CAR_Public/091020.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, October 20, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 207
  
                            Headlines

CKX INC: Plaintiffs Mull Filing Amended Complaint on 19X Merger
CLEARWIRE CORP: Defends False Advertising Suit in W.D. Wash.
DYNAMEX INC: Dec. 17 Hearing Set for Judgment Bid in Labor Suit
DYNAMEX INC: Lawsuit by Independent Contractor Drivers Stayed
DYNAMEX INC: Dec. 4 Mediation Set for Contractor Drivers' Suit

ELECTRA BICYCLE: Expands Recall of Bicycles with Trays & Baskets
GENERAL MILLS: JPMDL Transfers Cheerios Lawsuits to D. N.J.
HEELYS INC: Nov. 17 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement
HUMANA INC: Accused in Ky. Lawsuit of Racial Discrimination
INTERMARK COMMUNICATIONS: Class Alleges $5 Million Internet Scam

MILBANK MANUFACTURING: Recalls 1,400 Electric Meter Sockets
MOSER ENTERPRISES: Recalls 5,000 Schwalbe-Brand Bicycle Tires
NUTRAMEDICS INC: Lawsuit Claims Diet Pills Spiked with Sildenafil
OMNITURE INC: Kendall Files Lawsuit in Utah to Block Adobe Deal
PROMIGAS: $5 Mil. Damages Suit Over Pipeline Explosion Pending

RAYNOR MARKETING: Recalls 150,000 Chairs Sold at Office Depot
SI TECH: Recalls Diving Suit Hoses Due to Drowning Hazard
SPONGETECH DELIVERY: Aware of S.D.N.Y. Shareholder Lawsuit
SUNAIR SERVICES: Shareholder Attempts to Block Massey Merger
THE GAP: Lawsuit Wants Retailer To Halt Cell-Phone Spam

VILLAGE OF ISLAMORADA: Property Owners Sue to Block Assessments
YUM! BRANDS: Consolidated Wage Suit v. Taco Bell in Discovery
YUM! BRANDS: Appeal of Rulings in "Archila" Suit v. KFC Pending
YUM! BRANDS: Calif. RGMs Certification Hearing Continued to Dec.
YUM! BRANDS: Seeks to Merge "Widjaja" Suit with Similar Cases

YUM! BRANDS: Nov. 2009 Arbitration Set for Restitution Liability
YUM! BRANDS: Dec. 16 Trial Set for Judgment Bid in Moeller Suit
YUM! BRANDS: "Smith" FLSA Suit v. Pizza Hut Pending in Colorado
YUM! BRANDS: Blackwood Files FLSA Suit v. Pizza Hut in Kansas

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVANTA CORP: Shareholder Fraud Complaint Filed in E.D. Pa.
MGM MIRAGE: Diaz & Galt Files Shareholder Complaint in Nevada

                            *********

CKX INC: Plaintiffs Mull Filing Amended Complaint on 19X Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated lawsuit against CKX, Inc., over
a merger agreement with 19X Inc. and 19X Acquisition Corp., are
considering filing an amended complaint.

Initially, a lawsuit was filed on Dec. 14, 2007, with the
Delaware Chancery Court against the company, its directors, 19X
Inc. and 19X Acquisition Corp.  It was filed by a purported
stockholder of the company, and it seeks class-action status to
represent all of the company's public stockholders.

The complaint alleges that the sale price is too low and that
the company's directors have therefore breached their fiduciary
duties by approving the transaction.  It also seeks a
preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the defendants
from consummating the merger.  Alternatively, if the merger is
consummated, the complaint seeks rescission or recessionary
damages in an unspecified amount.

In addition, the complaint seeks "Class compensatory damages" in
an unspecified amount, as well as the costs and disbursements of
the action, experts' fees and the fees of plaintiff's attorneys.

On Feb. 1, 2008, another summons and complaint was filed with
the Delaware Chancery Court against the defendants by another
purported shareholder of the company.  The complaint is
identical to the complaint filed on Dec. 14, 2007.

The two cases have been consolidated and, on April 18, 2008, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

In order to resolve the litigation and avoid further cost and
delay, CKX and the individual defendants, without admitting any
wrongdoing, signed a memorandum of understanding on May 27,
2008, reflecting a tentative settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs and memorializing the amended terms to the Merger
Agreement and the related management cooperation agreement, as
requested by counsel for the plaintiffs in the litigation (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2008).

As a result of the termination of the Merger Agreement in
November 2008, the terms of the settlement agreement became moot
and therefore the settlement agreement was not finalized.

Notwithstanding the termination of the Merger Agreement,
plaintiffs' counsel has indicated to the company that it does not
intend to consent to a dismissal of the lawsuit, but rather is
considering filing an amended complaint.  The company is not
aware of what the basis for an amended complaint might be and is
unable to evaluate the merit of the complaint or anticipate the
extent of any liability, according to its Oct. 14, 2009, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

CKX, Inc. -- http://ir.ckx.com/-- was founded on Feb. 7, 2005,  
and owns and develops entertainment content and intellectual
property.  CKX holds, among other assets, the rights to the name,
image and likeness of Elvis Presley; the operations of Graceland;
and an 80% interest in the name, likeness, trademarks, and
licensing agreements of Muhammad Ali including Ali's "Greatest Of
All Time" (or G.O.A.T.) slogan.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Defends False Advertising Suit in W.D. Wash.
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against Clearwire Corporation
filed before the Superior Court in King County, Washington, is in
its early stages.

On April 22, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in Superior Court in King County, Washington
by a group of five plaintiffs from Hawaii, Minnesota, North
Carolina and Washington.

The lawsuit generally alleges that the company disseminated
false advertising about the quality and reliability of its
services; imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and invoked
unconscionable provisions of its Terms of Service to the
detriment of customers.

Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a determination that the
alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis; an order
declaring certain provisions of the company's Terms of Service,
including the early termination fee provision, void and
unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting the company from
collecting early termination fees and further false advertising;
restitution of any early termination fees paid by the company's
subscribers; equitable relief; and an award of unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees.

