CAR_Public/091210.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, December 10, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 244  

                            Headlines

AMCORE BANK: Class Action Suit Complains About Improper ATM Fees
BECTON DICKINSON: Feb. 2010 Trial Set for Consolidated N.J. Suit
BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Oppose Bales Class Certification
BOB EVANS: Settlement Approval in "Flores" Suit Remains Pending
BOB EVANS: Unit Faces "Diaz and Gray" Complaint in California

CARB GAS LITIGTION: 9th Cir. Dismisses Antitrust Class Action
CONNECTICUT: Sued for Nixing Medical Services to Legal Immigrants
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Plaintiff Gets Court Nod to Amend Complaint
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Brochu v. Loto Quebec Suit Still Ongoing
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Faces Suit Over Stock Price Inflation

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Plaintiffs Wants Jordan & Carr Consolidated
JOS. A. BANK: Enters Agreement to Settle Consolidated Suit
JOS. A. BANK: Faces Racial Discrimination Suit in California
NATIONWIDE GENERAL: Accused of Overcharging Auto Policyholders
NETAPP INC: Del. Plaintiff Not Seeking Fees & Expenses Payment

NETAPP INC: Calif. Suit Plaintiff Dismisses Claims in Oct. 2009
QWEST: Sued for Failing to Honor Broadband "Price for Life" Deal
SAN DIEGO: Police Charged with Pushing Homeless to Arizona
SCOTTS MIRACLE: Michigan Court Approves Request to Dismiss Suit
TOSHIBA: Quebec Suit Complains Projection TV Bulbs Don't Last

WASHINGTON: Suit Says State Not Providing Service to Mentally Ill
WET SEAL: Labor Code Violation Suit in Los Angeles Still Pending
WET SEAL: Dec. 2009 Status Conference Hearing Set in Calif. Suit

                            *********

AMCORE BANK: Class Action Suit Complains About Improper ATM Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Fernicola at Chicago Now reports that a class action
lawsuit was filed against Amcore Bank regarding its alleged
failure to post notices on certain ATMs informing users that a
fee will be imposed.

According to the complaint in Markoff v. Amcore Bank, N.A., Case
No. 09-cv-07554 (N.D. Ill.) (Darrah, J.), Ms. Fernicola relates,
Amcore violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act when it did not
have "Posted Fee Notices" on several of its ATMs located in
Rockford and other cities.  The complaint states that the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act requires ATMs to provide notice to
consumers that a fee will be imposed for using the machine and
what the fee will be.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance A. Raphael, Esq.
          Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
          Allison A. Krumhorn, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER, P.C.
          180 W. Washington St., Ste. 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-782-5808

               - and -  

          Aron D. Robinson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ARON D. ROBINSON
          19 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-857-9050


BECTON DICKINSON: Feb. 2010 Trial Set for Consolidated N.J. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey has scheduled a
hearing for February 2010, on the indirect plaintiffs' motions
regarding direct purchaser standing and the proposed injunction
of the settlement in a consolidated action against Becton,
Dickinson and Co.

The company is named as a defendant in five purported class
action suits brought on behalf of direct purchasers of the
company's products, such as distributors, alleging that the
company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the
charging of higher prices for the company's products to the
plaintiff and other purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     -- Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et. al. vs.
        Becton Dickinson and Company (Civil Action No. 05-1602,
        U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on
        March 25, 2005;

     -- SAJ Distributors, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson &
        Co. (Case 2:05-CV-04763-JD, U.S. District Court, Eastern
        District of Pennsylvania), filed on Sept. 6, 2005;

     -- Dik Drug Company, et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
        Company (Case No. 2:05-CV-04465, U.S. District Court,
        Newark, New Jersey), filed on Sept. 12, 2005;

     -- American Sales Company, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton,
        Dickinson & Co. (Case No. 2:05-CV-05212-CRM, U.S.
        District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed
        on Oct. 3, 2005; and

     -- Park Surgical Co. Inc. t. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
        Company (Case 2:05-CV-05678- CMR, U.S. District Court,
        Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on
        Oct. 26, 2005.

These actions have been consolidated under the caption "In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

The company is also named as a defendant in four purported class
action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of the
company's products, alleging that the company violated federal
and state antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher
prices for BD's products to the plaintiff and other purported
class members.

The cases filed are:

     -- Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson &
        Company (Case No. 2:05-CV-00162, U.S. District Court,
        Greenville, Tennessee), filed on June 7, 2005;

     -- Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson and
        Company (Case No. 2:06-CV-00174, U.S. District Court,
        Newark, New Jersey), filed on Jan. 17, 2006;

     -- Medstar v. Becton Dickinson (Case No. 06-CV-03258-JLL
         (RJH), U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed
        on May 18, 2006; and

     -- The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton
        Dickinson and Company (Case No. 07-CV-2544, U.S.
        District Court, Southern District of New York), filed on
        March 28, 2007.

A fifth purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers
International Multiple Sclerosis Management Practice v. Becton
Dickinson & Company (Case No. 2:07-cv-10602, U.S. District Court,
Newark, New Jersey), filed on April 5, 2007 was voluntarily
withdrawn by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits
seek monetary damages. All of the antitrust class action lawsuits
have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) in Federal court in New Jersey.

