CAR_Public/090909.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 9, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 178
  
                            Headlines

ARIZONA: Ruling Reshapes Arizona's English Learning Case
BIGBAND NETWORKS: Records 2nd Qtr. $500,000 Class Action Charge
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Overtime Class Action Suit Dismissed
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Mass. Consolidated Suit Dismissed in Aug. 2009
JACKSON HEWITT: Virginia RAL Customers' Suit in Pretrial Stage

JACKSON HEWITT: "Wooley" Suit Over False Deductions in Discovery
JACKSON HEWITT: Pursues Dismissal of Suit by Mo. RAL Customers
JACKSON HEWITT: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Norris" Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Plaintiff Appealing Dismissal of "Gomez" Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Plaintiff Appeal to Ruling in CSOA Suit Pending

LAND OF LEATHER: Deloitte Sees GBP 1 Mil. of Chemical Burn Claims
PARKER-HANNIFIN: Settlement of Merged Price-Fixing Suit Pending
T-MOBILE USA: Proposed Settlement of Handset Locking Lawsuits
VANGUARD HEALTH: Certification Motion in Antitrust Suit Pending

                            *********

ARIZONA: Ruling Reshapes Arizona's English Learning Case
--------------------------------------------------------
The Mohave Daily News reports that the 17-year-old legal and
political dispute over Arizona's school programs for students
learning English will start anew after a U.S. Supreme Court
decision that threw out years of previous rulings.  The high
court ordered U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins in Tucson to
consider just how much the state's efforts to improve its
teaching methods have come toward meeting federal laws that
require equal education for all students.

Before the June 25 Supreme Court ruling, Collins had ordered
increased spending for the more than 100,000 students learning
English in K-12 public schools.  But state officials argued that
new daily four-hour instruction periods and other changes could
meet the requirements of the Educational Opportunities Act.

The Supreme Court ruled that the state was entitled to a fresh
legal review of the case, which was originally filed in 1992 on
behalf of parents and students in a southern Arizona school
district, Nogales Unified.

The justices' 5-4 decision said the educational landscape has
changed significantly since a now-retired judge ruled in 2000
that Arizona wasn't providing the money for English language
learners to get an appropriate education.

A copy of the High Court's decision in Horne, Superintendent,
Arizona Public Instruction v. Flores, et al, No. 08-289, is
available at:

     http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-289.pdf

The proceeding before the trial court is Flores, et al. v.
Arizona, et al., Case No. 92-cv-00596 (D. Airz.).

                        Case Background

The state was ordered to improve its offering to students
learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000
that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students
were inadequately funded.  The order was part of a ruling in a
class action, which was originally filed in 1992 and led by
Mr. Hogan on behalf of Nogales Unified students and parents.

The deficiency was declared a violation of a federal law that
guarantees equal opportunities in education.  The state was
fined $500,000 in January 2006 for missing a deadline to draft
ways to improve the program.  The fine was increased to
$1 million, resulting to a $21 million in total fines.  The
fines were stopped when the latest version of a Republican bill
seeking to revamp the English learning programs was passed into
law in March 2006.

In April 2006, Judge Collins ruled that the law still does not
adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out
the costs of providing those programs, and does not explain the
basis for funding that it does provide.

The 9th Circuit panel heard arguments in the case in San
Francisco on July 25, 2006.  In August 2006, it vacated orders
by Judge Collins, blocked the distribution of the fines to
public schools, and allowed the state to return the money to the
general fund.

The circuit court ordered Judge Collins to review whether the
state has made improvements to its programs in light of changes
in education funding and related circumstances since the
original 2000 ruling.

The August 2006 ruling of the appellate court did not rule
directly on the latest law regarding the program.  

Judge Collins finished on Jan. 25, 2007, a hearing to determine
whether the state has already improved the program.  In March
2007, he issued a ruling stating that the system is still
deficient.  He ordered lawmakers to resolve the issue by the end
of their current session.  

Meanwhile, the Legislature adjourned in 2007 without any
discussion of revamping English language learning to comply with
Judge Collins' judgment.  Instead, Republican lawmakers and the
state schools chief asked the 9th Circuit to put Judge Collins'
ruling on hold.

