CAR_Public/080714.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 14, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 138
  
                            Headlines

ACTION PRODUCTS: Recalls Charm Craft Kits on Lead Exposure Risk
ALLERGAN INC: Botox Kills and Injures Consumers, Suit Claims
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls Lawn Mowers Due to Laceration Hazard
CHRYSLER LLC: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Sebring Engines Warranties
CONVECA ASSOCIATES: Faces Lawsuit Over Severely Damaged Building

CROCS INC: More Lawsuits Loom Over "Dangerous" Footwear
FAF INC: Recalls Lip Gloss-Jewelry Sets on Lead Exposure Risk
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Florida Securities Suit for $6.87MM
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Judge Recuses Himself from 3 Lawyers' Trial
IOWA: Law Firms Voluntarily Dismiss Suit Over Immigration Raid

JOSEPH GRANT: Faces Suit in Ontario Over "C. Difficile" Outbreak
LEVI STRAUSS: Parties Seek Approval for Calif. Suit Settlement
LOUIS VUITTON: Ill. Judge Won't Dismiss Dior Lipstick Lawsuit
NEBRASKA BEEF: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over E. Coli Food Poisoning
OSB LITIGATION: Settles Pennsylvania Antitrust Suit for $45 Mln.

PACIFICARE LIFE: Faces California Suit Over Breach of Contracts
PACIFICARE: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada for Reusing Syringes
PARRAGON INC: Recalls Kids' Necklaces Due to Lead Exposure Risk
PHILIPPINE MAGAZINES: Sued by Baptist Sect for Obscene Content
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces California Suit Over "QuickPick" Program

TOMOTHERAPY INC: Roy Jacobs Amends Wis. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
VIRGINIA: Fairfax County Defendant in Huntington Flood Lawsuit
WACHOVIA CORP: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in New York
WASHINGTON NATIONAL: Faces Fla. Home Health Care Insurance Suit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Lawsuit



                           *********


ACTION PRODUCTS: Recalls Charm Craft Kits on Lead Exposure Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Action Products International Inc., of Ocala, Fla., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 18,500 units Children's Charm Craft Kits.

The company said the clasp in the charm craft kits contains high
levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and
can cause adverse health effects.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves "Super Dooper Charms" (item #63403) and
"Shoelace Charms" (item #67310) children's charm craft kits.  
The craft kits contain components (i.e., charms, beads, wire,
clasps) to assemble necklaces, jewelry accessories, or charms
that can be hooked on shoelaces, backpacks, or used as zipper
pulls.  The item number can be found on the back of the package.

These recalled craft kits were manufactured in China and were
being sold through various retailers nationwide from July 2007
through April 2008 for about $17 for the "Super Dooper Charms"
kit and $6 for the "Shoelace Charms" kit.

Pictures of the recalled craft kits are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08327a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08327b.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08327c.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08327d.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled product
away from children and contact Action Products International for
instructions on returning it for a free replacement.

For more information, contact Action Products International at
800-772-2846 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit the company's Web site at http://www.apii.com/


ALLERGAN INC: Botox Kills and Injures Consumers, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Botox users and their families have filed a class action lawsuit
against Allergan, Inc., claiming the company failed to
adequately warn users of the drug's dangers, Consumer Affairs
reports.

According to Consumer Affairs, the suit claims that the drug
killed at least three people, including a seven-year-old girl
with cerebral palsy who got Botox injections to help control
spasticity in her limbs.

The report recounts that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
said in February this year that Botox was being injected at an
alarming rate among children, especially those who are being
treated for limb spasticity associated with cerebral palsy.
The FDA noted that neither Botox nor a similar product, Myobloc,
was approved for such use in the U.S. and said there have been
deaths associated with the usage of the two treatments among
children.

In March, Allergan said it had received a subpoena from the U.S.
Justice Department seeking documents regarding Botox promotional
practices, the report further recalls.  The company said its
understanding was that the inquiry involves questions regarding
alleged off-label promotion relating to the use of Botox for the
treatment of headache.

The FDA earlier said that it knew of no deaths among adults.  
However, the class action suit, filed in California's Orange
County Superior Court, stated that a 69-year-old Texas nurse and
a 71-year-old woman both died after receiving Botox injections.

According to the report, the nurse had been receiving injections
for neck and shoulder pain, while the 71-year-old, who lived in
Arizona, was taking Botox at a mall clinic for wrinkles around
her mouth.  The suit says she had trouble breathing and
swallowing after the treatment and died a short time later.

All three cases of death involved uses of Botox that are not
approved by the FDA, Consumer Affairs points out.

In addition, the suit charges that Botox left at least 12 other
patients with a range of disabilities, including some who were
taking the drug for approved uses, such as smoothing frown
lines.

The suit also charges that several of the plaintiffs were
hospitalized and now suffer from chronic, life-altering
conditions, including difficulty swallowing.

"Thousands of people are getting these injections with no
warning to speak of," Ray Chester, Esq., one of the lawyers
representing plaintiffs in the suit, told Consumer Affairs.

The report explains that Botox and Myobloc are designed to block
nerve impulses to certain muscles, causing them to relax.  Both
products are approved to treat cervical dystonia, or
uncontrolled muscle contractions of the neck and shoulder
muscles.  Botox is also approved for cosmetic use to treat
wrinkles between the eyebrows and to help control excessive
underarm sweating.

Consumer Affairs further notes that in some cases, the toxic,
active ingredient in Botox and Myobloc -- a derivative of
botulism toxin Type A, one of the deadliest poisons known -- can
affect respiratory muscles and cause difficulty swallowing, a
condition known as dysphagia.  Both products warn doctors and
consumers of that side effect.

The FDA said in February that what is new is that it appears the
active ingredient in Botox can spread from distant parts of the
body -- such as children's leg muscles -- to muscles that affect
breathing rather than being just a local event as previously
believed.

The report also relates that in January 2008, consumer group
Public Citizen said it found 16 deaths reported with usage of
Botox or Myobloc from November 1997 through 2006.  The group
filed a petition with the FDA seeking the agency's strictest
black-box warning discussing difficulty swallowing, pneumonia as
a result of food getting into the lungs and, in rare instances,
death from pneumonia.

Allergan maintains the drug is safe and says millions of people
have taken it with no problems, the report notes.


