CAR_Public/090908.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 8, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 177
  
                            Headlines

BAYER CORP: Complaint Says Men's Vitamin Claims Untrue
BOB EVANS: California Wage & Hour Violations Suit in Discovery
BURGER KING: Sept. 17 Hearing Set for "Castaneda" Certification
BURGER KING: Faces Suits by National Franchisee Assoc. in Calif.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Unable to Predict Recovery from Antitrust Suits

CHEYENE SIV: Fraud Suit Against Bank & Rating Agencies Survives
CLARK COUNTY: 9th Cir. Reviewing Foster Kid Class Certification
DAKTRONICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending in S.D.
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement of "Smith" Lawsuit Pending Approval
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: "Day" Short-Term Loans Suit Pending in Alberta

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Merged MacKinnon & Parsons' Suit in Discovery
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Unit/OPCO Face More Suits in Canadian States
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: "Bufil" Suit Ongoing in Calif. Trial Court
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Oct. 19 Trial Set for "Fitzgibbons" Status
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Former WTP Customers' Suit Pending in Missouri

EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: CEO Defends Lawsuit by Teamsters Local 617
EVAMOR INC: DirectBuy Accused of Promising False Savings
GENERAL MOTORS: GMAC Excess Wear & Tear Lease Charges Attacked
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Defending Suits Over Vishay Proposal

ONLINE TRAVEL: Nassau County Requests Class Certification
PARK PLAZA: Class Action Charges Diner with Underpaying Workers
PETSMART INC: "Sorenson" Settlement Got Final Approval in Feb.
PETSMART INC: "Enabnit" Settlement Got Final Approval in April
PETSMART INC: Suit by Former Pet Groomers Ongoing in California

PETSMART INC: Appeals of N.J. Pet Food Settlement Pending
SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Remains Pending
TUESDAY MORNING: Appeal of Decertification Ruling Set for Trial
TUESDAY MORNING: Lawsuit by Non-exempt Employees Remains Stayed
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Judge Calls Four Greedy Lawyers "Remoras"

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

COVENTRY HEALTH: Suit Says Insiders Dumped $46 Mil. of Stock
IMMERSION CORP: Glancy Bindow Files Suit in N.D. Calif.
IMMERSION CORP: Braham Fruchter Files Suit in N.D. Calif.
PROSHARES ULTRA: Gilman and Pastor Files Suit in D. Md.

                            *********

BAYER CORP: Complaint Says Men's Vitamin Claims Untrue
------------------------------------------------------
Bayer falsely advertises that the selenium in its "One A Day
Men's 50+ Advantage" and "One A Day Men's Health Formula" drugs
can reduce the risk of prostate cancer, a class action claims in
San Diego Federal Court, according to Courthouse News Service.  
A copy of the complaint in Johns v. Bayer Corp., Case No.
09-cv-1935 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/04/CCABayer.pdf

David Johns, the named Plaintiff, is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.
          2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
          

BOB EVANS: California Wage & Hour Violations Suit in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint against a Bob Evans Farms, Inc., unit,
SWH Corporation, which does business as Mimi's Cafe, alleging
wage and hour violations in California is in the discovery phase.

On Oct. 28, 2008, the complaint, Leonard Flores v. SWH
Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe, was filed in Orange County,
California Superior Court.

Mr. Flores was employed as an assistant manager of Mimi's Cafe
until September 2006.

Mimi's Cafe classifies its assistant managers as exempt
employees.

Mr. Flores purports to represent a class of assistant managers
who are allegedly similarly situated.

The case involves claims that current and former assistant
managers working in California from October 2004 to the present
were misclassified by Mimi's Cafe as exempt employees.

As a result, the complaint alleges that these assistant managers
were deprived of overtime pay, rest breaks and meal periods as
required for nonexempt employees under California wage and hour
laws.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

No trial date has been set, according to the company's Aug. 28,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 24, 2009.  

A voluntary mediation was scheduled for Aug. 31, 2009.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/-- is a full-
service restaurant company that operates two restaurant concepts:
Bob Evans Restaurants and Mimi's Cafes.  The company is also a
producer and distributor of pork sausage and complementary
homestyle convenience food items.  As of April 24, 2009, Bob
Evans Restaurants (including Bob Evans Restaurants & General
Stores) were located in 18 states, primarily in the Midwest, mid-
Atlantic and Southeast, and Mimi's Cafes were located in 24
states, primarily in California and other western states.


BURGER KING: Sept. 17 Hearing Set for "Castaneda" Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 17, 2009 hearing has been set for the class certification
motion in Castaneda v. Burger King Corp. and Burger King
Holdings, Inc., No. CV08-4262 (N.D. Calif.).

On Sept. 10, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The complaint alleged that all Burger King restaurants in
California leased by BKC and operated by franchisees violate
accessibility requirements under federal and state law.

The plaintiffs seek injunction relief, statutory damages,
attorney's fees and costs, according to the company's Aug. 27,
2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast  
food hamburger restaurant.  As of June 30, 2009, the company
owned or franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries
and United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were
company restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees.  Of
these restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States
and 4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets. BKH's
restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and other
specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other food
items.  The company generates revenues from three sources: retail
sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and property
income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to
franchisees.  The company operates in three reportable segments:
the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and
Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America.


BURGER KING: Faces Suits by National Franchisee Assoc. in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings, Inc., faces two class action lawsuits filed
by The National Franchisee Association, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, according
to the company's Aug. 27, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2009.

The cases are:

   -- National Franchisee Association v. Burger King Corporation
      and The Coca-Cola Company, No. 09 CV 939 W NLS; and

   -- National Franchisee Association v. Burger King Corporation
      and Dr Pepper Snapple Group f/k/a Dr Pepper/Seven Up,
      Inc., Case No. 09 939 W NLS.

The company is a party to written agreements with The Coca-Cola
Company and Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. pursuant to which these
companies supply soft drinks to Burger King restaurants in the
United States.

Under these agreements, the soft drink companies are required to
pay certain amounts, known as "Restaurant Operating Funds", based
on the volume of syrup purchased by the restaurants.

Historically, the soft drink companies have paid the entire
amount of the Restaurant Operating Funds to the restaurants.

