CAR_Public/091125.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 25, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 233
  
                            Headlines

BRAIN RESEARCH: Class Action Target Sues Law Firm for Defamation
CHINESE DRYWALL: CPSC Sees Strong Drywall-Corrosion Association
CITYSEARCH: C.D. Calif. Certifies Click-Fraud Claimants Class
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settles Mass Arrest Case for $13.7 Million
HASEKO HOMES: Complaint Alleged Hurricane Straps Don't Work

LAURA HESS: Debt Settlement Scam Victims See Initial 25% Recovery
LUZERNE COUNTY: "Kids for Cash" Judges Win Partial Civil Immunity
MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Appeal of Bateman Certification Ruling Pending
NEUROMETRIX INC: Motion to Dismiss Suit Remains Pending in Mass.
O'REILLY AUTO PARTS: Accused of Shortchanging Customer Refunds

PFIZER INC: Pa. Super. Ct. Mulls Neurontin Class Decertification
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Lawyers Launch Web Site to Solicit Claimants
RETALIX LTD: Shareholder Agrees to Dismiss E.D. Tex. Lawsuit
RONCO ACQUISITION: Accused in N.J. Suit of Inflated Shipping Fees
SELECT COMFORT: Continues to Defend vs. Product Liability Suit

SIRIUS XM: S.D.N.Y. Suit Complains About Deceptive $2 Admin Fee
SONY ELECTRONICS: Calif. Suit Says VAIO Touchpads are Defective
STORK CRAFT: Recalls 2.1 Million Drop-Side Cribs
SUNAIR CORP: Shareholders Want More Money in Massey Transaction
TRAILER BRIDGE: Wants Amended Class Action Complaint Dismissed

UNITED STATES: Telephone Tax Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss
URS CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Suit on Industrial Canal Work
VCG HOLDING: Continues to Defend Zajkowski Suit in Minnesota
VERTRO INC: Decision on Magistrate Judge's Report Still Pending

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CARTER'S INC: Finkelstein Files Shareholder Suit in N.D. Ga.

                            *********

BRAIN RESEARCH: Class Action Target Sues Law Firm for Defamation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Moser at The Recorder reports that soon after filing a class
action last spring against the maker of a dietary supplement
called Procera AVH, Thomas Clarke, Jr., Esq., a partner in the
San Francisco office of Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, uploaded
a video on YouTube about the class action and talked to a
television reporter for a news story about the litigation.

Now, Brain Research Labs, the defendant in that class action, has
sued Mr. Clarke and his law firm, as well as the plaintiff named
in the complaint, saying their comments on TV and the Internet
are defamatory and have hurt the company's business.  In a
hearing last week on a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the
company's lawyers painted Mr. Clarke as an attorney who'd gone
too far.

"We're here in a court of law to provide justice, to understand
when a lawyer crosses the line," John Younesi, Esq., of Los
Angeles firm Younesi & Yoss, told San Francisco Superior Court
Judge Harold Kahn.

The line Mr. Clarke crossed, Mr. Younesi argued in court, was to
accuse his client of being a thief and a killer, and to say that
human trials have proven Procera ineffective.

But one of Mr. Clarke's lawyers said it's "shocking" that Brain
Research Labs would try to chill a valid filing of a lawsuit by
suing the lawyer involved.  "It's a rather remarkable use of
litigation in an attempt to thwart a lawyer and his client's
efforts to pursue a class action," said James Wagstaffe, Esq., of
San Francisco firm Kerr & Wagstaffe, who was there arguing for
Mr. Clarke as well as for Ropers Majeski.

The motion to strike the complaint as a SLAPP, or a strategic
lawsuit against public participation, was argued primarily by
Jacqueline Scott Corley, Esq., who joined Kerr & Wagstaffe as a
partner at the end of September after clerking for 12 years for
Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District.  Zachary
Rothenberg, Esq., of Santa Monica, Calif., firm Grodsky & Olecki,
argued on behalf of the name plaintiff from the underlying suit.

Interviewed by phone, Mr. Clarke said he was surprised that Brain
Research Labs thought the "tactic" of suing him would work.  "I
think that their attorneys have, unfortunately, done them a great
disservice by letting them think they had a chance at this," he
said.

But Mr. Younesi said the only way to "promote justice" in this
case is to give his client its day in court: "Otherwise, a lawyer
could be able to say virtually anything he wants to say and hide
behind a statute."

The complaint -- a copy of which is available at no charge at
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/defamation1123.pdf-- against Mr.   
Clarke argues that Clarke defamed the company on TV and in his
nine-minute YouTube video.  The complaint in Brain Research Labs
LLC v. Clarke, Case No. CGC-09-491932 (Calif. Super Ct., San
Francisco Cty.), quotes at length from the video, in which Clarke
broadly uses words like "scam artists," and says the makers of
Procera sell unsuspecting customers a product that doesn't work.

"In 25 years of practice, I've never seen a lawyer go on record
to mock somebody in the way that he did," Mr. Younesi said,
adding that Mr. Clarke's audience for the video, which had been
viewed about a thousand times as of last week, goes beyond
potential litigants.

While Judge Kahn said at the beginning of the hearing that he was
still "not sure" which way to rule, toward the end, most of his
tough questions were for Brain Research Labs' lawyers.

For instance, he asked whether Mr. Clarke might have been within
bounds in trying to reach class members: "Why isn't this Mr.
Clarke a little artfully, maybe a lot rudely, shaking the trees?"

Younesi & Yoss seemed to argue that Clarke's chosen medium was at
the heart of the problem: "To do it in the way that Mr. Clarke
did it was very insidious, because he reached across continents,"
Mr. Younesi said.

Mr. Wagstaffe said the law regardless protects a lawyer's ability
to reach out to witnesses and litigants.

"The law doesn't change simply because there's a new
communication technique used," he said.

While Mr. Yoss argued that the anti-SLAPP motion should be denied
because Clarke's statements went "beyond any purpose that is in
the class action," her partner made a loftier argument that
Clarke shouldn't be able to make statements that damaged the
supplement maker with impunity. Later Mr. Younesi said Mr. Clarke
"picked on a particularly vulnerable industry -- the supplement
industry," adding that it's unfair "when you deep-sea fish for
clients and you scam people by saying things that aren't true."

