CAR_Public/080401.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 1, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 64
  
                            Headlines

AMERICAN TOWER: $14M Settlement Fairness Hearing is on June 11
APOLLO GOLD: Settles WARN Act Violations Lawsuit in Montana
AT&T MOBILITY: Lawsuit Says Class-Action Ban Should be Lifted
BLUE CROSS: Faces Mich. Lawsuit Over Autism Coverage Refusal
CANADA: Ontario Court Rules Against Students' $200-Million Suit

CAPITAL ONE: Faces Illinois Suit Over "Subprime" Mortgage Loans
CHAMPION PARTS: Bankruptcy Court Allows Insurance Lawsuit
DAVITA INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over "Epogen" Administration & Use
DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
DVA RENAL: Plaintiff Seeks Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit

ELAN CORP: Court Dismisses Tysabri Investor Lawsuit
FORCE PROTECTION: Brualdi Announces Securities Suit Filing in SC
LIFELOCK: Faces AZ Suit Over Services Offered But Can't Perform
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Still Faces "Butland" Litigation in Florida
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Ga. Court Denies Petition in "Warren" Case

ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Suits Over Termite Related Services
ORKIN INC: Faces Wage, Hour Litigation in California State Court
PYRAMID BREWERIES: April 2008 Mediation Set for "Taylor" Lawsuit
QUANEX CORP: Special Exceptions to Block Gerdau Spin-off Denied
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Tex. Court OKs $3.5M Securities Suit Deal

RENT-A-CENTER INC: May 20 Deadline Scheduled for "Colon" Appeal
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settles Calif. Labor Litigation for $11 Mln.
ROLLINS INC: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Alleging FDCPA Violations
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Reminded of April 8 Deadline
SMART ONLINE: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in North Carolina

STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Tip-Pooling Lawsuit in Massachusetts
TRUCKEE CARSON: Judge Rejects Request to Inspect Truckee Canal
VERIZON WIRELESS: Suit Says Text Service is Illegal Gambling
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: JPML Grants Motion to Transfer Suits to Wash.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Home Loans

WRIGHT PHARMA: Chipley Residents Say 'Total Body' Causes Harm
* Italy's New Class-Action Law to Take Effect July 1


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

HUMANA INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing in KY
MICHAEL BAKER: Bronstein Announces Securities Suit Filing in PA
MONEYGRAM INTL: Brian Felgoise Declares Securities Suit Filing
NEUROMETRIX INC: Brualdi Announces Securities Suit Filing in MA
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Brower Piven Declares Securities Suit Filing



                           *********


AMERICAN TOWER: $14M Settlement Fairness Hearing is on June 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on June 11, 2008, at 3:00 p.m. for the
$14-million settlement of the matter "In re American Tower
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 06 CV 10933 (MLW) (D.
Mass.)."

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of American Tower Corporation, between
April 1, 2002, and May 22, 2006, inclusive.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objections is on May 28,
2008.  Deadline to file proofs of claim is on September 9, 2008.

The fairness hearing will be held at the courtroom of the
Honorable Judge Mark L. Wolf.

                       Case Background

John S. Greenebaum filed the suit with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  Also named as plaintiff in
the case is Steamship Trade Association-International
Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund.

The complaint names American Tower, James D. Taiclet, Jr., and
Bradley E. Singer as defendants.  It alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws in connection with public
statements made relating to the company's stock option practices
and related accounting.  

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  The plaintiffs seek
monetary relief.

In December 2006, the court appointed the Steamship Trade
Association as the lead plaintiff.  On March 26, 2007, the
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which
includes additional current and former officers and directors of
the company as defendants.

In May 2007, the company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the securities class action suit based on the
plaintiffs' failure to make demand of the company's Board of
Directors prior to filing the action.

On Dec. 14, 2007, Labaton Sucharow LLP, as lead counsel in the
securities class action, and the Law Offices of Peter G.
Angelos, P.C., as counsel to the lead plaintiff, announced that
they have reached a $14-million settlement agreement in
principle on behalf of the STA-ILA Fund and other class members
(Class Action Reporter, Dec 17, 2007).

The suit is "In re American Tower Corporation Securities
Litigation, No. 06 CV 10933 (MLW)," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Mark L.
Wolf.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jason B. Adkins, Esq. (jadkins@akzlaw.com)
         Adkins, Kelston and Zavez, P.C.
         90 Canal Street, 5th Floor
         Boston, MA 02114
         Phone: 617-367-1040
         Fax: 617-742-8280

              - and -

         David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
         Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017-5563
         Phone: 212-907-0700

Representing the company is:

         Michael T. Gass, Esq. (mgass@eapdlaw.com)
         Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP
         111 Huntington Avenue
         Boston, MA 02199
         Phone: 617-239-0100
         Fax: 617-227-4420


APOLLO GOLD: Settles WARN Act Violations Lawsuit in Montana
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Gold Corp. settled a purported class action suit filed in
May 2006 with U.S. District Court Missoula Division of Montana
by 14 former employees at the company's Montana Tunnels mine.

The suit alleges violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988 and the Montana Wage Act and
breach of contract.

The allegations relate to the termination of the employees
following the cessation of mining in October 2005.  

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the company gave
deficient WARN Act notice and are seeking damages for back pay
and benefits.

A negotiated settlement was tentatively reached between Apollo
Gold and the plaintiffs and is expected to be finalized in 2008,
according to the Company's March 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Clements et al. v. Apollo Gold, Inc. et al., Case
No. 9:06-cv- 00084-DWM-JCL," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana, Judge Donald W. Molloy presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Brian C. Bramblett, Esq. (bbramblett@centurytel.net)
         Meloy Law Firm
         P.O. Box 1241, 80 South Warren
         Helena, MT 59624
         Phone: 406-442-8670
         Fax: 406-442-4953

Representing the defendant are:

         Edward John Butler, Esq. (ebutler@sah.com)
         Sherman & Howard L.L.C.
         90 South Cascade Avenue, Suite 1500
         Colorado Springs, CO 80903
         Phone: 719-448-4052
         Fax: 719-635-4576

              - and -

         William Sasz, Esq. (wsasz@sah.com)
         Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.
         90 South Cascade Ave., Suite 1500
         Colorado Springs, CO 80920


AT&T MOBILITY: Lawsuit Says Class-Action Ban Should be Lifted
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit moving forward in federal court in
Washington state argues that the class-action ban in AT&T
Mobility's service contracts should be invalidated, Jeffrey
Silva writes for RCRNews.com.

"At stake here is the right of AT&T customers to get a fair
hearing and obtain justice," said Harvey Rosenfield, Esq., a
lawyer with the non-profit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights.  "If the court rules that AT&T and Cingular's customers
cannot join together to sue these companies, then the companies
will never be held accountable."

The plaintiffs said that when then Cingular Wireless bought
then-AT&T Wireless, in 2004, it promised regulators and the
public that customers would continue to enjoy the same quality
service.  However, after the merger, according to the 2006
lawsuit, Cingular deliberately degraded the quality of the AT&T
network in order to force AT&T customers to move to Cingular's
network, pay an $18 upgrade fee, buy new phones and sign up for
new two-year plans.  Dissatisfied consumers who wanted to move
to a different company were required to pay early termination
fees of $150 or more.

"AT&T makes much of the window-dressing terms it has tacked on
to its arbitration clause to hide the impact of its class-action
ban," the report quotes Leslie Bailey, of Public Justice, as
saying.  "But we are confident that once the court looks at all
the evidence, it will recognize that without a class action,
these customers would not be able to hold the company
accountable."

AT&T defended its approach to settling consumer grievances.

"We continue to believe that a consumer is better off pursuing a
claim under our arbitration clause, rather than pursuing a class
action," the No. 1 wireless carrier stated.  "Arbitration is
typically a fast, cost-effective, and pro-consumer way to
address disputes, and AT&T's arbitration agreement is among the
most consumer-friendly in the nation."

"In fact," AT&T added, "a year and a half ago we changed our
arbitration clause to make it even more consumer friendly.  Our
current arbitration clause calls for the company -- if it does
not settle a consumer complaint and loses arbitration -- to pay
the greater amount of either the arbitration or the state's
statutory definition of a small claim (commonly $5,000).  Also,
if the consumer has used a lawyer in winning an arbitration
case, the company would pay two times the lawyers fees.  
Finally, we pay the entire cost of the arbitration."


BLUE CROSS: Faces Mich. Lawsuit Over Autism Coverage Refusal
------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is facing a class-action
complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan alleging that it refuses to provide
coverage for autism, CourtHouse News Service reports.

CourtHouse explains that autism is a complex developmental
disability, which adversely affects, inter alia, verbal and
nonverbal communication and social interactions, a child's
educational performance, and the overall ability of a person who
suffers from the condition to function in society.  Without
proper care, treatment, and therapy, autism can be a
debilitating and entirely disabling condition, leading people to
grow into adulthood without the ability to perform the most
basic of functions.

Named plaintiff Mickey Badalamenti brings the suit as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure, individually and on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of an
employee benefit plan administered by or provided by Blue Cross
and who have been denied coverage for ABA treatment to an
insured person diagnosed with autism.