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls Lawn Mowers Due to Laceration Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Corp., of Torrance, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 20,500 Honda Lawn Mowers.

The company said the lawn mower's rear shield can break off
allowing debris to be thrown toward the operator, which poses a
laceration hazard to consumers.

American Honda has received one report of a shield breaking off
the lawn mower.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves HRX walk-behind lawn mowers with model
numbers HRX217(K)2HXA and HRX217(K)2HMA.  The model and serial
number are printed on a label located on the upper rear of the
mower deck.  Serial numbers included in the recall are MAGA-
1500001 through 1520532.  The recalled lawn mowers are red with
"HONDA" written on the bag.

These recalled lawn mowers were manufactured in the United
States and were being sold by authorized American Honda Motor
Corp. dealers and Home Depot stores nationwide from October 2007
to June 2008 for about $900.

Pictures of the recalled lawn mowers are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08328a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08328b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
lawn mowers and contact their local Honda Lawn and Garden dealer
to schedule a free repair.  Registered owners of the recalled
lawn mowers have been contacted by direct mail notification.

For additional information, contact Honda at 800-426-7701
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit Honda's Web site at http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/


CHRYSLER LLC: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Sebring Engines Warranties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler LLC is facing a class-action complaint before the
District Court of Manhattan over allegations that the 2.7 liter
engine used in Chrysler's Sebring and other models fails
prematurely and Chrysler won't honor its warranty to fix or
replace the engine, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the complaint, the engine was used in 1998-2003
Chrysler Sebrings and Concordes, and Dodge Intrepids and
Stratuses.

Named plaintiff Stephanie Newman Durst says she bought a new
2003 Sebring with a 70,000 mile warranty.  She says the engine
seized up under normal conditions at 52,000 miles, and when she
took it to her dealer in Newburgh, she "was informed by that
dealership that they were instructed by representatives of
DaimlerChrysler Corporation not to honor the warranty by
repairing the vehicle."

The complaint claims the engines require "enhanced maintenance"
because, "among other things, the engine was prone to
accumulation of oil sludge in the passageways of the cinder
block, resulting in inadequate oil circulation to the engine
valves, pistons and camshafts.  This caused the engine parts to
eventually seize, resulting in catastrophic engine failure and
permanent seizure of the engine."

Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan, Chrysler LLC --
http://www.chrysler.com/-- offers cars and minivans, pick-up
trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans under the Chrysler,
Jeep, and Dodge brand names.  It also sells parts and
accessories under the MOPAR brand.

The company has dealers worldwide, including Canada, Mexico,
U.S., Germany, France, U.K., Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela,
China, Japan and Australia.


CONVECA ASSOCIATES: Faces Lawsuit Over Severely Damaged Building
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit, filed in the Court of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia County (Penna.), claims that the Grandview
Condominiums were built in a severely damaged building,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The case arises out of the purchase of condominium units by
buyers who had no knowledge, or means of knowing, at the time of
their purchases that the condominium had severe structural
damage; structural damage that will now cost over $2 million to
repair.

The complaint alleges that each purchaser paid for a condominium
unit on the seller's express promise and warranty that there
were no structural problems; and on the express report of an
export consultant and engineer that there were no structural
problems; and on the express report of an expert consultant
engineer that there were no visible structural problems despite
the fact that such problems did exist and the experience and
expertise of the seller and the consulting engineer made such
problems known to them and recklessly disregarded.

The plaintiffs demand more than $2 million from:

     -- Conveca Associates Limited Partnership,
     -- JMB Investors,
     -- Landamerica Assessment Corp.,
     -- Landamerica Commercial Services,
     -- National Assessment Corp., and
     -- Conveca general partner Michael Grasso.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all unit
purchasers in the Grandview who purchased their units either
directly from Conveca or from another unit owner that had
purchased directly from Conveca.

The plaintiffs demand judgment for:

     -- damages in the amount of their cost of repairing the
        structural damage to the common elements;

     -- interest thereon;

     -- treble damages pursuant to 73 Pa. C.S. Section 201-
        9.2(a);

     -- reasonable attorneys fees and legal costs pursuant to 73
        Pa. C.S. Section 201-9.2(a); and

     -- any other relief that the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Ronald T. Kelly, et al. v. Conveca Associates
Limited Partnership et al.," filed in the Court of Common Pleas
in Philadelphia County (Penna.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          S. David Fineman, Esq.
          Gary A. Krimstock, Esq.
          Lee Applebaum, Esq.
          Joshua B. Horvitz, Esq.
          Fineman, Krekstein & Harris, PC
          Mellon Bank Center, 6th Floor
          1735 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-893-9300
          Fax: 215-893-8719


CROCS INC: More Lawsuits Loom Over "Dangerous" Footwear
-------------------------------------------------------
Crocs Inc., the manufacturer of the popular shoes, "Crocs," is
facing several lawsuits claiming the company knew the shoes were
dangerous but continued making them, 10News.com reports.

According to 10News, the latest of these legal actions against
the Crocs maker could be a class suit which a South Bay family
plans to file.

The father, who asked not to be identified to protect his
family, shared with 10News that his 6-year-old daughter had a
terrifying experience while going down an escalator at Macy's in
Fashion Valley last month.  The girl was wearing a pair of Crocs
sandals.

"As she got to the bottom, apparently, it sucked her foot into
the escalator and my wife pulled it out," the father told
10News.  The girl's mother then pulled out the damaged shoe.  
Her father said the small gaping hole on the left shoe is proof
of the accident.

"Her foot went down with that shoe.  That shoe is mangled," the  
father said.  He added that her daughter's "toes were black and
blue and it scrapped off skin off her toes."

"It was awful.  She was crying and screaming," he said.

The father said that he wants the manufacturer to take the extra
step and warn parents.  "I'd like to see Crocs change their
manufacturing so that this doesn't pose a danger to anybody," he
said.

The father further told 10News that he expects the lawsuit to
seek class-action status soon.

The Colorado-based Crocs, according to 10News, has not returned
phone calls for comments.

The report recounts that a few years ago, ABC News did a story
about the Crocs shoes, which come in all shapes, sizes and
colors.  The Crocs company told the network then "the shoes are
completely safe.  Escalators and sidewalks, in particular those
that have not received proper care and maintenance, can be
dangerous and pose a risk to the riders."


