CAR_Public/090127.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 27, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 18

                           Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: "Batiz" Suit Over FLSA Claims Ongoing in Calif.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Calif. Suits Over Wage, Hour Violations Pending
ABM INDUSTRIES: "Castellanos" Class Certification Denied in Dec.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Khandera" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime
ABM INDUSTRIES: Unit Continues to Defend "Augustus I" Litigation

ABM INDUSTRIES: "Villacres" Suit v. Unit Still Ongoing in Calif.
APPLE INC: April 28, 2009 Hearing Set for iPod nano Litigation
AT&T MOBILITY: W.Va Court Forces Arbitration in Suit Over RAP
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Alleged Price Fixing
ELBIT IMAGING: Announces Dismissal of a Investors' Litigation

EMCORE CORP: Yet to be Served with "Prissert" Shareholder Suit
HOMETOWN HEALTH: Faces Doctors' Lawsuit in Nevada Over Payments
NAVISITE INC: Files Motion To Dismiss IPO Securities Litigation
NOVORI INC: Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads Dismissed Last Dec. 19
SUNRISE SENIOR: Pursues Dismissal of D.C. Securities Fraud Suit

VISION AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada Over Federal Hazard Pay
WILLIAMS COS: Expects 2009 Trial for Colo. Royalties Litigation
WIRELESS TELECOMS: Faces Suit Over Rise in Text Messages Costs


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

RACKABLE SYSTEMS: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing


                           *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: "Batiz" Suit Over FLSA Claims Ongoing in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action, "Batiz/Heine v. American
Commercial Security Services (ACSS)," which names a subsidiary
of ABM Industries, Inc., as a defendant is still ongoing in the
U.S. District Court of California, Central District.


The named plaintiffs in the suit, which was filed on June 7,
2006, are current or former employees of ABM subsidiaries who
allege, among other things, that they were required to work "off
the clock," were not paid for all overtime, were not provided
work breaks or other benefits, and received pay stubs not
conforming to California law.

They generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.

In January 2008, the U.S. District Court for the  Central
District of California conditionally certified the Fair Labor
Standards Acts claims stated in Batiz (Class Action Reporter,
April 16, 2008).

The company did not disclose further updates regarding the case
in its Jan. 20, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2008.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Calif. Suits Over Wage, Hour Violations Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., is still facing several purported class
action suits related to alleged violations of federal or
California wage-and-hour laws, according to the company's Jan.
20, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2008.

The suits are:

     -- the recently consolidated cases of "Bucio/Morales and
        Martinez/Lopez v. ABM Janitorial Services," filed on
        April 7, 2006, with the Superior Court of California,
        County of San Francisco;

     -- the consolidated cases of "Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco
        System Parking" filed on Dec. 5, 2006, with L.A.
        Superior Ct.; and

     -- the case of "Chen v. Ampco System Parking and ABM
        Industries Incorporated" filed on March 6, 2008 with
        the U.S. District Court of for the Southern District
        of California.

The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current or former
employees of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things,
that they were required to work "off the clock," were not paid
for all overtime, were not provided work breaks or other
benefits, and received pay stubs not conforming to California
law.

In all cases, the plaintiffs generally seek unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief or both.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and certain California wage and hour laws (Class
Action Reporter, April 16, 2008).

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: "Castellanos" Class Certification Denied in Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court judge in the case of "Castellanos v. ABM
Industries," denied class certification status on Dec. 9, 2008,
with prejudice, according to ABM Industries, Inc.'s Jan. 20,
2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2008.

The case was filed on April 5, 2007, in the U.S. District Court
of California, Central District.

The suit relates to alleged violations of federal or California
wage-and-hour laws.

The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM
subsidiaries who allege, among other things,that they were
required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all
overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Khandera" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., defends the purported class action suit
styled "Khadera v. American Building Maintenance Co.-West and
ABM Industries."

The suit, filed on March 24, 2008, in U.S District Court of
Washington, Western District, relates to alleged violations of
federal or California wage-and-hour laws.

The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM
subsidiaries who allege, among other things,that they were
required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all
overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.