However, in April 2009, the company announced that beginning Jan.
1, 2010, a portion of these funds would be paid directly to it
for use as specified in the soft drink agreements.

The National Franchisee Association, Inc. filed these two class
action lawsuits on May 4, 2009, claiming to represent Burger King
franchisees and seeking third party beneficiary status and
declaratory relief.

The complaints allege that BKC and the soft drink companies did
not have the right to amend the company's agreements to reduce
the portion of Restaurant Operating Funds paid directly to the
restaurants without the franchisees' consent.

Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast  
food hamburger restaurant.  As of June 30, 2009, the company
owned or franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries
and United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were
company restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees.  Of
these restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States
and 4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets. BKH's
restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and other
specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other food
items.  The company generates revenues from three sources: retail
sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and property
income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to
franchisees.  The company operates in three reportable segments:
the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and
Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Unable to Predict Recovery from Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. is unable at this time to estimate future
recoveries, if any, it will receive as a result of certain
antitrust class actions, according to its Aug. 27, 2009, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 .

The company recognized income of $0.2 million in fiscal 2008, and
$28.5 million in fiscal 2007, resulting from settlement of class
action antitrust claims alleging certain prescription drug
manufacturers took improper actions to delay or prevent generic
drug competition.

The company has not been a named plaintiff in any of these class
actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class
(i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these drug
manufacturers).

The total recovery of such claims through June 30, 2009, was
$151.8 million (net of attorney fees, payments due to other
interested parties and expenses withheld).

Cardinal Health, Inc. -- http://www.cardinal.com/-- is a global
company serving the healthcare industry.  Cardinal Health's
distribution businesses consolidate pharmaceuticals and medical
products from thousands of manufacturers into site-specific
deliveries to retail pharmacies, hospitals, physician offices,
surgery centers and alternate care facilities.  Cardinal Health
is a provider of specialized nuclear pharmaceuticals, delivering
more than 13 million doses each year to hospitals and outpatient
care centers.  Cardinal Health also manufactures medication
infusion and dispensing products, respiratory equipment and
surgical instruments.  On July 8, 2008, the Company announced a
reorganization and the consolidation of its businesses into two
primary segments: the Healthcare Supply Chain Services and
Clinical and Medical Products segments.  On May 12, 2008, the
Company acquired Enturia Inc.  On Aug. 1, 2008, the Company
completed the acquisition of Borschow Hospital & Medical
Supplies, Inc.


CHEYENE SIV: Fraud Suit Against Bank & Rating Agencies Survives
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Shira Scheindlin ruled last week that that Morgan
Stanley and credit rating agencies Moody's Investors Service and
Standard and Poor's must defend fraud charges in a class-action
lawsuit that accuses them of inadequately describing the risks of
subprime mortgages repackaged into investments in Cheyne
Structured Investment Vehicle, which eventually collapsed.  In a
68-page ruling, Judge Scheindlin declined the bank and rating
agencies' request to dismiss fraud claims brought by Abu Dhabi
Commercial Bank and King County in Washington State.  Because
some claims were dismissed, and claims against Bank of New York
Mellon were dismissed, the will need to amend their complaint.

The New York Times DealBook says that Judge Scheindlin's ruling
could affect other lawsuits brought by pension funds and other
investors that seek to hold banks and credit raters responsible
for hyping the value of complex debt to win fees and causing
investor losses as the debt collapsed.

Reuters relates that the lawsuit accused the defendants of
marketing a complex instrument, the Cheyne Structured Investment
Vehicle, as a high-quality investment, but masked the risks.  
According to its complaint, the Abu Dhabi bank lost its entire
investment in the Cheyne vehicle.

SIVs once held some $350 billion in assets, Reuters adds, but
many collapsed.  

The case is Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley,
et al., No. 08-7508 (S.D.N.Y.).  


CLARK COUNTY: 9th Cir. Reviewing Foster Kid Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that lawyers for children
suing Clark County's foster care system asked a federal appeals
court last week to allow their lawsuit to go forward as a class
action representing all of the county's foster children.

The National Center for Youth Law, based in San Francisco, filed
Clark K., et al. v. Kenny C. Guinn, et al., Case No. 06-cv-01068
(D. Nev.), on Aug. 30, 2006, alleging a "systematic failure of
the Clark County foster care system" including physical abuse,
neglect and denial of medical care.  

In June 2008 the Honorable Robert Jones denied a motion to create
a class representing the county's 4,000 foster children, saying
there was not enough similarity between children in the lawsuit
and the county's other foster children.  

The Plaintiff appealed that decision.  Clark v. Willden, No.
08-17227 (9th Cir.).  The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments last
week in San Francisco, and will issue a written decision.


DAKTRONICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending in S.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daktronics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated class action
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Dakota.   

The company and two of its executive officers are named as
defendants in a consolidated class action filed in South Dakota
in November 2008, on behalf of a class of investors who purchased
Daktronics stock in the open market between Nov. 15, 2006 and
April 5, 2007.  

In an Amended Consolidated Complaint filed on April 13, 2009, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and misleading
statements of material facts about its business and expected
financial performance in the company's press releases, its
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
conference calls, thereby inflating the price of the company's
common stock.  

The Complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  

The Complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged
class in an unspecified amount, reasonable fees and costs of
litigation, and such other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.

On June 5, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint.

In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss.  Briefing on the
motion is underway, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

Daktronics, Inc. -- http://www.daktronics.com/-- is a supplier  
of electronic scoreboards, large electronic display systems and
related marketing services, digital messaging solutions and
software and services for sports venues, commercial and
transportation applications. The Company operates through five
segments: Commercial, Live Events, Schools and Theatres,
Transportation and International.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement of "Smith" Lawsuit Pending Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of Margaret Smith's class action against Dollar
Financial Group, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries (OPCO)
and Dollar Financial Corp.'s Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, is
pending approval, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

On Aug. 19, 2003, a former customer in Ontario, Canada, Ms.
Smith, commenced an action against OPCO and the company's
Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, on behalf of a purported class
of Ontario borrowers who, Smith claims, were subjected to
usurious charges in payday-loan transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, alleges violations of a Canadian federal law proscribing
usury, seeks restitution and damages, including punitive damages,
and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting further alleged usurious
charges.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted on
Jan. 5, 2007.