The plaintiff and the class request judgment in their favor
against Blue Cross in an amount to be determined, plus costs,
interest and attorneys' fees, exemplary damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and any other relief to which the plaintiff
and the class is entitled.

The suit is "Mickey Badalamenti et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Michigan et al., Case 2:08-cv-11299-PVG-MJH," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. (gmantese@manteselaw.com)
          Mark C. Rossman, Esq. (mrossman@manteselaw.com)
          David S. Hansma, Esq. (dhansma@manteselaw.com)
          Mantese and Rossman, PC
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, Michigan 48083
          Phone: (248) 457-9200

               - and -

          John J. Conway, Esq. (john@johnjconway.com)
          John J. Conway , P.C.
          645 Griswold St, Ste 3600
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Phone: (313) 961-6525


CANADA: Ontario Court Rules Against Students' $200-Million Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honourable Madam Justice Joan L. Lax of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice ruled against the consideration of the
$200-million class action lawsuit to stop prohibited college
ancillary fees.

Justice Lax's ruling found that the enforcement of the
Minister's 'Binding Policy Directive' on ancillary fees is the
responsibility of the government, not the Court.

"Today's ruling means that hundreds of thousands of students who
were wrongfully charged fees have no legal recourse," said Jen
Hassum, Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students-
Ontario.  "We've always known that the McGuinty government had
the ability to stop prohibited ancillary fees but this ruling
makes it clear that it is solely their responsibility."

The lawsuit against all 24 public colleges in Ontario was filed
by two former college students in June 2007.  The legal action
was initiated as a result of the failure of successive Training,
Colleges and Universities Ministers to enforce their own
'Binding Policy Directive' that prohibits tuition-related
ancillary fees.

"Premier McGuinty has known about the prohibited ancillary fees
for more than 14 years, yet his government continues to turn a
blind eye while the colleges wrongfully take tens-of-millions of
dollars from students every year," said Dan Roffey, a former
George Brown College student who was one of two representative
plaintiffs.  "The McGuinty government has publicly refused to
take responsibility because this case was before the Court. Now
Premier McGuinty going to have to stop hiding behind lawyers and
fix this problem."

"While we are disappointed with today's ruling, Dan and I have
no regrets about bringing this case forward," said former
Conestoga College student Amanda Hassum.  "It took our lawsuit
to bring attention to these unjust fees and I hope that the
government will finally take action because of it."

The representative plaintiffs have an automatic right to appeal
the Ontario court's ruling and will make a decision on how to
proceed after consulting with their legal counsel.

Representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario
will be meeting with Training, Colleges and Universities'
Minister Milloy next week to discuss concerns about high tuition
fees, prohibited ancillary fees and the government's chronic
under-funding of Ontario's public colleges.

"As long as college students are being charged prohibited fees,
this fight isn't over," said Jen Hassum.

The Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario unites over 300,000
college and university students and more than 35 students'
unions throughout the province.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Illinois Suit Over "Subprime" Mortgage Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Home Loans and HSBC Mortgage Services are facing a
class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois accusing the companies of
failing to inform homebuyers and refinancers of legally required
information, including interest rates, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The plaintiffs bring the action for rescission of a "subprime"
mortgage loan and damages for multiple violations of the Truth
in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601 et seq., and implementing
Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 226.  The
plaintiffs also sue for statutory damages for violations
of the Illinois Interest Act, 815 ILCS 205/4(2)(a).

The plaintiffs sue on behalf of:

     (1) all natural persons with Illinois, Indiana and Michigan
         residences;

     (2) who entered into a residential mortgage credit
         transaction with Capital One;
     
     (3) in which Capital One did not provide the TILA
         Disclosure Statement, the required number of federal
         Notices of Right to Cancel or both in a form that the
         consumer could keep;

     (4) in which Capital One provided an instruction that the
         "primary closing documents" were the HUD-1 and the
         note; and

     (5) whose loan was closed on or after a date three years
         prior to the filing of this action.

The plaintiffs want the court to determine whether:

     (a) Capital One regularly closed loans in the manner in
         which it closed the plaintiffs' loan, using the same
         procedures and instruction sheets;

     (b) Capital One's manner of providing/not providing the
         required TILA disclosures constitutes clear and
         conspicuous disclosure under TILA; and

     (c) providing notice of the federal right to cancel using
         the H9 model rescission form in transactions where
         Capital One is a new creditor violates TILA.

The plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment in their
favor and against defendant for:

     -- Statutory damages;

     -- Attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit;
        and

     -- other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

The suit is "Ivelisse G. Rodriguez, et al. v. Capital One Home
Loans, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-99999" filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Al Hofeld, Jr. (al@alhofeldlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Al Hofeld, Jr, LLC and The Social
          Justice Project
          208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite #1650
          Chicago, Illinois 60604
          Phone: (312) 345-1004
          Fax: (312) 346-3242


CHAMPION PARTS: Bankruptcy Court Allows Insurance Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Bankruptcy Court Judge James G. Mixon entered an order
lifting the automatic stay to allow a class action lawsuit to
proceed against debtor Champion Parts, Inc., Online Hope Star
reports.

According to the report, former employees of Champion Parts
believed that they were covered under a Blue Cross Blue Shield
health insurance policy, but alleged that their bills were not
paid.  

According to the wife of plaintiff James Ted Shepard, who is
suffering from congestive heart failure diagnosed in June of
2008, they went almost two months without knowing that they did
not have insurance and later "received the bills that were
supposed to have been covered."  She said the family "scraped up
everything they had possible to try to make it."

Aside from Mr. Shepard, other named plaintiffs are Tammy Nichols
and Buckley Nichols.

The plaintiffs' attorneys -- McMath and Wood, of Little Rock;
Eighth Judicial District-North Prosecuting Attorney Chris
Thomason; and Patton Roberts McWilliams and Capshaw, LLP, of
Texarkana -- were required to seek permission from the
bankruptcy court before they could proceed with the class action
suit because Champion Parts had filed for bankruptcy protection
that put restrictions on other lawsuits being filed against it.

Judge Mixon's Lift Stay Order stated that staying the lawsuit
proceedings "is not necessary for the Debtor's reorganization"
and that the plaintiffs "believe that their claim is covered by
an insurance policy owned by the Debtor."

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     Will Bond, Esq. (will@mcmathlaw.com)
     McMath and Wood P.A.
     711 West 3rd Street
     Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
     Phone: 501-396-5400
     Direct Dial: 501-396-5412
     Fax: 501-374-5118

     Corey McGaha, Esq. (cmcgaha@pattonroberts.com)
     Patton Roberts McWilliams & Capshaw LLP
     Century Bank Plaza - Suite 400
     2900 St. Michael Drive
     Texarkana, Texas 75503
     Phone: 903-334-7000
     Fax: 903-334-7007

    
DAVITA INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over "Epogen" Administration & Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. is facing a purported class action filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
relation to the administration and use of Epogen(R), according
to its Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Aug. 28, 2007, Sheet Metal Workers National Health Fund and
Glenn Randle filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against the company.  

The complaint also names as defendants Amgen, Inc., and
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.  It is styled as a class
action and alleges four claims against the company:

   1. violations of the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and
      Corrupt Organizations) statute,

   2. California's unfair competition law,

   3. California's false advertising law, and

   4. unjust enrichment.

The complaint's principal allegations is that the defendants
engaged in a scheme to unlawfully promote the administration of
Epogen(R) to hemodialysis patients intravenously, as opposed to
subcutaneously, and to over-utilize Epogen(R).

The suit is "Sheet Metal Workers National Health Fund et al v.
Amgen Inc et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05620-PSG-AGR," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert A. Cantore, Esq. (rac@gslaw.org)
          Gilbert and Sackman
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard
          Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2732
          Phone: 323-938-3000
          Fax: 323-937-9139

               - and -

          Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq. (dweintraub@wdklaw.com)
          Whatley Drake and Kallas LLP
          1540 Broadway
          37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-447-7070
          Fax: 212-447-7077

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark W. Pearlstein, Esq. (mpearlstein@mwe.com)
          McDermott Will and Emery LLP
          28 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-535-4000

               - and -

          Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq. (sbirnbau@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6522
          Phone: 212-735-3000


DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc., continues to face a class action
suit filed with the Superior Court of California, alleging
violations of the state's labor laws.

DVA Renal is formerly known as Gambro Healthcare, Inc.  It is
now a subsidiary of DaVita, Inc.

In June 2004, DVA Renal was served with a complaint filed with
the Superior Court of California by one of its former employees
who worked for its California acute services program.  

The complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among
other things, that DVA Renal failed to provide overtime wages,
defined rest periods and meal periods, or compensation in lieu
of such provisions and failed to comply with certain other
California labor code requirements.

DaVita, Inc. reported no development in the matter its Feb. 28,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

DaVita, Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- is a provider of  
dialysis services in the U.S. for patients suffering from
chronic kidney failure, also known as end-stage renal disease.   
The company also provides acute inpatient dialysis services in
approximately 770 hospitals and related laboratory services.


DVA RENAL: Plaintiff Seeks Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action against DVA Renal
Healthcare, Inc., filed a demand to compel class arbitration in
the case, which was previously dismissed by U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana back in March 2007.  

DVA Renal is formerly known as Gambro Healthcare, Inc.  It is
now a subsidiary of DaVita, Inc.