FAF INC: Recalls Lip Gloss-Jewelry Sets on Lead Exposure Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
F.A.F. Inc., of Greenville, R.I., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 30,000
Faded Glory Lip Gloss, Locket, and Bracelet Sets.

The company said the lobster claw clasp on the bracelet contains
high levels of lead, which is toxic if ingested and can cause
adverse health effects.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled three-piece sets contain a rectangle-shaped lip
gloss container, a heart-shaped locket necklace, and a charm
bracelet.  The following models are included in the recall:

     Item       Model Number UPC
     Frog Set 6709-4250       72783357703
     Monkey Set 6709-4251       72783357704
     Cat Set 6709-4252       72783357705

"Faded Glory", the model number, and UPC are printed on the
product's hangtag.

These recalled lip gloss-jewelry sets were manufactured in China
and were being sold at Wal-Mart stores nationwide from May 2008
through June 2008 for about $6.

Pictures of the recalled lip gloss-jewelry sets are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08329a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08329b.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08329c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the bracelet away from
children and return the set to any Wal-Mart store for a full
refund.

For additional information, contact F.A.F. Inc. at 800-949-3311
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.faf.com/


FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Florida Securities Suit for $6.87MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
FARO Technologies, Inc., settled for $6,875,000 a securities
fraud class action lawsuit filed against it in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District Court of Florida.
  
On Dec. 6, 2005, the first of four essentially identical class
action securities fraud lawsuits was filed against the company
and certain of its officers.

On April 19, 2006, the four lawsuits were consolidated, and
Kornitzer Capital Management, Inc., was appointed as lead
plaintiff.

On May 16, 2006, Kornitzer filed its consolidated amended class
action complaint against the company and the individual
defendants.

The Amended Complaint also named Grant Thornton LLP, the
company's independent registered public accounting firm, as an
additional defendant.

On July 31, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, which request the court granted on Feb. 3,
2007, without prejudice.

As to the company and the individual defendants, the Court's
decision primarily was based on its findings that the Amended
Complaint failed to adequately allege:

      -- scienter (i.e., intentionally fraudulent or severely
         reckless conduct) with respect to certain claims; and

      -- that certain supposed misrepresentations or omissions
         actually caused economic loss.

The Court granted Kornitzer leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint by Feb. 22, 2007.

On Feb. 22, 2007, Kornitzer filed its consolidated second
amended class action complaint against the company, the
individual defendants and Grant Thornton LLP.

In the Second Amended Complaint, as in the Amended Complaint,
Kornitzer seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly
traded securities between April 15, 2004, and March 15, 2006.

On behalf of the alleged class, Kornitzer seeks an unspecified
amount of damages, premised on allegations that each defendant
made misrepresentations and omissions of material fact during
the class period in violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Among other things, Kornitzer alleges:

      -- that the company's reported inventory, gross margins
         and profits were false and misleading during a portion
         of the class period because the company consciously
         overstated the value of its inventory;

      -- that the company misstated during 2005 certain of the
         selling expenses it had accrued and had expected to
         incur;

      -- that certain Asian sales that the company had reported
         during the class period had been the product of
         unlawful payments made in violation of the Foreign
         Corrupt Practices Act, and that the company failed to
         disclose that it was utilizing unlawful means to
         achieve such sales; and

      -- that certain of the company's statements regarding the
         company's systems of internal controls had been false
         and misleading.

On Feb. 26, 2008, the parties to the securities litigation
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding stating the principal
terms of an agreement to settle the Securities Litigation (Class
Action Reporter, April 15, 2008).

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Judge Anne C.
Conway, of United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, at 9:00 a.m., on October 3, 2008, to determine
whether the proposed settlement and the Plan of Allocation of
settlement proceeds should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, to consider the application of plaintiffs' counsel for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and to consider
the application for reimbursement of expenses of the lead
plaintiff.

Deadline to file for exclusion is on September 12, 2008.
Deadline to file for claims is on October 30, 2008.

The suit is "Goldberger v. Faro Technologies, Inc. et al., Case
No. 6:05-cv-01810-ACC-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District Court of Florida, Judge Anne C. Conway
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         John F. Edgar, Esq. (jfe@edgarlawfirm.com)
         John M. Edgar, Esq. (jme@edgarlawfirm.com)
         Edgar Law Firm, LLC
         4520 Main St., Suite 1650
         Kansas City, MO 64111
         Phone: 816-531-0033
         Fax: 816-531-3322

              - and -

         Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. (pklingman@sfmslaw.com)
         Karen M. Leser, Esq. (kleser@sfmslaw.com)
         James E. Miller, Esq. (jmiller@sfmslaw.com)
         James C. Shah, Esq. (jshah@classactioncounsel.com)
         Nathan Zipperian, Esq.
         (nzipperian@classactioncounsel.com)
         Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
         (sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com)
         Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
         Phone: 860-526-1100
                610-891-9880
                954-943-9191
         Fax: 860-526-1120
              610-891-9883
              954-943-9173

Representing the defendants are:
  
         Richard S. Davis, Esq. (rdavis@foley.com)
         Robert A. Scher, Esq. (rscher@foley.com)
         Foley & Lardner, LLP
         Phone: 407-244-3260
                212-682-7474
         Fax: 407-648-1743
              212-687-2329

              - and -

         Daniel A. Casey, Esq. (dcasey@klng.com)
         Jeffrey T. Kucera Esq. (jkucera@kl.com)
         Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP
         201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2000
         Miami, FL 33131-2399
         Phone: 305-539-3324
                305-539-3322
         Fax: 305-358-7095


FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Judge Recuses Himself from 3 Lawyers' Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge who oversaw the trial of three lawyers accused
of taking millions of dollars from their former clients has
recused himself from the case, Beth Musgrave writes for
Kentucky.com.

According to an order entered July 7, U.S. District Judge
William Bertelsman will step down as the judge in the criminal
case against the lawyers.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 25, 2008, and
in other earlier reports, three lawyers were accused of
taking more than $65 million from their former clients in a diet
drug (fen-phen) suit settlement.  Specifically,  William
Gallion, Shirley Cunningham Jr., and Melbourne Mills were
accused of taking $65 million more than what their individual
contracts with 440 clients said they should receive.  
Specifically, court records say that the lawyers were entitled
to about $60 million in fees, but took an additional $45 million
and put another $20 million into a charity they created and
controlled.

