/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090708.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 8, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 133 Headlines DENVER: Tenth Circuit Partially Revives Suit Over Pit Bull Ban IMMUCOR INC: Faces Pa. Antitrust Litigation Over Blood Reagents IOMEDIX COLD: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Dietary Supplement LANIER GOLF: Class Certification Bid for Ga. Suit in Legal Limbo MARYLAND: Sued Over Food Stamp, Medicaid, Cash Assistance Delays MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Shares Tumble as Revelation of Zicam Suits MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over "Horrific Scheme" MINNEHAHA COUNTY: Settles S.D. Suit Over Strip Searches at JDC NEW BRUNSWICK: Defendant Added in "Faulty" Pathology Work Suit NEW YORK: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Discrimination Case RHODE ISLAND: ACLU Files Litigation Over Food Stamp Delays RIO TINTO: Court Sets Hearing for Bougainville Islanders' Suit SHELBY COUNTY: Court Ends Desegregation Battle Over Schools SOUTH CAROLINA: Judge Orders $40M Payment in Retirees' Case SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Georgia TOYOTETSU AMERICA: Faces Sexual Discrimination, Harassment Suit UPONOR INC: Faces Minn. Litigation Over Faulty Plumbing Fittings WEST VIRGINIA: WVRJA, Director Faces Lawsuit Over Strip-Searches YUM BRANDS: Faces Mich. Litigation Over Botched Chicken Giveaway ********* DENVER: Tenth Circuit Partially Revives Suit Over Pit Bull Ban -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit partially revived the class-action lawsuit, "Dias et al v. Denver, City and County of et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-00722," which is challenging Denver's ban on pit bulls, Annie Youderian of The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed on April 6, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by Sonya Dias, Hillary Engel and Sheryl White. It was filed against Denver, City and County of, John W. Hickenlooper, John W. Hickenlooper, Nancy Severson, Nancy Severson, Doug Kelly, Doug Kelly, Juan Zalasar and Juan Zalasar. The litigaiton is targeting an ordinance that allows Denver officials to impound any pit bull within the city or Denver County. The dogs, generally considered an aggressive breed, are to be put down unless the owner pays the costs of impoundment and agrees to permanently remove the animal from the city. Violators also face criminal charges that carry a maximum fine of $999 and up to one year in prison, according to The Courthouse News Service. The suit is seeking to overturn the ordinance on constitutional grounds. The district court though upheld the ban as clear and justifiable. However, in reviving, the lawsuit, the Tenth Circuit said that dog owners might be able to prove that the ban irrationally targets a breed that's not as dangerous as the city thinks, reports The Courthouse News Service. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3ebb For more details, contact: Karen R. Breslin, Esq. (karen.breslin@comcast.net) Progressive Law Center, The 9800 Pyramid Court #400 Englewood, CO 80112 Phone: 303-532-6860 Fax: 303-232-8073 - and - David Arthur Lane, Esq. (dlane@kln-law.com) Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP 1543 Champa Street #400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-571-1000 Fax: 303-571-1001 IMMUCOR INC: Faces Pa. Antitrust Litigation Over Blood Reagents --------------------------------------------------------------- Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. face a purported class-action lawsuit alleging they conspired to fix prices for blood reagents in the U.S., Law360 reports. The suit was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by St. Barnabas Hospital, Inc., under the caption, "St. Barnabas Hospital, Inc. v. Immucor, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-02994." For more details, contact: Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. (jkohn@kohnswift.com) Kohn Swift & Graf PC One S. Broad St Ste 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-238-1700 Fax: 215-238-1968 IOMEDIX COLD: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Dietary Supplement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A notice program authorized by the Los Angeles County Superior Court began over the weekend to alert those who purchased Cold MD dietary supplement from March 26, 2004 through May 29, 2009 about a proposed settlement against Iomedix Cold International SRL. The notice is a result of the Court certifying, on May 29, 2009, a plaintiff class in a lawsuit alleging that Defendant made misleading or false statements about Cold MD dietary supplement. The lawsuit, "Eduardo Salcido, et al. v. Iomedix Cold International SRL, Case No. BC 387942," claims Defendant made false and misleading statements in their labeling and advertising of Cold MD dietary supplement. The settlement includes only the Cold MD dietary supplement, which was packaged as "Cold MD" and had the words, "Dietary Supplement" printed on the lower right corner of the box it was sold in. The Settlement does not mean that Defendant did anything wrong, and the Court has not decided that Defendant did anything wrong. For more details, contact: Cold MD Settlement Administrator PO Box 3518 Portland, OR 97228-3518. Phone: 1-888-266-9438 Web site: http://www.ColdMDSettlement.com LANIER GOLF: Class Certification Bid for Ga. Suit in Legal Limbo ---------------------------------------------------------------- A request seeking class-action status for a lawsuit that sought to stop residential development on Lanier Golf Course -- located in eastern Forsyth County -- is in legal limbo, Julie Arrington of Forsyth County News Online reports. In a June ruling, the State Appellate Court said a judge's decision denying the request must be sent back because the order was based