CAR_Public/091105.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 5, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 219
  
                            Headlines

ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Tennessee
BNSF RAILWAY: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Personal Injury Claims
CA INC: Second Circuit Denies Litigant's Petition for Rehearing
CASH AMERICA: Still No Decision on Payday Loans Suit in Georgia
CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Alfeche" Lawsuit in Pa.

CASH AMERICA: "Clerk" Suit Over Pa. Lending Activities Pending
CBEYOND INC: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement Pact
EAST COAST PUBLIC ADJUSTERS: Accused of Overcharging Floridians
FASTENAL CO: Settlement of FLSA Suit Remains Subject to Approval
FREESCALE SEMICON: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Motorola Suit Pending

HALLIBURTON CO: Denied Class Status in Securities Suit on Appeal
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Suit Alleges Air Cleaner Ozone Poisoning
HORIZON LINES: Awaiting Court's Decision on Settlement Agreement
ISILON SYSTEMS: Still Awaiting Court's Final Decision on MOU
JABIL CIRCUIT: Oral Arguments for Dismissal Appear Set for Dec.

PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Accused of Cell Phone Spam in N.D. Calif.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Suits Over F.A.A. Violations Remain Pending
SUNSET HEALTH: Suit Challenges Product's Weight Loss Claims
UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Eleven Employee Overtime Suits Filed Last Week

                            *********

ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc., continues to defend a class-action suit styled Curtis
v. Alcoa Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, according to the company's Oct. 23, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In November 2006, a class action was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations
Act by requiring plaintiffs, beginning Jan. 1, 2007, to pay
health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-
insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs.

Plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care
plans violate their rights to vested health care benefits.

Plaintiffs additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its
fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to
them that their health benefits would never change.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment
of benefits, and attorneys' fees.

Alcoa has consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a class
action.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and
argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a
plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury demand, but
indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of
Sept. 17, 2008.

In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009
and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to Sept. 22, 2009.

In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an
advisory jury at trial.

Trial in the matter was held over eight days commencing
Sept. 22, 2009 and ending on Oct. 1, 2009 in federal court in
Knoxville, Tennessee before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S.
District Court Judge.

At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-hearing
briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same.

The briefing is to be complete by Dec. 4, 2009.

No schedule was set for handing down a decision.

Alcoa believes that it presented substantial evidence in support
of its defenses at trial.  However, at this stage of the
proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict the
outcome.

Alcoa estimates that, in the event of an unfavorable outcome, the
maximum exposure would be an additional postretirement benefit
liability of approximately $300 million and approximately $40
million of expense (includes an interest cost component)
annually, on average, for the next 11 years.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert S. Catapano-Friedman, Esq.
          744 Broadway
          Albany, NY 12207
          Phone: 518-463-7501
          Fax: 518-463-7502
          E-mail: katapano@gmail.com

Representing the defendant is:

          John W. Woods, Jr., Esq.
          Hunton & Williams
          951 East Byrd Street
          Riverfront Plaza East Tower
          Richmond, VA 23219-4074
          Phone: 804-788-8629
          Fax: 804-343-4794
          E-mail: jwoods@hunton.com


BNSF RAILWAY: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Personal Injury Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Co. continues to face purported class actions over
personal injury claims, including asbestos claims and employee
work-related injuries and third-party injuries.

Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to
the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
rather than state workers' compensation laws.

FELA's system of requiring the finding of fault, coupled with
unscheduled awards and reliance on the jury system, contributed
to increased expenses in past years.

Other proceedings include claims by non-employees for punitive
as well as compensatory damages.

A few proceedings purport to be class actions.

The variability present in settling these claims, including non-
employee personal injury and matters in which punitive damages
are alleged, could result in increased expenses in future years.

BNSF Railway has implemented a number of safety programs
designed to reduce the number of personal injuries as well as
the associated claims and personal injury expense.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 23, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

BNSF Railway Co. -- http://www.bnsf.com/-- formerly known as
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co., is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.  BNSF
Railway operates a railroad system in North America.


CA INC: Second Circuit Denies Litigant's Petition for Rehearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the
petition of the litigants in stockholder class-action lawsuits
against CA, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The company, its former Chairman and CEO Charles B. Wang, its
former Chairman and CEO Sanjay Kumar, its former Chief Financial
Officer Ira Zar, and its Vice Chairman and Founder Russell M.
Artzt were defendants in one or more stockholder class-action
lawsuits filed in July 1998, February 2002, and March 2002 in
the Federal Court, alleging, among other things, that a class
consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's Common
Stock during the period from Jan. 20, 1998 until July 22, 1998
were harmed by misleading statements, misrepresentations, and
omissions regarding the Company's future financial performance.

