CAR_Public/091015.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 15, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 204
  
                            Headlines

ALLIANZ LIFE: Federal Jury in Minn. Rules in Insurer's Favor
AT&T MOBILITY: Class Doesn't Want Visa Debit Cards
CALAMP CORP: Pursuing Dismissal of Misrepresentation Lawsuit
CARMAX INC: Units Continue to Face Claims in Consolidated Suit
CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Approve "Veliz" Suit Settlement

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuit in New York
DTD ENTERPRISES: High Court Notes Concern Over Class-Action Costs
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Pa. Jury Awards $2.5 Mil. in First Paxil Trial
GREEN BULLION: Cash4Gold Runs a Game, Class Action Suit Claims
KB HOME: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for Judgment Motion in "Bagley" Suit

KELLY SERVICES: Settles Wage & Hour Class Action for $11 Million
LAWSON SOFTWARE: Certification Bid in "Cruz" Labor Suit Pending
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Mediation in Calif. Securities Suits Ongoing
PEPSI BOTTLING: Judgment Bid in Consolidated Complaint Pending
PEPSI BOTTLING: Motions to Dismiss Two Stockholder Suits Pending

PEPSI BOTTLING: Seeks to Dismiss Stockholder Suit in New York
REX ENERGY: Opposes Certification in Suit Over H2S Contamination
RITE AID: Settlement with Store Managers Pending Final Approval
SPECTRUM GROUP: Fulfills Securities Suit Settlement Obligations
TRAVELEX CURRENCY: ATM Fee Refund Claims Due by Nov. 2, 2009

YAHOO! INC: Notice of Proposed Pay-Per-Click Settlement

                            *********

ALLIANZ LIFE: Federal Jury in Minn. Rules in Insurer's Favor
------------------------------------------------------------
Late Monday, a federal jury ruled in favor of Allianz Life
Insurance Company of North America in Mooney v. Allianz Life
Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 06-cv-00545 (D.
Minn.), involving allegations relating to the clarity of language
in some marketing materials on certain products purchased between
February 9, 2000, and May 10, 2007, but ultimately expanded to
other practices, policies and procedures.

Prior coverage of this litigation appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on July 12, 2007.

"We are very pleased that the jury concluded that no harm came to
our policyholders," said Allianz Life President and CEO Gary C.
Bhojwani, emphasizing that the company has some of the most
stringent sales oversight policies and procedures in the
industry.  "Allianz Life strives to work with only the best
financial professionals in providing financial solutions for more
than a million policyholders."

"On behalf of the Company, I would like to thank our employees,
our agents, and parent company for their continued support
throughout this process.  We remain committed to doing the right
thing for our customers.  Equally important, we remain committed
to guarding our reputation jealously."

Founded in 1896, Allianz Life provides an array of annuities as
well as long term care and life insurance products in the U.S.
through a nationwide network of independent distribution. The
company is part of Allianz Group (NYSE: AZ), a global financial
services group that is the 20th largest company in the world
based on revenues, (Fortune Global 500, August 2009), employing
nearly 155,000 people worldwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
          Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
          Stewart C. Loper, Esq.
          Brian N. Toder, Esq.
          CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE, PA
          222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-339-7300

               - and -  

          Jason R. Doss, Esq.
          THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 965669
          Marietta, GA 30066
          Telephone: 770-578-1314

               - and -  

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          J. Steven Parker, Esq.
          Alan R. Perry, Jr., Esq.
          David J. Worley, Esq.
          PAGE PERRY LLC
          1040 Crown Pointe Pkwy., Ste. 1050
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: 770-551-2731

               - and -

          Jason M. Kueser, Esq.  
          THE KUESER LAW FIRM, PC
          PO Box 612
          Lee's Summit, MO 64063
          Telephone: 816-374-5865

               - and -  

          Diane A. Nygaard, Esq.
          Katie Diane Whitman, Esq.
          THE NYGAARD LAW FIRM
          4501 College Blvd., Ste. 260
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: 913-469-5544

Allianz is represented by:

          David A. Applebaum, Esq.
          Arthur G. Boylan, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Field, Esq.
          S. Steven Prince, Esq.
          Elizabeth Wiet Reutter, Esq.
          LEONARD STREET AND DEINARD, PA
          150 S. 5th St., Ste. 2300
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-335-1943

               - and -  

          Christopher G. Barnes, Esq.
          Thomas J. Finn, Esq.
          Jacob R.C. Hathorn, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Williams, Esq.
          JORDEN BURT, LLP
          175 Powder Forest Dr., Ste. 201
          Simsbury, CT 06089-9658
          Telephone: 860-392-5018

               - and -  

          Ari H. Gerstin, Esq.
          Richard A. Sharpstein, Esq.
          Michael C. Shue, Esq.
          Irma Reboso Solares, Esq.
          JORDEN BURT LLP
          777 Brickell Ave., Ste. 500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-371-2600

