CAR_Public/090727.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 27, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 146

                           Headlines

ACCURAY INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California
BOVIS LEND: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
CAESAR'S PALACE: Faces Nev. Workers' Suit Over Second Hand Smoke
DELL INC: Settles Gender Discrimination Lawsuit for $9.1M
DENNY'S CORP: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Amount of Sodium in Meals

EQ INDUSTRIAL: N.C. Court OKs Deal in Suit Over 2006 Explosion
FIRST HEALTH: Fairness Hearing for "Coy" Deal Resumes in August
HOME DEPOT: Faces Assistant Managers' Suit in Ill. for Overtime
JEFFERSON COUNTY: PUD Faces Wash. Suit Over Taxing of Residents
MERCK & CO: Reaches Deal in Lawsuit Over Schering-Plough Merger

MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Announces Settlement of Wage, Hour Claims
MOSES LAKE: Faces Washington Litigation Over Traffic Cameras
NETFLIX INC: Faces Calif. Antitrust Litigation Over DVD Sales
NEW YORK: Court Issues Ruling in Racial Bias Litigation v. FDNY
PERPETUA HOLDINGS: Faces Ill. Suits Over Cemetery Desecration

PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Kansas Litigation Over "Lights" Cigarettes
PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Texas Litigation Over Light Cigarettes
PRESSTEK INC: N.H. Court Approves "Sloman" Securities Suit Deal
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settles N.J. Litigation Over Merck & Co. Merger
SOFTBRANDS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Proposed Deal

STATION CASINOS: Faces Ex-Employees' Nev. Suit Over Unpaid Wages
UNITED PARCEL: Aug. 3 Trial Set for Franchisees' Suit in Calif.
UNITED PARCEL: Third Circuit Reverses "Hohider" Certification


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCURAY INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Kendall Law Group Announces Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

ACCURAY INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California
------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Accuray, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARAY) has filed a
proposed securities class action lawsuit in investor in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Accuray Inc. common stock
pursuant or traceable to Accuray's Initial Public Offering on or
about February 7, 2007, as well as purchasers of Accuray's
common stock between February 7, 2007 and August 19, 2008 over
alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Accuray and
others.

     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Accuray Inc.
NASDAQ: ARAY) common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Company's Initial Public Offering on or about February 7, 2007,
as well as purchasers of the Company's common stock between
February 7, 2007 and August 19, 2008, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, July 24,
2009).

     The complaint charges Accuray and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act.

     Accuray designs, develops, and sells the CyberKnife system,
an image-guided robotic radio surgery system for the treatment
of solid tumors.  The CyberKnife system combines continuous
image-guidance technology with a compact linear accelerator to
deliver high doses of radiation to a tumor from different
directions.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose material
information concerning the quality and realistic likelihood of
fulfillment of contracts in Accuray's "backlog," a figure
representing the direct revenue that Accuray expects to receive
from the sale and servicing of the CyberKnife system.

     Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose the following adverse facts:

       -- at the time of Accuray's IPO, Accuray changed its
          definition of backlog to include both contingent and
          non-contingent contracts;

       -- beginning in the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2007
          (at the time of the IPO), Accuray would report backlog
          that consisted of both contingent and non-contingent
          backlog, thereby increasing the total reported
          backlog;

       -- defendants materially overstated the amount of the
          Company's backlog;

       -- Accuray reported as backlog orders for the CyberKnife
          system that did not have a substantially high
          probability of being booked as revenue;

       -- a significant portion of commissions paid to
          CyberKnife sales personnel were earned prior to those
          potential sales being booked as revenue;

       -- Accuray sales personnel entered into contingent
          contracts for CyberKnife systems that did not have a
          substantially high probability of being booked as
          revenue;

       -- Accuray did not have adequate internal controls and
          procedures to ensure that potential orders reported as
          backlog had a substantially high probability of being
          booked as revenue; and

       -- based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable
          basis for their positive statements about the Company,
          its backlog, earnings, operations and prospects.

     On August 19, 2008, Accuray announced its fiscal fourth
quarter and full year 2008 financial results for the period
ended June 28, 2008 in a press release titled "Accuray Announces
Results for the Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year End 2008; 28 New
Contracts Valued at $115.5 Million Signed in Fourth Quarter."
That same day, Accuray held a conference call with analysts and
reiterated the financial results in the press release and
revealed that Accuray removed another $39 million from backlog.
Thus, Accuray removed approximately $127 million in backlog
during the last three quarters of fiscal 2008.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Accuray common stock during the Class Period, as
well as purchasers of Accuray common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO on or about February 7, 2007.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site http://www.csgrr.com/cases/accuray/


BOVIS LEND: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
     A federal lawsuit alleges that Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. and
Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., managers of many of New York City's
famous construction projects, including the Mets' Citi Field and
the 9/11 Memorial at Ground Zero, did not pay workers overtime
wages in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law (NJWHL), according to Outten & Golden LLP.

     Renee Sewell, a former employee from Hoboken, N.J. who
worked at Bovis' work sites in New York City and New Jersey,
filed suit on Thursday in New York federal court on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated employees.

     The Complaint alleges that Bovis misclassified Ms. Sewell
and other similarly situated employees as exempt from the
overtime requirements of the FLSA, NYLL, and NJWHL, and failed
to pay them overtime for the hours they worked over 40 during
many workweeks.

     Attorneys Adam T. Klein, Justin M. Swartz, Jack A. Raisner,
and Rachel M. Bien, of Outten & Golden LLP in New York,
represent Ms. Sewell.  They will seek to have the lawsuit
certified as a class action that includes similarly situated
Assistant Project Managers, Project Engineers, and other
salaried employees below the level of "Project Manager" with
different titles who performed similar duties to Ms. Sewell.

     Rachel M. Bien, of Outten & Golden LLP, stated, "While
Bovis benefited from major construction contracts, we allege
that it deprived workers, who worked long hours performing low-
level construction management services at its work sites, of the
overtime premium pay to which the law entitles them."

     The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages, attorneys' fees
and costs, interest, and liquidated damages.

     The case is "Sewell, et al., v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., et
al.," (Southern District of New York, Case No. 09-6548).

For more details, contact:

          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rachel Bien, Esq.
          Outten & Golden LLP
          New York, NY
          Phone: 212.245.1000
          Web site: http://www.outtengolden.com


CAESAR'S PALACE: Faces Nev. Workers' Suit Over Second Hand Smoke
----------------------------------------------------------------
     A class action lawsuit filed in Nevada federal court seeks
to protect Caesar's Palace Hotel and Casino employees from the
effects of second-hand smoke.

