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  * * *