               - and -  

          Frank G. Burt, Esq.
          Sheila J. Carpenter, Esq.
          Raul A. Cuervo, Esq.
          Denise A. Fee, Esq.
          Roland C. Goss, Esq.  
          Lynn E. Hawkins, Esq.
          James F. Jorden, Esq.
          Stephen J. Jorden, Esq.
          Brian P. Perryman, Esq.
          Robin M. Sanders, Esq.
          Evan James Taylor, Esq.  
          Dawn B. Williams, Esq.
          C. Todd Willis, Esq.
          JORDEN BURT, LLP
          1025 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Ste. 400E
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: 202-965-8100


AT&T MOBILITY: Class Doesn't Want Visa Debit Cards
--------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that
instead of paying cash rebates as it promised, AT&T saddles
customers with VISA debit cards, a class action claims.  AT&T
Mobility fka Cingular Wireless "paid" its advertised rebates "not
by way of a check or cash but rather in the form of a VISA debit
card, which in most, if not all, cases included an expiration
date for usage," the class claims.  It adds that this
"dramatically increased the probability that card users will end
up with partial and essentially unusable balances, which funds
all revert to defendant."

Lead plaintiff Giovanni Respinto filed the class action in Fulton
County Superior Court. He says he signed up with AT&T Mobility
because of its ads that promised a cash rebate.

But he says AT&T and Cingular "failed to adequately disclose to
those customers the fact that rebates would be provided not by
way of a check or cash but rather in the form of a VISA debit
card, which in most, if not all, cases included an expiration
date for usage.  In addition, the cards have proven difficult to
use and often consumers are left with essentially useless small
balances."

The complaint adds that "by creating a national policy whereby
defendant issued VISA debit cards as rebates instead of a check
or cash, defendant has dramatically increased the probability
that card users will end up with partial and essentially unusable
balances, in which funds all revert to defendant."

Respinto wants AT&T to disgorge all the money it got through the
rebate promotions, restitution for class members and an
injunction.

A copy of the Complaint in Respinto v. AT&T Mobility LLC fka
Cingular Wireless, Case No. 2009CV175984 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/13/RebateVisa.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Todd Harvey, Esq.
          BURKE HARVEY & FRANKOWSKI, LLC
          2151 Highland Ave., Suite 120
          Birmingham, AL 35205

               - and -  

          Stephen B. Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS & ASSOCIATES
          444 West C Street, Suite 300
          Dan Diego, CA 92101


CALAMP CORP: Pursuing Dismissal of Misrepresentation Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
CalAmp Corp. continues to pursue the dismissal of a class action
lawsuit filed against the company, the former owner of its
Aercept business unit and one of Aercept's distributors.

The class has not been certified in the lawsuit filed in
November 2008.

The lawsuit alleges that Aercept made misrepresentations when
the plaintiff purchased analog vehicle tracking devices in 2005,
which was prior to CalAmp's acquisition of Aercept in an asset
purchase.

The tracking devices ceased functioning in early 2008 due to
termination of analog service by the wireless network operators.

The company is seeking dismissal of the lawsuit on the basis
that the assertion of successor liability is not supported by
the law or the facts, according to the company's Oct. 8, 2009,
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Aug. 29, 2009.

CalAmp Corp. -- http://www.calamp.com/-- is a provider of
wireless communications solutions that enable anytime/anywhere
access.  The company has two segments: Wireless DataCom Division
and Satellite Division.  CalAmp's Wireless DataCom Division
services the public safety, industrial monitoring and controls,
and mobile resource management market segments with wireless
solutions built on communications technology platforms that
include licensed narrowband, unlicensed broadband and cellular
networks.  CalAmp's Satellite Division supplies outdoor customer
premise equipment to the United States Direct Broadcast
Satellite (DBS) market.


CARMAX INC: Units Continue to Face Claims in Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto
Superstores West Coast, Inc. continue to face the remaining
claims in a consolidated lawsuit regarding the sales consultant
putative class, according to CarMax, Inc.'s Oct. 8, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2009.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class-action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and
CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles.

Subsequently, two other lawsuits, "Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC," and "Justin Weaver v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC," were consolidated as part of
the Fowler case.

The allegations in the consolidated case involve:

   (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation
       in lieu thereof;

   (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees
       related to meal and rest breaks and overtime;

   (3) failure to pay overtime;

   (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
       provisions; and

   (5) unfair competition.

The putative class consists of sales consultants, sales
managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company
in California from April 2, 2004, to the present.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims
with respect to the sales manager putative class.  On June 16,
2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to
comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.
The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication
with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the
sales consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs have indicated
that they will appeal the court's ruling regarding the sales
consultant overtime claim.