On Aug. 8, 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a
complaint against Gambro AB, DVA Renal and its related entities.  

The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on
behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of the
defendants for health care goods and services from on or about
January 1991 through at least December 2004.

The complaint alleged, among other things, damages resulting
from facts and circumstances underlying DVA Renal's December
2004 settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and
certain agencies of the U.S. Government.  

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was
compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter.  In August
2006, the plaintiff proceeded with a demand to compel
arbitration.

Thus, in November 2006, the plaintiff filed a demand for class
arbitration against the company and DVA Renal Healthcare.

DaVita, Inc. reported no development in the matter its Feb. 28,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Co. v. Gambro A
B, et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-01450-TLM-CMH," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Judge
Tucker L. Melancon presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Greg Murphy, Esq. (greg@mandmlawfirm.com)
         Morain & Murphy
         6555 Perkins Rd., Ste. 200
         Baton Rouge, LA 70808
         Phone: 225-767-7151
         Fax: 225-767-8995

Representing the company is:

         G. William Jarman, Esq.
         Kean Miller, et al.
         P.O. Box 3513
         Baton Rouge, LA 70821
         Phone: 225-387-0999
         Fax: 225-388-9133


ELAN CORP: Court Dismisses Tysabri Investor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Richard Holwell has thrown out a class
action lawsuit brought by investors against Elan Corp PLC and
its executives over its multiple sclerosis drug Tysabri, Reuters
reports.

Reuters recounts that the plaintiffs accused Elan and its
executives of misrepresentations and omissions regarding the
safety, commercial viability and projected market share of
Tysabri, causing the company's stock price to be artificially
inflated.

In an opinion posted on March 28, 2008, Judge Holwell, who sits
in Federal court in Manhattan, said that the plaintiffs had
failed to adequately show that Elan and its executives had
motive and opportunity to commit fraud.

Judge Holwell said taht the plaintiffs could file a motion for
permission to amend their complaint.

Reuters explains that Tysabri, which is made by Biogen Idec Inc
and Elan, was temporarily suspended from the market in 2005
after some patients developed a potentially deadly brain
infection.  The drug was allowed back on the market in 2006 with
certain restrictions after U.S. regulators decided multiple
sclerosis patients were willing to accept the risks in return
for the potential benefits.


FORCE PROTECTION: Brualdi Announces Securities Suit Filing in SC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. announced that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced with the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, on behalf of
all purchasers of securities of Force Protection, Inc., between
August 14, 2006 and February 29, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the
defendants misled investors by making materially false and
misleading statements concerning Force Protection's business,
financial results and prospects.  Among other things, the
complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that:

     (i) Force Protection's dominance in the Mine Resistant
         Ambush Protected (MRAP) market was not a result of
         superior product design and rapid delivery rates, as
         the Company boasted, but was due to a lack of
         competitive bidding;

    (ii) due to Force Protection's continuing failure to meet
         contractual delivery deadlines, the Company's
         competitiveness in the market for MRAPs was diminished;

   (iii) Force Protection's ability to compete for government
         contracts was threatened by audit reports issued by the
         Defense Contract Audit Agency, which had been critical
         of the company's finances and financial accounting
         system; and

    (iv) Force Protection falsely reported at least its third
         quarter 2007 financial results.  As a result of the
         defendants' misleading statements, Force Protection
         common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
         during the class period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 9, 2008,
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Tali Leger (tleger@brualdilawfirm.com)
          Director of Shareholder Relations
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006  
          Phone: (877) 495-1877 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/


LIFELOCK: Faces AZ Suit Over Services Offered But Can't Perform
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Arizona consumer filed a proposed class-action lawsuit with
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
against LifeLock, a heavily promoted company that claims to
protect consumers against identity theft.

The lawsuit alleges that the three-year-old company defrauds
customers by offering services it cannot legally perform, and by
touting a $1-million guarantee that the suit alleges is wildly
misleading.

LifeLock, headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, uses aggressive
advertising to entice consumers to sign up for its $10-a-month
service which it describes as "proactive identity theft
protection, offer[ing] a proven solution that prevents your
identity from being stolen before it happens."

Its advertisements prominently feature a supposed $1 million
guarantee.  In one commercial, Todd Davis, founder and CEO of
LifeLock, announces to a crowd of individuals, "If anything
happens for any reason while you're a client of LifeLock, we
will cover all losses and all expenses up to one million
dollars."

On its Web site, LifeLock makes similar statements, claiming
that it will "do whatever it takes" to restore a member's good
name.

According to the complaint, the fine print says otherwise:
LifeLock will not pay any losses directly to the consumer and
does not cover consequential or incidental damages to identity
theft.  The guarantee is limited to fixing failures or defects
in the LifeLock services and paying other professionals to
attempt to restore losses.

"The fine print in this $1 million guarantee is so limiting, we
think it is almost worthless," said Rob Carey, partner in the
law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, who is representing
consumers.  "LifeLock buries the truth beneath a pile of
inconsistencies and disclaimers so deep that we believe the
intent is to mislead consumers so they don't make claims."

LifeLock also misleads consumers about the protections it can
provide, according to the complaint.  LifeLock's advertising
campaign features Davis displaying his social security number,
saying, "I'm here to prove just how safe your identity can be
with LifeLock -- that's my real social security number."

Mr. Davis claims he can give out his personal information
because of his complete confidence in his company's protection.

"What LifeLock doesn't tell you is that in 2006, Mr. Davis was a
victim of identity theft when a criminal used his social
security number to fraudulently obtain a $500 payday loan," said
Mr. Carey.

According to the suit, LifeLock's "proven solution" consists of
illegally placing and renewing fraud alerts under consumers'
names with credit bureaus.  Under the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act, however, corporations such as LifeLock are not
allowed to place fraud alerts on a consumers' behalf - in fact,
according to the complaint, the law was written so as to
specifically bar credit-repair companies from improperly using
fraud alerts.

Moreover, the lawsuit alleges, LifeLock overstates the
protection consumers get from fraud alerts.

According to Mr. Carey, a fraud alert tells creditors that the
consumer does not authorize new credit accounts, new credit
cards or credit-limit increases, but, contrary to LifeLock's
claims, a fraud alert does not require a creditor to contact the
consumer before extending credit, according to the complaint.

They also do not protect against many types of identity theft --
as the theft of Mr. Davis' identity proves, notes Mr. Carey.

"Identity theft is a rampant problem in the United States, and
companies that overstate what their services can or will do are
as much a part of the problem as the thieves," said Leonard
Aragon, another attorney representing the consumers.

According to the complaint, one of LifeLock's founders, Robert
Maynard, has been investigated and prosecuted by the Federal
Trade Commission and the State of Arizona for fraud in
connection with his previous "credit repair" enterprise.

As a result of that investigation, Mr. Maynard was banned for
life by the FTC from participating in or promoting any credit
repair business.  When news accounts surfaced recently about Mr.
Maynard's past, including allegations that he stole his father's
identity, Mr. Maynard resigned from the company but continued to
work as a consultant, according to the complaint.

The suit's named plaintiff, Byrl Lane, bought LifeLock in
October 2007, after his car was stolen, and was falsely informed
that creditors would have to contact him and that he would be
protected against any theft involving his personal data.  He was
not informed that LifeLock is not authorized to secure fraud
alerts on his behalf nor of the stringent limits of the $1
million guarantee.

The suit claims LifeLock violated Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act
and the Arizona Insurance Code, and seeks to have all members'
fees refunded due to the illegality of the contract and
LifeLock's misrepresentations about its service.

The suit seeks to recover money consumers paid to LifeLock.

For more information, contact:

          Rob Carey (Rob@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (602) 840-5900

               - and -

          Mark Firmani, Esq. (Mark@firmani.com)
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: (206) 443-9357


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Still Faces "Butland" Litigation in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc.,
continues to face a purported class action entitled, "Mark and
Christine Butland et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., et
al."

The suit was filed with the Circuit Court of Hillsborough
County, Tampa, Florida on March 1999.  It seeks monetary damages
and injunctive relief.

The court, in early April 2002, certified the class action
against Orkin.  Orkin appealed this ruling to the Florida 2nd
District Court of Appeals, which remanded the case back to the
trial court for further findings.

In December 2004, the court issued a new ruling certifying the
class action.  Orkin again appealed this new ruling to the
Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals.  

In June 2006, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals
issued a ruling denying certification of the class.  

Following the plaintiffs' motion for rehearing, the court upheld
its prior decision that class certification was improper, but
also ruled that the plaintiffs can return to the trial court and
attempt to certify a narrower class.  

Rollins reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 29,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com-- a subsidiary of   
Rollins provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to
more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in
the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama.  The company,
which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices
throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Ga. Court Denies Petition in "Warren" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Georgia denied a petition that sought for
the review of a decision denying class certification to the case
"Ernest W. Warren and Dolores G. Warren et al. v. Orkin
Exterminating Company, Inc., et al."

In general, the suit alleges that plaintiffs have been damaged
as a result of the rendering of services by the company, which
is a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc.

In August 2006, the Superior Court of Cobb County, Marietta,
Georgia ruled in the matter by certifying a class.  Orkin
appealed this ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which, in
November 2007, denied certification of the class.