In addition, in May 2003, a class-action lawsuit captioned,
"John A. Ambler v. Computer Associates International, Inc., et
al.," was filed in the Federal Court.

The complaint in this matter, a purported class action on behalf
of the CA Savings Harvest Plan (the CASH Plan) and the
participants in, and beneficiaries of, the CASH Plan for a class
period from March 30, 1998 through May 30, 2003, asserted claims
of breach of fiduciary duty under the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The named defendants were the Company, the Company's Board of
Directors, the CASH Plan, the Administrative Committee of the
CASH Plan, and certain current or former employees and/or former
directors of the Company: Messrs. Wang, Kumar, Zar, Artzt, Peter
A. Schwartz, and Charles P. McWade; and various unidentified
alleged fiduciaries of the CASH Plan.

The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing the CASH Plan to invest in Company
securities and sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On Aug. 25, 2003, the Company announced the settlement of the
class-action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors, alleging misleading
statements, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the
Company's financial performance, as well as breaches of
fiduciary duty.

As part of the class action settlement, which was approved by
the Federal Court in December 2003, the Company agreed to issue
a total of up to 5.7 million shares of Common Stock to the
stockholders represented in the three class action lawsuits,
including payment of attorneys' fees.

The Company has completed the issuance of the settlement shares
as well as payment of US$3.3 million to the plaintiffs'
attorneys in legal fees and related expenses.

On Dec. 7, 2004, a motion to vacate the Order of Final Judgment
and Dismissal entered by the Federal Court in December 2003 in
connection with the settlement of the 1998 and 2002 stockholder
lawsuits was filed by the Wyly Litigants.

The motion sought to reopen the settlement to permit the moving
stockholders to pursue individual claims against certain present
and former officers of the Company.  The motion stated that the
moving stockholders did not seek to file claims against the
Company.

In a memorandum and order dated Aug. 2, 2007, the Federal Court
denied all of the 60(b) Motions and reaffirmed the 2003
settlements.  On Aug. 24, 2007, the Wyly Litigants filed notices
of appeal of the August 2 decision.  On Aug. 16, 2007, the
Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to amend or clarify
the August 2 decision, and the Company joined that motion.  On
Sept. 12 and Oct. 4, 2007, the Federal Court issued opinions
denying the motions to amend or clarify.  On Sept. 18, 2007, the
Wyly Litigants filed notices of appeal of the September 12
decision.  The Company filed notices of cross-appeal of the
September 12 and October 4 decisions on Nov. 2, 2007.

On July 28, 2008, the Wyly Litigants served their opening
briefs.  On Sept. 11, 2008, the Company filed its brief in
opposition to the Wyly Litigants' appeals.  Also on Sept. 11,
2008, current CA director The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato and
former CA directors Richard Grasso, Shirley Strum Kenny, Jay
Lorsch, Roel Pieper, Lewis Ranieri, Walter Schuetze, Willem F.P.
de Vogel and Charles Wang filed briefs in opposition to the Wyly
Litigants' appeals.  On Oct. 9, 2008, the Wyly Litigants filed a
reply brief in support of their appeals in the class actions.

Oral argument on the Wyly Litigants' appeals and cross-appeals
occurred on March 11, 2009, and decisions are pending.

On July 23, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a summary order affirming the August 2, September
12 and October 4, 2007 decisions of the Federal Court.  The
summary order also acknowledged that the Ranger Governance
litigation that was part of the 2004 Derivative Actions was not
before the Second Circuit and, therefore, the company could
renew its motion to dismiss and realign that had been dismissed
without prejudice in the Oct. 29, 2007.

On July 23, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the August 2,
September 12 and October 4, 2007 decisions of the Federal Court
referenced above.  The summary order also acknowledged that the
Ranger Governance litigation that was part of the 2004 Derivative
Actions was not before the Second Circuit and, therefore, the
company could renew its motion to dismiss and realign that had
been dismissed without prejudice in the October 29, 2007
decision.

On Aug. 31, 2009, Ranger and the Wyly Litigants filed petitions
for rehearing before the Second Circuit, which were denied by the
Second Circuit on October 19, 2009.

Islandia, N.Y.-based CA, Inc. -- http://www.ca.com/-- provides
tools for managing networks, databases, applications, storage,
security, and other systems.


CASH AMERICA: Still No Decision on Payday Loans Suit in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court of Cobb County, Georgia has yet to render a
decision on the propriety of class certification in a purported
class action lawsuit Cash America International, Inc., according
to the company's Oct. 22, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against
Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc.,
Daniel R. Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners
and "stakeholders" of Cash America.

The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the
most significant of which is that Cash America made illegal
payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the
Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia
residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations.

The complaint in the lawsuit claims that Cash America was the
true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers
and that CSB's involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge."

Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the
"de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.