only on the merits of the request for class-action status. The decision, the court said, failed to address whether each factor of Georgia's class-action statute had been met, according to Forsyth County News Online. The initial ruling in September came from visiting Senior Superior Court Judge Albert Pickett of Augusta, who was assigned the case after both local Superior Court judges recused themselves, reports Forsyth County News Online. Forsyth County News previously reported that Judge Pickett of Augusta denied a request for class-action status, which would have allowed anyone with a similar complaint against Lanier Golf Course, Inc. join the suit. Judge Pickett's order was filed on Sept. 2, 2008, in Forsyth County Superior Court (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2008). According to Bob McFarland, Esq., the local attorney who filed the October 2007 class-action lawsuit, right after the June ruling is where be believes the case could be in limbo. Mr. McFarland, who appealed Judge Pickett's decision, told Forsyth County News that Judge Pickett can't change the order because "he’s no longer the judge in the case." The practice of using senior judges to help clear court calendars and preside over trials was suspended last year due to the state budget crisis, reports Forsyth County News Online. Mr. McFarland told Forsyth County News that the order could be sent to the state's 9th Judicial District, which likely would appoint a judge to continue the case, Forsyth County News Online reported. "So the first decision is who's the judge going to be and the next decision is what is the judge going to do to the order," says Mr. McFarland, adding that the process could be lengthy. MARYLAND: Sued Over Food Stamp, Medicaid, Cash Assistance Delays ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit, "Thompson v. Donald," was filed by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, of New York, NY, the Public Justice Center and the Homeless Persons Representation Project, both of Baltimore, Maryland on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Plaintiff seeks to order the State of Maryland to, inter alia, (1) timely process applications for and provide Food Stamps, Medicaid, and cash assistance, including expedited processing of Food Stamp applications for those eligible; (2) make eligibility determinations for Food Stamp and Medicaid separate from eligibility determinations for cash assistance; (3) provide timely and adequate written notices of determinations of eligibility for Medicaid, including notice of fair hearing rights. On April 29, 2009, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, motion for class certification, and motion for preliminary injunction. Each month thousands of Maryland residents wait for their Food Stamps, Medicaid, and cash assistance beyond the federal and state time limits set by regulation. For example, the motion for preliminary injunction alleges that, in February 2009, defendant timely processed only 84 percent of the food stamp applications, 88 percent of the cash assistance applications, and 86 percent of the Family and Children Medicaid applications. While they wait, applicants often must pay for needed food and health care out of their own pockets or forgo needed nutrition, necessities, and medical care. Many turn to already strapped food pantries, some of which cannot provide appropriate food for certain dietary and health concerns. For more details, contact: National Center for Law and Economic Justice Inc., 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, NY 10001-6708 Phone: (212) 633-6967 e-mail: info@nclej.org Web site: http://www.nclej.org/ MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Shares Tumble as Revelation of Zicam Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Shares of Matrixx Initiatives (NASDAQ: MTXX) tumbled after the company revealed several class action lawsuits related to its product Zicam. The FDA recently warned consumers that using the cold treatment could damage a persons sense of smell leading Matrixx to issue a voluntary recall on June 24. "The company intends to vigorously defend each of the recently filed lawsuits," Matrixx said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Shares closed lower on the news, down 6.6% to $6.05. MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over "Horrific Scheme" --------------------------------------------------------------- Merrill Lynch is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Illinois over a "horrific scheme" to earn "tens of millions of dollars in commissions" in which financial advisors took money set aside for funerals and invested it in life insurance policies that led to a $100 million deficit, Bridget Freeland of The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed on June 26, 2009 in Cook County Circuit Court by the Illinois Funeral Directors Association (IFDA) against Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., Merrill Lynch Life Agency, Merrill Lynch Life Insurance Co., Edward Louis Schainker, Paul W. Felsch, and Mark A. Summer, under case number: 09CH20736. The association offers "pre-need contracts," which allow people to arrange and pay for their own funeral services, through the IFDA Preneed Trust Tax-Exempt Funds. These funds were "to be invested in a manner providing optimum growth plus safety of principal ... on a tax-free basis," the lawsuit states, according to The Courthouse News Service. Funeral directors say pre-need contracts give customers peace of mind, and spare survivors "the emotional and financial obligations associated with a funeral." IFDA members claim Merrill Lynch told them that the funds had been invested in "safe and tax-exempt investment vehicles such as AAA municipal bonds," reports The Courthouse News Service. However, Merrill Lynch advisors placed the trust funds in life insurance policies that did not meet