In addition to the plaintiffs' overtime claim, the claims
currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and
rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition.

On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims
pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving
related legal issues.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com/-- is a holding company
and its operations are conducted through its subsidiaries.  The
company is a retailer of used cars.


CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Approve "Veliz" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has has yet to issue a decision on the proposed
settlement of class action claims in Veliz, et al. v. Cintas
Corp., et al., Case No. 03-cv-1180 (N.D. Calif.) (Armstrong, J.).

The suit, filed on March 19, 2003, alleges that the company
violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable
to its service sales representatives, whom the company considers
exempt employees.  It also asserts related Employee Retirement
Income Security Act claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief or both.

On Aug. 23, 2005, an amended complaint was filed alleging
additional state law wage and hour claims under the laws of
these states: Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.

On Feb. 14, 2006, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint alleging state law claims in the 15
states only with respect to the putative class members that may
litigate their claims in court.

No determination has yet been made by the court or an arbitrator
regarding class certification. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7,
2008)

Claims made in the Veliz action are pending before the United
States District Court, Northern District of California and Judge
Bruce Meyerson (Ret.), an Arbitrator selected by the parties.  

On Aug. 5, 2009, the parties in the Veliz action reached a
settlement in principle, according to the company's Oct. 9, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2009

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
         Altshuler, Berzon et al.
         177 Post Street, Suite 300
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Phone: 415-421-7151
         Fax: 415-362-8064
         E-mail: skronland@altshulerberzon.com

Representing the company is:

         Cheryl A. Hipp, Esq.
         Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
         4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 516-479-8365


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., is defending a purported wage and hour
class action in New York, according to the company's Oct. 8,
2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 30, 2009.

Like other restaurant chains and retail employers, in a few
states the company has been faced with allegations of purported
class-wide wage and hour violations.

In April 2009, a former Red Lobster employee filed a purported
class action in New York state court, alleging wage and hour
violations and meal and rest break practices in violation of New
York law, seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a   
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DTD ENTERPRISES: High Court Notes Concern Over Class-Action Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Peterson, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined two
conservative justices on Tuesday to voice concern over
automatically sticking a dating business with full court costs in
a class-action lawsuit.

The high court declined to hear the case, DTD Enterprises, Inc.
v. Janice Wells, No. 08-1407, but a trio of justices noted it
raised important constitutional issues.  Justice Sotomayor and
Chief Justice John Roberts joined a statement from Justice
Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote,
saying that placing all the plaintiff's costs of notifying
members of a class-action suit on the defending business, simply
because the company could afford it, raised serious questions.

DTD Enterprises, or the Together Dating Service, initially sued
Wells in 2007 when the New Jersey resident stopped making
payments on her $3,195 balance.  In response, Wells filed a
class-action complaint, claiming the dating service had provided
unsuitable introductions to men and violated New Jersey consumer
protection laws.

In its brief for the Superior Court of New Jersey, the dating
referral service explained it tries to match compatible
individuals based on client profiles and "a comprehensive
questionnaire."

Last year the lower court judge ordered that the dating service
pay the costs of compiling a database of class members -- anyone
who had signed a similar membership agreement -- and informing
them of the lawsuit.  DTD Enterprises objected to shouldering the
costs before the class-action suit's underlying validity had been
proven.

On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court denied the dating service's
appeal, noting that the case had skipped the appellate level and
that the petitioner's current bankruptcy proceedings put a stay
on its civil case.  But Justices Sotomayor, Roberts and Kennedy
agreed the case raised due process concerns.

"There is considerable force to the argument that a hearing in
which the trial court does not consider the underlying merits of
the class-action suit is not consistent with due process,"
Justice Kennedy wrote.

DTD Enterprises is represented by:

          Vano I. Haroutunian, Esq.
          Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C.
          729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 575-7900
          E-mail: vharoutunian@ballonstoll.com

Ms. Wells is represented by:

          Richard Galex, Esq.
          Galex Wolf, LLC   
          1520 U.S. Hwy. 130, Ste. 101    
          North Brunswick, NJ 08092
          Telephone: (732) 257-0050


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Pa. Jury Awards $2.5 Mil. in First Paxil Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley and Sophia Pearson at Bloomberg News reports
that a jury awarded $2.5 million to the plaintiff in Kilker
v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. dba GlaxoSmithKline, Case No.
2007-001813 (Pa. Common Pleas Ct., Philadelphia Cty.) -- the
first of 600 cases alleging that the drug company's Paxil
antidepressant caused birth defects.

Jurors in state court in Philadelphia deliberated about seven
hours over two days before finding Glaxo failed to properly warn
doctors and pregnant users that Paxil could cause birth defects.
The panel awarded $2.5 million in compensatory damages to the
family of Lyam Kilker.  The 3-year-old was born with heart
defects his mother blamed on the drug.