On May 27, 2009, an Amended Complaint was filed and served,
adding seven additional plaintiffs, including individuals from
New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin.  On June 2, 2009, plaintiffs
served the Amended Complaint.  

The company removed the action to federal court.

On July 23, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Briefing will be completed Sept. 18, 2009.  
The Court has stayed discovery pending its ruling on the motion.  
The court has not set a trial date, according to the company's
Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

In Minnick, et al. v. Clearwire US LLC, et al., Case No. 09-cv-
00912 (W.D. Wash.) (Pechman, J.), the Plaintiffs are represented
by:

          Felix G. Luna, Esq.  
          PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
          1501 4th Ave., Suite 2800
          Seattle, WA 98101-1609
          Telephone: 206-624-6800

               - and -  

          Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
          Melanie Williamson, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEL LLP
          2000 L Street NW, Ste. 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-973-0900

and Clearwire is represented by:

          Kenneth E. Payson, Esq.
          Stephen M. Rummage, Esq.
          Davis Wright Tremaine
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: 206-622-3150

Clearwire Corporation -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- builds and
operates wireless broadband networks that enable Internet
communications.  Its wireless broadband networks cover entire
communities and deliver a high-speed Internet connection that
not only creates a new communications path into the home or
office, but also provides a broadband connection anytime and
anywhere within its coverage area.  It offers services in both
domestic and international markets.  The company's services
consist primarily of providing wireless broadband connectivity,
but in some of its domestic markets, it also offers voice-over
Internet protocol (VoIP) telephony services.


DYNAMEX INC: Dec. 17 Hearing Set for Judgment Bid in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 17, 2009 hearing on the motion for summary judgment on
Dynamex, Inc.'s affirmative defense in a purported labor class-
action lawsuit against the company, according to its Oct. 14,
2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2009.

A company driver filed the suit on April 15, 2005.  The lawsuit
alleges that the company unlawfully misclassified its California
drivers as independent contractors, rather than as employees.

The suit asserted, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of
the purported class claimants to overtime compensation and other
benefits under California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of
certain operating expenses, and various insurance and other
benefits and the obligation of the company to pay employer
payroll taxes under federal and state law.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Nov. 2,
2006.  A hearing was held on Dec. 12, 2006, and the court denied
this request.  The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on Jan. 5,
2007.

Following the exchange of briefs, an Appellate Hearing was held
in August 2008.  The Appellate Court determined that the trial
court's denial of an earlier motion by the plaintiff to compel
disclosure of the names and contact information for all members
of the putative class prejudiced the plaintiff's ability to
support his motion for class certification.

The ruling reversed the Denial of the Motion for Class
Certification and remanded the matter for additional discovery
and eventual re-hearing.

Pursuant to Order of the Court, the names and contact
information for members of the putative class were produced by
the company in January 2009.

In early February 2009, Plaintiff was permitted to file a First
Amended Complaint, which among other matters, added an
additional named Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs filed a new Motion for Class Certification in June
2009, seeking the certification of a Class with four Subclasses,
each dependent on the type of service rendered by the independent
contractor and the weight of the vehicle provided by the
independent contractor.  On July 28, 2009, the Court granted the
Motion.  The four subclasses are each subject to between four and
eight exclusions.

Plaintiffs proposed a Notice of Pendency of Class Action to be
sent to members of the Class.  The Court approved the Notice over
the Company's objections in early October.

In early October 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment requesting the Court to issue an Order adjudicating that
there is no merit to the Defendant's Affirmative Defense that
Plaintiffs' claims are barred because Plaintiffs and the putative
class members are not employees, but are independent contractors.  

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of
same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada.
Through its network of business centers, the company provides
same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing
its ground couriers.


DYNAMEX INC: Lawsuit by Independent Contractor Drivers Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit filed by independent contractor
drivers against Dynamex, Inc., remains stayed, according to the
company's Oct. 14, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July
31, 2009.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed on July 25, 2008,
by two California independent contractor drivers alleging that
the company's classification of California drivers as
independent contractors was unlawful, and that as a consequence
they were denied the benefit of various California wage laws.

The plaintiffs further alleged that such misclassification
constituted unfair competition under California business
statutes.  Because the complaint in large measure contains the
same causes of action as an on-going California case filed in
2005, the company filed a Special Demurrer and a Motion to Stay
further proceedings pending the outcome of the earlier action.

Following a November 2008 Hearing, the Court issued a Stay.

Plaintiffs' subsequent attempt to consolidate their action with
the Los Angeles County action was denied.

On Jan. 21, 2009, one of the named Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed his claims without prejudice in order to attempt to
join the Los Angeles County suit.  The Plaintiff has
subsequently been added to the Los Angeles County suit.

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of
same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada.
Through its network of business centers, the company provides
same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing
its ground couriers.


DYNAMEX INC: Dec. 4 Mediation Set for Contractor Drivers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 4, 2009 mediation has been set for a putative class action
lawsuit brought by former independent contractor drivers against
Dynamex, Inc.

On Sept. 29, 2008, five former independent contractor drivers
filed an action in California State Court alleging that the
company misclassified them as independent contractors rather than
employees and further that the company committed unlawful racial
harassment and discrimination ultimately resulting in their
wrongful termination or wrongful constructive termination, all in
violation of the public policy of the State of California.

An Amended Complaint was filed on Nov. 20, 2008, and the company
thereafter timely filed its Answer.

At the Case Management Conference in early February 2009, the
parties were ordered to participate in mediation before Dec. 4,
2009, and a trial date of Feb. 8, 2010 was set.

The company has deposed all five of the Plaintiffs.  The company
believes that the Plaintiffs were properly classified as
independent contractors and believes that Plaintiffs were treated
in conformity with all State and Federal laws, according to its
Oct. 14, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2009.

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of
same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada.
Through its network of business centers, the company provides
same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing
its ground couriers.


ELECTRA BICYCLE: Expands Recall of Bicycles with Trays & Baskets
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Electra Bicycle Co., of Vista, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 6,400 (3,000 of which were previously recalled in
March 2009) 2009 Model Electra Bicycles with Front Trays or
Baskets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The front tray or basket on the bicycles can come loose and
contact the front tire, posing a fall hazard to riders.