The company says it has meritorious defenses to these claims and
intends to continue to defend itself, according to its Jan. 20,
2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2008.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Unit Continues to Defend "Augustus I" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of ABM Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself
in the purported class action suit entitled, "Augustus, Hall and
Davis v. American Commercial Security Services (ACSS)."

The consolidated cases of "Augustus, Hall and Davis v. ACSS," or
Augustus I, was filed on July 12, 2005, with n the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County.

The named plaintiffs in the suit are current or former employees
of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they
were required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all
overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law.

They generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.

The hearing on class certification in Augustus I is set for mid-
2008 (Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2008).

No further updates regarding the case were provided in the
company's Jan. 20, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Oct. 31, 2008.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: "Villacres" Suit v. Unit Still Ongoing in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The matter, "Villacres v. ABM Security," filed against a
subsidiary of ABM Industries, Inc., is ongoing in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, according
to the company's Jan. 20, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Oct. 31, 2008.

The named plaintiffs in the suit, which was filed on Aug. 15,
2007, are current or former employees of ABM subsidiaries who
allege, among other things, that they were required to work "off
the clock," were not paid for all overtime, were not provided
work breaks or other benefits, and received pay stubs not
conforming to California law.

They generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.

Although the Villacres class originally claimed numerous wage
and hour violations under California law (including failure to
pay overtime, failure to pay wages timely, failure to provide
meal and rest breaks, the failure to provide proper wage
statements to employees, and engaging in unfair business
practices), the plaintiffs have since requested leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint, which would include only the claim
related to the provision of improper wage statements to
employees.

The hearing on class certification in "Villacres" was Feb. 25,
2008.  During the hearing, the court tentatively stated that it
likely lacked jurisdiction over the case, as, under the Class
Action Fairness Act, over two-thirds of the class likely reside
in California, the principal place of business of the employer
defendant, thereby not creating the necessary diversity
jurisdiction.

The court is permitting discovery on the issue and further
briefing was due April 10, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, April
16, 2008).

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.


APPLE INC: April 28, 2009 Hearing Set for iPod nano Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles will
hold a hearing on April 28, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. to decide whether
to approve the $22.5 million settlement in the matter, "In re
iPod nano Cases, Case No. BC 342057, JCCP No. 4469.," which was
filed against Apple, Inc., formerly known as Apple Computer,
Inc.

The court will hold a fairness hearing at the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, located at the Central
Civil West Courthouse, Courtroom 311, 600 South Commonwealth
Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005.

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs generally claim that the First
Generation iPod nano contained a design or manufacturing defect
that resulted in excessive scratching.  They also claim that
Apple failed to disclose the scratching issue and breached the
warranties associated with the iPod nano.

For more details, contact:

          Apple iPod nano Cases Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 6177
          Novato, CA 94948-6177
          Phone: 1-888-232-3395
          Web site: http://www.ipodnanosettlement.com


AT&T MOBILITY: W.Va Court Forces Arbitration in Suit Over RAP
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia is forcing arbitration in a class-action suit against
AT&T Mobility, LLC that accuses the company of breaching West
Virginia consumer protection laws by automatically enrolling
customers in a roadside assistance program, Law360 reports.

According to Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. the case should be
hashed out in arbitration, according to the Law360 report.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Alleged Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., is facing several purported class-action
lawsuits alleging that it and several others have unlawfully
conspired to fix the prices of shell eggs and egg products in
violation of antitrust laws, according to the company's Dec. 31,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 29, 2008.

Between Sept. 25 and Nov. 24, 2008, the company was named as one
of several defendants in fifteen antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.

In all fifteen cases, the named plaintiffs sue on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be
similarly situated.  In fourteen of the cases, the named
plaintiffs allege that they are retailers or distributors that
purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more
of the defendants.  In the one other case, the named plaintiffs
are individuals who allege that they purchased eggs and egg
products indirectly from defendants - that is, they purchased
from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or
other parties.

In all of the cases, the named plaintiffs allege that the
Company and all of the other large domestic egg producers
conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted
effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels.

The plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs by (a) manipulating egg exports and (b)
implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that
reduced the number of hens and eggs.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages on behalf of themselves and
all other putative class members in the United States.

