CAR_Public/081013.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, October 13, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 203
  
                            Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Fla. Suit Over Travel Insurance Refunds
BANK OF AMERICA: Manipulated ARS Market, California Suit Says
CALIFORNIA: Court Orders Faster Youth Parole-Revocation Hearings
CHEMVALLEY PROPERTIES: Proposes to Settle 2006 Tire Fire Suit
DEL MONTE: Discovery Ongoing in Florida "Blaszkowski" Lawsuit

DEL MONTE: Defendants Want Pet Food & Snack Lawsuit Decertified
DEL MONTE: Oct. 14 Hearing Set for $24MM Settlement in N.J. Suit
DELL INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Texas
DELL INC: Texas Court Dismisses Certain Claims in ERISA Lawsuit
EINSTEIN NOAH: Settles Several Employees' Lawsuits in California

GEORGIA: State Secretary Sued Over Voter Identity Verification
HANSEN NATURAL: Notifies Shareholders of Deadline in Calif. Suit
JOS. A. BANK: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending in Maryland
CINCINNATI: Suit Challenges Prohibition of Partisan Politics
PARKER-HANNIFIN: Wants Marine Hose Price-Fixing Suit Dismissed

PERINI CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Massachusetts
SAKS INC: Settles Alabama Lawsuit Over Merchandise Return Fees
SEMTECH CORP: Calif. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
WET SEAL: Plaintiffs Dismiss FCRA Violations Suits in California


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

FANNIE MAE: Whatley Drake Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Files Ariz. Securities Suit
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Federman Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
PRIMARY FUND: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
QUEST RESOURCE: Cohen Milstein Files Okla. Securities Fraud Suit

SPECTRANETICS: Brian Felgoise Files Colorado Securities Lawsuit



                           *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Fla. Suit Over Travel Insurance Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Circuit of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and
for Palm Beach County, Florida, alleging AmEx refuses to refund
travel insurance it charges cardholders who cancel their trips,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a putative class action complaint brought on behalf of
all American Express Credit Card holders who American Express
knowingly and illegally charged with travel insurance paid for
an American Express credit card even though the travel for which
the insurance was obtained was canceled in advance.

The plaintiff demands judgment for damages, injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs, and for any other
relief that the court considers just and appropriate.

The suit is "Irving Kass, et al. v. American Express Company, et
al., Case No. 50 2008 CA 030762," filed in the Circuit of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Gerald F. Richman, Esq.
          John R. Whittles
          Richman Greer, PA
          One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1504
          250 Australian Avenu South
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-803-3500
          Fax: 561-820-1608


BANK OF AMERICA: Manipulated ARS Market, California Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging insiders at the bank manipulated the market for auction
rate securities to increase their profits at the expense of
small investors, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit states that Kenneth Lewis, Bank of America Chairman,
CEO and President, and the other directors "stabilized" the
market for auction rate securities, in which the company
invested heavily, when the market showed any signs of not being
liquid.  Their illegal maneuvers included bidding on their own
accounts without informing customers, allowing revised bids to
be submitted after the market deadline and collaborating with
some customers by having them bid at auctions and then
compensating them in the secondary market with rates higher than
the clearing rate set at the auction.

According to the report, by 2007, more auctions were failing
than succeeding as the market began to implode.  The directors
allegedly sold the securities to unsuspecting investors, leaving
thousands of investors with millions of dollars of highly
illiquid and essentially worthless investments.

The scheme could cost the company billions of dollars in
settlements, fines and lost business and has made it the subject
of investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and
the New York Attorney General, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs want their money back, more corporate oversight
for Bank of America and other relief the court deems
appropriate.

The suit is "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement
System, et al. v. Kenneth D. Lewis, et al., Case No. C 08 4651,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Karl Olson, Esq.
          Levy, Ram & Olson LLP
          639 Front St., 4th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-433-4949


CALIFORNIA: Court Orders Faster Youth Parole-Revocation Hearings
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton has ordered reforms to
the parole revocation system for California juveniles, including
an accelerated schedule of hearings to quickly determine whether
revocation is merited, Denny Walsh writes for the Sacramento
Bee.

According to the report, the Sacramento judge earlier ruled that
the failure of state authorities to hold probable cause hearings
and appoint counsel for juvenile parolees violated the U.S.
Constitution and two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

SacBee relates that Judge Karlton issued a statewide permanent
injunction ordering state officials to:

   * notify a juvenile parolee of the charges within three days
     of placing a hold on the parolee.  

   * make sure a juvenile parolee has an attorney throughout the
     revocation process.

   * provide a hearing within eight business days after
     notification of the charges if a defense lawyer has made a
     good argument there is no basis to hold the parolee.  
     Otherwise, provide a hearing within 13 days of the hold to
     find out if there is probable cause to detain the parolee.

   * convene a final revocation hearing on or before the 35th
     calendar day after placement of the hold.

   * set up "a clearer, prompt appeal system," with appeals of
     revocation to be decided within 10 business days.

The report notes that under the injunction's terms, those and
other changes in juvenile parole revocations must be implemented
by Dec. 15.

The class action lawsuit was filed more than two years ago
challenging the way California treats juveniles arrested on
alleged parole violations, SacBee recounts.

According to SacBee, the injunction's provisions were earlier
agreed to by attorneys for juvenile parolees, Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, and state officials in charge of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of
Juvenile Justice, Board of Parole Hearings, and Juvenile Parole
Board.

Judge Karlton retains jurisdiction over the case to enforce the
terms of the injunction.  He has appointed a special master --
Chase Riveland, who is a corrections consultant from Deer
Harbor, Wash. -- to monitor compliance.

"There should be a more accurate outcome of revocation actions,
because the parolee now will have the ability to understand and
make an intelligent contribution to the proceedings," said
Michael Bien, Esq., an attorney for the parolees.  "The state
has also committed to consider alternatives to re-incarceration,
such as drug treatment programs and halfway houses," he added.
"That's good for public safety, good for the state, and good for
our clients."