Electra Bicycle Co. has received 15 reports of the front tray or
the basket coming loose including two reports of minor cuts and
bruises.

This recall involves the 2009 Delivery 3i, Delivery 8D, Holiday
3i, Holiday 8i and Surf 3i bicycles with front-mounted trays or
baskets. The trays have an alloy frame with wooden slats. The
baskets are wicker with a removable tote bag. The trays were sold
as original equipment on the bicycles and as aftermarket items.
The baskets were sold only as aftermarket items.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10011.html

The recalled products were sold by authorized Electra Bicycle
dealers nationwide from October 2008 through August 2009 for
between $600 and $750 for the bicycles and about $100 for after-
market trays and baskets, and were manufactured in Taiwan.

Consumers should immediately stop riding these bicycles and
contact an Electra Bicycle dealer for a free inspection and
repair of the trays that came as original equipment on the
bicycles, or a refund for trays and baskets purchased as
aftermarket items.  For additional information, contact Electra
Bicycle at (800) 261-1644 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.electrabike.com/


GENERAL MILLS: JPMDL Transfers Cheerios Lawsuits to D. N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has directed the
consolidation of all lawsuits pending in the federal court system
against General Mills concerning the labeling of its Cheerios
cereal products, and, specifically, claims that eating Cheerios
can lower a person's cholesterol, to the District of New Jersey.  

These four lawsuits are being transferred to the District of New
Jersey:

     -- Choi v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-3940
        (C.D. Calif.);

     -- Theodore v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-4620
        (C.D. Calif.);

     -- Huey v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-1368
        (E.D. Calif.); and

     -- Stevens v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-2289
        (E.D.N.Y.),

and will be consolidated into:

     -- Myers, et al. v. General Mills, Inc., Case No.
        09-cv-02413 (D. N.J.) (Sheridan, J.).

In Myers, the Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maureen Victoria Abbey, Esq.
          John W. Olivo, Jr., Esq.
          John Francis Ward, Esq
          WARD & OLIVO
          382 Springfield Avenue
          Summit, NJ 07901
          Telephone: 908-277-3333

and General Mills is represented by:

          Colleen Elizabeth Petroni, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-887-3511

The MDL proceeding will be captioned In Re: Cheerios Marketing &
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2094.


HEELYS INC: Nov. 17 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 17, 2009 final fairness hearing has been set for the
settlement of the consolidated securities fraud class-action
lawsuit against Heelys, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

The company, its former chief executive officer, its chief
financial officer, and its directors, who signed the company's
registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with its Dec. 7, 2006 initial public
offering -- along with Capital Southwest Corp., Capital
Southwest Venture Corp., and the underwriters for the IPO -- are
defendants in a lawsuit originally filed on Aug. 27, 2007, by
plaintiff Brian Rines, individually and on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to or
traceable to the IPO registration statement.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933.  The plaintiff seeks an order
determining that the action may proceed as a class action,
awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the
other class members in an unspecified amount, and reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel
fees and expert fees.

Four similar lawsuits were also filed in September and October
2007 before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, by plaintiffs Vulcan Lee, John Avila, Gerald Markey, and
Robert Eiron on behalf of the same plaintiff class, making
substantially similar allegations under Sections 11, 12, and 15
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and seeking substantially
similar damages.

These lawsuits have been transferred to a single judge and have
been consolidated into a single action.  An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on March 11, 2008.

The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus used in
connection with our IPO contained misstatements of material fact
or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make
the statements made not misleading relating to among other
allegations, safety concerns and injuries associated with the
company's products and their alleged impact on demand,
visibility into its sales channel and competition from
knockoffs, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and requests substantially similar
damages and relief as previously mentioned.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint.

On Aug. 14, 2008, the Court denied Defendants' motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, and discovery commenced.

During a mediation conducted by the Hon. Nicholas H. Politan
(ret.), Plaintiffs and Defendants reached a settlement pursuant
to which Defendants will pay Plaintiffs and a proposed plaintiff
settlement class a total of $7.5 million, including attorneys'
fees and expenses.  The company has reached an agreement in
principal with its insurers for its insurance policies to fund
the majority of this settlement amount.  

On July 31, 2009, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement
and scheduled a final fairness hearing for Nov. 17, 2009, to
consider final approval of the settlement.  Prior to the final
fairness hearing, notice of the settlement will be provided to
shareholders, who will be provided an opportunity to object to
the settlement or to opt out of the proposed settlement class,
according to the company's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          Preston Commons West
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Phone: 214-706-9314
          Fax: 214-706-9315
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Roger F. Claxton, Esq.  
          CLAXTON & HILL PLLC
          10000 N. Central Expwy., Suite 725
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Phone: 214-969-9029
          Fax: 214-953-0583
          E-mail: roger@claxtonhill.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Karen L. Hirschman, Esq.  
          VINSON & ELKINS
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-220-7795
          Fax: 214-220-7716
          E-mail: khirschman@velaw.com

               - and -

          Rodney Acker, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI
          2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201-2784
          Phone: 214-855-7446
          Fax: 214-855-8200
          E-mail: racker@fulbright.com


HUMANA INC: Accused in Ky. Lawsuit of Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Humana has discriminated
against black managers and professional staff since 2000, a class
action claims in Louisville Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Keys v. Humana, Inc., Case No.
09-cv-834 (W.D. Ky.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/16/EmployHumana.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Branch, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BRANCH, PC
          1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW, #690
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: 202-785-2805


INTERMARK COMMUNICATIONS: Class Alleges $5 Million Internet Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that a Web-based
company that calls itself "GoogleProfits" defrauded more than
20,000 people of millions of dollars by promising they can "make
thousands of dollars from at-home businesses," according to a
federal class action.  The company -- which is not affiliated
with Google -- aided by New York-based Intermark Media, preys
upon desperate people "facing the worst economy in decades,"
according to the complaint.

