion Homes Financial
Services, Ltd. (DHFS) in the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin
County, Ohio have appealed summary judgment rulings in the
matter.

The suit, “Rece, et al. v. Dominion Homes, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06CVH202335,” was filed on Feb. 21, 2006 against DHFS,
Dominion Homes, Inc. (DHI), named and unnamed appraisers who
have worked with DHI, and unnamed charitable organizations that
have provided the DHI’s customers with down payment assistance
funds in the last several years.

Plaintiffs purport to bring the claim on behalf of purchasers of
the Company’s homes from 1999 to the present who received such
funds and allege, among other things, that the defendants
misrepresented the value of the plaintiffs’ homes and obtained
an improper benefit by artificially inflating the sales price of
homes to purchasers receiving down payment assistance funds.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants engaged in
predatory lending practices against the plaintiffs and other
consumers by extending them credit without regard to the actual
value of their homes, knowing that the result would be higher
default and foreclosure rates in its communities.

The complaint seeks injunctive or declaratory relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and
costs.

On May 2, 2006, the Company and DHFS filed a motion for judgment
on the pleadings with respect to plaintiffs’ claim for breach of
the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) on the grounds
that this claim was barred by the two-year applicable statute of
limitations.

On June 12, 2006, the Court granted this motion with respect to
plaintiffs’ claims for money damages under the OCSPA, but denied
the motion with respect to plaintiffs’ claim for rescission
under the OCSPA.

On July 28, 2006, the Company and DHFS filed a motion for
summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ predatory lending claims
under statutory and common law.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the Court granted this motion.  On Dec. 1,
2006, Defendant Valuation Resources, Inc., the valuation company
that provided appraisals of the plaintiffs’ homes for the
Company, filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to
plaintiffs’ claims for fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy, and
OCSPA.

On Feb. 7, 2007, the Court granted this motion in its entirety.
The plaintiffs appealed this decision on April 10, 2007 and the
appeal is pending.

In addition, on Dec. 28, 2006, the Court granted the Company’s
and DHFS’s motions for summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s
individual claims and class allegations relating to the OCSPA.

On March 28, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal with respect to all remaining claims against the
defendants with the right to refile.  

Also, plaintiffs have appealed the summary judgment rulings to
Franklin County Court of Appeals, according to the company's
Nov. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

Dominion Homes, Inc. -- http://www.dominionhomes.com-- is  
primarily engaged in the construction and sale of homes and
condominiums in Central Ohio (primarily the Columbus
Metropolitan Statistical Area), and Louisville and Lexington,
Kentucky.  It designs, sells and builds single-family homes on
finished lots.  It also purchases undeveloped land to develop
into finished lots as needed for home construction.

It offers five series of homes: Independence Collection,
Metropolitan Series, Celebration and Celebration Classic Series,
Tradition Series and Grand Reserve Series.  Price, size,
standard features and available options differentiate these
series of homes.  It provides title insurance services through
affiliated title insurance agencies and mortgage financing
services through a joint venture arrangement.


DOT HILL: Cal. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for a dismissal of the
Second Consolidated Complaint in the class action “Matt Brody,
et al. v. Dot Hill Systems Corp., et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00228-W-WMC.”

In late January and early February 2006, numerous complaints
purporting to be class actions were filed against the company.  

The complaints allege violations of federal securities laws
related to alleged inflation in its stock price in connection
with various statements and alleged omissions to the public and
to the securities markets and declines in the company's stock
price in connection with the restatement of certain of its
quarterly financial statements for fiscal year 2004, and seeking
damages therefore.   

The complaints were consolidated into a single action, and the
court appointed as lead plaintiff a group comprised of the
Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System and the General
Retirement System of the City of Detroit.    

The consolidated complaint was filed on Aug. 25, 2006, and the
company filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 5, 2006.  The Court
granted the company’s motion to dismiss on March 15, 2007.

Plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Complaint on April
20, 2007.  The company filed its motion to dismiss on May 29,
2007 and are still waiting for a ruling from the judge,
according to Dot Hill Systems Corp.'s Nov. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Matt Brody, et al. v. Dot Hill Systems Corp., et
al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00228-W-WMC,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California under Judge Thomas
J. Whelan with referral to Judge William McCurine, Jr.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
         Murray Frank and Sailer
         275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 682-1818

         Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy and Blinkow
         1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: (310) 201-9150
         Fax: (310) 201-9160

              - and -

         Ira M. Press, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney and Squire
         830 Third Avenue, Tenth Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 317-2300
         Fax: (212) 371-6600

Representing the defendant is:

         Koji F. Fukumura, Esq.
         Cooley Godward Kronish, 4401 Eastgate Mall
         San Diego, CA 92121-9109
         Phone: (858) 550-6000
         Fax: (858) 550-6420
         E-mail: kfukumura@cooley.com


FMS INC: Accused of Violating Debt Collection Law in Fla. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
FMS Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, harasses people and demands
they pay student loans that the borrowers already have settled
with the U.S. Department of Education, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This is an action brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et
seq., known more commonly as the "Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

Named plaintiff Sophia L. Martinez brings this action on behalf
of a class consisting of:

     (i) all persons with addresses in the State of Florida

    (ii) to whom letters were sent

   (iii) in an attempt to collect a debt which, according to the
         nature of the creditor or the debt, or the records of
         the creditor or defendants, was incurred for personal,
         family, or household purposes

    (iv) which were not returned undeliverd by the U.S. Post
         Office

     (v) during the one year period prior to the filing of the
         complaint.

Plaintiff requests judgment be entered in her favor and in favor
of the class against FMS for:

     -- declaratory judgment that the above-described conduct of
        defendant violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices
        Act;

     -- statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k;

     -- an award of costs and attorney's fees pursuant to 15
        U.S.C. Section 1692k; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court may deem just
        and equitable.

The suit is "Sophia L. Martinez et al. v. FMS, Inc., Case No.
3:07-CV-1157-J-33MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Robert W. Murphy
          1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Phone: (954) 763-8660
          Fax: (954) 763-8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com


GENERAL STEEL: Customers File Fraud Suit in Col. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Steel Corp. and its CEO Jeffrey Knight are facing a
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado accusing them of systematically defrauding
their customers, in defiance of court orders, by, among other
things, taking nonrefundable deposits and then refusing to
deliver buildings for the price advertised, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Ronald Heinbaugh, Doug Kruger and Sam Zambon
brings this action on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons who purchased or attempted to purchase a steel building
from General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC d/b/a/ General Steel
Corporation between Dec. 7, 2004 and Dec. 31, 2005.

Plaintiffs request entry of judgment against defendants in the
amount of their actual damages, additional and exemplary damages
as appropriate and/or allowed by law, interest as prescribed by
law, costs and attorneys' fees as prescribed by law, and such
other and further relief to which plaintiffs may be justly
entitled.

The suit is "Ronald Heinbaugh et al. v. General Steel Domestic
Sales, LLC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Paul M. Grant
          Grant Law PC
          29713 Troutdale Scenic Dr., #2C
          Evergreen, CO 80439
          Phone: (303) 531-6848
          Fax: (303) 526-9175
          E-mail: pgrant@grantlawpc.com

          - and -

          Todd M. Starr
          The Starr Law Firm, P.C.
          112 W. Montesuma, Suite 4
          Cortez, CO 81321
          Phone: (970) 565-8581
          Fax: (970) 565-3836


ISRAEL: Dismissal of Suit Over Shelling of U.N. in Qana Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Constitutional Rights argued the appeal of CCR’s
civil class action charging a former Israeli official with war
crimes and extrajudicial killing for his role in the Israel
Defense Forces’ shelling of a U.N. compound in Lebanon. The
bombardment killed more than 100 Lebanese civilians -– about
half of them children –- who had taken shelter there.

Representatives from the Lebanese and the Israeli embassies were
present in the court, and the judges appeared to recognize the
importance of the case, say attorneys.

The case, “Belhas v. Ya’alon,” was filed in 2005. The plaintiffs
are all Lebanese citizens who were injured and/or lost relatives
in the attack. In December 2006, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the
case, stating that Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon could not be sued for
the shelling of the U.N. compound. Relying on the fact that Lt.
Gen. Ya'alon was a government official at the time and a letter
from the Israeli Ambassador stating that Lt. Gen. Ya'alon’s acts
were sovereign acts of Israel, the court decided that Gen.
Ya'alon was acting in his official capacity in the IDF, and thus
immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

“In 1996, the residents of Qana fled to the U.N. compound
believing that they could be safe there, and the Israeli forces
intentionally struck this refuge,” said CCR Cooperating Attorney
Judith Brown Chomsky. “One of the perpetrators of that attack
came to enjoy the benefits of living in the United States. The
U.S. should not be a safe haven for those responsible for a
deadly attack on unarmed civilians.”