The injunction "will definitely strengthen the parole system and
make sure it protects the rights of youths as well as the
public," Chuck Supple, executive officer of the Juvenile Parole
Board, said.  "We've already met a number of requirements of the
order. . . .  Since February, every youth has been provided with
legal counsel. Since April, every youth has received a probable
cause hearing."

As of Oct. 1, there were 2,207 juvenile parolees, 1,826 of which
were out of custody and under supervision, the report points
out.  There were 127 unaccounted for, with warrants issued for
their arrests.  Moreover, of the 254 parolees pending revocation
proceedings, 173 were confined at local jails or juvenile halls,
and 81 confined to a state juvenile or adult facility.

SacBee says that other mandates of Judge Karlton's injunction
include:

   * Sentencing of a juvenile for a parole violation will be
     fixed and no more than a year;

   * A disabled juvenile parolee will be given more time with an
     attorney to prepare for hearings, supplied with forms that
     accommodate the disability, and provided -- as needed --
     with interpreters, hearing aids, computer readers and
     magnifying devices; and

   * A grievance process will be put in place to address claims
     that disability accommodations were denied.


CHEMVALLEY PROPERTIES: Proposes to Settle 2006 Tire Fire Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     CHARLESTON, W.Va., Oct. 9, 2008 -- A notification program
began as ordered by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia, to alert those who lived in the Nitro or St. Albans
area on May 4, 2006, during the tire fire in connection with a
proposed settlement involving a class action lawsuit against
ChemValley Properties, Inc. (including employees, officers, and
directors) and U.S. Tire Recovery, LLC (including members and
partners).

     The lawsuit alleges that approximately 40,000 tires were
stored in the Nitro warehouse that burned and that the amount of
tires stored in the warehouse posed a danger to area residents
due to the risk of toxic fumes and vapors if the tires caught
fire.

     The lawsuit also claims that the fire caused property
damage, the loss of use and enjoyment of property, loss of
property value, inconvenience and emotional distress.

     The settlement does not mean that any law was broken or
that the Defendants did anything wrong.  The Defendants deny all
legal claims in this case.

     The Class includes homeowners and leaseholders (including
renters) who lived in the Nitro or St. Albans area on May 4,
2006 and were part of the shelter-in-place advisories issued
during the tire fire.  The local authorities in Nitro and St.
Albans issued warnings to their residents to remain indoors
during the tire fire.  The shelter-in-place advisories were
issued for residents in the area that included Nitro/St. Albans
Bridge to 40th Street in Nitro, West Virginia, and the area from
2nd Street to Ordinance Park in St. Albans, West Virginia.  A
map of the area included in the settlement is available.

     Notices informing Class members about their legal rights
will be mailed, and are scheduled to appear in a local newspaper
leading up to a hearing on December 15, 2008, when the Court
will decide whether to grant final approval to the settlement.

     The Court has appointed The Calwell Practice, PLLC law firm
of Charleston, West Virginia to represent the Class as "Class
Counsel."

     Those affected by the settlement can send in a claim form
to ask for payment, or they can ask to be excluded from, or
object to, the settlement.  Claim forms must be postmarked no
later than January 7, 2009.  Only one claim per household is
allowed.  The deadline for exclusions and objections is
December 1, 2008.

More details regarding the Nitro Fire Settlement can be found at
http://www.NitroFireSettlement.com/


DEL MONTE: Discovery Ongoing in Florida "Blaszkowski" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class-action lawsuit,
captioned "Blaszkowski et al. v. Mars Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21221-CMA," which was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida and named Del Monte Foods
Co. as one of the defendants.

The suit was filed against companies having a combined
approximate 70% of the market share in the $16-billion-a-year
pet food industry (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2008).

Aside from Del Monte, the defendants in the suit are:

          -- Mars Inc.
          -- Proctor and Gamble Co.
          -- Colgate Palmolive Company
          -- Nestle U.S.A. Inc.
          -- Nurto Procucts Inc.
          -- Menu Foods, Inc.
          -- Menu Foods Income Fund
          -- Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
          -- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
          -- Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.
          -- Pet Supermarket, Inc.
          -- Petsmart Inc.
          -- Target Corp.
          -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The plaintiffs -- Renee Blaszkowski, Amy Hollub and Patricia
Davis -- allege that the defendant-companies have spent
$300 million a year in making false and misleading marketing
statements regarding the contents of their pet food to the dog
and cat loving American public.

While these defendants tout their pet food products as choice
cuts of prime beef, chunks of chicken, fish, fresh wholesome
vegetables and whole grains to induce consumers to buy them,
plaintiffs contend the food is actually made from "inedible"
slaughterhouse waste products of the human food chain such as
spines, heads, tails, hooves, hair, and blood.

The lawsuit alleges rendering companies who process this waste
have also added other inedible "waste" such as euthanized cats
and dogs from veterinarian offices and animal shelters, road
kill, zoo animals, rancid restaurant grease, toxic chemicals and
additives.  Additionally, dead animals and those declared unfit
for human consumption due to disease and illness are also placed
in the mix, the plaintiffs contend.

The lawsuit further alleges that pet food companies market their
products as wholesome, choice cuts of meat, natural and complete
and balanced diets even though they are fully aware that this
food is largely carbohydrates and sugars combined with toxic
preservatives and additives with very little to no meat at all.

The class includes all persons in the U.S. who purchase, or have
purchased, pet food produced, manufactured, advertised,
marketed, distributed and sold by any of the defendants which
lead consumers to believe that they were purchasing, including,
but not limited to, "wholesome," "gourmet," premium," "natural,"
"balanced" and "complete," pet food that was marketed as having
certain ingredients when in fact the pet food contained
ingredients that were not represented in the defendants'
marketing of the pet food and which the defendants never
disclosed to the plaintiffs or class representatives or the
class prior to purchase.

Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises,
include:

     (a) whether defendants advertised, marketed and sold pet
         food as healthy, human-like and nutritionally balanced
         when it contained, including but not limited to, toxic
         and dangerous ingredients and chemicals, including but
         not limited to, animal bones, blood, pus, intestines,
         ligaments, tongues, esophagi, cancerous meat,
         euthanized dogs and cats, sodium barbital, and
         penthobarbital and failed to fully disclose such facts
         in advertising;

     (b) whether the defendants knowingly sold pet food that
         contained toxic, dangerous and adulterated ingredients
         and chemicals and failed to disclose such facts;

     (c) whether the defendants advertised, represented or held
         itself out as producing or manufacturing pet food
         products that were, including but not limited to, safe,
         healthy balanced and complete for pets of the
         plaintiffs and class members when in fact such pet food
         was not safe, healthy, balanced or complete;

     (d) whether defendants expressly warranted these pet food
         products;

     (e) whether defendants expressly purported to disclaim any
         express warranty on these pet food products;

     (f) whether defendants purported to disclaim any implied
         warranty on these pet food products;

     (g) whether any limitation on any warranty failed to meet
         its essential purpose;

     (h) whether defendants' intended that the products be
         purchased by the plaintiffs and the class members or
         others;

     (i) whether defendants' intended that the class would feed
         the products to their pets;

     (k) whether defendants' were negligent in manufacturing or
         processing the pet food products;

     (l) whether the purchase and use of pet food to feed
         cats and dogs resulted in loss, injury, or damages to
         the plaintiffs and the class;

     (m) whether the defendants' negligence proximately caused
         loss or injury or damage to the plaintiffs and the
         class;

     (n) whether the plaintiffs and the class suffered damages;

     (o) whether the defendants were unjustly enriched be
         selling consumers pet food that was adulterated, did
         not comport with their own marketing, contained toxic
         substances, and was not nutritionally complete as
         advertised;

     (p) whether the defendants marketing and advertising was
         false and deceptive under applicable state laws; and

     (q) whether the defendants violated applicable consumer
         statutes requiring that the defendants not to commit
         deceptive or unfair trade practices to the detriment of
         the consumer.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, ask the court:

     -- for an order awarding actual consequential damages;

     -- pursuant to Section 501.2075, for $10,000 for each
        violation of willfully using a method, act, or practice
        declared unlawful under Section 501.204;

     -- for pre- and post-judgment interest to the class, as
        allowed by law;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- the return of wrongful, revenue, and benefits, to the
        extent, and in the amount deemed appropriate by the
        court and such other relief the court deems just and
        proper to remedy defendants' unjust enrichment;

     -- for an order awarding punitive damages; and

     -- for an order granting such other and further relief as
        allowed by law.

The company has filed various motions to dismiss the Blaszkowski
case, which requests were denied by the court.  

On April 11, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
complaint.  The company has filed an answer to the fourth
amended complaint and is now involved in discovery.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 27, 2008.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f36

The suit is "Blaszkowski et al. v. Mars Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21221-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Catherine J. MacIvor, Esq. (cmacivor@mflegal.com)
          Maltzman Foreman PA
          2 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2300
          One Biscayne Tower
          Miami, FL 33131-1803
          Phone: 305-358-6555
          Fax: 374-9077


DEL MONTE: Defendants Want Pet Food & Snack Lawsuit Decertified
---------------------------------------------------------------
A state court in Las Vegas, Nevada, has yet to rule on a motion
to deny certification of a class in a purported class-action
lawsuit over Del Monte Foods Co.'s and other defendants'
recalled pet foods and snacks.

The lawsuit, "Picus v. Del Monte," was filed on April 30, 2007,
and generally alleges that the plaintiffs' pets suffered injury
or death as a result of ingesting the company's and other
defendants' contaminated pet food and pet snack products.  It
also contains allegations of false and misleading advertising by
the company.  

The plaintiffs in the matter are seeking class certification as
well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief against
further distribution of the allegedly defective products.

On Oct. 12, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Picus case.  The state court granted in part and denied in part
the dismissal.

On Dec. 14, 2007, other defendants in the case filed a motion to
deny class certification.  The court has not issued a ruling on
that motion.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 27, 2008.

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


DEL MONTE: Oct. 14 Hearing Set for $24MM Settlement in N.J. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
scheduled a hearing on Oct. 14, 2008, to consider final approval
of the proposed $24,000,000 settlement in the matter entitled  
"In re Pet Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1850,"
which names Del Monte Foods Co. as one of the defendants.

Beginning with the pet food recall announced by Menu Foods,
Inc., in March 2007, many major pet food manufacturers,
including Del Monte, announced recalls of their own select
products.  The company currently believes there are over 90
purported class action suits relating to these pet food recalls.

The company is currently a defendant in these specific cases,
related to its pet food and pet snack recall:

       -- "Carver v. Del Monte," filed on April 4, 2007, in the
          U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
          California;

       -- "Ford v. Del Monte," filed on April 7, 2007, in the
          U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
          California;

       -- "Hart v. Del Monte," filed on April 10, 2007, before
          the state court in Los Angeles, California;

       -- "Schwinger v. Del Monte," filed on May 15, 2007, in
          the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
          Missouri; and

       -- "Tompkins v. Del Monte," filed on July 13, 2007, in
          the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The named plaintiffs in these cases allege that their pets
suffered injury or death as a result of ingesting the company's
and the other defendants' allegedly contaminated pet food and
pet snack products.

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Carver, Ford, Hart, Schwinger,
and Tompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
purported pet food class action suits under the federal rules
for multi-district litigation (In re Pet Food Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1850).

The plaintiffs and the defendants in the multi-district
litigation cases, including the five consolidated cases in which
the company is a defendant, have tentatively agreed to a
settlement deal to resolve their dispute.

On May 30, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.  Pursuant to the Court's order, notice of the
settlement was disseminated to the public by mail and
publication beginning June 16, 2008.  

A hearing on a final settlement approval and class certification
has been scheduled for Oct. 14, 2008.

If approved, the class will be certified and the total
settlement will aggregate $24 million.  The portion of the
company's contribution to this settlement, if approved, would be
$0.25 million.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 27, 2008.

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


DELL INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dell, Inc., and several of its current and former directors and
officers are still facing a consolidated securities fraud class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas.

