CAR_Public/090702.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, July 2, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 129

                           Headlines

A. H. BELO: Appeal to Denied Class Certification Still Ongoing
A. H. BELO: To Defend Calif. Suit Over Wage Payment Violations
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Oct. 9 Hearing Set for $65.7M TriCor Deal
B&R AERIAL: Wash. Apple Pickers Sue Pilot Over 2008 Spraying
BEST BUY: Faces Ind. Suit Over Improper Installation of Dryers

CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Lawsuit Over 2007 Copia Bonds
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in New Jersey
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Stockholder Suit Settlement Pending Approval
DSM ELASTOMERS: Conn. Court Certifies Class in EPDM Litigation
EDDIE BAUER: Final Approval of "Hill" Suit Settlement on Appeal

EDDIE BAUER: "Scherer" Plaintiffs Appeal Approval of "Hill" Deal
EDDIE BAUER: To Defend "Hernandez" Complaint Over Wage Payment
ELBIT IMAGING: Appeal to Dismissal of Certification Bid Pending
ELBIT IMAGING: Minority Shareholders' Suit Still in Early Stages
ELBIT IMAGING: Ruling on 3rd Party's Representation Bid Pending

MBNA CORP: Oct. 6 Hearing Set for $25M Securities Suit Agreement
MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Brodsky & Smith Files Suit v. LabCorp Deal
MONSANTO CO: Aug. 13 Status Conference Set for Consolidated Suit
MONSANTO CO: Property Damage Suits Over Contamination Pending
OHIO: DPS, BMV Faces Privacy Violations Lawsuit in Federal Court

PUBLIC STORAGE: "Brinkley" Wage and Hour Suit Remains Deferred
SEMPRA ENERGY: Class Status in Wildfire Suits Denied on June 25
ST. LOUIS COUNTY: Faces Mo. Suit Over "Illegal" Recycling Fees
TIM PARTICIPACOES: Expects Action on Assets Return to Continue
TIM PARTICIPACOES: Still Faces Suits Over Consumer/Labor Issues

VERIFIED IDENTITY: Sued Over $250 Fee, Personal Information
VIVENDI S.A.: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
WASHINGTON: Cities Face 2nd Suit Over Fines From Traffic Cameras


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

RAYMOND JAMES: Izard Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing


                           *********

A. H. BELO: Appeal to Denied Class Certification Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated shareholder suit filed against
A. H. Belo Corporation, Robert W. Decherd, and Barry T. Peckham,
a former executive officer of The Dallas Morning News, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas continue
to appeal the denial of class certification.

On Aug. 23, Aug. 26, and Oct. 5, 2004, three related lawsuits,
now consolidated, were filed by purported shareholders of Belo,
arising out of the circulation overstatement at The Dallas
Morning News. James M. Moroney III, an executive officer of The
Dallas Morning News, was added later as a defendant.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a purported class of
shareholders who purchased Belo common stock between May 12,
2003 and Aug. 6, 2004, and allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On April 2, 2008, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and on April 16, 2008, plaintiffs petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for permission to
appeal that denial.

On June 17, 2008, permission was granted and on April 2, 2009,
the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument.  No amount of damages has
been specified, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

A. H. Belo Corporation -- http://www.ahbelo.com/-- owns three
primary daily newspapers: The Dallas Morning News, The
Providence Journal and The Press-Enterprise.  They produce
local, state, national and international news.  In addition to
these three daily newspapers, the Company publishes various
products in the same or nearby markets, where these daily
newspapers are published. Each of A. H. Belo's daily newspapers
and publications operates its own related Website.  It also
operates direct mail and commercial printing businesses.  The
Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Belo. Corp. (Belo).


A. H. BELO: To Defend Calif. Suit Over Wage Payment Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
A. H. Belo Corporation intends to defend against the claims in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Riverside.

On April 13, 2009, four former independent contractor newspaper
carriers of The Press-Enterprise, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated individuals, filed a purported class-
action lawsuit against A. H. Belo, Belo Corp., Press-Enterprise
Company, and as yet unidentified defendants in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Riverside.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated California
laws by allegedly improperly categorizing the plaintiffs and the
purported class members as independent contractors rather than
employees, and in doing so, allegedly failed to pay minimum,
hourly and overtime wages to the purported class members and
allegedly failed to comply with other laws and regulations
applicable to an employer-employee relationship.

According to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009, plaintiffs and purported class members are
seeking minimum wages, unpaid regular and overtime wages, unpaid
rest break and meal period compensation, reimbursement of
expenses and losses incurred by them in discharging their
duties, payment of minimum wage to all employees who failed to
receive minimum wage for all hours worked in each payroll
period, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

A. H. Belo Corporation -- http://www.ahbelo.com/-- owns three
primary daily newspapers: The Dallas Morning News, The
Providence Journal and The Press-Enterprise.  They produce
local, state, national and international news.  In addition to
these three daily newspapers, the Company publishes various
products in the same or nearby markets, where these daily
newspapers are published. Each of A. H. Belo's daily newspapers
and publications operates its own related Website.  It also
operates direct mail and commercial printing businesses.  The
Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Belo. Corp. (Belo).


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Oct. 9 Hearing Set for $65.7M TriCor Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware will hold a
fairness hearing on Oct. 9, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. for the proposed
$65.7 million settlement in the matter, "In re TriCor Indirect
Purchasers Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-360 (SLR)."

The hearing will be held before Judge Sue L. Robinson for the
U.S. District Court for  the District of Delaware at 844 North
King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.

The suit alleges that defendants violated federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws regarding the sale of
TriCor and generic fenofbrates.  As a result, the lawsuit
claims, a class of Consumers and Third-Party Payors (TPPs) such
as health insurers and employee benefit plans paid too much for
the products.

Fenofbrate is the active ingredient in certain medications that
are used to treat high cholesterol and high triglyceride levels.
Prescription drugs that contain fenofbrate include TriCor,
Lofbra, Antara, Triglide and any generic version of these
products.

Listed as defendats in the matter are Abbott Laboratories,
Fournier Industrie et Sante, and Laboratoires Fournier S.A.

The settlement covers all persons or entities in the United
States and its territories who purchased, paid and/or reimbursed
for fenofbrate products, including TriCor tablets and TriCor
capsules, intended for consumption by themselves, their
families, or their members, employees, plan participants and
beneficiaries or insureds between April 9, 2002 and May 8, 2009.

The $65,700,000 will be placed in to a settlement fund that will
be divided into two parts: $33,333,334.00 for consumers and
$32,366,666.00 for TPPs.