     The suit alleges that Caesar's Palace is failing to provide
a safe work environment for its employees.

     "We are not asking that Caesar's Palace become smoke free,"
says Jay Edelson, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit.
"They must take steps to protect the health of their employees.
That's reasonable and it's humane."

     It is well established that second-hand smoke is a health
risk to non-smokers.  The risks are exacerbated for employees at
Caesar's Palace, where smoking is not only permitted 24 hours a
day, seven days a week, but is also encouraged.  Cigarettes are
sold, and in some cases given away, to gamblers on the casino
floor.

     Some casinos in Las Vegas have taken steps to protect their
employees from second-hand smoke.

     Not only has Caesars done nothing, the suit alleges, but
the problem has gotten worse since Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
took over operations at Caesar's Palace.  When that happened,
non-smoking gaming areas were allegedly removed from the casino
floor.  The suit claims that employees are also not allowed to
request that customers move their ashtrays, or blow smoke away
from the tables.

     The suit further claims employees that complain about the
smoke risk losing their jobs.

     A recent study by the National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health of three Las Vegas Casinos, including Caesar's
Palace, found that employees are continually exposed to the same
cancer causing chemicals that smokers inhale, and that these
chemicals exist in the bloodstreams of employees working in the
gaming area of Caesar's Palace to a greater degree than other
employees.

     The suit is brought on behalf of all employees at Caesar's
Palace by Tomo Stephens, a former table dealer at Caesars for
twenty years.  Ms. Stephens was found to have developed pre-
cancerous cells in her stomach and was warned by her doctor that
if she did not quit working she was at risk of developing
stomach cancer.  Ms. Stephens was provided no severance nor even
a sympathy call after informing Caesars' of her need to resign.
Due to the loss of income, her house is facing foreclosure.

     The suit asks the court to require that Caesar's Palace
take steps to protect its employees, including installing
ventilation systems that minimize second-hand smoke, designating
certain sections as non-smoking, and accommodating employees who
are adversely affected by second-hand smoke.

A copy of the lawsuit is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3fe9

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


DELL INC: Settles Gender Discrimination Lawsuit for $9.1M
---------------------------------------------------------
Dell, Inc. (NASDAQ:DELL) said on July 24, 2009 that it has
agreed to settle a federal gender-discrimination class action
lawsuit for $9.1 million, according to an AP report.

The class is defined as all women employed by Dell for at least
one day at C1 through D3 level positions between Feb. 14, 2007,
and Dec. 31, 2008.  They will receive $5.6 million, and the
remaining $3.5 million will be used to raise the salaries of
females working in those positions to match those of their male
counterparts after Dell conducts a review of salaries, The
Associated Press reported.


DENNY'S CORP: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Amount of Sodium in Meals
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Most Denny's Corp. meals are dangerously high in sodium,
putting the restaurant chain's customers at greater risk of high
blood pressure, heart attack and stroke, according to a class
action lawsuit filed on July 23, 2009 by a New Jersey man with
the support of the Center for Science in the Public Interest
(CSPI).

     The lawsuit was filed in Superior Court of New Jersey in
Middlesex County, and seeks to compel Denny's to disclose on
menus the amount of sodium in each of its meals and to place a
notice on its menus warning about high sodium levels.  CSPI is
working with the New Jersey firms of Galex Wolf, LLC and
Williams Cuker Berezofsky.

     Most Americans should consume no more than 1,500 milligrams
of sodium per day, according to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.  But at Denny's, the great majority of its meals
contain more, and in some cases, several times more. Some meals
at Denny's provide more than 4,000 or 5,000 mg of sodium-more
than most adults should consume in three days.  Diets high in
sodium are a major cause of high blood pressure, which in turn
is a major cause of heart disease and stroke, the first- and
third-leading causes of death in the United States.

     "Denny's is slowly sickening its customers," said CSPI
executive director Michael F. Jacobson.  "For those Americans
who should be most careful about limiting their sodium, such as
people middle-aged and older, African-Americans, or people with
existing high blood pressure, it's dangerous to eat at Denny's.
Denny's customers deserve to be warned about the considerable
health risk posed by many of these meals."

     The plaintiff, Nick DeBenedetto, is a 48-year-old resident
of Tinton Falls, NJ, who has eaten for many years at Denny's
restaurants in East Brunswick and Brick, NJ. DeBenedetto takes a
prescription medication to control his high blood pressure and
at home does not cook with salt or use the salt shaker.  Some of
his favorite Denny's items, such as Moons Over My Hammy or the
Super Bird turkey sandwich, contain far more than 1,500 mg of
sodium-even without soup, salad, fried onion rings, or other
side dishes.

     "I was astonished-I mean, literally floored-to find that
these simple sandwiches have more salt than someone in my
condition should have in a whole day," DeBenedetto said.  "It's
as if Denny's is stacking the deck against people like me.  I
never would have selected those items had I known."

     Moons Over My Hammy, a ham, egg, and cheese sandwich, has
2,580 mg of sodium by itself-more than even a healthy young
person should consume in a day. It's served with hash browns
(adding 650 mg of sodium) or grits (an additional 840 mg).

     The Super Bird sandwich, served with regular French fries,
has 2,610 mg of sodium-more than twice what someone with high
blood pressure should consume in a day.

     Denny's Meat Lover's Scramble, which has two eggs with
chopped bacon, diced ham, crumbled sausage, Cheddar cheese, plus
two bacon strips, two sausage links, hash browns, and two
pancakes has 5,690 mg sodium, or 379 percent of the advised
daily limit.

     A full meal at Denny's consisting of a bowl of clam
chowder, a Spicy Buffalo Chicken Melt, and a side of seasoned
fries contains an alarmingly high 6,700 mg of sodium.  It's a
big meal, to be sure, with about 1,700 calories. But that's more
sodium than what 70 percent of Americans should consume in four
and a half days.

     Even many of the smaller meals advertised for children and
seniors have inappropriately high sodium levels.

     Many health experts consider high dietary sodium levels to
be one of the nation's top health threats.  Dr. Stephen Havas,
adjunct professor of preventive medicine at Northwestern
University's Feinberg School of Medicine, says that reducing the
sodium content of packaged and restaurant foods by half would
save at least 150,000 lives per year.

     For some people, particularly Denny's elderly patrons,
getting several days' worth of sodium in a single meal might be
enough to trigger congestive heart failure.