Initially, four putative securities class-action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas against Dell and certain of its current and former
officers.  These complaints have been consolidated as "In re
Dell Inc. Securities Litigation" and Judge Sam Sparks named
Union Asset Management Holding AG as lead plaintiff in the
matter.

The lead plaintiff has asserted claims under sections 10(b),
20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based
on alleged false and misleading disclosures or omissions
regarding our financial statements, governmental investigations,
known battery problems, business model, and insiders' sales of
the company's securities.

The action also includes the company's independent registered
public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a
defendant.

The company reported no development regarding the matter in its
Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2008.

The suit is "In re Dell, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:06-cv-00726-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court of for the
Western District of Texas, Judge Sam Sparks, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James M. Hughes, Esq. (jhughes@motleyrice.com)
          Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. (lantonino@motleyrice.com)
          Motley Rice LLC
          P.O. Box 1792, 28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Phone: 843-216-9000
          Fax: 843-216-9290


DELL INC: Texas Court Dismisses Certain Claims in ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
dismissed certain claims in a consolidated class-action lawsuit
entitled "In Re Dell, Inc. ERISA Litigation," filed against
Dell, Inc.

Initially, several putative class-action suits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the the Western District of Texas by
purported participants in the Dell 401(k) Plan.  These actions
were later consolidated and lead plaintiffs have been appointed
by the court.

The lead plaintiffs have asserted claims under ERISA based on
allegations that Dell and certain current and former directors
and officers imprudently invested and managed participants'
funds and failed to disclose information regarding its stock
held in the 401(k) Plan.

On June 23, 2008, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss as to the plaintiffs' claims under ERISA based on
allegations of imprudence, but the court denied the dismissal
motion as to the claims under ERISA based on allegations of a
failure to accurately disclose information, according to the
company's Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1,
2008.

Dell, Inc. -- http://www.dell.com/-- is a technology company,  
which offers a range of product categories, including desktop
personal computers (PC), servers and networking products,
storage, mobility products, software and peripherals, and
services.  The company designs, develops, manufactures, markets,
sells, and support a range of products that in many cases are
customized to individual customer requirements.


EINSTEIN NOAH: Settles Several Employees' Lawsuits in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc., reached a settlement for
several purported class-action lawsuits in California that were
filed by various company employees.

                     Mathistad Litigation

On Sept. 18, 2007, Eric Mathistad, a former store manager, filed
a putative class-action lawsuit against Einstein Noah Restaurant
Group, Inc., before the Superior Court of California for the
State of California, County of San Diego.  

The plaintiff alleges that the company failed to pay overtime
wages to "salaried restaurant employees" of its California
stores who were misclassified as exempt employees, and that
these employees were deprived of mandated meal periods and rest
breaks.  

On Nov. 14, 2007, Bernadette Mejia, another former store
manager, filed a similar case and these cases were subsequently
consolidated.  

                        Weber Litigation

On Feb. 8, 2008, non-exempt employees Gloria Weber and Hakan
Mikado filed a putative class-action suit against the company in
the Superior Court of California for the State of California,
County of San Diego.  

The plaintiffs allege that the company failed to pay minimum
wages, failed to pay overtime and failed to provide rest periods
and meal breaks, among other charges.  

On Aug. 27, 2008, the company reached an agreement in principle
for the settlement of these lawsuits with the plaintiffs.  These
settlements provide for payment of up to an aggregate of
$2.5 million by the company.  Each settlement is subject to
completion of a settlement agreement to be signed by the
parties, preliminary and final court approvals and the
participation of a sufficient percentage of each of the putative
classes, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2008 Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Aug. 27, 2008.

Lakewood, Colorado-based Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. --
http://www.einsteinnoah.com/-- commenced operations as an  
operator and franchisor of coffee cafes in 1993, is an
owner/operator, franchisor and licensor of bagel specialty
restaurants in the U.S.  As of Jan. 2, 2008, the company has 612
restaurants in 35 states plus the District of Columbia primarily
under the Einstein Bros. Bagels (Einstein Bros.), Noah's New
York Bagels (Noah's) and Manhattan Bagel Co. (Manhattan Bagel)
brands.  Its restaurants specialize in foods for breakfast,
lunch and afternoon snacks in a café atmosphere with a
neighborhood emphasis.  Collectively, concepts span the nation
with Einstein Bros. restaurants in 32 states and in the District
of Columbia, Noah's restaurants in three states on the west
coast and Manhattan Bagel restaurants concentrated in the
Northeast.  Einstein Bros. and Noah's restaurants are company-
owned or licensed, while Manhattan Bagel restaurants are
predominantly franchised, with one company-owned location.


GEORGIA: State Secretary Sued Over Voter Identity Verification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Voting rights groups sued Secretary of State Karen Handel on
behalf of Cherokee County resident Jose Morales who they said
has been the victim of a methodical effort to deny him the right
to vote, Aaron Gould Sheinin and Mary Lou Pickel write for The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Atlanta, seeks to
halt the state of Georgia's attempts to verify the identities
and citizenship of registered voters so close to the Nov. 4
election.  The suit also seeks to become a class action.

U.S. District Judge Jack Camp scheduled a hearing on Friday
morning on a request for a temporary restraining order.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution relates that the suit comes the day
after the U.S. Department of Justice said the state's actions to
verify identity and citizenship appear to violate the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.  The law requires states with a history of
discriminatory voting practices to get approval from the federal
government before making certain changes to voting and election
policy.

"The Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act
were intended to protect voters from 'October surprises,' the
last-minute purging of registered voters on questionable data,"
said Neil Bradley, associate director of the ACLU Voting Rights
Project, one of the groups representing Morales.

Secretary Handel said in a press release issued Thursday night
that she is "disappointed" with the lawsuit.  "Unfortunately,
some groups appear to want to open the door to allow non-
citizens to register and vote in the General Election," she
wrote.

County election officials still have more than 100,000 voter
registration applications to process, Ms. Handel said.  Her
office will ensure that all applications are processed and
verified for election day, she added.

