/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081021.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 21, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 209 Headlines CHATTEM INC: Faces California Lawsuit Over Garlic Supplement DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Kickback Scheme Alleged At DC Schools DYNAMEX: Appeals Court Reverses Calif. Suit Certification Denial DYNAMEX INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Claims in "Berrios" DYNAMEX INC: Tentative November 2008 Hearing Set for Calif. Suit FARES BOU: Davies Appeals Group Defamation Class Action Decision HARRIS STRATEX: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 14 HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Dismisses Motions in "Smart Chips" Suit HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Smart Chips" Lawsuits Still Pending in Canada HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Smart Chips" Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Supreme Court Denies Petition in "Digwamaje" LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces N.J. Suit Over Pharmacopeia Deal MERCURY INTERACTIVE: California Court Mulls Approving $117M Deal MINNESOTA: County Snoops On Lawyers' Phone Calls, Lawsuit Says MONSTER WORLDWIDE: N.Y. Court Orders Sending Out of Notices PAYCHEX INC: Calif. Suit Accuses Payroll Firm of Big-Time Fraud PFIZER INC: Settles Lawsuits Over Prescription Pain Killers PHARMACOPEIA INC: Faces N.J. Suit Over Ligand Merger Agreement PREMIERE GLOBAL: Calif. Court Considers Approving "Gibson" Deal TACO BELL: Dec. 12, 2008 Hearing Set for Motion in RGM's Lawsuit TACO BELL: Oct. 20 Hearing Set for "Hardiman" Labor Lawsuit VELOCITY EXPRESS: Independent Contractors' Suits Still Pending ********* CHATTEM INC: Faces California Lawsuit Over Garlic Supplement ------------------------------------------------------------ Chattem Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging it pushes its "Garlique" garlic supplement with the bogus claim that it lowers cholesterol, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other consumers who purchased, used and ingested the Product. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the defendant's practices in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of the Product were deceptive or unfair in any respect, thereby violating California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; (b) whether the defendant's practices in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of the Product were deceptive or false in any respect, thereby violating California’s False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.; (c) whether the defendant breached implied warranties in its sale of the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and class members; (d) whether the defendant breached express warranties in its sale of the product, thereby causing harm to the plaintiff and class members; (e) whether defendant's practices in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of the Product unjustly enriched defendant at the expense of, and to the detriment of, plaintiff and class members; (f) whether the defendant fraudulently marketed, promoted, advertised, labeled and sold the Product; (g) whether the defendant breached California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Civil Code Section 1750 et seq., in its sale of the Product, thereby causing harm to Plaintiff and Class members; (h) whether the defendant's conduct as set forth above injured consumers and if so, the extent of the injury. The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and for members of the general public, requests for relief, jointly and severally, pursuant to each cause of action set forth in this Complaint as follows: 1. for an order certifying that the action may be maintained as a class action. 2. for an award of equitable relief as follows: (a) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in the unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices and deceptive marketing, promotion labeling and advertising described in this Complaint; (b) requiring Defendant to make full restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained as a result of the conduct described in this Complaint; (c) requiring defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains flowing from the conduct described in the complaint; and (d) requiring Defendant to provide public notice of the true nature of the Product. 3. for actual and punitive damages under the CLRA in an amount to be proven at trial, including any damages as may be provided for by statute upon the filing of a Second Amended Complaint should the demanded corrections not take place within the thirty-day notice period. 4. for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia, Section 1780(d) of the CLRA and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. 5. for actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial for the Third, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action. 6. for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial for the Seventh Cause of Action. 7. for an award of costs and any other relief the Court might deem appropriate. 8. for pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. The suit is "Goodell v Chattem, Inc., Case Number: 2:2008at01206," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. For more information, contact: Harold M. Hewell, Esq. (hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com) Hewell Law Firm 105 West “F” Street, Suite 213 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-235-6854 Fax: 888-298-0177 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Kickback Scheme Alleged At DC Schools ----------------------------------------------------------- Haitian employees claim in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that DC Public Schools Transportation manager Michelle Smith demanded kickbacks of $50 to $150 per pay period from workers who wanted to work overtime, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Plaintiffs say only Haitian workers were subjected to this treatment, at the New York Avenue Terminal. The suit is "Saint-Jean et al v. District of Columbia Public Schools Division of Transportation et al., Case Number: 1:2008cv01769," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. DYNAMEX: Appeals Court Reverses Calif. Suit Certification Denial ---------------------------------------------------------------- An Appellate Court in California reversed an earlier order by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, refusing to certify a class in a purported labor class-action lawsuit against Dynamex, Inc. A company driver filed the suit on April 15, 2005. The lawsuit alleges that the company unlawfully misclassified its California drivers as independent contractors, rather than as employees. The suit asserted, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of the purported class claimants to overtime compensation and other benefits under California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of certain operating expenses, and various insurance and other benefits and the obligation of the company to pay employer payroll taxes under federal and state law. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Nov. 2, 2006. A hearing was held on Dec. 12, 2006, and the court denied this request. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on Jan. 5, 2007. Following the exchange of briefs, an Appellate Hearing was held in August 2008. The Appellate Court determined that the trial court's denial of an earlier motion by the plaintiff to compel disclosure of the names and contact information for all members of the putative class prejudiced the plaintiff's ability to support his motion for class certification. The ruling reversed the Denial of the Motion for Class Certification and remanded the matter for additional discovery and eventual re-hearing, according to the company's Oct. 14, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended July 31, 2008. Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada. Through its network of business centers, the company provides same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing its ground couriers. DYNAMEX INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Claims in "Berrios" --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter "Berrios et al. v. Dynamex, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-09293-RJS," have voluntarily dismissed certain of their claims in the case, which names Dynamex, Inc., as a defendant. The case is a purported class-action lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over an alleged misclassification of its drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. The suit was commenced on Oct. 17, 2007, by two former independent contractor drivers in New York against the company, alleging that the company had unlawfully misclassified its drivers in New York and in the U.S. as independent contractors rather than as employees, and the company had unlawfully failed to comply with the "Truth In Truck Leasing" and "Leasing Regulations" under U.S. Transportation Statutes. The complaint seeks relief under the New York Labor and Wage Statutes and the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act including payment of wages for all hours worked plus overtime, as well as for reimbursement of business expenses and improper deductions made from driver wages. The truck leasing claims seek unspecified amounts by which plaintiffs were underpaid and amounts for which the company had over deducted. Injunctive relief to prevent further violations is sought. Following various written discovery, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the wage claims, with prejudice, and the transportation law claims, without prejudice, according to the company's Oct. 14, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended July 31, 2008. The suit is "Berrios et al. v. Dynamex, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-09293-RJS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard J. Sullivan. Representing the plaintiffs are: Fran L. Rudich, Esq. (frudich@lockslawny.com) Locks Law Firm PLLC 110 East 55th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-838-3333 Fax: 212-838-3735 - and - Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. (nyjg@aol.com) Berger & Gottlieb 150 E. 18 St. New York, NY 10003 Phone: 212-228-9795 Fax: 212-982-6284 Representing the defendants is: Jeffrey W. Brecher, Esq. (brecherj@jacksonlewis.com) Jackson Lewis LLP 58 South Service Road Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-247-0404 Fax: 631-247-0417 DYNAMEX INC: Tentative November 2008 Hearing Set for Calif. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative November 2008 hearing is scheduled for a purported class-action lawsuit filed by independent contractor drivers against Dynamex, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 14, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended July 31, 2008. The purported class action lawsuit was filed on July 25, 2008, by two California independent contractor drivers alleging that the company's classification of California drivers as independent contractors was unlawful, and that as a consequence they were denied the benefit of various California wage laws. The plaintiffs further alleged that such misclassification constituted unfair competition under California business statutes. Because the complaint in large measure contains the same causes of action as an on-going California case filed in 2005, the company filed a Special Demurrer and a Motion to Stay further proceedings pending the outcome of the earlier action. A hearing is scheduled for early November 2008, according to the company's Oct. 14, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended July 31, 2008. Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada. Through its network of business centers, the company provides same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing its ground couriers. FARES BOU: Davies Appeals Group Defamation Class Action Decision ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONTREAL, Oct. 17, 2008 -- The Quebec Court of Appeal just released its judgment in the case of Diffusion Metromedia CMR Inc and André Arthur v. Fares Bou Malhab and granted the appeal from the decision of the trial judge. Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, with a team made up of David Stolow, Nick Rodrigo and Louis-Martin O'Neill successfully represented the appellants. The case involved a group defamation class-action launched on behalf of a group of taxi drivers in Montreal based on their claims that certain statements made by Andre Arthur during one of his radio shows was defamatory to taxi drivers in Montreal. The trial judge upheld this claim and awarded the plaintiffs $220,000 in moral damages despite the fact that there was no evidence that the 11 members of the group who testified at trial, let alone the 1089 of the members who did not, suffered any damages. A majority of the Court of Appeal held that there was no defamation of any member of the group. The majority held that the comments in question did not infringe on the reputation of any individual member of the group and that to accept the principle in this case that comments that only targeted a group and not its individual members could give rise to an action in damages on behalf of these individuals would seriously undermine the right to freedom of expression. HARRIS STRATEX: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- BENSALEM, Pa., Oct. 17, 2008 -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces a November 14, 2008, deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: HSTX) between January 2007 and July 30, 2008, inclusive, including shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc., who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks, Inc., for shares of Harris Stratex pursuant to the company's registration statement/prospectus that became effective January 8, 2007. The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Harris Stratex's business and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Harris Stratex securities. For more information, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Phone: 215-638-4847 Toll-Free: 888-638-4847 e-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Dismisses Motions in "Smart Chips" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed several motions filed by both parties in a purported class-action lawsuit entitled "In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case No. 5:05-cv-03580-JF," which was filed against Hewlett-Packard Co. over its use of "smart chips" in its inkjet printer cartridges, according to Hewlett-Packard's Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008. In general, the consolidated suit claims that the "smart chips" erroneously signal to the customer that certain inkjet printer cartridges need to be replaced before they are really empty, and include an expiration date that is allegedly not documented in marketing materials provided to consumers. Feder Litigation The suit, "Feder v. HP (formerly Tyler v. HP)," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 16, 2005, asserting breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and deceptive advertising and unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. Ciolino Litigation On Sept. 6, 2005, a lawsuit captioned, "Ciolino v. HP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Consolidation The allegations in the Ciolino case are substantively identical to those in "Feder," and the two cases have been formally consolidated in a single proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under the caption, "In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation." On Jan. 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion for summary judgment. On July 25, 2008, the court denied all three motions. The suit is "In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case No. 5:05- cv-03580-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Bruce Lee Simon, Esq. (bsimon@cpsmlaw.com) Cotchett Pitre & Simon S.F. Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road, Ste. 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650-697-6000 Fax: 650-692-3606 Representing the defendants is: Sally J. Berens, Esq. (sberens@gibsondunn.com) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-849-5300 Fax: 650-849-5333 HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Smart Chips" Lawsuits Still Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. is still facing several purported class- action lawsuits over its use of "smart chips" in its inkjet printer cartridge, according to Hewlett-Packard's Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008. The suits clam that the "smart chips" erroneously signal to the customer that certain inkjet printer cartridges need to be replaced before they are really empty, and include an expiration date that is allegedly not documented in marketing materials provided to consumers. Some of these lawsuits have been dismissed by without prejudice by the plaintiffs. Substantially similar allegations have been made against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., in four Canadian class actions, one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006, two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006, respectively, and one commenced in Ontario in June 2006, all seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses and large enterprises, including in the public and education sectors. HP's offerings span personal computing and other access devices; imaging and printing-related products and services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology and software that optimizes business technology investments, and multi-vendor customer services, including technology support and maintenance, consulting and integration and outsourcing services. During the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007 (fiscal 2007), its operations were organized into seven business segments: Enterprise Storage and Servers (ESS), HP Services (HPS), HP Software, the Personal Systems Group (PSG), the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), HP Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments. HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Smart Chips" Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. is still facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California over its use of "smart chips" in its inkjet printer cartridge. The suits claim that the "smart chips" erroneously signal to the customer that certain inkjet printer cartridges need to be replaced before they are really empty, and include an expiration date that is allegedly not documented in marketing materials provided to consumers. Some of these lawsuits have been dismissed by without prejudice by the plaintiffs. Blennis Litigation On Jan. 17, 2007, the purported class-action lawsuit, entitled "Blennis v. HP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California with allegations substantially the same as those consolidated in "In re Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case No. 5:05-cv-03580-JF." The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, according to Hewlett-Packard's Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008. The suit is "Blennis et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 5:07-cv-00333-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com) Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-217-5000 Fax: 213-217-5010 Representing the defendants is: Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. (sliversidge@gibsondunn.com) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213-229-7000 HEWLETT-PACKARD: Supreme Court Denies Petition in "Digwamaje" ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant a certiorari petition filed by Hewlett Packard Co. and numerous other multinational firms in connection with a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wherein it remanded the purported class- action lawsuit entitled "Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et al.," back to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for further proceedings. The case was filed on Sept. 27, 2002, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of current and former South African citizens and their survivors who suffered violence and oppression under the apartheid regime. The lawsuit alleges that HP and other companies helped perpetuate, profited from, and otherwise aided and abetted the apartheid regime during the period from 1948-1994 by selling products and services to agencies of the South African government. Claims are based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture Victims Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state law. The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the creation of a historic commission, compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion, punitive damages in excess of $200 billion, costs and attorneys' fees. On Nov. 29, 2004, the court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' complaint. In May 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On Jan. 24, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the plaintiffs' appeal but has not yet issued a decision. On Oct. 12, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's decision. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the Torture Victims Protection Act, but reversed the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' Alien Tort Claims Act claims, finding that it was possible for the plaintiffs to state such a claim. The Second Circuit, therefore, remanded the case to the District Court to permit the plaintiffs to attempt to plead the allegations needed to state a claim under the Alien Tort Claims Act. On Jan. 10, 2008, HP and the other defendants filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, which plaintiffs plan to oppose. On Jan. 10, 2008, HP and the other defendants filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court declined to grant for lack of a quorum on May 12, 2008, according to Hewlett-Packard's Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008. The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corp., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John E. Sprizzo, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kweku J. Hanson, Esq. 487 Main Street Harford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-728-5454 Fax: 860-548-9660 Medi Moira Mokuena 268 Jubilee Avenue Halfway House 1685, Extension 12 Republic of South Africa - and - Paul M. Ngobeni, Esq. 914 Main Street, Suite 206 East Hartford, CT 06108 Phone: 860-289-3155 508-620-4798 Representing the defendants are: Kristin M. Heine, Esq. Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP 500 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047 Phone: 973-549-7338 Fax: 973-360-9831 Web site: http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/ - and - Kristin Michele Heine, Esq. (kristin.heine@dbr.com) Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP 140 Broadway, 39th Flr. New York, NY 10005 Phone: 973-549-7338 Fax: 973-360-9831 LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces N.J. Suit Over Pharmacopeia Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in New Jersey over a proposed merger agreement with Pharmacopeia, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 10, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 14, 2008. On Oct. 10, 2008, Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Pharmacopeia, Inc., received notice that a putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County (Equity Division) by Allen Heilman, one of Phamacopeia's stockholders, against Pharmacopeia, the members of its Board of Directors, Ligand and two of Ligand's wholly owned subsidiaries. The complaint generally alleges that Pharmacopeia's Board of Directors' decision to enter into the proposed transaction with Ligand on the terms contained in the proposed merger agreement constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty and gives rise to other unspecified state law claims. The suit also alleges that Ligand and two of its wholly owned subsidiaries aided and abetted Pharmacopeia's Board of Directors' breach of fiduciary duty. In addition, the complaint alleges that the named plaintiff will seek "equitable relief," including among other things, an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the proposed transaction. Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.ligand.com/-- is an early-stage biotech company that focuses on discovering and developing new drugs that address critical unmet medical needs in the areas of thrombocytopenia, anemia, cancer, hormone- related diseases, osteoporosis and inflammatory diseases. It has formed research and development collaborations for its products with numerous global pharmaceutical companies with ongoing clinical programs at GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth, Pfizer and TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. These partnered products are being studied for the treatment of large market indications, such as thrombocytopenia, osteoporosis, menopausal symptoms and frailty. Its development programs are primarily based on products discovered through its intracellular receptor technology. MERCURY INTERACTIVE: California Court Mulls Approving $117M Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to approve the proposed $117.5 million settlement in the securities class-action lawsuit "In re: Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation," which was filed against Mercury Interactive Corp., an acquisition of Hewlett-Packard Co., according to Hewlett-Packard's Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008. In November 2006, Hewlett-Packard Co. completed its acquisition of Mercury Interactive Corp. Upon completion of the acquisition Hewlett Packard assumed oversight for all litigation and regulatory matters pending or subsequently commenced against Mercury. Prior to the announcement of the acquisition, and beginning on or about Aug. 19, 2005, four securities class-action lawsuits were filed against Mercury Interactive and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Mercury's stock from October 2003 to November 2005. The original actions were: -- "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. C05-3395"; -- "Johnson v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05- 3864"; -- "Munao v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05- 4031"; and -- "Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-5157." These class-action lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as "In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation." The consolidated complaint filed on Sept. 8, 2006, alleges that the defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding Mercury's business and operations in violation of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On July 30, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. On Oct. 15, 2007, HP and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated class action lawsuit. The agreement, if finalized and approved by the court, provides for HP to pay an aggregate of $117.5 million to administer the settlement, to compensate the class, and to pay attorneys' fees. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on June 2, 2008, and it scheduled a hearing to be held on Sept. 25, 2008, to determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement and dismiss the case. The suit is "In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-3395," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq. (ashingler@scott-scott.com) Scott + Scott, LLC, 600 B. Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619-233-0508 Representing the defendants are: Jennifer Tetefsky (jtetefsky@labaton.com) Marketing Director Labaton Sucharow LLP Phone: 212-907-0659 Nicole Acton Jones, Esq. (nicole.jones@hellerehrman.com) Heller Ehrman, LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-772-6032 Fax: 415-772-6268 Kirk Andrew Dublin, Esq. (kdublin@jonesday.com) Jones Day 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1500 Phone: 415-626-3939 Fax: 415-875-5700 - and - Jeffrey S. Facter, Esq. (jfacter@shearman.com) Shearman & Sterling, LLP 525 Market Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-616-1100 Fax: 415-616-1199 MINNESOTA: County Snoops On Lawyers' Phone Calls, Lawsuit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- An attorney and an incarcerated client claim in a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota that Becker County and its sheriff lie to lawyers by claiming that calls from the Becker County Jail are not recorded, though the jail does record all calls unless the attorney gets his number placed on the jail's Do Not Record list, CourtHouse News Service reports. This class action for damages and injunctive relief is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of the plaintiffs' rights, and those of the classes the plaintiffs represent, under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; under Article I, Sections 6, 7 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution; pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, et seq., for violations of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Title III); for violations of Minnesota Statutes Sections 481.10 and 626A; and for violations of Plaintiffs' rights under both federal and Minnesota common law. Attorney William Bulmer II says the jail "affirmatively inform(s)" attorneys and inmates that attorney-client calls are not recorded, and repeats the lie in the jail handbook and signs posted at the jail, though "all such calls are recorded unless the attorney's telephone number is placed on the Jail's 'Do Not Record' list." Mr. Bulmer also says the defendants do not tell lawyers or detainees how to get the attorneys' numbers placed on the Do Not Record list, and refuse to put attorneys' cell phones on the list, or paralegals' numbers on the list. Plaintiffs seek to maintain this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. on behalf of the following classes: -- All detainees/inmates who were held in custody and!or incarcerated in the Becker County Jail located in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, and who had their attorney/client communications monitored and/or recorded without their or their attorney's knowledge, at any time in the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint through a date to be determined by the court, and all detainees/inmates who currently are or during the course of this litigation will be held in custody and/or incarcerated in that jail; and -- All attorneys who represented a detainee/inmate in custody or incarcerated in the Becker County Jail facility located in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, and who had their attorney/client communications monitored and/or recorded without their or their attorney's knowledge, at any time in the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through a date to be determined by the court, and all attorneys who currently or during the course of this litigation will represent persons held in custody and/or incarcerated in that jail. Plaintiffs request for judgment as follows: A. that this Court certify the two proposed classes and appoint named plaintiffs as representatives of the two classes respectively, and that plaintiffs' counsel be designated as Class Counsel for both classes; B. that defendants' policies, customs and practices, as set forth above, be determined and adjudged to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the Minnesota Constitution; C. that defendants' policies, customs and practices, as set forth above, be determined and adjudged to be in violation of federal and Minnesota wiretap statutes; D. that defendants' policies, customs and practices, as set forth above, be determined and adjudged to be in violation of Minnesota statutes regarding attorney/client communications with individuals in custody in Minnesota correctional facilities; E. that defendants' policies, customs and practices, as set forth above, be determined and adjudged to be in violation of federal and Minnesota common law regarding invasion of an individual's right to privacy; F. that this Court enter a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering defendants to refrain from continuing the policy of improperly monitoring and/or recording attorney/client telephone calls as set forth in this Complaint; G. that this Court also enter preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering defendants to revise the Inmate Handbook and the signage in the facility to properly inform detainee/inmates of the processes and procedures whereby attorneys' and attorneys' agents' telephone numbers are placed on the "Do Not Record" list, and ordering defendants to properly inform attorneys calling the Jail or entering the facility of these same processes and procedures verbally and in writing; H. that the plaintiffs and members of the two classes be awarded such other and further legal and equitable relief as may be found appropriate and as the Court may deem Just or equitable; i. that the plaintiffs and members of the two classes be awarded monetary damages, including presumed, special and general damages to be determined at trial; J. that the plaintiffs and members of the two classes be awarded all applicable pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; K. that this Court award plaintiffs and the members of the two classes their class action contingency attorneys' fees, expenses and costs, or in the alternative, their attorneys' fees, expenses and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988; and L. that this Court award plaintiffs and members of the two classes such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. The suit is "Andersen et al. v. Becker, The County of et al., Case Number: 0:2008cv05687," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mara R. Thompson, Esq. Dan Bryden, Esq. Jeffrey A. Abrahamson, Esq. Sprenger & Lang, PLLC 310 Fourth Avenue S., Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: 612-871-8910 Fax: 612-871-9270 - and - Steven M. Sprenger, Esq. Sprenger & Lang, PLLC 1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-265-8010 Fax: 202-332-6652 MONSTER WORLDWIDE: N.Y. Court Orders Sending Out of Notices ----------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Oct. 17, 2008 -- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has ordered that notice be given to all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Monster Worldwide, Inc. securities during the period from May 6, 2005, through June 9, 2006, inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby, of the pendency of the class action and a hearing on the proposed settlement of "In re Monster Worldwide, Inc., Securities Litigation, 07-cv-02237 (JSR)" for $47.5 million. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 at 5:00 p.m. on Nov. 21, 2008, to determine whether proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate, to consider the application of Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of out-of- pocket expenses and to consider the application of the Class Representative for the reimbursement of its costs and expenses. The Court may change the date of the hearing without providing another Notice. Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on November 7, 2008. Deadline to file for claims is on January 5, 2009. Monster Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.monster.com/-- parent company of Monster, the premier global online employment solution for more than a decade, strives to inspire people to improve their lives. With a local presence in key markets in North America, Europe, and Asia, Monster works for everyone by connecting employers with quality job seekers at all levels and by providing personalized career advice to consumers globally. Through online media sites and services, Monster delivers vast, highly targeted audiences to advertisers. Monster Worldwide is a member of the S&P 500 index and the NASDAQ 100. PAYCHEX INC: Calif. Suit Accuses Payroll Firm of Big-Time Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- Paychex Inc., a nationwide payroll company, is facing a class- action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging it embezzled tens of millions of dollars from small and medium-sized businesses in a "deliberate and lucrative fraud" by embezzling small sums and claiming, when caught, "that the withdrawals were merely innocent mistakes," the CourtHouse News Service reports. Plaintiff and the class are victims of an ongoing and insidious fraud. Named plaintiff Ironforge.com claims Paychex targets "small- to medium-sized business that do not have the time or resources to set up in-house payroll systems." The complaint states, "Paycheck has quietly engaged in a fraudulent scheme to fatten its bottom line by embezzling small sums of money from its customers, small businesses found in every state of the nation. Over and over again, defendant tells complaining customers that the withdrawals were merely innocent mistakes. Yet the consistency of what might total literally millions of withdrawals across the nation over years betrays a deliberate and lucrative fraud. Although each instance may add only a few cents of dollars to Paychex's profits, when aggregated over the life of the scheme for Paychex's half a million customers, the amount stolen adds up to tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. "The fraud is simple: Paychex skims small amounts of money, month after month, year after year, from its clients, usually by arbitrarily increasing fees or by charging small, undisclosed fees which customers never agreed to pay. ... Paychex has illegally withdrawn money from its clients' bank accounts - without authorization - and withheld the money until a client complaint about the transaction . . . In many cases, Paychex simply refuses to refund the money. Frustrated and preoccupied with running their own businesses, class members are forced to accept their losses and move on." Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all persons in the United States who have been or currently are Paychex customers from March 28, 2003, to October 15, 2008. Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendant added unjustified, previously undisclosed charges and "penalties" to class members' bills'; (b) whether defendant made unauthorized withdrawals from class members' business bank accounts; (c) whether defendant retained salary funds belonging to the company-clients or the company-clients' employees for its financial benefit; (d) whether defendant prematurely withdrew money from company-clients' bank accounts for the purpose of paying taxes; (e) whether individuals employed by or otherwise associated with Paychex planned and organized the skimming fraud; (f) whether defendant made any attempt to address any of the class members' complaints regarding the skimming fraud; and (g) whether, as a result of defendant's misconduct, plaintiff and the class are entitled to restitution, disgorgement, equitable relief, other relief, and punitive damages and if so, the amount and nature of such relief or damages. Plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment as follows: -- an order certifying the class, and appointing named plaintiff and its undersigned counsel of record to represent the class; -- a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its partners, joint ventures, subsidiaries, agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with it directly or indirectly, or in any manner, form in any way engaging in the practices set forth, including any elements of the skimming fraud; -- a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its partners, joint ventures, subsidiaries, agents, servants and employees and all persons acting under, in concert with it directly or indirectly, or in any manner from utilizing any monies acquired by defendant's unfair business practices, including all profits, revenues, and proceeds both direct and indirect; -- imposition of a constructive trust upon all monies and assets defendant has acquired as a result of its unfair practices; -- actual damages suffered by plaintiff and class members; -- punitive damages, to be awarded to plaintiff and each class member; -- costs of suit; -- investigated costs; -- both pre- and post- judgment interest on any amounts awarded; -- payment of reasonable attorneys' fees; and -- such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Ironforge.com et al v. Paychex, Inc., Case No. CV08-06818," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lisa L. Maki, Esq. Christina M. Coleman, Esq. Law