CAR_Public/090707.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 7, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 133

                           Headlines

AAA BONDING: Faces Lawsuit Over High Rates of Immigration Bonds
APOLLO GROUP: Appeal to Ruling in Ariz. Securities Suit Pending
APOLLO GROUP: Faces "Juric" Wage and Hour Action in Los Angeles
APOLLO GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit Pending
APOLLO GROUP: Oct. 26 Certification Hearing Set for Calif. Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: Pension Funds Named Lead Plaintiffs in "Sklar"
BAY EQUITY: Faces Tenants' Lawsuit Over Loss of Air Conditioning
CAREONE: Former Resident Files Litigation Over Monthly Bill
CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Amended Complaint Over Copyright Violations
DELTA AIR: Faces Ga. ERISA Violations Suit Over Pension Benefits

DONALD L. DUTIEL: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over Sale of Sickly Puppies
EXPEDIA CANADA: Juroviesky and Ricci Files Consumer Fraud Suit
GRUMA SAB: Defending "Garza" Lawsuit Over Distributor Agreements
GRUMA SAB: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Confirmation of Award Pending
GRUMA SAB: Settlement of "Herzog" Suit v. Unit Pending Approval

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: $3.1M Damages Award Entered in "McClain" Suit
MARQUETTE BANK: Ill. Court Sets Hearing for $90,000 Settlement
MASSACHUSETTS: Faces Suit in Federal Court Over Pension Changes
MASSACHUSETTS: Faces Suit in State Court Over Pension Changes
OHIO: OEJC Files Litigation Over Citizens' Voting Rights

PERDIGAO SA: Sadia Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
RUTH'S CHRIS: Former Server Files FLSA Violations Suit in Mass.
SMITH & WESSON: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
SPORT CHALET: July 31 Final Hearing Set for "Cole" Suit Deal
SUNRISE SENIOR: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved in June

TC GLOBAL: Expects Certification Bid in Hourly Employees' Suit
TVI PACIFIC: Ontario, Quebec Courts Approves Suit Settlements
UNITED STATES: Seeks Dismissal of S.D. Lawsuit Over Black Hills
WAL-MART STORES: Will Pay $54.25M to Settle Minn. Litigation
WALGREEN CO: Plumbers and Steamfitters' Suit Pending in Illinois

WILLIS GROUP: Strasburger & Price Files Suit Over Fraud Scheme


                           *********

AAA BONDING: Faces Lawsuit Over High Rates of Immigration Bonds
---------------------------------------------------------------
AAA Bonding Agency is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in
Texas that accuses the bail bonding company of routinely
overcharging immigrants seeking release from federal detention
centers, Jeremy Roebuck of The Monitor reports.

According to J. Benjamin King, Esq., a Dallas-based attorney
representing two of the businesses' former clients, AAA Bonding
required payments up to 30 percent higher than the standard rate
the company had on file with state regulators.

The Monitor reported that each year federal authorities send
thousands of men and women slated for possible deportation to
civil detention centers such as the ones in Port Isabel and Los
Fresnos.

Most are released while removal proceedings against them are
pending by paying a bond directly to the government or
contracting with a bonding company to pay a portion of that fee.

Since its incorporation in 2000, AAA has emerged as a leader in
the industry.  Backed by Missouri-based Safety National Casualty
Corp. -- an insurance company also named as a defendant in the
suit -- AAA issues hundreds of immigration bonds a year, The
Monitor reports.

All of the agency's clients agree to pay between 40 and 50
percent of the bond assessed as a nonrefundable fee, according
to the company's standard contract.  Should the detained
immigrant fail to appear in court, the company requires clients
pay the full amount of the bond less any collateral on deposit,
reports The Monitor.

But Safety National is only authorized to charge up to 20
percent of the total bond, according to filings with the Texas
Department of Insurance, The Monitor reported.

Many of AAA's clients signed a separate form allowing the
company to exceed its listed rate, but the business failed to
submit the documents to the insurance department as required by
law.

The company still violated state insurance regulations,
regardless of whether the family members of detained immigrants
agreed to the terms, Mr. King tells The Monitor.

"Even had the defendants filed (the forms), the Texas DOI would
never have approved so great a deviation from the approved
rate," Mr. King says in the suit.

The plaintiffs in the case against AAA and Safety National are
seeking class-action status for the case.  An initial hearing is
scheduled for September, according to The Monitor.

For more details, contact:

          J. Benjamin King, Esq. (bking@diamondmccarthy.com)
          Diamond McCarthy LLP
          1201 Elm Street, 34th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75270
          Phone: (214) 389-5328 or (214) 389-5300
          Fax: (214) 389-5399
          Web site: http://www.diamondmccarthy.com

  
APOLLO GROUP: Appeal to Ruling in Ariz. Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to a ruling in a consolidated lawsuit
captioned, "In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT," is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's June 29, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2009.

In October 2004, three class-action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  The court
consolidated the three pending class action complaints under the
caption, "In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT," and a consolidated class action
complaint was filed on May 16, 2005, by the lead plaintiff.

The Lead Plaintiff represents a class of the company's
shareholders who acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004,
and Sept. 14, 2004.

The consolidated complaint specifically named the company, Todd
S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales, and Daniel E. Bachus, as
defendants.

On March 1, 2007, by stipulation and order of the Court, Daniel
E. Bachus was dismissed as a defendant from the case.

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 under the Act by the company for defendants'
allegedly material false and misleading statements in connection
with its failure to publicly disclose the contents of a
preliminary U.S. Department of Education program review report.

The case proceeded to trial on Nov. 14, 2007.  On Jan. 16, 2008,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs awarding
damages of up to $5.55 for each share of common stock in the
class suit, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The class shares are those purchased after Feb. 27, 2004, and
still owned on Sept. 14, 2004.

The judgment was entered on Jan. 30, 2008, subject to an
automatic stay until Feb. 13, 2008.

On Feb. 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to stay
execution of the judgment pending resolution of its motions for
post-trial relief, which were also filed on Feb. 13, 2008,
provided that the company post a bond in the amount of $95.0
million.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the company posted the $95-million bond with
the Court.

Oral arguments occurred on Aug. 4, 2008 as part of the company's
post-trial motions, during which the District Court vacated the
earlier judgment based on the jury verdict and entered judgment
in favor of Apollo and the other defendants.

The $95.0 million bond posted in February was subsequently
released on Aug. 11, 2008.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 29, 2008.  A hearing date
for the appeal has not been set.  The plaintiffs' filed their
opening brief on May 18, 2009., and the defendants' brief is
currently due on Aug. 20, 2009.

The consolidated action is "In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-02147," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Judge James A. Teilborg,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert D. Mitchell, Esq.
         (robertmitchell@mitchelllaw.com)
         Mitchell & Forest
         2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 618
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Phone: 602-468-1411
         Fax: 602-468-1311

              - and -

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the company is:

          Wayne W. Smith, Esq.
          Orange County Office
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: 949-451-4108
          Fax: 949-475-4709


APOLLO GROUP: Faces "Juric" Wage and Hour Action in Los Angeles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, University of Phoenix,
face a class action lawsuit by former employee Dejan Juric,
according to the company's June 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 31, 2009.