As for the dispute with the Department of Justice, Secretary
Handel's spokesman, Matt Carrothers, said in a telephone
interview with Atlanta Journal-Constitution that his office is
working with the attorney general to address the Justice
Department's questions.  

The report notes that Mr. Morales, who will graduate from
Kennesaw State University in December with a bachelor's degree
in international affairs, became a U.S. citizen in November
2007.  He registered to vote last month, but about two weeks
later, he received a letter from Cherokee County indicating he
would not be able to vote unless he provided evidence of his
citizenship, the lawsuit said.  The letter also indicated
Morales would be eliminated from the voter list if he did not
prove his citizenship.

The suit also said that Mr. Morales went through the steps
needed to prove his citizenship, including making a visit to the
county Elections and Registrations Office and showing his
passport to the clerk.  He was told he would soon be receiving
his voter registration card in the mail.  He received the card
Oct. 3, the lawsuit said.

However, earlier last week, Mr. Morales received another letter
from the office indicating he may not be qualified to vote
because he may not be a U.S. citizen, the lawsuit said.  It said
if Morales did not contact the Cherokee Elections and
Registration Office before Oct. 15 or appear at a court hearing
on the same date, his name would be removed from the list of
registered voters.

"Despite all the steps he has gone through, Mr. Morales' right
to vote is still being threatened," the lawsuit said.  "Mr.
Morales wants to vote, particularly in the upcoming election,
and wants to make sure his vote is counted."

Also representing Mr. Morales are the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, the New York-Based Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Atlanta attorney Brian
Spears.

As of the first week of October, Secretary Handel's office told
Atlanta Journal-Constitution it had asked counties to check the
status of 2,675 individuals statewide whose driver's license
records indicated they were not citizens, but who had registered
to vote.  Some counties, like Cobb and Cherokee, scheduled
hearings where voters' citizenship could be verified.  Cobb
County had already canceled plans for those hearings, because of
the Justice Department's letter.

In Cobb and Fulton counties, elections officers say they only
got lists of voters with questionable citizenship in September,
and they acted on them promptly.  Cobb County spokesman Robert
Quigley said the Cobb elections office received notice Sept. 12
that it should look up a state report outlining voters whose
citizenship was questioned.

The secretary of state's office sent out another letter on
Sept. 24 to all counties clarifying what they should do to check
citizenship.  Cobb County then sent out 234 letters to voters
asking them to produce proof of citizenship or come to a hearing
Oct. 13 to determine the matter.

In the meantime, 99 people mailed, faxed or personally brought
documents that verified their citizenship to the Cobb office.
Others never received the letter in the first place because they
had moved, Mr. Quigley said.

Cobb County on sent out 135 letters notifying voters it had
canceled this week's hearing.  "We made the decision to cancel
this on our own," Mr. Quigley said.  "We knew it hadn't been
pre-cleared by the Department of Justice and it could be a
problem."

Fulton County, on the hand, sent out 130 letters after it
received the Sept. 24 letter from the secretary of state's
office, April Pye, interim director of the Fulton County
Department of Registration and Elections, told Atlanta Journal-
Constitution.

"That was the only list we have received from the secretary of
state's office," Ms. Pye said.  "I don't know how often we were
supposed to get them, or mail them out."

The state is also facing questions from the Social Security
Administration over the state's high volume of requests to
verify voter identities, the report relates.  Georgia's
2 million requests surpassed those of any other state.  Only
newly registered voters who did not have a valid state
identification were supposed to be checked against the SSA
database.

The state double-checks information on all newly registered
voters and also on established voters if they have changed their
name, driver's license number or Social Security number, Mr.
Carrothers explained.

The Help America Vote Act requires states to verify voter
information using those databases.

According to the report, a mismatch, and thus a question about a
voter’s eligibility, could be triggered by a name change, such
as for a marriage or divorce, that's reported to a county voter
registration office, but that doesn't appear in one of the other
government databases.  For new citizens, the letters could be
triggered if someone applied for a license when they had a green
card, but subsequently became a citizen.


HANSEN NATURAL: Notifies Shareholders of Deadline in Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     PR-USA.net, Bulgaria -- There is a deadline coming up in
the shareholder lawsuit against Hansen Natural Corporation
(NASDAQ: HANS) over allegedly false and misleading statements.
The deadline will expire on November 10, 2008.

     On September 11, 2008, a shareholder has filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Hansen Natural Corporation
(NASDAQ: HANS) common stock during the period between May 23,
2007, and November 8, 2007 against Hansen Natural Corporation
over alleged materially false and misleading statements
concerning its sales of certain energy drinks, etc.

     According to the complaint Hansen Natural Corp. and certain
of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

     The stockholder alleges that between May 23, 2007, and
November 8, 2007, the defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements.  The lawsuit states that on November 8,
2007, Hansen Natural Corp. issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the third quarter of 2007, the period
ended September 30, 2007.

     For the quarter, the Company reported lower than expected
revenue growth and decreasing profit margins.  According to the
complaint this earnings announcement, shares of the Hansen
Natural Corp.'s common stock fell $13.17 per share, or 23%, to
close at $43.50 per share, on heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact:

          Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
          3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 423
          92108 San Diego
          Phone:+1-858-779-1554  
          Fax:+1-858-605-5739


JOS. A. BANK: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., is still facing a consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.  

Initially, a lawsuit was filed by Roy T. Lefkoe on July 24,
2006, against the company and Robert N. Wildrick, the company's
chief executive officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.  The case takes the civil action number
1:06-cv-01892-WMN.

On Aug. 3, 2006, another lawsuit substantially similar to the
Lefkoe suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland by Tewas Trust UAD 9/23/86.  This suit
takes civil action number 1:06-cv-02011-WMN.

The Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as
those in the class action and purported to assert the same
claims and seek the same relief.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the Lefkoe lawsuit and the Tewas Trust Action
were consolidated under case number 1:06-cv-01892-WMN and the
Tewas Trust Action was administratively closed.