pre-need regulations, because they are "not easily convertible to cash and do not confer a fixed death benefit, but rather offer a payout depending upon the performance of the life insurance policies' subaccounts," according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Courthouse News Service. "What's more, many of the life insurance policies are subject to a 10 percent excise tax if the policies are terminated or if funds are borrowed or withdrawn before the insured reaches 59 ½ years old," the complaint states. IFDA members say they suffered "great financial losses and grievous damages to their goodwill and profession," while Merrill Lynch reaped huge rewards, including tens of millions of dollars in commissions, administrative fees and mortality charges, The Courthouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs are also claiming that Merrill Lynch advisors and insurance providers also failed to properly analyze if the life insurance contracts were in the best interest of the IFDA and its members, and they tried to continue the "charade" even after it blew up. They say Merrill Lynch advisors solicited "unsuspecting funeral directors" in Illinois, "luring them with the promise that permitting themselves to be insureds would endow IFDA," The Courthouse News Service reported. Because of these poor investments, IFDA members have allegedly been forced to honor the guarantees of the pre-need contracts, though they no longer have enough money in the pre-need trust. The Courthouse News Service reported that in general, the plaintiffs -- represented by Kenneth Wexler, Esq. of Wexler Wallace, and Barry Montgomery, Esq. of Williams Montgomery -- allege consumer fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and conversion. A copy of the complaint is available free f charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3eb8 For more details, contact: Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. (kaw@wexlerwallace.com) 55 West Monroe St., Ste. 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 346-2222 or (312) 589-6270 Fax: (312) 589-6271 Web site: http://www.wexlerwallace.com/ - and - C. Barry Montgomery, Esq. (cbm@willmont.com) 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2100 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Phone: 312.443.3242 Fax: 312.630.8542 MINNEHAHA COUNTY: Settles S.D. Suit Over Strip Searches at JDC -------------------------------------------------------------- Minnehaha County reached a proposed settlement in a class-action lawsuit by teens who were strip-searched at the Juvenile Detention Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, The Associated Press reports. According to a document, the agreement has been signed, but not approved by a judge. A lawyer says an estimated 5,000 teens were taken to the JDC between November 1997 and December 2003 when the search policy was in place, according to AP. Not all of them will qualify for part of the dollar amount agreed to in the settlement - only those who certify that they were searched while fully nude, AP reports. It was previously reported that a Rochester resident and two others filed a class-action suit against Minnehaha County, South Dakota over alleged unreasonable strip searches at the county's juvenile detention center (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 29, 2007). Jillian Clark was arrested for shoplifting at a department store in Sioux Falls nearly seven years ago. She was 17 at the time. She claims she was brought to a holding room and was asked to strip naked. Ms. Clark said she kept the humiliating experience to herself. The other two plaintiffs suing Minnehaha County are Nicole Stauffacher, detained for shoplifting in 1997, and Ross Engelbrecht, who was arrested at 17 for underage alcohol consumption. Ms. Stauffacher said the experience scarred her emotionally and that she's participating in the suit so no other minors would be violated in the same manner. NEW BRUNSWICK: Defendant Added in "Faulty" Pathology Work Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm representing those affected by faulty pathology work at the Miramichi Regional Hospital have decided to add former pathologist Rajgopal Menon as a defendant in the matter, Daniel Martins of The Miramichi Leader reports. Canada.com previously reported that a class-action lawsuit was launched on July 22, 2008, against New Brunswick's Regional Health Authority 7 for allegedly providing faulty pathology work at the Miramichi Regional Hospital (Class Action Reporter, July 24, 2008). The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of as many as 50 patients who received treatment under pathologist Rajgopal Menon between 2004 and 2005, according to a statement of claim filed in the Court of Queen's Bench. The report says that the claim alleges the hospital authority was negligent when it hired Dr. Menon in 1994 against the advice of its vice-president of medical services at the time, Dr. John MacKay. The suit also contends that "an inadequate background check" was performed and that the authority "ignored warnings and cautions" from Dr. Menon's previous employer, the Saint John Hospital. The RHA is also accused of not acting quickly enough to respond to possible inaccuracies in Dr. Menon's work. Canada.com points out that Dr. Menon was responsible for diagnostic testing of 24,000 pathology samples between 1995 and 2007. An independent audit launched in December 2007 showed discrepancies in 18% of 227 prostate and breast cancer cases under Dr. Menon's care in 2004-2005. The claim says that 6% of these cases were misdiagnosed. In 41 cases, there was either "a miscalculation of the stage of cancer, an incomplete protocol, or an incomplete examination." Nine of the cases involved undetected cancers leading to misdiagnoses, the claim further outlined. In a 21 page statement of claim filed with the Court of Queen's Bench on May 