"The first win is always huge, especially when you get a jury
saying the drug caused the injury," Sean Tracey, Kilker's lawyer,
said in an interview with Bloomberg News after the jury reached
its decision.

It's the first time a jury has considered claims that Glaxo, the
U.K.'s largest drugmaker, knew Paxil caused birth defects and hid
those risks to increase profits.  The drug, approved for U.S. use
in 1992, generated about $942 million in sales last year, or 2.1
percent of Glaxo's total revenue.

"We're disappointed with the verdict and I think we'll be filing
an appeal," Joseph O'Neil, one of Glaxoƒ?Ts lawyers, told
Bloomberg.  


GREEN BULLION: Cash4Gold Runs a Game, Class Action Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that Cash4Gold
defrauds people by offering to pay fair value for gold jewelry,
then repeatedly "loses" the jewelry and claims not to have
received it, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.
The class claims Cash4Gold and its corporate parent, Green
Bullion Financial Services, claim to have an ironclad 12-day
return policy, but often melt the gold they get before the period
has elapsed, and tried to silence former employees who "dare to
expose the fraud."

Named plaintiffs Elizabeth Kirts and Rachel Bernhardt say
Cash4Gold advertises heavily in print, on the Internet and TV,
including a "media blitz" during the February 2009 Super Bowl
broadcast. Cash4Gold is run out of Pompano Beach, Fla., according
to the 65-page complaint, which contains another 77 pages of
exhibits.

The ads portray the company as a "professional, fair and truthful
company" that efficiently performs appraisals and provides quick
cash payments. Cash4Gold claims on its Web site that it is unique
"because we own our own refinery. Which means no middlemen and
that means more case for you," the complaint states. It also
claims that when a customer's package arrives, its contents are
photographed, inventoried and treated with the utmost care.

All of these claims are untrue, the complaint states.

When the company does not blame the U.S. Postal Service for
losing the jewelry, it delays mailing checks so that they'll
arrive after the 12-day return period has expired. And it has a
customer service system designed to frustrate customers so that
they'll give up trying to get refunds, the complaint states.

"Once the customer sends the jewelry, the company takes it either
by 'losing it or by providing low appraisal rate the customer has
no choice but to accept due to the expiration of the return
period," the complaint said. "In each case the company wins, the
customers lose."

The class demands punitive damages for consumer fraud, false and
misleading statements and false advertising.

A copy of the Complaint in Kirts, et al. v. Green Bullion
Financial Services, LLC dba Cash4Gold, et al., Case No. 09-cv-
7361 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/13/Cash4Gold.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John G. Balestriere, Esq.
          Anat Maytal, Esq.
          BALESTRIERE LANZA PLLC
          225 Broadway, Suite 2900
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: 212-374-5401

               - and -  

          Joseph A. Ferrucci, Esq.
          BROWN AND CHARBONNEAU LLP
          420 Exchange, Suite 270
          Irvine, CA 92602
          Telephone: 714-505-3000


KB HOME: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for Judgment Motion in "Bagley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 9, 2009, hearing is scheduled to consider the motion for
summary judgment dismissal of all of the plaintiffs' claims in
the purported class-action lawsuit captioned Bagley et al., v. KB
Home, et al., Case No. 07-cv-01754 (C.D. Calif.) (Schiavelli,
J.).  

On March 16, 2007, plaintiffs Reba Bagley and Scott Silver filed
an action against against the company, its directors, and
certain of its current and former officers under Section 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
1132.

On April 3, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding Tolan Beck and Rod Hughes as additional plaintiffs and
dismissing certain individuals as defendants.

All four plaintiffs claim to be former employees of KB Home who
participated in the KB Home 401(k) Savings Plan.  They allege on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated that all defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to
plaintiffs and purported class members under ERISA by failing to
disclose information to and providing misleading information to
participants in the Plan about alleged prior stock option
backdating practices of the Company and by failing to remove the
Company's stock as an investment option under the Plan.

The plaintiffs allege that this breach of fiduciary duties
caused them to earn less on their Plan accounts than they would
have earned but for defendants' alleged breach.

They seek unspecified money damages and injunctive and other
equitable relief.

On May 16, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the suit
on the basis that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to state a
claim against the company.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the dismissal motion on
June 20, 2008.  The company filed its reply in support of the
motion in July and a hearing on the matter is scheduled for Aug.
4, 2008.

The hearing on the motion was held on Sept. 8, 2008.  On Oct. 6,
2008, the court issued its order.  The court denied the
company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of the duty to monitor and granted the
company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of
the fiduciary duty of disclosure.  The court also denied a
separate motion to dismiss filed by the individual defendants
based on the standing of plaintiffs to sue.

The company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on
Nov. 5, 2008.