For more details, contact:

          TriCor Indirect Purchaser Claims Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          P.O. Box 24797
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 1-877-567-3014
          e-mail: info@TriCorSettlement.com
          Web site: http://www.tricorsettlement.com/

               - and -

          Pamela Tikellis, Esq.
          Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
          P.O. Box 1035
          222 Delaware Ave, Suite 1100
          Wilmington, Delaware 19801
          Phone: 302-656-2500 or 866-399-2487
          Fax: 302-656-9053
          Web site: http://chimicles.com/


B&R AERIAL: Wash. Apple Pickers Sue Pilot Over 2008 Spraying
------------------------------------------------------------
Three apple pickers filed a class-action lawsuit against a pilot
they say sprayed dozens of workers in Mattawa, Washington last
year with an herbicide, according to The Associated Press.

The Yakima Herald-Republic reports that the lawsuit was filed in
Franklin County Superior Court in Pasco.  It seeks compensation
for injuries the workers say they suffered.

The lawsuit claims that Bernard Eskildsen, a pilot with B&R
Aerial Crop Care Inc. in Connell, sprayed them with a
restricted-use herbicide when he was spraying an adjacent
alfalfa field, AP reports.

A news release by the workers' lawyer, Ernest Radillo of
Columbia Legal Services in Wenatchee, says about 60 workers
suffered exposure systems following the Sept. 10, 2008 incident.

For more details, contact:

          Ernest Radillo, Esq.
          Columbia Legal Services
          300 Okanogan Ave, Suite 2A
          Wenatchee, WA 98801
          Phone: (509) 662-9681
          Fax: (800) 572-9615
          Web site: http://www.columbialegal.org/


BEST BUY: Faces Ind. Suit Over Improper Installation of Dryers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Stores LP is facing a purported class-action lawsuit,
claiming the company's delivery crews cause fire hazards by
improperly installing laundry dryers in customers' homes, The
Times reports.

The suit was filed on June 25, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana by Lunette Woods, under the
caption, "Woods v. Best Buy Stores LP, Case No. 2:2009-cv-
00180."  It seeks class action status to represent other people
who believe Best Buy crews installed their dryers hazardously
and demands $5,000,000 in damages.

The complaint centers on Best Buy installers who allegedly use
plastic or foil vents, instead of the "heavy metal" vents
recommended by the dryers' makers.  A crew installed Ms. Woods'
Whirlpool dryer with a metal foil vent, the suit states,
according to The Times.

Plaintiff claims that Best Buy breached its contract with Woods'
when the installers used the foil vent.  She does not claim the
dryer installation caused any fires in her home though, reports
The Times.

The suit cites government reports that recommend metal vents,
saying plastic or foil vents can kink or be crushed, reducing
air flow or trapping flammable lint.  It also contains newspaper
briefs detailing house fires traced to dryers, The Times
reported.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas K. Caldwell, Esq. (tkcaldwell@mhclaw.com)
          Maddox Hargett & Caruso PC
          10100 Lantern Road Suite 150
          Fishers, IN 46037
          Phone: 317-598-2040
          Fax: 317-598-2050


CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Lawsuit Over 2007 Copia Bonds
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firms of McGrane Greenfield, LLP and Kershaw,
Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP have filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of a class of persons or entities that hold a derivative
interest as of June 10, 2009 in bonds issued by the California
Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, referred to as
Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A and Series 2007B (COPIA:
The American Center for Wine, Food & The Arts Project), issued
pursuant to a certain Indenture dated May 1, 2007, between the
California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank and The
Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (the "2007 Copia Bonds").

     The complaint alleges that the Prospectus for the 2007
Copia Bonds was false and misleading in that it was
affirmatively represented in the Prospectus that the 2007 Copia
Bonds had been issued for the express purpose of defeasance of a
prior 1999 bond issue (the "1999 Bonds") on or before September
7, 2007.  The Complaint alleges that the representation was
false in that, in order for the prior 1999 Bonds to have been
defeased, a written opinion of counsel was required by Section
10.03(4) of the 1999 Bonds Indenture, which was not provided as
required.  Therefore, the 1999 Bonds have never been made the
subject of any proper or legal defeasance and could never have
been made the subject of any proper or legal defeasance.  The
Complaint alleges that the misrepresentation and failure to
disclose the lack of any proper or legal defeasance respecting
the prior 1999 Bonds and the 2007 Copia Bonds allowed what would
have been otherwise unmarketable bonds to be issued and sold.
The Complaint alleges that the holders of a derivative interest
in the 2007 Copia Bonds suffered substantial losses as a result.

     The class action, entitled "Copia Claims, LLC v. California
Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank," was filed on June
10, 2009, and amended on June 16, 2009.  The action is pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The Case Number is 2:09-CV-01610.  It names as
defendants Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank; The
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., ACA Financial
Guaranty Corporation ("ACA"), and Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, LLP.  Defendants are charged with violating Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and ACA also is charged with insurance
bad faith.

For more details, contact:

          Christopher D. Sullivan
          (csullivan@mcgranegreenfield.com)
          One Ferry Building, #220
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 283-1776
          Web site: http://www.mcgranegreenfield.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Co. faces a purported class-action suit charging
the soup maker with racial discrimination for failing to promote
African Americans on the company's sales force, Eileen Stilwell
of Cherry Hill Courier Post reports.

The suit was filed on June 26, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey by Chester A. Hicks, under the
caption, "Hicks v. Campbell Soup Co., Case No. 1:2009-cv-03106."

Mr. Hicks, an African-American salesman for the company, claims
less qualified and less experienced white employees received
promotions, according to the Cherry Hill Courier Post.

The purported class represents Mr. Hicks and all African
Americans employed by Campbell in salaried sales jobs in the
United States from July 2003 to the present, the Cherry Hill
Courier Post reported.

For more details, contact:

          Susan Rebecca Wexler, Esq. (swexler@discrimlaw.net)
          Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C.
          1835 Market Street
          Suite 515
          Philadelphia, Pa 19103
          Phone: (215) 569-1999
          Fax: (215) 569-3870


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Stockholder Suit Settlement Pending Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
A stipulation to settle the consolidated stockholder class-
action suit entitled, "Hall v. The Children's Place Retail
Stores, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-cv-8252(SAS)" is
pending the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York's approval.

                     September Litigation

On Sept. 21, 2007, a stockholder class-action complaint was
filed against the company and certain of its current and former
senior executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

This complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
company's current and former officers made statements to the
investing public which misrepresented material facts about the
company's business and operations, or omitted to state material
facts required in order for the statements not to be misleading,
causing the price of the company's stock to be artificially
inflated in violation of provisions of the Exchange Act, as
amended.