The trial of the common issues commenced on April 27, 2009, but
was suspended when the parties reached a settlement.

During the fiscal quarter and fiscal year ended June 30, 2009,
the company's Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, recorded a charge
of US$57.4 million in relation to the pending Ontario settlement
and for the potential settlement of certain of the similar class
action proceedings pending in other Canadian provinces.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: "Day" Short-Term Loans Suit Pending in Alberta
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries
(OPCO) and Dollar Financial Corp.'s Canadian subsidiary, Money
Mart, still faces H. Craig Day's class action in the Court of
Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada.

On March 5, 2007, a former customer, H. Craig Day, commenced an
action against OPCO, Money Mart and several of the company's
franchisees in Canada, on behalf of a putative class of consumers
who obtained short-term loans from Money Mart in Alberta.

The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the Day
action are substantially the same as those in the action by
Gareth Young in the same court but relate to a claim period that
commences before and ends after the claim period in the Young
action and excludes the claim period described in that action,
according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2009.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Merged MacKinnon & Parsons' Suit in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action against Dollar Financial Corp.'s
Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, and Dollar Financial Group,
Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries (OPCO) is in the
discovery phase.

On Jan. 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced an
action against Money Mart and 26 other Canadian lenders on behalf
of a purported class of British Columbia residents who, MacKinnon
claims were overcharged in payday-loan transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, alleges violations of laws proscribing usury and
unconscionable trade practices and seeks restitution and damages,
including punitive damages, in an unknown amount.
Following initial denial, MacKinnon obtained an order permitting
him to re-apply for class certification of the action against
Money Mart alone, which was appealed. The Court of Appeal granted
MacKinnon the right to apply to the original judge to have her
amend her order denying class certification.

On June 14, 2006, the original judge granted the requested order
and Money Mart's request for leave to appeal the order was
dismissed.  The certification motion in this action proceeded in
conjunction with the certification motion in the Parsons action.

On April 15, 2005, the solicitor acting for MacKinnon commenced a
proposed class action against Money Mart on behalf of another
former customer, Louise Parsons.

Class certification of the consolidated MacKinnon and Parsons
actions was granted on March 14, 2007.

In December 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to add OPCO as a
defendant in this action and in March 2008, an order was granted
adding OPCO as a defendant.  

On July 25, 2008, the plaintiffs' motion to certify the action
against OPCO was granted.

A summary trial is scheduled to commence in March 2010, according
to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2009.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Unit/OPCO Face More Suits in Canadian States
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp.'s Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, and
Dollar Financial Group, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries
(OPCO) continue to face purported class actions in other Canadian
states.

Purported class actions have been commenced against Money Mart in
Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

OPCO is named as a defendant in the actions commenced in Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland.

According to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2009, the claims in these actions are
substantially similar to those in the action filed by a former
customer in Ontario, Canada, Margaret Smith on behalf of a
purported class of Ontario borrowers who were subjected to
usurious charges in payday-loan transactions.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: "Bufil" Suit Ongoing in Calif. Trial Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Caren Bufil's class action suit against Dollar Financial Group,
Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries (OPCO) remains ongoing,
according to Dollar Financial Corp.'s Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

On Sept. 11, 2006, Caren Bufil commenced a lawsuit against OPCO;
the claims in Bufil are substantially similar to the claims in a
previously dismissed case.  

Bufil seeks class certification of the action alleging that OPCO
failed to provide non-management employees with meal and rest
breaks required under California law.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and other relief.

OPCO filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that
the Bufil case is duplicative of the previous case and should be
dismissed.  Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification.  
OPCO's motion was granted and Bufil's motion was denied.  Bufil
appealed both rulings. In April 2008, the Court of Appeal
reversed the trial court's ruling.  OPCO filed a petition for
review of that decision with the California Supreme Court, but in
July 2008, the Court denied the petition.

The case was then returned to the trial court level and was
assigned to the complex division.  The trial court ordered
briefing and a hearing on the issue of what discretion the trial
court had on plaintiff's motion for class certification.

After the hearing, the trial court ruled that it had to follow
the Court of Appeal's decision on class certification issues and
ordered that the plaintiff's proposed class and sub-classes be
certified.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Oct. 19 Trial Set for "Fitzgibbons" Status
------------------------------------------------------------
The class certification motion in a suit filed on behalf of a
putative class of consumers and senior citizens against Dollar
Financial Corp. is scheduled to be heard Oct. 19, 2009.

In September 2007, Jacqueline Fitzgibbons, who claims to be a
former customer of a We The People store, commenced a lawsuit
against the company and others in California Superior Court for
Alameda County.

The suit alleges on behalf of a putative class of consumers and
senior citizens that, from 2003 to 2007, We The People violated
California law by advertising and selling living trusts and wills
to certain California residents. Fitzgibbons claims, among other
things, that the company and others improperly conspired to
provide her with legal advice, misled her as to what, if any,
legitimate service We The People provided in preparing documents,
and misled her regarding the supervising attorneys' role in
preparing documents.

The plaintiff is seeking class certification, prohibition of the
Company's alleged unlawful business practices, and damages on
behalf of the class in the form of disgorgement of all monies and
profits obtained from unlawful business practices, general and
special damages, attorneys' fees and costs of the suit, statutory
and tremble damages pursuant to various California business,
elder abuse, and consumer protection codes.

The complaint has been amended several times to add new parties
and additional claims.

The Court granted, in part, the company's motion to dismiss
certain claims alleged by the plaintiffs.

In January 2009, an individual named Robert Blau replaced
Fitzgibbons as lead plaintiff.  The plaintiffs have moved for
class certification, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Former WTP Customers' Suit Pending in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. faces a purported class action suit filed
on behalf of customers of the company's We The People stores in
Missouri.

In August 2008, a group of six former We The People customers
commenced a lawsuit in St. Louis County, Missouri against the
company, its subsidiary, We The People USA, Inc. and WTP
franchisees offering services to Missouri consumers.

The plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a putative class of over
1,000 consumers that, from 2002 to the present, defendants
violated Missouri law by engaging in: (i) an unauthorized law
business, (ii) the unauthorized practice of law, and (iii)
unlawful merchandising practices in the sale of its legal
documents.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, prohibition of
the defendants' unlawful business practices, and damages on
behalf of the class in the form of disgorgement of all monies and
profits obtained from unlawful business practices, attorney's
fees, statutory and treble damages pursuant to various Missouri
consumer protection codes.

In November 2008, the original six plaintiffs were dismissed by
plaintiffs' counsel and the initial complaint was also later
dismissed.

In January 2009, former WTP customers, Philip Jones and Carol
Martin, on behalf of a punitive class of Missouri customers,
filed a lawsuit in St. Louis County against the Company and its
subsidiary, We The People USA, Inc., and a St. Louis franchisee
entity alleging claims similar to the initial August 2008  
suit.  These new plaintiffs also seek class certification,
according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2009.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: CEO Defends Lawsuit by Teamsters Local 617
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd S. Nelson, Education Management LLC's Chief Executive
Officer and a Director, remains a defendant in a class action
lawsuit entitled Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds v.
Apollo Group, Inc. et al.

In November 2006, Apollo Group, Inc. and certain of its current
and former directors and officers, including Mr. Nelson, were
named as defendants in the class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.

The plaintiffs asserted violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and
20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and of
Rule 10b-5  thereunder, as well as state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy.

Plaintiffs based those claims on alleged misrepresentations
concerning Apollo Group, Inc.'s stock option granting policies
and practices and related accounting.

In March 2009, the District Court dismissed the state law claims,
but denied motions to dismiss the remaining claims against
certain of the defendants, including Mr. Nelson.

Discovery has not yet begun in this case, according to the
company's Aug. 27, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2009.

Education Management LLC -- http://www.edmc.com/-- is a provider  
of post-secondary education in North America.  The company offers
academic programs to its students through campus-based and online
instruction, or through a combination of both.  Its educational
institutions offer students the opportunity to earn undergraduate
and graduate degrees and certain specialized non-degree diplomas
in a range of disciplines, including design, media arts, health
sciences, psychology and behavioral sciences, culinary, fashion,
business, education, legal and information technology.  Each of
its schools located in the United States is recognized by an
accreditation agency and by the U.S. Department of Education,
enabling students to access federal student loans, grants and
other forms of public and private financial aid.


EVAMOR INC: DirectBuy Accused of Promising False Savings
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that DirectBuy
lures consumers to buy memberships with false promises of savings
of 40 to 50 percent, a class action lawsuit filed Missouri state
court alleges.  The class claims DirectBuy charges handling fees
and freight charges which are actually disguised retail markups.

Named plaintiffs Tammy and Jerry Randall seek damages for
deceptive trade and an injunction.

A copy of the Complaint in Randall, et ux. v. Evamor, Inc., dba
DirectBuy, Case No. 09SL-CC03852 (Mo. Cir. Ct. of St. Louis
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/04/DirectBuy.pdf

Mr. and Mrs. Randall are represented by:

          David L. Marcus, Esq.
          W. Paige Strack, Esq.
          Graves, Bartle & Marcus
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2700
          St. Louis, MO 64105


GENERAL MOTORS: GMAC Excess Wear & Tear Lease Charges Attacked
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Acceptance Corp. demanded $3,481 for "excess wear
and damages" to a leased car but refused repeated requests for
documentation about it, a class action claims in Essex County
Court, Newark, according to Courthouse News Service.  A copy of
the complaint in Petrillo v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.,
Docket No. L-681209 (N.J. Super. Ct., Essex Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/04/CCAGMAC.pdf

Stephen L. Petrillo, the named Plaintiff, is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Law Offices of Joseph K. Jones, LLC
          375 Passaic Ave., Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of the consolidated class action suit, In
re International Rectifier Corporation Securities Litigation, is
pending final court approval.

Following the company's disclosure on April 9, 2007, that its
Audit Committee was conducting an Internal Investigation into
certain revenue recognition matters, a series of putative class
action lawsuits was filed against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaints were filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of company stock from Oct. 27, 2005, through April 9,
2007, and named as defendants the company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of alleged
accounting irregularities at the company's Japan subsidiary.

On July 22, 2007, the court consolidated all of the actions under
the caption In re International Rectifier Corporation Securities
Litigation (formerly Edward R. Koller v. International Rectifier
Corporation, et., al.) , No. CV 07-02544-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.),
and appointed the Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund and the
General Retirement System of the City of Detroit as co-lead
plaintiffs.

On Jan. 14, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint, which named as defendants several of the
Company's former officers, but did not name any of its past or
present directors except Eric Lidow and Alex Lidow.

On May 23, 2008, the Court issued an order granting defendants'
motions to dismiss, without prejudice, on the ground that Lead
Plaintiffs failed to plead detailed facts sufficient to give rise
to a strong inference of defendants' scienter.

On Oct. 17, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint alleging causes of action for
securities fraud and control person liability against the
Company, Alex Lidow, Michael P. McGee, and Robert Grant, and, for
control person liability only, against Eric Lidow and purporting
to bring suit on behalf of a putative class of investors who
purchased company securities between July 31, 2003, and Feb. 11,
2008.

On Nov. 10, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the SACC
on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to plead with
particularity facts raising a strong inference that the
individuals who spoke on the company's behalf during the putative
class period knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that the
company's financial statements were inaccurate.

On Dec. 31, 2008, the District Court issued an order granting the
company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for control person
liability and granting, in its entirety, defendant Robert Grant's
motion to dismiss.  These dismissals were with prejudice.  The
District Court denied the company's motion to dismiss the
securities fraud count and denied in their entirety motions to
dismiss brought by defendants Alex Lidow, McGee, and Eric Lidow.

On Jan. 7, 2009, the Court issued orders referring the matter for
mediation, setting Sept. 1, 2009, as the last day for a
settlement conference, Oct. 26, 2009, as the discovery cutoff,
and Jan. 12, 2010, as the first day of trial.

On March 17, 2009 plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of
the putative class, which was set for hearing on Aug. 10, 2009.