19, which lists both Regional Health Authority B and Dr. Menon as defendants, said the former pathologist "had a duty to patients to maintain competency," according to The Miramichi Leader. It argued Dr. Menon failed to do so by not introducing proper quality assurance, keeping inadequate records, failing to follow proper protocols and about a dozen other alleged failures, reports The Miramichi Leader. "It was within contemplation of Menon and the patients whose specimens he reported ... that a failure on his part to maintain competency, leading to general questioning of his surgical pathology diagnoses and the need to repeat or re-read his tests, would cause mental distress to these patients," according to the document, a copy of which was obtained by The Miramichi Leader. NEW YORK: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Discrimination Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class-action litigation accusing New York officials of intentionally withholding police protection during a period of violent unrest on the Mohawk Indian reservation in the late 1980s and early 1990, Annie Youderian of The Courthouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs has alleged that the inadequate response was racially motivated, and contributed to millions of dollars in property damage and the death of two young Mohawks. According to the plaintiffs, a heavily armed Mohawk organization called the Warrior Society was responsible for the criminal violence that overtook the New York reservation, reports The Courthouse News Service. Government officials charged with policing Indian lands responded to the crisis by setting up roadblocks at the edge of the reservation to warn outsiders and possibly keep them from entering the turmoil. The police protection was not only inadequate, but was also discriminatory and amounted to "express racial classification," according to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs challenged officials' policy of notifying the Warrior Society before police entered the reservation, and of stopping regular patrols inside the reservation, according to The Courthouse News Service. The New York-based federal appeals court did not share the plaintiffs' view that discrimination was what blocked the officials from preventing the violence, The Courthouse News Service reported. The roadblocks, the court noted, were "aimed at an area, not a racial class." Similarly, the policy of informing the Warrior Society before entering the reservation was not necessarily biased, the appeals court ruled. In a per-curiam decision, the three-judge panel from the Second Circuit said, "Viewed most favorably, the policy was simply a way for police to avoid a potentially violent standoff with the Warriors, and perhaps even to show respect for the sovereignty of the Mohawks." Nor was the suspension of reservation patrols an "express racial classification," the court added, according to The Courthouse News Service. The Courthouse News Service reports that the panel wrote, "The violence on the Mohawk reservation was an indisputable tragedy. But plaintiffs have not shown that defendants' attempts to avert it, however unsuccessful they might have been, were a violation of the Equal Protection Clause." A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3ebe RHODE ISLAND: ACLU Files Litigation Over Food Stamp Delays ---------------------------------------------------------- The Rhode Island ACLU and a national organization that promotes economic justice for low-income families have filed a federal lawsuit against the state Department of Human Services, alleging that the state's failure to timely process food stamp applications is resulting in the denial of "desperately needed assistance to help [applicants] feed their families," and forcing them to "suffer hunger as a result." The class-action lawsuit, filed by RI ACLU volunteer attorney Lynette Labinger and attorneys for the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, seeks an injunction requiring the state to process food stamp applications within the time frames established by federal law, and a temporary restraining order to provide immediate benefits to the suit's named plaintiff. Under federal law, states participating in the food stamp program are required to process food stamp applications within thirty days of the date of application, and to provide expedited food stamps to eligible households within seven days. In March 2009, more than 99,000 Rhode Islanders participated in the program, and in March of this year alone, 3,700 individuals enrolled in the program. Yet the most recent statistics from the federal government's Food and Nutrition Service indicate that almost one-fifth of Rhode Island's food stamp applications are not processed in a timely manner. The lawsuit was filed as a class action on behalf of all food stamp applicants affected by DHS' failure to process the applications in a timely manner. The named plaintiff is Providence resident Shalonda Spruill, who lost her job in January and has been unable to find work since then. According to the complaint, she has no income or savings, and does not have enough money to buy the food that she and her eight-year old daughter need. The suit alleges that although she first applied for food stamps in mid-May and is eligible for expedited food stamps, her application still has not been acted upon. Referring to the many families affected by DHS' failure to abide by the federal timelines, the brief filed in the case notes that "food stamps are an essential source of support that permits them to survive at the barest edge of poverty. Without food stamps, a meager subsistence benefit, they will be unable to purchase food for themselves and their families. None of them can suffer the loss of food stamps without experiencing serious harm." RI ACLU volunteer attorney Labinger said: "The time deadlines in federal law