The suit alleges that more recent disclosures establish the
misleading nature of these earlier disclosures.

The complaint seeks money damages plus interest, as well as
costs and disbursements of the lawsuit.

                      October Litigation

On Oct. 10, 2007, a stockholder class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of its current and former senior
executives.

This complaint asserts similar allegations as the September
suit.  It seeks, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, compensatory damages plus interest, and costs and
expenses of the lawsuit, including counsel and expert fees.

The two cases have been consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint on Feb. 28, 2008.
The company, however, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
suit (Class Action Reporter, July 2, 2008).

On July 18, 2008, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York denied the move to
dismiss the shareholders' securities fraud lawsuit.  The judge
ruled that the plaintiffs in the class action have provided
enough evidence for a trial to go forward.

On June 26, 2009, the company and all other parties entered into
a Stipulation of Settlement to settle the stockholder class
action.  The settlement of the action is subject to Court
approval, and on June 26, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.

According to its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated June 26, 2009, the company and other
defendants have denied and continue to deny all allegations made
in the Action and entered into the Stipulation solely to
eliminate the burden, expense, and risk of further litigation
and to finally and fully resolve all claims asserted in the
Action.  The defendants maintain that their conduct was at all
times proper and in compliance with applicable provisions of
law, and the defendants deny, among other things, that they made
any material misstatements or omissions in the company's public
filings, press releases, or other public statements.  In the
Stipulation, the Company agreed to pay the total amount of $12
million in exchange for a release of all claims.  The cost of
the settlement is covered by the Company's insurance.

The suit is "Hall, et al. v. The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-08252," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610-668-7987
          Fax: 610-660-0450
          e-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


DSM ELASTOMERS: Conn. Court Certifies Class in EPDM Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has
certified a class in the matter, "In Re: Ethylene Propylene
Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. Case No.
3:03 MD 1542 (SRU)."

In an order dated Feb. 13, 2009, the court certified a class
that includes all individuals or entities (excluding
governmental entities, Defendants and their parents,
predecessors, subsidiaries, affiliates, and co-conspirators) who
purchased ethylene propylene diene monomer ("EPDM") in the
United States directly from one or more of the Defendants or any
predecessor, subsidiary or affiliate of any Defendant at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 1997 to Dec. 31, 2001.

Listed as defendants in the matter are:

       -- Bayer AG,
       -- Bayer Polymers LLC,
       -- Bayer Corporation,
       -- Crompton Corporation,
       -- Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc.,
       -- The Dow Chemical Company,
       -- DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC,
       -- DSM Elastomers Europe B.V.,
       -- DSM Copolymer, Inc. (a/k/a DSM Elastomers Americas),
       -- Exxon Mobil Chemical Corporation,
       -- Polimeri Europa S.p.A. (f/k/a Polimeri Europa Srl),
       -- Polimeri Europa Americas, Inc. (f/k/a Enichem
               Americas, Inc.).

This litigation is over six years old.  Several class notices
have been mailed to class members informing them about
settlements with the following groups of defendants: (1) Bayer
AG, Bayer Polymers LLC, Bayer Corporation; (2) Crompton
Corporation, Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc.; (3) The Dow Chemical
Company, DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC; and (4) Polimeri Europa
S.p.A. (f/k/a Polimeri Europa Srl), Polimeri Europa Americas,
Inc. (f/k/a Enichem Americs, Inc.).

These settlements have been approved by the Court and the
settlement proceeds have been distributed to those class members
that submitted valid and timely proof of claim forms.

Additionally, on August 21, 2008, after notice to the Class, the
Court approved the dismissal without prejudice of the Class'
claims against defendant Exxon Mobil Chemical Corporation.

This litigation presently continues against defendants DSM
Copolymer, Inc. (a/k/a DSM Elastomers Americas) and DSM
Elastomers Europe B.V.

                         Case Background

Beginning in March 2003, class action complaints alleging
violations of the federal antitrust laws by the major
manufacturers of EPDM were filed in multiple federal District
Courts (Class Action Reporter, March 7, 2007).

Motions were made to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to centralize the cases in a single court to promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.

On Aug. 12, 2003, the JPML entered a transfer order centralizing
the cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  By order dated Sept. 11, 2003, the court appointed
class counsel as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs.

The operative complaint in this action is the second
consolidated amended complaint, which was filed on July 1, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix or
maintain the prices of, and/or allocate markets for, EPDM sold
in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.

It further alleges that, as part of the conspiracy, the
defendants agreed to limit the supply of EPDM and to allocate
markets and customers for the sale of EPDM.

As a result of this conduct, the complaint alleges that members
of the class paid artificially inflated prices for EPDM and,
therefore, have suffered injury.

For more details, contact:

          EPDM Antitrust Litigation Administrator
          Gilardi & Co.
          P.O. Box 8090
          San Rafael, CA 94912-8090
          Web site: http://www.epdmantitrustlitigation.com/

          Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq.
          Bolognese & Associates, LLC
          One Penn Center, 1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 650
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-814-6750
          Web site: http://www.bolognese-law.com/

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Hausfeld LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-540-7200
          Web site: http://www.hausfeldllp.com/

          Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
          Levin, Fishbein Sedran & Berman
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: 215-592-1500
          Web site: http://www.lfsblaw.com/

               - and -

          Steven O. Sidener, Esq.
          Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-777-2230
          Web site: http://gbcslaw.com/about/who-we-are.htm


EDDIE BAUER: Final Approval of "Hill" Suit Settlement on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval to a proposed settlement of a purported
class-action suit against Eddie Bauer, Inc. is being appealed by
the plaintiff in the "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer, Inc." suit,
according to Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc.'s May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 4, 2009.

The purported class-action lawsuit, entitled, "Tara Hill v.
Eddie Bauer, Inc.," was filed on June 15, 2006, before the Los
Angeles Superior Court in the State of California.

The suit alleged, among other things, that Eddie Bauer:

      -- did not provide the plaintiffs with adequate wage
         statements;

      -- did not reimburse the plaintiffs for business-related
         expenses;

      -- forced the plaintiffs to buy Eddie Bauer clothing;

      -- did not timely pay the plaintiffs at the cessation of
         employment; and

      -- improperly required the plaintiffs to work during rest
         and meal periods without compensation.

Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert various causes
of action, including those under the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code.

On April 23, 2007, the company reached a settlement related to
the class-action suit.

A hearing to consider final court approval of the settlement
occurred on July 10, 2008, at which the plaintiff in the matter,
"Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No. 3:2007cv02270,"
objected to the settlement on various grounds.

The court took the parties' positions under advisement and the
company expects a ruling to be issued during the third quarter
of 2008.