On April 3, 2009, former employee Dejan Juric filed a lawsuit in
California State Court in Los Angeles against Apollo and
University of Phoenix.

The complaint is styled as a class action and alleges various
wage and hour claims for failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime, failure to provide rest and meal periods, and failure
to properly report wages and earnings.

The company filed an answer denying all of the asserted claims
on May 4, 2009, and then removed the case to the Federal
District Court in Los Angeles.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private
education provider.  The company offers educational programs and
services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels
online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The
University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute
for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial
Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International
University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight
Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned
subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global).  The company
has also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University
(Meritus), which began operations in September 2008.


APOLLO GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a securities
class-action lawsuit alleging that executives of Apollo Group
Inc. backdated stock option grants for five years is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

In his 138-page order issued on March 27, 2009, Judge Broomfield
agreed to grant in part Apollo's motion to dismiss the suit,
tossing several claims, according to the Law360 report.

The class-action complaint, captioned, "Teamsters Local 617
Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-02674-RCB," was filed on Nov. 2, 2006, and purported to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased the company's
stock between Nov. 28, 2001, and Oct. 28, 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 3, 2008).

The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly failing to
disclose alleged deficiencies in the company's stock option
granting policies and practices.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and other relief.

On Jan. 3, 2007, other shareholders, through their separate
attorneys, filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff
and approval of their designated counsel as lead counsel to
pursue the action.  The court later appointed The Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff and approved the
lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.

On Nov. 23, 2007, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging that the defendants made misrepresentations concerning
the company's stock option granting policies and practices,
traded while in possession of material non-public information,
violated duties of care, candor and loyalty, and engaged in
self-dealing.

The Lead Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and
civil conspiracy to commit fraud, and seeks unstated
compensatory and punitive damages and other relief on behalf of
the purported class.

Aside from the company, other named defendants are:

      -- John G. Sperling,
      -- Todd S. Nelson,
      -- Kenda B. Gonzales,
      -- Daniel E. Bachus,
      -- John M. Blair,
      -- Hedy F. Govenar,
      -- Brian E. Mueller,
      -- Dino J. DeConcini,
      -- Peter V. Sperling, and
      -- Laura Palmer Noone.

All defendants filed motions to dismiss the case on Jan. 22,
2008.

On March 31, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice
as to Daniel Bachus, Hedy Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Dino J.
DeConcini, and Laura Noone.  The Court also dismissed the case
as to John Sperling and Peter Sperling, but granted plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint against them.  Finally, the
Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims concerning misconduct
before November 2001 and all of the state law claims for
conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty.

On April 30, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint, which alleges similar claims for alleged securities
fraud against the same defendants.

On June 15, 2009, all defendants filed another motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint, which is currently pending with
the Court.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun, according to the
company's June 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2009.

The suit is "Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v.
Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02674-RCB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge
Robert C. Broomfield, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

              - and -

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. (pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         1 N La Salle St., Ste. 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-377-1181
         Fax: 312-377-1184

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael J. Farrell, Esq. (mfarrell@jsslaw.com)
         Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC
         Collier Ctr., 201 E. Washington, Ste. 1100
         Phoenix, AZ 85004-2385
         Phone: 602-262-5900
         Fax: 602-495-2618

              - and -

         Joseph E. Floren, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
         101 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10178-0060
         Phone: 212-309-6000


APOLLO GROUP: Oct. 26 Certification Hearing Set for Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 26, 2009 class certification hearing has been set for
the lawsuit filed by former University of Phoenix, Inc. (UPX)
students against Apollo Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On Dec. 9, 2008, three former University of Phoenix students
filed a complaint against Apollo Group and UPX in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The complaint alleges that with regard to students who dropped
from their courses shortly after enrolling, University of
Phoenix improperly returned the entire amount of the students'
undisbursed federal loan funds to the lender.

The students purport to be bringing the complaint on behalf of
themselves and a proposed class of similarly-situated student
loan borrowers.

On Jan. 21, 2009, the plaintiffs voluntarily filed a dismissal
"without prejudice to re-filing."

The plaintiffs then filed a similar complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles) on Feb. 5, 2009.

The company filed an answer denying all of the asserted claims
on March 30, 2009.  Under the District Court's current
Scheduling Order, trial is set for August 2010.  The matter is
in discovery.  The plaintiffs must file their motion for class
certification not later than July 14, 2009, and the hearing on
class certification has been set for Oct. 26, 2009.

According to the company's June 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 31, 2009., at this time, Apollo Group does not know
how many students may fall into this category, or whether there
is a proper basis for the lawsuit to proceed as a class-action
lawsuit.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private
education provider.  The company offers educational programs and
services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels
online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The
University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute
for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial
Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International
University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight
Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned
subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global).  The company
has also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University
(Meritus), which began operations in September 2008.


BANK OF AMERICA: Pension Funds Named Lead Plaintiffs in "Sklar"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three U.S. and two European pension funds were granted lead-
plaintiff status in a class-action lawsuit against Bank of
America Corp. over its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Raquel Pichardo-Allison of Global Pensions reports.

The three U.S. pension funds are the State Teachers' Retirement
System of Ohio, the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and
the Teachers' Retirement System of Texas.  While the two
European funds are Dutch fund PGGM and Swedish scheme AP4,
according to Global Pensions.

Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York said the "public pension funds have the
largest financial interest" in the case, reports Global
Pensions.

Elinor Comlay of Reuters previously reported that the State
Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System and the Teachers Retirement System of Texas
were named as lead plaintiffs in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed against Bank of America Corp. over its acquisition
of brokerage Merrill Lynch & Co. (Class Action Reporter, July 3,
2009).

The suit was filed on Jan. 21, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York by Steven J. Sklar, under
the caption, "Sklar v. Bank of America Corp. et al., Case No.
1:2009-cv-00580."  Named as defendants in the matter are Bank of
America Corp., Kenneth D. Lewis, John A. Thain, Gary A. Carlin
and Nelson Chai.

Andrew Harris of Bloomberg News previously reported that Bank of
America Corp. faces a complaint filed by shareholder Steven
Sklar on Jan. 21, 2009, alleging that the bank failed to
disclosed of Merrill Lynch & Co.'s $15.3 billion losses before
investors voted on its acquisition (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
29, 2009).

Mr. Sklar said in his complaint filed in a federal court in New
York that the Dec. 5, 2008, vote to buy Merrill Lynch was based
on an Oct. 31, 2008, proxy statement that wasn't revised to
account for its poor performance in the last quarter of 2008.
Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch for $29 billion in a
transaction that closed on Jan. 1, 2009.  He added the losses
were only disclosed on Jan. 16, 2009.

The suit seeks class-action, or group, status on behalf of all
Bank of America shareholders who were eligible to vote on the
acquisition, plus unspecified money damages for the loss of
value of their holdings, Bloomberg News relates.