But Mr. Clarke's defense lawyers argued in their motion that the
lawsuit is a "quintessential" SLAPP lawsuit and a "meritless"
defamation suit.

"Ropers, Majeski is one of the most prominent and highly regarded
law firms in the country," Mr. Wagstaffe said after the hearing.
"They are being sued for what presumably would be for millions of
dollars because they described a lawsuit to a television reporter
in a news story about it, and for going on YouTube. . . .  That's
shocking to us."

Judge Kahn commended the lawyers on both sides for well-prepared
arguments and said he'd rule "as soon as I'm able to do so."


CHINESE DRYWALL: CPSC Sees Strong Drywall-Corrosion Association
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Skoloff, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
federal government says it finds a "strong association" between
problematic imported Chinese drywall and corrosion of pipes and
wires, a conclusion that supports complaints by thousands of
homeowners over the last year.

The report -- see http://www.cpsc.gov/info/drywall/index.html--
is the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's second one on
the potentially defective building materials.

The commission said its investigation also has found a "possible"
link between health problems reported by homeowners and hydrogen
sulfide gas emitted from the wallboard coupled with formaldehyde,
which is commonly found in new houses.

Millions of pounds of cheap Chinese-made drywall were imported
and used in new homes in the U.S. at the height of the U.S.
housing boom from 2004-2008, Mr. Skoloff relates.  


CITYSEARCH: C.D. Calif. Certifies Click-Fraud Claimants Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dealing a blow to IAC, Wendy Davis at Online Media Daily reports,
a federal judge has decided that disgruntled online marketers can
proceed with a class-action click-fraud lawsuit against the
company.

U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder in Los Angeles ruled
that the search marketers could be certified as a class because
their complaints against IAC stemmed from the same type of
alleged conduct.

"Plaintiffs advertised using Citysearch's pay-per-click
advertising program and were allegedly charged by Citysearch for
invalid clicks," Judge Snyder wrote.  "Notwithstanding any
asserted differences between class members, plaintiffs' claims
are based on an alleged common course of conduct."

The class includes all pay-per-click marketers on Citysearch who
"experienced click fraud by reason of double clicks" -- clicks
within a short period of time from the same IP address -- or from
Citysearch's "failure to apply automatic filters to traffic from
its syndication partners" before March 23, 2007.

Barry Diller's IAC had opposed the marketers' efforts to proceed
as a class, arguing that "each advertiser's expectations of and
experience with Citysearch are unique."

This decision appears to mark the first time a judge has ruled on
a contested motion to certify a class in a click-fraud lawsuit
stemming from pay-per-click ads.  While Google and Yahoo have
both faced class-action click-fraud lawsuits, those cases were
resolved without litigation about whether a class should be
certified, according to:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, LLP
          Engine Company No. 28 Building
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-217-5000

who represents the marketers in the lawsuit against IAC, and has
also represented search marketers in class-actions against Google
and Yahoo.

Whether a class can be certified is key in these types of cases
because individual marketers' damages from click fraud are
usually too small to justify the expense of suing, unless they
can proceed as a class.

The two advertisers who brought the case, make-up services
company Menagerie Productions and payroll company Redwolf,
alleged that they were billed for clicks that were "invalid."
They said that in some cases, Citysearch charged them for more
than one click from the same IP address in a short period of
time.  They also alleged that IAC did not apply filters to screen
out suspicious clicks.

Menagerie alleged that it shelled out $1,900 in a three-month
period for pay-per-click ads on Citysearch without receiving any
new clients.  Redwolf said it paid $700 over a five-month period
and also didn't see any new business as a result of the ads.

Mr. Kabateck said the case could go to trial next year, unless it
settles.  "Hopefully, Citysearch will make things right with
their customers," he said.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settles Mass Arrest Case for $13.7 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Weissmann at The National Law Journal reports that the
District of Columbia has agreed to pay $13.7 million to settle a
class action suit brought by protesters arrested during a
demonstration in 2000, lawyers in the case announced in court
Monday.

Lawyers for the protesters said it would be the largest amount
ever paid in the U.S. to compensate protesters who were
wrongfully arrested. The plaintiffs alleged that police officers
detained nearly 700 people attending an April 15, 2000, march
against "the prison industrial complex," which was timed to
overlap with an IMF/World Bank meeting. Many of those arrested
were tied up for long periods of time, they said.

"It sends a message to every city and every law enforcement
officer that there is going to be a steep price to pay for
violating protesters' First Amendment rights," said Mara
Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice, which
filed the suit in 2001.

Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard said she believed that U.S. District Judge
Paul Friedman's decision to set a trial date had pushed the
District to settle.

"Faced with the reality of trial and a potentially huge loss, the
district was able to come to the table," she said.

The case is the second major protester suit the District has
settled in recent weeks. It agreed earlier this month to pay
$450,000 to eight individuals who were allegedly interrogated by
police during a 2002 demonstration related to the Iraq War.


HASEKO HOMES: Complaint Alleged Hurricane Straps Don't Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action in O'ahu
Circuit Court claims these defendants' hurricane straps do not
properly secure homes to the foundation: Haseko Homes, Haseko
Construction, Ke Noho Kai Development, Spinnaker Place
Development, Simpson Manufacturing Co., and Simpson Strong-Tie
Co.

A copy of the Complaint in Alvarez, et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc.,
et al., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 (Hawaii Cir. Ct., 1st Cir.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/19/Construct.pdf

The Plaintiffs -- a long list of them -- are represented by:

          Melvin Y. Agena, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN Y. AGENA
          828 Fort Street Mall, Suite 320
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: 808-536-6647

               - and -  

          Glenn K. Sato, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GLENN K. SATO
          888 Mililani St., PH 1
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: 808-537-1625


LAURA HESS: Debt Settlement Scam Victims See Initial 25% Recovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay at the Daily Business Review reports that Victims of an
alleged debt settlement scam run by a Coral Springs, Fla., law
firm will get $13.6 million, or 25 percent of their losses.

Broward Circuit Judge Ronald J. Rothschild approved the
receiver's motion in Office of Attorney General v. Laura L. Hess,
Esq., Laura Hess & Associates, P.A., Hess Kennedy Chartered LLDC,
and The Consumer Law Center, LLC, Case No. 08-007686 08 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., 17th J. Dist., Broward Cty.), covering claims against
the Hess Kennedy firm and affiliated companies. On Friday, he
ordered checks to be distributed to about 20,000 claimants by
Dec. 31.