The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court of
Georgia, which subsequently denied the plaintiffs' petition for
review, according to Rollins' Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com-- a subsidiary of   
Rollins provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to
more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in
the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama.  The company,
which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices
throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Suits Over Termite Related Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., is
facing two purported class actions in California and Arkansas,
alleging that plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of the
rendering of services by the company, according to Rollins'
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suits are:

       -- "Ronald and Ileana Krzyzanowsky et al. v. Orkin
          Exterminating Company, Inc. and Rollins, Inc.;" and

       -- "Roy Sheppard et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Company,
          Inc. and Rollins, Inc."

The Krzyzanowsky lawsuit, a termite service related matter, was
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California and has not been scheduled for a class certification
hearing.

The Sheppard lawsuit, a termite related matter, was recently
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas and a date has not been scheduled for a hearing on
class certification.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com-- a subsidiary of   
Rollins provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to
more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in
the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama.  The company,
which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices
throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


ORKIN INC: Faces Wage, Hour Litigation in California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin, Inc., a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., is facing a
purported wage and hour class action that was filed with the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, according to
Rollins' Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is captioned, "John Maciel v. Orkin, Inc., et al."  It
has not been scheduled for a class certification hearing.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com-- a subsidiary of   
Rollins provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to
more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in
the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama.  The company,
which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices
throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


PYRAMID BREWERIES: April 2008 Mediation Set for "Taylor" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2008 mediation is scheduled for the purported class
action filed against Pyramid Breweries, Inc., by a former
alehouse employee who is alleging that he and other employees
were denied adequate opportunity to take meal and rest breaks as
required by California law.

The suit, "Taylor v. Pyramid Breweries Inc., et al, Case No.
07AS02039," was filed with the Sacramento California Superior
Court.

It was filed as a potential class action, but no motion
requesting certification of the case as a class action has been
filed.  

Discovery in the case has commenced.  No trial date has been
set.

Mediation is scheduled for April 2008, according to the
company's March 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Pyramid Breweries Inc. -- http://www.pyramidbrew.com-- is a  
brewer of craft beers.  It produces and markets beer under the
Pyramid and MacTarnahan's brand names.  The Company owns two
alehouse restaurants adjacent to its full production breweries
under the Pyramid Alehouse and MacTarnahan Taproom brand names
in Berkeley, California and Portland, Oregon, respectively, and
three alehouse restaurants located in Walnut Creek and
Sacramento, California and Seattle, Washington.  It produces a
line of full-flavored, hand-crafted beers brewed in small
batches using traditional brewing methods.  The Company
distributes its products through a network of selected
independent distributors who deliver directly to local grocery
stores, convenience stores, restaurants and taverns.  It has two
operating segments: beverage operations and alehouses.   


QUANEX CORP: Special Exceptions to Block Gerdau Spin-off Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In orders dated March 13, 2008 and March 14, 2004, the 125th
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas denied in part
the defendants' Special Exceptions and upheld the plaintiff's
shareholder claims against Quanex Corporation's board of
directors and Gerdau S.A.

The original lawsuit, which named Quanex as a "nominal
defendant," was filed on January 10, 2008, and is being brought
on behalf of all shareholders of Quanex Corporation, excluding
defendants and any persons, firms, trusts, corporations, or
other entities related to or affiliated with them.  No class has
yet been certified in the action.

The plaintiff's claims challenge the sale of the Vehicular
Products Segment of Quanex Corporation to Gerdau S.A. and its
subsidiary, Gerdau Delaware (the Merger Agreement).  The lawsuit
seeks additional monies for all of Quanex's shareholders and the
disclosure of additional information to Quanex shareholders
relating to the Merger Agreement.

Subsequently, a motion for temporary restraining order was filed
by the plaintiff in the putative stockholder derivative and
class action lawsuit, "Momentum Partners v. Raymond A. Jean, et
al., Cause No. 2008-01592," with the 25th Judicial District of
Harris County, Texas (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2008).

The motion asked the court to enter a temporary restraining
order and sought to enjoin the proposed spin-off by Quanex of
its building products division and the subsequent merger of
Quanex into a subsidiary of Gerdau S.A.

Following the Court's ruling, the plaintiff believes that the
lawsuit will now proceed to discovery and the class
certification stage.

Quanex Corporation has scheduled a special shareholder meeting
on April 22, 2008, for shareholders to consider and vote upon
the Merger Agreement.

For more information, contact:

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 (toll free) or (212) 952-0602
          e-mail: tleger@brualdilawfirm.com
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Tex. Court OKs $3.5M Securities Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas gave
final approval to the $3.6-million settlement of a purported
securities fraud class action suit filed against Rent-A-Center,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

                       Case Background

Filed on Jan. 4, 2002, the putative class action, "Terry Walker,
et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.," alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
issuing false and misleading statements and omitting material
facts regarding the company's financial performance and
prospects for the third and fourth quarters of 2001 (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 3, 2007).

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's common stock from April 25, 2001,
through Oct. 8, 2001, and sought damages in unspecified amounts.
The court later consolidated similar complaints with the
"Walker" suit in October 2002.

On Nov. 25, 2002, the lead plaintiffs in the "Walker" suit filed
an amended consolidated complaint, which added certain of the
company's outside directors as defendants to the Exchange Act
claims.

The amended complaint also added additional claims that the
company, and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, violated various provisions of the Securities Act as
a result of alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with an offering in May 2001 and also added the
managing underwriters in that offering as defendants.

On Feb. 7, 2003, the company, along with certain officer and
director defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the matter as
well as a motion to transfer venue.

In addition, the company's outside directors named in the matter
separately filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims
on statute of limitations grounds.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the underwriter defendants also filed a motion
to dismiss the matter.  The plaintiffs filed response briefs to
these motions, to which the company replied on May 21, 2003.  A
hearing was held by the court on June 26, 2003 to hear each of
these motions.

On Sept. 30, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss without prejudice, dismissed without prejudice the
outside directors' and underwriters' separate motions to
dismiss, and denied the company's motion to transfer venue.

In its order on the dismissal motions, the Court granted the
lead plaintiffs leave to replead the case within certain
parameters.

On July 7, 2004, the plaintiffs again repled their claims by
filing a third amended consolidated complaint, raising
allegations of similar violations against the same parties
generally based upon alleged facts not previously asserted.

The company, along with certain officer and director defendants
and the underwriter defendants, filed motions to dismiss the
third amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 23, 2004.  A
hearing on the motions was held on April 14, 2005.

On July 25, 2005, the court ruled on these motions, dismissing
with prejudice the claims against the outside directors as well
as the underwriter defendants, but denying the company's motion
to dismiss.

In evaluating this motion to dismiss, the court was required to
view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs
and to take the plaintiffs' allegations as true.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the company filed a motion to certify the
dismissal order for an interlocutory appeal, which was denied on
Nov. 14, 2005.

A hearing on class certification was held on June 22, 2006.  The
court has made no ruling on the motion for class certification.
Discovery is ongoing.

                           Settlement

On Oct. 29, 2007, the company announced that it had reached a
prospective settlement with the plaintiffs to resolve "Terry
Walker, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.," a putative class
action filed in federal court in Texarkana, Texas, alleging that
the company violated various federal securities laws.

Under the terms of the settlement, which has now been documented
and was preliminarily approved by the court on Oct. 31, 2007,
the company anticipate its insurance carrier will pay an
aggregate of $3.6 million in cash, which will be distributed to
an agreed upon class of claimants who purchased the company's
common stock from April 25, 2001 through Oct. 8, 2001, as well
as used to pay costs of notice and settlement administration,
and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses.

This month, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas gave preliminary approval to the settlement (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 20, 2007).

On Feb. 6, 2008, the settlement to resolve this putative
securities class action received final approval from the court,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Walker, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, et al., Case No.
5:02-cv-00003-DF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Judge David Folsom presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bradley Earl Beckworth, Esq.
         (bbeckworth@nixlawfirm.com)
         Nix Patterson & Roach
         205 Linda Drive
         Daingerfield, TX 75638,
         Phone: 903-645-7333
         Fax: 903-645-4415

              - and -

         Thomas Emerson Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
         Hoeffner & Bilek, LLP
         1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404

Representing the defendants are:

         Anne Marie Rodgers, Esq. (arodgers@fulbright.com)
         Darryl Wade Anderson, Esq. (danderson@fulbright.com)
         Fulbright & Jaworski, 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100,
         Houston, TX 77010-3095
         Phone: 713/651-5473
         Fax: 713-651-6652 and 713-651-5246


RENT-A-CENTER INC: May 20 Deadline Scheduled for "Colon" Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Colon v. Thorn
Americas, Inc.," which names Rent-A-Center, Inc., as a
defendant, were given until May 20, 2008 to perfect an appeal
from an order that affirmed the dismissal of their case,
according to Rent-A-Center's Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The original plaintiffs filed the class action in November 1997
in New York state court.  The company, in connection with its
Thorn Americas, Inc. acquisition, assumed this matter.

The plaintiffs acknowledged that rent-to-own transactions in New
York are subject to the provisions of New York's Rental Purchase
Statute but contends the Rental Purchase Statute does not
provide the company immunity from suits for other statutory
violations.  