For more details, contact:

          James Abram Harrod, III, Esq. (jharrod@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212.759.4600
          Fax: 212.486.2093

               - and -

          Frederic Scott Fox, Sr., Esq. (ffox@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (NYC)
          850 Third Avenue
          14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714


BAY EQUITY: Faces Tenants' Lawsuit Over Loss of Air Conditioning
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Equity Real Estate is facing a purported class-action suit
by tenants at the Barclay Square apartments who for several
weeks have been without air conditioning, Barry Carpenter of The
33 News reports.

The lawsuit was filed by attorney Manny Alvarez, Esq. on July 2,
2009 in downtown Dallas.  The class-action suit alleges that for
the last 25 days, plaintiff and the other members of the
proposed class have been forced to live in substandard,
uninhabitable and dangerous conditions at Barclay Square
apartments, according to The 33 News report.

For more details, contact:

          Alvarez Manny, Esq.
          400 S. Zang Blvd # 1000
          Dallas, TX
          Phone: (214) 942-4500


CAREONE: Former Resident Files Litigation Over Monthly Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------
CareOne at Evesham Assisted Living is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit from a former resident who said she was grossly
overcharged and believes many other residents may have suffered
the same treatment, Adam Smeltz of The Cherry Hill Courier Post
reports.

Mary Farkas of Burlington moved into the Marlton facility in
January 2008 and agreed to pay about $4,800 a month for room,
board and a low level of care, according to a civil case filed
in Superior Court in Burlington County.

But in September, Ms. Farkas received a monthly bill for
$13,478, reflecting increases in care about which she was never
notified or given any advance explanation, the lawsuit states,
reports The Cherry Hill Courier Post.

State law mandates such notification, said her lawyer, Marlton-
based Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.  He said a review shows that
others at CareOne probably have been overcharged, as well,
though the court has not yet decided whether to grant the case a
class-action status.

But "regardless of whether it was deliberate or malicious, it
still, in my opinion, clearly violated" state law, Mr. DeNittis
said of the extra fees that Ms. Farkas faced, according to The
Cherry Hill Courier Post.

Ms. Farkas is seeking a jury trial, an audit of CareOne's
billing practices and refunds for anyone who has been
overcharged, The Cherry Hill Courier Post reported.


CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Amended Complaint Over Copyright Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corp. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, and other
unaffiliated cruise lines faces an amended complaint in New York
alleging copyright violations.

In January 2006, a lawsuit was filed against Carnival Corp. on
behalf of a purported class of owners of intellectual property
rights to musical plays and other works performed in the U.S.
The plaintiffs claim infringement of copyrights to Broadway, off
Broadway and other plays.

The suit seeks payment of damages, disgorgement of alleged
profits, and an injunction against future infringement.

In April 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that did
not assert claims on behalf of a class, according to the
company's June 30, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2009.

Carnival Corp. -- http://www.carnivalcorp.com/-- is a cruise
company having a portfolio of cruise brands and is a provider of
cruises to all vacation destinations.  The cruise brands of the
Company includes Carnival Cruise Lines, Princess Cruises, Costa
Cruises, Holland America Line, P&O Cruises, Cunard Line, AIDA
Cruises, P&O Cruises Australia, Ocean Village, Ibero Cruises and
The Yachts of Seabourn.  In addition to the cruise operations,
the company owns Holland America Tours and Princess Tours.


DELTA AIR: Faces Ga. ERISA Violations Suit Over Pension Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
alleging that it violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 when it made changes to its formula
for calculating pension benefits, Kelly Yamanouchi of The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

The suit was filed on June 29, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia by Jean Marie Cinotto, a
Delta Air Lines flight attendant who claims that the change is
costing beneficiaries millions of dollars in accrued benefits
that are federally protected, according to The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution.

Ms. Cinotto, a Delta flight attendant for more than 30 years,
says Delta made the change in 2007 while in Chapter 11
bankruptcy.  The change altered the calculation of the Social
Security offset for certain participants' pension benefits,
reports The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The offset typically reduces corporate pensions by a percentage
of Social Security benefits received, The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution reported.

The suit entitled,"Cinotto v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:2009-cv-01739," claims that Delta's change violates an
"anti-cutback" rule under ERISA.  The change could affect tens
of thousands of participants and beneficiaries in the airline's
pension plan, according to the complaint, a copy of which was
obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

For more details, contact:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Johnson Bottini, LLP
          Suite 1400
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-230-0063

               - and -

          David James Worley, Esq. (dworley@pageperry.com)
          Page Perry LLC
          Suite 1050
          1040 Crown Pointe Parkway
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 770-673-0047
          Fax: 770-673-0120


DONALD L. DUTIEL: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over Sale of Sickly Puppies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald L. Dutiel, a Perry County breeder faces a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by seven central Ohio residents, who
bought puppies from him, alleging the pups were so diseased that
some soon died, Mary Beth Lane of The Columbus Dispatch.

Mr. Dutiel, who runs the Wagon Wheel Ranch on a rural spread
near New Lexington, denied the allegation and said he takes good
care of the dogs and puppies kept in cages on his property about
60 miles southeast of Columbus.

Columbus lawyer John A. Bell, Esq., whose clients live in
Franklin, Licking, Pickaway and Perry counties, asked county
Judge Linton Lewis of of the Perry County Court of Common Pleas
to certify the complaint as a class-action case.  A pretrial
conference is scheduled for July 28, 2009, according to The
Columbus Dispatch.

The suit alleges that Mr. Dutiel is violating the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act by knowingly selling poorly cared-for pups -
- some carrying highly contagious diseases -- either online or
through classified ads in local newspapers.

The Columbus Dispatch reported that the suit, which also names
Mr. Dutiel's wife, Louella, and business associate Elizabeth
Singleton as defendants, seeks more than $25,000 in damages and
a court order stopping business practices that it alleges are
illegal.


EXPEDIA CANADA: Juroviesky and Ricci Files Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law offices of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP have filed a
class action lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
against Expedia Canada Corporation and Expedia.ca.

     The suit alleges widespread violations of various consumer
protection legislation and certain common law causes of action.
Juroviesky and Ricci LLP are seeking to pursue remedies against
the Defendants for breaches under the Consumer Protection Act
and the Competition Act, as well as for breach of contract and
other claims based on the allegation that consumers of
Expedia.ca were sold lodging accommodations and charged a non-
itemized "taxes and services fee" charge, in violation of the
aforementioned laws.

For more details, contact:

          Henry Juroviesky
          Juroviesky and Ricci LLP,
          Phone: (416) 481-0718 Ext. 324
          Fax: (416) 481-1792
          e-mail: info@jrclassactions.com


GRUMA SAB: Defending "Garza" Lawsuit Over Distributor Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gruma SAB de CV continues to defend against a class action suit
styled Enrique Garza, et al. v. Gruma Corporation doing business
as Mission Foods.

In April 2007, GRUMA was named in the class action suit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division.