A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America's
affirmative defenses based on arbitration (without ruling on Cash
America's previously filed motion to compel arbitration) was
upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on Sept. 24, 2007,
the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision.
The case has been returned to the State Court of Cobb County,
Georgia, where Cash America filed a motion requesting that the
trial court rule on Cash America's pending motion to compel
arbitration and stay the State Court proceedings.

The Court denied the motion to stay and ruled that the motion to
compel arbitration was rendered moot after the Court struck Cash
America's affirmative defenses based on arbitration.

The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review these orders and
remanded the case to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia.

A hearing on the propriety of class certification was held on
Oct. 13, 2009, and the Court has not yet rendered a decision.

The Court ordered that discovery directed at the merits of
Plaintiff's claims be stayed until the Court issues its written
decision regarding class certification.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/
-- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.


CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Alfeche" Lawsuit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc., continues to defend a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by Peter Alfeche, according to the
company's Oct. 22, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

On March 5, 2009, Peter Alfeche filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against Cash America International,
Inc., Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC, Cash America Net of
Pennsylvania, LLC and Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a
CashNetUSA.com.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that CashNetUSA's online
payday lending activities in Pennsylvania were illegal and not in
accordance with the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Protection Law or
the licensing requirements of the CDCA.

The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment that several of
CashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including choice of law and
arbitration provisions, are not authorized by Pennsylvania law.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees and the trebling of any compensatory damages.

CashNetUSA filed a motion to enforce the arbitration provision
located in the agreements governing the lending activities, and a
hearing on the motion was held on July 1, 2009.

On July 16, 2009, CashNetUSA filed a motion to stay the
litigation pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Stolt-
Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds, Int'l Corp., which addresses the
treatment of class action waivers in arbitration provisions under
the Federal Arbitration Act.

A hearing on the motions was held on Oct. 14, 2009, and the Court
has not rendered its decision.

The Alfeche litigation is still at an early stage.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/
-- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.


CASH AMERICA: "Clerk" Suit Over Pa. Lending Activities Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit filed by Yulon Clerk is still
pending, according to Cash America International, Inc.'s
Oct. 22, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On April 21, 2009, Yulon Clerk filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, against Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC and several
other unrelated third-party lenders.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants'
lending activities in Pennsylvania, including CashNet Nevada's
online payday lending activities in Pennsylvania, were illegal
and in violation of various Pennsylvania laws, including the Loan
Interest Protection Law, the CDCA and the Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Laws.

The complaint seeks payment of potential fines, unspecified
damages, attorney's fees and the trebling of certain damages.

The defendants removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where the lawsuit
now resides.

The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judge presiding
in the Alfeche litigation.

CashNet Nevada filed a motion with the federal court to enforce
the arbitration provision located in the agreements governing the
lending activities and has also filed a motion to stay the
litigation pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Stolt-
Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds, Int'l Corp.

A hearing on the motions was held on Oct. 14, 2009, and the Court
has not rendered its decision.

The Clerk litigation is still at an early stage, and neither the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate liability,
if any, with respect to this litigation can be determined at this
time.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/
-- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.


CBEYOND INC: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, on Oct. 16, 2009,
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement
of the consolidated stockholder derivative litigation captioned
In re Cbeyond, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.
2008CV157216, according to Cbeyond, Inc.'s Oct. 23, 2009, Form
8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, the company, the plaintiffs, and
certain of the company's former and current officers and
directors have entered into a settlement of the litigation.

The settlement is subject to final approval by the Court, which
has scheduled a hearing on Dec. 3, 2009.

Under the terms and conditions of the Stipulation, the company
will make certain corporate governance changes and the company's
primary director and officer liability insurance carrier will pay
an agreed amount of $200,000 to plaintiffs' counsel for
attorneys' fees and expenses, all subject to final Court
approval.

If the Stipulation is approved, the settling defendants will be
dismissed with prejudice from the Litigation.

Cbeyond, Inc. (NASDAQ: CBEY) -- http://www.cbeyond.net/-- is a  
leading provider of IT and communications services to more than
46,000 small businesses throughout the United States.  Recently
named as the sixth fastest growing technology company by Forbes
magazine, and added to Standard & Poor's Small Cap S&P 600 Index,
Cbeyond offers more than 30 productivity-enhancing applications
including local and long-distance voice, broadband Internet,
mobile, BlackBerry(R), broadband laptop access, voicemail, email,
web hosting, fax-to-email, data backup, file-sharing and virtual
private networking.  Cbeyond delivers these services over a 100%
private all IP network.