Offices of Lisa L. Maki 1111 South Grand Avenue, Suite 101 Los Angeles, CA 90015 Phone: 213-745-9511 Fax: 213-745-9611 PFIZER INC: Settles Lawsuits Over Prescription Pain Killers ----------------------------------------------------------- SEATTLE, Oct. 17, 2008 -- Hagens Berman reached an $89 million settlement with Pfizer on behalf of purchasers of Celebrex and Bextra in a suit claiming the pharmaceutical giant launched misleading marketing campaigns for its drugs. The suit claimed Pfizer misled physicians and consumers when it touted Bextra as a superior product to other non- steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) when the drug had no appreciable difference than less expensive medications. Hagens Berman also filed suit on behalf of consumers who purchased the drug Celebrex, claiming Pfizer failed to disclose serious risks of blood clots, heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular problems associated with the drug. The settlement is part of a larger $894 settlement that includes a bevy of personal injury, consumer fraud and state attorney general claims against Pfizer. "This is a victory for purchasers, including third-party payers and consumers across the country, who will receive monetary relief from the settlement," said Steve Berman, managing partner at Hagens Berman. "It is also an example of the critical role private litigation plays in holding pharmaceutical companies accountable in an era when the FDA can't or won't act as a watchdog." The lawsuits allege Pfizer used dubious tactics to undermine the FDA approval process of both drugs. From 1999 through 2003, Pfizer spent more than $400 million on direct-to-consumer advertising for Celebrex, creating $2.29 billion of revenue and accounting for six percent of the company's total sales. Bextra, originally approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and primary dysmenorrheal in women, helped increase Pfizer sales to $139 million in the third quarter of 2002 with its off-label promotions, the suit claimed. According to court documents, in an effort to push Bextra into a larger market, Pfizer hired Scirex, a clinical testing firm, to help exploit a loophole in government regulations that prohibits the promotion of drugs for unapproved uses except in published research and medical education. Scirex recruited dental patients to demonstrate the drug's effectiveness and published the results in the May 2002 edition of The Journal of the American Dental Association. As a result of the article, and heavy marketing efforts, sales significantly increased. In 2005, Pfizer voluntarily withdrew Bextra from the U.S. market. The withdrawal was due to safety concerns over an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients using the drug for acute pain treatment. The $89 million settlement is still pending upon court approval and disbursement guidelines. A settlement hearing will take place within the next few months. New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a research-based pharmaceuticals firm whose products include erectile dysfunction therapy Viagra, pain management drug Celebrex, antidepressant Zoloft, and cholesterol-lowering Lipitor. PHARMACOPEIA INC: Faces N.J. Suit Over Ligand Merger Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- Pharmacopeia, Inc., is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in New Jersey over a proposed merger agreement with Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 10, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 14, 2008. On Oct. 10, 2008, Pharmacopeia, Inc., received notice that a putative class-action complaint was filed by Allen Heilman, one of the company's stockholders, against the company and the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County (Equity Division). The complaint generally alleges that the Board's decision to enter into the proposed transaction with Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., on the terms contained in the proposed merger agreement constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty and gives rise to other unspecified state law claims. The complaint alleges that the named plaintiff will seek "equitable relief," including among other things, an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the proposed transaction. The complaint also names Ligand and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries as defendants. Pharmacopeia, Inc. -- http://www.pharmacopeia.com/-- is a clinical development stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to discovering and developing small molecule therapeutics to address medical needs. It has a portfolio of clinical and preclinical candidates under development internally or by partners, including eight clinical compounds in Phase II or Phase I development addressing multiple indications, including hypertension, diabetic nephropathy, muscle wasting, inflammation and respiratory disease. PS433540, a product candidate the Company is developing internally, is in Phase II clinical development. PS433540 is a dual-acting angiotensin and endothelin receptor antagonist that Pharmacopeia in-licensed from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and that is being developed as a potential treatment for cardiovascular and renal diseases, including hypertension and diabetic nephropathy. PREMIERE GLOBAL: Calif. Court Considers Approving "Gibson" Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is still considering granting preliminary approval to the settlement in the purported class-action suit, "Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The Quizno's Corp., et al.," which names as defendants Premiere Global Services, Inc., and a subsidiary of the company. On May 18, 2007, Gibson & Co. Ins. brokers served an amended complaint upon Premiere Global Services and its subsidiary, Xpedite Systems, LLC, in relation with the purported class- action suit. This is with regard to the court's earlier order granting Quiznos' motion to file a third-party complaint to add Premiere Global and Xpedite as defendants. The underlying complaint alleges that Quizno's sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements on or about Nov. 1, 2005, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended, and seeks damages of $1,500 per facsimile for alleged willful conduct in sending of the faxes. On June 26, 2007, Premiere Global answered the plaintiff's amended complaint, including asserting cross-claims against the Quizno's defendants. On June 29, 2007, Quizno's defendants filed their answer and asserted cross-claims against the company and Xpedite. On July 31, 2007, the court entered an order in which it granted certain Quizno's defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the motion with respect to other Quizno's entities. On Sept. 7, 2007, the plaintiff proceeded to