In connection with the proposed settlement, the company accrued
$1.6 million in the first quarter of 2007 to cover settlement
payments and attorneys' fees, the company's regulatory filing
stated.  The settlement payments are proposed to be made partly
in cash and partly in company gift cards.

In a status conference held on March 30, 2009, the judge
indicated that he would sign an order approving settlement.

The court approved the settlement on April 6, 2009.  The
plaintiff in the Scherer v. Eddie Bauer, Inc. suit appealed the
order approving the settlement on various grounds.

Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.eddiebauer.com/-- is a
specialty retailer that sells casual sportswear and accessories
for the modern outdoor lifestyle.  The company's primary target
customers are women and men who are 30-54 years old.


EDDIE BAUER: "Scherer" Plaintiffs Appeal Approval of "Hill" Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit, entitled
"Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No. 2007-cv-02270," are
appealing the final approval of a settlement in the "Tara Hill
v. Eddie Bauer, Inc." lawsuit.

The purported class-action suit was filed in September 2007, by
Kristal Scherer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, against Eddie Bauer, Inc., and Does 1 to 100 before
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

The suit alleges violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code relating to the payment of
incentive bonuses and the company's policy on forfeiture of
personal days.

The case has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

In December 2007, the company filed a partial motion to dismiss
certain counts of the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a claim.  That motion was denied in June 2008.

The complaint was amended in January 2008 to add an additional
named plaintiff.  The company filed an answer in July 2008
denying the claims made.

The parties have agreed to postpone discovery pending issuance
of a ruling on the settlement in the purported class-action
lawsuit, entitled, "Tara Hill v. Eddie Bauer, Inc."

The court approved the "Hill" settlement on April 6, 2009.  The
Scherer plaintiffs appealed the order approving the settlement
on various grounds, according to Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc.'s
May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009.

The suit is "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No.
3:2007cv02270," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James C. Kostas, Esq. (jkostas@aol.com)
          Huffman and Kostas
          1441 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-544-0800
          Fax: 619-544-0892

               - and -

          Sheldon A. Ostroff, Esq. (sostrofflaw@aol.com)
          Law Offices of Sheldon A. Ostroff
          1441 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-544-0881

Representing the defendants is:

          Kalia C. Petmecky, Esq. (kpetmecky@akingump.com)
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-229-1000


EDDIE BAUER: To Defend "Hernandez" Complaint Over Wage Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Bauer, Inc. intends to defend the claims in a putative
class-action suit styled, "Danny Hernandez v. Eddie Bauer,"
according to Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc.'s May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 4, 2009.

In May 2009, the company was served in "Danny Hernandez v. Eddie
Bauer," a putative class action filed in U.S. District Court,
Central District of California in November 2008, alleging causes
of action for wages not paid upon termination, a failure to pay
wages, and violation of California Business and Professions
Code.

The class is substantially the same class as that included in
the "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer, Inc." suit, and the claims are
duplicative of those in Scherer.

Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.eddiebauer.com/-- is a
specialty retailer that sells casual sportswear and accessories
for the modern outdoor lifestyle.  The company's primary target
customers are women and men who are 30-54 years old.


ELBIT IMAGING: Appeal to Dismissal of Certification Bid Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the decision dismissing the motion to
certify their claim as a class action on behalf of certain
shareholders against Elbit Imaging Ltd., among others, remains
pending before the Supreme Court.

On Nov. 2, 1999, a number of institutional and other investors,
holding shares in Elscint Ltd., instituted a claim against the
company, Elscint, Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. ("EIL"), Control
Centers Ltd, past and present officers in the said companies and
others.  Together with the claim an application was filed to
certify the claim as a class action on behalf of everyone who
was a shareholder in Elscint on Sept. 6, 1999 and until the
lodging of the claim, excluding the company and certain other
shareholders.

The Plaintiffs claim continued and systematic oppression of the
minority shareholders in Elscint, which caused them monetary
damages and which started - so they allege - in the oppressive
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 ("September 99
Transactions") at a lower value than the consideration received
for them.

Due to these acts, the Plaintiffs allege that the value of
Elscint's shares fell during the period between Feb. 24, 1999
and up until the date at which the claim was instituted from a
price of $13.25 per share to a price of $7.25 per share.

The main relief which the original claim sought was to order the
Company to carry out a tender offer for Elscint's shares at a
price of $14 per share, and alternatively, to purchase Elscint's
shares held by the Plaintiffs at a price to be set by the court.
Further alternatively, the Plaintiffs sought, in their original
claim, that the court grants an order prohibiting the execution
of the September 99 Transactions and for the restitution of all
money paid, if paid within the framework of the above mentioned
transactions.  Some of the relief sought was also sought as a
derivative action on behalf of Elscint.

On Dec. 16, 2007, Elscint lodged an application for leave to
appeal on a decision of the Registrar of the District Court in
respect of Court fees that Elscint alleges should be paid by the
Plaintiffs for the main claim made in the "updated statement of
claim" which amounts to a sum of at least NIS2.4 million.  On
March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court decided that the motion for
leave to appeal requires reply, and thereafter the Plaintiffs
and all other parties submitted their replies.

On Jan. 11, 2009, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs'
motion to certify the claim as a class action.  On March 26,
2009, the Plaintiffs appealed the decision to dismiss their
motion to certify the claim as a class action before the Supreme
Court, according to the company's June 26, 2009 Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

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 wholly-owned Israeli
subsidiary, Elbit Trade & Retail Ltd., and venture-capital
investments.


ELBIT IMAGING: Minority Shareholders' Suit Still in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A minority shareholder class-action lawsuit against Elbit
Imaging Ltd., Elscint Ltd., Elscint's past directors and others
is in its preliminary stages.

In September 1999, the company, Elscint Ltd., Elscint's past
directors and others were served with a copy of a claim
instituted by a shareholder in Elscint.  Together with the claim
an application was filed to certify the claim as a class-action
suit on behalf of everyone who was a minority shareholder in
Elscint on the date of instituting the claim and was such a
shareholder on Feb. 18, 1999.

The scope of the class action claim (as amended in October 1999)
is estimated by the plaintiff at approximately $158.3 million
and its personal damages (as amended in October 1999) are
estimated by him at approximately $0.6 million.

The plaintiff claims that the company acted, through Elscint's
directors, systemically with the aim of emptying and diluting
Elscint of its business, assets, capital and value, whilst
enriching other companies in the Group at the expense of Elscint
and at the expense of the minority shareholders of Elscint.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the several transactions
executed by the company and Elscint in 1998 for the sale of
substantially all of their assets and business in the CT, MRI
and Focused Ultrasound business as well as a transaction to
grant options ("Option Transaction") to the former chairman of
the company, were all done whilst oppressing the minority
shareholders of Elscint and in contravention of Section 235 of
the Israeli Companies Ordinance.