EAST COAST PUBLIC ADJUSTERS: Accused of Overcharging Floridians
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims East
Coast Public Adjusters charges a 33 percent settlement fee, far
more than Florida's limit of 10 percent, in Miami-Dade County
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Facciolo v. East Coast Public
Adjusters, Inc., Case No. 09 79786 CA 4 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th J.
Dist., Miami-Dade County), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/30/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          Sarah Clasby, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          HARKE & CLASBY LLP
          115 South Miami Ave., Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: 305-536-8220

               - and -  

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
          KOZYAK, TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, P.A.
          2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305-372-1800


FASTENAL CO: Settlement of FLSA Suit Remains Subject to Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a purported class-action litigation
against Fastenal Co. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and several state statutes remains subject to court
approval.

On Aug. 29, 2008, the company announced that it had reached a
preliminary agreement to settle a purported class-action lawsuit
relating to the classification of its Assistant General Managers
as exempt for purposes of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California, Oregon, and
Pennsylvania state statutes.

This suit also alleged that Assistant General Managers in
California did not receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest
periods under the California Labor Code.

While the company denies the allegations underlying the lawsuit,
it decided to enter into the settlement agreement in order to
avoid significant legal fees, the uncertainty of a jury trial,
distractions to its operations, and other expenses and
management time that would have to be devoted to protracted
litigation.  The settlement, which is still subject to court
approval, fully resolves all claims brought by the plaintiffs in
this lawsuit.

Pursuant to the settlement, the company will make a cash payment
of $10 million to cover claims by eligible class members,
plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs, and payments to the named
plaintiffs.

The expense for this settlement was recorded in the results for
the third quarter ending Sept. 30, 2008.

The expense related to this legal settlement lowered the
company's bonus payout by approximately $1.8 million for the
third quarter of 2008.  After factoring in the reduction of the
bonus payout, this legal settlement resulted in a pre-tax expense
of approximately $8.2 million for the quarter, or just over $0.03
per share (after-tax).

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 23, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Fastenal Co. -- http://www.fastenal.com-- sells industrial and
construction supplies in a wholesale and retail fashion.  As of
December 31, 2008, it operated 2,311 company-owned or leased
store locations in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada,
Mexico, Singapore, the People's Republic of China, and the
Netherlands. Fastenal's offerings are grouped into 10 product
lines: fasteners; tools and equipment; cutting tools and
abrasives; hydraulics, pneumatics, plumbing, and heating,
ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC); material handling,
storage and packaging; janitorial supplies, chemicals and
paints; electrical supplies; welding supplies; safety supplies,
and metals, alloys and materials.


FREESCALE SEMICON: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Motorola Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in the purported class-action suit,
"Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," remains pending, according to
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.'s Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Oct. 2, 2009.

A purported class action, Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was
filed against Motorola and certain of its directors, officers and
employees in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on July 21, 2003, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had improperly
permitted participants in the Motorola 401(k) Plan to purchase or
hold shares of common stock of Motorola because the price of
Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by a failure to
disclose vendor financing to Telsim in connection with the sale
of telecommunications equipment by Motorola.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of participants in the
Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held
shares of common stock of Motorola from "May 16, 2000 to the
present," and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court dismissed the
second amended complaint filed on Oct. 15, 2004.

Plaintiff filed an appeal to the dismissal on Oct. 27, 2005.

On March 19, 2007, the appeals court dismissed the appeal.

Three new purported lead plaintiffs intervened in the case, and
filed a motion for class certification seeking to represent Plan
participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased
and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000
through Dec. 31, 2002.

On September 28, 2007, the Illinois District Court granted the
motion for class certification but narrowed the requested scope
of the class.

Motorola has sought leave to appeal in the appellate court and
reconsideration in the Illinois District Court of certain aspects
of the class certification order.

On Oct. 25, 2007, the Illinois District Court modified the scope
of the class, granted summary judgment dismissing two of the
individually-named defendants in light of the narrowed class, and
ruled that the judgment as to the original named plaintiff,
Howell, would be immediately appealable.

The class as certified includes all Plan participants for whose
individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of
Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000 through May 14, 2001 with
certain exclusions.

On Feb. 15, 2008, Motorola and its codefendants filed motions for
summary judgment on all claims asserted by the class.

On Oct. 23, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit heard Motorola's interlocutory appeal of the
District Court's order certifying the class.

On June 17, 2009, the district court granted defendants' motions
for summary judgment on all claims.  This ruling rendered moot
the interlocutory appeals current before the Seventh Circuit.

The plaintiffs have appealed the June 17, 2009 ruling of the
district court.

As a result of the terms of its separation from Motorola, it is
possible that Freescale could be held responsible to Motorola for
a portion of any judgment or settlement in this matter.

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. -- http://www.freescale.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of
semiconductor products that are based on its core capabilities
in embedded processing.  The Company's product portfolio are
Microcontroller Solutions; Networking and Multimedia; Cellular
Products, and Radio Frequency, Analog and Sensors.