The class periods in these cases vary, with some extending as
far as back as Jan. 1, 2000.

Thirteen of the direct purchaser cases seek relief under the
Sherman Act and are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The other direct purchaser
case also seeks relief under the Sherman Act and is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The one
indirect purchaser class action seeks relief under the Sherman
Act and the statutes and common-law of various states and the
District of Columbia, and is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation is currently considering a motion to
consolidate these actions into one court for pretrial
proceedings.

The judge presiding over the Pennsylvania cases has entered a
series of scheduling orders, but there is no definite schedule
in any of the cases for filing motions to dismiss, discovery,
class certification proceedings, or filing motions for summary
judgment.  No trial date has been set.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. -- http://www.calmainefoods.com/-- is the
producer and marketer of shell eggs in the U.S.  The company's
primary business is the production, grading, packaging,
marketing and distribution of shell eggs.  The company sells
shell eggs in 29 states, primarily in the southwestern,
southeastern, mid-western and mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S.
The company is also the producer and marketer of specialty shell
eggs in the U.S.  Specialty shell eggs include reduced
cholesterol, cage free and organic eggs.  During the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008), specialty shell eggs
represented approximately 14% of the company's shell egg dollar
sales.  The company markets its specialty shell eggs under two
brands: Egg-Land's Best and Farmhouse.  The company also
produces, markets and distributes private label specialty shell
eggs to several customers.  On June 27, 2008, the company
completed the acquisition of the assets of Zephyr Egg Co.,
located in Zephyrhills, Florida.


ELBIT IMAGING: Announces Dismissal of a Investors' Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
     TEL AVIV, Israel, January 25 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --
Elbit Imaging Ltd. ("EI") (NASDAQ: EMITF), announced today that
the District Court of Haifa has dismissed, due to its inadequacy
to be litigated as a class action, an application to certify a
purported claim as a class action, in the framework of Civil
Case #1318/99 which was filed in the District Court of Haifa in
November 1999 by a number of institutional and other investors,
holding shares in Elscint Ltd. (Elscint), against the Company,
Elscint, Europe Israel (MMS) Ltd. (EIL), Control Centers Ltd.
and past and present officers in the such companies and others.

     The said purported claim was filed with regards to an
alleged continued and systematic oppression of the minority
shareholders in Elscint, which allegedly caused monetary damages
and which is claimed to have started in the agreements Elscint
made for the realization of the main part of its assets,
continued with the sale of the control in Elscint to the EIL and
with the breach of a tender offer made by the Company to
purchase of the minority shares of Elscint and ended with the
agreements executed by Elscint for the acquisition of the hotel
operations and the Arena commercial center in Israel, from EIL
and Control Centers, respectively, at a higher consideration
than their true values.

     Elbit Imaging Ltd. -- http://www.elbitimaging.com-- is a
subsidiary of Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. EI's activities are
divided into the following principal fields: (i) Initiation,
construction, operation, management and sale of shopping and
entertainment centers in Israel, Central and Eastern Europe and
India; (ii) Hotels ownership, primarily in major European
cities, as well as operation, management and sale of same
through its subsidiary, Elscint Ltd.; (iii) Investments in the
research and development, production and marketing of magnetic
resonance imaging guided focused ultrasound treatment equipment,
through its subsidiary, InSightec Ltd.; and (iv) Other
activities consisting of the distribution and marketing of
women's fashion and accessories through our wholly-owned Israeli
subsidiary, Elbit Trade & Retail Ltd., and venture-capital
investments.


EMCORE CORP: Yet to be Served with "Prissert" Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMCORE Corp. is yet to be served with the complaint in the
purported shareholder class action captioned, "Maurice Prissert
and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard, Hong Q.
Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas Werthan,
Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.)."

On Dec. 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude
Prissert filed a purported shareholder class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allegedly on behalf of a
class of its shareholders against the company and certain of its
present and former directors and officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico.

The Complaint alleges that the company and the Individual
Defendants violated certain provisions of the federal securities
laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the company's disclosure
regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy ("GGE") and the
associated backlog of GGE orders with the company's photovoltaic
business segment.