     "As a physician, I have grave concerns about the sodium
levels at Denny's, and grave concerns about an elderly person or
someone with hypertension eating even one such meal," Havas
said.  "The body can have a hard time getting rid of that much
salt, potentially leading to fluid retention and accumulation in
the lungs.  Consuming that much sodium can have severe
consequences."

     Denny's describes itself as the largest full-service family
restaurant in the United States, with more than 1,500
restaurants and annual sales of $2.4 billion.

     "By concealing an important material fact about its
products-namely, that that these foods have disease-promoting
levels of sodium-Denny's is failing its responsibility to its
customers and is in violation of the laws of New Jersey and
several other states," said CSPI litigation director Steve
Gardner.

     Denny's and CSPI had been in private negotiations over
sodium, but those talks ended earlier this year.  Shortly
thereafter, the chain made small sodium reductions in a handful
of items, like cheese sauce, shrimp skewers and kids' meals, but
the chain did not make the kind of broad sodium reductions or
menu disclosures urged by CSPI.

     CSPI's litigation department has, since its founding in
2004, sued a number of leading national food companies and has
secured agreements improving food labeling, marketing, or
product formulation with Anheuser Busch, Frito-Lay, Kellogg,
KFC, Kraft, Sara Lee and other companies.  CSPI's litigation
activities helped spur the removal of artificial trans fat from
restaurant food and helped return millions of dollars to
consumers from makers of the dietary supplement Airborne.

     The lawsuit filed on July 23, 2009 against Denny's is
CSPI's first sodium-related lawsuit against a food company.
Separately, CSPI has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration
to regulate salt as a food additive and to restrict sodium
levels in various categories of food.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3fee

For more details, contact:

          Williams Cuker Berezofsky
          Woodland Falls Corporate Center
          210 Lake Drive East
          Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Phone: 856-667-0500
          Fax: 856-667-5133
          Web site: http://www.wcblegal.com/

               - and -

          Galex Wolf LLC
          1520 U.S. Hwy 130, Ste 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Phone: 732-257-0550
          Fax: 732-257-5654
          e-mail: info@galexwolf.com
          Web site: http://www.galexwolf.com/


EQ INDUSTRIAL: N.C. Court OKs Deal in Suit Over 2006 Explosion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina approved a preliminary settlement that would compensate
residents and businesses that evacuated following the explosion
at a hazardous waste warehouse in Apex, North Carolina three
years ago, News & Observer reports.

As many as 17,000 residents were either forced or encouraged to
leave their homes after the EQ Industrial Services warehouse
near the center of town exploded on an October evening in 2006,
according to News & Observer.

Residents and businesses in the evacuation zones will be given a
choice of objecting to the settlement or accepting the payments
that it offers, said Robert Zaytoun, Esq., one of the lawyers
who brought the class-action suit against EQ and two other
companies.  A hearing on the fairness of the settlement is
scheduled for Oct. 6, 2009, News & Observer reported.

Under the settlement, the companies have agreed to pay each
household that evacuated $750 to compensate for expenses and
their trouble. Businesses that were forced to close during the
two-day evacuation period could receive up to $2,200.  The
settlement totals $7.85 million, reports News & Observer.

EQ Industrial Services and EQ Holding Co. are facing a class-
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina on behalf of thousands of individuals
and businesses who suffered damages due to the explosion of a
chemical plant owned by the companies in Apex, North Carolina
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2006).

The suit was filed by the law firms Parker & Waichman, LLP, Greg
Jones & Associates, PA, Neblett, Beard Arsenault, Becnel Law
Firm, LLC & Law Offices of Ronnie G. Penton.

It alleges that the explosion and massive fire at the facility
was a result of the company's negligence, which needlessly
endangered the safety of thousands of people, damaged property
and interrupted business activity.

The lawsuit alleges that EQ's negligent actions caused a massive
chemical explosion, resulting in chlorine and other hazardous
materials to enter the air and surrounding community.  Chlorine
gas is highly toxic and was used as a chemical weapon during
World War I.  Residents and businesses in Apex, North Carolina,
and surrounding areas, suffered injuries and damages, and will
continue to suffer substantial losses into the future.  The suit
seeks remedies for claims involving personal injury, property
damage and business interruption.

On Oct. 5, 2006, a chemical explosion occurred at EQ's waste
storage plant in Apex, North Carolina causing a fire that forced
the evacuation of thousands of nearby residents.

EQ Industrial Services and EQ Holding Company were previously
warned about unsafe conditions at the facility.  EQ was cited
and fined in March 2006 for violating North Carolina regulatory
waste regulations due to its failure to properly contain
hazardous waste materials on its property.  Plant explosions are
nothing new to EQ; in August 2005, another plant run by
Environmental Quality Co., just outside of Detroit in Romulus,
Michigan, burst into flames, forcing 2000 residents to evacuate.

The suit is captioned, "Beaulieu v. EQ Industrial Services,
Inc., et al, Case No. 5:2006cv00400," which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

For more details, contact:

          Zaytoun Law Firm
          510 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 301
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Phone: (919) 832-6690
          Fax: (919) 831-4793
          e-mail: info@zaytounlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.zaytounlaw.com/


FIRST HEALTH: Fairness Hearing for "Coy" Deal Resumes in August
---------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in a class-action
case against First Health Insurance Co. will resume in August,
Amelia Flood of The St. Clair Record reports.

Amelia Flood of The St. Clair Record previously reported that
Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court has reset
a fairness hearing for the settlement in the matter, "Richard C.
Coy, D.C. d/b/a Coy Chiropractic Health Center, P.C., and
Lawrence Shipley, D.C., v. CCN Managed Care, Inc. and First
Health Group Corp., Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois,
Case No. 04-L-1055," after it became clear that the judge's July
15, 2009 docket was overloaded (Class Action Reporter, July 17,
2009).

Judge Stack essentially decided that a jammed asbestos docket
had to take precedence over the fairness hearing, according to
The St. Clair Record reports.

Previously, The St. Clair Record reported that Judge Stack moved
to continue the fairness hearing over the proposed settlement in
the matter to July 15, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, July 14,
2009).

After three hours of argument at a fairness hearing held on May
26, 2009, Judge Stack told attorneys, "My brain hurts."  He
added, "I've had just about all I can take," according to The
St. Clair Record report (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2009).

Judge Stack was referring to arguments over the settlement of a
suit against First Health Insurance Co.  While both parties
reached a settlement back in 2008, the settlement has yet to be
approved due to an objection filed by a class member with a
similar lawsuit pending in St. Clair County, The St. Clair
Record reported.