On July 29, 2009, an agreement in principle was reached to settle
the action.  The proposed settlement is subject to negotiation
and execution of a formal settlement agreement and is dependent
upon final approval by the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The proposed settlement would resolve
all class members' claims against the company and certain of its
former officers and directors.  It would provide for a payment to
the plaintiffs of $90 million, of which $45.0 million is to be
paid by the company's insurance carriers and $45.0 million by the
company.  Class members will receive notice and have a right to
object to and/or opt out of the settlement.  Final consummation
of the settlement will occur upon the entry of final judgment by
the court approving the settlement as fair to all class members.  
The timing of approval process is dependent upon the court's
calendar.  However, the company expects that the approval process
will be completed before the end of the calendar year 2009.  

The parties have agreed to suspend all discovery and other
litigation activity in this case while the settlement papers are
being prepared.  

The company has accrued a reserve of $45.0 million in fiscal year
2009 for this settlement, according to the company's Aug. 27,
2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2009.

International Rectifier Corp. (NYSE: IRF) -- http://www.irf.com/
-- is a world leader in power management technology.  IR's
analog, digital, and mixed signal ICs, and other advanced power
management products, enable high performance computing and save
energy in a wide variety of business and consumer applications.  
Leading manufacturers of computers, energy efficient appliances,
lighting, automobiles, satellites, aircraft, and defense systems
rely on IR's power management solutions to power their next
generation products.


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Defending Suits Over Vishay Proposal
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Rectifier Corp. continues to defend purported class
action complaints filed in relation to Vishay Intertechnology,
Inc.'s proposed acquisition of the company's shares.

On Aug. 15, 2008, after the company's disclosure that Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc. had made an unsolicited, non-binding
proposal to acquire all outstanding shares of the company, a
purported class action complaint captioned Hui Zhao v.
International Rectifier Corporation , No. BC396461, was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles.  The complaint named as defendants the Company and
all current directors and alleged that the Vishay proposal was
unfair and that acceptance of the offer would constitute a breach
of fiduciary duty by the board.

Five other substantively identical complaints seeking the same
relief were filed in the same court and, on Oct. 3, 2008, were
consolidated under the caption of the lead case.

On Oct. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint purporting to allege claims for breach of fiduciary
duty on behalf of a putative class of investors based on the
theory that the board breached its fiduciary duty by rejecting
the Vishay proposal.

Also pending before the same court is a related case captioned
City of Sterling Heights Police Fire Retirement System v. Dahl,
No. BC397326.  The City of Sterling complaint, filed Aug. 29,
2008, alleges substantively identical causes of action but is
brought nominally on the Company's behalf as a derivative action.

Briefing on both complaints was coordinated pursuant to a
scheduling order issued by the Court on Oct. 15, 2008.  

On Nov. 21, 2008, defendants demurred to the complaints on the
grounds that plaintiffs in both cases have failed to plead a
claim and lack standing to bring the claims on behalf of the
company.  In support of the demurrer in Zhao, defendants further
assert that plaintiffs' claims are derivative, not direct, and
that because plaintiffs already have filed with the Court
pleadings in which they allege that the Vishay offer was
undervalued, they are now estopped from alleging the opposite.  
Defendants also brought a motion pursuant to California
Corporations Code 800 requiring plaintiff City of Sterling to
post a bond before continuing with litigation on the Company's
behalf.

On Dec. 19, 2008, plaintiffs in both actions filed oppositions to
defendants' demurrers.  In its opposition, plaintiff City of
Sterling noted that it intended to withdraw its complaint and
file an amended complaint after the hearing on the Company's
demurrers and motion for bond.  

On April 16, 2009, the Court sustained defendants' demurrer to
the consolidated amended complaint in Zhao, and ordered the Zhao
action to be dismissed with prejudice.  On the same date, the
Court granted defendants' motion pursuant to California
Corporations Code 800 requiring plaintiff City of Sterling to
post a bond in the amount of $50,000 no later than June 2, 2009,
or face dismissal of its action.

On May 26, 2009, the Court entered a final judgment in Zhao
dismissing the action with prejudice.  On June 24, 2009,
plaintiffs in Zhao filed a notice of appeal from the final
judgment of dismissal.  

On July 20, 2009, plaintiff in City of Sterling and the company
entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement
of the City of Sterling action, pursuant to which, inter alia,
the derivative claims asserted in the action will be dismissed
with prejudice and the company will pay to plaintiffs' counsel
$60,000 in attorneys' fees, according to the company's Aug. 27,
2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2009.

International Rectifier Corp. (NYSE: IRF) -- http://www.irf.com/
-- is a world leader in power management technology.  IR's
analog, digital, and mixed signal ICs, and other advanced power
management products, enable high performance computing and save
energy in a wide variety of business and consumer applications.  
Leading manufacturers of computers, energy efficient appliances,
lighting, automobiles, satellites, aircraft, and defense systems
rely on IR's power management solutions to power their next
generation products.


ONLINE TRAVEL: Nassau County Requests Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael H. Samuels at Long Island Business News reports that a
federal district court is weighing whether New York counties can
band together and file a class action suit against online hotel
retailers to recoup what they consider to be lost tax revenue.

At issue, Mr. Samuels explains, is more than $5 million that
county governments throughout the state claim Web sites such as
Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Cheaptickets.com, Expedia.com,
Orbitz.com and Travelocity.com owe in back taxes.

The case is County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al.,
Case No. 06-cv-_____ (E.D.N.Y.).  

The online travel services say they only need to collect and
remit taxes based on the wholesales prices they pay for rooms in
the county, not the retail rate that the sites charge to
travelers.  The counties want to receive sales taxes on the
retail price the traveler pays the online service.  

Peter Clines, chief of the Bureau of Affirmative Litigation in
the Nassau County attorney's office, tells Mr. Samuels that the
difference between the two rates has led to millions in losses
for the 41 counties and cities in New York with a hotel occupancy
tax.

Interactive Travel Services Association, a lobbying group for
online travel retailers, says any increase would hurt hotel
occupants because the Web sites would pass the fees on to
customers.  The group, which has fought similar lawsuits in other
markets, also said a change in the way taxes are levied would
lead to a decline in tourism.