The appeals court rejected that request on June 25, 2007, saying
Judge Collins has not yet found the Legislature in contempt for
ignoring his earlier ruling to boost the programs.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Timothy Michael Hogan, Esq.
          Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
          202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste. 153
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Phone: 602-258-8850
          Fax: 602-258-8757
          E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org

Representing the defendants are:

          Lynne Christensen Adams, Esq.
          Jose A. Cardenas, Esq.
          Lewis & Roca, LLP
          40 N. Central Ave.
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429
          Phone: 602-262-5372
                 602-262-5790
          Fax: 602-734-4015
               602-734-3852
          E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com
                  jcardenas@lrlaw.com


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Records 2nd Qtr. $500,000 Class Action Charge
---------------------------------------------------------------
In reporting financial results for the second quarter ended June
30, 2009, this week, BigBand Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: BBND),
recorded a $500,000 charge against earnings related to class
action litigation.  

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 14, 2009,
BigBand is seeking approval of an $11 million settlement in
In re BigBand Networks, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No.
07-cv-05101 (N.D. Calif.) (Armstrong, J.).  A fairness hearing on
that proposal is set for 1:00 p.m. on Sept. 15, 2009.  In the
securities litigation:

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          Fax: 510-725-3001
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
          Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA  70130
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          E-mail: Lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com

and the defendants are represented by:

          Michael Carl Tu, Esq.
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          777 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-629-2020
          Fax: 213-612-2499
          E-mail: mtu@orrick.com


BigBand Networks, Inc. -- http://www.bigbandnet.com/-- provides  
broadband service providers with innovative network solutions
designed to make it easier to move, manage and monetize video.
These solutions are based on BigBand's video-networking platforms
that are built to enable efficient and reliable delivery across a
wide range of services, including digital TV, high definition TV,
advanced advertising, video-on-demand and interactive TV. BigBand
Networks' customers include more than 200 service providers --
including seven of the ten largest service providers in the U.S.
-- and leading cable and telco service providers in North
America, Asia, Europe and Latin America. BigBand Networks is
based in Redwood City, Calif., with offices worldwide.


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Overtime Class Action Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Luis Millan at The Lawyers Weekly reports that a much-anticipated
ruling keenly followed by federally regulated employers and
employees could sound the death knell for class action suits
seeking compensation for unpaid overtime after an Ontario judge
in Fresco v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, [2009] O.J. No.
2531, held that overtime claims are individual in nature and lack
the essential element of commonality necessary to justify a class
action proceeding.

In a ruling that draws distinctions between overtime claims,
clarifying the Canada Labour Code and providing guidance on
evidentiary considerations in certification motions, Justice Joan
Lax of the Ontario Superior Court refused to certify a class
action that claimed $600 million in compensatory and punitive
damages against the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.  

Mr. Millan's complete report is available at http://is.gd/2ZVkK


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Mass. Consolidated Suit Dismissed in Aug. 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action against The First Marblehead Corp. in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts was
dismissed in August 2009.

In April and May 2008, seven purported class action lawsuits were
filed against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and certain of its directors in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in various Securities and Exchange
Commission filings, press releases and other public statements.

The complaints alleged various claims under the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaints sought, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified damages, fees and such other relief as the court
deemed just and proper.

In August 2008, the court consolidated these cases and appointed
lead plaintiffs and a lead counsel.

In November 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by
the lead plaintiffs that contained allegations similar to the
earlier complaints.