The judge has continued the hearing until July 15 at 10 a.m.  He
will hear the remainder of the objector's arguments and
responses from plaintiff and defense counsel, reports The St.
Clair Record.

Previously, a fairness hearing is set for May 26, 2009 to
determine whether a charitable contribution of more than $1.2
million is a fair end to a 2004 chiropractor class-action suit
against insurer First Health Group Corp. over claims adjustments
(Class Action Reporter, May 26, 2009).

It was previously reported that the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial District, Madison County, Illinois, will hold a
fairness hearing on May 26, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. for the proposed
settlement in the purported class-action lawsuit captioned,
"Richard C. Coy, D.C. d/b/a Coy Chiropractic Health Center,
P.C., and Lawrence Shipley, D.C., v. CCN Managed Care, Inc. and
First Health Group Corp., Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois, Case No. 04-L-1055," (Class Action Reporter, April 6,
2009).

This lawsuit was filed Sept. 24, 2004.  In the suit, plaintiffs
claim that CCN Managed Care, Inc. (f/k/a Community Care Network,
Inc.), and First Health Group Corp., (collectively First
Health), operated Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) networks
through which healthcare payors improperly discounted the bills
of Illinois healthcare providers who treated workers'
compensation claimants and Illinois automobile accident policy
claimants.

Granite City chiropractor Lawrence Shipley and Glen Carbon
chiropractor Richard Coy settled the class-action suit against
First Health in Madison County in January, reports The St. Clair
Record.

In the settlement, First Health did not admit to any wrongdoing.
It was to give $1.25 million to a charity.  The company would
pay $650,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Wood River attorney
Brad Lakin's law firm and a $10,000 incentive award to the class
representatives, according to The St. Clair Record report.

For more details, contact:

          LakinChapman, LLC
          300 Evans Ave,
          PO Box 229,
          Wood River, IL
          Phone: 618-254-1127
          e-mail: ppo.classaction@lakinchapman.com
          Web site: http://www.lakinchapman.com

               - and -

          PPO Settlement Administrator
          PO Box 1971
          Fairbault MN 55021-6167
          Phone: 1-866-680-6562
          Web site: http://www.pposettlements.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces Assistant Managers' Suit in Ill. for Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Home Depot, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit filed by
a group of former employees who claim the retailer did not pay
overtime wages for three years to its assistant managers at
Illinois stores, Bridget Freeland of The Courthouse News Service
reports.

The former employees who filed the lawsuit (Civil Action No.
09CH2476) are Gary Ottaviano, Cruz Plaza and Jenny Macias.
Their lead counsel is Mark Miller, Esq. with Wexler Wallace and
Lee Squitieri, Esq. with Squitieri & Fearon in New York, N.Y.,
according to The Courthouse News Service.

Alexandria Sage of Reuters reported that the lawsuit was filed
on July 21, 2009 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
seeks class-action status.  It accuses Home Depot of
deliberately misclassifying the plaintiffs as "exempt" from
overtime, which is paid to workers after 40 hours per week
(Class Action Reporter, July 23, 2009).

The plaintiffs claim that they were unlawfully deprived of wages
when Home Depot required them to work at least 55 hours per week
and that they were not paid time and a half for time over 40
hours, according to Reuters.

The suit accused Home Depot of having a policy of terminating
assistant store managers and reducing their salaries if they do
not work the eleven hour minimum shift for which assistant
managers are scheduled.

The alleged practice is widespread at Home Depot and that it
affects all of the company's assistant managers in Illinois,
where, it added, some 57 Home Depot stores operated in the past
three years, Reuters reported.

The complaint is seeking past unpaid wages and punitive damages,
reports Reuters.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3fec

For more details, contact:

          Wexler Wallace LLP
          55 West Monroe St.
          Ste. 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312.346.2222
          Fax: 312.346.0022
          e-mail: info@wexlerwallace.com
          Web site: http://www.wexlerwallace.com/

               - and -

          Squitieri & Fearon, LLP
          32 East 57th Street
          12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-421-6492
          Fax: 212-421-6553
          e-mail: info@sfclasslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.sfclasslaw.com/


JEFFERSON COUNTY: PUD Faces Wash. Suit Over Taxing of Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County Public Utility District No. 1 is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of the residents
of Port Townsend, Washington, Fred Obee of The Port Townsend
Leader reports.

The lawsuit claims that for all these years, the PUD has been
illegally taxing city residents.  If successful, the suit would
refund with interest the taxes Port Townsend residents have paid
to the PUD over the last three years, according to The Port
Townsend Leader.

The named plaintiffs in the class-action suit are Ted Shoulberg
and Charles Haniford, two Port Townsend property owners.  Mr.
Haniford manages rental properties in Port Townsend, and Mr.
Shoulberg is a former Port Townsend City Council member, reports
The Port Townsend Leader.

The lawsuit was filed after Messrs. Shoulberg and Haniford
requested that the attorney general's office institute an action
against the PUD.  The attorney general's office refused that
request on June 30, 2009, The Port Townsend Leader reported.


MERCK & CO: Reaches Deal in Lawsuit Over Schering-Plough Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Merck & Co., Inc. announced a proposed settlement, subject
to Court approval, to resolve litigation challenging the planned
merger between Merck and Schering-Plough Corporation and seeking
other forms of relief.

     The consolidated class action lawsuit, which was noted in
Merck's June 25, 2009, definitive merger proxy
statement/prospectus, was filed in the Chancery Division of the
Superior Court of New Jersey in Hunterdon County and named
Merck, its directors and Schering-Plough as defendants.

     The proposed settlement references additional disclosures
made by Merck and Schering-Plough related to the proposed
merger, including information about Merck's financial advisor
(J.P. Morgan), its fairness opinion and certain other details.
All of these additional disclosures already have been made in
the joint proxy/prospectus filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).  Under the proposed settlement, no
damages would be paid by Merck or Schering-Plough. In addition,
the parties have agreed that plaintiffs' counsel may apply to
the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs to be paid
by Merck.

     Merck said the proposed settlement is not in any way an
admission of any wrongdoing or liability in connection with
plaintiffs' allegations.  The company said it agreed to settle
the suit in order to avoid the further costs and inherent
uncertainty of litigation.