file another amended complaint against the Quizno's defendants, Growth Partners (Quizno's consultant), Xpedite, and the company. On Sept. 21, 2007, the company filed its answer and affirmative defenses. Certain Quizno's defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by the Court on Dec. 7, 2007. Subsequently, Premiere filed cross-claims against the other defendants, and the Quizno's defendants filed cross-claims against Premiere. The case is currently in discovery, and no class has yet been certified. On Feb. 12-13, 2008, the parties engaged in mediation. The parties have reached a global settlement in principle that should resolve all claims and have filed a stipulation with the court informing the court and extending the various deadlines. Pursuant to the court's order extending deadlines, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on April 1, 2008, and an opposition brief would have been due on May 19, 2008. On May 9, 2008, all parties finalized a confidential term sheet for the settlement. On July 28, 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and release and a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The settlement is subject to approval by the court, and the court has scheduled a hearing for Aug. 18, 2008 during, which it will consider the motion to preliminarily approve the class settlement, according to the company's Oct. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The Quizno's Corp., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05849-PSG-PLA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: C. Darryl Cordero, Esq. (cdc@paynefears.com) Payne and Fears 660 South Figueroa, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-439-9911 Representing the defendants is: Nancy M. Barnes, Esq. Thompson Hine, LLP 3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-566-5578 TACO BELL: Dec. 12, 2008 Hearing Set for Motion in RGM's Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Dec. 12, 2008 hearing was scheduled for the motion on class certification of a consolidated lawsuit brought by a restaurant general manager (RGM) against Taco Bell Corp., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc. Initially, a putative class-action suit was filed in the Orange County Superior Court on Aug. 4, 2006, against Taco Bell. The suit is styled "Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp." On Aug. 7, 2006, another putative class-action lawsuit, styled, "Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court. Both lawsuits were filed by an RGM purporting to represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in California from August 2002 to the present. The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime and meal and rest period violations and seek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties. As of Sept. 7, 2006, the Orange County case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff and both cases have been consolidated in San Diego County. Discovery is underway. A hearing on the class certification motion has been scheduled for Dec. 12, 2008, according to YUM! Brands' Oct. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 6, 2008. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant with over 34,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. YUM consists of six operating segments: KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's and A&W All-American Food Restaurants, YUM Restaurants International and YUM Restaurants China. TACO BELL: Oct. 20 Hearing Set for "Hardiman" Labor Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- An Oct. 20, 2008 hearing is scheduled for the purported class- action lawsuit, entitled "Lisa Hardiman vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al.," which names Taco Bell Corp., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc., as a defendant. On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno against Taco Bell, YUM Brands, and other related entities. This lawsuit is filed on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA. It seeks penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code. On June 25, 2008, Ms. Hardiman filed an amended complaint adding class action allegations on behalf of hourly employees in California very similar to the case "Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01314-OWW-DLB," including allegations of unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest periods, improper wage statements, non-payment of wages upon termination, unreimbursed business expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. On July 25, 2008, Taco Bell removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, and subsequently filed a notice of related case. On July 31, 2008, the case was transferred to the same judge as in the Medlock case. Taco Bell then filed a motion to strike the PAGA claims. A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 20, 2008, according to YUM! Brands' Oct. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 6, 2008. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant with over 34,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. YUM consists of six operating segments: KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's and A&W All-American Food Restaurants, YUM Restaurants International and YUM Restaurants China. VELOCITY EXPRESS: Independent Contractors' Suits Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Velocity Express Corp. and its subsidiary, CD&L Inc., are still facing several purported class-action lawsuits that were filed by independent contractors, according to the company's Oct. 14, 2008 Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2008. First Litigation One of the class action complaints was filed in December 2003 before the Los Angeles Superior Court. It seeks to certify a class of California based independent contractors from December 1999 to the present. The plaintiffs seeks unspecified damages for various employment related claims, including, but not limited to overtime, minimum wage claims, and claims for unreimbursed business expenses. CD&L filed a reply to the complaint in January 2004 denying all allegations. The plaintiff's request for class certification was granted in part and denied in part on Jan. 28, 2007. Discovery on this matter is ongoing. Similar Litigation Nine purported class-action law suits were filed against the company between December 2007 and July 2008. These suits, which were filed by a very small group of independent contractor drivers in six different states, seek unspecified damages for various unsubstantiated employment related claims. Velocity Express Corp. -- http://www.velocityexp.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of providing time definite ground package delivery services. ********* 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 * * *