"The attorney general's office and the receiver in this case were
very diligent," Judge Rothschild said.

After receiving numerous complaints, the Florida Attorney General
Bill McCollum filed suit last year against Hess Kennedy, which
had offices in Coral Springs, Orlando and New York, and related
entities.  The complaint alleged violations of the state
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and sought the
appointment of a receiver.  No criminal charges have been filed.

Hess Kennedy marketed debt settlement and debt management
services nationally, offering clients the option of paying a
fraction of their debt if they agreed to pay attorney fees up
front. The firm claimed to have deals with major credit card
companies to get debt slashed 30 percent to 55 percent.  Despite
the firm's name, no attorney named Kennedy worked there.

Unbenownst to clients, the attorney general's office claimed the
firm never paid credit card debt as promised.  Most were
surprised to find they were being sued.

The law firm was closed in October 2008, and lead lawyer Laura
Hess was suspended by The Florida Bar for five years in January.

Daniel Stermer of Development Specialists in Miami took on the
job of receiver in July 2008, and Rene Harrod, Esq., a partner
with Berger Singerman in Fort Lauderdale, served as receiver's
counsel.

The two were stunned to find more than 90,000 current and former
clients.  More than 20,000 wound up filing claims totaling more
than $100 million.

So far, Mr. Stermer has recovered $18 million in firm assets and
is now going after $50 million in third-party claims.

Those involve advertisers and marketers who allegedly received
fees for client referrals.  The pair filed more than a dozen
lawsuits against these companies seeking million.

Mr. Stermer persuaded three credit card companies -- Capital One,
HSBC and Chase -- to forgive $150 million in credit card debt and
erase negative information on consumer credit reports.  The Hess
Kennedy operation began to unravel after Chase came forward and
sued the firm in March 2008.  The lawsuit claimed Chase credit
card customers were urged by the law firm to falsely claim
nonexistent billing errors on monthly statements to avoid payment
or have the debt erased.

Judge Rothschild called the credit card company aspect of the
settlement "a huge wrinkle" and said he had never heard of
receivers accomplishing that.


LUZERNE COUNTY: "Kids for Cash" Judges Win Partial Civil Immunity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Strupczewski at The Legal Intelligencer reports that two
former Luzerne County, Pa., judges who are facing federal
criminal charges have been granted partial immunity in a civil
suit brought by a class of juveniles who claim their rights were
violated in the wake of the Luzerne County judicial scandal.

Writing that judicial immunity does not operate on a "sliding
scale," U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo has ruled, in
Wallace, et al. v. Powell, et al., Case No. 09-cv-00286 (M.D.
Pa.), that Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., are
protected by immunity from facing legal action for their
courtroom acts.

"The degree of corrupt behavior is not the touchstone of the
immunity doctrine's application," Judge Caputo wrote.  "The
doctrine holds that judges with bad intentions, as well as those
with good intentions, are immune from suit."  The ruling is a
blow to the juveniles.

Messrs. Conahan and Ciavarella are facing a 48-count racketeering
indictment for allegedly accepting $2.8 million from the builder
and former co-owner of private juvenile detention facilities.
Both federal investigators and attorneys for the juveniles have
alleged those payments motivated the judges to send children to
those facilities.

While Judge Caputo's ruling does not put an end to the
litigation, it does mean that Mr. Ciavarella will escape
liability "for the vast majority of his conduct in this action,"
Judge Caputo said.

Mr. Ciavarella, the juvenile delinquency court judge during the
time frame noted in the suit, allowed more than half of the
juveniles who appeared before him to do so without representation
or a proper colloquy.  He is the judge who sentenced the
juveniles in the suit.

Judge Caputo wrote that he recognized his decision was "against
the popular will," but defended his ruling throughout his 26-page
memorandum and order.

The doctrine of judicial immunity, he wrote, is grounded in the
notion that all judgments are final, judicial independence must
be protected, sincere judges should be protected from continual
legal action and the justice system is to be protected from
falling into disrepute.

Such notions have been around since the days of Lord Coke, the
former chief justice of England, Judge Caputo wrote, and are "as
valid today as they were four hundred years ago."  "Subjecting
judges to a determination of the existence of good faith on a
case by case basis is not desirable," Judge Caputo wrote.  "It
would create chaos and undermine judicial independence.  It would
eliminate the finality of judgments and destroy public confidence
in the judiciary.  Every decision by every judge would be subject
to attack (in court) on the basis that it was not an honest
mistake."  In reaching his decision, Judge Caputo cited four U.S.
Supreme Court cases that have addressed judicial immunity in the
past.

The plaintiffs, led by the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law
Center, had argued from the beginning that neither Messrs.
Conahan nor Ciavarella should be granted immunity because their
acts were so far outside the norm.

Mr. Ciavarella's corruption, the JLC argued, was so egregious
that he was not acting as a judge while he was adjudicating
juveniles delinquent and sentencing them.

Judge Caputo rejected that argument, citing Forrester v. White,
484 U.S. 219, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988).

In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote that a judicial act
"does not become less judicial by virtue of an allegation of
malice or corruption of motive."  Judge Caputo continued his
analysis, writing that the U.S. Supreme Court's 1978 decision in
Stump v. Sparkman held that the question concerning judicial
immunity is not related to the intent of a judge or the extent of
the judge's error.

"The only question is objectively whether the alleged action is
one that traditionally a judge would perform or that the parties
expected would come from the judge in an official capacity,"
Judge Caputo wrote.

Judge Caputo also wrote in his opinion that both Messrs. Conahan
and Ciavarella still face liability -- just not as much as
before.

"For example, Mr. Conahan's signing of a 'Placement Agreement'
would be an administrative, not judicial act," Mr. Caputo wrote.
"Similarly, any acts in making budget requests to the Luzerne
County commissioners would also be administrative or executive in
nature.  And the actions of Messrs. Conahan and Ciavarella in
coercing probation officers to change their recommendations is
outside the role of a judicial officer."  Judge Caputo wrote that
he recognized the "egregious nature" of the allegations, but
continuously stressed that was not the true issue.

"This is, however, about the rule of law," Judge Caputo wrote.
"It is about the rule of law in the face of popular opinion which
would seek a finding directly contrary to the result the rule of
law dictates."  Marsha Levick, chief counsel for the JLC, called
Judge Caputo's decision that the judges remain exposed to civil
liability for their out-of-court conduct an important victory for
the plaintiffs and the community.