James Piccione claims the defendants defrauded more than 20,000
customers of more than $5 million by bogus offers, over the
Internet, of a "risk-free trial" of an instructional CD on how to
make "250 - $573 per day."

Mr. Piccione says he fell for the scheme to "Get cash from
Google," but that the deceptive "risk free trial" came with an
additional $7.71 monthly charge and obligated him to subscribe to
"something called 'Google Profit Resource' for $47.50 per month."
     
GoogleProfits is an unregistered Arizona corporation, and it
built its sophisticated, and dishonest, Web page with help from
Intermark Media, of Woodbury, N.Y., according to the complaint.
     
Mr. Piccione says he was unwittingly charged $99 that the
defendants' fine print said would be come "after the 30 day
trial." But Piccione says the 30-day trial is bogus, and the
heftier hidden charges follow.
     
Mr. Piccione says he called GoogleProfits "repeatedly and was
shunted to voicemail many times without ever receiving a return
call." He says he eventually reached a representative from
Scottsdale, Ariz., who told him the charge was "non-refundable."
     
He claims Intermark helped GoogleProfits create its sophisticated
Web site, which lures customers with fake news stories, bogus
endorsements, deceptive ad copy and source code that generates
fraudulent customer "testimonials."

"That is, 'Kevin M.' from 'Connecticut' is in fact simply a
fictitious person whose state name is generated by source code
that recognizes and responds to the [Connecticut] IP address of
the consumer's computer," according to the complaint.

Intermark designed the GoogleProfits site to flash "pressures"
such as "Only 20 Left!" and a timer counting down the minutes
before an offer "expires," Mr. Piccione says.

The come-ons are inserted "at random," according to the lawsuit.

"Americans presently find themselves facing the worst economy in
decades, and in these desperate times, ordinary consumers are
more than ever subjected to a proliferation of work-at-home
offers that promise an ability to easily make thousands of
dollars from at-home businesses," the complaint states.

Mr. Piccione seeks more than $5 million in class damages for
fraud and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Piccione v. Intermark Communications,
Inc., dba Intermark Media, et al., Case No. 09-cv-4395 (E.D.N.Y.)
(Seybert, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/16/GoogleProfits.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Will Haselden, Esq.
          Steven Teppler, Esq.
          KAMBEREDELSON, LLC
          350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: whaselden@kamberedelson.com
                  steppler@kamberedelson.com


MILBANK MANUFACTURING: Recalls 1,400 Electric Meter Sockets
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Milbank Manufacturing Co., of Kansas City, Mo., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,400 Single Meter Sockets.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

A short may occur while in use due to an incorrect bridge
installed in the product, to which the meter clips are attached.
If the manufacturing defect exists, all metal parts of the meter
could create a shock or burns can occur if the cover is off and
the meter socket is energized.

Three incidents have been reported of the unit shorting out.  No
injuries were reported.

The single meter 200 amp/4 terminal sockets are used for
underground utility meter installations.  The meter socket is
20-3/4 inches high by 9 inches wide and 4-1/2 inches deep with
1 meter position.  It is used by the approving utility to mount
their electric meter to measure how much electricity a residence
uses.  It can be used for an underground residential application.
The recalled model number 9090 appears on the right or left side
of the installed meter socket. If not installed, model numbers
U9090-O or R9090-O will appear on the label on the outside of the
box.  Pictures of the recalled product are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10012.html

The recalled products were sold at electrical supply distributors
in N.Y., Pa., Vt. and Mass. and at local hardware stores in N.Y.
from May 2009 through August 2009 for about $70, and were
manufactured in the United States.

Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately and
contact the electrical supply contractor who installed the
sockets.  Contractors will contact Milbank Manufacturing for a
replacement or reimbursement.  Milbank will contact all
distributors and stores where the recalled product was sold.  
For additional information, contact Milbank Manufacturing's Sales
Engineer toll-free at (888) 537-0881 between the hours of 8 a.m.
and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web
site at http://www.milbankmfg.com/


MOSER ENTERPRISES: Recalls 5,000 Schwalbe-Brand Bicycle Tires
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Moser Enterprises, of Canada, announced a voluntary recall of
about 5,000 Schwalbe Ultremo R Bicycle Tires manufactured in
Indonesia by Ralf Bohle GmbH, of Germany.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The tire layers could separate causing the inner tube to rupture,
posing a fall hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall includes Schwalbe Ultremo R bicycle tires.  
"Schwalbe" and "Ultremo R" are printed on the sidewall of the
tires.  The tires were sold at bicycle specialty stores and on
the Web at http://www.schwalbetires.com/from April 2009 through  
May 2009 for about $75.  A picture of the recalled product is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10009.html

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles with the
recalled tires and contact their local bicycle dealer for a free
replacement set of tires.  For more information, contact Moser
Enterprises toll-free at (888) 700-5860 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.schwalbetires.com/


NUTRAMEDICS INC: Lawsuit Claims Diet Pills Spiked with Sildenafil
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nutramedics dba Palo Alto
Labs spiked its "Aspire" diet supplements with dangerous
"pharmaceutical grade" analogues of Sildenafil, an erectile
dysfunction drug, a class action claims in Broward County Court,
Fort Lauderdale.

A copy of the Complaint in Beckett v. Nutramedics, Inc., fka
Logan Systems, Inc., dba Palo Alto Labs, Case No. 09055259 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., 17th J. Cir., Broward Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/16/DietSupp.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lars K. Soreide, Esq.
          SOREIDE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          511 NE 3rd Ave.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-760-6552
          Fax: 954-760-6553


OMNITURE INC: Kendall Files Lawsuit in Utah to Block Adobe Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Law Group has filed a class action lawsuit against
Omniture, Inc. (NASDAQ: OMTR) and company executives over the
recent takeover announcement of Omniture by Adobe Systems for
$1.8 billion.