     This settlement, if approved by the court, and the separate
settlement announced by Schering-Plough, will resolve and
release all claims that were or could have been brought by any
shareholder of Merck or Schering-Plough challenging any aspect
of the proposed merger, including any merger disclosure claims.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Announces Settlement of Wage, Hour Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc. (NYSE: MRT) announced that
agreements have been reached to settle certain wage and hour
claims against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries.  The
settlements involve claims filed against the Company as far back
as 2003 and cover all of the remaining wage and hour litigation
pending against the Company and its subsidiaries, including a
nationwide class action filed in 2005.  While the Company and
its subsidiaries deny allegations underlying the claims, they
have agreed to the settlements to avoid additional legal fees,
uncertainty surrounding the litigation and the management time
that would have been devoted to continued litigation.  The
settlements are subject to respective arbitrator and court
approvals.

     The settlements involve the payments of cash over up to a
four year period as well as the issuance of preferred stock by
the Company.  The preferred stock, which will have an aggregate
liquidation preference of $6 million, will be issued in
connection with the settlement of the nationwide class action
within thirty days following court approval of such settlement
(but not prior to January 1, 2010) and after two years from the
date of its issuance may be converted into up to 1.2 million
shares of the Company's common stock (or a lesser number of
shares depending on the conversion price computed at the time
the court approves the settlement).  The Company will have the
right to buy back the preferred stock at a price equal to its
liquidation preference at any time prior to its conversion.

     As a result of the settlements and other labor matters, a
one-time charge of approximately $13.4 million pre-tax and
approximately $8.5 million after-tax, or approximately $0.53 per
diluted share, will be recorded in the fiscal second quarter
ended July 5, 2009.

     "We believe resolving the wage and hour litigation that has
been ongoing for several years is in the best interest of our
Company, our shareholders and our employees," said Scott Levin,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Morton's Restaurant
Group, Inc.  "Eliminating the distraction and expense of this
litigation will allow our management team and employees to focus
on what we do best---offering our guests warm, genuine
hospitality and 'The Best Steak Anywhere'."

     The Company expects to announce its second quarter results
in early August 2009.

Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.mortons.com-- is
the world's largest operator of company-owned upscale
steakhouses.  Morton's steakhouses have remained true to our
founders' original vision of combining generous portions of high
quality food prepared to exacting standards with exceptional
service in an enjoyable dining environment.  As of July 23,
2009, the Company owned and operated 78 Morton's steakhouses
located in 66 cities in 27 states, Puerto Rico and six
international locations (Hong Kong, Macau, Mexico City,
Singapore, Toronto and Vancouver), as well as three Italian
restaurants.


MOSES LAKE: Faces Washington Litigation Over Traffic Cameras
------------------------------------------------------------
Moses Lake, Washington is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit that was filed by a local attorney who is challenging
the city's use of cameras for traffic enforcement, The Tri-City
Herald reports.

Attorney Harold Moberg, Esq. told The Tri-City Herald that 6,000
to 12,000 people will be notified that they are eligible to join
the lawsuit.  The class-action group includes all drivers who
received city citations as a result of camera enforcement in the
past three years and paid their fines.

Mr. Moberg filed suit earlier this July in Grant County Superior
Court, and the class action was certified on July 17, 2009.  He
pursued the class-action suit after initially defending a single
client, Specialty Welding, in Moses Lake Municipal Court.  That
case still is open, according to The Tri-City Herald.

The Tri-City Herald reported that Moses Lake uses cameras at two
intersections to detect red-light violations and uses cameras
near the high school to enforce a speed zone.  Redflex Traffic
Systems of Scottsdale, Ariz., installed the system and monitors
it.

For more details, contact:

          Harold J Moberg, Esq.
          607 Riviera Ave
          Moses Lake, WA
          Phone: (509) 765-1699


NETFLIX INC: Faces Calif. Antitrust Litigation Over DVD Sales
-------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and Walmart.com USA LLC are
facing a purported class-action lawsuit claiming that they
colluded to divide the rental and retail markets for DVDs, thus
driving up Netflix subscription prices allowing Wal-Mart to
overcharge for DVD sales, Law360 reports.

The suit was filed on May 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by Carla Spears, under
the caption, "Spears v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 3:2009-cv-
02064."

An amended complaint was filed on July 22, 2009, according to
Law360.

For more details, contact:

          Paul William Rebein
          The Rebein Law Firm, PLLC
          500 E. Kennedy Blvd.
          Suite 100
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813-356-0567
          Fax: 813-902-6538
          e-mail: paul@rebeinlaw.com


NEW YORK: Court Issues Ruling in Racial Bias Litigation v. FDNY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
ruled that the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) used
recruitment exams that discriminated against blacks and
Hispanics, Soterios Johnson of WNYC reports.

The ruling is the result of a lawsuit filed against the city by
a black firefighters' organization and the U.S. Department of
Justice.  It found the predominantly white FDNY discriminated
against minority firefighter candidates in written exams given
between 1999 and 2007, according to WNYC.

The New York Daily News previously reported that The Vulcan
Society of the New York's fire department has joined a class-
action lawsuit against the City of New York over alleged racial
discrimination in the department's hiring practices (Class
Action Reporter, July 20, 2007).

In May 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York a suit
against the city charging that two written exams administered by
the Fired Department of New York (FDNY) in 1999 and 2002 were
unfair to black and Hispanic candidates.

The suit seeks to represent approximately 335 black employees
who "were and continue to be affected by the fact that they were
delayed and impeded in their ability to obtain employment with
the FDNY."

The suit is "United States of America v. City of New York, Case
No. 1:07-cv-02067-NGG-RLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Nicholas G.
Garaufis, with referral to Judge Roanne L. Mann.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Allyson L. Belovin, Esq.
          Levy Ratner, P.C.
          80 Eighth Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-627-8100
          Fax: 212-627-8182
          e-mail: abelovin@lrbpc.com

          Clare F. Geller, Esq.
          U.S. Department of Justice
          601 D Street, Nw, Room 4926
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202)353-1817
          Fax: (202)514-1005
          e-mail: clare.geller@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Michael J. Goldberger, Esq.
          United States Attorneys Office
          Eastern District of New York
          One Pierrepont Plaza, 14th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (718)254-6052
          Fax: (718)254-6083
          e-mail: Michael.Goldberger@usdoj.gov

Representing defendants are:

          Michael N. Block, Esq.
          Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo P.C
          120 Broadway- 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: 212-732-9000
          Fax: 212-266-4148
          e-mail: mblock@triallaw1.com

               - and -

          Georgia Mary Pestana, Esq.
          Office of the Corporation Counsel
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-788-0862
          Fax: 212-788-0940
          e-mail: gpestana@law.nyc.gov


PERPETUA HOLDINGS: Faces Ill. Suits Over Cemetery Desecration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perpetua Holdings of Illinois, the owners of Burr Oak Cemetery
in Alsip, are facing three purported class-action lawsuits in
Illinois that was filed on behalf of people who have relatives
buried at the suburban Chicago cemetery where bodies were
allegedly removed from graves and dumped so that the plots could
be resold, The Chicago Sun-Times reports.