On Nov. 24, 2008, the court approved a stipulation to stay all
discovery and other proceedings through Feb. 6, 2009, in order
to allow the parties time to attempt to settle the plaintiffs'
claims through mediation.

A mediation session was held on Jan. 27, 2009, but a settlement
has not been reached.  The court has tentatively scheduled the
trial to begin on Nov. 9, 2010.  

On Aug. 31, 2009, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
dismissal of all of plaintiffs' claims against it.  The company's
co-defendants also joined in the motion, according to its Oct. 9,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen J Fearon, Jr., Esq.
         Squitieri & Fearon LLP
         32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-421-6492
         E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Stephen M. Fishback, Esq.  
         Keller Fishback and Jackson LLP
         18425 Burbank Boulevard Suite 610
         Tarzana, CA 91356-6918
         Phone: 818-342-7442
         Fax: 818-342-7616
         E-mail: sfishback@kfjlegal.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Marc T.G. Dworsky, Esq.  
         Munger Tolles & Olson
         355 S. Grand Ave., 35th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
         Phone: 213-683-9100
         E-mail: marc.dworsky@mto.com

              - and -

         Michael M. Farhang, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
         333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7005
         E-mail: mfarhang@gibsondunn.com


KELLY SERVICES: Settles Wage & Hour Class Action for $11 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that an $11 million settlement
in a wage and hours class action filed against the temporary
staffing company Kelly Girl has been approved by a federal judge.

Workforce Management indicates that:

     -- $10 million of the settlement amount is allocated for
        current and former temporary workers in Illinois who did
        not receive vacation pay between January 1, 2002, and
        December 31, 2008, and

     -- $1 million of the settlement amount is allocated for
        temporary workers in non-clerical and non-professional
        positions between January 1, 2006, and August 27, 2007,
        who did not receive wage and payment notices as required
        by the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act.

Arrez, et al. v. Kelly Services, In., Case No. 07-cv-10289 (N.D.
Ill.) (Leinenweber, J.), reportedly includes some 96,000
temporary workers, making it one of the largest class actions to
take place in Illinois.


LAWSON SOFTWARE: Certification Bid in "Cruz" Labor Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for certification of a labor-related class-action
lawsuit captioned Cruz, et al. v. Lawson Software, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 08-cv-05900 (D. Minn.), is pending.  

The punitive class-action lawsuit was filed against the company
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on May 20, 2008, on behalf of current and former business,
systems, and technical consultants.  The suit, Cruz, et. al., v.
Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., Case No. 08-cv-04704 (S.D.N.Y.),
alleges that the company failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, and alleges
violations of state record-keeping requirements.  It also alleges
certain violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
unjust enrichment.

The relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401(k) plan
credits, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees.

The company successfully moved the case from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the District of
Minnesota.  The Minnesota Federal District Court has
conditionally certified the case under the FLSA as a collective
action and granted the company's motion to dismiss the two ERISA
counts.

The Plaintiffs then moved to amend the complaint to assert
Minnesota state FLSA causes of action, and that motion was
granted.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for Rule 23 certification to
treat the case as a class action, according to the company's Oct.
8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Llezlie Lloren Green, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, D.C., DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699
          E-mail: lgreen@cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Loretta Mae Gastwirth, Esq.
          Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
          190 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-747-0300
          Fax: 516-747-0653
          E-mail: lgastwirth@meltzerlippe.com

               - and -

          Sara Gullickson McGrane, Esq.
          Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A.
          220 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-373-8511
          Fax: 612-338-0535
          E-mail: smcgrane@felhaber.com


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Mediation in Calif. Securities Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation in purported securities class action lawsuits filed
against MRV Communications, Inc., in the U.S. District Court in
the Central District of California, is ongoing.

Between June 10, 2008 and Aug. 15, 2008, five purported
stockholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of
California and one derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California against the company and certain
of our current and former officers and directors.

The five lawsuits filed in the Central District of California
were consolidated. Claims are asserted under Section 10(b) and
20(a), of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  
The allegations set forth in the complaints are based on facts
disclosed in the company's press release of June 5, 2008, which
was included as Exhibit 99.1 to its Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on June 6, 2008.

The complaints seek to recover from the defendants unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, to require the company to
undertake reforms to corporate governance and internal control
procedures, to obtain an accounting of stock option grants found
to be improper, to impose a constructive trust over stock options
and proceeds derived therefrom, to disgorge from any of the
defendants who received allegedly improper stock options the
profits obtained therefrom, to rescind improperly priced options
and to recover costs of suit, including legal and other
professional fees and other equitable relief.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuits and the defendants
have stipulated to a postponement of further action until after
the issuance by MRV of its restated financial statements, and
have further agreed to mediation of the litigations, according to
the company's Oct. 8, 2009, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2008.