In April 1996, the IDF conducted “Operation Grapes of Wrath,”
bombarding villages in southern Lebanon for three weeks. Due to
the attacks, approximately 400,000 people were forced to leave
their homes. Many did not have the means to escape the area and
took refuge in places they hoped might provide some safety.
Lebanese civilians who were unable to leave the south fled to
U.N. compounds; more than 800 civilians –- mostly women,
children, and the elderly –- had sought refuge in the U.N.
compound in Qana. The IDF then targeted the compound, killing
more than 100 civilians and injuring even more.

Lt. Gen. Ya'alon was the head of IDF Intelligence on April 18,
1996 when the shelling occurred. The complaint alleges that Lt.
Gen. Ya'alon participated in the decision to shell the compound
and had command responsibility for the unlawful attack. The suit
also alleges that the IDF continued to shell the compound even
after the U.N. specifically notified the IDF that it was
shelling a U.N. position in which civilians were taking shelter.

The plaintiffs include Saadallah Ali Belhas, whose wife, nine
children, and numerous relatives were killed in the attack on
the U.N. compound, as well as Ali Mohammed Ismail, whose wife
and three children were killed. Plaintiffs Ibrahim Khalil
Hammoud, Raiman Nasseeb, Hamidah Sharif Deeb, and Hala Yassim
Khalil each suffered disabling injuries, and most lost immediate
relatives due to the IDF shelling. The plaintiffs are seeking
damages and declaratory relief.

“Our clients went to the U.N. facility seeking to keep their
families safe,” said CCR Senior Attorney Maria LaHood. “Instead
they saw their children and other loved ones massacred before
their eyes, as shrapnel entered their own bodies. Almost twelve
years later and they have yet to see justice."

On Dec. 10, before the D.C. Court of Appeals, CCR attorneys
argued that the district court judge erroneously applied the
FSIA in his ruling, as Lt. Gen. Ya'alon was no longer a
government official when sued and because his decision to shell
the U.N. compound sheltering civilians violated international
law as well as Israeli law and policy.

In July 2006, Qana again came under an Israeli attack that
killed at least 28 Lebanese civilians, about half of whom were
children, when it targeted a three-story apartment building
where two extended families had taken shelter.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing
and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States
Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights
movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and
educational organization committed to the creative use of law as
a positive force for social change.


NEW JERSEY: Newfield Asks Court to Settle School Rent Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Newfield borough board of education is asking a court to
determine a "fair market value rent" for the use Newfield's
Edgarton Memorial School, Stephanie Brown of Gloucester County
Times reports.

The Buena Regional School board has not paid rent to use the
school since June 30 and Newfield wants the Superior Court to
determine the proper price of the rent.  The board is also
seeking to recoup costs associated with the lawsuit and
attorneys' fees.

Newfield and Buena entered into a lease for the Edgarton
Memorial School in December 1996 for an annual rent of $1,
according to the suit.  The rent increased in May 2004 to
$50,000 per year.

The lease ended as of June 30 after Newfield provided three
year's notice to Buena.  Since then, both parties have failed to
reach an agreement on the rental value, said Newfield's attorney
Gary D. Wodlinger of Lipman, Antonelli, Batt, Dunlap, Wodlinger
& Gilson in Vineland.

For more information, contact:

          Gary D. Wodlinger, Esq.          
          10 N. 6th St.
          Vineland, N.J. 08360
          Phone: (856) 690-9818
          Fax: (856) 690-9835


NEWS CORP: Faces Cal. Suit Over Gemstar-TV Sale to Macrovision
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Gemstar-TV Guide International filed a class-
action complaint in the Superior Court of California accusing
controlling shareholder Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. of dumping
Gemstar-TV to get money to buy Dow Jones, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Shareholders accuse defendants of selling Gemstar too cheaply to
Macrovision Corp. -- for $2.8 billion -- to get cash for
defendants' $5.6 billion purchase of Dow Jones.