"What is important to everybody is that the judges have not been
dismissed from the lawsuit and we will have an opportunity to
pursue our allegations against them and pursue our claims for
damages," Ms. Levick said.

Ms. Levick said the JLC recognized a risk that the court would
grant immunity for the judges' courtroom conduct. It argued that
the constitutional violations that occurred in Mr. Ciavarella's
courtroom pushed the case outside the arena for judicial immunity
in the United States. "We're talking about 6,000 violations over
the course of five years," Ms. Levick said.

Ms. Levick said the issue would be considered interlocutory for
the plaintiffs and that the JLC's clients would not have an
automatic right of appeal.

Ms. Levick said the judges would have 30 days to appeal the
decision.

The court docket did not provide contact information for Messrs.
Conahan or Ciavarella, both of whom are representing themselves
pro se, Mr. Strupczewski reports.  

While the federal government's case against the former judges
centers on their roles in allegedly taking money from attorney
Robert Powell, the owner, and Robert Mericle, the builder, of a
juvenile detention facility and the judges' alleged abuse of the
rights of juveniles sentenced to PA Child Care, sources close to
the investigation and inside Luzerne County say the scam some in
the media have labeled "kids for cash" was just the tip of the
iceberg and only the most blatant example of the corruption
allegedly overseen by the two judges.

The Legal Intelligencer has previously reported Ms. Conahan's
ties to admitted felons, including reputed mob boss William
"Billy" D'Elia.  Multiple sources have said that Mr. Conahan and
his father also had links to Joseph Scalleat and Michael "Hoppy"
Carsia.  According to a former member of the now-defunct
Pennsylvania Crime Commission, Messrs. Scalleat and Carsia ran
the mob in Hazleton, Pa., for years.

The Legal Intelligencer has also previously reported that federal
investigators are looking at allegations of case-fixing in
Luzerne County, particularly UM/UIM arbitration cases, as well as
criminal case-fixing.

The Class Action Reporter provided coverage about H.T., et al. v.
Ciavarella, et al., Case No. 09-cv-00357 (M.D. Pa.), on April 27,
2009.  


MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Appeal of Bateman Certification Ruling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal of the denial of his renewed motion for
class certification in Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.,
Case No. 07-cv-00171 (C.D. Calif.), which names Marquee
Holdings, Inc., as a defendant, is pending.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.  FACTA provides in part that neither expiration
dates nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit
card may be printed on receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is
deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to
actual losses incurred by the card holder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of
certification in a similar FACTA case.

The District Court stayed all proceedings in the case pending
the outcome of the Ninth Circuit case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the
situation where more than five digits of the credit card are
printed on a receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.

Plaintiff has appealed this decision and the case is stayed
pending this appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 12, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 1, 2009.

The suit is Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case
No. 07-cv-00052 (C.D. Calif.) (Feess, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
         Ira Spiro, Esq.  
         SPIRO MOSS BARNESS
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

         David E. Novitski, Esq.
         THELEN REID BROWN RAYMANS AND STEINER
         333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
         Phone: 213-576-8097
         Fax: 213-576-8080


NEUROMETRIX INC: Motion to Dismiss Suit Remains Pending in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NeuroMetrix, Inc.'s to dismiss a consolidated putative securities
class-action complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts,  according to the company's
Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class action complaint
was against the company and certain of its current and former
officers.

On March 27, 2008, a related putative securities class action
complaint was filed in the same court, against the same
defendants.

These two actions were subsequently consolidated, and the court
appointed a lead plaintiff.

On Nov. 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed, which alleges, among other things, that between Oct.
27, 2005 and February 12, 2008, defendants violated the federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading
statements and failing to disclose material information to the
investing public.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
damages.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among others, that
it failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

In March 2009, the parties mutually agreed to participate in
mediation to attempt to resolve the litigation, and the court
entered an order staying the proceedings.

The mediation did not resolve the litigation, and plaintiffs
opposed defendants' motion to dismiss on July 20, 2009.

The defendants filed their reply brief in further support of
their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 31, 2009.

NeuroMetrix, Inc. -- http://www.neurometrix.com/-- designs,  
develops and markets medical devices used to help physicians
diagnose and treat diseases of the nervous system, such as
neuropathies, which are disorders of the peripheral nerves and
parts of the spine, and neurovascular disorders such as diabetic
retinopathy.  The company is also developing medical devices
designed to be used to provide regional anesthesia and pain
control.  The company's focus has been on products that help
physicians with the diagnosis or detection of neuropathies and
neurovascular disorders.  It has two product lines cleared by the
United States Food and Drug Administration that are being
marketed primarily to physicians and clinics: the NC-stat System
for the assessment of neuropathies and the DigiScope for the
detection of eye disorders such as diabetic retinopathy.


O'REILLY AUTO PARTS: Accused of Shortchanging Customer Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran at The Madison Record reports that a man has filed
a putative class action lawsuit against an auto store, alleging
the store refuses to reimburse customers the full amount of a
product if taxes at the purchase store are higher than where the
product is returned.

Darin L. Pichee and the putative class will be represented by:

          Bradley M. Lakin, Esq.
          Robert W. Schmieder, II, Esq.
          Robert J. Evola, Esq.
          LAKINCHAPMAN
          300 Evans Ave.
          PO Box 229
          Wood River, IL 62095
          Telephone: 618-208-4240

Mr. Pichee claims he purchased an ignition lock cylinder at an
O'Reilly Auto Parts in Alton for $62.54 on Sept. 8.  The cost of
the cylinder consisted of $57.99 for the actual part and $4.55
for 7.85 percent in sales tax.

On Sept. 9, Mr. Pichee returned the cylinder with his receipt to
the O'Reilly Godfrey store.  There, however, Mr. Pichee only
received $61.96 back, according to the complaint filed Nov. 13 in
Madison County Circuit Court.

"Upon information and belief O'Reilly returned the lesser amount
because the applicable tax rate at the Godfrey, Illinois store in
6.85%," the complaint in Pichee v. O'Reilly Auto Parts, Case No.
09-L-1224 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison Cty.), states.

Mr. Pichee claims O'Reilly consistently fails to refund its
customers the total cost of their products.