MRV Communications, Inc. -- http://www.mrv.com/-- is a supplier  
of communications equipment and services to carriers, governments
and enterprise customers, worldwide.  The company is a supplier
of optical components, primarily through its wholly owned
subsidiaries: Source Photonics and Fiberxon. The company conducts
its business along three principal segments: the network
equipment group, the network integration group and the optical
components group.


PEPSI BOTTLING: Judgment Bid in Consolidated Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for summary judgment in a consolidated stockholder class
action complaint against The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., are
pending.

Beginning on April 22, 2009, seven putative stockholder class
action complaints challenging the April 19 proposal were filed
against the company and the individual members of the Board of
Directors of the company in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the defendants
had breached or would breach their fiduciary duties owed to the
public stockholders of the company in connection with the April
19 proposal.

The Delaware Lawsuits were consolidated on June 5, 2009, and an
amended complaint was filed on June 19, 2009.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages and
declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief alleging,
among other things, that the defendants have breached or will
breach their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of
the company, that the April 19 proposal and the transactions
contemplated thereunder were not entirely fair to the public
stockholders, that PepsiCo had retaliated or would retaliate
against the company for rejecting the April 19 proposal, and that
certain provisions of the company's certificate of incorporation
are invalid and/or inapplicable to the April 19 proposal and the
pending merger.

On July 23, 2009, motions for partial summary judgment were filed
concerning the plaintiffs' allegations relating to the company's
certificate of incorporation, according to the its Oct. 9, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 5, 2009.

The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. -- http://www.pbg.com/-- is a  
wholly owned subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc.  PBG operates carbonated
soft drinks and other ready-to-drink beverages.  It conducts
business in all or a portion of the United States, Mexico,
Canada, Spain, Russia, Greece and Turkey.  PBG is the
manufacturer, seller and distributor of Pepsi-Cola beverages.  In
some of its territories the company has the right to manufacture,
sell and distribute soft drink products of companies other than
PepsiCo, including Dr Pepper, Crush and Squirt.  It also has the
right in some of its territories to manufacture, sell and
distribute beverages under trademarks that PBG owns, including
Electropura, e-puramr and Garci Crespo.


PEPSI BOTTLING: Motions to Dismiss Two Stockholder Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss two putative stockholder class action
complaints against The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., are pending.

Beginning on April 29, 2009, two putative stockholder class
action complaints were filed against the company and members of
its Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Westchester.

The complaints seek, among other things, damages and declaratory,
injunctive, and other equitable relief and allege, among other
things, that the defendants have breached or will breach their
fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of the company,
that the April 19 proposal and the transactions contemplated
thereunder were not entirely fair to the public stockholders of
the company, and that the defensive measures implemented by the
company were not being used to maximize stockholder value.

On June 8, 2009, the company filed Motions to Dismiss (or, in the
alternative, to Stay), the actions in favor of the previously
filed actions pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

As of June 26, 2009, the company's Motions were fully briefed and
submitted to the Court, according to its Oct. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 5, 2009.

The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. -- http://www.pbg.com/-- is a  
wholly owned subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc.  PBG operates carbonated
soft drinks and other ready-to-drink beverages.  It conducts
business in all or a portion of the United States, Mexico,
Canada, Spain, Russia, Greece and Turkey.  PBG is the
manufacturer, seller and distributor of Pepsi-Cola beverages.  In
some of its territories the company has the right to manufacture,
sell and distribute soft drink products of companies other than
PepsiCo, including Dr Pepper, Crush and Squirt.  It also has the
right in some of its territories to manufacture, sell and
distribute beverages under trademarks that PBG owns, including
Electropura, e-puramr and Garci Crespo.


PEPSI BOTTLING: Seeks to Dismiss Stockholder Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. seeks to dismiss a putative
stockholder class action complaint filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York.

On May 8, 2009, the complaint was filed against the company and
the members of the Board of Directors of the company other than
John C. Compton and Cynthia M. Trudell.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of the company
by depriving those stockholders of the full and fair value of
their shares by failing to accept PepsiCo's April 19 proposal to
acquire the company or to negotiate with PepsiCo after that
proposal was made and by adopting certain defensive measures.

On June 8, 2009, the company filed Motions to Dismiss (or, in the
alternative, to Stay) this action in favor of the previously
filed actions pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition to the Motion.

On Aug. 10, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, adding as defendants PepsiCo, Mr. Compton and Ms.
Trudell.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages and
declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief and alleges,
among other things, that the defendants have breached or will
breach their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of
the company and that the pending merger is not entirely fair to
the public stockholders of the company.

On Aug. 27, 2009, the company again filed Motions to Dismiss (or,
in the alternative, to Stay) this action in favor of the
previously filed actions pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, according to the company's Oct. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 5, 2009.