On Aug. 5, 2009, the court issued an order granting the company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint.  
The court did not grant plaintiffs leave to re-plead; however,
the plaintiffs have a right to appeal the dismissal, 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 First Marblehead Corp. -- http://www.firstmarblehead.com/--
provides outsourcing services for private education lending in
the U.S.  It meets the demand for private education loans by
providing national and regional financial institutions and
educational institutions, as well as businesses, education loan
marketers and other enterprises, with an integrated suite of
design, implementation and securitization services for student
loan programs.  The Company is engaged on loan programs for
undergraduate, graduate and professional education, and on the
primary and secondary school market.  The Company is engaged in
program design and marketing coordination, borrower inquiry and
application, loan origination and disbursement, loan
securitization and loan servicing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Virginia RAL Customers' Suit in Pretrial Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Tax
Service Inc. in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
West Virginia, is in its pretrial stage, according to the
company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

On Oct. 30, 2006, Linda Hunter (now substituted by Christian
Harper and Elizabeth Harper as proposed class representatives)
brought a purported class-action complaint against the company
in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia,
on behalf of West Virginia customers who obtained RALs
facilitated by the company, seeking damages for an alleged
breach of fiduciary duty, for alleged breach of West Virginia's
Credit Service Organization Act, for alleged breach of contract,
and for alleged unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
connection with the company's RAL facilitation activities.

On March 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's partial
motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract
claim.

On July 15, 2008, the company answered the first amended
complaint.

On Feb. 10, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class.
The company opposed that motion.

On Feb. 11, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment.  On the same day, the company filed a motion for
summary judgment.

On March 6, 2009, the company opposed Plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment.

On April 7, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the
certifications of four legal questions to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals.  Decisions by the Court on those
motions are currently pending.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.

      
JACKSON HEWITT: "Wooley" Suit Over False Deductions in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action complaint filed by Brent Wooley against
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. is in its discovery and pretrial
stage, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 31, 2009.

On April 20, 2007, Brent Wooley brought a purported class-action
complaint against the company and certain unknown franchisees in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint, which was subsequently amended, was brought on
behalf of customers who obtained tax return preparation services
that allegedly included false deductions without support by the
customer that resulted in penalties being assessed by the IRS
against the taxpayer for violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and the Racketeering and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and alleging unjust enrichment and
breach of contract, seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
restitution, and attorneys' fees.

The alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act relate to representations regarding tax
return preparation, Basic Guarantee and Gold Guarantee coverage
and denial of Gold Guarantee claims.

Following dispositive motions, on Dec. 24, 2008, the company
answered Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint with respect to
the remaining breach of contract claim.

On Aug. 18, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file
a Fifth Amended Complaint.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.



JACKSON HEWITT: Pursues Dismissal of Suit by Mo. RAL Customers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. pursues dismissal of Sherita
Fugate's purported class-action complaint, according to the
company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

On April 29, 2009, Sherita Fugate brought a purported class-
action complaint against the company in the Circuit Court of
Missouri, Jackson County, on behalf of Missouri customers who
obtained RALs facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure
to comply with Missouri's Credit Services Organization Act, for
an alleged violation of Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act,
and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On May 29, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Norris" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. awaits a ruling on its motion to
dismiss the purported class-action complaint by Quiana Norris,
according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 31, 2009.

On April 14, 2009, Quiana Norris brought a purported class-
action complaint against the company in the Superior Court of
Indiana, Marion County, on behalf of Indiana customers who
obtained RALs facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure
to comply with Indiana's Credit Services Organization Act, and
seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On May 1, 2009, the company filed a notice removing the
complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana.

On June 8, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Plaintiff Appealing Dismissal of "Gomez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Gomez is appealing the dismissal of her purported class-
action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.

On Feb. 16, 2009, Ms. Gomez brought a purported class-action
complaint against the company in the Circuit Court of Maryland,
Montgomery County, on behalf of Maryland customers who obtained
RALs facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to
comply with Maryland's Credit Services Businesses Act, and for
an alleged violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act, and
seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On March 18, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

On June 18, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss in all respects, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.

On July 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, according
to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Plaintiff Appeal to Ruling in CSOA Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal to a lower court decision to stay
proceedings and to compel arbitration in a purported class-action
complaint filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. remains
pending.

On Sept. 26, 2006, Willie Brown brought a purported class-action
complaint against the company in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, on behalf of Ohio customers who obtained RALs
facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to comply
with Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act, and for alleged
unfair and deceptive acts in violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales
Practices Act, and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On Nov. 10, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss, or
alternatively, to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration.