The relief sought in the claim is to order the company, and
alternatively the other defendants, to purchase from the
Plaintiff and from the other members of the proffered class,
Elscint shares they hold at a price of $27.46 per share, and as
interim relief, in order to limit the Plaintiff's damages, to
oblige the Company to realise its undertakings dated Feb. 18,
1999 to acquire the above said shares at a price of $14 per
share. ("Tender Offer Claim")

According to an agreement reached between the parties in the
case, the hearing in this case was postponed until after the
Supreme Court rules on Leave for Civil Appeal as detailed in the
Nov. 2, 1999 lawsuit.

After a judgement was handed down in Application for Leave to
Appeal in the case detailed in the Nov. 2, 1999 lawsuit, on
Sept. 25, 2007, legal counsel for the Plaintiff addressed the
court asking to renew the hearings in this proceeding.

Following this application, on July 1, 2008, the defendants
filed an "announcement and application" on their behalf,
updating the court on the major events in the proceedings.

On March 31, 2009, the district court stroke out, in limine, the
causes of action in respect of the Options Transaction and the
Tender-Offer Claim.

According to the company's June 26, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, its legal counsels believe that-to their
best understanding-and also considering, inter alia, that this
matter is in its preliminary stages, and that responses have not
yet been submitted to the application to certify the claim as a
class action, nor have statements of defense been lodged, nor
has any hearing been held on material matters on the motion to
the certify the claim as a class action and/or on the claim
itself, and also considering the fact that they have not yet
received all the information and documents in connection with
this claim, and they have not yet interviewed all the relevant
entities - the probability of the claim being upheld is not
greater than 50%.

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 wholly-owned Israeli
subsidiary, Elbit Trade & Retail Ltd., and venture-capital
investments.


ELBIT IMAGING: Ruling on 3rd Party's Representation Bid Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Haifa District Court has yet to rule on the appropriateness
of a third party claimant to serve as a class representative in
a lawsuit against Elbit Imaging Ltd., among others.

On Sept. 6, 2006, a third party instituted two claims before the
Haifa District Court in which he sued the company, Elscint Ltd.,
Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. ("EIL"), Control Centers Ltd. And
others.

These statements of claim constitute an almost identical copy of
the claim detailed in the Nov. 2, 1999 lawsuit over "September
99 Transactions" and the Plaintiff asked to combine the hearings
with those in the said matter.  In the statements of claim the
Plaintiff asked to approve the claims he had instituted as class
actions, however up to the date of the approval of these
financial statements no separate applications have been served
to the companies for the certification of the claims as class
actions.

In the first claim, the Plaintiff alleges acts of oppression
towards the company's shareholders and in the second claim the
Plaintiff alleges acts of oppression towards Elscint's
shareholders.

The Plaintiff alleges continued and systematic oppression of the
minority shareholders in Elscint and the company, which caused
him monetary damages and which started - so he claims- in the
oppressive agreements Elscint made for the realization of the
main part of its assets, continued with the withholding of
information from the stock exchange and from the public, with
the sale of the control in Elscint to the company's controlling
shareholder 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 ("September 99
Transactions") at a lower value than the consideration received
for them.

The main relief sought in the claim is compensation consists of
(i) punitive damages for the acts of the defendants; and (ii)
damages for "mental anguish" to the plaintiff and to the
proffered class.  In addition, the plaintiff is also suing for
compensation for the difference between the price at which
Elscint shares were actually sold by the Plaintiff and the
proffered class members and in the sum of $14 million, plus
interest and linkage differences since 1999.  Furthermore, the
Plaintiff is also claiming for harm caused to the value of his
holdings in the company's shares.  It will be noted that the
statements of claim in both proceedings require certain
clarifications, due to the wording of the claims.

In the pre-trial session held at the District Court on Feb. 22,
2007, the Court asked the parties to refer to the question of
the appropriateness of the claimant to serve as a class
representative and on the issue of the overlap between the
claims lodged by the plaintiff and the claim detailed in the
Nov. 2, 1999 lawsuit.  The parties were given the opportunity to
complete their arguments in this matter, and in this framework
the Plaintiff asked, inter alia, that he be allowed to take
legal representation for the proceedings.  All the parties have
submitted the completion of their arguments in writing.  No
decision has yet been handed down in this matter, according to
the company's June 26, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

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 wholly-owned Israeli
subsidiary, Elbit Trade & Retail Ltd., and venture-capital
investments.


MBNA CORP: Oct. 6 Hearing Set for $25M Securities Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware will hold a
fairness hearing on Oct. 6, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed
$25 million settlement in the matter, "In Re MBNA Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-CV-00272-GMS."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet,
United States District Court Chief Judge, in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs
Federal Building, 844 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.

Previously, Law360 reported that Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware gave
preliminary approval to $25 million settlement in a class-action
lawsuit against MBNA Corp.

The lawsuit generally accuses MBNA and some of its officers and
directors of failing to disclose the true financial condition of
the company and making false and misleading statements to
investors, according to the Law360 report.

For more details, contact:

          MBNA Corp. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator
          c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
          P.O. Box 170500
          Milwaukee, WI 53217-8042
          Phone: 800-431-9392

          William H. Narwold, Esq. (bnarwold@motleyrice.com)
          Meghan S.B. Oliver, Esq.
          Motley Rice LLC
          Phone: 860-882-1681 or 843-216-9000
          Web site: http://www.motleyrice.com/


MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Brodsky & Smith Files Suit v. LabCorp Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Superior Court of
California challenging the proposed acquisition of Monogram
Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: MGRM) by Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings (NYSE: LH).  LabCorp has agreed to acquire
Monogram Biosciences in an all-cash deal valued at approximately
$106.7 million ($155 million, including indebtedness).

     Under the proposed agreement, Monogram Biosciences
shareholders will receive $4.55 for every share of Monogram
Biosciences common stock they own.  The investigation concerns
possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of
state law related to the Monogram Biosciences Board's approval
of the proposed merger.  The transaction appears to be unfair,
in part, given that Monogram Biosciences stock was trading at
over $4.35 a share as recently as February 2009 and traded at
over $5.00 a share into the 4th quarter of 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


MONSANTO CO: Aug. 13 Status Conference Set for Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 13, 2009 status conference has been set for a
consolidated purported class-action lawsuit against Monsanto Co.
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.

On June 23, 2004, two former employees of Monsanto and Pharmacia
filed a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Monsanto and
the Monsanto Company Pension Plan.