The class action complaint, filed in the 4th District Court of
Utah County, alleges that the company and its insiders breached
their fiduciary duties to shareholders.  First, the merger
agreement makes veiled reference to certain compensation
arrangements between Adobe and company insiders.  In fact,
Omniture CEO Joshua James has a secured a position with Adobe
after the merger.  Second, the merger agreement has support
agreements and a 'top up' provision, which has the practical
effect of requiring only 45% of Omniture's publicly held shares
to effectuate the short form merger.  Third, the Omniture and its
executives have agreed to onerous deal protection devices in the
merger agreement, such as a $64 million termination fee; a 'no
solicitation' clause; and a matching rights provision.  These
devices seek to make Adobe's takeover offer a foregone
conclusion.

Defendants include the company, Omniture, its CEO Joshua James,
and members of the Board of Directors.  The plaintiffs include
SEO Expert Shailen Lodhia, who is a long term Omniture investor
with significant experience in Omniture's industry as an SEO
Expert.

Kendall Law Group has significant experience in shareholder class
actions.  Led by a former federal judge and US Attorney, the firm
has the credentials to take on complicated shareholder class
actions.  To learn more about this action and your rights as an
Omniture shareholder, contact:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          Telephone: 877-744-3728
          E-mail: hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com


PROMIGAS: $5 Mil. Damages Suit Over Pipeline Explosion Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit is pending against Promigas S.A., an AEI
Colombian affiliate, over damages resulting from a pipeline
explosion caused by terrorists in October 2001.  

The plaintiffs seek to recover $5 million in damages.  

The matter is still in the initial stage, according to the AEI's
Amendment No. 3 to Form F-1 filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 14, 2009.

No reserves in respect to this claim have been established by
Promigas or AEI.

Promigas S.A. E.S.P. -- http://www.promigas.com/-- is a  
Colombian company engaged primarily in natural gas distribution,
with interests in related activities.  The company's activities
include natural gas transmission and distribution; gas pipeline
distribution, construction, operation and maintenance; and data,
voice and image transmission services along with high-speed
connection to the Internet.  The company has been authorized by
the governments of Venezuela and Peru, for gas pipeline
distribution, construction, operation and maintenance.


RAYNOR MARKETING: Recalls 150,000 Chairs Sold at Office Depot
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Raynor Marketing LTD, of West Hempstead, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 150,000 Quantum Realspace PRO(tm) 9000
Series Mid-Back Multifunction Mesh Chairs and Multifunction Mesh
Chairs with Headrest.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The recalled products were manufactured in China by Comfort
Office Furniture, LTD, China aka Evergood Co. Ltd.

The bolts attaching the seatback on the recalled chairs can
loosen and detach, posing a fall and injury hazard to consumers.

Raynor has received reports of 33 seatback detachments and 14
injuries involving bumps and bruises.

This recall involves the Quantum Realspace PRO(tm) 9000 Series
Mid-Back Multifunction Mesh Chair SKU # 510830 and the Quantum
Realspace PRO(tm) 9000 Series Mesh Chair with Headrest SKU #
690690.  The Realspace PRO(tm) Mesh Guest Chair is not involved
in this recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10013.html

The recalled chairs were sold exclusively at Office Depot stores
nationwide and on the Web at http://www.OfficeDepot.com/from May  
2006 through August 2009.  The mid-back chairs sold for about
$300 and the chair with headrest for about $350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled office
chairs and contact Raynor to receive a free repair kit.  For
additional information and to receive a free repair kit, contact
Raynor toll free at (866) 244-8180 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.Quantumchair.com/recall


SI TECH: Recalls Diving Suit Hoses Due to Drowning Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SI Tech AB, of Brastad, Sweden, announced a voluntary recall of
about 65,000 Diving Air Hose for Dry Suits. Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The hose contains an insert that can dislodge during diving and
restrict air flow to the diver, posing a drowning hazard.

SI Tech has received six reports of hose inserts dislodging,
including one that was involved in the death of a diver in Los
Angeles, Calif.

This recall involves a dry suit inflation hose that connects a
diver's dry suit to the air supply and allows for the pumping of
air into the suit to set up a positive pressure arrangement to
help keep it watertight.  The hose contains an air flow
restricting insert that may be either black, blue or green in
color.  The batch code is stamped on the threaded metal end of
the hose.  They were sold with dry suits and also sold
separately. Contact SI Tech for a list of batch codes included in
this recall or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.sitech.se/

The recalled hoses were sold at diving equipment retailers and
distributors nationwide from July 2006 through February 2009 for
about $45, and were manufactured in Sweden.  Pictures of the
recalled product are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10010.html

Consumers should immediately stop using diving equipment that
contains the recalled low pressure inflation hoses and contact SI
Tech for the location of an authorized dealer for a free repair
which involves removal of the hose insert, or to receive
instructions on how to repair the hose.  For additional
information, contact SI Tech at (877) 348-3529 anytime, visit
http://www.sitech.se/or email the firm at recall@sitech.se


SPONGETECH DELIVERY: Aware of S.D.N.Y. Shareholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
SpongeTech(R) Delivery Systems, Inc. "The Smarter Sponge(TM)"
(SPNG) acknowledged the filing of Le v. SpongeTech Delivery
SYstems, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-08616 (S.D.N.Y.), on
October 9, 2009, by The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., against SpongeTech,
and its officers and directors, Michael L. Metter, Steven
Moskowitz, Frank Lazauskas as well as RM Enterprises
International, Inc. (an entity in which SpongeTech's directors
and officers hold direct or indirect ownership interests, and of
which Mr. Moskowitz and Mr. Lazauskas serve as officers or
directors), as a purported class action suit on behalf of all
purchasers of SpongeTech stock between April 15, 2008, and
October 5, 2009, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.

In addition, SpongeTech indicates, a second law firm announced
that it has commenced a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
purchasers of SpongeTech stock between April 15, 2008, and
October 5, 2009, inclusive.  SpongeTech has not been served in
this action and says it has not seen a copy of the complaint.  
Class Action Reporter editors haven't seen the second lawsuit
either.  

When and if SpongeTech is served in these actions it intends to
carefully review the complaints in consultation with its counsel,
and prepare an appropriate defense.  SpongeTech and its directors
and officers believe that the allegations set forth in the
complaint filed by The Rosen Law Firm are meritless and intend to
defend the action vigorously.