Even if the class action suit is not certified, Rodger Citron, an
assistant law professor at Touro Law School in Central Islip,
told Mr. Samuels, the county may be able to file another suit
under a different federal law by dropping the other
municipalities from their complaint.  "By no means is the lawsuit
over for Nassau County," Prof. Citron said.

Mr. Samuels' full report is available at http://is.gd/2TaW8

See "PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy
Taxes" in the Tues., May 13, 2009, edition of the Class Action
Reporter for additional information about other lawsuits by other
municipalities against the online travel services.  


PARK PLAZA: Class Action Charges Diner with Underpaying Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Newhouse and Ryan Thompson at the Brooklyn Daily Eagle
report that George Haritopoulos, a former waiter at Park Plaza
Restaurant & Bakery, has filed a class-action lawsuit against the
local diner.  Mr. Haritopoulos claims that he and other workers
are owed money for unpaid wages, and estimates that damages could
reach $5 million.

"Park Plaza Restaurant has been an institution in Brooklyn
Heights for over twenty-five years," the complaint states.  "The
restaurant has received press in the New York Times for feeding
New York's criminal defendants and infamous mobsters, such as
Vincent 'The Chin' Gigante and Peter, Gene and John Gotti."

"Park Plaza Restaurant's success, however, comes at the expense
of their hourly service workers," the complaint continues.

Mr. Haritopoulos claims that he and fellow employees were paid
only $0.74 to $1.41 per hour while they worked -- far less than
required by minimum wage laws.  

Haritopoulos, et al. v. Park Plaza Restaurant, Inc., et al., Case
No. 09-cv-03793 (E.D.N.Y.), was filed on Sept. 2, 2009.  The
Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP
          1250 Broadway, Suite 3701
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          Fax: (212) 564-5468

Messrs. Newhouse and Thompson's full story is available at
http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=4&id=30522


PETSMART INC: "Sorenson" Settlement Got Final Approval in Feb.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the putative class action suit captioned
Sorenson v. PetSmart was granted final approval in February 2009,
according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 2, 2009.  

On Oct. 3, 2006, the lawsuit was filed against the company in
California State Court on behalf of putative classes of current
and former California employees.  

The plaintiff, a former dog groomer, alleged that she and other
non-exempt employees failed to receive their meal and rest breaks
as required by law.

The plaintiff sought compensatory damages, penalties under the
California Labor Code, restitution, attorney's fees, costs and
prejudgment interest.

In November 2006, the company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.  

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle these
matters.  Final approval of the settlement was granted by the
court on Feb. 19, 2009, and final settlement payments have been
disbursed, effectively resolving the case.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty  
provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime
needs of pets.  The company offers a line of products for all the
life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including
professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp.  It also
offers pet products through an e-commerce site, PetSmart.com, as
well operates a pet community site, pets.com.


PETSMART INC: "Enabnit" Settlement Got Final Approval in April
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of the settlement of the putative class action
lawsuit, Enabnit v. PetSmart, was granted by the California State
Court on April 22, 2009.

On Oct. 12, 2006, the lawsuit was filed against the company in
California State Court on behalf of putative classes of current
and former California employees.  

The plaintiff alleged meal and rest period violations and that
employee paychecks were not compliant with the California Labor
Code.  

The plaintiff sought compensatory damages, penalties under the
California Labor Code, restitution, attorney's fees, costs and
prejudgment interest.

In November 2006, the company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.  

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
matter.  Final settlement payments have been disbursed,
effectively resolving the case, according to the company's Aug.
28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2, 2009.  

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty  
provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime
needs of pets.  The company offers a line of products for all the
life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including
professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp.  It also
offers pet products through an e-commerce site, PetSmart.com, as
well operates a pet community site, pets.com.


PETSMART INC: Suit by Former Pet Groomers Ongoing in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action, Langton v. PetSmart, is ongoing in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
according to PetSmart, Inc.'s Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 2, 2009.

On Jan. 12, 2009, a former groomer filed a lawsuit on behalf of
herself and a putative class of current and former groomers in
California State Court.

The plaintiff alleges that she and other non-exempt groomers did
not receive payment for all hours worked, did not receive meal
and rest breaks, did not receive all wages due upon termination,
did not receive accurate wage statements as required by law, and
were not provided with necessary tools and equipment.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, penalties under the
California Labor Code, restitution, attorney's fees and costs,
and prejudgment interest.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty  
provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime
needs of pets.  The company offers a line of products for all the
life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including
professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp.  It also
offers pet products through an e-commerce site, PetSmart.com, as
well operates a pet community site, pets.com.


PETSMART INC: Appeals of N.J. Pet Food Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeals with respect to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey's approval of the settlement of a consolidated pet
food class action litigation against PetSmart, Inc., are pending.

The company is a party to several lawsuits arising from the pet
food recalls announced by several manufacturers beginning in
March 2007.

The named plaintiffs sued the major pet food manufacturers and
retailers claiming that their pets suffered injury and/or death
as a result of consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet
snack products.

By order dated June 28, 2007, six cases were transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and
consolidated with other pet food class actions under the federal
rules for multi-district litigation (In re: Pet Food Product
Liability Litigation, Civil No. 07-2867).  The Canadian cases
were not consolidated.

On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the
In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation and the Canadian
cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement
for court approval.  Preliminary court approval was received from
the U.S. District Court on May 3, 2008, and from all of the
Canadian courts as of July 8, 2008.  On Oct. 14, 2008, the U.S.
District Court approved the settlement, and the Canadian courts
gave final approval on Nov. 3, 2008.

Two different groups of objectors filed notices of appeal with
respect to the U.S. District Court's approval of the U.S.
settlement, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 2, 2009.  

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty  
provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime
needs of pets.  The company offers a line of products for all the
life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including
professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp.  It also
offers pet products through an e-commerce site at
http://PetSmart.com/as well operates a pet community site at  
http://pets.com/


SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated putative shareholder class action against Sun
Microsystems, Inc. remains pending in Santa Clara County Superior
Court.

Three putative shareholder class actions were separately filed by
individual shareholders in April 2009, in Santa Clara County
Superior Court naming Sun and certain of the company's officers
and directors, as well as Oracle Corporation, as defendants.