"While O'Reilly promises a refund of all amounts paid by the
purchaser if merchandise is returned to it within the prescribed
time period, it does not do so if the item is returned to an
O'Reilly location where the applicable sales tax rate is lower
than the rate applicable at the location where the item
originally was purchased," the complaint says. "Rather than
return the entire amount paid by the purchaser as promised,
O'Reilly returns only what it categorizes as the cost of the item
and an amount equal to the sales tax at the store where the item
is returned."

However, if the opposite occurs and a customer returns an item at
a store with a higher sales tax than where the product was
originally purchased, O'Reilly adjusts the amount to ensure it
does not return more money to the customer than what was paid for
the item, according to the complaint.

Mr. Pichee is asking the court to certify the complaint as a
class action lawsuit and is seeking actual damages, plus
attorneys' fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and other
relief the court deems just.



PFIZER INC: Pa. Super. Ct. Mulls Neurontin Class Decertification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella at The Legal Intelligencer reports that a class
can't be decertified unless there are substantial changes to the
facts of a case, nor can it be decertified once a partial ruling
has been made as to the merits of the case, an attorney for a
class suing over the off-label marketing of epilepsy and
neuralgia drug Neurontin argued before the Pennsylvania Superior
Court in Philadelphia.  The attorney for the Plaintiffs:

          John K. Weston, Esq.
          SACKS & WESTON
          114 Old York Rd
          Jenkintown, PA 19046-3233
          Telephone: (215) 925-8200

argued that Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Mark I.
Bernstein improperly decertified the class in February -- a month
before trial -- in Clark, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., et al., No. 1819
(Pa. Common Pleas Ct., Philadelphia Cty.).

Pfizer is represented by:

          Robert C. Heim, Esq.
          Judy Leone, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          Cira Centre
          2929 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808
          Telephone: (215) 994-4000

Pfizer's lawyers argued that the courts have to make class
certification decisions early in a case and can always decertify
later.  Mr. Heim said certifications are made on the presumption
that injury could be shown on a class-wide basis, but said class
counsel conceded that if Neurontin worked for particular class
members, then there was no injury.

Ms. Passarella's full report is available at http://is.gd/52ykI


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Lawyers Launch Web Site to Solicit Claimants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susanne Ault at Video Business reports that lawyers behind the
late-fee class-action lawsuit against Redbox have launched a Web
site at http://www.RedboxLateFees.com/to locate additional  
plaintiffs and offer education about the case.

Piechur v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, Case No. 09-L-0562 (Ill.
Cit. Ct., 20th J. Dist., St. Clair Cty.), alleges that Redbox
unfairly dings customers $1 for every day past the paid one-night
rental that the DVD is not returned to machines.  It notes that
Redbox touts a "No Late Fees" policy.  In particular, the suit
cries foul that the $25 charged for titles kept more than 24 days
is more than triple Redbox's used-DVD sales price and amounts to
unfair business practices.


RETALIX LTD: Shareholder Agrees to Dismiss E.D. Tex. Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Retalix(R) Ltd. (Nasdaq:RTLX) disclosed that the plaintiff in the
purported shareholder class action lawsuit that was filed last
month in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Sherman Division, against Retalix, its
directors and a subsidiary of Retalix in connection with the
strategic financing transaction signed by Retalix on September 3,
2009, has agreed to dismiss the case without prejudice and not to
file a lawsuit relating to the transaction in any U.S. federal or
state court.  Retalix has agreed not to seek the recovery of
costs, fees or sanctions from plaintiff or her attorneys in
connection with the case but has not agreed to pay any
consideration in connection with the case or its dismissal.  The
dismissal remains subject to court approval, which has not yet
occurred.

Retalix -- http://www.retalix.com/-- is an independent provider  
of software solutions to retailers and distributors worldwide.
With over 40,000 sites installed across more than 50 countries,
Retalix solutions serve the needs of grocery chains, convenience
and fuel retailers, food and consumer goods distributors and
independent grocers. The Company offers a portfolio of software
applications that automate and synchronize essential retail and
supply chain operations, encompassing stores, headquarters and
warehouses. Retalix develops and supports its software through
1,300 employees in its various subsidiaries and offices
worldwide. The Company's International headquarters are located
in Ra'anana, Israel, and its American headquarters are located in
Dallas, Texas.

Coverage of the filing of Tamar v. Retaliz Ltd., et al., Case No.
09-cv-00511 (E.D. Tex.) (Schell, J.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Oct. 16, 2009.  

Retalix is represented by:

          Yuval M. Rogson, Esq.
          Bruce Vanyo, Esq.
          Richard H. Zelichov, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, #2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-788-4613

               - and -  

          James Bachman Greer, Esq.
          Kenneth Craig Johnston, Esq.
          KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN & LOGAN
          1601 Elm St., Suite 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214-777-4252


RONCO ACQUISITION: Accused in N.J. Suit of Inflated Shipping Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ronco inflated the shipping
costs of a supposedly free knife set, and Urban Nutrition does
the same thing with a face cream, two class actions claim in
Bergen County Court, Hackensack.

A copy of the Complaint in Hoffman v. Ronco Acquisition Corp.,
Docket No. BER-L-9787-09 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/19/CCARonco.pdf

Harold M. Hoffman, Esq., is a member of the New Jersey Bar and
represents himself in this action.  


SELECT COMFORT: Continues to Defend vs. Product Liability Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Select Comfort Corp. continues to defend a second amended
complaint alleging that its products had a unique propensity to
develop mold, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 3, 2009  

On April 25, 2008, a lawsuit was filed against one of the
company's subsidiaries in Superior Court in Santa Clara County,
California by one of its customers.

The complaint asserted various claims related to products
liability, breach of warranty, concealment, intentional
misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation and sought
class certification.

The complaint alleged that products sold by the company prior to
2006 had a unique propensity to develop mold, alleged that the
plaintiff suffered adverse health effects, and sought various
forms of legal and equitable relief, including without limitation
unspecified damages, punitive and exemplary damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

The company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and strike the purported class action claims, and allowed
the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

On Oct. 30, 2008, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
alleging facts similar to those asserted in the initial complaint
and asserting additional claims, including antitrust and RICO
claims.

On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and strike the purported class action claims of the first
amended complaint, and allowed the plaintiff leave to amend the
complaint with respect to certain of the alleged claims.