Plaintiffs' counsel is:

         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900
         Fax: (619) 231-7423


PUBLISHERS: Court Junks Settlement of Freelance Writers Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. appeals court threw out an agreement between publishers
and freelance writers to compensate the writers for reproduction
of their work online because a lower court that accepted the
suit has no jurisdiction over the case, Reuters reports.

The lawsuit was brought by the writers against electronic
database services and publishers, including New York Times Co
(NYT.N: Quote, Profile , Research), Thomson Corp., Dow Jones &
Co (DJ.N: Quote, Profile , Research), ProQuest Co, Knight Ridder
Inc. and Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC.   
Plaintiffs said their contracts did not grant the publishers the
right to electronically reproduce their work or license it for
others to do so.

In 2005, the writers and the publishers settled for about $18
million.  U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan
approved the settlement in September 2005.

On Nov. 27, a panel of judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit vacated the approval of the settlement.  "The
overwhelming majority of claims within the certified class arise
from the infringement of unregistered copyrights," Circuit Judge
Chester Straub wrote for the majority.

"We have held, albeit outside the class-action context, that
district courts lack statutory subject matter jurisdiction over
infringement claims arising from unregistered copyrights."


SEARS: Recalls Kids' Pants with Belt Posing Entrapment Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sears, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 6,100 TKS-brand children's pants
imported by E.S. Sutton Inc., of New York, N.Y.

The company said the recalled pants have a ribbon belt at the
waist that can pose an entrapment or entanglement hazard to
children.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recalled pants were sold in two styles. The first style
(model numbers 62240 and 62254) is denim with a brown ribbon
belt on the waistband. These pants have a sewn-on patch and an
embroidered butterfly. They were sold in infant sizes 12 months,
18 months and 24 months and toddler sizes 2T, 3T and 4T. The
second style (model number 62226) is khaki with a fabric belt on
the waistband. They have two cargo pockets, one with an
embroidered heart. The cuffs have buttons and plaid trim on the
underside. They were sold in toddler sizes 2T, 3T and 4T.

The pants were made in China and sold at Sears stores nationwide
from July 2007 through August 2007 for about $16.

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the belt to
eliminate the hazard.

For additional information, contact Sears at (800)
659-7026 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday,
or visit http://www.sears.com.

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the
recalled product, please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08116.html


SOUTH DAKOTA: Winner School District Bias Suit Deal Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles B. Kornmann of the U.S. District Court for the
U.S. District of South Dakota entered a consent decree to
enforce an agreement between the Winner/Ideal Native American
community and the Winner School District that settles a class
action brought on behalf of Native American students by the
American Civil Liberties Union.

The case “Antoine et al. v. Winner School District,” charged
that the school district disproportionately targeted Native
American students for disciplinary action, maintained an
educational environment hostile toward Native American families,
and forced students to write out confessions for school
misconduct to be used in juvenile and criminal prosecutions.

The school district denied the allegations in the complaint.

"At long last, we have an agreement —- with the full enforcement
power of the United States federal courts —- that will ensure
the fair treatment of all students in our district. Hopefully,
this case will set a new standard for the improved treatment of
minority students nationwide," said Lavina Milk, the guardian of
the lead named plaintiff in the lawsuit.

"The America we believe in is one where students are not treated
differently by teachers, principals, police, prosecutors, or
judges because of their race. With [] settlement we are one step
closer to that ideal," said Catherine Kim, a staff attorney with
the ACLU's Racial Justice Program. "From dropout rates to
classroom treatment to harsh punishments, the Native American
students of the Winner School District have suffered in
comparison to their white counterparts. Now that [the]
settlement is enforceable, Winner's students can rest a little
easier knowing their rights will be protected."

"The school district maintained that students were disciplined
identically for the same behavior regardless of race. It
nevertheless entered into settlement negotiations in order to
avoid a protracted, expensive and divisive litigation," said
Donald P. Knudsen, the school district's attorney.

The court's approval now allows the parties to move forward with
implementing the terms of the settlement agreement.

The final settlement arose out of a lawsuit filed in March 2006
by ten Native American families with children in the Winner
schools. A federal court in South Dakota certified the lawsuit
as a class action on behalf of all Native American students in
the Winner Middle and High Schools and their families.