The plaintiffs allege that the company has a duty to disclose
effective interest under New York consumer protection laws, and
seeks damages and injunctive relief for failure to do so.

The suit also alleges violations relating to excessive and
unconscionable pricing, late fees, harassment, undisclosed
charges, and the ease of use and accuracy of payment records.  

In its prayer for relief, the plaintiffs request class
certification, injunctive relief requiring the company to cease
certain marketing practices and price rental purchase contracts
in certain ways, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
rescission of the class members contracts, an order placing in
trust all moneys received by the company in connection with the
rental of merchandise during the class period, treble damages,
attorney's fees, filing fees and costs of suit, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and any further relief granted by the court.  

The plaintiffs have not alleged a specific monetary amount with
respect to the request for damages.  The proposed class includes
all New York residents who were party to the company's rent-to-
own contracts from Nov. 26, 1994.  

In November 2000, following interlocutory appeal by both parties
from the denial of cross-motions for summary judgment, the
company obtained a favorable ruling from the Appellate Division
of the State of New York, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims
based on the alleged failure to disclose an effective interest
rate.  The plaintiffs' other claims were not dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a statewide class in December
2000.  The court heard the plaintiffs' class certification
motion on Nov. 7, 2001 and, on Sept. 12, 2002, the court issued
an opinion denying in part and granting in part the plaintiffs'
requested certification.

The opinion grants certification as to all of the plaintiffs'
claims except the plaintiffs' pricing claims pursuant to the
Rental Purchase Statute, as to which certification was denied.  

The parties have differing views as to the effect of the court's
opinion, and accordingly, the court granted the parties
permission to submit competing orders as to the effect of the
opinion on the plaintiffs' specific claims.

Both proposed orders were submitted to the court on March 27,
2003, and on May 30, 2003, the court held a hearing regarding
such orders.  No clarifying order has yet been entered by the
court.

From June 2003 until May 2005, there was no activity in this
case.  On May 18, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' claim and to decertify the class, based upon the
plaintiffs' failure to schedule her claim in this matter in her
earlier voluntary bankruptcy proceeding.  

The plaintiffs opposed the motion and asked the court to grant
it an opportunity to find a substitute class representative in
the event the court determined Ms. Colon was no longer adequate.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court issued an order denying that motion,
but noted that no motion to intervene to add additional class
representatives had been filed.

On March 14, 2006, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion
seeking leave to intervene Shaun Kelly as an additional class
representative.

In response to the plaintiffs' motion, the court ordered the
parties to confer regarding a possible mediation and ruled that
the company could depose Mr. Kelly before filing any objection
to his intervention.

The plaintiffs' counsel did not respond to the company repeated
requests to schedule Mr. Kelly's deposition or schedule a
mediation.

Accordingly, on Jan. 30, 2007, the company filed a notice
pursuant to the applicable rules requiring the plaintiff to
serve notice of its intent to proceed with its case within 90
days.

On April 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a reply to the company's
notice, and on that same date plaintiffs' counsel offered to
produce Mr. Kelly for deposition.

In the reply to the company's notice, the plaintiff moved the
court for an additional 180 days in which to conduct discovery
before filing a formal response to the notice, or in the
alternative, the plaintiff asked to be permitted to file its
response immediately and to conduct some limited discovery while
awaiting a trial date.

The plaintiffs' motion resulted in a notice from the court,
which the company received on May 7, 2007, that the case had
been dismissed on June 2, 2006, due to the parties' failure to
appear at a court-ordered conference of which neither the
company, nor to its knowledge, the plaintiffs had notice.  The
company also did not have notice of the dismissal order.

On July 16, 2007, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
vacate the dismissal order, and the company was served notice of
entry of the court's order on July 26, 2007.

On Aug. 20, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the July 16, 2007 order and, on Aug. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to reargue and renew the motion to vacate based
on new affidavit evidence not submitted with the original
motion.

The company opposed the motion for re-argument and renewal on
grounds that it did not establish a valid basis to reverse the
July 16, 2007 order.

By order dated Dec. 5, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to re-argue, and upon re-argument, confirmed its July 16,
2007 decision denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the
dismissal.  

At the same time, the court ruled that the company's pending
motion to decertify the class and dismiss the case was deemed
moot.

The plaintiffs' counsel now has until May 20, 2008 to perfect an
appeal from the July 16, 2007 order to the Appellate Division,
First Department, by filing a brief and record.

The plaintiffs' appeal, if perfected, will be based upon the
record made in connection with the plaintiffs' original motion
to vacate.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. -- http://www.rentacenter.com-- is a rent-
to-own operator.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company operated
3,081 company-owned stores nationwide and in Canada and Puerto
Rico, including 24 stores under the name Get It Now and eight
stores located in Canada under the name Rent-A-Centre.  The
Company's subsidiary, ColorTyme, is a national franchisor of
rent-to-own stores.  The Company's stores generally offer
durable products, such as major consumer electronics,
appliances, computers and furniture, and accessories under
flexible rental purchase agreements that generally allow the
customer to obtain ownership of the merchandise at the
conclusion of an agreed upon rental period.  Get It Now stores
offer merchandise on an installment sales basis.

    
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settles Calif. Labor Litigation for $11 Mln.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc., reached an $11-million settlement for two
labor violations lawsuits that were granted class-action status
and are coordinated on March 7, 2005, before the Los Angeles
County Superior Court, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

One of the suits, "Eric Shafer, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,"
is a state-wide class action originally filed on May 20, 2002
with the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County.

The other case "Victor E. Johnson, et al. v. Rent-A-Center,
Inc.," was filed on Feb. 24, 2004, with the Orange County
Superior Court.

The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the company
improperly classified its California store managers as exempt
from overtime under California wage and hour law and failed to
pay them overtime.

In addition, they allege that the company failed to provide its
California store managers with meal and rest periods, failed to
pay store managers overtime due when their employment ended, and
engaged in unfair business practices.

The plaintiffs seek to recover back overtime wages and
accompanying waiting time penalties, civil penalties under
California Labor Code Section 2699, certain injunctive relief
and attorneys fees.

On July 15, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.  The company opposed plaintiffs' motion.  The
hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification was held
on May 12, 2006.

On June 23, 2006, the court granted class certification as to
plaintiffs' claims for back overtime wages and accompanying
waiting time penalties, and as to plaintiffs' unfair business
practices claim.

The court denied class certification as to plaintiffs' meal and
rest period claims and as to plaintiffs' claim for civil
penalties under California Labor Code Section 2699.

The plaintiffs assert that the class includes all store managers
employed by the company in California since September 1998,
which they estimate to be 700 to 1,000 members.

Equivalent hourly rates for annual salaries paid to the class
members ranged from approximately $16.83 to $31.25 per hour
based on a 40-hour workweek.  

The plaintiffs assert that store managers were required to work
approximately 10-20 hours of overtime per week.  Overtime wages
would be calculated at 1.5 times the hourly rate.

In addition, California law provides for a waiting time penalty
in the amount of 30 days' compensation when all compensation due
to an employee is not paid upon separation.  The court's class
certification ruling is procedural only and does not address the
merits of plaintiffs' claims.  

The court's class certification ruling is procedural only and
does not address the merits of plaintiffs' claims.  The company
believes that class certification was improper and that its
store managers are properly classified as exempt from overtime.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the company reached a prospective settlement
with the plaintiffs to resolve the "Eric Shafer et al. v. Rent-
A-Center, Inc.," and "Victor E. Johnson et al. v. Rent-A-Center,
Inc.," coordinated matters.

Under the terms contemplated, the company anticipates that it
will pay an aggregate of $11 million in cash, including
settlement costs and plaintiff's attorneys' fees, to be
distributed to an agreed-upon class of our employees from May
1998 through March 31, 2008.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. -- http://www.rentacenter.com-- is a rent-
to-own operator.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company operated
3,081 company-owned stores nationwide and in Canada and Puerto
Rico, including 24 stores under the name Get It Now and eight
stores located in Canada under the name Rent-A-Centre.  The
Company's subsidiary, ColorTyme, is a national franchisor of
rent-to-own stores.  The Company's stores generally offer
durable products, such as major consumer electronics,
appliances, computers and furniture, and accessories under
flexible rental purchase agreements that generally allow the
customer to obtain ownership of the merchandise at the
conclusion of an agreed upon rental period.  Get It Now stores
offer merchandise on an installment sales basis.


ROLLINS INC: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Alleging FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rollins, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit that was
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Central
District of California, alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, according to Rollins' Feb. 29, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit, "Adam Stauber v. Rollins, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-
07517," was filed on Nov. 15, 2007.  A date has not been
scheduled for a hearing on class certification.

The suit is "Adam Stauber v. Rollins, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-
07517," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Central District of California, Judge Otis D. Wright, II,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Amir Goldstein, Esq. (ajgold@hauserlawoffices.com)
          Amir J. Goldstein
          591 Broadway, Suite 3A
          New York, NY 10012
          Phone: 212-966-5253
          Fax: 212-941-8566

Representing the defendant is:

          Mark L. Eisenhut, Esq. (meisenhut@calljensen.com)
          Call Jensen & Ferrell
          610 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: 949-717-3000


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Reminded of April 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP -- representing shareholders of
SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. -- reminds all persons and
institutions who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:SIRF) between Oct. 30,
2007, and Feb. 4, 2008, inclusive, that they may move the Court
not later than April 8, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

In February 2008, Glancy Binkow filed the class action lawsuit
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California charging SiRF and certain of the company's executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2008).