The Associated Press reported that a class-action lawsuit was
filed against Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, and its owners (Class
Action Reporter, July 14, 2009).

The families of twenty-one people buried at Burr Ridge Cemetery
are also suing four workers accused of desecrating their
relatives' graves, The Associated Press reported.

The class-action suit was filed on July 10, 2009 in Cook County
Circuit Court in Illinois by Bobbie Sanders, according to The
Associated Press.


PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Kansas Litigation Over "Lights" Cigarettes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA, Inc. and its parent company, Altria Group,
Inc. are facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by a
pair of Kansas City-area residents alleging deception in the
sale of so-called "light" cigarettes, The Kansas City Business
Journal reports.

The suit was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas by Allison E. Moos and Robert J.
Valencia, under the caption, "Moos et al v. Philip Morris USA
Inc et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-02383."

The suit alleges that the defendants sold "light" and "ultra-
light" cigarettes to give consumers the impression that they
were smoking products with less tar and nicotine, according to
The Kansas City Business Journal

Both plaintiffs, represented by Burgess & Lamb PC, said they
started smoking Marlboro Lights or Ultra-Lights thinking that
was an alternative to quitting smoking.

Armed with the knowledge now that such cigarettes are not
necessarily less harmful, the plaintiffs said they still were
unable to quit smoking, citing the products' addictive nature,
reports The Kansas City Business Journal.

Kansas City Business Journal reported that the plaintiffs charge
both companies with, among other things, unjust enrichment,
negligence, and violating the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.

For more details, contact:

          Mitchell L. Burgess, Esq. (mitch@burgessandlamb.com)
          Burgess & Lamb, P.C.
          1000 Broadway, Suite #400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-471-1700X22
          Fax: 816-471-1701

               - and -

          Ralph K. Phalen, Esq. (phalenlaw@yahoo.com)
          Ralph K. Phalen, Attorney at Law
          1000 Broadway, Suite #400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-589-0753
          Fax: 816-471-1701


PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Texas Litigation Over Light Cigarettes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA, Inc., Altria Group, Inc., R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company and Reynolds American, Inc. are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit over light cigarettes, David
Yates of The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The suit was filed on July 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas by Charles V. Hanson, III,
under the caption, "Hanson v. Philip Morris USA, Inc et al.,
Case No. 1:09-cv-00704-TH."

The suit in general is alleging that the country's largest
tobacco companies have been misleading consumers on the actual
nicotine and tar content of their light cigarettes.  It also
accuses Philip Morris, Altria Group, and Reynolds American of
deceiving consumers, according to The Southeast Texas Record.

Mr. Hanson of Jefferson County claims the defendants misled him
into believing light cigarettes were less harmful than regular
cigarettes.  He started purchasing various brands of cigarettes
in the 1950s, according to suit.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The
Southeast Texas Record, Mr. Hanson is claiming that he first
smoked regular cigarettes, but then switched to light brands
"believing that Defendants' light cigarettes delivered less tar
and nicotine and were less harmful."

The suit will include all Texas residents who from July 20, 2005
until the end of the litigation purchased cigarettes labeled as
"light" or "ultra-lights."  So far, the class includes at least
100 members seeking more than $5 million in damages, reports The
Southeast Texas Record.

"This consumer class action concerns Defendants' ... advertising
of light cigarettes as delivering less nicotine ... and being
less harmful ... despite Defendants knowledge that these
representations were false," the suit states.

The Southeast Texas Record reported that the suit accuses the
defendants of designing their light cigarettes to register lower
levels of tar and nicotine during testing than the levels
actually delivered to consumers.

The plaintiff argues the tobacco companies intentionally
manipulated the design and content "by modifying the tobacco
blend, weight, rod length, and circumference, using
reconstituted tobacco sheets and expanded tobacco; and by
increasing the smoke PH levels of the cigarettes through
chemical processing and the use of additive such as ammonia,
resulting in the delivery of great amounts of tar and nicotine."

The complaint alleges that the defendants knew that their
representations that light cigarettes delivered less nicotine
and were less harmful were false, deceptive, misleading and
unfair, reports The Southeast Texas Record.

The defendants are accused of breaching express and implied
warranties, violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment, The Southeast
Texas Record reports.

The lawsuit requests a restitution of money paid at retail for
light cigarettes, disgorgement of profits, the establishment of
a constructive trust to reimburse the class for economic damages
and establishment of a smoker cessation program.

The plaintiffs are seeking actual, compensatory and
consequential damages, but not damages for personal injury or
health care claims, according to The Southeast Texas Record.

For more details, contact:

          Bryan O. Blevins, Jr., Esq.
          (bblevins@provostumphrey.com)
          Provost Umphrey - Beaumont
          490 Park St.
          P.O. Box 4905
          Beaumont, TX 77704-4905
          Phone: 409/838-8858
          Fax: 409/813-8610


PRESSTEK INC: N.H. Court Approves "Sloman" Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Presstek, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRST), a leading manufacturer and
marketer of digital offset business solutions, announced that
the previously announced settlement of a securities class action
against the company and certain current and former directors and
former officers was approved by the United States District Court
for the District of New Hampshire on July 20, 2009.

This class action litigation arose out of the Company's
announcement of its preliminary financial results for the third
quarter of fiscal 2006.  The settlement approved by the Court
provides for the payment by the Company and other defendants of
$1.25 million, which is being funded by the company's executive
liability insurance policies.

It was previously reported in the company's May 14, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 4, 2009 that a proposed $1.25 million
settlement of the matter, "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00377-JD," remains pending.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire will
hold a fairness hearing on July 20, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., which
will be held before the Honorable Joseph. N. LaPlante, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, 55
Pleasant  St., Concord, NH 03301.

Bod Sanders of New Hampshire Business Review reported that
Presstek, Inc. agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit charging that the company misled investors about
its earnings in 2006 (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2008).

Previously, it was reported that Presstek, Inc. settled a
purported securities fraud class-action suit filed before the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008).