The suit claims that the Pension Plan has violated the age
discrimination and other rules under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 from Jan. 1, 1997 (when the Pension
Plan was sponsored by Pharmacia, then known as Monsanto Company)
and continuing to the present.

In January 2006, a separate group of former employees of
Pharmacia filed a similar purported class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against Pharmacia, the Pharmacia Cash Balance Plan, and other
defendants.

On July 7, 2006, the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add
Monsanto and the Pension Plan as additional defendants.

On Sept. 1, 2006, the Court consolidated these lawsuits with two
purported class action lawsuits also pending in the same Court
against the Solutia Company Pension Plan, under "Walker v.
Monsanto," the first filed case.  All parties have agreed the
case should proceed as a class action and also agreed on a
definition of the respective classes.  The classes were
certified by Court Order on May 22, 2008.

On July 11, 2008, all parties filed motions for summary judgment
on the issue of liability, which motions were heard by the court
on May 6, 2009.  On June 10, 2009, the Court granted summary
judgment in favor of Monsanto and the other defendants on the
age discrimination claims.  The Court granted summary judgment
in favor of the plaintiffs on a separate claim regarding post-
termination interest.  On that claim, the Court ordered that a
status conference be held on Aug. 13, 2009, to schedule
remaining proceedings, including discovery, with respect to
remedies.

The company, in its June 26, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2009, says it does not expect the amount of the post-termination
interest claim to be material.

Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com-- together with its
subsidiaries, is a global provider of agricultural products for
farmers.


MONSANTO CO: Property Damage Suits Over Contamination Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. continues to face purported class-action lawsuits
alleging property damage due to dioxins/furans contamination,
according to the company's June 26, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 31, 2009.

On Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class-action
lawsuit, styled, "Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al.," in
the Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto,
Pharmacia and seven other defendants.  This is a companion case
to "Carter, et al. v. Monsanto, et al.," that was filed in the
same state court Aug. 4, 2000, and alleges property damage due
to dioxin contamination.  Monsanto is named as the successor in
interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia in both cases.

The alleged class consists of all current and former residents,
workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were
allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties
surrounding Nitro, West Virginia.

The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a
chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by
Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia
Inc. and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.

Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but
Solutia was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding.

The suit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real
estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels,
funds to test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring
costs.  The complaint also seeks an injunction against further
contamination and punitive damages.

Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the
Flexsys defendant group.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the
Carter and Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al.,
because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) cases as
class actions matters.  The court has not set a trial date for
these cases.

On Nov. 21, 2008, Monsanto removed all cases to federal court
based on recent revelations from plaintiffs that afford the
opportunity to assert Federal Officers' defense to the
litigation.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the cases to
West Virginia state court and the federal court granted that
motion, in part, on Dec. 19, 2008.  The personal injury cases
and the Bibb case were remanded to the state court but the
federal court retained jurisdiction in the Carter case.

For more details, contact:

         W. Stuart Calwell, Esq.
         Alex McLaughlin, Esq.
         The Calwell Practice
         P.O. Box 113, Charleston, WV 25301
         Phone: 304-343-4323 and 304-291-5223
         Fax: 304-344-3864 and 304-291-2240;

              - and -

         James F. Humphreys, Esq.
         J. David Cecil, Esq.
         Thomas G. Wilson, Esq.
         James F. Humphreys & Associates
         United Center, Suite 800, 500 Virginia Street
         East Charleston, WV 25301
         Phone: 304-347-5050
         Fax: 304-347-5055


OHIO: DPS, BMV Faces Privacy Violations Lawsuit in Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Department of Public Safety and the Bureau of Motor
Vehicles is facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging
violations of federal law, WCPO reports.

Attorney Eric Deters, Esq. represents three Cincinnatians who
say the state passed on their personal information to two
companies, according to WCPO.

Mr. Deters wants the court to certify the federal lawsuit as a
class-action case.  He also wants the practice stopped and
damages for the defendants, WCPO reported.

For more details, contact:

          Eric Deters, Esq. (eric@ericdeters.com)
          Eric Deters, Attorney at Law
          5247 Madison Pike
          Independence, KY 41051
          Phone: (859) 363-1900 or 1-866-960-4878 (HURT)
          Cell: (859) 250-2527
          Fax: (859) 363-1444
          Web site: http://ericdeters.com/


PUBLIC STORAGE: "Brinkley" Wage and Hour Suit Remains Deferred
--------------------------------------------------------------
Further action in the class-action matter captioned, "Brinkley
v. Public Storage, Inc.," remains deferred, according to the
company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009

The plaintiff sued PS on behalf of a purported class of
California non-exempt employees based on various California wage
and hour laws and seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief.

In May 2006, a motion for class certification was filed seeking
to certify five subclasses.  Plaintiff sought certification for
alleged meal period violations, rest period violations, failure
to pay for travel time, failure to pay for mileage
reimbursement, and for wage statement violations.

In October 2006, the Court declined to certify three out of the
five subclasses.  The Court did, however, certify subclasses
based on alleged meal period and wage statement violations.
Subsequently, PS filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to
dismiss the matter in its entirety.

On June 22, 2007, the Court granted PS' summary judgment motion
as to the causes of action relating to the subclasses certified
and dismissed those claims.  The only surviving claims are those
relating to the named plaintiff.  The plaintiff has filed an
appeal to this ruling.

On Oct. 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial
court's ruling.  The plaintiff  filed a petition for review with
the California Supreme Court, which was granted but further
action in this matter was deferred pending consideration and
disposition of a related issue in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v.
Superior Court, which is pending before the California Supreme
Court.

Public Storage -- http://www.publicstorage.com/-- is a real
estate investment trust.  The business activities of the Trust
include the acquisition, development, ownership and operation of
self-storage facilities, which offer storage spaces for lease,
generally on a month-to-month basis, for personal and business
use. The  Trust operates in three business segments: self-
storage, Shurgard Europe and ancillary.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, the Trust had a direct and indirect ownership
interests in the 2,012 and 181 storage facilities located in the
38 states within the United States and seven Western European
nations.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Class Status in Wildfire Suits Denied on June 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class-action status in lawsuits against Sempra Energy and its
subsidiary, San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (SDG&E) over San Diego
County wildfire was denied on June 25, 2009.

In October 2007, San Diego County experienced catastrophic
wildfires.  The causes of many of these fires remain under
investigation, including the possible role of SDG&E power lines
affected by unusually high winds.

In July 2008, the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (Cal Fire) issued investigation reports stating that
the Witch and Rice fires were each a "power line-caused fire"
and that the Guejito fire occurred when a wire securing a large
communication company's fiber optic cable came into contact with
an energized power line "causing an arc and starting the fire."