                           Auditor Resigns

In addition, SpongeTech disclosed Friday that Deloitte & Touche
LLP has notified the Company that it would not act as
SpongeTech's independent registered public accounting firm for
the Company's fiscal year ending May 31, 2010.  Deloitte was
scheduled to commence its review of the Company's financial
statements for the quarter ended August 31, 2009, immediately
following the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009.

                   SpongeTech Sues Investment Banker

Furthermore, the Company has filed a lawsuit in the New York
State Supreme Court, Suffolk County against Cresta Capital
Strategies, LLC.  The complaint alleges a breach of contract,
conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and
unlawful appropriation of funds.  The Company is seeking
compensatory damages in the amount of $2.75 million as well as
punitive and exemplary damages.

In March 2009, Cresta was hired by the Company to serve as the
exclusive investment banker to the Company in which Cresta was to
provide advice and services concerning potential merger,
acquisition or any business transactions.  Upon modification of
the agreement with Cresta, in June 2009, the Company agreed to
and did provide Cresta with a $1 million cash advance which was
to be used against future fees as a result of any transactions
under the agreement.  Cresta did provide investment banking
services to the Company on the acquisition of Dicon Technologies,
LLC as well as introducing the Company to Getfugu, Inc.  Cresta
was paid in full all fees due with regards to its participation
in the Dicon transaction.

In August 2009, the Company was introduced to Getfugu by Cresta,
who was serving as investment banker for both the Company and
Getfugu. At the advice of Cresta, the Company entered into a
definitive agreement with Getfugu to invest $4 million into
Getfugu's mobile-based web search and e-commerce technology, and
that the Company would be the first company to utilize Getfugu's
innovative mobile search platform. An aggregate of $1.75 million
had been advanced to Getfugu, soon after Getfugu rescinded the
transaction and to this date has not returned the monies to the
Company.

In September 2009, Cresta terminated its agreement to serve as
the investment banker for the Company, waiving and forfeiting any
right to the $1 million cash advance for future fees. The Company
has made demand for the $1 million, but Cresta has failed to
return any part of the cash advance to the Company.

The Company alleges that Cresta breached its fiduciary duty to
the Company by assisting Getfugu in obtaining money from the
Company and failing to conduct any reasonable due diligence on
Getfugu or its officers and personnel and failing to provide the
Company with any reasonable due diligence upon which to make its
investment decision.  The Company is seeking compensatory,
punitive and exemplary damages.

               About SpongeTech(R) Delivery Systems, Inc.

SpongeTech(R) Delivery Systems designs, produces, and markets
unique lines of reusable cleaning products for Car Care, Child
Care, Home Care and Pet Care usages. These sponge-like products
utilize SpongeTech(R)'s proprietary, patent (and patent-pending)
technologies and other technologies involving hydrophilic (liquid
absorbing) foam, polyurethane matrices or other ingredients. The
Company's sponge-like products are pre-loaded with specially
formulated ingredients such as soap, conditioner and/or wax that
are released when the sponge is soaked and applied to a surface
with minimal pressure.  SpongeTech(R) is currently exploring
additional applications for its technology in the health, beauty,
and medical markets.  SpongeTech(R) Delivery Systems, Inc.
intends to globally brand its products as The Smarter Sponge(TM).


SUNAIR SERVICES: Shareholder Attempts to Block Massey Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
On October 9, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for Broward
County, State of Florida, Civil Division, regarding the proposed
merger between Sunair Services Corporation and Massey Services,
Inc.  The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of the public
holders of Sunair's common stock, and names as defendants,
Sunair, each of Sunair's directors, Massey and Buyer Acquisition
Company, Inc., the wholly-owned subsidiary of Massey acting as
merger sub for the proposed transaction.  The Complaint alleges,
among other things, that Sunair's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by adopting the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated September 28, 2009, between Sunair, Massey and the merger
subsidiary, and by approving the Merger described therein.  The
Complaint further alleges that the proposed Merger provides
Sunair's public shareholders with inadequate consideration for
their shares of Sunair's common stock and that Sunair and Massey
aided and abetted the alleged breaches by Sunair's directors. The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action status, an
injunction preventing the completion of the merger (or rescinding
the merger if it is completed), rescissory damages and the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.  Sunair believes the
lawsuit is without merit.


THE GAP: Lawsuit Wants Retailer To Halt Cell-Phone Spam
-------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that The Gap is
harassing customers with wireless spam text messages to promote
holiday sales, a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Danielle Lerner said she's received repeated spam
text messages advertising the company's Old Navy clothing line.
Lerner says she's been getting the spam since November 2005.

To add injury to annoyance, Ms. Lerner say she and other victims
have to pay their wireless service providers for receiving this
"pernicious form of marketing."

She seeks class damages of at least $500 for each violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and an injunction ordering
The Gap to stop sending its wireless spam.

A copy of the Complaint in Lerner v. The Gap Inc., Case No.
09-cv-4897 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/16/TheGap.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818-990-1299


VILLAGE OF ISLAMORADA: Property Owners Sue to Block Assessments
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Ball at the Keys Reporter reports that Cheeca Lodge Resort
and Spa has expanded its class-action lawsuit against the Village
of Islamorada, Fla., over wastewater assessments.

The suit is the second filed in Monroe County Circuit Court over
this year's assessments.  On Oct. 5, 11 property owners and two
businesses sued the village, claiming the $21.8 million
assessment is illegal and overly expensive.

Both lawsuits ask for the assessment to be thrown out and for Tax
Collector Danise Henriquez to be prohibited from collecting the
assessment payments.

The lawsuit asks the court to create a class of potential
plaintiffs, Mr. Ball relates, which could be more than 4,000
property owners in Islamorada who were assessed last year or this
year.

Mr. Ball's complete report is available at:

     http://www.keysnet.com/news/story/151289.html

Cheeca is represented by:

          James S. Lupino, Esq.
          Hershoff, Lupino & Yagel, L.L.P.
          90130 Old Highway
          Tavernier, FL 33070
          Telephone: 305-852-8440


YUM! BRANDS: Consolidated Wage Suit v. Taco Bell in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in the consolidated class-action case, In
Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, according to YUM! Brands,
Inc.'s Oct. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 5, 2009.