The school district denied any wrongdoing, but agreed to enter
into settlement discussions in order to avoid litigation. The
parties submitted the agreement for the federal court's approval
in July of 2007.


At a recent hearing, Judge Charles B. Kornmann underscored the
importance of improving educational opportunities and outcomes
for Native American students and commended the parties for
reaching an agreement.

Judge Kornmann approved the agreement and entered a consent
decree for its enforcement.

Under the consent decree, the district will enact policies and
practices to ensure that the rights of Native American students
are not violated and to enrich the educational experience of all
students. Among the key terms of the settlement are:

     * School officials will not require students to write
       statements that can be used to prosecute them in juvenile
       or criminal court;

    * The district will hire a full-time ombudsperson, nominated   
      by the collective Native American community, to serve as a
      liaison between Native American families and school
      officials, especially on disciplinary issues;

    * An educational expert will work with school officials and
      Native American families to set benchmarks on improving
      Native American graduation rates, reducing levels of
      suspension and school-based arrests, and improving the
      overall climate for Native American students, among other
      goals; the expert will also conduct periodic on-site
      visits to ensure compliance with the agreement and monitor
      progress toward the goals;

    * A committee of Native American parents and school
      officials will review all disciplinary incidents every
      quarter for racial disparities and, if disparities are
      found and cannot be explained, recommend policy changes to
      reduce such disparities;

    * The Interwest Equity Assistance Center, funded by the U.S.
      Department of Education, will provide training for Winner
      students on conflict resolution and training for teachers
      on unconscious racial bias and educational equity.

The schools will include Native American themes in the
mainstream curriculum, in-school activities, and after-school
activities. Additionally, the district will offer Native
American Culture, History and Language class every year in the
high school, taught by a Native American instructor.

The settlement agreement will remain in effect until the
district substantially complies with its terms for four
consecutive years. The federal district court will have
enforcement authority over the agreement during this period.

The suit is "Antoine et al. v. Winner School District, Case No.
06-3007," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Dakota, under the Hon. Charles B. Kornmann.

The families are represented by the ACLU and Dana L. Hanna, an
attorney based in Rapid City.

Representing the Winner School District is:

          Gunderson, Palmer, Goodsell & Nelson LLP
          Assurant Building
          440 Mt. Rushmore Road
          Rapid City, SD 57701
          Phone: (605) 342-1078
          Fax: (605) 342-9503
          Web site: http://www.gundersonpalmer.com


SPRINT NEXTEL: Kans. Court Okays $57.5M Investor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson County District Judge Kevin Moriarty approved a $57.5
million settlement of a class action against Sprint Nextel Corp.
over how it combined its wireless and wireline stocks three
years ago, reports say.

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.  Judge Moriarty gave the settlement
preliminary approval in September.  He  set aside 27.5 percent,
or $15.8 million, for plaintiffs' legal fees, as well as an
additional $2.2 million for plaintiff expenses.  Sprint will pay
$10 million of the settlement, with insurers paying the rest.
The company has denied any wrongdoing.

Jay Eisenhofer, an attorney representing Dallas-based Carlson
Capital LP, is one of the lead plaintiffs in the suit.  

The settlement covers shareholders whose wireless shares were
converted to combined shares on April 23, 2004, or who sold
their wireless shares before that date and "were damaged
thereby."

Shareholders have until Feb. 14 to submit claim forms.

The Settlement on the Net:
http://www.sprintshareholderlitigation.com.


STARBUCKS CORP: Court Orders Trial in Sherman Act Violation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge says Eastside coffee shop owner Penny Stafford
can go to trial next year and attempt to prove that Starbucks
Corp. engages in a scheme to stifle competition, Rick Anderson
of Seattle Weekly reports.

In a Nov. 9 order, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour
didn't decide the merits of Ms. Stafford's claims, but did turn
down Starbucks' motion to have action dismissed.

                       Case Background

Ms. Stafford, owner of Belvi Coffee and Tea Exchange Inc.,  
filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the  
Western District of Washington against Starbucks Corp. over  
alleged violations of the Sherman Act (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 2, 2006).

Ms. Stafford brought the action under Federal rule of civil  
procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) on her own behalf and all persons  
and entities residing in Seattle or Bellevue, Washington who own  
and operate specialty coffeehouse businesses with espresso  
pieces who desire to lease and occupy retail space in commercial  
office buildings located in the core business districts of  
either Seattle or Bellevue so as to be able to compete  
effectively in the Specialty Coffeehouse business.