The plaintiffs assert that they were induced to enter into
distributor agreements and to pay for routes by false statements
and that GRUMA breached the distributor agreements by
arbitrarily taking their routes, shuffling around the routes,
reselling the routes to others, and failing to adequately
compensate the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs also asserted a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) violation under 18 U.S. Code  1962 et
seq.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.

On July 24, 2008, the Court dismissed the RICO claims with
prejudice.  The parties are scheduled for mediation on the
remaining claims on March 18, 2009, according to the company's
June 30, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Gruma SAB de CV -- http://www.gruma.com-- is a Mexican company
engaged in the food processing sector.  Its activities include
the production and distribution of tortillas and corn flour, as
well as wheat flour, rice and oatmeal.  The company is also
involved in the distribution and sale of machinery and
accessories used in the tortilla production.  The company owns
such subsidiaries as Gruma Corporation, Grupo Industrial Maseca
SAB de CV, Molinos Nacionales CA, Derivados de Maiz Seleccionado
CA, Molinera de Mexico SA de CV, Gruma Centroamerica LLC,
Productos y Distribuidora Azteca SA de CV and Investigacion de
Tecnologia Avanzada SA de CV, among others.  Through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, the company has operations
established in North, Central and South America, Europe, Asia
and Oceania.


GRUMA SAB: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Confirmation of Award Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the confirmation of the final award
in a putative class action lawsuit against Gruma Corporation is
pending, according to Gruma SAB de CV's June 30, 2009 Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Gruma Corporation is the principal U.S. subsidiary of the
company.

In November 2001, one of GRUMA's distributors filed a putative
class action lawsuit against Gruma Corporation (Dennis
Johnsonand Arnold Rosenfeld et al. v. Gruma Corporation).  The
case was removed from California state court to federal court.

In April 2005, the U.S. District Court, based on a recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision, ordered that the claims be referred to
arbitration in Los Angeles and that the arbitrator decide
whether the matter should proceed as a class action.  An
additional distributor subsequently joined the arbitration as a
claimant. The arbitrator has made a preliminary ruling that a
class of approximately 1,120 California distributors will be
certified, but a final certification order has not yet been
entered.

The claims, as amended, allege that:  (i) Gruma Corporation
breached its agreements with its distributors; (ii) Gruma
Corporation's distributors are actually employees; (iii) Gruma
Corporation has failed to make wage and other payments required
for employees; (iv) Gruma Corporation has violated California's
labor, antitrust, and unfair competition statutes; and (v) Gruma
Corporation has otherwise committed fraud and negligent
misrepresentations.  The arbitrator subsequently dismissed the
antitrust claims.

The plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief, but have not
yet specified the total amount of damages sought.

The arbitrator has indicated that trial will be held in two
phases.  The first phase to determine the existence of any
liability began on April 28, 2008 and finished on May 21, 2008.

On Aug. 12, 2008, the arbitrator issued his final award in
writing finding that the distributors are properly classified as
independent contractors and denying all relief.  In November
2008, the District Court affirmed the award on all grounds and
plaintiffs have appealed the confirmation to the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Gruma SAB de CV -- http://www.gruma.com-- is a Mexican company
engaged in the food processing sector.  Its activities include
the production and distribution of tortillas and corn flour, as
well as wheat flour, rice and oatmeal.  The company is also
involved in the distribution and sale of machinery and
accessories used in the tortilla production.  The company owns
such subsidiaries as Gruma Corporation, Grupo Industrial Maseca
SAB de CV, Molinos Nacionales CA, Derivados de Maiz Seleccionado
CA, Molinera de Mexico SA de CV, Gruma Centroamerica LLC,
Productos y Distribuidora Azteca SA de CV and Investigacion de
Tecnologia Avanzada SA de CV, among others.  Through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, the company has operations
established in North, Central and South America, Europe, Asia
and Oceania.


GRUMA SAB: Settlement of "Herzog" Suit v. Unit Pending Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The tentative settlement of a class action suit filed against
Gruma SAB de CV's prinicpal U.S. subsidiary, Gruma Corporation,
is still pending court approval.

In December 2008, Gruma Corporation was named as a defendant in
a class action suit, "Catherine M. Herzog et al. v. Gruma
Corporation dba Mission Foods," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

This suit was a class action alleging violations of sections of
the California Bus. & Prof. Code, intentional misrepresentation,
breach of implied warranty, and violations of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act in connection with the company's
guacamole dip product.

The company put the vendor of the product on notice of Gruma's
claim for indemnity under the vendor's supply contract.

A tentative settlement has been reached pending court approval,
according to the company's June 30, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Gruma SAB de CV -- http://www.gruma.com-- is a Mexican company
engaged in the food processing sector.  Its activities include
the production and distribution of tortillas and corn flour, as
well as wheat flour, rice and oatmeal.  The company is also
involved in the distribution and sale of machinery and
accessories used in the tortilla production.  The company owns
such subsidiaries as Gruma Corporation, Grupo Industrial Maseca
SAB de CV, Molinos Nacionales CA, Derivados de Maiz Seleccionado
CA, Molinera de Mexico SA de CV, Gruma Centroamerica LLC,
Productos y Distribuidora Azteca SA de CV and Investigacion de
Tecnologia Avanzada SA de CV, among others.  Through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, the company has operations
established in North, Central and South America, Europe, Asia
and Oceania.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: $3.1M Damages Award Entered in "McClain" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $3.1 million damages award plus 5% interest was entered by the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District in the class action
lawsuit styled "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries," in June
2009.

An employee and a former employee of the company filed the class
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas on March 7, 1997, alleging race discrimination.

Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas, in
February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas, in August 1998.  In April
1999, the District Court issued a decision that certified a
class for this case, which included all black employees employed
by the company from March 6, 1994, to the present.

The case was closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties
unsuccessfully attempted mediation.  Trial for this case began
in December 2003, but was postponed by the District Court and
was completed in October 2004.  The only claims made at trial
were those of discrimination in initial assignments and
promotions.

On Jan. 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that the company discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions.  The District
Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a
shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the
company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall,
together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%.

On Aug. 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back-
pay award for the class of affected employees would be $3.4
million -- including interest to Jan. 1, 2005 -- and provided a
formula for attorney fees that the company estimates will result
in a total not to exceed $2.5 million.

In addition to backpay with interest, the District Court
enjoined and ordered the company to cease and desist all
racially biased assignment and promotion practices and ordered
the company to pay court costs and expenses.

The company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and
on Sept. 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

On April 3, 2007, the company appeared before the appellate
court in New Orleans for oral argument in this case.  The
appellate court subsequently issued a decision on Feb. 29, 2008,
that reversed and vacated the plaintiff's claim regarding the
initial assignment of black employees into the Foundry Division.

The appellate court also denied the plaintiff's appeal for class
certification in order to claim disparate treatment.  The
plaintiff's claim on the issue of the company's promotional
practices was affirmed but the backpay award was vacated and
remanded for recomputation in accordance with the opinion.