The Complaint in the Action seeks, among other things, an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other costs and
expenses associated with the maintenance of the Action.

The Complaint in the Action has not yet been served upon the
company, according to the company's Dec. 30, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008

EMCORE Corporation -- http://www.emcore.com/-- is a provider of
compound semiconductor-based components and subsystems for the
broadband, fiber optic, satellite, and terrestrial solar power
markets.  The company has two reporting segments: Fiber Optics
and Photovoltaics. Fiber Optics segment offers optical
components, subsystems, and systems that enable the transmission
of video, voice, and data over high-capacity fiber optic cables
for high-speed data and telecommunications, cable television
(CATV) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) networks. Photovoltaics
segment provides solar products for satellite and terrestrial
applications.


HOMETOWN HEALTH: Faces Doctors' Lawsuit in Nevada Over Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hometown Health Plan, Inc. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in Nevada, claiming the insurance provider bilked
thousands of Northern Nevada doctors out of "tens of millions of
dollars" by failing to pay claims, forcing them into "one-sided"
contracts and manipulating payment codes.

The suit captioned, "Windisch, M.D. v. Hometown Health Plan Inc
et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-00664-BES-RAM," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada on Dec. 19, 2008 by
Dr. Kevin Windisch of Sparks Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine.

It also names as additional defendants: Hometown Health
Partners, Benefit Administrators Inc., Hometown Health Providers
Insurance Company, Inc. and Hometown's parent, Renown Health.

According to Dr. Windisch, while the insurance payments to
doctors don't directly affect patient bills, problems with
physician payments could force some to stop seeing certain
patients, file for bankruptcy, or even leave the area.  "Those
behaviors drive doctors out of business, and other doctors won't
come to this community because of it," he adds.

"This case is about Hometown Health improperly denying or
lowering reimbursements for physicians," said Edith Kallas,
Esq., an attorney with a New York law firm representing Dr.
Windisch.

Ms. Kallas told The Carson Times that they are seeking class-
action status for the case, because Hometown Health's alleged
unfair practices likely hit thousands of physicians and
physician groups to varying degrees.

According to the lawsuit, Hometown Health Plan Inc. is the
largest state-certified and federally qualified health
maintenance organization in the region.  It also states that
Renown Health is the parent company of Hometown, and serves a
17-county region with a population topping 750,000.

Physicians who enter into contract agreements with Hometown are
considered participating physicians or preferred providers and
have access to the company's long list of patients, Ms Kallas
tells The Carson Times.

"They are obligated to provide services to those patients," she
added.  "And they must work in accordance with the terms of
their contract."

However, starting in December 2002 to the present, Hometown
Health "engaged in a pattern of improper and deceptive conduct
and business practices by carrying out a scheme to deny, impede,
delay, and reduce lawful reimbursement" to physicians who
treated enrollees in the company's managed-care plans, the suit
said.

The suit alleges that Hometown used a list of methods to refuse
payment.

In some cases, if a physician provided several unrelated medical
services to a patient in a single visit, the company would
combine, or "bundle," the services into one payment that was far
less than it was obligated to pay, the suit said.

The company also "improperly" used software programs to
automatically change codes on procedures, bundle services,
ignore modifiers or deny payment without clinical review or
oversight.  In addition, it also reimbursed doctors for some
vaccines at rates lower than the actual cost of the drugs,
according to the suit.

The suit claims that doctors were not paid within the time
periods set out in their contracts, and could not acquire an
adequate explanation when the Hometown Health refused to pay
what was due.

It is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and also asks
the court for injunctive relief, "prohibiting, restraining and
enjoining" the company from engaging in a list of practices that
are keeping doctors from receiving payment and fair services.