are there for a purpose, and the state's inaction is causing an intolerable hardship on families. No child in Rhode Island should have to go to bed hungry due to paperwork delays." A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3eb5 RIO TINTO: Court Sets Hearing for Bougainville Islanders' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has scheduled a July hearing for a purported class-action lawsuit filed against against Rio Tinto, Chris Fyall of HeraldNet reports. It was previously reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated in August 2006 the human rights claim brought by the people of the island of Bougainville against London-based Rio Tinto, one of the world's largest mining companies (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2006). Previously, a U.S. District Court had dismissed the case, siding with the U.S. State Department's opinion that the case could not be heard in U.S. courts, a decision that was appealed by the plaintiffs. However, in a two-to-one majority opinion, the Ninth Circuit stated "we conclude that most of the plaintiffs' claims may be tried in the United States," rejecting arguments by Rio Tinto that the U.S. was not the most appropriate venue to hear the case. The court also rejected arguments by the U.S. State Department, which filed a Statement of Interest, saying that "continued adjudication of the claims would risk a potentially serious impact on the peace process." It concluded, "we cannot uphold the dismissal of the lawsuit solely on the basis of the Statement of Interest." The ruling remands the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and could have broad implications for other groups seeking redress from crimes committed during wartime by private companies acting in concert with local governments. It also states that Rio Tinto could be held liable for actions by the PNG government if the company's involvement is proven. Case Background The suit claims that Rio Tinto conspired with the government of Papua New Guinea (PNG) to savagely quell civil resistance to an environmentally devastating mining operation, actions that led to the deaths of thousands. The case was filed in 2000 as a class-action suit and seeks to represent Bougainvilleans who continue to be exposed to toxins resulting from the Panguna mine, individuals who lost property due to ongoing environmental contamination, and people injured or killed during the Bougainville conflict between 1989 and 1999. Under the Alien Tort Claims Act, foreign nationals can bring suit in the United States against companies that violate international law. Rio Tinto is the parent company of subsidiary U.S. Borax Inc., headquartered in Los Angeles. The court also ruled that war crimes, crimes against humanity and racial discrimination are such universally recognized norms that they can be heard under the Alien Tort Claims Act. Environmental Events Leading to the Lawsuit The Panguna copper mine and the political events that erupted since the mine was established are at the core of the case. Bougainville Island, located northeast of Australia, is part of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea. Between 1969 and 1972, the Australian Colonial Administration leased land on the island to Bougainville Copper Limited (BCL), a mining subsidiary of Rio Tinto. The suit claims that landowners unsuccessfully resisted intrusion onto their land, and many Bougainvilleans were forced to relocate or flee the island. Three principal villages were relocated. According to the suit, Rio Tinto then destroyed entire villages, razed the rain forest, sluiced off a hillside and established the world's largest open-cut mine, spanning two kilometers wide and half a kilometer deep. The mine excavated 300,000 tons of ore and water every day during its operation between 1972 and 1988. The suit alleges that Rio Tinto improperly dumped waste rock and tailings, emitting chemical and air pollutants without regard for the villagers. Those tailings destroyed local fish stock, a major food source for the islanders. The Bougainville people -- especially children -- began dying more frequently from upper respiratory infections, asthma and tuberculosis, the suit states. The Panguna mine, located on the Island of Bougainville just off Papua New Guinea, was once the world's largest copper mine during the 1980s. Rio Tinto's actions on Bougainville were so egregious that they sparked an uprising designed to close the mine in 1990. According to the complaint, in 1990, villagers started an uprising, which closed the mine, and in response, Rio Tinto and the Papua New Guinea (PNG) government brought troops in to reopen the mine. The complaint alleges that Rio Tinto provided transport for these troops and played a role in instituting a military blockade of the island that lasted for almost 10 years, created to coerce the Bougainville people into surrendering so that the mine could be reopened. The blockade prevented medicine, clothing and other essential items from reaching the people of Bougainville, closing hospitals and other vital services. According to the Red Cross, the blockade killed more than 2,000 children in its first two years of operation. By the time the war ended in 1999, 10 percent of the population of Bougainville, approximately 15,000 civilians, were killed. The court case alleges that Rio Tinto's conduct violated customary international law, including prohibitions against destruction of the right to life and health, and prohibitions against racial discrimination and war crimes. SHELBY COUNTY: Court Ends Desegregation Battle Over Schools ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit voted 2-1 to accept the voluntary dismissal of a long standing class-action lawsuit aimed at desegregating the public school system in Shelby County, Tennessee, Annie Youderian of The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed in 1963 by