Messrs. Mills, Gallion and Cunningham have been suspended by the
Kentucky Bar Association.  A judge in a civil lawsuit regarding
the same fen-phen settlement has said the lawyers have to repay
at least $42 million to their former clients.

A subsequent CAR report on July 4, 2008, stated that a federal
jury acquitted Mr. Mills of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in
the fen-phen settlement, but was sent back to deliberate on the
case against Messrs. Gallion and Cunningham.

Kentucky.com relates that Judge Bertelsman, in an order, said
that as a senior status judge or a judge who is semi-retired, he
will no longer hear criminal cases except for some limited
cases.  The case against Messrs. Gallion and Cunningham will
thus be transferred to U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves.

According to Kentucky.com, Judge Bertelsman declared a mistrial
in the case of Messrs. Gallion and Cunningham earlier this month
after a jury deadlocked on whether the two men were guilty or
innocent of conspiring to commit wire fraud.

Defense lawyers argue that the lawyers were following the advice
of a more experienced class-action attorney and that a judge
approved their fees in the case.

Prosecutors have said they will retry the case, but a date for
that trial has not been set, the report says.


IOWA: Law Firms Voluntarily Dismiss Suit Over Immigration Raid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms behind a purported class action lawsuit against
several federal agencies and officials over a May 2008 raid at a
kosher meatpacking plant in northeast Iowa have voluntarily
dismissed their lawsuit, The Chicago Tribune reports.

Nearly 400 people were arrested as a result of the raid on
May 12, 2008, at Agriprocessors, Inc., in Postville, Iowa, which
federal officials described as the largest single Immigration
raid in the nation's history.

The suit, "Candido et al. v. US Immigration and Customs,
Enforcement et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-01015-MWB," was brought on
behalf of Antonin Trinidad Candido, Roman Trinidad Candido and
Maria del Refugio Masias -- all Agriprocessors employees -- by
the Peck Law Firm and Dornan & Lustgarten firm in Omaha,
Nebraska.  

Trish Mehaffey of The Gazette relates that the defendants named
in the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa, are:

     -- U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement;

     -- Department of Homeland Security;

     -- Julie Myers, assistant secretary of Homeland Security
        Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

     -- Claude Arnold, Immigration and Customs special agent in
        charge at Postville;

     -- Michael Chertoff, secretary of Department of Homeland
        Security and

     -- Michael Mukasey, Attorney General of the United States.

In general, the suit alleged that government agencies and
officials violated the detainees' constitutional rights,
accusing defendants of arbitrary and indefinite detention.  It
said that the immigrant workers' rights to consult with counsel
had been violated, among other claims.

The suit alleges the detainees have not had adequate time for
legal services and moving them out of Iowa to various detention
centers, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said,
would interfere with and effectively destroy the ongoing
relationship between detainees and their attorneys (Class Action
Reporter, May 19, 2008).

Joshua Weir, Esq., of the Peck Law Firm in Omaha, Neb., one of
the firms representing the workers, told Chicago Tribune that
the action was dismissed on July 1, 2008, because the demands of
the lawsuit were met.  That included keeping the detainees in
the area so they would have access to their attorneys and be
closer to their families.

The suit is "Candido et al. v. US Immigration and Customs.,
Enforcement et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-01015-MWB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Judge
Mark W. Bennett, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Amy L. Peck, Esq. (amy_peck@pecklaw.net)
          Peck Law Firm
          12020 Shamrock Plaza, Suite 333
          Omaha, NE 68154
          Phone: 402-333-4884
          Fax: 402-330-4734

Representing the defendants is:

          Sean R. Berry, Esq. (sean.berry@usdoj.gov)
          U.S. Attorney's Office
          Northern District of Iowa
          401 First Street SE
          Hach Building, Suite 400
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1825
          Phone: 319-363-0091
          Fax: 318-363-1990


JOSEPH GRANT: Faces Suit in Ontario Over "C. Difficile" Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital is facing a $50-million class-
action lawsuit before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in
connection with the hospital's 2006-07 C. difficile outbreak,
The Burlington Post reports.

Burlington Post explains that C. difficile is a bacteria which
infects the intestines and causes illness ranging from diarrhea,
nausea, vomiting, weight loss, fever, colitis and, in some
cases, death.

The plaintiffs in the case are being represented by the law
firms of Stanley M. Tick & Associates, and Sutts Strosberg LLP,
which both specialize in class-action lawsuits.

In a joint press release, the law firms stated, "The plaintiffs
allege that the defendant was negligent in the manner in which
it cleaned, maintained and disinfected Brant Hospital.  As a
result, approximately 177 patients were infected with C.
difficile and approximately 91 patients died."

For more details of the suit, contact:

          Stanley M. Tick & Associates
          Barristers & Solicitors, Notaries Public
          108 John Street North
          Hamilton, ON
          Phone: 905-523-6464
          Fax: 905-523-8080
          e-Mail: tickinfo@smtick.com
          Web site: http://www.smtick.com/

               - and -

          Sutts Strosberg LLP
          600 Westcourt Place
          251 Goyeau Street
          Windsor, ON N9A 6V4
          Phone: 519-258-9333
          Fax: 519-258-9527
          Web site: http://www.strosbergco.com/


LEVI STRAUSS: Parties Seek Approval for Calif. Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated securities fraud class action
lawsuit against Levi Strauss & Co. are asking the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to approve on
interim basis a tentative settlement of the matter.

The suit, "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case
No. C-03-05605 RMW," is in connection with the company's
April 6, 2001 and June 16, 2003 registered bond offerings.  
Aside from Levi Strauss, the suit also names as defendants:

      -- the company's chief executive officer,

      -- its former chief financial officer,

      -- its corporate controller,

      -- its directors, and

      -- its underwriters.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the selection
of lead counsel in the matter.  The action purports to be
brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's bonds who made
purchases pursuant or traceable to the company's prospectuses
dated March 8, 2001, or April 28, 2003, or who purchased the
company's bonds in the open market from Jan. 10, 2001, to
Oct. 9, 2003.

The action makes claims under the federal securities laws,
including Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, relating to the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filings and other public statements.  