In October 2006, the company and two of its former executive
officers were named as defendants in a purported securities
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire.  The suit claims to be brought on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period from July 27, 2006, through Sept. 29, 2006.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the company and the
other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on
allegedly false forecasts of fiscal third quarter and annual
2006 revenues.

As relief, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, but make no allegation as to losses incurred by any
purported class member, court costs and attorneys' fees.

On Sept. 25, 2008 the parties reached a settlement of the
action, subject to confirmatory discovery by plaintiffs and
court approval.

The suit is "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00377-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire, Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com)
          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St., Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134

               - and -

          Mark L. Mallory, Esq. (mark@malloryandfriedman.com)
          Mallory & Friedman PLLC
          8 Green St., Concord, NH 03301
          Phone: 603-228-2277

Representing defendants is:

          Robert E. McDaniel, Esq. (remcdanielesq@aol.com)
          McDaniel Law Offices
          755 North Main St.
          Laconia, NH 03246
          Phone: 603-527-0520
          Fax: 603-279-0540


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settles N.J. Litigation Over Merck & Co. Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Schering-Plough Corporation (NYSE: SGP) reported a proposed
settlement, subject to Court approval, to resolve litigation
seeking to enjoin the planned merger with Merck & Co., Inc., and
other forms of relief.  The consolidated class action lawsuits,
previously reported in the merger proxy statement/prospectus
filed June 25, 2009, were filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

     The proposed settlement, as more fully described in a Form
8-K being filed today, provides for Schering-Plough to make
additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which are
contained in the Form 8-K.  No damages would be paid by
Schering-Plough in connection with this proposed settlement.
The parties agreed that plaintiffs' counsel may apply to the
Court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs, to be paid by
Schering-Plough.

     This settlement, if approved by the court, and the
settlement announced by Merck today, will serve to resolve and
release all claims that were or could have been brought by any
shareholder of Schering-Plough or Merck challenging any aspect
of the proposed merger, including any disclosures made in
connection therewith.  Schering-Plough said the proposed
settlement is not in any way an admission of any wrongdoing or
liability in connection with plaintiffs' allegations.  The
company said it agreed to settle the suit in order to avoid the
further costs and inherent uncertainty of litigation.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an
innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company.
Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations
with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save
and improve lives around the world.  The company applies its
research-and-development platform to human prescription and
consumer products as well as to animal health products.


SOFTBRANDS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Proposed Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in Delaware Chancery Court challenging the proposed
acquisition of SoftBrands, Inc. (AMEX: SBN).

     The Complaint arises out of the announcement by SoftBrands
stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with Golden Gate Capital.  Under the proposed agreement,
SoftBrands shareholders will receive $0.92 in cash for each
share of SoftBrands they own for a total transaction value of
approximately $41.3 million or $80 million including debt and
preferred shares.  The price appears unfair given that the 52-
week high for SoftBrands share is $1.08 and at least one
analysts set a price target of $1.00 for SoftBrands stock.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com/sbn1.html


STATION CASINOS: Faces Ex-Employees' Nev. Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
Clark County District Court alleging current and former Station
employees are owed wages for unpaid hours they claimed to have
worked, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports.

The lead plaintiffs in the suit -- filed on July 21, 2009 -- are
former Station employees Josh Lukevich, Cathy Scott, and Julie
St. Cyr.

The lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals who are or were
employed by Station since Feb. 4, 2005.  The properties named as
defendants are Boulder Station, Fiesta Henderson, Fiesta Rancho,
Gold Rush, Magic Star, Palace Station, Red Rock Resort, Santa Fe
Station, Sunset Station, Texas Station, Wildfire and Wild Wild
West, according to The Las Vegas Sun.

The workers claim that because of its labor budgeting procedure,
Station Casinos strictly allocated the number of hours that
could be used to staff the various departments at its properties
and that compensation of salaried managers was tied to complying
with the labor budgets.

The lawsuit claims Station Casinos regularly rounded hourly
employees' starting and end times for each shift and failed to
compensate them for all their work time and for overtime,
according to The Las Vegas Sun.

"Defendants' practices ... are anti-competitive in that these
illegal practices make one of defendants' largest cost items -
labor - lower than as compared to other casino owners/operators
who are desirous of complying with the labor laws," according to
the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Las Vegas
Sun.

The workers complained they were required to work off the clock,
that is before they clocked in or after they clocked out
electronically using a "Kronos" timekeeping system.  They also
said the Kronos system rounded the time worked by between 7
minutes and 14 minutes, The Las Vegas Sun reported.


UNITED PARCEL: Aug. 3 Trial Set for Franchisees' Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 3, 2009 trial is slated for a class-action lawsuit filed
against United Parcel Service, Inc. by its Mail Boxes Etc.
franchisees, Peralte C. Paul of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
reports.

The trial, which is expected to last five days, follows a ruling
last month granting more than 3,500 Mail Boxes Etc. franchisees
class-action status in the suit, in which the franchisees assert
that they were ruined when the UPS took them over, according to
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The California Superior Court certified a nationwide fraud class
action (Morgate LLC v. Mail Boxes Etc., Inc., Case No. 294647)
against United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) and its affiliates on
June 19, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, June 24, 2009).

The class action consists of owners of The UPS Store who
converted from Mail Boxes Etc. stores to The UPS Store in 2003.
Judge William F. Highberger certified the class action in June,
allowing 3500 owners of The UPS Store to present their claims
that UPS and its affiliated companies violated California law,
including the California Franchise Investment Law that protects
franchisees from deception.

Legal actions have been filed by The UPS Store owners who
alleged they were misled to convert from Mail Boxes Etc. stores
to The UPS Stores.  Other legal actions have been filed by Mail
Boxes Etc. store owners who allege they were subjected to
breaches of contract and other violations of California law.

Both sets of claims are pending before Judge William F.
Highberger.

For more details, contact:

     Amy Darby, Esq. or Miles Scully, Esq.
     Mobile: (720)346-3587 or (619) 248-2691

          - and -

     Mara Woloshin
     Phone: 503-310-4504 or 323-654-5692


UNITED PARCEL: Third Circuit Reverses "Hohider" Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania's
recent certification order in the matter, "Hohider v. United
Parcel Service, et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00363-JFC," Zack
Needles of The Legal Intelligencer reports.

Remanding the case for proceedings, the Third Circuit said the
federal court improperly certified the class to bring a pattern-
or-practice discrimination suit under Title I of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 because it failed to
consider whether the class members were qualified under the ADA,
according to The Legal Intelligencer.