On May 5, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to stay
proceedings and to compel individual arbitration of Plaintiff's
claims, and denied the company's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the Court's
decision to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, according
to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


LAND OF LEATHER: Deloitte Sees GBP 1 Mil. of Chemical Burn Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Sibun, writing for the Daily Telegraph, reports that
creditor recoveries from U.K. furniture retailer Land of Leather,
currently projected at 9%, may be substantially reduced based on
the outcome of class-action litigation concerning sachets of
toxic chemicals that were inserted into sofas supplied by a
Chinese manufacturer, Linkwise.  Consumers claim they suffered
from chemical burns.  In documents filed at Companies House,
Deloitte, the Administrator, received approximately GBP 1 million
in claims from customers.  


PARKER-HANNIFIN: Settlement of Merged Price-Fixing Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of an amended consolidated class-action
suit accusing Parker-Hannifin Corp. and Parker ITR SLR of
"conspiring to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices of
Marine Hose," is pending.

Marine Hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transport oil
between ships, terminals, buoys and tanks (Class Action
Reporter, May 14, 2008).

Four purported class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida:

       -- Shipyard Supply LLC v. Bridgestone Corporation, et
          al., filed May 17, 2007;

       -- Expro Gulf Limited v. Bridgestone Corporation, et
          al., filed June 6, 2007;

       -- Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Trelleborg
          Industrie S.A., et al., filed June 25, 2007;

       -- Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Caleca, et al.,
          filed July 12, 2007; and

One suit -- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Bridgestone Corporation,
et al. -- was filed in the Southern District of New York on
July 27, 2007.

The company is named as a defendant in one case and it filed an
answer in that matter.  Parker ITR filed a motion to dismiss
each of the four cases in which it is a defendant.  However,
these dismissal motions were denied as moot after all five cases
were consolidated in the Southern District of Florida as 08-MDL-
1888.

On March 24, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action complaint that alleges that the defendants, for a period
of approximately 21 years, conspired with competitors in
unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix,
maintain or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate markets and
customers for marine oil and gas hose in the U.S.

On Sept. 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint that alleges that the defendants, for a
period of approximately 21 years, conspired with competitors in
unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix,
maintain or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate markets and
customers for marine oil and gas hose in the United States.

The plaintiffs generally seek treble damages, a permanent
injunction, attorneys' fees, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

Currently pending before the court are motions to approve the
settlement agreement between the Company, Parker ITR and the
plaintiffs and to grant plaintiffs motion for class
certification.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company has a reserve of $16.1 million
for known and potential civil damages.

The company and Parker ITR have reached a settlement of the class
action litigation in the United States, which is subject to court
approval, 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.

Parker-Hannifin Corp. -- http://www.parker.com/-- is a full-
line diversified manufacturer of motion control products,
including fluid power systems, electromechanical controls and
related components.  In addition to motion control products, the
Company also is a producer of fluid purification, fluid and fuel
control, process instrumentation, air conditioning,
refrigeration, electromagnetic shielding and thermal management
products and systems.  Its manufacturing, service, distribution
and administrative facilities are located in 35 states and in 42
foreign countries.  Its motion control technology is used in the
products of its three principal business segments: Industrial,
Aerospace, and Climate & Industrial Controls.  The products are
sold as original and replacement equipment through product and
distribution centers worldwide.  Parker products are supplied to
over 427,000 customers in manufacturing, transportation and
processing industry.


T-MOBILE USA: Proposed Settlement of Handset Locking Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU PURCHASED A CELLPHONE FROM T-MOBILE, A CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

A proposed settlement is pending in two lawsuits relating to
software "locks" that prevent T-Mobile cellphone handsets from
operating with other compatible wireless telephone carriers'
services. The lawsuits are Nguyen v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No.
JCCP 4332, pending in Alameda County Superior Court, and
Hellman v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 04-CA-005061 AN, pending in
Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

ARE YOU AFFECTED?