This action arises from the insatiable and unchecked ambition of  
the world's largest multinational chain of specialty coffee  
shops to continue to dominate the market for specialty coffee.

The suit alleges that Starbucks' abuse of monopoly power in the  
specialty coffee retail market stifles competition via a series  
of predatory practices including exclusive lease agreements,  
"cluster bombing" of stores and competitor buy-outs, limiting  
consumer choice.

The complaint cites a number of other predatory tactics used by  
Starbucks, including reports in which Starbucks offers to buy  
out competitors at below- market prices, and threatens to open  
stores nearby if the offer is rejected.

The complaint also cites instances in which Starbucks uses its  
huge financial power to purchase other independent providers in  
an effort to squash any presence of independent coffee  
purveyors.

The common questions of law and fact common to the class that  
the plaintiff raises are:

     -- whether Starbucks possessed monopoly power in the  
        relevant market since at least Jan. 1, 2003;

     -- whether Starbucks acquired or maintained monopoly power  
        within the relevant market through anti-competitive  
        activity;

     -- whether Starbucks' unlawful conducts has enabled  
        Starbucks to increase, maintain, and stabilize above  
        competitive levels, its share of the relevant market to  
        the exclusion of class members; and

     -- whether Starbucks engaged in exclusionary or  
        anti-competitive conduct in violation of Section 2 of  
        the Sherman Act.

The suit is asking the court:

     -- that Starbucks' conduct alleged in the complaint be  
        adjudged and decreed to violate Section 2 of the Sherman  
        Act;

     -- that Starbucks, its affiliates, successors, transferees,  
        assignees, and the officers, directors, partner agents,  
        and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or  
        claiming to act on their behalf, be permanently enjoined  
        and restrained from in any manner continuing,  
        maintaining, or renewing its anti-competitive conduct  
        adopting or following any practice, plan, program or  
        device having a similar purpose or effect, and that any  
        exclusionary conduct be declared invalid;

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

     -- the plaintiff and class members have such further relief  
        as the case may require and the court may deem just and  
        proper under the circumstances.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:  

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1253  

In its motion to dismiss the suit, the corporation argued that
Ms. Stafford lacked legal standing and was unharmed by the
actions.

Ms. Stafford argued that company documents confirm Starbucks'
"long-term strategy has been to destroy its competition by in-
filling downtown Seattle and Bellevue with Starbucks stores and
sealing off that market."  Judge Coughenour said that claim and
others raise a "genuine issue of material fact" that should be
resolved at a trial. That includes whether she was economically
injured by Starbucks' actions and whether the company's actions
were unlawful.

Trial has been tentatively set to begin Nov. 20, 2008.

The suit is "Stafford v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-
01382-JCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western  
District of Washington under Judge John C Coughenour.

Starbucks is represented by Perkins Coie
http://www.perkinscoie.com/.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          George Warren Sampson, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Ave., Ste 2900, Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com or george@hbsslaw.com


UNITED STATES: Groups Sue to Stop Excessive Citizenship Delays
---------------------------------------------------------------
Many immigrants who have satisfied the requirements to become
U.S. citizens are left in limbo for months or years due to slow
processing of FBI name checks, according to a class action to be
filed in federal court.  The delays violate time limits in the
law that are meant to reduce naturalization backlogs while
ensuring national security.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the
National Immigration Law Center, the Asian Pacific American
Legal Center, and the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson are
asking a federal judge to enforce the time limits on name checks
for people in the naturalization process.

The lawsuit, “Bavi v. Mukasey,” names Attorney General Michael
Mukasey and the FBI, which conducts the checks, and the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), which oversees the
naturalization process.

“People’s lives are on hold because they are in a bureaucratic
black hole. They can’t travel abroad without worrying they will
be blocked at the border. They can’t vote. They can’t get
business or school loans,” said ACLU/SC staff attorney Ranjana
Natarajan.

An FBI name check is a routine part of every naturalization
application, along with fingerprint and background checks. The
name checks are particularly prone to cause delays because
similar names result in many false “hits” that are time-
consuming to resolve. The checks can slow the scheduling of
naturalization interviews as well as delay final approval of
naturalization.