students and their parents against the Shelby County Board of Education, alleging unconstitutional racial segregation in the Shelby County schools. The district court issued numerous orders requiring the school system to desegregate its schools in accordance with the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in "Brown v. Board of Education," which rejected the separate-but-equal justification for segregation, reports The Courthouse News Service. In August 2006, after decades of court supervision, the parties moved to dissolve all outstanding orders and declare the school district a "unitary," or desegregated, school system. However, Judge Bernice Donald of the U.S. District Court for the District of Tennessee rejected their claim that the goals of the desegregation plan had been adequately fulfilled. Judge Donald denied the motion for unitary status in the areas of student assignment, faculty integration and extracurricular activities, and established new "racial ratios" for students and faculty. If the new orders were followed, the judge said, court supervision would end by 2015, according to The Courthouse News Service. Writing for the Sixth Circuit panel, Judge Richard Allen Griffin acknowledged that courts should not simply "rubber stamp" all settlements without considering their constitutional compliance. But it adhered to the notion that courts should encourage voluntary dismissals, particularly over divisive issues like school desegregation, The Courthouse News Service reported. Judge Griffin said the courts "must afford considerable weight to the joint motion when it is reasonable, filed in good faith, and demonstrates that the constitutional mandate requiring desegregation has been satisfied." The judge added, "Absent reasons and evidence to the contrary, the joint motion was entitled to substantial weight in the exercise of the court's discretion." Judge Algenon L. Marbley, sitting by designation, wrote a 23- page dissent that sided with Judge Donald. "I do not believe that the virtues of compromise can compensate for the lack of evidence substantiating that the County has in fact eliminated, to the extent practicable, all remaining vestiges of unlawful discrimination," Judge Marbley wrote, The Courthouse News Service reports. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3ebf SOUTH CAROLINA: Judge Orders $40M Payment in Retirees' Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Williams has ruled that the South Carolina Retirement System must pay back about $40 million in retirement contributions it improperly took from the paychecks of state employees who participated in a program that lets them continue working after retirement, The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News. The ruling -- which affects 12,688 people who retired from their state jobs before July 1, 2005 -- stems from class-action lawsuits filed in Georgetown and Richland counties. Those eligible for the refunds should receive a letter. One of the lawsuits was filed by James Arnold, a former captain with the Georgetown city police department. Mr. Arnold's lawsuit against the retirement system, originally filed in 2005, became a class-action lawsuit that covered police, firefighters, judges and other public safety officials. It was combined with a second lawsuit that covered other state employees, according to The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News. The Retirement System will ask Judge James Williams to reconsider the ruling, system spokesman Michael Sponhour told The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News. The ruling also can be appealed to the S.C. Supreme Court. The ruling affects workers who were caught in changes to state law that require retiree-to-work participants to make contributions to the retirement system starting July 1, 2005, reports The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News. Those contributions are not credited to the retirees who make them, but are used to supplement the state's retirement fund. The retiree-to-work program was created so state agencies can retain skilled workers beyond retirement age. The program lets workers retire after 25 years and then return to the same job for up to five more years — earning both a salary and pension benefits, The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News reported. Prior to July 1, 2005, retirees who went back to their state jobs did not have to pay into the retirement system. When the new law took effect, state officials started taking money from the paychecks of those people who had entered the retiree-to-work program under the old rule, The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News reports. According to Mr. Williams, changing the law for workers who already were participating in the program was improper. He ordered the state to refund all the money taken. That money has been held in an escrow account since the lawsuits were filed. Gene Connell, Esq., a Surfside Beach lawyer, and Conway lawyer Brana Williams, Esq. represented the 2,088 public safety officials covered by the ruling, according to The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News. In opting to appeal the ruling, Ms. Sponhour told The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News that he believes the ruling is "in error because we believe the General Assembly has the constitutional authority to amend the law." SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in Synovus Financial has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of Synovus Financial Corp. (NYSE: SNV) common stock during the period between January 24, 2008 and January 21, 2009, against Synovus and other over alleged violations of Federal Securities laws. The plaintiff alleges Synovus Financial and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing between January 24, 2008 and January 21, 2009 materially false and misleading