Specifically, the action alleges that certain of the company's
financial statements and other public statements during this
period materially overstated its net income and other financial
results and were otherwise false and misleading, and that the
company's public disclosures omitted to state that it made
reserve adjustments that plaintiffs allege were improper.  

The plaintiffs contend that these statements and omissions
caused the trading price of the company's bonds to be
artificially inflated.  They seek compensatory damages as well
as other relief.

On July 15, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
case.  The matter came before the court on Oct. 15, 2004, and,
after oral arguments had concluded, the court took the matter
under submission.

On Sept. 11, 2007, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) and
20(a) claims in the case and dismissed the tax fraud aspects of
the Section 11 and 15 claims.  The Court also limited the
plaintiff class on the Section 11 and 15 claims by eliminating
from the class those bondholders who purchased the bonds in
private offerings and then exchanged them for registered bonds
in the subsequent exchange offer.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to the
tax-fraud claims Jan. 14, 2008, and the company stipulated with
the plaintiffs that its response will be due on or before
March 21, 2008, subject to court approval.

On Feb. 22, 2008, the parties agreed to settle the matter.

The parties finalized their settlement agreement, and filed a
request for preliminary approval of the settlement with the
court on June 18, 2008, according to the company's July 8, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 25, 2008.

The suit is "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:03-cv-05605-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq.
         Green Welling, LLP
         235 Pine Street, 15th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710
         e-mail: cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com

         Robert Gans, Esq. (robert@blbglaw.com)
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP
         12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Phone: 858-793-0070

              - and -

         Jill Manning, Esq. (jmanning@kmslaw.com)
         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         7665 Redwood Blvd., Suite 200
         Novato, CA 94945
         Phone: 415-898-8160

Representing the defendants are:

         Erin E. Schneider, Esq. (eschneider@gibsondunn.com)
         Austin Van, Esq. (aschwing@gibsondunn.com)
         Schwing of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         One Montgomery St., 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-393-8276
                415-393-8210
         Fax: 415-374-8458


LOUIS VUITTON: Ill. Judge Won't Dismiss Dior Lipstick Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois has rejected LVMH Perfumes and Cosmetics
(Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy) USA, Inc.'s appeal to dismiss a
class action lawsuit accusing the company of selling lipstick
containing lead under the Christian Dior brand, the Cosmetics
Business reports.

On Nov. 16, 2007, LMVH was faced with a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleging that its lipsticks, including Christian Dior
"Addict Positive Red," contain dangerous levels of lead.

The suit was filed by Cook County resident Pamela Stella, who
bought the lipstick in question from a Nordstrom store this
summer.  She is seeking class-action status for the suit filed
in federal court.  According to the report, Ms. Stella claims
the company knew or should have known that the Christian Dior
"Addict Positive Red" lipstick had dangerous levels of lead and
LVMH has failed to list lead as an ingredient and has not issued
a recall.

The plaintiff brings the suit as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23(a),(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who purchased lipstick
that manufactured, marketed, and distributed by LVMH, from the
offering of sale of the concerned lipstick products to the
present, containing lead.

The plaintiff asked the court to enter an order of judgment
against LVMH, including:

     -- certification of the action as class action pursuant to
        Rule 23(b)(1),(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure, and appointment of plaintiff as class
        representative and plaintiff's counsel of record as
        class counsel;

     -- damages in the amount of monies paid for the concerned
        lipstick products;

     -- damages in the amount of monies paid or to be paid for
        medical testing for lead poisoning of plaintiff and
        other members of plaintiff class;

     -- actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble
        damages, and such other relief as provided by the
        statutes cited;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary
        relief;

     -- injunctive relief enjoining LVMH from distributing,
        selling, and manufacturing adulterated cosmetics;

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

     -- all other relief to which plaintiff and members of the
        class may be entitled at law or in equity.

According to the Cosmetics Business, the Chicago judge recently
rejected LVMH's appeal not to go ahead with the case.

LVMH is an American subsidiary of the French corporation that
also make Hennessy cognac, Dom Perignon champagne and Christian
Dior perfumed and cosmetic.

The suit is "Pamela STella et al. v. LVMH Perfumes and Cosmetics
USA, Inc., Case No. 07CV6509," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Bucklo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Sharon Harris, Esq.
          Erich Schork, Esq.
          Barnow and Associates, PC
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-621-2000
          Fax: 312-641-5504

          Kevin Rogers, Esq.
          Law Offices of Kevin Rogers
          307 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 305
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-332-1188
          Fax: 312-332-0192

               - and -

          Aron D. Robinson, Esq.
          The Law Office of Aron D. Robinson
          19 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-857-9050
          Fax: 312-857-9054


NEBRASKA BEEF: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over E. Coli Food Poisoning
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska Beef, Ltd., is facing a class-action complaint before
the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio over
allegations that it id not recall 530,000 lbs. of meat in time
to prevent people from getting e. coli food poisoning,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action based upon the June-July 2008 e. coli
outbreak in Ohio caused by Nebraska Beef producing, selling and
distributing hundreds of thousands of pounds of tainted ground
beef to stores in Ohio.

The report recounts that on July 1, Nebraska Beef recalled more
than 531,000 pounds of ground beef contaminated with e. coli.  
On July 3, the company widened the recall to include more than 5
million pounds of meat.

Accoridng to CourtHouse, for many Ohioans, the recalls came too
late.  More than 39 cases of e. coli illness have already been
confirmed in Ohio and Michigan from Nebraska Beef's tainted
Meat.

This is a class action brought under Ohio R. Civ. P. 23(A),
(B)(1), and (B)(3), seeking monetary relief.

Named plaintiff Nina Schlaegal brings this action on behalf of
all Ohio claimants who have suffered personal injury caused by
Nebraska Beef's contaminated e. coli meat.  She demands a court
order:

     -- certifying this case as a class action under Ohio R.
        Civ. P. 23 (A), (B)(1), and (B)(3);

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class compensatory damages,
        attorneys' fees, and all litigation costs;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class pre-judgment interest
        and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and

        proper.
     -- awarding such other and further relie as may be just and

The suit is "Nina Schlaegel, et al. v. Nebraska Beef, Ltd., Case
No. 08CV C 07 9676," filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Franklin County, Ohio.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Mark Lewis, Esq.
          Mark Kitrick, Esq.
          Sean Harris, Esq.
          Kitrick, Lewis & Harris Co., LPA
          515 East Main Street, Suite 515
          Columbus, OH 43215-5398
          Phone: 614-224-7711
          Fax: 614-225-8985


OSB LITIGATION: Settles Pennsylvania Antitrust Suit for $45 Mln.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. agreed to pay more than $45 million to
settle the class action lawsuit entitled "In re OSB Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Reuters
reports.