The suit is "Windisch, M.D. v. Hometown Health Plan Inc et al.,
Case No. 3:08-cv-00664-BES-RAM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada, Judge Brian E. Sandoval,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Edith M. Kallas, Esq. (ekallas@wdklaw.com)
          Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-447-7070
          Fax: 212-447-7077

               - and -

          Mark Albright, Esq. (gma@albrightstoddard.com)
          Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright
          801 South Rancho Drive
          Suite D-4
          Las Vegas, NV 89106
          Phone: (702) 384-7111
          Fax: (702) 384-0605

Representing the defendants are:

          Brad M. Johnston, Esq. (bjohnston@hollandhart.com)
          Holland & Hart, LLP
          5441 Kietzke Lane
          Suite 200
          Reno, NV 89511
          Phone: 775-327-3000


NAVISITE INC: Files Motion To Dismiss IPO Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
NaviSite, Inc. filed a reply on Oct. 23, 2008 in support of the
motions to dismiss a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

In October 2007, a purported Company shareholder filed a
complaint, captioned as "Vanessa Simmonds v. Bank of America
Corp., et al.," for violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits short-swing trading,
against two of the underwriters of the public offering at issue
in the class action litigation.

The plaintiff seeks the recovery of short-swing profits from the
underwriters on behalf of the Company, which is named only as a
nominal defendant and from whom no recovery is sought.

Similar complaints have been filed against the underwriters of
the public offerings of about 55 other issuers also involved in
the IPO Securities Litigation.

On July 25, 2008, the Company joined 29 other nominal defendant
issuers, and filed Issuer Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint.  The Underwriter Defendants also filed a
Joint Motion to Dismiss.

On Sept. 8, 2008, plaintiff filed her oppositions to the
motions.

NaviSite, Inc. -- http://www.navisite.com/-- is an application
management and Internet solutions provider to middle market
companies.  The Company offers a range of enterprise resource
planning (ERP) application solutions, custom applications,
managed infrastructure services, hosting services, co-location,
content delivery and consulting to more than 1,400 customers
helping them to achieve superior business results.  Its core
competencies are to customize, implement and support outsourced
ERP solutions.  These packaged, third party applications include
Oracle e-Business Suite, PeopleSoft Enterprise, Siebel, Lawson,
Kronos and Microsoft Dynamics.  In addition to delivering
packaged application support, the Company leverages its
application services platform, NaviView, to enable its partners'
software to be delivered on-demand.  In August 2007, it acquired
the assets of Alabanza LLC and Hosting Ventures LLC and all of
the issued and outstanding stock of Jupiter Hosting, Inc. In
September 2007, it acquired netASPx, Inc.


NOVORI INC: Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads Dismissed Last Dec. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
A civil class-action lawsuit against Novori, Inc., alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 was
dismissed with prejudice on Dec. 19, 2008.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the lawsuit was filed in the Hillsborough
County Court of the State of Florida against the company, its
officers, and an independent party with whom it had no
relationship, by three plaintiffs, alleging that the Defendants
violated provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 by sending one or more unsolicited fax advertisements for
the purchase of the company's securities to them.

The plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $15,000 together with
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The company denied any culpability, but management believed it
was in the best interest of the company to settle the case,
according to the company's Jan. 20, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 30, 2008

On Oct. 29, 2008, the company entered into a Settlement
Agreement pursuant to which it agreed to pay $6,500 to the
plaintiff as compensation for the plaintiffs' withdrawal of the
lawsuit.  The plaintiffs agreed to irrevocably and
unconditionally waive, discharge and release the company and its
subsidiary, directors and officers form all liabilities,
commitments, obligations, costs, expenses and damages pursuant
to the said claim under the Telephone Communications Protection
Act, and any claims based on express or implied contract or
tort, public policy, or the common law, or under any other
federal, state or local laws. Under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, the parties shall bear their respective legal costs
of the lawsuit.

Novori Inc. -- http://www.novori.com/-- is in the business of
selling a selection of over 35,000 loose diamonds and over 500
different styles and settings of fine diamond jewelry through
its Website, www.novori.com.  All of the company's jewelry is
customizable to the customer's tastes and preferences.  Each
piece of jewelry is hand crafted and professionally finished by
its jewelers.  Novori provides its customers with a safe online
shopping experience that includes product and purchasing
information.  If its customers are dissatisfied for any reason,
they may exchange or fully refund their merchandise by returning
the item(s) to the Company within 30 days.  It also allows
customers to create their own engagement rings by choosing
diamonds based on their shape, carat weight, cut, color,
clarity, polish and certification and by selecting from a
variety of settings.  The customer controls the design of the
ring using online tools and can mix and match diamonds and
settings to create the perfect engagement ring.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Pursues Dismissal of D.C. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. pursues dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud lawsuit pending against it in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, according to the company's
Dec. 29, 2008 Form 10-K/A Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Initially, two putative securities class-action complaints,
styled, "United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 880-Retail
Food Employers Joint Pension Fund, et al. v. Sunrise Senior
Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07CV00102," and "First New York
Securities, L.L.C. v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:07CV000294," were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia on Jan. 16, 2007, and Feb. 8, 2007,
respectively.