HALLIBURTON CO: Denied Class Status in Securities Suit on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas' denial of a
class-action status to a case against Halliburton Co. over
securities law violations is on appeal.

The class-action suit was filed in June 2002, against the
company with the federal court on behalf of purchasers of its
common stock during the period starting approximately May 1998
until approximately May 2002.  The suit alleges violations of
the federal securities laws in connection with the accounting
change and disclosures involved in the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission investigation.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated
its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not
reasonably estimable or probable of collection, the report
notes.

In the weeks that followed the suit filing, approximately 20
similar class actions were commenced against the company.
Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP -- the company's independent accountants for the
period covered by the lawsuits -- and several of the company's
present or former officers and directors: David J. Lesar,
Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore,
Jr.

The class-action suits were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, entitled "Richard Moore, et
al. v. Halliburton Co., et al.," was filed and served upon the
company in April 2003.  However, as a result of a later
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled,
"Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton
Company, et al."

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court.  In addition to restating the original accounting
and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of Halliburton's 1998 acquisition of
Dresser Industries, Inc., including that the company failed to
timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

                      Settlement Attempts

According to Reuters, a memorandum of understanding contemplated
settlement of the Dresser claims as well as the original claims.

In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement.  Following the transfer of the case to another
district judge, the court held that evidence of the settlement's
fairness was inadequate, denied the motion for final approval of
the settlement, and ordered the parties to mediate.  The
mediation was unsuccessful.

                       Motion to Dismiss

Reuters recalls that in April 2005, the court appointed new co-
lead counsel and named AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing
that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that the
company file a motion  to dismiss.  The court held oral
arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court
took the motion under advisement.

In March 2006, the report relates, the court entered an order in
which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims
arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect
to certain other claims while permitting AMSF to replead some of
those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.

AMSF then filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint.  The
company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been replead.  A hearing was held on that
motion in July 2006, and in March 2007, the court ordered
dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other
than the company's CEO.

The court ordered that the case proceed against Haliburton and
the company's CEO.

In June 2007, upon becoming aware of a U.S. Supreme Court
opinion issued in that month, the court allowed further briefing
on the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the company's CEO.
The court again denied the motion to dismiss in March 2008.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the company's response was filed in November 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2008).

According to Reuters, the court decided that the lead plaintiff
will have to pursue on its own the lawsuit, which claims
Halliburton defrauded investors through questionable accounting
practices from 1998 to 2001.

The U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas will
elaborate by Nov. 3, 2008, when the plaintiffs will have the
option to file motions for reconsideration or an appeal, Reuters
further relates, citing Halliburton, which has headquarters in
Houston and Dubai (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 2, 2008).

The court issued an order Nov. 3, 2008 denying AMSF's motion for
class certification.  AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals requesting permission to appeal the
district court's order denying class certification.  The Fifth
Circuit granted AMSF's motion and the order denying class
certification is currently on appeal.  The case will remain
stayed in the district court pending the outcome of the appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 23, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The suit is The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 02-cv-01152 (N.D.
Tex.) (Lynn, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: rschiffrin@sbtklaw.com

               - and -  

         Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
         Stanley Mandel & Iola
         3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
         Dallas, TX 75205
         Phone: 214-443-4301
         Fax: 214-443-0358
         Email: mstanley@smi-law.com

              - and -

         Thomas Burt, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4600

Representing the company is:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Suit Alleges Air Cleaner Ozone Poisoning
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Honeywell F300 Electronic
Air Cleaner poisoned a woman with ozone, giving her a litany of
fatiguing diseases, she says in a class action in Nashville
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Bearden, et ux. v. Honeywell
International Inc., Case No. 09-cv-01035 (M.D. Tenn.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/30/CCAHoneywell.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael G. Stewart, Esq.
          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          227 Second Avenue North, 4th Floor
          Nashville, TN 37201-1631
          Telephone: 615/254-8801


HORIZON LINES: Awaiting Court's Decision on Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc. is still awaiting the decision of the
District Court of Puerto Rico on the settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs in the price-fixing class-action complaints,
according to the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 20, 2009.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida seeking information regarding an
investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice into possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean
shipping business.  Subsequently, the DOJ expanded the timeframe
covered by the subpoena.

The company is currently providing documents to the DOJ in
response to the subpoena. The company intends to cooperate fully
with the DOJ in its investigation. The company has entered into a
conditional amnesty agreement with the DOJ under its Corporate
Leniency Policy.  The amnesty agreement pertains to a single
contract relating to ocean shipping services provided to the
United States Department of Defense.  The DOJ has agreed to not
bring any criminal prosecution with respect to that government
contract as long as the company, among other things, continues
its full cooperation in the investigation.  The amnesty does not
bar a claim for damages that may be sought by the DOJ under any
applicable federal law or regulation.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, a number
of purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company
and other domestic shipping carriers.