On July 6, 2009, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
alleging facts similar to those asserted in the initial complaint
limiting the purported class to California and Florida residents,
and asserting claims related to negligence, product liability,
breach of warranty under federal and state statutes and unfair
competition under state statutes.

Select Comfort Corp. -- http://www.selectcomfort.com/-- is  
engaged primarily in developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing adjustable-firmness beds and other sleep-related
accessory products. The air-chamber technology of the company's
Sleep Number bed allows adjustable firmness on each side of the
mattress.  In addition, Select Comfort markets and sells
accessories and other sleep related products, which focus on
providing personalized comfort to complement the Sleep Number bed
and provide a better night's sleep to the consumer.  As of Jan.
3, 2009, the company operated 471 company-owned stores in the
United States.


SIRIUS XM: S.D.N.Y. Suit Complains About Deceptive $2 Admin Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sirius XM Satellite Radio
unjustly enriches itself by charging subscribers a deceptive $2
"administrative fee" for paying by credit card, a class action
claims in Manhattan Federal Court.

The case is Kaufman v. Sirius XM Satellite Radio, Inc., Case No.
09-cv-09590 (S.D.N.Y.) (Marrero, J.).  The Plaintiff is
represented by:

          Michael D. Campbell, Esq.
          CAMPBELL & ASSOCIATES
          523 East Central Avenue
          Winter Haven, FL 33880
          Telephone: (863) 292-9929

               - and -  

          Valentina M. Tejera, Esq.
          MASE, LARA & EVERSOLE, P.A.
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 377-3770


SONY ELECTRONICS: Calif. Suit Says VAIO Touchpads are Defective
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sony's VAIO notebook
computers have defective touchpads that make the cursor move in
the opposite direction, freeze, and to open and close windows at
random, a class action claims in San Diego Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Nation v. Sony Electronics, Inc., Case
No. 09-cv-02603 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/19/SonyVAIO.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
          Arleen Haeggquist, Esq.
          Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
          ZELDES & HAEGGQUIST, LLP
          625 Broadway, Suite 906
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-342-8000


STORK CRAFT: Recalls 2.1 Million Drop-Side Cribs
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in
cooperation with Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., of British
Columbia, Canada, announced the voluntary recall of more than 2.1
million Stork Craft drop-side cribs, including about 147,000
Stork Craft drop-side cribs with the Fisher-Price logo.  The
recall involves approximately 1,213,000 units distributed in the
United States and 968,000 units distributed in Canada.

CPSC urges parents and caregivers to immediately stop using the
recalled cribs, wait for the free repair kit, and do not attempt
to fix the cribs without the kit. They should find an
alternative, safe sleeping environment for their baby. Consumers
should contact Stork Craft to receive a free repair kit that
converts the drop-side on these cribs to a fixed side.

The cribs' drop-side plastic hardware can break, deform, or parts
can become missing. In addition, the drop-side can be installed
upside-down, which can result in broken or disengaged plastic
parts. All of these problems can cause the drop-side to detach in
one or more corners. When the drop-side detaches, it creates
space between the drop-side and the crib mattress. The bodies of
infants and toddlers can become entrapped in the space, which can
lead to suffocation. Complete detachment of drop-sides can lead
to falls from the crib.

CPSC, Health Canada, and Stork Craft are aware of 110 incidents
of drop-side detachment; 67 incidents occurred in the United
States and 43 in Canada. The incidents include 15 entrapments; 12
in the U.S. and three in Canada. Four of the entrapments resulted
in suffocation: a 7-month-old in Gouverneur, N.Y.; a 7-month-old
in New Iberia, La.; a 6-month-old in Summersville, W.Va.; and a
9-month-old in Bronx, N.Y. Included in these incidents are 20
falls from cribs; 12 in the U.S. and eight in Canada. Fall
injuries ranged from concussion to bumps and bruises. The cribs
involved in these incidents had plastic drop-side hardware that
had broken, missing, or deformed claws, connectors, tracks, or
flexible tab stops; loose or missing metal spring clips; stripped
screws; and/or drop-sides installed upside-down.

This recall involves Stork Craft drop-side cribs and Stork Craft
drop-side cribs with the Fisher-Price logo. This recall does not
involve any cribs that do not have a drop-side. This recall does
not involve any cribs with metal rod drop-side hardware. It
involves only those cribs with plastic trigger and one-hand-
system drop-side hardware.

This recall includes Stork Craft cribs with manufacturing and
distribution dates between January 1993 and October 2009. This
recall also includes Stork Craft cribs with the Fisher-Price logo
that have manufacturing dates between October 1997 and December
2004. The Stork Craft cribs with the Fisher-Price logo were first
sold in the U.S. in July 1998 and in Canada in September 1998.
The cribs were sold in various styles and finishes. The
manufacture date, model number, crib name, country of origin, and
the firm's name, address, and contact information are located on
the assembly instruction sheet attached to the mattress support
board. The firm's insignia "storkcraft baby" or "storkling" is
inscribed on the drop-side teething rail of some cribs. In Stork
Craft cribs that contain the "Fisher-Price" logo, this logo can
be found on the crib's teething rail, in the manufacturer's
instructions, on the assembly instruction sheet attached to the
mattress support board, and on the end panels of the Twinkle-
Twinkle and Crystal crib models.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10046.html

Major retailers in the United States and Canada sold the recalled
cribs including BJ's Wholesale Club, J.C. Penney, Kmart, Meijer,
Sears, USA Baby, and Wal-Mart stores and online at Amazon.com,
Babiesrus.com, Costco.com, Target.com, and Walmart.com from
January 1993 through October 2009 for between $100 and $400.

The cribs were manufactured in Canada, China and Indonesia.

For additional information, contact Stork Craft toll-free at
(877) 274-0277 anytime to order the free repair kit, or log
on to http://www.storkcraft.com/


SUNAIR CORP: Shareholders Want More Money in Massey Transaction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sunair Corp. sold itself too
cheaply to Massey Services and Buyer Acquisition Co., for $2.75 a
share or $54 million, shareholders say in Miami Federal Court.  