Both complaints alleged securities law violations by Sunrise and
certain of its current or former officers and directors based on
allegedly improper accounting practices and stock option
backdating, violations of generally accepted accounting
principles, false and misleading corporate disclosures, and
insider trading of Sunrise stock.

Both sought to certify a class for the period Aug. 4, 2005
through June 15, 2006, and both requested damages and equitable
relief, including an accounting and disgorgement.

Pursuant to procedures provided by statute, two other parties --
the Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust and the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System -- appeared and jointly moved for the consolidation of
the two securities cases and for appointment as lead plaintiffs,
which requests the Court ultimately approved.

The cases were consolidated on July 31, 2007, under the caption,
"In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 07-CV-00102-RBW."

Thereafter, a stipulation was submitted pursuant to which the
new putative class plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2008.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and names as defendants the company,
Paul J. Klaassen, Teresa M. Klaassen, Thomas B. Newell, Tiffany
L. Tomasso, Larry E. Hulse, Carl G. Adams, Barron Anschutz, and
Kenneth J. Abod.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on
Aug. 11, 2008, and briefing on that motion is continuing.

The suit is "In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-00102-RBW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Reggie B.
Walton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq. (jonc@cuneolaw.com)
          Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: 202-789-3960
          Fax: 202-789-1813

               - and -

          Elizabeth Shattuck Finberg, Esq. (efinberg@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants are:

          Nathaniel Thomas Connally, III (ntconnally@hhlaw.com)
          Hogan & Hartson, LLP
          8300 Greensboro Drive, Ste. 1100
          McLean, VA 22102-3609
          Phone: 703-610-6100
          Fax: 703-610-6200

               - and -

          Laurie Beth Smilan, Esq. (laurie.smilan@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins, LLP
          11955 Freedom Drive, Suite 500
          Reston, VA 20190
          Phone: 703-456-5220


VISION AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada Over Federal Hazard Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vision Airlines, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit by
charter aircraft crew members who made flights for the U.S.
government into war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, claiming the
company failed to pay all of the federal hazard pay they are due
for their work, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada on Jan. 16, 2009 by former pilot Gerald Hester of
Colleyville, Texas.  It states that at least 300 current and
former employees are affected, according to The Las Vegas Sun
report.

According to plaintiff's attorney Ross Goodman, Esq. of Las
Vegas, the company, known locally for flying Grand Canyon tour
flights,  has been running the charters carrying personnel and
cargo since May 2005.

The lawsuit states "flying aircraft to and from the airports in
Baghdad and Kabul is extremely dangerous."  It explains,
"Aircraft typically arrive or depart these airports under the
cover of darkness to avoid light arms fire, rocket propelled
grenades, and missile attacks.  In fact, all flights arriving
and departing from the airports in Baghdad and Kabul must be
authorized by either the United States or British military
operational command centers located in those cities."

Aircraft must observe blackout procedures in which exterior and
interior lights are turned off and then must execute difficult
corkscrew landing procedures in which aircraft fly within a
spiral above the airport while landing in order to minimize
their exposure to enemy fire, according to the suit.

The suit states that the hazard pay due to charter crews flying
to and from Iraq is $2,500 for each captain, first officer and
international relief officer for each take-off and landing.  It
adds that other crew members such as flight attendants and
mechanics are to receive $1,500 each for each take-off and
landing.

The suit says hazard pay was initially provided to some
employees, but those payments were later halted by management,
reports The Las Vegas Sun.