The complaints, which are similar, seek to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of Sun by Oracle Corporation and allege claims for
breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants and
for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against the
corporate defendants.

The complaints generally allege that the consideration offered in
the proposed transaction is unfair and inadequate.

On June 16, 2009, the three shareholder actions were consolidated
into a single action.

On July 2, 2009, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the shareholders'
meeting scheduled for July 16, 2009.

On July 14, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction.

On Aug. 7, 2009, Defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated
complaint, and on Aug. 24, 2009, Plaintiff's filed a motion to
award attorneys fees incurred in the case.

There has been no further activity in this matter as of Aug. 28,
2009, the date of the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2009.  

Sun Microsystems, Inc. -- http://www.sun.com/-- provides network  
computing infrastructure solutions.  The company offers core
brands, including the Java technology platform, the Solaris
Operating System, the MySQL database management system, Sun
StorageTek storage solutions and the UltraSPARC processor.  Its
network computing platforms are used by search, social
networking, entertainment, financial services, manufacturing,
healthcare, retail, news, energy and engineering companies.  The
company operates in two segments: Server Products and Storage
Products.


TUESDAY MORNING: Appeal of Decertification Ruling Set for Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on the plaintiffs' appeal from the decertification
of the class of store managers in complaints filed against
Tuesday Morning Corporation has been scheduled.

During 2001 and 2002, the company was named as a defendant in
three complaints filed in the Superior Court of California in and
for the County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a statewide class made up of
some of the company's current and former employees, which they
claim are owed compensation for overtime wages, penalties and
interest.

The plaintiffs also sought attorney's fees and costs.

In October 2003, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with a sub-class of these plaintiffs consisting of managers-in-
training and management trainees, which was paid in November
2005.

A store manager class was certified.

However, in August 2008, the company's motion for de-
certification of the class of store managers was granted, thereby
dismissing their class action claim.  The plaintiffs have
appealed this ruling and oral argument has been scheduled,
according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2009.

Tuesday Morning Corporation -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/--  
is a closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, housewares,
gifts and related items in the United States.  The company's
merchandise primarily consists of lamps, rugs, kitchen
accessories, small electronics, gourmet housewares, linens,
luggage, bedroom and bathroom accessories, toys, stationary and
silk plants, as well as crystal, collectibles and silver serving
pieces.


TUESDAY MORNING: Lawsuit by Non-exempt Employees Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by hourly, non-exempt employees
against Tuesday Morning Corporation remains stayed.

In December 2008, the lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs allege claims covering meal and rest period
violations.

This case has been stayed pending the outcome of another case,
according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2009.

Tuesday Morning Corporation -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/--  
is a closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, housewares,
related items in the United States.  The company's merchandise
primarily consists of lamps, rugs, kitchen accessories, small
electronics, gourmet housewares, linens, luggage, bedroom and
bathroom accessories, toys, stationary and silk plants, as well
as crystal, collectibles and silver serving pieces.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Judge Calls Four Greedy Lawyers "Remoras"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum denied a request by four
lawyers for a $225,000 fee award for their role in representing
two shareholders who objected to class counsel's fees in
In re UnitedHealth Group Incorporated PSLRA Litigation, Case No.
06-cv-1691 (D. Minn.).  

"The remoras are loose again," Judge Rosenbaum writes, saying the
objectors and their lawyers "have contributed nothing" and
"[t]heir suggestion is laughable."

"Wow," is the response of the folks at The Wall Street Journal's
Law Blog Newsletter, who pulled out their dictionary to learn
that remoras are suckerfish that attaches themselves to bigger
sea-dwellers, like sharks, in order to gain transportation and
protection.  

A copy of the four lawyers' Motion for an Award of Fees is
available at http://is.gd/2UJXKand a copy of Judge Rosenbaum's  
Order is available at http://is.gd/2UK2Qcourtesy of The Wall  
Street Journal.  


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

COVENTRY HEALTH: Suit Says Insiders Dumped $46 Mil. of Stock
------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care insiders dumped $46 million in stock at
prices they inflated through false and misleading statements,
shareholders say in Greenbelt, Md., Federal Court, according to
Courthouse News Service.  A copy of the complaint in Plumbers
Local No. 98 Defined Benefit Pension Fund v. Coventry Health
Care, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-_____ (D. Md.) is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/04/SCACoventry.pdf

The Pension Fund is represented by:

          Daniel F. Goldstein, Esq.
          Dana W. McKee, Esq.
          Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
          120 E. Baltimore St., Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          E-mail: dgf@browngold.com
                  dwm@browngold.com


IMMERSION CORP: Glancy Bindow Files Suit in N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of Immersion Corporation
(Nasdaq:IMMR) between May 3, 2007, and June 30, 2009, inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Contact the Firm by phone to
discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310)
201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email at
info@glancylaw.com, or visit the Firm's website at
http://www.glancylaw.com/

The Complaint charges Immersion and certain of the Company's
current and former executive o7fficers with violations of federal
securities laws. Immersion Corp. develops, manufactures, licenses
and supports a range of hardware and software technologies, and
products that enhance digital devices with touch interaction. The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements
concerning Immersion's financial performance were materially
false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
defendants failed to disclose or indicate: (1) that the Company
overstated its income tax expense; (2) that the Company
improperly recognized revenue; (3) that, as a result, the
Company's revenue, accounts receivable and financial results were
overstated during the Class Period; (4) that the Company's
financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles; (5) that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) as a result of
the above, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Then, on July 1, 2009, Immersion shocked investors when it
announced that the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of
Immersion was conducting an internal investigation into certain
previous revenue transactions in its Medical line of business.
The Company further disclosed that as a result of this
investigation, Immersion's previously reported financial
information could be materially impacted. As a result of this
news, shares of Immersion declined $1.14 per share, more than
23%, to close on July 1, 2009, at $3.80 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move
the Court, no later than November 2, 2009, to serve as lead
plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If
you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue
of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by
telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224 or by
e-mail to info@glancylaw.com.