The reports indicate that the Witch and Guejito fires merged and
eventually burned approximately 198,000 acres, resulted in two
fatalities, injured approximately 45 firefighters and destroyed
approximately 1,141 homes.

Cal Fire is still investigating the perimeters of these two
fires to determine the damages associated with each one.  Cal
Fire stated that the Rice fire burned approximately 9,500 acres
and damaged 206 homes and two commercial properties.

Numerous lawsuits, four of which seek to be designated as class
actions, have been filed against SDG&E in San Diego County
Superior Court, seeking unspecified amounts for damages relating
to the fires.  Several of the lawsuits also name Sempra Energy
as a defendant.

The lawsuits allege inverse condemnation, negligence and other
causes of action, and assert that SDG&E improperly designed and
maintained its power lines and failed to adequately clear
adjacent vegetation.

On June 25, 2009, the court ruled that the lawsuits cannot
proceed as class actions on behalf of all persons who
experienced wildfire damages but must instead be pursued in
individual lawsuits.

SDG&E has filed cross-complaints against Cox Communications
seeking indemnification for any liability that SDG&E may incur
that relates to the Guejito fire, according to Sempra Energy's
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
dated June 26, 2009.

Sempra Energy -- http://www.sempra.com/-- is an energy services
holding company that, through its subsidiaries, develops energy
infrastructure, operate utilities, and provide related products
and services.  The company has five separately managed segments
comprising Southern California Gas Co., San Diego Gas & Electric
Co., Sempra Commodities, Sempra Generation and Sempra Pipelines
& Storage.  SoCalGas and SDG&E are collectively referred to as
the Sempra Utilities.


ST. LOUIS COUNTY: Faces Mo. Suit Over "Illegal" Recycling Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis County, Missouri is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit accusing it of illegally making residents pay for
recycling, The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed in St. Louis County Court by James O. Grace,
David J. Birtley, Lucille DeGeare, and Ana McDonald who are
claiming that the state's Hancock Amendment requires voter
approval before political subdivisions, such as St. Louis
County, can levy any new taxes, licenses or fees.

In December 2006, without voter approval, St. Louis County
passed an ordinance that for the first time forced residents in
unincorporated areas to pay for recycling services, the
complaint states.  The ordinance divided unincorporated areas
into eight districts, selected a waste management provider for
each district and required each resident to pay for at least a
minimum level of service that includes weekly trash pickup and
recycling service and a twice-yearly bulk pickup, according to
The Courthouse News Service.

The plaintiffs say that requiring them to pay for recycling
without a vote violates the state constitution's Hancock
Amendment, and that failure to pay for the services constitutes
an ordinance violation and could subject the violator to fines
and prison, The Courthouse News Service.

The plaintiffs -- who paid for the recycling services under
protest -- are seeking to represent a class of all residents in
unincorporated areas of St. Louis County who have been forced to
pay for recycling services under the new ordinance.

The plaintiffs are represented by represented by David Butsch,
Esq.  They want the ordinance declared unconstitutional, and
seek damages.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3e7c


TIM PARTICIPACOES: Expects Action on Assets Return to Continue
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIM Participacoes SA expects proceedings relating to the return
to the federal government of the company's assets used in
connection with the provision of telecommunication services to
continue, according to its June 26, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In January 2003, a type of class action was brought by an
individual against Anatel and all the companies controlled by
Telecom Italia in Brazil, including Tim Participacoes.

The claim sought to suspend the effects of Resolucao 318, of
Sept. 27, 2002, and other acts by Anatel, including
Authorizations PVCP/SPV Nos. 001/2002 to 011/2002, published on
Dec. 12, 2002, which authorized the company to migrate from the
SMC regime to the PCS regime.

The action specifically challenged the omission of provisions
regulating the return of the assets used by the company in
connection with the provision of telecommunication services by
the time of the expiration of the authorizations.  By reason of
such omission, argues the claimant, the Brazilian Federal
Government would suffer irreparable damage and, therefore,
Anatel acts allowing the migration from SMC to PCS should be
declared null and void.

The company challenged this action, and after some preliminary
decisions by lower courts it has obtained a unanimous decision
from the Regional Federal Court of Appeals ("Tribunal Regional
Federal") permitting the migration from SMC to PCS, reserving
discussion about the return of the assets to the Brazilian
Federal Government for a later date.  The judge extinguished the
action.  The decision was subject to compulsory appeal at a
superior court.  On Oct. 19, 2007, the court of appeals ordered
the return of the case to the lower courts to allow other
interested parties to take part in the litigation.

In 2003, Anatel and the federal government informed the Court
that Authorizations PVCP/SVP nos. 001/2002 to 011/2002 are valid
and should not be voided by the Court.

The company entered into amendments to its authorizations to
provide for the contingency that in the event of the termination
of our authorizations, the assets essential to its provision of
services would be returned to the federal government.

TIM Participacoes SA -- http://www.timpartri.com.br/tim-- is a
wireless provider in Brazil.  The company primarily uses the
global system for mobile communications technology (GSM), to
provide mobile telecommunications services throughout Brazil.
The company offers value-added services, including short message
services or text messaging, multimedia messaging services, push-
mail, Blackberry service, video call, turbo mail, wireless
application protocol (WAP) downloads, Web browsing, business
data solutions, songs, games, television access, voice mail,
conference calling, chats and other content and services.  The
company provides interconnection services to fixed line and
mobile service providers as well.


TIM PARTICIPACOES: Still Faces Suits Over Consumer/Labor Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIM Participacoes SA remains a party to consumer protection and
labor law proceedings, according to the company's June 26, 2009
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The company remains a party to certain legal proceedings, which
may be divided into two main categories: consumer protection
claims and labor law claims.

The most common issue raised by claimants in the consumer
protection cases against the company is allegedly incorrect
charges imposed by TIM as well as defects on mobile handsets the
company sells.

Most labor law claims against the company have been brought by
former employees for alleged infringement of labor laws during
the duration of their employment contracts with TIM.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company was a party to approximately
34,400 consumer protection claims and 2,350 labor law claims.
There are also 105 public civil actions and class actions.

TIM Participacoes SA -- http://www.timpartri.com.br/tim-- is a
wireless provider in Brazil.  The company primarily uses the
global system for mobile communications technology (GSM), to
provide mobile telecommunications services throughout Brazil.
The company offers value-added services, including short message
services or text messaging, multimedia messaging services, push-
mail, Blackberry service, video call, turbo mail, wireless
application protocol (WAP) downloads, Web browsing, business
data solutions, songs, games, television access, voice mail,
conference calling, chats and other content and services.  The
company provides interconnection services to fixed line and
mobile service providers as well.