Massachusetts Labor Annuity Fund has been appointed the lead
plaintiff in the consolidated class action and has filed a
consolidated class action complaint.

R. Neal Black, the company's president, and David E. Ullman, the
company's executive vice president and chief financial officer,
have been added as defendants.

On behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between Dec. 5,
2005, and June 7, 2006, the class action purports to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the company's
disclosures during the class period.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 2,
2008.

The suit is "Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-01892-WMN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Judge William M. Nickerson, presiding .

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)
         Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC
         John Wanamaker Bldg., Ste. 450, Juniper and Market Sts.
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 1-215-561-3600
         Fax: 1-215-561-3000

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
         (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 1-212-937-7220
         Fax: 1-212-230-8888


CINCINNATI: Suit Challenges Prohibition of Partisan Politics
------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati City workers challenge the city's prohibition on
doing political work on their own time in a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the report, Cincinnati prohibits city workers from
donating to election campaigns or participating in partisan
politics, even outside of work.  Two city workers say that's
unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs say they also want to donate to other candidates
for other offices, and to distribute campaign literature -
outside of work.  The Cincinnati City Charter prohibits this.
The City Council amended the ordinance recently, but it's still
unconstitutional, the plaintiffs say.

The amendment makes it legal for city workers to make "voluntary
financial contributions for office in non-Ohio federal
elections," but still bars distributing "partisan campaign
literature."  

This action is brought under the provisions of Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
all employees of the City of Cincinnati other than elected
officials or those in the Legislative Service.

The plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- certify this action as a class action pursuant to Fed.
        r. Civ. Proc. 23(a) and (b)(2);

     -- issue a declaratory judgment that the practices at issue
        in this case violate the constitutional and statutory
        rights of the class members;

     -- award compensatory damages to the class representatives
        in an amount to be shown at trial;

     -- issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against the
        defendants and all those acting in concert with
        prohibiting the practices at issue in this action;

     -- award to plaintiffs reasonable costs, expenses and
        attorney fees;

     -- award such other and further relief as the court shall
        deem just and reasonable.

The suit is "Keith Fangman, et al. v. City of Cincinnati, Case
No. 1:08CV702," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, Esq.
          (agerhardstein@gbfirm.com)
          Jennifer L. Branch, Esq. (jbranch@gbfirm.com)
          Andrea Reino, Esq. (areino@gbfirm.com)
          Gerhardstein & Branch LPA
          432 Walnut Street, Suite 400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-621-9100
          Fax: 513-345-5543
          Web site: http://gbfirm.com/


PARKER-HANNIFIN: Wants Marine Hose Price-Fixing Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parker-Hannifin Corp. and Parker ITR SLR are seeking the
dismissal of a consolidated class-action suit accusing them of
"conspiring to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices of
Marine Hose."

Marine Hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transport oil
between ships, terminals, buoys and tanks (Class Action
Reporter, May 14, 2008).

Initially, four purported class-action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida:

       -- "Shipyard Supply LLC v. Bridgestone Corporation, et
          al.," filed May 17, 2007;

       -- "Expro Gulf Limited v. Bridgestone Corporation, et
          al.," filed June 6, 2007;

       -- "Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Trelleborg
          Industrie S.A., et al.," filed June 25, 2007;

       -- "Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Caleca, et al.,
          filed July 12, 2007; and

One suit -- "Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Bridgestone Corporation, et
al." -- was filed in the Southern District of New York on
July 27, 2007.

The company is named as a defendant in one case and it filed an
answer in that matter.  Parker ITR filed a motion to dismiss
each of the four cases in which it is a defendant.  However,
these dismissal motions were denied as moot after all five cases
were consolidated in the Southern District of Florida as 08-MDL-
1888.

On March 24, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action complaint that alleges that the defendants, for a period
of approximately 21 years, conspired with competitors in
unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix,
maintain or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate markets and
customers for marine oil and gas hose in the U.S.

The plaintiffs generally seek treble damages, a permanent
injunction, attorneys' fees, and pre-judgement and post-
judgement interest.

The company and Parker ITR have filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its Aug. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

Parker-Hannifin Corp. -- http://www.parker.com/-- is a full-
line diversified manufacturer of motion control products,
including fluid power systems, electromechanical controls and
related components.  In addition to motion control products, the
Company also is a producer of fluid purification, fluid and fuel
control, process instrumentation, air conditioning,
refrigeration, electromagnetic shielding and thermal management
products and systems.  Its manufacturing, service, distribution
and administrative facilities are located in 35 states and in 42
foreign countries.  Its motion control technology is used in the
products of its three principal business segments: Industrial,
Aerospace, and Climate & Industrial Controls.  The products are
sold as original and replacement equipment through product and
distribution centers worldwide.  Parker products are supplied to
over 427,000 customers in manufacturing, transportation and
processing industry.  


PERINI CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
Perini Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2008 Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Aug. 25, 2008.

Perini Corp. was named a defendant in a lawsuit filed William B.
Isham filed on Aug. 18, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.  The suit alleges securities law
violations against Perini and three current and one former
company executives (Ronald N. Tutor, Robert Band, Michael E.
Ciskey and Kenneth R. Burk).  The suit is seeking to create a
class of those who purchased Perini stock between Nov. 2, 2006,
and Jan. 17, 2008.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants issued
press releases, filed reports with the SEC and made other public
statements that purportedly contained material
misrepresentations or omissions regarding the future prospects
for Las Vegas construction projects, and that these
misrepresentation and omissions purportedly had the effect of
supporting an artificially high trading price of Perini's common
stock.  

On Jan. 17, 2008, Perini issued a press release announcing that
the developer of one of its Las Vegas projects had received a
default notice from its bank lender the prior day.  The
plaintiff, who alleges he owns Perini stock, also alleges that
this announcement and stock sales by the individual defendants
made prior to Jan. 17, 2008, support his claims regarding
Perini's prior disclosures about the Las Vegas construction
market.

The plaintiff seeks certification of the matter as a class-
action suit, and unspecified damages allegedly incurred by
Perini shareholders who had purchased stock during the putative
class period.  