According to the report, the company, which vehemently denies
that it broke any laws in its actions said it will pay
$44.5 million into an escrow account to a class of direct
purchasers of OSB -- an engineered wood made from wood chips and
used in construction.  In addition, it will pay another
$2.3 million into an escrow account for indirect purchasers of
OSB.

In a statement released to Reuters, Louisiana-Pacific Corp.  
Chief Executive Rick Frost said they are prepared to continue to
vigorously defend this matter and believe they would have
prevailed.  "However . . . the magnitude of the plaintiffs'
claims and the fact that any damages would be tripled under U.S.
antitrust laws made even a small risk of losing at trial one we
couldn't afford to take as it would have put the entire company
and our shareholders at risk," the statement added.

                      Case Background

As reported in the April 10, 2008 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania certified a class in the lawsuit composed of
consumer end-users of Oriented Strand Board who indirectly
purchased new OSB manufactured and sold by one or more of the
following manufacturers in the U.S. from June 1, 2002, through
Feb. 24, 2006:

     -- Louisiana-Pacific Corp.,

     -- Weyerhaeuser Co.,

     -- Georgia-Pacific LLC f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corp.,

     -- Potlatch Corp.,

     -- Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd.,

     -- Norbord Industries, Inc.,

     -- Tolko Industries, Inc., and

     -- J.M. Huber Corp. and Huber Engineered Woods LLC

Initially, several complaints were brought on behalf of direct
purchasers of OSB during the period from June 1, 2002, through
the present, and allege violations of the antitrust laws by
defendants' actions in reducing the available supply of OSB and
fixing the price at which it was sold.

The cases were later consolidated and a consolidated amended
class action complaint was filed on March 31, 2006.  Discovery
of millions of pages of documents and nearly 100 depositions  
were later completed.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
and denied the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the complaint and
for judgment on the pleadings in August 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 24, 2007).

For more details, contact:

          OSB Class Notice Request
          c/o The Notice Company
          P.O. Box 778
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: 1-800-401-0819
          e-mail: http://www.OSBnotice.com

The suit is "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-
00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond presiding.   

Representing the defendants are:

         William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
         1100 New York Avenue
         N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600

              - and

         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com)
         Spector Roseman and Kodroff
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300

Representing the company are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com)
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com)
         James H. Schink, Esq. (kschink@kirkland.com)
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144
                312-861-2350

              - and -   

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com)
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475


PACIFICARE LIFE: Faces California Suit Over Breach of Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacificare Life and Health Insurance and American Medical
Security Life Insurance breach are facing a class-action
complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The complaint alleges that the companies breached and canceled
contracts, in bad faith, in response to claims from
policyholders, and set them up with confusing applications.


PACIFICARE: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada for Reusing Syringes
--------------------------------------------------------
PacifiCare of Nevada, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint
before the Eighth Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, in
and for the County of Clark over allegations that its syringes
may have been reused, Nick Divito writes for CourtHouse News
Service.

The class action suit arises from the unconscionable failure of
the defendants to properly establish and implement a quality
assurance program to monitor, evaluate and regulate the medical
providers within their HMO network as required by Nevada
Administrative Code 695C.400 et seq.

The complaint alleges that PacifiCare failed to monitor and
regulate doctors in its HMO who reused syringes and may have
exposed as many as 40,000 patients to HIV and Hepatitis B and C.

This action is brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all natural
persons, current spouses and natural born children of those
persons who received anesthesia via injection from the
defendants including without limitation, the Endoscopy Center
Providers, between March2004 and Jan. 2008.

The class claims that after disease caused by the reused
syringes became public knowledge, a state investigation
"revealed that identical injection practices were followed by
(PacifiCare's) health care provides located in Northern Nevada."

Named plaintiffs Susan and Jack Sadler say PacifiCare, as an
HMO, was obligated under Nevada law to establish and implement a
quality assurance program to monitor, evaluate and regulate its
health care providers, but failed to do so.

The HMO "completely ignored (its) statutorily mandated duty to
establish and/or implement a quality assurance program," the
lawsuit states, and such negligence "resulted in the utterly
substandard, unprofessional and unsafe conditions present at the
facilities of its health care providers."

According to the complaint, the Southern Nevada Health District
in January urged about 40,000 patients to get tested for blood-
borne diseases after an investigation found that syringes and
single-use vials of anesthetics were being reused on patients at
the Endoscopy Center of Nevada-East, Desert Shadow Endoscopy
Center, the Gastroenterology Center of Nevada, the
Gastroenterology Center and the Spanish Hills Surgical Center.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

    (a) whether the plaintiffs and putative class members are
        covered by health insurance plans issued by the
        defendants;

    (b) whether each of the directly exposed plaintiffs received
        medical treatment or care from a medical provider under
        the defendants' health insurance plans or programs
        between March 2004 and Jan. 2008;

    (c) whether defendants failed to establish a quality
        assurance program as required pursuant to NAC 695C.400,
        et seq;

    (d) whether defendants were negligent in failing to properly
        establish a quality assurance program as required
        pursuant to NAC 695C.400, et seq.;

    (e) whether defendants were negligent in failing to
        implement a quality assurance program as required
        pursuant to NAC 695C.400 et seq.;

    (f) whether defendants' failure to properly establish and
        implement the quality assurance procedures required by
        NAC 695C.400 et seq., allowed the unsafe injection
        practices and procedures to occurred at the facilities
        of defendants' Endoscopy Center Providers and other
        Health Care Providers;

    (g) whether the plaintiffs and the putative class members,
        as identified, will require medical monitoring for a
        potential exposure to Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, HIV, and
        other blood-borne diseases as a result of defendants'
        conduct; and

    (h) whether the plaintiffs and the putative class members
        will require medical monitoring for emotional stress.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- certification of the class as defined pursuant to
        Nev. R. Civ. P 23(a) and 23(b)(2);

     -- declaratory and equitable relief in the form of the
        establishment of a court supervised program for medical
        monitoring of all class members as the defendants'
        expense in excess of $10,000;

     -- their attorneys' fees and costs incurred; and

     -- all such other and further relief as the court deems
        just and proper under the circumstances, including,
        without limitation, post-judgment attorneys' fees and
        costs.