Fifty-seven cases have been filed in these federal district
courts:

     -- eight in the Southern District of Florida,
     -- six in the Middle District of Florida,
     -- twenty in the District of Puerto Rico,
     -- eleven in the Northern District of California,
     -- two in the Central District of California,
     -- one in the District of Oregon,
     -- eight in the Western District of Washington, and
     -- one in the District of Alaska.

Nineteen of the foregoing district court cases that related to
ocean shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane were
consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation proceeding in
the District of Puerto Rico.  All of the foregoing district court
cases that related to ocean shipping services in the Hawaii and
Guam tradelanes were consolidated into MDL proceedings in the
Western District of Washington.

One district court case remains in the District of Alaska,
relating to the Alaska tradelane.

Each of the federal district court cases purports to be on behalf
of a class of individuals and entities who directly, or
indirectly in one case, purchased domestic ocean shipping
services from the various domestic ocean carriers.  The
complaints allege price-fixing in violation of the Sherman Act
and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an
injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct.

On June 11, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in the Puerto Rico MDL litigation.

Under the settlement agreement, which is subject to Court
approval, the Company has agreed to pay $20.0 million and to
certain base-rate freezes to resolve claims for alleged antitrust
violations in the Puerto Rico tradelane.

The Company paid $5.0 million into an escrow account pursuant to
the terms of the settlement agreement and will be required to pay
$5.0 million within 90 days after preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement by the district court and $10.0 million
within five business days after final approval of the settlement
agreement by the district court.

The base-rate freeze component of the settlement agreement
provides that class members who have contracts in the Puerto Rico
trade with the company as of the effective date of the final
settlement agreement would have the option, in lieu of receiving
cash, to have their "base rates" frozen for a period of two
years.  The base-rate freeze would run for two years from the
expiration of the contract in effect on the effective date of the
final settlement agreement.  All class members would be eligible
to share in the $20.0 million cash component, but only contract
customers of the company would be eligible to elect the base-rate
freeze in lieu of receiving cash.

The company has the right to terminate the settlement agreement
under certain circumstances.

On July 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement in the Puerto Rico MDL
litigation.

An initial hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement was held on Sept. 14, 2009, where the Court
heard the objections of certain non-settling defendants.

On Oct. 20, 2009, the Court resumed the hearing for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement and the Company is awaiting
the Court's decision.

On March 20, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
claims in the Hawaii and Guam MDL litigation.  The plaintiffs
filed a response to the company's motion to dismiss on April 20,
2009, and the company filed a reply on May 8, 2009.

On Aug. 18, 2009, the District Court for the Western District of
Washington entered an order dismissing, without prejudice, the
Hawaii and Guam MDL litigation.  In dismissing the complaint,
however, the plaintiffs were granted 30 days to amend their
complaint, and the company and the plaintiffs agreed to extend
the time to file an amended complaint to Nov. 16, 2009.

The Company and the plaintiffs have agreed to stay discovery in
the Alaska MDL litigation.

Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly
known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and
integrated logistics company.  The company's subsidiaries
include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC
(Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.
(HLPR).  With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones
Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the
company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets.
The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon
Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking
operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated
logistics services including relationships with third-party
truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets.  It
ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from
foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household
goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials
used in manufacturing.


ISILON SYSTEMS: Still Awaiting Court's Final Decision on MOU
------------------------------------------------------------
Isilon Systems, Inc., is still awaiting the decision of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on the
memorandum of understanding to settle and resolve the shareholder
class action lawsuit captioned Youakim v. Isilon Systems, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-cv-01764 (W.D. Wash.)
(Pechman, J.), according to the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Nov. 1, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Isilon and certain of its current and former directors
and officers.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.

Substantially similar complaints were filed later in the same
court and all of these cases were subsequently consolidated.

On April 18, 2008, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against Isilon, certain of its current and former
directors and officers, underwriters, and venture capital firms.  

The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's stock during the period Dec. 16, 2006 to Oct. 3, 2007.  

Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus in connection with the company's
Dec. 16, 2006 initial public offering and by thereafter
misrepresenting its current and prospective business and
financial results, thereby causing the company's stock price to
be artificially inflated during the purported class period.  

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

On Sept. 30, 2008, Isilon and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  Oral argument on the
defendants' motions was heard on Dec. 16, 2008, and a decision
was issued on Dec. 29, 2008 granting in part and denying in part
the motions.

All claims against defendants Sequoia Capital (and related
entities), Atlas Venture (and related entities) and Madrona
Venture Group LLC were dismissed.

The Section 12 claims were dismissed as against defendants
Isilon, the company's former CEO Steven Goldman, and its former
CFO Stuart Fuhlendorf, as were the Section 10(b) claims against
Isilon directors William Ruckelshaus and Matthew McIlwain.