VERIFIED IDENTITY: Sued Over $250 Fee, Personal Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verified Identity Pass, Inc., now known as Clear, is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit that was filed by a stranded
member who wants the company to refund his $200 membership fee
and return his fingerprints and iris prints, Ryan Singel of
Wired Blogs reports.

The airport security fast-pass company that closed its lanes
this month is being sued by Robert I. Harwood, who is alleging
that he asked the company for a refund on June 23 -- the day it
announced it would shut down its lanes -- and that the company
refused, according to Wired Blogs.

The suit was in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, under the caption, "Robert I. Harwood v.
Verified Identity Pass, Inc., Index No. 09601971."

Mr. Harwood wants the court to force the company to give pro-
rated refunds to him and the estimated 165,000 other Clear
cardholders.  He also wants the court to force the company to
return users' biometric prints, Wired Blogs reported.

Last week, Clear said it would try to sell the data to another
Registered Traveler program, but would destroy it if it could
not find a buyer.  Clear, which had express lanes at 20 of the
nation's busiest airports, was the largest provider in the
government's Registered Traveler program.  All members cards had
to interoperate, but Clear was the definite leader and its
shutdown likely means the end of the Registered Traveler
program, reports Wired Blogs.

Clear was founded by journalist-turned entrepreneur Steven Brill
as Verified Identity Pass in 2005.  Mr. Brill, who was fired by
the board in March, envisioned that a thorough background check
would let Clear sell a card that would let members skip airline
screening, Wired Blogs reports.


VIVENDI S.A.: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vivendi, S.A., and two of its former senior officers, Jean-Marie
Messier and Guillaume Hannezo are facing a purported class-
action lawsuit alleging securities  fraud.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under the caption, "In Re Vivendi
Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-5571."

It affects Vivendi investors from the United States, France,
England and the  Netherlands who purchased or otherwise acquired
its securities between Oct. 30, 2000 and  Aug. 14, 2002.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the United States
federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements regarding the financial condition of Vivendi,
inflating the share price and causing economic harm to certain
investors.

For more details, contact:

          Vivendi Securities Class Action
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 9250
          Dublin, OH 43017-4650
          U.S.A.
          Phone: 800-767-2840 or +1.941.906.4609
          Web site: http://www.vivendiclassaction.com/

               - and -

          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: 212-889-3700
          Fax: 212-684-5191
          e-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com
          Web site: http://www.abbeyspanier.com/


WASHINGTON: Cities Face 2nd Suit Over Fines From Traffic Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than a dozen Washington cities are facing a second
purported class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of drivers who
have been caught by traffic cameras and paid too much for a
ticket, Issaquah Press reports.

The lawsuit accuse officials in Issaquah and other cities of
entering into deals with camera manufacturers in order to turn a
profit.  Attorneys for plaintiffs want officials to refund fines
collected as a result of violations caught on camera, according
to Issaquah Press.

The suit was brought on behalf of drivers ticketed after being
caught by traffic cameras.  The plaintiffs said the infractions
are illegal because state law requires fines for infractions
caught on camera to be less than or equal to parking tickets
issued by the same agency, Issaquah Press reported.

Attorneys for The Rosen Firm, of Seattle, filed the lawsuit on
June 25, 2009 in King County Superior Court, reports Issaquah
Press.

Josh Kerns of KIRO Radio previously reported that about nineteen
Washington cities are facing a purported class-action lawsuit
filed on behalf of drivers who have been caught by traffic
cameras and paid too much for a ticket.

On June 23, 2009, Rob Williamson, Esq. of Williamson & Williams
and the Bowler Law Office filed a class-action lawsuit against
several cities in Washington that use "automated traffic safety
cameras" to detect violations of certain traffic laws.  The suit
claims that the cities have imposed fines for these violations
that are far more than what was intended, and is permitted, by
the State Legislature.

The use of automated traffic safety cameras was initially
authorized by RCW 46.63.170, a state law passed in 2005.  The
main purpose of the legislation is to promote safety, not raise
revenue.  The law permits municipalities to use the cameras at
two-arterial intersections, railroad crossings and school speed
zones.  The law also provides that the fine issued for an
infraction shall not exceed the amount of the fine issued for
"other parking infractions within the jurisdiction."

Notwithstanding the clear intention of the legislature and the
law, the defendant cities have used the law as a way to generate
revenue.  The cities generally charge the same amount -- $124 --
as if the driver had been observed and cited by a police
officer.  These fines are up to four times more than the
"parking fines" the state law permits.

Mr. Williamson contends the legislature never meant for cities
to charge the same fine for an infraction caught on a traffic
camera as you would be charged if caught by police.  "It was
meant to be a safety measure, not a revenue raiser, and what's
happened I think is that the cities have not really taken that
to heart," he tells KIRO Radio.

The suit was filed in the King County Superior Court and has
been assigned to Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell.  It seeks to certify a
class of all persons who have paid the excess fines.  It also
seeks declaratory relief that the practices of the cities are
illegal, an injunction ordering them to stop assessing the
excess fines, and restitution of the excess amounts paid.

For more details, contact:

          Rob Williamson, Esq. (roblin@williamslaw.com)
          Williamson & Williams
          187 Parfitt Way SW
          Suite 250
          Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
          Phone: (206) 780-4457 or (206) 780-4447
          Fax: (206) 780-5557
          Web site: http://www.williamslaw.com/

               - and -

          The Rosen Firm
          800 5th Avenue
          Suite 4000
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: (206) 333-3633 or (800) 384-2886
          Fax: (206) 770-6136
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegalfirm.com/


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

RAYMOND JAMES: Izard Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of Raymond James Financial, Inc.
(NYSE: RJF) between April 22, 2008 and April 14, 2009,
inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Raymond James and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, it is alleged that defendants repeatedly touted
Raymond James' supposedly conservative management practices and
avoidance of risky assets associated with subprime residential
mortgages.  Defendants, however, failed to disclose that Raymond
James understated the credit risks of its wholly owned
subsidiary's commercial and residential loan portfolios, and
failed to set aside adequate reserves for the losses that
Raymond James knew, or recklessly disregarded, were forthcoming.

     On April 14, 2009, Raymond James announced that results for
the second fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009, would be well
below the consensus analysts' estimates and that both its
commercial and residential portfolios would require higher loss
reserves, with the loan loss provision tripling from the
previous quarter. On this news, Raymond James stock fell $2.57
per share, or 13.48%, to close at $16.49 per share on April 15,
2009.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Aug. 10, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.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  * * *