The suit is "Susan Sadler, et al. v. PacifiCare of Nevada, Inc.,
et al., Case No. A566980," filed in the Eighth Judicial District
Court, State of Nevada, in and for the County of Clark.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Craig a. Marquiz, Esq.
          Marquiz Law Office
          3088 Via Flaminia Court
          Henderson, NV 89052
          Phone: 702-263-5533
          Fax: 707-263-5532


PARRAGON INC: Recalls Kids' Necklaces Due to Lead Exposure Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parragon Inc. in New York, New York, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
500,000 Children's Necklaces with Ballet Shoes Charms, imported
by Parragon Books Ltd., of the United Kingdom.

The company said the solder on the charm of the necklace may
contain high levels of lead, which if ingested by young children
can cause adverse health effects.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled necklace has a silver-colored chain with a silver-
colored charm consisting of a pair of ballet shoes and a bow.
The necklace was provided with the purchase of a children's book
entitled, The Magical Ballet Slippers (alternatively titled
Ballerina's Magical Shoes), ISBN 1405411449, published by
Parragon Books, Ltd. UPC 9781405411448 is printed on the back of
the book.

Spanish version, Las zapatillas magicas de la bailarina ISBN
1405448385; UPC 9781405448383.  French version, Les petits
chaussons magiques ISBN 1405449527; UPC 9781405449526.

These recalled necklaces with ballet charms were manufactured in
China and were being sold at retail chains and independent
bookstores nationwide from January 2003 through June 2008 for
about $7.

Pictures of the recalled necklaces with ballet charms are found
at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08326a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08326b.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08326c.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08326d.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled necklaces
away from children and contact Parragon for instructions on how
to return the necklace and receive a free children's book.

For more information, consumers can contact Parragon 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, toll-free at 888-480-2854, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.parragonrecall.com/


PHILIPPINE MAGAZINES: Sued by Baptist Sect for Obscene Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
A conservative religious denomination has filed a class action
lawsuit against several magazines in the Philippines for
allegedly corrupting the youth, Gilbert Felongco writes for
GulfNews.

According to the report, pastors and preachers of the Baptist
Christian sect last week commenced a case of "grave scandal and
publication of obscene materials" against executives of the
Philippine edition of Playboy and two other equally popular
magazines -- Maxim and FHM -- besides three local tabloids.

The case was filed before the Manila Prosecutor's office by the
group, which was led by city councilor Bienvenido Abante, who,
the report notes, is known for his conservative Christian views.

"This marks the first time that a class suit will be filed
against these magazines and tabloids," Mr. Abante said in
interviews aired by various television stations on July 8.

Top editorial staff of Playboy, and the editors and publishers
of Maxim and FHM, as well as local tabloids Sagad, Hataw and
Toro, were named as respondents in the case.

Mr. Abante argued that distribution of the publications in
Manila violated an ordinance that prohibited the printing,
publication, sale, distribution and exhibition of obscene and
pornographic acts and materials.

The complaint also stated that the publications were promoting
pornographic literature with "no educational, artistic, cultural
or scientific value."

"The publications clearly . . . intended . . . to . . . arouse
prurient interest," the complaint added.

Mr. Abante said that the class action suit would serve as a
"test case" that would facilitate new laws against the
publication of obscene material.

Earlier this year, GulfNews recounts, Roman Catholic bishops had
led mass protests against Playboy's arrival in the country.  The
opposition to the magazine eventually lost steam and the popular
men's publication finally came to be printed and published in
the country.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces California Suit Over "QuickPick" Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 2008, Carl Woodmansee filed a class action lawsuit
before the United Stated District Court for Central District of
California, seeking at least $5 million from Scientific Games,
Frank Angst writes for the Thoroughbred Times.

The Class Action Reporter, on June 5, 2008, reported a similar
complaint against Scientific Games in the Superior Court in Los
Angeles.  According to the CAR report, Scientific Games'
machines excluded the last horse from every race in its
"QuickPick" program for more than six months.

Both complaints state that "the QuickPick program excluded the
last horse in every race from the betting slips."

Mr. Woodmansee claims that he purchased Quick Pick tickets on
numerous occasions since November 1, 2007, with the
understanding that each ticket would offer a random selection of
numbers.

Thoroughbred Times notes that the suit also alleges that "there
are tens of thousands of class members," affected.

In its investigation, the California Horse Racing Board
determined that Scientific Games was aware of the programming
error in October 2007 but did not disclose the problem,
Thoroughbred Times says.

The suit is "Woodmansee v. Scientific Games Racing, LLC, et al.,
Case Number: 2:2008cv04311," filed in the United Stated District
Court for Central District of California.


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Roy Jacobs Amends Wis. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates amended its previously filed class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western
District of Wisconsin, to add an insider trading claim on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of TomoTherapy, Inc., from
October 10, 2007, through October 22, 2007.

On October 10, 2007, the Company's secondary share offering of
8.5 million shares became effective at $22.25 per share.  None
of the proceeds of the Offering were received by the Company.
Rather, the Company's Chairman, its Chief Executive Officer, its
President and its Chief Financial Officer sold a very
significant number of shares and together received tens of
millions of dollars in proceeds.

In June, Roy Jacobs & Associates has filed a class action
lawsuit charging TOMO and the officers referenced above
with violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Class Action
Reporter, June 13, 2008).

It is alleged, inter alia, that defendants concealed in the
Offering and thereafter that a larger percentage of TOMO's
revenue backlog was from for-profit entities which had ordered
multi-unit Hi-Art X-ray medical treatment systems and could be
anticipated to take delivery of the units sequentially
throughout 2008 and 2009.  Thus, contrary to defendants'
representations that order backlog would generally be recognized
as revenue within 12 months of order placement, this was not the
case with respect to the multi-unit orders, which represented an
increasingly large percentage of total backlog.