You are a class member if you purchased a cellphone handset from
T-Mobile from January 1, 2000 to August 1, 2009.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

The lawsuits claim that T-Mobile's sale of handsets that have
been programmed not to operate with other compatible wireless
telephone carriers' services is improper and that this
restriction has not been properly disclosed to customers. T-
Mobile denies any wrongdoing, but has agreed to settle to avoid
the cost and expense of further litigation. The Courts have not
made a decision in these cases.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

T-Mobile agrees to give to eligible current and former customers,
upon request and where available, codes that unlock T-Mobile
handsets. Unlock codes will be provided to eligible postpaid
customers who are in good standing and have a minimum of 40 days
of active service with T-Mobile, and to eligible prepaid
customers who are in good standing and who have a minimum of 60
days of active service with T-Mobile and either have a prepaid
account balance of at least $10, or have refilled their prepaid
account in the last 30 days. Customers may request one unlock
code per line of service every 90 days. The settlement also
provides attorneys' fees of up to $1.85 million.

WHAT ARE MY LEGAL RIGHTS?

You have three options:

Remain in the settlement class. If you are a class member and you
do not exclude yourself from the settlement class, you will be
bound by the terms of the settlement and give up your right to
sue regarding issues in this case.

Request to be excluded. The Court will exclude you from the
settlement class if you mail a request for exclusion to Defense
Counsel and Class Counsel at the addresses below. Requests must
be postmarked by October 25, 2009.

Object to the settlement. If you do not exclude yourself from the
settlement class, you may object to it by yourself or through an
attorney that you hire at your own expense. Objections must be
written and mailed to the Court at Clerk of the Court, Alameda
County Superior Court, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 95612, and
Class Counsel and Defense Counsel at the addresses below.
Objections received by October 25, 2009 will be considered at the
fairness hearing. You will be bound by the terms of the
settlement even if your objection is rejected.

The Court will determine whether to approve the settlement at a
fairness hearing held on November 24, 2009. If you filed an
objection through an attorney, your attorney may appear at the
hearing to explain your objection.

HOW CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION?

If you have questions or want a detailed notice or other
documents about this lawsuit and your rights please call toll-
free: 1-888-878-1367 or write to:

                 T-Mobile Cellphone Settlement
                 P.O. Box 8090
                 San Rafael, CA 94912- 8090

Class Counsel:   Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor
                 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
                 New York, NY 10017

Defense Counsel: Christopher Hockett, Esq.
                 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
                 1600 El Camino Real
                 Menlo Park, CA 94025


VANGUARD HEALTH: Certification Motion in Antitrust Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification in Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San
Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., Case
No. 06-cv-00535 (W.D. Tex.), remains pending, according to
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.'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 June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action suit was filed
in San Antonio, Texas against the company's Baptist Health System
subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two other large hospital
systems in San Antonio.

In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that the three hospital
system defendants conspired with each other and with other
unidentified San Antonio area hospitals to depress the
compensation levels of registered nurses employed at the
conspiring hospitals within the San Antonio area by engaging in
certain activities that violated the federal antitrust laws.

The complaint alleges two separate claims.  The first count
asserts that the defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the
federal Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably
restrain competition, by conspiring to depress nurses'
compensation.  The second count alleges that the defendant
hospital systems also violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by
participating in wage, salary and benefits surveys for the
purpose, and having the effect, of depressing registered nurses'
compensation or limiting competition for nurses based on their
compensation.

The class on whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is
alleged to comprise all registered nurses employed by the
defendant hospitals since June 20, 2002.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, trebling of this damage
amount pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and attorneys
fees.

From 2006 through April 2008, the company and the plaintiffs
worked on producing documents to each other relating to, and
supplying legal briefs to the court in respect of, the issue of
whether the court will certify a class in this suit.

In April 2008, the case was stayed by the judge pending his
ruling on plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.vanguardhealth.com/-
- operates 15 for-profit acute care hospitals located in urban
and suburban markets in Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, and
Texas; all told, the hospitals have more than 4,000 licensed
beds.  The company's hospital systems generally include
outpatient facilities and medical office buildings that form
local health care networks providing a continuum of care.  
Vanguard also runs three managed health care plans that serve
around 150,000 members in Arizona and Illinois.  The Blackstone
Group owns a majority stake in the company.

                            *********

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  * * *