The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. -- http://www.pbg.com/-- is a  
wholly owned subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc.  PBG operates carbonated
soft drinks and other ready-to-drink beverages.  It conducts
business in all or a portion of the United States, Mexico,
Canada, Spain, Russia, Greece and Turkey.  PBG is the
manufacturer, seller and distributor of Pepsi-Cola beverages.  In
some of its territories the company has the right to manufacture,
sell and distribute soft drink products of companies other than
PepsiCo, including Dr Pepper, Crush and Squirt.  It also has the
right in some of its territories to manufacture, sell and
distribute beverages under trademarks that PBG owns, including
Electropura, e-puramr and Garci Crespo.


REX ENERGY: Opposes Certification in Suit Over H2S Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corporation opposes the certification of the class and
the claims against PennTex Resources Illinois, Inc and Rex Energy
Operating Corp. in a lawsuit concerning complaints of hydrogen
sulfide emissions from the Lawrence Field.

PennTex Illinois and Rex Operating are defendants in a class
action lawsuit asserting that the operation of oil wells that are
controlled, owned or operated by PennTex Illinois and Rex
Operating has resulted in contamination of the areas surrounding
Bridgeport and Petrolia, Illinois, with hydrogen sulfide (H2S).

The complaint, as amended, asserts several causes of action,
including violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
violation of the federal Resource Conservation And Recovery Act,
negligence, private nuisance, trespass, and willful and wanton
misconduct.

The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief under
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and Illinois common
law, compensatory and other damages, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  In addition, the complaint seeks the
creation of a court-supervised, defendant-financed fund to pay
for medical monitoring for the plaintiffs and others in the class
area.

The plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification on
Jan. 22, 2008.  PennTex Illinois and Rex Operating filed a joint
motion opposing class certification on Feb. 22, 2008, and various
supplements were filed by both parties after that date.  On Dec.
19, 2008, the district court issued a preliminary ruling on
certification, indicating its conclusion that several of the
class action prerequisites were met and that it was likely to
certify a class to adjudicate two issues relating to the emission
of H2S in the putative class area, while reserving all remaining
issues for subsequent individual adjudications.  The district
court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class in
reference to the plaintiffs' medical monitoring claim.  The
district court requested that the plaintiffs submit a revised
class definition consistent with its order, which was submitted
by the plaintiffs on Jan. 16, 2009.  On Jan. 28, 2009, the
defendants filed an objection to the plaintiffs' revised class
definition and requested that the district court deny the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On Feb. 26, 2009, the district court issued an order approving
the geographic scope of the plaintiffs' revised class definition.  
In its order, the district court denied plaintiffs' request to
include all residents and landowners within the geographic area
of the class owning property since Oct. 17, 2006, the date the
lawsuit was filed, and limited the class to only current property
owners.  To date, the district court has not set a date for the
final pre-trial conference or a trial date.

On March 11, 2009, PennTex Illinois and Rex Operating filed a
petition for leave to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit to appeal the class certification order on an
interlocutory basis, according to the company's Oct. 9, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008 .

Rex Energy Corporation -- http://www.rexenergy.com/-- is an  
independent oil and gas company operating in the Illinois Basin
and the Appalachian Basin.


RITE AID: Settlement with Store Managers Pending Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corp. anticipates obtaining final court approval of the
wage-and-hour class action lawsuit settlement in the fall of
2009, according to its Oct. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 29, 2009.

In March 2009, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the class action lawsuit brought against
it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California for alleged violations of California wage-and-hour
law.

The plaintiff alleged that the company improperly classified
store managers in California as exempt under the law, making
them ineligible for overtime wages.

The plaintiff sought to require the company to pay overtime
wages back to May 9, 2001, to the class of more than 1,200
current and former store managers.

The company says that store managers were and are properly
classified as exempt from the overtime provisions of California
law.

On March 27, 2009, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle with the plaintiff under which, subject
to approval of the court, the company will resolve this lawsuit
for $6.9 million.

Preliminary court approval of the settlement was granted in May
2009.

Rite Aid Corp. -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is a retail
drugstore chain in the United States.  The company operates its
drugstores in 31 states across the United States and in the
District of Columbia.  In its stores, the company sells
prescription drugs and an assortment of other merchandise, which
it calls front-end products.  Front end products include over-
the-counter medications, health and beauty aids, personal care
items, cosmetics, household items, beverages, convenience foods,
greeting cards, seasonal merchandise and numerous other everyday
and convenience products, as well as photo processing.  It
offers approximately 3,000 products under the Rite Aid private
brand.


SPECTRUM GROUP: Fulfills Securities Suit Settlement Obligations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Group International, Inc. has no further obligation or
liability under the In re Escala Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation settlement agreement, according to the company's Oct.
8, 2009, Form 10--K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

On Dec. 3, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered an order and final judgment
granting final approval of the settlement of a securities class-
action against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, titled, "In re Escala Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation."