Instead, according to Chief Judge Anthony Scirica's opinion, the
district court relied solely on the "Teamsters framework," a
two-stage method of proof for adjudicating pattern-or-practice
claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was
born out of the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court case "International
Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States."

Judge Scirica said, "Contrary to the District Court's
conclusion, adopting the Teamsters method of proof to adjudicate
plaintiffs' claim does not obviate the need to consider the
ADA's statutory elements."  He added, "We believe this error in
identifying the legal standard controlling plaintiffs' claims
resulted in an improper grant of class certification," reports
The Legal Intelligencer.

The Legal Intelligencer reported that the judge was joined in
the decision by Circuit Judge Marjorie O. Rendell and visiting
former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

It was previously reported that United Parcel Service, Inc.'s
appeal of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania's recent certification order in the matter "Hohider
v. United Parcel Service, et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00363-JFC,"
remains pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2009).

The lawsuit was filed in 2004, charging UPS with systematic
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal
law that protects persons with disabilities from employment
discrimination (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2007).

According to one of the allegations in the lawsuit, UPS
maintains a policy, pattern and practice of requiring employees
to provide a "full" or "100 percent" medical release, without
restrictions, before permitting employees to return to work
following a medical leave of absence.

The lawsuit also charges that UPS refuses to meet in good faith
with its disabled employees to determine the extent of their
disabilities and what work the employees can perform at UPS
within the limits of their work restrictions, instead conducting
a sham investigation of the workers' medical condition, which
invariably results in a decision by UPS that the individual is
either too disabled to work at any job UPS has or not disabled
enough to warrant the protection of federal laws that require
UPS to assist the worker to return to work.  Either way UPS puts
the employee out of a job at the company.

Employees also contend that UPS refuses to reinstate permanently
disabled employees in a position that will accommodate their
medical restrictions in situations where reinstating them would
not impose an undue hardship on the company.

Finally, the lawsuit charges UPS retaliates against workers who
have filed workers compensation or discrimination claims by
refusing to let them return to work even if a 100% release is
eventually submitted, and in violation of the workers' seniority
rights under UPS' collective bargaining agreement with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin UPS
from engaging in discriminatory employment practices in
violation of the ADA, as well as the implementation of policies
that provide equal employment opportunities for persons with
present, past or perceived disabilities.

The court certified the suit as a class action.

In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
granted the company's petition to hear its appeal of the trial
court's recent certification order.

The appeal will likely take one year, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Hohider v. United Parcel Service, et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-00363-JFC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Joy Flowers Conti,
presiding.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Christian Bagin, Esq. (christian@wienandandbagin.com)
          312 Boulevard of the Allies, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1916
          Phone: 412-281-1110
          Fax: 412-281-8481

          Donald A. Broggi, Esq. (dbroggi@scott-scott.com)
          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          (ashingler@scott-scott.com)
          Scott + Scott
          600 B Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565

          Erin G. Comite, Esq. (ecomite@scott-scott.com)
          Anita M. Laing, Esq. (alaing@scott-scott.com)
          David R. Scott, Esq. (drscott@scott-scott.com)
          Scott & Scott
          108 Norwich Avenue, P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: 860-537-5537
                 860-537-3818

               - and -

          Judith B. Goldstein, Esq.
          (jgoldstein@equaljusticefoundation.com)
          Kimberly M. Skaggs, Esq.
          Equal Justice Foundation
          88 East Broad Street, Suite 1590
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-221-9800
          Fax: 614-221-9810

Representing defendant are:

          Joseph E. Culleiton, Esq. (jculleiton@reedsmith.com)
          David J. McAllister, Esq. (dmcallister@reedsmith.com)
          Joseph P. McHugh, Esq. (jmchugh@reedsmith.com)
          Perry A. Napolitano, Esq. (pnapolitano@reedsmith.com)
          Reed Smith
          435 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886
          Phone: 412-288-7216
                 412-288-3131


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCURAY INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a
securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Accuray,
Inc. (Nasdaq: ARAY) pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Initial Public Offering on or about February 7, 2007, and
purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 7,
2007 and August 19, 2008, inclusive.  The class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Accuray's business, operations and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Accuray securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 21, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Kendall Law Group Announces Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and U.S.
Attorney, announces a shareholder class action has been filed in
Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of current investors of Noven
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: NOVN), who purchased their shares
before July 14, 2009.  The lawsuit concerns potential breaches
of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law in
connection with an alleged unfair takeover price.

     Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical
Co., Inc. announced on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, that they have
entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which
Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical offered to acquire Noven Pharmaceutical
for total cash consideration of approximately $428 million, or
$16.50 per share, in an all-cash tender offer for 100% of the
outstanding shares of Noven.  The offer price represents a 22%
premium to the closing price of Noven's common stock on July 13,
2009.

     The complaint alleges that "the consideration that
Hisamitsu has stated it will offer to holders of Noven common
stock, and that Noven's Board has accepted in unanimously
agreeing to the Proposed Transaction, is unfair and inadequate
because, among other things, the intrinsic value of Noven common
stock is materially higher than the amount offered, giving due
consideration to the Company's growth and operating results and
a promising new drug product in its pipeline."

     Hisamitsu has had a capital alliance with Noven since 2001
and owns already 4.98 percent of its outstanding shares.  Noven
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., located in Miami, Florida, is a specialty
pharmaceutical company engaged in the research, development,
manufacturing, licensing, marketing and sale of prescription
pharmaceutical products.

For more details, contact:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq. (hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com)
          Kendall Law Group
          3232 McKinney, Ste. 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Phone: (214) 744-3000 or (877) 744-3728
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.com


OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Oppenheimer AMT-Free New York Municipals
securities (Nasdaq: OPNYX; Nasdaq: ONYBX; Nasdaq: ONYCX) between
May 1, 2006 and October 21, 2008, inclusive, has been
transferred to the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado.  The deadline for investors to file motions to be
appointed Lead Plaintiff is August 7, 2009.

     The complaint alleges the defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 by failing to disclose in the Fund's
prospectus that the Fund employed strategies designed to enhance
its reported returns while, at the same time, these strategies
exposed the Fund to much greater risk of price decline in the
value of its portfolio securities in the event of illiquidity in
the market for municipal securities. The complaint alleges that
the defendants failed to disclose that these strategies exposed
the Fund to greater risk of loss should the Fund be forced to
sell large blocks of its portfolio at disadvantageous times at
prices reduced from those at which the securities were
previously carried on the Fund's books.  The Fund's shares
declined significantly, according to the complaint, when these
risks materialized.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Aug. 7, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.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, 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  * * *