Among other things, the plaintiff claims that the defendants'
material omissions and dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business and
prospects caused SiRF's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

SiRF, through its subsidiaries, engages in the development and
marketing of semiconductor and software products that are
designed to enable location-awareness utilizing global
positioning system and other location technologies worldwide.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning SiRF's business, financial position and
future prospects were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose the truth about demand for the company's
products and the effect of the Company's acquisition of
Centrality Communications, Inc. on SiRF's business and financial
performance.  As a result of the defendants' false statements
and failures to disclose, SiRF stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the class period.

On February 4, 2008, SiRF shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing disappointing and surprising financial
results for its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2007.

This news caused shares of SiRF to plummet $8.91 per share -- a
54% drop from the previous day's closing price of $16.27 -- to
close on February 5, 2008, at $7.36 per share on extremely heavy
volume of more than 63 million shares traded.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more information, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


SMART ONLINE: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Online, Inc., is facing a purported securities fraud class
action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, according to the company's March 25,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Robyn L. Gooden filed the purported class action suit on
Oct. 18, 2007, naming as defendants the company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, Maxim Group, LLC, and
Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons other than the
defendants who purchased the company's securities from May 2,
2005, through Sept. 28, 2007 and were damaged.

The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws,
including violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5.  

It asserts that the defendants participated in a fraudulent
scheme to manipulate trading in the company's stock, allegedly
causing plaintiffs to purchase the stock at an inflated price.

The complaint requests certification of the plaintiff as class
representative and seeks, among other relief, unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest, plus reasonable costs
and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

The suit is "Gooden v. Smart Online, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00785-WO-PTS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, Judge William L. Osteen, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Guy W. Crabtree, Esq. (gwc@pwkl.com)
          Pulley Watson King & Lischer, P.A.
          POD 3600
          Durham, NC 27702
          Phone: 919-682-9691
          Fax: 919-688-9107

Representing the defendant is:

          Nicholas I. Porritt (nporritt@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          1700 K St., N.W., Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20006-3817
          Phone: 202.973.8807
          Fax: 202.973.8899


STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Tip-Pooling Lawsuit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
Baristas have filed a class-action complaint against Starbucks  
Corp. in Suffolk County Court (Massachusetts), claiming that
shift managers have illegally taken a share of their tips for
six years, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action challenging Starbucks' policy of
distributing to shift supervisors proceeds of tips left by
customers, which they claim is a violation of Massachusetts law.

Named plaintiff Hernan Matamoros brings the action on behalf of
all individuals who worked as baristas at a Starbucks store in
Massachusetts in the last six years.

The plaintiff seeks resitution for himself and all other
similarly situated employees who did not receive all tips to
which they are entitled to have received under the law.

The suit is "Hernan Matamoros et al v. Starbucks Corp., Civil
Action 08-1364G," filed with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan PC
          18 Tremont Street 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: (617) 367-7200


TRUCKEE CARSON: Judge Rejects Request to Inspect Truckee Canal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Feb. 8, 2008, that the
Truckee Carson Irrigation District is facing three class action
lawsuits by over 100 Fernley flood victims.  The flood was
caused by the rupture of an irrigation canal during a storm on
Jan. 5, 2008.

According to CAR, a pair of these class action suits --
specifically filed against the TCID, Lyon County, the City of
Fernley, and its developers following the flood, when the canal
breached and impacted about 500 homes -- had been moved from
district court to U.S. Federal Court:

   1. "Shows v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, Case. No.
      3:08-cv-00044" filed on Jan. 24, 2008, transferred to the
      U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  The case
      is represented by Robert C. Maddox, Esq.

      The case was initiated with the Third Judicial District
      Court of the State of Nevada County of Churchill.

   2. "Reynolds, et al. v. Board of Directors of Truckee-Carson
      Irrigation, et al., Case No. 3:2008cv00045," filed on
      Jan. 24, 2008, U.S. District Court for the District of
      Nevada.  The suit is represented by Charles A. Jones, Esq.

      The case was originally with the Third Judicial District
      of Nevada, County of Lyon.

Robert Maddox, Esq., and attorneys from two other law firms --
Dunlap & Laxalt and Leverty & Associates -- who represent an
estimated 80 flood victims, had filed motions seeking discovery
to inspect and conduct tests along the Truckee Canal.

The plaintiffs sought first, under Rule 34, to require TCID to
allow inspection of the canal from Derby Dam to Lake Lahontan;
and second, under Rule 45, the plaintiffs served a subpoena on
BOR Area Manager Betsy Rieke, to allow for inspection of the
canal and adjacent levees.

The motion to inspect the canal would allow a geotechnical
engineer to take soil samples with the use of a drilling rig.  
Mr. Maddox had argued that soil samples are necessary to
determine the reason the canal breached, and critical data was
being destroyed as work continues on the canal, with dredging
and displacement of soils.

However, in an update, RGJ.com relates that Federal Magistrate
Judge Valerie Cooke rejected these motions.

RGJ.com says that although Judge Cooke ruled against the
plaintiffs' motions, she also encouraged Mr. Maddox and
attorneys representing TCID and Bureau of Reclamation to discuss
an inspection schedule.  Judge Cooke had scheduled a status
conference for March 28.

Although Judge Cooke indicated that she recognizes that testing
is vital to discovery, she said TCID does not own the land and
thus she could not enforce Rule 34, RGJ.com notes.

RGJ.com recounts that TCID had initially approved the inspection
and drilling, but later it recanted.  TCID's attorney Paul
Landis, Esq., argued that TCID does not own the canal and thus
cannot grant permission, as the irrigation district has a
contract with the BOR to operate and maintain the canal.  
Furthermore, he said the use of a drilling rig could damage or
weaken the canal structure.

Mr. Landis indicated if the court ruled in favor of Rule 34,
then TCID "requested full indemnification of the irrigation
district," and require the "posting of a bond."  He also
indicated that the area where the canal breached has been fixed
and much of the evidence was swept away by the flood waters on
Jan. 5.

Mr. Maddox told RGJ.com that he intended to file a motion under
Rule 34 to request from BOR access entry to the canal for
inspection and he will also seek to file an injunction.  He said
the injunction would "stop them for sending water down the canal
without doing something to reinforce the levee to give people in
the flood some comfort that another flood won't happen at some
point."

Mr. Maddox added of the BOR efforts to stop inspection, "I'm
disgusted at BOR focus on delivering water for farmers and
ranchers without regard for the safety of the people who live
there (Fernley)."

Concerning the subpoena (Ru;e 45), Judge Cooke indicated that
the request was overboard and the scope of the inspection was
unclear and thus said the court would not enforce Rule 45 and
allow entry to the land.  Judge Cooke went on to say that TCID
and BOR have indicated they have no plans to send water through
the canal.

The plaintiffs in the first class action lawsuit are represented
by:

          Robert C. Maddox, Esq.
          10587 Double R Blvd, Ste 100
          Reno, NV 89521
          Phone: (775) 322-3666
          Fax: (775) 322-6338
          e-mail: efiling@maddoxandassociates.com  

               - and -

          Calvin R.X. Dunlap, Esq.
          Law Office of Calvin R.X. Dunlap
          P.O. Box 3689
          Reno, NV 89505
          Phone: (775) 323-7790
          Fax: (775) 323-5454
          e-mail: worldlyx@worldnet.att.net

The plaintiffs in the second class action lawsuit are
represented by:

          Charles A. Jones, Esq. (caj@mcinerneylaw.net)
          McInerney & Jones
          9460 Double R Blvd
          Suite 503
          Reno, NV 89521
          Phone: (775) 853-6440
          Fax: (775) 853-6445

The defendant is represented by:

          Gary A Cardinal, Esq. (gcardinal@etsreno.com)
          Erickson, Thorpe & Swainston, Ltd.
          99 West Arroyo Street
          P.O. Box 3559
          Reno, NV 89509
          Phone: (775)786-3930
          Fax: (775)786-4160


VERIZON WIRELESS: Suit Says Text Service is Illegal Gambling
------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action suit filed against Verizon Wireless and third-
party content providers in California federal court alleges that
the mobile-phone operator enticed subscribers to engage in
illegal gambling, Jeffrey Silva writes for RCRNews.com.

The suit, RCRNews.com notes, centers on 99-cent charges levied
on wireless consumers who played contests associated with
popular TV shows like "Deal or No Deal" and "Sole Survivor."

"At all times relevant during the liability period, the premium
charge of $0.99 purchased nothing except a chance to win a
prize.  The games were not used as a sweepstakes to promote a
product, but rather were illegal lotteries designed to generate
revenues far in excess of the value of the cash awarded," the
suit stated.

Verizon Wireless said it does not comment on pending litigation.

The plaintiffs' lawyers said Verizon Wireless' premium text
messaging was the main means -- as well as well as the easiest
and most expeditious manner -- of entering the contests.