The District Court's injunction was vacated and remanded with
instructions to enter appropriate injunctive relief.  Finally,
the issue of the plaintiff's attorney's fees was remanded to the
district court for further consideration in accordance with
prevailing authority.

The plaintiff and the company subsequently filed requests for
rehearing with the court on March 20, 2008, in order to address
significant issues.

On April 10, 2008, the company was informed that the Fifth
Circuit had denied both requests for a rehearing.

At present, however, the district court will conduct further
proceedings on the injunctive relief to be entered, back pay and
plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees.

The Fifth Circuit's opinion to reverse and affirm portions of
the District Court's decision, together with the assignment of a
different judge for this case in the District Court (the trial
judge who wrote the trial court decision is deceased) prevents
the company from estimating the back pay or attorneys' fees
award at this time.

The District Court will interpret the Fifth Circuit's
instructions and take additional evidence to determine these
issues.

On July 2, 2008, the company filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the court
review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied the company's petition
on Oct. 6, 2008.

The company, with the assistance of outside counsel, is
reviewing its appellate options at this time as well as its
position in future proceedings in the District Court.  At
present, however, pursuant to the court of appeal's mandate, the
District Court will conduct further proceedings on the
injunctive relief to be entered, back pay and plaintiffs'
request for attorneys' fees.  The Fifth Circuit's opinion to
reverse and affirm portions of the District Court's decision,
together with the assignment of a different judge for this case
in the District Court (the trial judge who decided the case is
deceased) prevented the company from estimating the back pay or
attorneys' fees before the commencement of proceedings in the
District Court.  The District Court will interpret the Fifth
Circuit's instructions and take additional evidence to determine
these issues.

On Dec. 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a
hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the
parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to
conclude this litigation.  At the conclusion of the hearing
Judge Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding
the issues of attorney fees, a damage award and injunctive
relief.  Subsequently, the company has reviewed the plaintiff's
submissions which describe the formula and underlying
assumptions that support their positions on attorney fees and
damages.  After review of the plaintiff's submission to the
court the company continues to have significant differences
regarding legal issues that materially impact the plaintiff's
requests.

On June 24, 2009, the District Court for the Eastern District
notified the company that it had entered an award for damages
related to its ongoing class-action lawsuit.  The total award
amounts to $3.1 million plus 5% interest.  While the detailed
interest calculations have not been completed, the company
expects the total liability for damages and interest to be
approximately $5.0 million.  The company will accrue an
additional charge of $2.0 million during the second quarter of
2009 related to this ruling, according to its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 29,
2009.

The suit is "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No.
9:97-cv-00063-HC," filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Judge Judge Howell Cobb, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Morris J. Baller, Esq. (mjb@gdblegal.com)
          Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen
          300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 510-763-9800
          Fax: 1-510-835-1417

          Timothy Borne Garrigan, Esq.
          (tbgstugar@cox-internet.com)
          Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter
          2803 North Street, P.O. Box 631902
          Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902
          Phone: 936-560-6020
          Fax: 1-936-560-9578

Representing the company is:

          Christopher V. Bacon, Esq. (cbacon@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins
          1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77002-6760
          Phone: 713-758-2222
          Fax: 1-713-615-5014


MARQUETTE BANK: Ill. Court Sets Hearing for $90,000 Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
will hold a hearing on September in connection to the $90,000
settlement in the matter, "Stone v. Marquette Bank, Case No.
1:2008-cv-06388," Mike Nolan of The Chicago Sun-Times reports.

The suit was filed by Sheryl Stone against Marquette Bank in
Nov. 6, 2008 in connection to ATM fees Ms. Stone was charged
using an Oak Forest cash machine in November 2007.

Ms. Stone claimed the ATM's owner, Marquette Bank, violated the
federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act by not disclosing that
she'd be charged a fee for using the ATM because she wasn't a
customer of the bank.  Under federal law, an electronic message
on the machine's screen has to disclose any fees.  There also
must be a sign on the ATM.  If either is missing, a bank can be
found in violation of the statute, according to The Chicago Sun-
Times.

Recently, Marquette Bank opted to settle Ms. Stone's lawsuit,
and a federal magistrate in Chicago is scheduled to rule on the
settlement in September, reports The Chicago Sun-Times.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that of the $90,000 Marquette
Bank ponied up for the settlement, Stone gets $1,000, and the
law firm -- the Consumer Advocacy Center -- gets up to $27,000
to cover its fees.  Other customers charged a fee are expected
to split the rest of the money.

For more details, contact:

          Lance A. Raphael, Esq. (lance@caclawyers.com)
          The Consumer Advocacy Center, P.C.
          180 W. Washington
          Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 782-5808

               - and -

          William Gibbs Sullivan, Esq. (sullivan@mbslaw.com)
          Martin, Brown & Sullivan, Ltd.
          321 South Plymouth Court
          10th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 360-5000
          Fax: (312) 360-5026


MASSACHUSETTS: Faces Suit in Federal Court Over Pension Changes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Massachusetts is facing a purported class-action
suit arguing that a new law designed to curb pension abuse
illegally strips them of benefits guaranteed by the state
constitution and federal law, Andrea Estes of The Boston Globe
reports.

The Boston Police Superior Officers Federation, Professional
Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, and Boston Firefighters Union
Local 718 -- on behalf of public employees statewide -- assert
in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts that a provision in the new law amounts to
breach of contract.  The law, they argue, unfairly reduces
retiree benefits by limiting what kinds of compensation count
toward their pension, according to The Boston Globe.

Under the new rules, public employees can no longer use
additional pay - such as educational stipends, uniform
allowances, and the value of unused vacation and personal days -
- in their pension calculation.  Most public employees, lawyers
for the unions say, use such extras to raise their base pay
substantially, which in turn boosts their retirement checks,
reports The Boston Globe.

Plaintiffs' lawyers argue that the new definition of
compensation constitutes a breach of contract, because thousands
of employees joined public retirement plans expecting that the
benefit formula would not be changed "to their detriment" so
long as they remained in the plan and made required
contributions.  The plaintiffs argue that for years they have
paid into retirement systems at levels based on their total
compensation, which have included the extras, The Boston Globe
reported.

The plaintiffs want the courts to bar implementation of the
changes.  They are also seeking unspecified damages and lawyers'
fees.


MASSACHUSETTS: Faces Suit in State Court Over Pension Changes
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/
03/unions_sue_mass_over_pension_changes/?page=2
The State of Massachusetts is facing a purported class-action
suit arguing that a new law designed to curb pension abuse
illegally strips them of benefits guaranteed by the state
constitution and federal law, Andrea Estes of The Boston Globe
reports.

The suit was filed in Suffolk Superior Court by the Superior
Officers Federation and the Professional Fire Fighters of
Massachusetts, challenging a new calculation of benefits for
police officers and firefighters who are injured on the job,
contending that the new law discriminates against disabled
workers by treating them differently than other workers,
according to The Boston Globe.