The suit is "Isham v. Perini Corp. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-
11449-NMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134

Representing the defendants are:

          Eric D. Levin, Esq. (elevin@haslaw.com)
          Hinckley, Allen and Snyder, LLP
          28 State Street
          30th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-378-4136
          Fax: 617-345-9020

               - and -

          Anthony S. Fiotto, Esq. (afiotto@goodwinprocter.com)
          Goodwin Procter, LLP
          Exchange Place
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-570-1324
          Fax: 617-523-1231


SAKS INC: Settles Alabama Lawsuit Over Merchandise Return Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saks, Inc., reached a settlement deal for a purported class-
action lawsuit pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama over breach of contract
allegations.

Adamson Apparel, Inc., filed the suit on Dec. 8, 2005.  The
plaintiff alleges that the company improperly assessed
chargebacks, timely payment discounts, and deductions for
merchandise returns against members of the plaintiff-class.  The
suit seeks compensatory and incidental damages and restitution.

On June 8, 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
which was approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central
District of California on July 30, 2008.  

Pursuant to the settlement, on Aug. 18, 2008, the company paid
the plaintiff $370 in settlement of the claims (of which the
company was reimbursed approximately $118 from an unrelated
third party), at which time the lawsuit was formally dismissed,
according to the company's Sept. 2, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 2, 2008.

The suit is "Adamson Apparel, Inc. v. Saks Inc., Case No. 2:05
cv-02514-SLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard T. Dorman, Esq. (rtd@cbycb.com)
         Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder & Brown
         P.O. Box 66705
         Mobile, AL 36660
         Phone: 1-251-471-6191

         Rachel J. Geman, Esq. (rgeman@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-355-9500
         Fax: 212-355-9592

              - and -

         David J. Guin, Esq. (davidg@dglawfirm.com)
         Tammy McClendon Stokes, Esq. (tstokes@dglawfirm.com)
         Donaldson & Guin, LLC
         The Financial Ctr., 505 20th Street, North Suite 1000
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-503-4505
         Fax: 205-226-2357

Representing the defendant is:

         Andrew J. Sinor, Jr., Esq. (dsinor@handarendall.com)
         Hand Arendall, LLC
         1200 Park Place Tower, 2001 Park Place North
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-324-4400
         Fax: 205-397-1310


SEMTECH CORP: Calif. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted a motion that sought the consolidation of two purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuits against Semtech Corp.

Initially, the company was named as a defendant in two purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuits that were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In August 2007, a purported class-action suit was filed against
the company and certain current and former officers on behalf of
persons who purchased or acquired Semtech securities from
Sept. 11, 2002, until July 19, 2006.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges violations of federal securities
laws in connection with the company's past stock option
practices.

The plaintiffs demand a jury trial but make no specific monetary
demand.

A very similar lawsuit was filed in October 2007 by another
plaintiff, which suit has not been served to the company.

In February 2008, MPERS filed a motion with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California for consolidation
of the cases, appointment of MPERS as lead plaintiff, and
approval of selection of counsel.  The MPERS motion was granted
in late March 2008, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 27, 2008.

The suit is "Middlesex County Retirement System, et al. v.
Semtech Corp. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-07114-CAS-FMO," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge Christina A. Snyder, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Alan I. Ellman, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          e-mail: info@labaton.com

               - and -

          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. (mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com)
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160

Representing the defendants are:

          Colleen Elizabeth Huschke, Esq.
          (colleenhuschke@paulhastings.com)
          Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
          3579 Valley Centre Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: 858-720-2500

               - and -

          Robert W. Brownlie, Esq.
          (robert.brownlie@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-699-3665
          Fax: 619-699-2701


WET SEAL: Plaintiffs Dismiss FCRA Violations Suits in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in purported class-action lawsuits against The
Wet Seal, Inc., over alleged violations of credit rules are
dismissing their cases against the company, according to the
company's Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2,
2008.

In January 2007, a class-action complaint was filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging violations of The Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Act provides in part that portions of the credit card number
may not be printed together with expiration dates on credit or
debit card receipts given to customers.  It imposes significant
penalties upon violators of these rules and regulations where
the violation is deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise,
damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the card
holder.

In February 2007, a second class-action complaint was filed
against the company alleging similar violations in the same
court.  Both parties in the February 2007 complaint have agreed
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  

On Dec. 11, 2007, the company reached a tentative agreement to
settle the January 2007 suit for less than $0.1 million.

However, prior to the receipt of the executed settlement
agreement, on Feb. 8, 2008, the company was named in another
action, alleging the same violation, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As a result, the company withdrew its offer to settle the
January 2007 action.  

On June 3, 2008, the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification
Act of 2007 was enacted.  This measure amends the FCRA to
declare that a company that printed an expiration date on any
receipt provided to a consumer cardholder at the point of sale
or transaction between Dec. 4, 2004, and the enactment of this
legislation, but otherwise complied with FCRA requirements for
such receipt, will not be in willful noncompliance by reason of
printing such expiration date in it.

On July 1, 2008, and July 14, 2008, dismissals were filed by the
plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court Central District of
California and the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania, respectively.  

The company made nominal settlement payments for both claims and
all parties agreed that the actions were dismissed with
prejudice and that each party was to bear all of its own costs
and attorneys fees.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a  
national specialty retailer operating stores selling apparel and
accessory items designed for female customers aged 13 to 35.  As
of Feb. 2, 2008, the company operated 494 retail stores in 47
states, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.  Its products can also
be purchased online.  The company operates two nationwide,
primarily mall-based, chains of retail stores under the names
Wet Seal and Arden B. Wet Seal is the junior apparel brand for
teenage girls that seek trend-focused and value competitive
clothing with a target customer age of 13 to 19 years old.  Wet
Seal seeks to provide its customer base with a balance of
affordably priced fashionable apparel and accessories.  Arden B
is a fashion brand for the feminine contemporary woman with sex
appeal.  Arden B targets customers aged 25 to 35 and seeks to
deliver contemporary collections of fashion separates and
accessories for various aspects of the customers' lifestyles.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

FANNIE MAE: Whatley Drake Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 8, 2008 -- Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC
(WDK) filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Fannie Mae's 8.25% Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-
Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series S between December 11, 2007,
and September 5, 2008, inclusive.