On Sept. 10, 2007, a putative class action against Taco Bell
Corp., the company and other related entities styled Sandrika
Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., was filed in U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Fresno, California.  The case was filed on
behalf of all hourly employees who have worked for the defendants
within the last four years and alleges numerous violations of
California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to pay
wages on termination, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper
wage statements, unpaid business expenses and unfair or unlawful
business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code 17200.  The company was dismissed from the case
without prejudice on Jan. 10, 2008.

On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA") complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Fresno against Taco Bell Corp., the
company and other related entities.  This lawsuit, styled Lisa
Hardiman vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al., was filed on behalf of
Hardiman individually and all other aggrieved employees pursuant
to PAGA.  The complaint seeks penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code.  On June 25, 2008, Hardiman filed an
amended complaint adding class action allegations on behalf of
hourly employees in California very similar to the Medlock case,
including allegations of unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest
periods, improper wage statements, non-payment of wages upon
termination, unreimbursed business expenses and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code 17200.

On June 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. and the company, styled Miriam Leyva vs. Taco Bell
Corp., et al., was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.  The case
was filed on behalf of Leyva and purportedly all other California
hourly employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages upon
discharge, failure to provide itemized wage statements, unfair
business practices and wrongful termination and discrimination.  
The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on Aug.
20, 2008.

On Nov. 5, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. and the company styled Loraine Naranjo vs. Taco Bell
Corp., et al., was filed in Orange County Superior Court.  The
case was filed on behalf of Naranjo and purportedly all other
California employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure
to reimburse for business related expenses, improper wage
statements, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay
minimum wage and unfair business practices.  The company filed a
motion to dismiss on Dec. 15, 2008, which was denied on Jan. 20,
2009.

Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and
Naranjo matters, and the court granted the motion to consolidate
on May 19, 2009.  The consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadline of Aug. 26,
2010 for motions regarding class certification.  The hearing on
any class certification motion is currently scheduled for Jan.
10, 2011.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Appeal of Rulings in "Archila" Suit v. KFC Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the California state court's rulings in a putative
class-action suit, Kenny Archila v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., is
pending, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 13, 2009, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 5, 2009.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the class-action suit was filed in California
state court on behalf of all California hourly employees
alleging various California Labor Code violations, including
rest and meal break violations, overtime violations, wage
statement violations and waiting time penalties.

KFC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Jan. 7, 2009.

On July 7, 2009, the Judge ruled that the case will not go
forward as a class action.  Plaintiff seeks recovery of civil
penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act as a
representative of other "aggrieved employees."  

On Aug. 3, 2009, the Court ruled that the Plaintiff could not
assert such claims and the case had to proceed as a single
plaintiff action.  

On the eve of the Aug. 18, 2009 trial, the Plaintiff stipulated
to a dismissal of his individual claims with prejudice but
reserved his right to appeal the Court's rulings regarding class
and PAGA claims.  KFC reserved its right to make any and all
challenges to the appeal.  

On Sept. 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, according
to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Oct.13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 5, 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Calif. RGMs Certification Hearing Continued to Dec.  
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion in the suits
filed on behalf of all current and former Restaurant General
Managers against Taco Bell Corp., has been continued to Dec. 4,
2009, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 5, 2009.

Taco Bell is a concept owned and operated by YUM! Brands, Inc.

On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. styled, "Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp.," was
filed in Orange County Superior Court.

On Aug. 7, 2006, another putative class action lawsuit styled,
"Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in San Diego
County Superior Court.

Both lawsuits were filed by a Taco Bell RGM purporting to
represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-
owned restaurants in California from August 2002, to the
present.

The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour
laws involving unpaid overtime and meal period violations and
seek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties.

As of Sept. 7, 2006, both cases have been consolidated in San
Diego County.  Discovery is underway.

Based on plaintiffs' revised class definition in their class
certification motion, Taco Bell removed the case to federal
court in San Diego on Aug. 29, 2008.  Plaintiffs have sought to
remand the case back to state court and the court took the
matter under submission without a hearing on Nov. 17, 2008.

On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
remand.  

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Seeks to Merge "Widjaja" Suit with Similar Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion seeking to consolidate the putative class action
lawsuit, Endang Widjaja vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al., with In Re
Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions is pending, according to YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 5,
2009.

Taco Bell is a concept of YUM! Brands, Inc.

On March 26, 2009, Taco Bell was served with the putative class
action lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court against
Taco Bell and the Company.

The case was filed on behalf of Widjaja, a former California
hourly assistant manager, and purportedly all other individuals
employed in Taco Bell's California restaurants as managers and
alleges failure to reimburse for business related expenses,
failure to provide rest periods, unfair business practices and
conversion.

This case appears to be duplicative of Taco Bell's pending
consolidated hourly class action case (In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions).

Taco Bell removed the case to federal district court and filed a
notice of related case.

On June 18, 2009, the case was transferred to the Eastern
District of California where the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case is pending and was subsequently transferred to the
same district court judge.

Taco Bell requested that the court consolidate this case with
the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, and the court
deferred its decision pending a noticed motion.

Taco Bell filed a motion on July 22, 2009, to dismiss, stay or
consolidate this case with the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions, and the hearing on this motion is scheduled for Oct. 19,
2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Nov. 2009 Arbitration Set for Restitution Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
A November 2009 arbitration has been set for liability during a
portion of the alleged restitution policy period in a putative
class action on behalf of general and assistant restaurant
managers of YUM! Brands, Inc.'s LJS concept.

On Nov. 26, 2001, Kevin Johnson, a former LJS restaurant
manager, filed a collective action against LJS in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of
himself and allegedly similarly-situated LJS general and
assistant restaurant managers.

Mr. Johnson alleged that LJS violated the FLSA by perpetrating a
policy and practice of seeking monetary restitution from LJS
employees, including Restaurant General Managers and
Assistant Restaurant General Managers, when monetary
or property losses occurred due to knowing and willful
violations of LJS policies that resulted in losses of company
funds or property, and that LJS had thus improperly classified
its RGMs and ARGMs as exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA.