statements regarding Synovus Financial's business and financial results and engaged in improper behavior which harmed Synovus' investors by failing to disclose the extent of its large exposure to the Sea Island Company, a resort in Georgia, and the deteriorating condition of Sea Island. The plaintiff accuses that Synovus also failed to adequately and timely record losses for its impaired loans, causing its financial results to be materially false and as a result of defendants alleged false statements, Synovus stock traded at artificially inflated prices between January 24, 2008 and January 21, 2009, reaching a high of $13.49 per share on February 1, 2008. Then, on January 22, 2009, so the lawsuit alleges, Synovus Financial reported a net loss for the fourth quarter of 2008 of $637 million, or $1.93 per share. The fourth quarter 2008 results included provision expense of $364 million and a $443 million non-cash goodwill impairment charge. According to the complaint on this news, Synovus stock fell to as low as $4.52 before it closed at $4.75 per share on January 22, 2009. Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- located in Columbus, GA, is a diversified financial services company and a registered bank holding company. Synovus Financial provides financial services, including commercial and retail banking, financial management, insurance, mortgage and leasing services. TOYOTETSU AMERICA: Faces Sexual Discrimination, Harassment Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Toyotetsu America, Inc., Toyotetsu Mid America, Inc., Toyotetsu Texas, Inc., Toyoda Iron Works Co., Ltd. and Toyota Motor Corp. are facing a purported class-action lawsuit by a group of women who claim they were passed over for promotions in favor of less qualified men, David Saleh Rauf of The San Antonio Express reports. The suit was filed on June 24, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas by Cheryl Wilkens, Irma Rocha, Peggy Pope and Yoko Tokushima, who are also claiming that they were sexually harassed or witnessed harassment. Captioned, "Wilkens et al v. Toyotetsu America Inc. et al., Case No. 5:2009-cv-00515," the suit alleges that female employees at Toyotetsu Texas, Inc. face a "glass ceiling" and are "routinely assigned to the lowest-paying positions and given little or no opportunity to advance to higher-ranking positions," according to The San Antonio Express. The women are suing for lost compensation and job benefits they would have received and an unspecified amount for emotional distress. They brought their lawsuit on behalf of an estimated 400 female workers at the supplier's three U.S. locations. According to the lawsuit, the alleged discrimination that women at Toyotetsu face stem from Toyota's 14-point philosophy, know as the "Toyota Way," which is described in court filings as a "mechanism for reinforcing widespread Japanese cultural prejudices, including discrimination against female employees," reports The San Antonio Express. The San Antonio Express reported that generally the four women are alleging that they were denied promotions on various occasions, required to train less qualified male employees to take those positions and forced to work in a hostile environment where sexual harassment claims went un-investigated. In addition, three claim they ultimately lost their jobs because they spoke up. For more details, contact: Marisa Bono, Esq. (Mbono@maldef.org) Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. MALDEF 110 Broadway - Suite 300 San Antonio, Tx 78295 Phone: (210) 224-5476 Fax: (210) 224-5382 - and - Doanh The Nguyen, Esq. (zone@nguyendelbarrio.com) Nguyen & del Barrio, PLLC 1820 Houston Street - Suite B Laredo, TX 78040 Phone: (956) 753-7636 Fax: (956) 753-8865 UPONOR INC: Faces Minn. Litigation Over Faulty Plumbing Fittings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plumbing fittings sold by Uponor, Inc. (Uponor) and its wholly-owned subsidiary Radiant Technology, Inc. (RTI) are defective and fail prematurely, causing extensive water damage to homes, commercial buildings and other property, according to allegations in a putative class action lawsuit filed May 15 in the United States District Court in Minnesota. Minnesota-based Uponor has admitted in court filings that fittings it sold for its plumbing systems are "defective" and "unreasonably dangerous." However, the company refuses to replace all affected plumbing systems or otherwise reimburse all property owners as required under warranties it issued, according to the complaint. The fittings Uponor admits are defective and unreasonably dangerous were used in plumbing systems installed in homes and buildings across the country. While it has replaced the fittings in homes built by some of the nation's largest home builders, Uponor refuses to do the same for individual homeowners. "Uponor's conduct in choosing to honor its responsibilities to large, important construction companies while ignoring the damage and costs its defective products have caused the 'little guy' is reprehensible," explained Charles J. LaDuca, attorney for the plaintiffs and a partner with Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP in Washington, D.C. "The named plaintiffs in this lawsuit, John and Helen McGregor, who live in the small community of Mead, Washington, are among the thousands of property owners who simply cannot afford to tear apart the walls and floors of their homes and replace defective plumbing systems," explained Shawn Raiter, attorney for the plaintiffs and a partner with Larson King, LLP in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The products at issue are brass fittings inserted into crosslinked polyethylene (PEX) tubing. Although Uponor and RTI advertised and warranted their brass PEX fittings for as long as 25 years, the fittings began failing -- sometimes only months after installation. When the fittings fail, water leaks can