"The chances of winning are infinitesimally less than the odds
posed by the number of choices offered," stated the suit.
"Having placed their $0.99 wager with and through defendants
along with hundreds or thousands (if not tens of thousands) of
other subscribers, only those individuals who selected the
correct answer are even entered into a subsequent pool of those
who guessed correctly.  From that pool of entrants, one random
winner is selected to receive the cash prize.  The first
randomly selected potential winner for each episode that answers
or returns the notification phone call is declared the winner
(subject to verification and satisfaction of other miscellaneous
conditions, such as proof of age)."

The suit, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, accuses Verizon Wireless and others of
violating California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the
state's Unfair Competition Law.

According to RCRNews.com, the plaintiffs' lawyers acknowledged
Verizon Wireless' service contracts with subscriber contestants
include a class arbitration ban, but they maintain that the
litigation does not implicate such contracts and that such a ban
is otherwise unconscionable and unenforceable.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: JPML Grants Motion to Transfer Suits to Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML) has
granted Washington Mutual, Inc.'s motion seeking the transfer of
several lawsuits filed against the company to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the
company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

                     Securities Litigation

On Nov. 5, 2007, two securities class actions were filed against
the Company and certain of its officers.

The suit are:

       -- "Koesterer v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. 07-
          CIV-9801 (S.D.N.Y. Filed Nov. 5, 2007);" and

       -- "Abrams v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. 07-IV-
          9806 (S.D.N.Y. Filed Nov. 5, 2007)."

A third case was filed in Seattle, Washington on Nov. 7, 2007,
under the caption, "Nelson v. Washington Mutual, Inc. et al.,
No. C07-1809 (W.D. Wa.)."  

"Koesterer" seeks relief on behalf of all persons who purchased
the Company's publicly traded securities between July 19, 2006,
and Oct. 31, 2007.

"Abrams" seeks relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between Oct. 18,
2006, and Nov. 1, 2007.

"Nelson" seeks relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 18,
2006, and Nov. 1, 2007.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 by allegedly making false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning, among other things, the conspiracy with
eAppraiseIT as alleged by the Attorney General as well as
various aspects of the Company's performance and accounting in
light of that alleged conspiracy and of changing conditions in
the home lending and credit markets.

A fourth lawsuit, entitled, "Garber v. Washington Mutual, Inc.,
et al., No. (S.D. N.Y. Filed Dec. 20, 2007)," makes nearly
identical allegations on behalf of persons who purchased the
securities of Washington Mutual, Inc., from April 18, 2006,
through December 10, 2007.  

                     Derivative Litigation

On Nov. 13, 2007, two shareholder derivative actions were filed
nominally on behalf of the Company against certain of its
officers and directors.

The suits are:

       -- "Sneva v. Killinger, et al., No. C07-1826 (W.D. Wa.
          Filed Nov. 13, 2007);" and

       -- "Harrison v. Killinger, et al., No. C07-1827 (W.D. Wa.
          Filed Nov. 13, 2007)."

A third was filed in Washington State Superior Court on Nov. 16,
2007, under the caption, "Catholic Medical Mission v. Killinger
et al., No. 07-2-36548-6SEA (Wa. Super. Ct. Filed Nov. 16,
2007)."

Since then, three additional shareholder derivative actions have
been filed in federal court, namely:  

       -- "Slater v. Killinger et al., No. C08-0005 (W.D. Wa.
          Filed Jan. 3, 2008);"

       -- "Procida v. Killinger et al., No. 08-Civ-0565
          (S.D.N.Y. Filed Jan. 18, 2008);" and

       -- "Ryan v. Killinger et al., C08-0095 (W.D. Wa. Filed
          Jan. 18, 2008)."

Two additional shareholder derivative actions were filed also in
state court.  They are:

       -- "Breene v. Killinger, et al., No. 07-2-41042-2SEA (Wa.
          Super. Ct. Filed Dec. 28, 2007);"

       -- "Gibb v. Killinger, et al., No. 07-2-41044-9SEA (Wa.
          Super. Ct. Filed Dec. 28, 2007)."

The allegations in the suits mirror those in the Securities
Actions, but seek relief based on claims that the defendants,
among other things:

       -- breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its
          shareholders by materially misleading the investing
          public and failing to disclose material adverse
          information about the Company;

       -- participated in a conspiracy to defraud the Company
          and its shareholders;

       -- abused their ability to control the Company;

       -- caused an illegal waste of Company assets;

       -- have been unjustly enriched; and

       -- improperly profited from the sale of Company stock
          based on misappropriated, inside information.

                        ERISA Litigation

Beginning on Nov. 20, 2007, eight ERISA class actions were filed
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and,
in some cases, the Washington Mutual, Inc., Human Resources
Committee, and the Plan Administration and Plan Investment
Committees of the WaMu Savings Plan.

The suits are:

       -- "Bushansky v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No.
          C07-1874 (W.D. Wa. Filed Nov. 20, 2007);"

       -- "Bussey v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-
          1879 (W.D. Wa. Filed Nov. 21, 2007);"

       -- "Alexander v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No.
          C07-1906 (W.D. Wa. Filed Nov. 29, 2007);"

       -- "Mitchell v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-
          1938 (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 5, 2007);"

       -- "Ware v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-1997
          (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 13, 2007);"

       -- "Rosenblatt v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No.
          C07-2025 (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 18, 2007);

       -- "McDonald v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-
          2055 (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 21, 2007);" and

       -- "Marra v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-
          2076 (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 27, 2007)."

The plaintiffs in the ERISA Actions assert that the defendants
were fiduciaries of the WaMu Savings Plan and breached their
duties to Plan participants by, among other things:

       -- failing to manage the Plan for the exclusive benefit
          of its participants or to use the care, skill,
          diligence, and prudence necessary to manage the Plan;

       -- continuing to offer Company stock as an investment
          option in the plan despite that they knew or should
          have known that the stock no longer was a suitable and
          appropriate investment for the Plan;

       -- failing to conduct an appropriate investigation of the
          merits of continued investment in Company stock; and

       -- failing to provide complete and accurate information
          regarding the Plan to the Plan's participants.

                   Multi-District Litigation

On Nov. 28, 2007, the Company moved before the JPML for an order
that those of the Securities, Derivative and ERISA Actions then
filed in federal court be transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  

The JPML granted the Company's motion on Feb. 21, 2008.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 and JPML Rules 7.2 and 7.5,
the Company previously had filed with the JPML a Notice of Tag-
Along Action with respect to each of the Securities, Derivative
and ERISA Actions filed in federal courts after Nov. 28, 2007.

Should they wish to do so, the plaintiffs in the Garber and the
Procida Actions, which were not originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, will have
15 days to object to the transfer once the JPML issues a
conditional Transfer Order.

In the meantime, stipulations have been negotiated in the
federally filed Actions pursuant to which the defendants are not
required to answer or otherwise respond to the complaints until
the later of 60 days from the dates on which the various
stipulations were approved by the applicable courts, 30 days
after the JPML's Feb. 21, 2008, decision, or 30 days after the
plaintiffs file superseding or amended complaints.  

The parties in the state court-filed Derivative Actions have
negotiated a similar stipulation.

Washington Mutual, Inc. -- http://www.wamu.com/-- is a consumer  
and small business banking company with operations in U.S.
markets.  The Company is a savings and loan holding company.  It
owns two banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and
Washington Mutual Bank fsb (WMBfsb), as well as numerous non-
bank subsidiaries.  The Company operates in four segments: the
Retail Banking Group, which operates a retail bank network of
2,257 stores in California, Florida, Texas, New York,
Washington, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona,
Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Connecticut; the Card Services
Group, which operates a nationwide credit card lending business;
the Commercial Group, which conducts a multi-family and
commercial real estate lending business in selected markets, and
the Home Loans Group, which engages in nationwide single-family
residential real estate lending, servicing and capital markets
activities.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Home Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual, Inc., is facing a purported class action
lawsuit over home loans filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the company's
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Feb. 8, 2008, a class action was filed against the Company
and other defendants on behalf of a putative class of persons in
the U.S. who obtained home loans from the Company and "received
an appraisal performed by" appraisal management companies
eAppraiseIT and Lender's Service, Inc.

The suit, "Spears v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No.
C08-00868-HRL," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  

It was brought on behalf of this putative class, plaintiffs
assert that an alleged conspiracy to inflate appraisals by the
Company, eAppraiseIT and Lender's Service, Inc., violated RESPA,
Section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Code, and
California's Consumer's Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiffs also bring various common law claims.  They seek,
among other things, the recovery of actual and treble damages,
restitution, an injunction, and costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company has not yet responded to the complaint, but has
filed with the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation a
Notice of Tag-Along Action with respect to the Spears lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in the Spears lawsuit will have 15 days to object
to the transfer once the JPML issues a conditional Transfer
Order.