A copy of the Complaint in Fleisher v. Rochon, et al., Case No.
09-cv-82315 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/19/SCASunair.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris A. Barker, Esq.
          BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
          400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-489-1001

               - and -  

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-295-5310

               - and -  

          Aaron Brody, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-687-7230

               - and -  

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          551 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: 212-682-3025


TRAILER BRIDGE: Wants Amended Class Action Complaint Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trailer Bridge, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss an amended class
action complaint in a multi-district litigation proceeding,
according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a subpoena from the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking
documents and information relating to a criminal grand jury
investigation of alleged anti-competitive conduct by Puerto Rico
ocean carriers.  Company representatives have met with United
States Justice Department attorneys and pledged the company's
full and complete cooperation with the DOJ investigation.  The
company has made document submissions to the DOJ in response to
the subpoena, and its attorneys are in the process of reviewing
documents for additional submissions.

Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, shippers in the Puerto Rico trade lane, and in
one case indirect consumer purchasers within Puerto Rico, have
filed at least 41 purported class actions against domestic ocean
carriers, including Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley and
the company.

The actions allege that the defendants inflated prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The actions, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, and the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated into a single multi-
district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in the District of
Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes.

On Oct. 21, 2009, in connection with this consolidated
proceeding, the Plaintiffs' lead counsel filed an amended class
action complaint under seal.

The company filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with the
court on Nov. 4, 2009.

In June 2009, Horizon Lines and its related companies entered
into a settlement agreement with certain named direct purchaser
plaintiffs on behalf of a purported class of claimants in the MDL
1960 proceeding, while denying any liability for the underlying
claims.  The settlement agreement is subject to Court approval
and is subject to various objections.  On Oct. 20, 2009, the
Court heard arguments related to the approval of the settlement
and now has the matter under advisement and is scheduled to
conduct an additional hearing on this matter on Nov. 12, 2009.  
It is not clear what, if any, impact the settlement agreement
will have on further prosecution of the MDL 1960.  The company is
not a party to the Horizon Lines settlement.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the company received a Request for Information
and Production of Documents from the Puerto Rico Office of
Monopolistic Affairs.  The request relates to an investigation
into possible price fixing and unfair competition in the Puerto
Rico domestic ocean shipping business.  The company has indicated
to the Puerto Rican authorities that it will cooperate fully with
this investigation.

Trailer Bridge, Inc. -- http://www.trailerbridge.com/-- is a  
trucking and marine transportation company with contract and
common carrier authority.  Highway transportation services are
offered in the continental U.S., while marine transportation is
offered between Jacksonville, Florida, San Juan, Puerto Rico and
Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic.


UNITED STATES: Telephone Tax Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
Dealing another major setback to the IRS in the ongoing
litigation over how it handled a massive $8 billion refund for a
now-abandoned telephone excise tax, Shannon P. Duffy at The Legal
Intelligencer reports, a federal judge in Harrisburg, Pa., has
refused to dismiss a nationwide class action suit that says the
agency's public notices about the availability of the refund
violated due process.

The ruling in Swisher v. United States, Case No. 09-cv-00047
(M.D. Pa.), by the Honorable John E. Jones III comes on the heels
of a scathing decision in August from a federal appeals court in
Washington, D.C., that revived a batch of similar suits alleging
that the IRS' handling of the refund program violated the
Administrative Procedures Act.

Both rulings are victories for the attorneys serving as lead
counsel in the Pennsylvania case and on the executive committee
for the class of plaintiffs in the Washington, D.C., case:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          Morris M. Shuster, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Ave
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: 610-642-8500

The Intelligencer's full report is at http://is.gd/52xu6


URS CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Suit on Industrial Canal Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of URS Corp., continues to defend class action lawsuits resulting
from work done on the east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation
Canal in New Orleans, Louisiana, according to URS' Nov. 12, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 2, 2009.

From July 1999 through May 2005, WGI, an Ohio company acquired by
the company on Nov. 15, 2007, performed demolition, site
preparation, and environmental remediation services for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New Orleans,
Louisiana.

On Aug. 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.  The
storm surge created by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial
Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and
other parts of the city.

Since September 2005, 59 personal injury, property damage and
class action lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana State and
federal court naming WGI Ohio as a defendant.

Other defendants include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Board for the Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer, St.
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company.

Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases, including the WGI Ohio cases,
have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

The plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in their
design, construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans
levees.

The plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who claim to
have incurred damages arising out of the breach and failure of
the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina.

The allegation against the company is that the work performed
adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and floodwall
and caused and/or contributed to breaches and flooding.  The
plaintiffs allege damages of $200 billion and demand attorneys'
fees and costs.

WGI Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the
levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane
Katrina.  WGI Ohio performed the work adjacent to the Industrial
Canal as a contractor for the federal government and has pursued
dismissal from the lawsuits on a motion for summary judgment on
the basis that government contractors are immune from liability.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the
company's performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as
a contractor for the federal government and are therefore immune
from liability, which was appealed by a number of the plaintiffs
on April 27, 2009 to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

URS Corporation -- http://www.urscorp.com/-- is a provider of  
engineering, construction and technical services.  The company
offers a range of program management, planning, design,
engineering, construction and construction management, operations
and maintenance, and decommissioning and closure services to
public agencies and private sector clients worldwide.  The
company is focused on four market sectors: power, infrastructure,
federal, and industrial and commercial.  It has three divisions:
the URS Division, the EG&G Division and the Washington Division.  
Through its network of offices across the United States and in
more than 30 countries, the company provides services to a range
of domestic and international clients, including the United
States federal government agencies, national governments of other
countries, and state and local government agencies both in the
United States and in international locations.  In August 2008, it
acquired LopezGarcia Group, Inc. and most of the assets of Tryck
Nyman Hayes, Inc.


VCG HOLDING: Continues to Defend Zajkowski Suit in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
VCG Holding Corp. continues to defend a purported class action
filed by a former employee of its subsidiary, according to the
company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

In December 2007, a former employee of VCG's subsidiary Classic
Affairs, Eric Zajkowski, filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County
District Court, Minneapolis, Minnesota against VCG following his
termination from employment alleging that, in connection with his
employment, he was subject to certain employment practices which
violated Minnesota law.

The initial action and subsequent pleading asserted that the
matter was filed as a purported class action.

Subsequent to the filing of Zajkowski's Complaint, Zajkowski
moved to amend his Complaint to name additional Plaintiffs and
later, to name Classic Affairs as a party defendant.

VCG and Classic Affairs have answered this complaint denying all
liability. Classic Affairs has also filed a Counter-Complaint
against Mr. Zajkowski based upon matters relating to his
termination from employment with Classic Affairs.