"Despite receiving more than $21 million in hazard pay intended
for its employees, Vision has failed to pay its employees the
hazard pay to which they are entitled," according to the suit.

The suit is "Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-
00117-RLH-RJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Judge Roger L. Hunt, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Ross C. Goodman, Esq. (ross@goodmanlawgroup.com)
          Goodman Law Group
          520 S. Fourth Street
          2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Phone: 702-384-5563


WILLIAMS COS: Expects 2009 Trial for Colo. Royalties Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc., anticipates that trial on a
purported class-action suit in Colorado over royalties will
commence in 2009.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class-action suit in Colorado state court
alleging that the Company improperly calculated oil and gas
royalty payments and failed to account for the proceeds.

In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the Company improperly
charged certain expenses, and failed to refund amounts withheld
in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.

The plaintiffs claim that the class might be in excess of 500
individuals and seek an accounting and damages.

The parties have reached a partial settlement agreement for an
amount that was previously accrued.  The partial settlement has
received preliminary approval by the court.

The Williams Companies, Inc., is an energy company based in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Its core business is natural gas exploration,
production, processing, and transportation, with additional
petroleum and electricity generation assets.  A Fortune 200
company, its common stock is a component of the S&P 500 and the
Dow Jones Utility Average.


WIRELESS TELECOMS: Faces Suit Over Rise in Text Messages Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several wireless telecommunications companies are facing a
purported class-action suit in Alabama over rising costs of text
messaging services, David Holden of The Huntsville Times
reports.

The suit captioned, "Crutchfield v. Verizon Wireless et al.,
Case No. 5:2008-cv-02426," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama on Dec. 30, 2008.  It was filed
by Steven Crutchfield against Verizon Wireless, AT&T Inc.,
Sprint-Nextel Corp. and T-Mobile USA, and is seeking class-
action status.

Mr. Crutchfield claims that the companies violated federal laws
against monopolies and have agreed together to fix the price for
the pay-per-use services nationwide, according to The Huntsville
Times report.

Since 2005, the volume of text messages has increased from 81
billion to about 383 billion in 2007, the lawsuit said.  Mr.
Crutchfield and his lawyer, Frank Tomlinson, Esq. of Birmingham,
cite as their source for statistics, CTIA - The Wireless
Association, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that
compiles information about wireless services.

According to the lawsuit, during the fourth quarter of 2006 and
first quarter of 2007, the four companies increased the charge
for sending and receiving text messages from 10 cents to 15
cents.  They increased their charges again a year later from 15
cents to 20 cents, reports The Huntsville Times.

The providers increased their charges at the same times, but the
cost to these companies to provide the services appears to
remain the same, the lawsuit said.  Subscribers to text-
messaging services have been hurt by paying higher prices than
they would have paid in a competitive market, the lawsuit said.

The suit is "Crutchfield v. Verizon Wireless et al., Case No.
5:2008-cv-02426," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Judge Harwell G Davis, III,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Frank H. Tomlinson, Esq.
          15 North 21st Street, Suite 302
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 205-326-6626
          Fax: 205-328-2889
          e-mail: htomlinson@bellsouth.net


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

RACKABLE SYSTEMS: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan 23, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- The
Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of securities of
Rackable Systems, Inc. ("Rackable" or the "Company") between
October 30, 2006 and April 4, 2007, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Rackable's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate the following:

       -- that the Company was experiencing competitive
          pressure;

       -- that competition was increasing;

       -- that, due to increasing competition, the Company was
          able to maintain and expand its customer base only by
          aggressively lowering its contract prices;

       -- that, as such, the Company was experiencing dramatic
          erosion of gross margin attainment in the Company's
          largest accounts as focused competitors aggressively
          dropped prices;

       -- that price increases for DDR (double data rate) memory
          were accelerating faster than the Company represented
          to investors;

       -- that, as a result of the above, the Company was
          unlikely to meet its quarterly gross margin targets;

       -- that the Company lacked effective internal and
          financial controls; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, that statements made by
          the Company and management during the Class Period
          concerning the Company's business, operations and
          prospects were lacking any reasonable basis.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


                            *********

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

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  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  * * *