The USCIS ombudsman found that the FBI name check backlogs have
grown worse over the past few years, and that the name checks
themselves may have little value in identifying persons who pose
a threat.

“The current USCIS name check policy may increase the risk to
national security by extending the time a potential criminal or
terrorist remains in the country,” the report noted.

Thousands of Americans nationwide have been forced to go to
court to unblock the delay of their naturalization cases. The
government routinely fights or settles these cases rather than
fix the underlying problems with name checks.

The plaintiffs in “Bavi v. Mukasey” include Alex Lee, 26, who
was born in South Korea and emigrated with his family in 1998.
He applied for citizenship in December 2006. Last Friday he
watched in frustration as his parents and brother took the oath
of citizenship —- even though they filed their applications
months later.

Another plaintiff, James Moorhead, was born in England and has
lived in the U.S. for 30 years. He has awards from Congress and
the city and county of L.A. for foiling an armed robbery.
Despite his positive record, he has been waiting more than a
year since his immigration interview was abruptly canceled last
year.

“Bavi v. Mukasey” is one of several similar lawsuits that are
pending around the country, and the first to address backlogs
both for people who have had their naturalization interviews and
for those who have not.


VALLEY HEALTH: Faces Complaints Over Full-time Workers Layoffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
A health care union filed a class-action grievance alleging
nearly a dozen violations of its contract with the Valley Health
System, J.P. Crumrine of the Idyllwild Town Crier reports.

The filing came after 41 full-time employees, all members of
Service Employees and International Union (SEIU) United Hospital
Workers West were unexpectedly laid off in November.  The health
care workers said they were not consulted on the move, in
violation of the contract between the union and VHS.

VHS officials said the workforce reduction was necessary because
of the company's tight financial conditions.  But employees
disagreed.  They said in the suit there were many ways to save
the same amount of money without laying off employees.  They are
afraid that eventually services will falter because of the lay
offs of bedside caretakers.

In addition, the union reportedly notices that the money-saving
scheme of the company seemed to exclude any part-time or per-
diem employees, only those employees who have benefit packages.  

Valley Health -- http://www.valleyhealthlink.com/-- is a  
nonprofit organization of health care providers serving
residents of the northern Shenandoah Valley in Virginia, West
Virginia and western Maryland.


WEB SITES: Plaintiffs Claiming Fake Online Auctions to Settle
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a case over fake online auctions are proposing a
settlement under which web sites will disclose pertinent
information about the fictitious participants and bids for
goods, Yitzhak Danon of the Globes reports.

According to Mr. Danon, in September, two plaintiffs asked the
courts to approve a class action against ISPs Nana, NetVision
Ltd. (TASE: NTSN), and Walla Communications Ltd. (TASE: WALA)
and e-commerce sites Olsale, Get It, and Smile Media Ltd., and
60 vendors who sell goods and services by auction on these
sites.  Smile Media is a subsidiary of Internet Gold Golden
Lines Ltd. (Nasdaq: IGLD; TASE:IGLD).

Plaintiffs claim that the vendors operate fictitious bidders in
order to raise prices for the goods and services, and that
fictitious bidders buy products in order to prevent genuine
bidders from doing so at lower prices.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


GENESCO INC: Wolf Popper Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a securities fraud lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of investors who purchased Genesco Inc. securities on an open
market from May 31, 2007 through November 16, 2007.

The complaint alleges that defendants knowingly misrepresented
Genesco=s projected financial results and fraudulently induced
Finish Line Inc. to enter into a merger agreement to acquire
Genesco for $54.50 per share, and UBS Loan Finance LLC to
provide financing to Finish Line for the transaction. UBS has
alleged in a lawsuit that Genesco committed fraud in connection
with Genesco=s merger with Finish Line.

After the truth was revealed to the market on November 16, 2007,
Genesco=s stock price fell from $39.23 to $29.98, a staggering
24% drop.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 4,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          James Kelly-Kowlowitz, Esq.
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel.: 212.759.4600
          Toll Free: 877.370.7703
          Fax: 212.486.2093
          Toll Free Fax:877.370.7704
          Email: Jkelly@wolfpopper.com or irrep@wolfpopper.com
          Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Berger & Montague Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Verifone
Holdings, Inc. between March 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that Verifone and its CEO, Douglas G. Bergeron,
and CFO, Barry Zwarenstein ("Defendants"), violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements about Verifone's
financial results and condition, including that Verifone
materially overstated inventories and materially understated the
cost of net revenues during the first three quarters of 2007.