The Boston Globe reported that with the new pension law,
disability benefits will be based on workers' salaries for the
year prior to when they became disabled, not the year prior to
their retirement.  It can take months, even years, for
retirement boards to approve disability pension requests.  In
the meantime, employees out on injury leave are entitled to pay
raises and cost-of-living increases.  In the past, those pay
increases would boost a worker's disability pension by thousands
of dollars a year, lawyers said.

Plaintiffs' attorneys argue that the new law illegally
discriminates against disabled firefighters and police officers
by using a different definition of compensation than for other
retiring workers.  The law, according to the complaint, is
"essentially penalizing them for the years they have not been
able to work," reports The Boston Globe.

The plaintiffs want the courts to bar implementation of the
changes.  They are also seeking unspecified damages and lawyers'
fees.


OHIO: OEJC Files Litigation Over Citizens' Voting Rights
--------------------------------------------------------
     In celebration of our nation's birthday on July 4th and the
freedom it signifies, the Ohio Election Justice Campaign (OEJC),
a citizens' group, invites all citizens who have been denied or
hindered in voting in Ohio to join a class action lawsuit to
seek truth, justice, and monetary damages.  "King-Lincoln v.
Blackwell, 2:06-cv-00745 (S.D. Ohio)."

     Even citizens currently living overseas or in another state
such as New York or California are invited by the Ohio Election
Justice Campaign to join this class action lawsuit if they have
been denied or hindered in voting in any Ohio election beginning
with the 2004 presidential election and including the most
recent election.

     Citizens' group believes Ohio politicians and local
attorneys have combined to throw out evidence showing election
fraud, to sanction the ongoing destruction of evidence, and to
miss crucial legal deadlines in this landmark lawsuit.

     Eight OEJC members say citizen class action is needed
because their motion for a special grand jury had been turned
down in this lawsuit.  They say the court denied a request to
enforce its own order for criminal contempt charges for
destruction of the 2004 election evidence.  OEJC provided the
court over 1400 pages of evidence they say prove that Ohio's
2004 election was fraudulent but the lead attorneys for the
voters of Ohio had the evidence thrown out.

     During a telephone conference on June 23, 2009, citizens
from across the nation pressed one of the lawyers for the voters
of Ohio on the issue of the lawsuit's apparent abandonment.
OEJC members believe that "secret negotiations" are taking place
on the destroyed alleged election fraud evidence, public records
that belong to the American people.

     Further, on June 29, 2009, the United States Department of
Justice (DOJ) was provided with the evidence the OEJC says
proves Ohio's 2004 election was fraudulent, including the
documents filed in court, at a citizens' meeting in Columbus,
Ohio.  Citizens present at the meeting believe the Columbus-
based DOJ bureaucrats want to play it safe, the same dangerous
strategy the government followed in delaying criminal action to
end the Madoff investment fraud scheme.

     Marlys Barbee of OEJC responded, "We will not allow this
coup of the U.S. Constitution to continue.  We are citizens of
the United State of America, and when we know our right to vote
has been abridged in any way, it is our duty to take action."

     Ms. Barbee added: "And we will not bow down to puppets or
clowns. This is not Iran, Honduras, or North Korea."

     In honor of the nation's independence, all United States
citizens who think they or or people they know were denied or
hindered in voting in any Ohio election beginning with the 2004
presidential election and including the most recent election are
invited to contact The Ohio Election Justice Campaign or call
OEJC Director Shaffer at 614-266-5283.  All inquiries will be
held confidential.


PERDIGAO SA: Sadia Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sadia S.A., a subsidiary of Perdigao SA, continues to face a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the
company's June 30, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Sadia, as well as certain individuals who were officers and/or
directors of Sadia during the events at issue, were named in
five lawsuits in U.S. courts alleging various violations of U.S.
federal securities laws related to losses that Sadia incurred
with respect to foreign exchange derivative contracts.

These five actions have since been consolidated in a single
class action lawsuit.

Perdigao SA -- http://www.perdigao.com.br-- is a Brazil-based
company focused on the production and sale of poultry, pork,
beef cuts, milk, dairy products and processed food products.  It
is also engaged in poultry and hog slaughtering.  In addition,
Perdigao produces and commercializes frozen vegetables, cheese
bread, pies and pastries; dairy products, such as juices,
yogurts, soy milk and soy juices; margarine; milk, soy meal and
refined soy flour, as well as animal feed. Its products are sold
in over 110 countries.  It operates manufacturing units in eight
Brazilian states, in addition to Argentina, England, Holland and
Romania.  Its brand portfolio includes Perdix, Confidence and
Borella, among others.  In March 9, 2009, the Company acquired
Perdigao Agroindustrial SA.


RUTH'S CHRIS: Former Server Files FLSA Violations Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth's Chris Steak House, Inc. is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit accusing it of violating provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Donna Goodison of The Boston Herald
reports.

The suit was filed on July 1, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by Edward Kehoe, a former
server for Ruth's Chris Steak House in Boston.

Mr. Kehoe is suing the restaurant chain for only paying him the
state's $2.63 per hour minimum service wage when he was
performing duties other than waiting on customers and receiving
tips, according to The Boston Herald.

Captioned, "Kehoe v. Ruth's Chris Steak House, Inc. Case No.
1:2009-cv-11127," the class-action lawsuit claims Mr. Kehoe
should have been paid the full $8 minimum wage for doing set-up
and closing work such as cleaning and setting tables when no
customers were in the restaurant, and side work during his shift
such as emptying the garbage.  The Wellesley man was a waiter at
the restaurant from September 2006 to December 2007, The Boston
Herald reported.

For more details, contact:

          Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq. (sliss@llrlaw.com)
          Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street
          20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Phone: 617-994-5800
          Fax: 617-994-5801


SMITH & WESSON: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation's motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit remains pending,
according to the company's June 30, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended April 30, 2009.

The company, its Chairman of the Board, its Chief Executive
Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer were named in
three similar purported securities class-action lawsuits.

The complaints in these actions, which have been consolidated
into one action, were brought individually and on behalf of all
persons who purchased securities of our company between June 15,
2007 and Dec. 6, 2007.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for alleged violations
of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the litigation.  The
court has dismissed the company's Chairman of the Board from the
litigation.

Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation -- http://smith-wesson.com--
is a manufacturer and exporter of firearms.  The company
manufactures an array of pistols, revolvers, tactical rifles,
hunting rifles, black powder firearms, handcuffs, and firearm-
related products and accessories for sale to a variety of
customers, including gun enthusiasts, collectors, hunters,
sportsmen, competitive shooters, protection focused individuals,
law enforcement agencies and officers, and military agencies in
the United States and worldwide.  It manufactures these products
at its facilities in Springfield, Massachusetts; Houlton, Maine,
and Rochester, New Hampshire.  The company also markets
shotguns.  In addition, the company pursues opportunities to
license its name and trademarks to third parties for use in
association with their products and services.


SPORT CHALET: July 31 Final Hearing Set for "Cole" Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
A July 31, 2009 final approval hearing has been set for the
settlement of a purported class action lawsuit against Sport
Chalet, Inc., alleging violations of the California Civil Code
and Business & Professions Code, as well as invasion of privacy.