     Investors who purchased the Series S preferred stock during
the Class Period are eligible to pursue lead plaintiff status in
this case, and can use the counsel of their choice.

     In the complaint, filed on October 8, 2008, plaintiffs
allege that the defendants -- including several former officers
and directors of Fannie Mae and the underwriters responsible for
the Series S preferred stock offering -- knew or recklessly
disregarded that Fannie Mae was grossly undercapitalized, in
violation of Federal regulations, because of its overwhelming
investments in subprime and Alt-A mortgages.  These assets were
not properly accounted for in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).  Fannie Mae's capital deficiency
also was concealed because its deferred tax assets and guaranty
obligations were not properly accounted for in violation of
GAAP.

     Since Fannie Mae was placed in conservatorship by the
federal government, the price of its Series S preferred stock
has declined precipitously from the $25 offering price and
reached a low of $1.51/share -- roughly 94% less than its
offered value -- on September 18, 2008.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 7, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 205-328-9576
          Web site: http://www.wdklaw.com/


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Files Ariz. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD, Oct. 6, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, commenced a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.
during the period between October 30, 2003, and September 24,
2008, inclusive.

     The complaint charges Medicis and certain of its officers
and directors with violations under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

     The Complaint alleges that on September 24, 2008, Medicis
announced that it intends to restate its financial statements
for all accounting periods beginning July 1, 2003, and ending
June 30, 2008.

     The complaint also alleges that the Company indicated that
investors can no longer rely on these financial statements and
that the restatements result from Medicis applying an improper
accounting method in determining reserves for sales returns
during the Class Period.

     The complaint further alleges that the release of this
information by Medicis caused the value of the Company's stock
price to decline significantly.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
December 2, 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, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030
          email: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Federman Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, Oct. 8, 2008 -- On October 3, 2008, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona against Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp.

     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 October 30, 2003, through
September 24, 2008.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          e-mail: wfederman@aol.com
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


PRIMARY FUND: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN DIEGO, Oct. 8, 2008 -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP commenced a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or held the
shares of the Primary Fund (NASDAQ:RFIXX) money market mutual
funds offered by The Reserve Fund during the period from
September 28, 2007, to September 16, 2008, inclusive, including
purchasers and holders in connection with its September 28, 2007
offering.

     The complaint charges The Reserve Fund, its parent and
affiliates and certain of its officers and trustees with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

     The Reserve Fund is a cash management vehicle for
institutions, banks, brokerages, advisors and individual
investors and is an open-end, management investment company.

     On September 16, 2008, The Reserve Fund announced with
respect to the Primary Fund that the value of the debt
securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (face value
$785 million) and held by the Primary Fund had been valued at
zero and, as a result, the net asset value of the Primary Fund
was $0.97 per share.  This was major news, as this was only the
second time in history that a money market fund had "broken the
buck" -- that is, reported a share's value was less than a
dollar.

     According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
omitted from the Prospectus and other statements made by
defendants during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (a) the Fund was no longer adhering to the stated
         objectives of preserving capital, but in an effort to
         achieve greater yields was pursuing riskier
         instruments;

     (b) despite the fact that many observers believed Lehman
         would be the next Wall Street failure after Bear
         Stearns collapsed in March 2008, the Fund continued to
         hold large amounts of Lehman commercial paper; and

     (c) the Fund's internal controls were inadequate to prevent
         defendants from taking on excessive risk.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers or holders of the Primary Fund during the Class
Period.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days
from September 18, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
                 619-231-1058


QUEST RESOURCE: Cohen Milstein Files Okla. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, Oct. 7, 2008 -- The law firm Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., has filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the
common units of Quest Energy Partners L.P. ("Quest Energy" or
the "Company") (NasdaqGM:QELP) pursuant and traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering (the
"IPO") on November 7, 2007, through August 25, 2008, and on
behalf all persons who purchased the securities of Quest
Resource Corporation (NasdaqGM:QRCP) between May 2, 2005,
through August 25, 2008.

     The Complaint charges Quest Energy and its parent company,
Quest Resource, among others, with violations of federal
securities laws.  Quest Resource is engaged in the exploration,
development, production and transportation of natural gas.

     Quest Energy is the gas and oil production operation arm of
Quest Resource and engages in the acquisition, exploitation and
development of oil and natural gas properties.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Quest Resource, and Quest Energy's
business and operations were materially false and misleading.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that related party transactions, which existed at the
time of Quest Energy's IPO, between Quest Energy and Rockport
Energy -- an entity controlled by Quest Energy's chief executive
officer, violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and
SEC regulations.  These failures by defendants caused Quest
Resource's disclosures on related party transactions to be
materially incomplete and false.

     On August 25, 2008, the Company announced, among other
things, the resignation of its CEO, Jerry Cash, the formation of
a Joint Special Committee to conduct an investigation of
improper transfers of Company funds by Cash to Rockport Energy,
and an inquiry launched by the Oklahoma Department of Securities
in connection with the improper transfers.

     This announcement shocked the market and caused the
Company's stock to fall $2.05 per share, or nearly 30%, to $4.88
per share on August 25, 2008.  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages on behalf of Class members.

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

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          Javier Morla, Esq. (jmorla@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: 888-240-0775
                 202-408-4600


SPECTRANETICS: Brian Felgoise Files Colorado Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, PA, Oct. 7, 2008 -- The Law Offices of Brian
M. Felgoise, P.C., commenced a securities class action lawsuit
against The Spectranetics Corporation and certain key officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, on behalf of shareholders who acquired The
Spectranetics Corporation securities between April 19, 2007, and
September 4, 2008, inclusive.

     The action charges that defendants violated 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. (FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net)
          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Phone: 215-886-1900






                            *********

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  * * *