The Court denied the remainder of the defendants' motions.

All remaining defendants filed answers to the complaint on
Jan. 30, 2009.

On Sept. 21, 2009, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the other parties to settle and resolve the
class action.

The settlement provides for a payment to the plaintiff class of
$15.0 million, of which Isilon will contribute $2.0 million and
the balance will be paid by our insurers.

The class action settlement is subject to preliminary and,
following notice to class members, final approval by the Court.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Karl Phillip Barth, Esq.
          Lovell Mitchell & Barth
          11542 NE 21st Street, Ste. A
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Phone: 425-452-9800
          E-mail: kbarth@lmbllp.com

               - and -

          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC
          1933 18th Street NW, Ste. 303
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          E-mail: mhandley@cmht.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Rd.
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 415-493-9300
          E-mail: jbirn@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Seth Aronson, Esq.
          O'Melveny & Myers
          400 S. Hope St., Ste. 1050
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Phone: 213-430-6000
          E-mail: saronson@omm.com

Isilon Systems (Nasdaq: ISLN) -- http://www.isilon.com/-- calls   
itself the proven leader in scale-out NAS.  Isilon's clustered
storage and data management solutions drive unique business value
for customers by maximizing the performance of their mission-
critical applications, workflows, and processes.  Isilon enables
enterprises and research organizations worldwide to manage large
and rapidly growing amounts of file-based data in a highly
scalable, easy-to-manage, and cost-effective way.


JABIL CIRCUIT: Oral Arguments for Dismissal Appear Set for Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments for the Second Amended Class Action Complaint
against Jabil Circuit, Inc., has been set for December 2009,
according to the company's Oct. 22, 2009, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Aug. 31, 2009

On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division against the company and various present and former
officers and directors, including:

    1. Forbes I.J. Alexander,
    2. Scott D. Brown,
    3. Laurence S. Grafstein,
    4. Mel S. Lavitt,
    5. Chris Lewis,
    6. Timothy Main,
    7. Mark T. Mondello,
    8. William D. Morean,
    9. Lawrence J. Murphy,
   10. Frank A. Newman,
   11. Steven A. Raymund,
   12. Thomas A. Sansone, and
   13. Kathleen A. Walters.

on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs comprised of persons
that purchased the copany's shares between Sept. 19, 2001 and
June 21, 2006.

A second putative class action, containing virtually identical
legal claims and allegations of fact was filed on Oct. 12, 2006.

The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and on
Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust
Fund for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for Operating
Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action.

On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is purported to be
brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's
publicly traded securities between Sept. 19, 2001 and Dec. 21,
2006, and names the company and certain of its current and former
officers, including Forbes I.J. Alexander, Scott D. Brown, Wesley
B. Edwards, Chris A. Lewis, Mark T. Mondello, Robert L. Paver and
Ronald J. Rapp, as well as certain of our directors, Mel S.
Lavitt, William D. Morean, Frank A. Newman, Laurence S.
Grafstein, Steven A. Raymund, Lawrence J. Murphy, Kathleen A.
Walters and Thomas A. Sansone, as defendants.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and the
rules promulgated thereunder.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged that the
defendants engaged in a scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant
dates of options for various senior officers and directors,
causing the company's consolidated financial statements to
understate management compensation and overstate net earnings,
thereby inflating the stock price.

In addition, the complaint alleged that the company's proxy
statements falsely stated that the company had adhered to its
option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of
the company's shares on the trading date immediately prior to the
date of the grant.  Also, the complaint alleged that the
defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and circumstances
that led the company , on June 12, 2006, to announce that it was
lowering its prior guidance for net earnings for the third
quarter of fiscal year 2006.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserting claims
substantially similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
it replaced but adding additional allegations relating to the
restatement of earnings previously announced in connection with
the correction of errors in the calculation of compensation
expense for certain stock option grants.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 29, 2007.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and
the company then filed a reply memorandum in further support of
its motion to dismiss on Sept. 28, 2007.

On April 9, 2008, the Court dismissed the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint without prejudice and with
leave to amend such complaint on or before May 12, 2008.

On May 12, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserts substantially
the same causes of action against the same defendants, predicated
largely on the same allegations of fact as in the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint except insofar as the
plaintiffs added KPMG LLP, the company's independent registered
public accounting firm, as a defendant and added additional
allegations with respect to:

    (a) pre-class period option grants,

    (b) the professional background of certain defendants,

    (c) option grants to non-executive employees,

    (d) the restatement of our financial results for certain
        periods between 1996 and 2005 and

    (e) trading by the named plaintiffs and certain of the
        defendants during the class period.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint also includes an
additional claim for insider trading against certain defendants
pursuant to Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 promulgated pursuant to the
Exchange Act.  The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On Jan. 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed this dismissal on Feb. 20, 2009, and the
Second Amended Class Action Complaint has been set for oral
arguments in December 2009.