IMMERSION CORP: Braham Fruchter Files Suit in N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Immersion Corporation (NASDAQ: IMMR) common stock between May 3,
2007, and June 30, 2009.  The complaint charges Immersion and
certain of its officers and directors with violating Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's transactions in its Medical line of business.

According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that
Immersion's revenue recognition practices in its Medical line of
business were improper. This caused Immersion's stock to be
artificially inflated during the Class Period, with prices
reaching a high of $20.50 per share on July 13, 2007. On July 1,
2009, the Company issued a press release announcing that the
Audit Committee of the Company's Board was conducting an internal
investigation into certain previous revenue transactions in its
Medical line of business, which could "raise issues with respect
to its previously-reported financial information, which could be
material." On this news, Immersion's stock dropped to close at
$3.80 per share that day.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Immersion common stock during the Class Period. The Plaintiff is
represented by Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, which has
extensive experience in securities class action cases, and the
firm has been ranked among the leading class action law firms in
terms of recoveries achieved by a survey of class action law
firms conducted by Institutional Shareholder Services. If you
would like to discuss this action or if you have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights as a potential class member
or lead plaintiff, you may contact:

          Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
          Arthur J. Chen, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          Telephone: 212-279-5050
          E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com
                  achen@aftlaw.com

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than November 2, 2009.  Any member of the proposed class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of
the proposed class.


PROSHARES ULTRA: Gilman and Pastor Files Suit in D. Md.
-------------------------------------------------------
Gilman and Pastor LLP filed a class action lawsuit on September
2, 2009, in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares in the UltraShort MSCI Emerging Markets ProShares
fund (NYSE: EEV), an exchange-traded fund offered by ProShares
Trust, pursuant or traceable to ProShares' false and misleading
Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements of
Additional Information issued in connection with the EEV Fund's
shares.  The Class is seeking recovery for investors under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

If you bought shares in the EEV Fund pursuant to the Registration
Statement and would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or
have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact Kenneth G.
Gilman, Esq. of Gilman and Pastor, at (888) 252-0048, or via
email at kgilman@gilmanpastor.com. Lead Plaintiff motion papers
must be filed with the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland no later than November 4, 2009. A Lead
Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent class
members. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to
share in any class recovery in this action. If you are a class
member and there is a recovery for the class, you can share in
that recovery as an absent class member. You may retain counsel
of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you are a member of this class you can view a copy of the
complaint and join this class action online at
http://www.proshares-lawsuit.com/

The complaint names ProShares; ProShare Advisors LLC, SEI
Investments Distribution Co., Michael L. Sapir, Louis M. Mayberg,
Russell S. Reynolds, III, Michael Wachs, and Simon D. Collier, as
defendants.  ProShares sells its Ultra and UltraShort ETFs as
"simple" directional plays. As marketed by ProShares, Ultra ETFs
are designed to go up when markets go up; UltraShort ETFs are
designed to go up when markets go down. The EEV Fund is one of
ProShares' UltraShort ETFs. The EEV Fund seeks investment results
that correspond to twice the inverse (-200%) daily performance of
the MSCI Emerging Markets Index ("MSCI"), which measures the
performance of the emerging markets index. Accordingly, the EEV
Fund is supposed to deliver double the inverse return of the MSCI
Index, which fell approximately 52 percent from January 2, 2008
through December 17, 2008, ostensibly creating a profit for
investors who anticipated a decline in the performance of the
emerging markets. In other words, the EEV Fund should have
appreciated by 104 percent during this period. However, the EEV
Fund actually fell approximately 30 percent (a 134 percent
shortfall) during this period.

The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the Securities Act
by failing to disclose that the EEV Fund is altogether defective
as a securities product and as directional investment play.
Defendants failed to disclose the following risks in the
Registration Statement: (1) inverse correlation between the EEV
Fund and the MSCI over time would only happen in the rarest of
circumstances, and inadvertently if at all; (2) the extent to
which performance of the EEV Fund would inevitably diverge from
the performance of the MSCI -- i.e., the probability, if not
certainty, of spectacular tracking error; (3) the severe
consequences of high market volatility on the EEV Fund's
investment objective and performance; (4) the severe consequences
of inherent path dependency in periods of high market volatility
on the EEV Fund's performance; (5) the role the EEV Fund plays in
increasing market volatility, particularly in the last hour of
trading; (6) the consequences of the EEV Fund's daily hedge
adjustment always going in the same direction as the movement of
the underlying index, notwithstanding that it is an inverse
leveraged ETF; (7) the EEV Fund causes dislocations in the stock
market; (8) the EEV Fund offers a seemingly straightforward way
to obtain desired exposure, but such exposure is not attainable
through the EEV Fund.

This case also involves the ProShares' Ultra and UltraShort
Funds: UltraShort Oil and Gas (NYSE: DUG); Ultra Oil and Gas
Funds (NYSE: DIG); UltraShort Financials (NYSE: SKF); Ultra
Financials (NYSE: UYG); UltraShort Real Estate ProShares (NYSE:
SRS); Ultra Real Estate ProShares (NYSE: URE); UltraShort S&P 500
(NYSE: SDS); Ultra S&P 500; UltraShort Dow30 (PS Dow 30) (NYSE:
DXD); Ultra Dow 30 (PS Ultra Dow 30); UltraShort MidCap 400
(NYSE: MZZ); Ultra MidCap 400 (NYSE: MVV); UltraShort Basic
Materials (SMN); Ultra Basic Materials (UYM); Ultra Consumer
Services (UCC); UltraShort Technology (REW); Ultra Technology (PS
Ultra Tech); UltraShort Telecom (TLL); Ultra Telecom (LTL); and
UltraShort FTSE/Xinhua (FXP).

Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
          Gilman and Pastor, LLP
          28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 105
          Bonita Springs, FL 34135
          Telephone: (888) 252-0048
          Fax: (239) 221-8274
          E-mail: kgilman@gilmanpastor.com

The law firm Gilman and Pastor LLP. Gilman and Pastor LLP is one
of the country's premier national law firms that represent
institutional and individual investors in class action, complex
securities and corporate governance litigation. The firm has been
a champion of investor rights for over 30 years and has been
recognized for its reputation for excellence by the courts.

                            *********

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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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  * * *