extensively damage walls, floors and other personal property. The lawsuit, "John and Helen McGregor, et al v. Uponor, Inc.," seeks certification as a class action and compensation for damages suffered by home owners, the replacement of the defective and unreasonably dangerous systems and other remedies. For more details, contact: Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. (sraiter@larsonking.com) Larson King, LLP, St. Paul Phone: 651-312-6518 Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. (CharlesL@cuneolaw.com) Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLC, Washington Phone: 202-789-3960 - and - Michael McShane, Esq. (mmcshane@audetlaw.com) Audet & Partners, LLP, San Francisco Phone: 415-568-2555 WEST VIRGINIA: WVRJA, Director Faces Lawsuit Over Strip-Searches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority (WVRJA) and and its director Terry L. Miller are facing a purported class-action suit filed by a Cabell County man who is challenging the alleged policy of strip searching and delousing people arrested for minor crimes when they're booked into one of the state's regional jails, Justin Anderson of The West Virginia Record reports. The suit was filed on July 1, 2009 in the U.S. Distirct Court for the Southern District of West Virginia by Michael Cantley, under the caption, "Cantley v. The West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority, Case No. 3:2009-cv-00758." Mr. Cantley contends that the "wholesale" strip searching and delousing of arrestees violate constitutional rights when jail officers have no reasonable suspicion that an arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband, according to The West Virginia Record. "For at least the past 11 years, the (authority) has had a policy of strip searching all individuals who enter any of the West Virginia regional jails and placing them in jail clothing, regardless of the crime with which they are charged," according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The West Virginia Record. "In addition, the (authority) also requires that all pre-trial detainees be deloused by having corrections officers use plastic bottles to spray caustic delousing solution over the genitals of detainees," the complaint states. Mr. Cantley, on behalf of the class, says case precedent holds that people charged with misdemeanors or other minor crimes can't be subjected to this treatment unless officers have reasonable suspicion, reports The West Virginia Record. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages as well as an end to the alleged policy of strip searching and delousing every inmate, no matter of the severity of the crime or presence of suspicion, The West Virginia Record reported. For more details, contact: Daniel R. Karon, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & KARON 55 Public Square Suite 1500 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216/622-1851 Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III P.O.Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 Phone: 518/434-1718 Gary E. Mason, Esq. THE MASON LAW FIRM 1225 19th Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202/429-2290 - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. (arihn@peircelaw.com) ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES 2500 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412/281-7229 Fax: 412/281-4229 YUM BRANDS: Faces Mich. Litigation Over Botched Chicken Giveaway ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed seeks to hold Kentucky Fried Chicken, owned by Yum Brands (NASDAQ:YUM), responsible for its botched chicken giveaway. In May, KFC sought to promote its new grilled chicken by offering free meals to the public through the highly popular 'Oprah' show. However, according to the lawsuit, KFC subsequently sent out letters to its stores telling them not to honor the offer. News stories reported that the grilled chicken was available only to paying customers, but people seeking to redeem coupons were turned away or asked to provide personal information for a "raincheck" coupon. The suit comes on the heels of a startling admission by KFC president Roger Eaton. Eaton was widely quoted as saying that despite the huge public outcry over KFC's refusal to honor its coupons, the promotion has been incredibly lucrative: "There's no one in America right now who doesn't know we're selling grilled chicken." To add insult to injury, Eaton reportedly bragged to the Associated Press that "the critical thing for us was to get people to eat the chicken, whatever it took." News stories reported that millions of people were turned away by KFC, at times leading to violence. In one instance, lawyers bringing the suit were told a bus load of 28 Californians were turned away after they traveled to KFC from an adult learning center. "KFC's reaction shows that it is not simply out of touch, it is mean-spirited," explained Jay Edelson, a partner at KamberEdelson, LLC and one of the lawyers for the plaintiff, Kay Ready of Michigan. "People are sick and tired of this culture of corporate greed. Companies are going to learn fast that this is the wrong time in America's history to try to take advantage of the little guy." The lawsuit further takes issue with KFC's claim that its supposedly healthy grilled chicken is in fact chicken. The suit alleges that the product actually contains rendered beef fat and beef powder. The lawyers say they have been contacted by people interested in starting a boycott of KFC, and its parent company Yum Brands, Inc. which also owns Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Long John Silvers. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3ec0 For more details, contact: KamberEdelson, LLC Phone: 1-312-589-6370 or 1-866-354-3015 Fax: 1-312-589-6378 Web site: http://www.kamberedelson.com/Edelson.html ********* 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 * * *