The suit was filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Diego on April 10, 2008.  It is entitled, "Cole v.
Sport Chalet, Inc., Case No. 37-2008-00081675-CU-BT-CTL."

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf
of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in
California using credit cards and were requested to provide
their zip codes.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making
purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in
California were improperly requested to provide their zip code
at the time of such purchases.

The suit seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory
penalties, actual damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief to require the company to discontinue
the allegedly improper conduct, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Dec. 16, 2008, the parties agreed on the core terms of a
classwide settlement of this case and thereafter signed a
written settlement agreement.  On May 1, 2009, the Court issued
an order preliminarily approving the parties' settlement.  The
parties are now in the process of providing notice of the
settlement to class members.  The Court has scheduled a hearing
of plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement for
July 31, 2009, according to the company's June 26, 2009 Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 29, 2009.

Sport Chalet, Inc. -- http://www.sportchalet.com/-- is an
operator of 45 full-service, specialty sporting goods stores in
California, Nevada and Arizona.  As of fiscal year ended April
1, 2007, the Company had 32 locations in Southern California,
seven in Northern California, one in Central California, two in
Nevada and three in Arizona.  These stores average approximately
40,000 square feet in size.  In addition, it operates a retail
e-commerce store through GSI Commerce, Inc. at
http://www.sportchalet.com/ Sport Chalet's prototype store is
42,000 square feet in size and showcases each product category
with the feel of a specialty shop all contained under one roof.
The stores include traditional sporting goods merchandise, such
as footwear, apparel and other general athletic products and
core specialty merchandise such as snowboarding, mountaineering
and self-contained underwater breathing apparatus.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on June
26, 2009, granted final approval of the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit entitled, "In Re:
Sunrise Senior Living Systems Securities Litigation."

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.

Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition brief to the motion to
dismiss on Oct. 10, 2008.  The parties subsequently submitted
stipulations to the court noting that they had met with a
mediator and were pursuing settlement discussions, and, as a
result, requested and obtained from the court extensions of the
date for the defendants to file their reply brief in support of
their motion to dismiss.

On Feb. 27, 2009, Sunrise and its current or former directors or
officers who were named individually as defendants entered into
an agreement, subject to court approval, to settle the putative
class action.  The settlement calls for the certification by the
court of a class consisting of persons (with exceptions) who
purchased Sunrise common stock between Feb. 26, 2004 and July
28, 2006, and payment of $13.5 million in cash into an interest-
bearing escrow account by March 6, 2009.  Upon final approval of
the settlement by the court, the funds, less any costs of
administration and any attorneys' fees and expenses that the
court might award to plaintiffs' counsel, would be disbursed to
participating class members according to a distribution plan to
be submitted to and approved by the court.

According to Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.'s Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 30, 2009,
under the settlement, all claims against the company and the
individual defendants have been dismissed with prejudice, in
exchange for payment to the class of $13.5 million, of which
$13.4 million has been paid by insurance proceeds and $100,000
has been paid by the company.

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


TC GLOBAL: Expects Certification Bid in Hourly Employees' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TC Global, Inc. anticipates that the plaintiff will seek class
action certification on behalf of all hourly employees in
Tully's Coffee California stores, according to the company's
June 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 29, 2009.

In December 2007, a lawsuit was filed against Tully's Coffee in
California state court by a former store employee alleging that
Tully's failed to provide meal and rest periods for its
employees.

The plaintiff is seeking damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Similar lawsuits alleging missed meal and rest periods have been
filed in California against many other companies.

The company is investigating the claims and intends to defend
this litigation, but cannot predict the financial impact to the
company of the litigation at this time.  The company believes
that Tully's has complied with all laws that require providing
meal and rest periods for its employees.  The company has
accrued $400,000 as of March 29, 2009 to defend this litigation.

TC Global, Inc. -- http://www.tullyscoffeeshops.com- formerly
Tully's Coffee, operates and franchises a chain of more than 150
coffeehouses under the Tully's Coffee banner (used under a
licensing deal with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters) offering a
variety of specialty blend coffees along with baked goods,
espresso, and related supplies.  The chain has locations in more
than a dozen states, mostly in Arizona, California, and
Washington; more than 80 stores are company-owned, while the
rest are franchised.  In addition to its coffeehouse chain, TC
Global sells coffee and brewing supplies online through its Web
site.


TVI PACIFIC: Ontario, Quebec Courts Approves Suit Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
     TVI Pacific Inc. announced that the Settlement Agreement
previously entered into by the Company in relation to the class-
action proceedings commenced in Ontario by Joe Marcantonio and
in Quebec by Florent Audette has been approved by the courts in
Ontario and Quebec.  Approval of the Settlement Agreement was
granted by the Ontario Superior Court on June 17, 2009 and by
the Quebec Superior Court effective June 22, 2009.

     This news release should be read in conjunction with the
Company's prior news release on April 22, 2009, announcing the
Settlement Agreement and with the Notice of Class Actions and
Proposed Settlement issued on May 13, 2009, both of which have
been posted on the Company's website at www.tvipacific.com.

     As noted in the Company's April 22, 2009, news release and
in the Notice of Class Actions and Proposed Settlement, the
settlement does not represent an admission of liability,
wrongdoing or fault on the part of any of the defendants
(including TVI Pacific and its current directors).  All of the
defendants have denied, and continue to deny, the allegations
made against them in the class-action proceedings.

TVI Pacific, Inc. -- http://www.tvipacific.com/main/-- is a
publicly traded Canadian mining company focused on exploring
for, developing and producing precious and base metals within
district-scale systems in the Philippines. The Company's
interest in the Canatuan Mine and its other Philippine assets
are held through its affiliate, TVI Resource Development
(Phils.) Inc.


UNITED STATES: Seeks Dismissal of S.D. Lawsuit Over Black Hills
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Government is seeking for the dismissal of a class-
action lawsuit that intends to force the distribution of
settlement monies awarded to the Great Sioux Nation for the
unlawful taking of the Black Hills, The Rapid City Journal
reports.

The motion to dismiss the lawsuit was filed on June 30, 2009 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota,
according to U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley.

The lawsuit was filed on April 16, 2009 against U.S. Secretary
of the Interior Ken L. Salazar and Special Trustee Donna M.
Erwin by Kenneth G. Different Horse, Miranda Rae Different
Horse, Jennifer Lee Grassrope, Geneva Watlemath, Joe Bone Club,
Monica Bearface, Donald Weinberger, III, Debra Boyd, Larry
Henry, Melissa Moore Ammon, Winowna Henry Schultz, Ida Guerre,
Chester Herman, Colin Campbell, Matthew Lamont, Sandra Harmon,
Kevin Sargeant, Gaylene J. Long-Stump, Patrick Jack Long and
"John Does 1-through 50,000."  The plaintiffs in the suit,
entitled, "Different Horse et al v. Salazar et al., Case No.
4:2009-cv-04049," are members of Sioux Nation tribes.