Mr. Johnson sought overtime pay, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees for himself and his proposed class.

LJS moved the Tennessee district court to compel arbitration of
Mr. Johnson's suit.  The district court granted LJS's motion on
June 7, 2004, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed on July 5, 2005.

On Dec. 19, 2003, while the arbitrability of Mr. Johnson's
claims was being litigated, former LJS managers Erin Cole and
Nick Kaufman, represented by Mr. Johnson's counsel, initiated an
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association.  The Cole
Claimants sought a collective arbitration on behalf of the same
putative class as alleged in the Johnson lawsuit and alleged the
same underlying claims.

On June 15, 2004, the arbitrator in the Cole Arbitration issued
a Clause Construction Award, finding that LJS's Dispute
Resolution Policy did not prohibit Claimants from proceeding on
a collective or class basis.  LJS moved unsuccessfully to vacate
the Clause Construction Award in federal district court in South
Carolina.  On Sept. 19, 2005, the arbitrator issued a Class
Determination Award, finding, inter alia, that a class would be
certified in the Cole Arbitration on an "opt-out" basis, rather
than as an "opt-in" collective action as specified by the FLSA.

On Jan. 20, 2006, the district court denied LJS's motion to
vacate the Class Determination Award and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's
decision on Jan. 28, 2008.  A petition for a writ of certiorari
filed in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of the Fourth
Circuit's decision was denied on Oct. 7, 2008.

The parties participated in mediation on April 24, 2008, and
again on Feb. 28, 2009, without reaching resolution.
Arbitration on liability during a portion of the alleged
restitution policy period is currently scheduled for November
2009.

LJS expects, based on the rulings issued to date in this matter,
that the Cole Arbitration will more likely than not proceed as
an "opt-out" class action, rather than as an "opt-in" collective
action.  LJS denies liability and is defending the claims in the
Cole Arbitration, according to the company's Oct. 13, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 5, 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Dec. 16 Trial Set for Judgment Bid in Moeller Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motion for summary judgment in a class-action
lawsuit styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. is scheduled
for Dec. 16, 2009.

Taco Bell is a concept of YUM! Brands, Inc.

On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in the
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On Aug.4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated
against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for
mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned
restaurants in California (the "California Restaurants")
accessible to the class.

The plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural
and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to
the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with
mobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S.
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and
the California Disabled Persons Act.

They have requested:

   (a) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell
       to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations;

   (b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of
       the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

   (c) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum
statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh
Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the
class.  They contend that there may be in excess of 100,000
individuals in the class.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The District Court certified a Rule
23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individuals
with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for
mobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, were
denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of
disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California
Restaurants.  The class includes claims for injunctive relief
and minimum statutory damages.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004,
the District Court ordered that the trial of this action be
bifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims for
equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims
for damages.  The parties are currently proceeding with the
equitable relief stage of this action.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  On
Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

The parties participated in mediation on March 25, 2008, and
again on March 26, 2009, without reaching resolution.  The court
granted Taco Bell's request for an extension to file its motion
for summary judgment on the ADA claims until Oct. 20, 2009.  A
hearing on the motion is scheduled for Dec. 16, 2009.

Taco Bell has taken certain steps to address potential
architectural and structural compliance issues at the
restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal
disability access laws, according to the company's Oct. 13, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 5, 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: "Smith" FLSA Suit v. Pizza Hut Pending in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action, Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc., is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado,
according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 5, 2009.  

The complaint, filed on July 9, 2009, alleges that Pizza Hut did
not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various
automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses
and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Blackwood Files FLSA Suit v. Pizza Hut in Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action, Sue Blackwood and Scott Lewis v. Pizza
Hut of America, Inc., was filed on Sept. 15, 2009, according to
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 5,
2009.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas.  

The Blackwood complaint alleges that delivery drivers received
insufficient reimbursement and seeks to represent a nationwide
class under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), according to the
company's Oct. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 5,
2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVANTA CORP: Shareholder Fraud Complaint Filed in E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Advanta Corp. inflated its
share price through false and misleading statements, shareholders
claim in Philadelphia Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund v.
Advanta Corp., et al., Case No. 09-cv-_____ (E.D. Pa.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/16/SCAAdvantsa.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450
          100 Penn Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: 215-561-3600

               - and -  

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: 619-231-1058


MGM MIRAGE: Diaz & Galt Files Shareholder Complaint in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Diaz & Galt, LLC has filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada seeking
class action status on behalf of those who purchased MGM Mirage
securities between August 2, 2007, and March 5, 2009, inclusive.

Any shareholder, who purchased MGM securities during the above
Class Period, may move the Court to serve as a plaintiff in this
class action.  If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must
move the Court for appointment by October 19, 2009. A lead
plaintiff is a class member who acts on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.

The Complaint charges that MGM and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that defendants made a series of materially
false and misleading statements concerning MGM's liquidity and
the prospects for the development of MGM's CityCenter. Prior to
the disclosures of the true facts, MGM insiders sold close to $90
million worth of their personally held MGM stock to the public.
As the true facts about MGM and the CityCenter leaked into the
market, the price of MGM securities declined.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October
19, 2009, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision
whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead
plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the
overall recovery for class members.

For a copy of the Complaint in Hovhannisyan v. MGM Mirage, et
al., Case No. 09-cv-02011 (D. Nev.), or for more information
contact Diaz & Galt at 877-324-6443 or visit the Law firm's Web
site at http://diazandgaltlaw.com/

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Diaz, Esq.
          DIAZ & GALT, LLC
          2820 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 28
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Telephone: 702/877-5777
          Fax: 702/877-5772

Because Mr. Hovhannisyan's case is related to Lowinger v. MGM
Mirage, et al., Case No. 09-cv-01558 (D. Nev.), he has asked his
case and all subsequent cases filed by other plaintiffs be
assigned to the Honorable Robert C. Jones.  

                            *********

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  * * *