The order and final judgment granting final approval of the
settlement of the class-action required the company to
contribute an aggregate of $6,000,000 in cash and 4,000,000
newly issued shares of its common stock to a settlement fund for
the benefit of the class.

As of June 30, 2009, the date of its latest Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company has
contributed the full $6,000,000 in cash to the settlement fund,
and has issued to plaintiffs' counsel an aggregate of 772,430
shares of the company's common stock in payment of a portion of
their court-approved legal fees.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the company entered into a contract with
plaintiffs' counsel in the securities class-action providing for
Spectrum to repurchase 772,430 shares that it had issued to such
counsel as payment of its court-approved legal fees, at a
purchase price of $1.55 per share.  This transaction closed on
Feb. 9, 2009, at which time those shares were cancelled and
returned to the status of authorized but unissued shares.

On Oct. 1, 2009, the company issued the remaining 3,277,777
shares of common stock to the settlement fund.  These shares are
expected to be distributed to the claimants shortly.

Spectrum Group International, Inc. -- http://www.spectrumgi.com/
-- formerly Escala Group Inc., is a global collectibles network.
The Company is an auctioneer of stamps, coins, arms, armor and
militaria, and other memorabilia, targeting both collectors and
dealers. Escala is also a merchant/dealer of certain
collectibles and trader of precious metals.  Escala conducts its
operations in two business segments: collectibles and trading.
The Company, through its subsidiaries focus on the Philatelic
(stamps) side of the collectibles segments and it includes H.R.
Harmer, Inc. and Nutmeg Stamp Sales, Inc., both in North
America; Corinphila Auktionen of Zurich, Switzerland and
Heinrich Kohler Auktionshaus of Wiesbaden, Germany, both in its
European division; and John Bull Stamp Auctions, Ltd., which
operates within Asia division.  The trading segment of the
Company operates through precious metals.  It is one of the
private sellers of bullion coins and bullion gold, silver and
platinum to the wholesale marketplace.


TRAVELEX CURRENCY: ATM Fee Refund Claims Due by Nov. 2, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals who used the automated teller machine operated by
Travelex Currency Services, Inc., located near Door 5 of
Southwest Florida International Airport at 11000 Terminal Access
Rd., in Ft. Myers, Fla., between April 10, 2008, and April 10,
2009, and were charged a transaction fee for the use of that
ATM, may file claims in Escalante v. Travelex Currency Services,
Inc. f/k/a Travelex America, Inc. d/b/a Travelex, Case No.
09 C 2209 (N.D. Ill.) (Ashman, J.), to share in a $100,000
Settlement Fund, subject to $1,000 per claimant.  

Information about the litigation is available on-line at:

     http://www.caclawyers.com/travelex/

The Plaintiff class is represented by:

          Lance A. Raphael, Esq.
          Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
          Allison A. Krumhorn, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER, P.C.
          180 W. Washington St., Ste. 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          
Travelex is represented by:

          Brian J. Hurst, Esq.
          Adam T. Dougherty, Esq.
          BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
          2300 Trammell Crow Center
          2001 Ross Ave.
          Dallas, TX 75201


YAHOO! INC: Notice of Proposed Pay-Per-Click Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Rust Consulting, Inc., has distributed notices of a proposed
class action settlement in In re Yahoo! Litigation, Case No. CV-
06-2737 CAS (C.D. Cal.).  A copy of the notice and other
information about the settlement and litigation is available at     
http://www.inreyahoosettlement.com/

The Class consists of all individuals or entities that purchased
pay-per-click text advertising in the U.S. Marketplace, whether
directly from Yahoo! or its predecessors Overture Services, Inc.,
or GoTo.com, Inc., or indirectly from an advertising agent, at
any time from May 1, 2000, until September 22, 2009.

Pay-per-click text advertising includes the Yahoo! Search
Marketing products currently known as "Sponsored Search" and
"Content Match," as well as predecessor products provided by
Overture Services, Inc. and GoTo.com, Inc.

Excluded from the Class are Yahoo!, Overture Services, Inc. or
GoTo.com, Inc. customers that did not purchase payper- click text
advertising in the U.S. Marketplace. (For example, any Yahoo!
customer that only purchased banner advertising, but not pay-per-
click text advertising, is not part of the Class.) The "U.S.
Marketplace" refers to Yahoo!'s ad "marketplace" covering the
United States and English-speaking Canada.

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK LLC
          15 Saint Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
                  jsnyder@bonizack.com

               - and -  

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          E-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com

Yahoo! is represented by:

          Larry W. McFarland, Esq.
          Dennis L. Wilson, Esq.
          KEATS MCFARLAND & WILSON LLP
          9720 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse Suite
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          E-mail: lmcfarland@kmwlaw.com
                  dwilson@kmwlaw.com

                            *********

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  * * *