The plaintiffs want settlement funds currently held in trust
that were awarded to the Great Sioux Nation by the Indian Claims
Commission for the federal government's unlawful taking of land
that was promised to them by the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie,
according to The Rapid City Journal.

Mr. Jackley told The Rapid City Journal that the government's
motion outlines three legal reasons the court should dismiss the
lawsuit.  "It's all premised upon the concept that the
individual tribes have not reached an agreement for the
distribution of those funds, nor has Congress outlined a proper
distribution method," he tells The Rapid City Journal.

First, Mr. Jackley said, the plaintiffs lack standing in the
suit because the original judgment -- the 1877 value of the land
plus $17.5 million and 5 percent interest -- was made to the
Sioux Nation, not individuals.

The Supreme Court in 1980 upheld a lower court in awarding eight
Sioux tribes $106 million.  The Department of Interior now holds
trust funds worth about $900 million from the unclaimed damage
award, The Rapid City Journal reported.

In addition, the plaintiffs have not identified a proper waiver
of the United States' sovereign immunity, reports The Rapid City
Journal.

And finally, the government argues that the tribes are not
parties to the lawsuit.  "The tribes obviously have an interest
in this lawsuit and they cannot be made parties to this lawsuit
because of their sovereign immunity," Mr. Jackley tells The
Rapid City Journal.

For more details, contact:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq. (ldrurylaw@aol.com)
          Larry D. Drury, LTD
          205 West Randolph
          Suite 1430
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-346-7950

          Wanda Lea Howey-Fox, Esq. (whfoxlaw@iw.net)
          Harmelink, Fox & Ravnsborg Law Office
          721 Douglas Ave.
          #101
          Yankton, SD 57078
          Phone: 665-1001

               - and -

          Creighton A. Thurman, Esq. (thurmanlaw@iw.net)
          Thurman Law Office
          PO Box 897
          Yankton, SD 57078
          Phone: (605) 260-0623
          Fax: (605) 260-0624


WAL-MART STORES: Will Pay $54.25M to Settle Minn. Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said that it will pay up to $54.25 million
to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged the discount giant
cut workers' break time and didn't prevent employees from
working off the clock in Minnesota, Steve Karnowski of The
Associated Press reports.

Under the settlement, the company has also agreed to maintain
electronic systems, surveys and notices to stay compliant with
wage and hour policies and Minnesota laws, reports The
Associated Press.

Previously, The Associated Press reported that Judge Robert
King, Jr. of Dakota County District Court in Minnesota gave
final approval to a settlement of a class-action wages-and-hours
lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. that could be worth up to
$54.25 million (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009).

In a joint news release issued in June, Wal-Mart and the
plaintiffs' said that the settlement concludes seven years of
litigation over Wal-Mart's employment practices in Minnesota,
according to the AP report.

The Associated Press reports that Judge King ruled last summer
that Wal-Mart violated state labor laws 2 million times by
cutting worker break times and willfully not stopping managers
from having employees work off the clock.

About 100,000 current and former hourly workers for Wal-Mart,
Sam's Club, and their distribution centers in the state from
Sept. 11, 1998, until Nov. 14, 2008, are eligible for a share of
the settlement.  The deadline to apply is June 30, reports The
Associated Press.

For more details, contact:

          Minnesota Wal-Mart Settlement
          P.O. Box 5679
          Jacksonville, FL 32241-6798
          Phone: 1-888-697-8026.
          Web site: http://www.mnwalmartsettlement.com


WALGREEN CO: Plumbers and Steamfitters' Suit Pending in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreen Co. and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating
Officer continue to defend against the Plumbers and Steamfitters
Local No. 7 Pension Fund's putative class-action suit, according
to the company's June 30, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended May 31,
2009.

On April 16, 2008, the Pension Fund filed a putative class-
action suit against the company and two of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of company common
stock during the period between June 25, 2007, and Nov. 29,
2007.

The complaint, which was amended on Oct. 16, 2008, charges the
company and its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Operating Officer with violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that the company
misled investors by failing to disclose declining rates of
growth in generic drug sales and a contract dispute with a
pharmacy benefits manager that allegedly had a negative impact
on earnings.

Based in Deerfield, Ill., Walgreen Co. is principally a retail
drugstore chain that sells prescription and non-p


WILLIS GROUP: Strasburger & Price Files Suit Over Fraud Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Strasburger & Price, LLP and Castillo Snyder, PC filed a
class action law suit in U.S. Federal Court on July 2 against
Willis Group Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: WSH), a U.K. based global
insurance broker with more than 400 offices in nearly 120
countries, and other defendants.

     The suit, filed on behalf of a class of defrauded Mexican
depositor clients of Houston based Stanford Financial Group
(Stanford Financial), also names Willis of Colorado, Bowen,
Miclette & Britt, Inc. of Houston, and two individuals.

     The action alleges Texas securities law violations by
Willis and the co-defendants in the massive investment fraud
scheme perpetrated by Stanford Financial that led to the
intervention by the Securities and Exchange Commission in Texas.

     Strasburger & Price is representing a large group of former
Stanford depositors from throughout Latin America regarding the
receivership actions in the United States and Antigua.
Strasburger Partners Edward F. Valdespino and David Cibrian will
serve as lead lawyers for the Strasburger team for the
plaintiffs.

     The 56-page filing alleges Willis, and the co-defendants,
provided Stanford Financial with certain "safe and soundness"
letters at Stanford's request.  It further alleges that the
clear intention of the letters was that they be used for
marketing purposes to retain or obtain actual or prospective
clients for Stanford Financial.

     The suit also alleges the defendants' direct participation
in the fraud crossed the line from the role of insurance
brokers, to acting as sales agents for Stanford Financial and
its deposit products.  These actions convinced depositors
located throughout Latin America to invest with the Stanford
Financial Group and in turn caused them to be defrauded by the
firm, losing assets totaling several billion dollars.

     "This marks an important first step to recover financial
assets for defrauded Stanford clients beyond what the United
States government is currently pursuing," said Valdespino.  "For
depositors who literally risk losing everything, the U.S.
Federal Court offers a real chance to seek financial recourse
for their losses."

     Mr. Valdespino is a veteran trial lawyer whose practice
focuses on complex commercial litigation.

     Mr. Cibrian participates in a broad range of domestic and
international negotiated transactions and serves as the Chair of
Strasburger's International Practice.

"The damage wrought by Allen Stanford stretches far beyond the
U.S. borders," said Cibrian.  "Depositors throughout Latin
America were left wondering how the system failed to protect
them and their savings.  Companies like the Willis Group had a
duty to not act as sales and marketing partners.  We intend to
prove that the defendants willfully misrepresented the safety of
the financial products offered by Stanford.  We allege the
defendants facilitated the fraud on behalf of the Stanford
Group."

For more details, contact:

          Strasburger & Price, LLP
          901 Main Street, Suite 4400
          Dallas, Texas 75202.3794
          Phone: 214.651.4300
          Fax: 214.651.4330
          Web site: http://www.Strasburger.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  * * *