In December 2008 and early January 2009, the parties filed cross-
motions for Summary Judgment and Zajkowski filed a Motion for
Class Certification. Following the motions, the Court issued a
series of rulings on those Motions.

In these rulings, the Court has dismissed VCG as a party
Defendant - having determined that VCG is not directly liable to
Zajkowski or the other Plaintiffs on their claims.

The Court granted Summary Judgment to Zajkowski as to one issue,
but did not determine the scope or extent, if any, of the alleged
damages, ruling this issue, like the others, are questions for a
jury, and the Court dismissed two other claims asserted by
Zajkowski.

In all other respects, the Court has denied the parties
respective Summary Judgment motions.

On July 21, 2009, the Court denied Zajkowski's and the other
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Zajkowski appealed
that decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and on Sept. 22,
2009, the Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs request for
discretionary review.

Plaintiffs have indicated that they do not intend to seek leave
to appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The parties have scheduled mediation for November 2009 and if
mediation is unable to settle this case, trial is scheduled to
begin in late January 2010.

VCG Holding Corp. -- http://www.vcgh.com/-- is in the business  
of acquiring, owning and operating nightclubs, which provide live
adult entertainment, restaurant and beverage services.  As of
Dec. 31, 2008, the company, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates 20 nightclubs in Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, Texas,
North Carolina, Minnesota, Kentucky, Maine, Florida and
California.  The company operates under the brand names, Diamond
Cabaret, PT's, Jaguar's Gold Club, Penthouse, Pet of the Month,
Pet of the Year, Three Key Logo and One-Key Logo.  The company
owns International Entertainment Consultants, Inc. (IEC), which
provides management services to its nightclubs.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the company acquired Jaguar's Gold Club and
Imperial Showgirls Gentlemen's Club.  Its subsidiaries include
PT's Showclub, Diamond Cabaret, The Penthouse Club, Schiek's
Palace Royale, The Men's Club and LaBoheme Gentlemen's Club.


VERTRO INC: Decision on Magistrate Judge's Report Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The issue of whether to adopt the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation in a lawsuit against Vertro, Inc., remains pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class
action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its
former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

The complaints allege that the company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the individual defendants also violated Section
20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of Vertro.  Plaintiffs
purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of the
company's investors who purchased its stock between Sept. 3, 2003
and May 4, 2005.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the company made certain misleading statements and
omitted material information.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages and other relief.

On July 27, 2005, the Court consolidated all of the outstanding
lawsuits under the case style In re MIVA, Inc. (now known as
Vertro) Securities Litigation, selected lead plaintiff and lead
counsel for the consolidated cases, and granted Plaintiffs leave
to file a consolidated amended complaint, which was filed on Aug.
16, 2005.  The company and the other defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint on Sept. 8, 2005.

On Dec. 28, 2005, the Court granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to submit a further amended
complaint, which was filed on Jan. 17, 2006.

On Feb. 9, 2006, Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss.

On March 15, 2007, the Court granted in large part Defendants'
motion to dismiss.

On March 29, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for amendment to the
March 15, 2007, order to include certification for interlocutory
appeal or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of the motion
to dismiss.

On July 17, 2007, the Court:

     (1) denied the motion for amendment to the March 15, 2007,
         order to include certification for interlocutory appeal
         and

     (2) granted the motion for reconsideration as to the issue
         of whether Plaintiffs pled a strong inference of
         scienter in light of intervening precedent.

The Court requested additional briefing on the scienter issue,
and on Feb. 15, 2008, entered an Order dismissing one of the
individual defendants from the lawsuit and limiting the claims
that could be brought against another individual defendant.

In addition, Plaintiffs previously had moved the Court to certify
a putative class of investors, and Defendants had filed briefs in
opposition thereto.  On March 12, 2008, the Court entered an
Order certifying a class of those investors who purchased the
company's common stock from Feb. 23, 2005, to May 4, 2005.

The Court also dismissed two of the proposed class
representatives for lack of standing.

Plaintiffs have served discovery requests on Defendants, and the
discovery phase of the lawsuit has been ongoing.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 2, 2009,
and, on April 10, 2009, the Court entered an order staying
discovery pending the resolution of that motion.

On Aug. 25, 2009, the magistrate judge issued a report
recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be
granted.

Vertro, Inc., formerly MIVA, Inc. -- http://www.miva.com/-- is  
an Internet company that owns and operates the ALOT product
portfolio.  The company operated its range of products and
services through two divisions: MIVA Direct and MIVA Media as of
December 31, 2008.  MIVA Direct offers home page, desktop
application and Internet browser toolbar products under the ALOT
brand. The ALOT Home Page, ALOT Desktop and ALOT Toolbar are
designed to make the Internet easy for consumers by providing
direct access to affinity content and search results.  The
products generate approximately two million Internet searches per
day.  MIVA Media connected buyers and sellers online by
displaying advertisements in response to consumer search or
browsing activity on select Internet properties.  Prior to the
MIVA Media Sale, MIVA Media was an auction based pay-per-click
advertising network that was operated across North America and in
Europe.  On March 12, 2009, Adknowledge, Inc. acquired MIVA
Media, the media division of the company.


                      New Securities Fraud Cases


CARTER'S INC: Finkelstein Files Shareholder Suit in N.D. Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Carter's, Inc.
(NYSE:CRI) between April 27, 2004, and November 10, 2009,
inclusive.  At present, this is the first and only currently
pending class action of its type against Carter's.

Finkelstein Thompson welcomes inquiries from institutions or
individuals interested in acting as "lead plaintiff" in this
litigation. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. The
deadline for moving for such appointment is January 19, 2010. If
you are interested in acting as lead plaintiff, or if you have
any other questions about the litigation, please contact:

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          1050 30th St. NW
          Washington, DC, 20007
          Telephone: (877) 337-1050
          E-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com

The complaint in Mylroie v. Carter's, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-
cv-03196 (N.D. Ga.) (Forrester, J.), charges Carter's and certain
of its officers and directors with violating the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in issuing materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial results and
compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company improperly
reported margin support payments to major wholesale customers in
incorrect periods, which resulted in artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period for Carter's shares. When Carter's
revealed this would require it to restate four years of earnings,
Carter's shares plunged in value.

                            *********

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  * * *