The suit is "Spears v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No.
C08-00868-HRL," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Howard R. Lloyd,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael David Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group, P.C.
          12304 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Suite 109
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          Fax: 310-442-7756
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. (jnk@ssem.com)
          Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, P.C.
          The 26th Floor
          Koppers Building
          436 Seventh Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-642-2300
          Fax: 412-642-2309

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert J. Pfister, Esq. (rpfister@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 29th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-407-7500
          Fax: 310-407-7502

               - and -

          Martin L. Fineman, Esq. (martinfineman@dwt.com)
          Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
          505 Montgomery Street
          Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6533
          Phone: 415-276-6500
          Fax: 415-276-6599


WRIGHT PHARMA: Chipley Residents Say 'Total Body' Causes Harm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Five Chipley residents filed a lawsuit on March 28, 2008,
against the creator and distributor of nutritional supplement
"Total Body," which they alleged caused bodily injury, The News
Herald reports.

Wes Pittman, Esq., filed the class-action suit with the 14th
Judicial Circuit Court in Chipley against Wright Pharma Inc.,
Global Nutrition LLC and Total Body Essential Nutrition Inc., on
behalf of Stockton and Tammy Hess, Margaret Thompson, Brenda and
John Adams, as well as unnamed plaintiffs who might come forward
later.

In the complaint, Mr. Pittman wrote that a batch of Total Body
Formula created by Wright and distributed by Total Body
Essential was defective and contained "an excess of selenium."

The complaint points our that "[i]n excess, selenium is a toxin
to humans and causes, among other things, hair loss, severe
muscle cramps, motor neuron death leading in some cases to
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease), nausea,
vomiting and diarrhea, and endocrine disturbances including
thyroid hormone and insulin regulation problems."

The plaintiffs, Mr. Pittman wrote, suffered one or more of these
symptoms.

The suit seeks payment of damages as well as a directive for
Total Body and Wright to stop distributing its product.

Mr. Pittman told The News Herald that Total Body Formula has
been distributed throughout Northwest Florida.

"Many people have used the product for years," he said.  "I am
aware of some who have used it for 10 years without untoward
effects.  However, some bad lots have recently been produced and
the people who ingest the bad lots, which contain an excess of
selenium, experience profound and progressive effects within
days.  The problems caused by excessive selenium in the diet are
dramatic enough that an episode of the television series 'House'
was devoted to it."

According to The News Herald, Mr. Pittman warned the bad batches
of this product, "which are on the shelves of pharmacies and
nutritional companies, should not be purchased or used because
they are very dangerous to health."

"People who have bought and consumed Total Body Formula should
stop using it and should preserve any unused portion in the
original packaging in their refrigerators as evidence in case
symptoms develop," he further told The News Herald.  "They are
also urged to seek prompt medical diagnosis and care from a
physician trained in neurology and toxicology."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a warning on
March 27, saying it has information on 23 people in Florida who
"experienced serious reactions to these products seven to 10
days after ingestion."  The administration advised consumers not
to "purchase or consume Total Body Formula" in tropical orange
and peach nectar flavors, or the mega formula in the
orange/tangerine flavor.

The FDA says the product has been distributed in 15 states,
including Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee.  Andrea
Turner, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Department of Health,
told The Associated Press that three people in her state have
suffered hair loss and diarrhea after ingesting Total Body
Formula.


* Italy's New Class-Action Law to Take Effect July 1
----------------------------------------------------
On December 21, 2007, the Italian Parliament passed the Budget
Law 2008, which finally introduced into the Consumer Code a
specific statutory provision (Article 140-bis) giving certain
associations the capacity to sue collectively for tort
liability, unfair trade practice, and anti-competitive behavior,
Mondaq News reports.  The new law will become effective on
July 1, 2008.

Under the new class-action law, Mondaq writes, bodies acting on
behalf of consumers or investors will be able to obtain a
declaratory judgment of the right to obtain compensation and the
refund of sums due.

Standing to bring such a claim to protect consumers' interests
has been granted to a few entities:

    * Consumer associations with a nationwide presence; and

    * Any other consumer group, investor group, or association
      sufficiently representative of collective interests
      (as assessed by the judge).

Those consumers and users who intend to benefit from the
protection afforded by the class-action proceedings must notify
the plaintiff of the class action according to this fixed
procedure:

1. First Phase

   At the first hearing, the court, having heard the parties and
   gathered brief information (to the extent necessary), will
   examine the claim to assess admissibility.

   -- The claim is declared inadmissible when it is clearly
      groundless, when there is a conflict of interest, or
      whenever the judge does not ascertain the existence of any
      collective interest deserving protection pursuant to this
      article.

   -- Should the judge declare the admissibility of the claim,
      the plaintiff is ordered to duly advertise the content of
      the claim, in order to enable consumers to opt into the
      action and take part in the proceedings; actions are also
      taken for the continuation of the proceedings.

   Consumers may opt into the collective action by a simple
   written notice (without any particular formality) to the
   plaintiff, which must be sent no later than the hearing for
   conclusions (i.e., the post-trial hearing).  The consumers
   will be bound by the result.  The final decision shall also
   produce legal effects on the consumers and users who have
   joined the class action.  On the other hand, individual
   consumers or users who have not joined the class action or
   intervened in the proceedings shall maintain the right to
   bring individual actions.

2. Second Phase

   The second phase of the proceedings will consist of a trial
   to obtain the substantive declaration and the criteria for
   calculating loss.  The judge shall set the criteria to be
   used to calculate the amount to be paid or given back to the
   individual consumers and users who have joined the class
   action or intervened in the proceedings.  The judge shall
   also establish the minimum amount to be paid to each consumer
   or user, if this is possible, on the basis of the documents
   at his or her disposal.

   Within 60 days of the service of the decision, the company
   shall make its offer for payment, by way of a written deed to
   be served upon any entitled party and to be filed with the
   clerk's office.  Any form of proposal accepted by the
   consumer or user shall be enforceable.

   If the company fails to make its offer within 60 days, or if
   the offer is not accepted during that time, the president of
   the court shall appoint a Camera di Conciliazione
   (conciliation committee) to set the amounts to be paid or
   given back to the consumers and users who have joined the
   class action or intervened and who so request. The Camera di
   Conciliazione is composed of a lawyer duly indicated by the
   Plaintiff and a lawyer indicated by the summoned company, and
   it is chaired by a lawyer appointed by the president of the
   court.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

HUMANA INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing in KY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced with the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Humana, Inc. between Feb. 4,
2008, and March 11, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the company's securities and
causing class members to overpay for the securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 27,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J.  Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410-986-0036


MICHAEL BAKER: Bronstein Announces Securities Suit Filing in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announced that a class action
lawsuit has been filed with the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock Michael Baker Corporation for the period
March 19, 2007, through and including February 22, 2008.

The complaint alleges that during the class period mentioned
above, MBC and certain individual defendants Richard L. Shaw,
William P. Mooney, and Craig O. Stuver violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements
regarding MBC's financial results.  After the close of the
market on February 22, 2008, MBC announced that it would be
restating previously issued financial statements for the first,
second and third quarters of 2007 because of errors in those
financial statements.

As a result of the restatement, MBC's previously reported net
income of $18.0 Million for the first three quarters of 2007 was
materially overstated by as much as $12.5 Million.  MBC is still
evaluating whether or not the 2007 false financial reporting
would impact previously issued audited consolidated financial
statements for 2006.  Upon the announcement, shares of MBC fell
24% from its close of 36.10 on February 22, 2008, to $27.57 on
February 23, 2008, a one day decline of $8.53 per share.

For more information, contact:

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Eitan Kimelman
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         60 East 42nd St., Suite 4600
         New York, NY 10165-0006
         Phone: 212-697-6484


MONEYGRAM INTL: Brian Felgoise Declares Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., announced that a
securities class action has been commenced with the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
shareholders who acquired MoneyGram International, Inc.
securities between January 24, 2007, and January 14, 2008,
inclusive.

The action charges the company and certain key officers and
directors of violating the federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

For more information, contact:

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq.
          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, Pennsylvania 19046
          Phone: (215) 886-1900
          e-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net


NEUROMETRIX INC: Brualdi Announces Securities Suit Filing in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. announced that a class action lawsuit
was commenced with the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of NeuroMetrix Inc. between October 27, 2005, and
March 6, 2007, inclusive.

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

NeuroMetrix designs, develops and markets medical device
products that aid physicians in the diagnosis and treatment of
diseases of the nervous system and neurovascular disorders, as
well as provide regional anesthesia and pain control.  In
particular, The NC-stat System, the Company's neuropathy
diagnostic system, is comprised of disposable single-use
biosensors which are placed on the patient's body to perform
nerve conduction studies.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and
prospects.  Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or
indicate the following:

     (1) that health insurers were routinely and increasingly
         denying reimbursement, and raising payment issues, for
         procedures using the NC-stat System;

     (2) that field practitioners had raised serious concerns
         about the NC-stat System's efficacy;

     (3) that the Company had not applied for its own insurance
          billing code, but instead had instructed doctors to
          use billing codes for competing needle procedures;

     (4) that the Company was giving kickbacks to doctors by
         providing free sensors in exchange for referring other
         doctors to the NC-stat System;

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

     (6) that the Company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading at all relevant times.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 16,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Tali Leger (tleger@brualdilawfirm.com)
          Director of Shareholder Relations
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006  
          Phone: (877) 495-1877 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/


TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Brower Piven Declares Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced with the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of TETRA Technologies Inc.
between January 3, 2007, and October 16, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 27,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J.  Piven
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/986-0036




                            *********

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 research,
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, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and
Peter Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  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  * * *