The Complaint also alleges that, as a result of the inflated
share price, the individual defendants were able to sell their
own Verifone stock for proceeds of over $60 million during the
Class Period. On December 3, 2007, Verifone announced that it
was restating its financial statements for the first three
fiscal quarters of 2007 and that its financial statements issued
during those quarters could no longer be relied upon. In
reaction to this news, Verifone's share price fell by 45% from
$48.03 on November 30, 2007 to $26.03 on December 3, 2007, on
extremely high volume of over 49 million shares.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 4,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 1910
          Telephone: 1-888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000
          Website: http://www.bergermontague.com


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of VeriFone Holdings, Inc. common stock during the
period between March 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007.

The complaint charges VeriFone and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. VeriFone engages in the design, marketing, and service of
transaction automation systems that enable electronic payments
between consumers, merchants, and financial institutions.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding
VeriFone's financial results. Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following material
adverse facts:

     (i) the Company was materially overstating its financial
         results by failing to properly value its inventory and
         it was materially understating its cost of net
         revenues;

    (ii) the Company was not following its publicly stated
         accounting policies; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements were not prepared in accordance with
         generally accepted accounting principles and therefore
         were materially false and misleading.

On December 3, 2007, prior to the opening of the market,
VeriFone issued a press release announcing that it had concluded
that its unaudited interim consolidated financial statements for
the three months ended January 31, 2007, the three and six
months ended April 30, 2007, and the three and nine months ended
July 31, 2007, should no longer be relied upon, principally due
to errors in accounting related to the valuation of in-transit
inventory and allocation of manufacturing and distribution
overhead to inventory, each of which affects VeriFone's reported
costs of net revenues. The Company further reported that it had
materially overstated inventories and materially understated
cost of net revenues for interim periods in 2007.

In response to this announcement, the price of VeriFone stock
plummeted, falling from $48.03 per share on November 30, 2007 to
as low as $23.67 per share in intra-day trading on December 3,
2007, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of VeriFone common stock during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
December 4, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP has filed a securities class-action
complaint against VeriFone Holdings, Inc. and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock
of VeriFone between March 1, 2007 through November 30, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by publicly disseminating materially false and
misleading financial results for VeriFone's first three fiscal
quarters of 2007.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, with regard to these
three quarters, Defendants:

     (1) materially overstated VeriFone's earnings and
         inventory;

     (2) falsely represented that they were prepared in
         accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles ("GAAP"); and

     (3) falsely represented that VeriFone had adequate internal
         financial and disclosure controls.

During the same period, VeriFone's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, defendant Douglas G. Bergeron, sold approximately
1,028,822 VeriFone shares at artificially inflated prices for
proceeds of approximately $41.5 million, and VeriFone's
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, defendant
Barry Zwarenstein, sold 118,585 VeriFone shares at artificially
inflated prices for proceeds of approximately $4.6 million.

On December 3, 2007, VeriFone announced that it was restating
its financial statements for the first three fiscal quarters of
2007, and that its financial results for those three quarters
could no longer be relied upon. In reaction to this news,
VeriFone's share price fell by 45% - or $22 per share - on
exceptional trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 4,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Klafter & Olsen LLP
          Phone: 202/261-3553
          Website: http://www.klafterolsen.com


ZUMIEZ INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of
purchasers of Zumiez, Inc. stock during the period between March
14, 2007 and November 7, 2007.

The complaint charges Zumiez and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Zumiez, a mall-based specialty retailer, provides action
sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and accessories.

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

     (i) that sales of the Company's winter merchandise were not
         performing according to internal expectations;

    (ii) that the Company's retail stores were underperforming
         and same-store sales were in decline; and

   (iii) as a result of the forgoing, the defendants had no
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company's prospects and guidance for fiscal 2007.

On November 7, 2007, the Company issued a press release
announcing its October 2007 sales results, its preliminary third
quarter earnings and revised guidance for fiscal 2007. In
response to this announcement, shares of the Company's common
stock fell $10.71 per share, or 27%, to close at $28.74 per
share, on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Zumiez common stock during the Class Period.

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


                           *********


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  * * *