On April 17, 2008, the defendants issued a press release
announcing that TOMO would suffer a net loss for the first
quarter of 2008, and that defendants had revised materially
downward their revenue and earnings outlook for fiscal 2008.

The defendants finally admitted that that a greater percentage
of TOMO's backlogged orders were for multi-unit Hi-Art systems
ordered by for profit entities who would be expected to take
delivery of the units sequentially.  Thus, these units would
remain in backlog longer than single-unit orders and delivery
would be pushed further back in 2008 and even into 2009.

The representation that backlog could ordinarily be converted
into recognized revenue within 12 months from order placement
was finally revealed as false, incomplete, and misleading.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 29,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com)
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490


VIRGINIA: Fairfax County Defendant in Huntington Flood Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Cuneo,
Gilbert & LaDuca and The Dominion Law Center filed a lawsuit
under the Virginia Constitution against Fairfax County and the
Virginia Department of Transportation on behalf of over 100
residents of Fairfax County's Huntington neighborhood for
$20 million in compensation for damages caused by the massive
flood of Cameron Run on June 25, 2006.

In the 2006 Flood, the flow depth of Cameron Run jumped more
than seven fold, rising from about one foot deep to almost 14
feet deep.  At that magnitude, the flood waters overwhelmed the
southern bank of the Run and engulfed much of the Huntington
neighborhood.  The flood waters burst basement windows, backed
up through the storm and sanitary sewer system, and completely
filled the basements of many homes right up to the first floor
with sewage-laced water.

The 2006 Flood exposed the families living in Huntington -- many
of whom included babies, small children, and the elderly -- not
only to the immediate dangers of rapid flood waters, but to the
health risks of sewage and bacteria in the flood waters, and in
the resulting brown/gray slime left on the walls, floors,
carpets, furniture, and other household items.  The flood caused
extensive personal property damage and permanently reduced the
value of these homes.

The Virginia Constitution guarantees just compensation for
citizens when their property is damaged as a result of a public
project or action.  The Huntington complaint alleges that the
flood -- and the level of damage it caused -- was the direct
result of the building of the Beltway, which occurred before
modern environmental laws had been enacted:

     -- to build the Beltway, Cameron Run was actually moved
        from its original location to a point over 380 yards
        closer to the Huntington neighborhood.

     -- Marshland that served as an important drainage system
        for the area was also filled in to provide a base for
        the Beltway.

     -- the Beltway itself, built along the bank of the new
        channel for Cameron Run opposite the Huntington
        neighborhood, acts as a concrete wall forcing any
        overflow from the Run towards the Huntington homes.

     -- the new channel dug for Cameron Run is significantly
        narrower than it was before it was moved, and that
        channel has not been dredged since it was dug.  After
        decades of development in the area, Cameron Run has
        filled with what was estimated 10 years ago as 5 feet of
        sediment.

"Our area has benefited from the Beltway, but the way it was
built created a significant cost that the folks living in
Huntington now have to bear," said Bob Cynkar, Esq., of
Washington, DC's Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca.  "These are not
wealthy people, and it is not fair for them to pay this special
price of danger to their families, and damage to their homes and
property.  With nothing being done to protect this neighborhood,
the situation is only going to get worse.  These people live in
constant fear of being flooded every time the region experiences
a major rain storm."

To contact Mr. Cynkar:

          Robert J. Cynkar, Esq. (rcynkar@cuneolaw.com)
          Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Phone: 202-587-5063
          Fax: 202-789-1813


WACHOVIA CORP: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates commenced a class action lawsuit
against Wachovia Corp. for violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.

The Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Wachovia Savings Plan between January 23, 2007, and the present
and whose accounts included investments in Wachovia common
stock.

The Complaint alleges that Wachovia and the various Defendants
breached fiduciary duties owed to Plan participants and
beneficiaries by:

     1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
        investment in Wachovia stock;

     2) failing to properly monitor the performance of their
        fiduciary appointees;

     3) failing to disclose necessary information to co-
        fiduciaries;

     4) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
        the Class regarding the soundness of Wachovia stock and
        the prudence of investing and holding retirement
        contributions in Wachovia stock;

     5) failing to prevent breaches by other fiduciaries of
        their duties of prudent and loyal management, complete
        and accurate communications, and adequate monitoring;
        and

     6) knowingly participating in breaches.

The suit is "Wright v. Wachovia Corp. et al., Case Number:
1:2008cv05324," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Denny Chin, presiding.

For more information, contact:

          Neil Eisenbraun, Esq.
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN 55112
          Phone: 651-633-5685
          e-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com


WASHINGTON NATIONAL: Faces Fla. Home Health Care Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington National Insurance Corp., a unit of Conseco, Inc., is
facing a purported class action lawsuit in Florida over an
alleged failure to pay the maximum benefit for home health care
insurance, Chris O'Malley writes for The Indianapolis Business
Journal.

The suit was filed by Anna M. Cohen, a resident of Broward
County, Florida, on July 2, 2008, before the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.  The suit seeks more than
$5 million in damages from Washington National.

Indianapolis Business Journal cites Ms. Cohen as stating that
Washington National denied the claim on grounds she reached the
original $250,000 lifetime maximum benefit stated in her policy.  
However, the suit claims, the policy also provides for an 8%
annual increase for all benefits.

According to the report, Ms. Cohen's attorney cited a 2007 case
involving a nearly identical policy in which the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled, "it would be reasonable for
an ordinary person to conclude that all benefits increase by 8
percent each year."

The suit states that Washington National previously refunded
premiums Ms. Cohen had paid after Feb. 22, 2008, when it took
the position the lifetime maximum benefit had been reached.

The suit is "Cohen v. Washington National Insurance Corporation,
Case No. 0:08-cv-61017-WJZ," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Judge William J. Zloch,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey Michael Berman, Esq. (jberman@kpkb.com)
         Kluger Peretz Kaplan & Berlin
         Miami Center
         201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1700
         Miami, FL 33131-8424
         Phone: 305-379-9000
         Fax: 305-379-3428

              - and -

         Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. (mstewart@dreierllp.com)
         Dreier LLP
         499 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-328-6100


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against MRV Communications, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from March 31, 2003, through June 5, 2008.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more information, contact:

          K. Lynn Nunn, Esq. (kln@federmanlaw.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/




                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent 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 S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F.
Dy, and Peter A. 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  * * *