The suit is Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil
Circuit, Inc. et al., Case No. 06-cv-01716 (M.D. Fla.) (Merryday,
J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William E. Hoese
         Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
         1101 Market St., Suite 2400
         Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
         Phone: 215-238-1700
         E-mail: whoese@kohnswift.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Chapman, Esq.
         Holland & Knight, LLP
         100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 4100, PO Box 1288
         Tampa, FL 33601-1288
         Phone: 813-227-8500
         Fax: 813-229-0134
         E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Accused of Cell Phone Spam in N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Payless Shoesource,
Collective Brands, and Mobile Broadcast Corp. dba VMBC sent spam
text messages for which cell phone customers had to pay, a class
action claims in San Francisco Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Kazemi v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., et
al., Case No. 09-cv-5142 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/30/Spam.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John G. Jacobs, Esq.
          Bryan G. Kolton, Esq.
          THE JACOBS LAW FIRM, CHTD.
          122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-427-4000

               - and -  

          Jeffrey F. Keller, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER, LLP
          425 Second Street, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: 415-543-1305


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Suits Over F.A.A. Violations Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. continues to defend two purported class-
action lawsuits over alleged violations of Federal Aviation
Administration safety regulations.

During the first quarter and early second quarter of 2008, the
company was named as a defendant in two putative class actions on
behalf of persons who purchased air travel from the Company while
the company was allegedly in violation of FAA safety regulations.

Claims alleged by the plaintiffs in these two putative class
actions include breach of contract, breach of warranty,
fraud/misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and negligent and
reckless operation of an aircraft.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 22, 2009,
Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the U.S.  Southwest predominantly serves short-haul routes with
high frequencies.  It complements this service with more medium
to long-haul routes, including transcontinental service.


SUNSET HEALTH: Suit Challenges Product's Weight Loss Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sunset Health Products
falsely claims its "48-hour Miracle Diet," can make a person
"los[e] up to 10 pounds in 48 hours!" a class action claims in
Los Angeles Superior Court.


UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corp. continues to defend a putative class action
complaint captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light
Company, according to the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Fitchburg Gas is the company's wholly owned distribution utility
that provides both electric and natural gas service in the
greater Fitchburg area of north central Massachusetts.

A putative class action Complaint was filed against Fitchburg on
January 7, 2009 in Worcester Superior Court in Worcester,
Massachusetts.

On April 1, 2009 an Amended Complaint was filed in Worcester
Superior Court and served on Fitchburg.

The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages
including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel
sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property
damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the
loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's
service territory in December 2008.

The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for
purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the
December 2008 Storm.

On Sept. 4, 2009, the Superior Court issued its order on the
company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part
and denying it in part.

Unitil Corp. -- http://www.unitil.com/-- is a public utility
holding company. Unitil's principal business is the retail
distribution of both electricity and natural gas in New
Hampshire and Massachusetts, and the retail distribution of
natural gas in Maine.  Unitil has three retail distribution
utility subsidiaries: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., Fitchburg Gas
and Electric Light Company, and Northern Utilities, Inc.
(Northern).  Unitil's retail distribution utilities serve
approximately 170,000 customers in their franchise areas.
Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. (Granite State), an
interstate natural gas transmission pipeline company, was
acquired by Unitil, along with Northern, from NiSource Inc. in
December 2008.  Unitil also provides energy brokering and
advisory services to large commercial and industrial customers
throughout the northeastern United States through its non-
regulated business segment, Unitil Resources, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Usource, LLC.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Eleven Employee Overtime Suits Filed Last Week
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Waste Management Inc. faces
federal class action overtime complaints in 11 states: Illinois,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Kansas, New Mexico and Alabama.  All were
filed this week.

Waste Management of Illinois was sued in Chicago; Waste
Management of Wisconsin in Milwaukee; Waste Management of
Michigan in Detroit; Waste Management of Massachusetts in Boston;
Waste Management of New Jersey in Newark; Waste Management of New
Hampshire in Concord; Waste Management of Kentucky in Louisville;
Waste Management of Tennessee in Jackson; Waste Management of
Kansas in Kansas City; Waste Management of New Mexico in
Albuquerque; and Waste Management of Alabama in Birmingham.

A copy of the Complaint in Kirk, et al. v. Waste Management,
Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-0124 (E.D. Wisc.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/30/WasteMgmt.pdf

The Wisconsin Plaintiffs indicate that they were "opt-in"
plaintiffs in Saleen, et al. v. Waste Management, Inc., Case No.
08-cv-4959 (D. Minn.).  

The Wisconsin Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Schug, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-256-3200

                            *********

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  * * *