On April 27, 2009, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs in these actions.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject to
preliminary and final approval by the court following notice to
potential class members, the company will pay $45 million into a
settlement fund in exchange for a release by all potential class
members of the direct purchaser claims related to the products
and acts enumerated in the Complaint, as well as a dismissal of
the case with prejudice.

The release would not cover potential class members that
affirmatively opt out of the settlement.

No settlement has been reached as of Nov. 25, 2009, with the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs in these cases, which will continue
to the extent these cases relate to their claims.

On May 7, 2009, certain indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the
litigation, who are not parties to the settlement, filed a motion
with the court seeking to enjoin the consummation of the
settlement agreement on the grounds that, among other things, the
court had not yet ruled on the issue of which plaintiffs have
direct purchaser standing.

The Court has scheduled a hearing on the indirect plaintiffs'
motions regarding direct purchaser standing and the proposed
injunction of the settlement for February 2010, according to the
company's Nov. 25, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

Becton, Dickinson and Company -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a  
medical technology company engaged in the manufacture and sale of
a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and
diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life science
researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the general
public.  The segments in which the company operates include BD
Medical, BD Diagnostics and BD Biosciences.  On May 12, 2008, the
company acquired Cytopeia Inc.  In November 2009, the company
acquired HandyLab, Inc.


BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Oppose Bales Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co. continues to oppose class action
certification in the case styled Bales vs. Becton Dickinson et.
al., Case No. 98-CP-40- 4343, filed in Richland County Court of
Common Pleas on Nov. 25, 1998.

The company, along with another manufacturer and several medical
product distributors, is named as a defendant in a product
liability class action lawsuit relating to healthcare workers who
allegedly sustained accidental needlesticks, but have not become
infected with any disease.

The action alleges that healthcare workers have sustained
needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices manufactured by the
company and, as a result, require medical testing, counseling
and/or treatment.

Plaintiffs seek money damages.

According to the company's Nov. 25, 2009, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Sept. 30, 2009, there is no current activity in this case
and the company continues to oppose class action certification in
this case, including pursuing all appropriate rights of appeal.

Becton, Dickinson and Company -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a  
medical technology company engaged in the manufacture and sale of
a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and
diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life science
researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the general
public.  The segments in which the company operates include BD
Medical, BD Diagnostics and BD Biosciences.  On May 12, 2008, the
company acquired Cytopeia Inc.  In November 2009, the company
acquired HandyLab, Inc.


BOB EVANS: Settlement Approval in "Flores" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Evans Farms, Inc.'s motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement in a class action complaint entitled Leonard Flores,
et al. v. SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe is pending before the
Orange County California Superior Court.

SWH was acquired by Bob Evans Farms.

The complaint was filed on Oct. 28, 2008.

Mr. Flores was employed as an assistant manager of Mimi's Cafe
until September 2006 and purports to represent a class of
assistant managers who are allegedly similarly situated.

Mimi's Cafe classified its assistant managers as exempt employees
until October 2009.

The case involves claims that current and former assistant
managers working in California from October 2004 to October 2009
were misclassified by Mimi's Cafe as exempt employees.

As a result, the complaint alleges that these assistant managers
were deprived of overtime pay, rest breaks and meal periods as
required for nonexempt employees under California wage and hour
laws.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Although the company believes Mimi's Cafe properly classified its
assistant managers as exempt employees under California law, the
company elected to resolve the Flores lawsuit through voluntary
mediation.

The proposed settlement of $1,030,0000 is subject to court
approval.

The motion for preliminary approval of this settlement is pending
before the Orange County California Superior Court, according to
the company's Dec. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 23,
2009.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/-- is a full-
service restaurant company that operates two restaurant concepts:
Bob Evans Restaurants and Mimi's Cafes.  The company is also a
producer and distributor of pork sausage and complementary
homestyle convenience food items.  As of April 24, 2009, Bob
Evans Restaurants (including Bob Evans Restaurants & General
Stores) were located in 18 states, primarily in the Midwest, mid-
Atlantic and Southeast, and Mimi's Cafes were located in 24
states, primarily in California and other western states.  Bob
Evans offers a variety of quality, homestyle food products to
retail and foodservice customers.  It sells its retail food
products under the Bob Evans and Owens brand names.  The
company's food products include approximately 45 varieties of
fresh, smoked and fully cooked pork sausage and hickory-smoked
bacon products.  It also offers approximately 65 complementary,
convenience food items in the refrigerated and frozen areas of
grocery stores.


BOB EVANS: Unit Faces "Diaz and Gray" Complaint in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Evans Farms, Inc., faces a class action complaint entitled
Edder Diaz and Rosolyn Gray, et al. vs. SWH Corporation d/b/a
Mimi's Cafe.

SWH was acquired by Bob Evans Farms.

The complaint was filed on Oct. 13, 2009, in Alameda County
California Superior Court.

Mr. Diaz and Ms. Gray purport to represent a class of various
nonexempt employees, including bartenders, hosts and servers, who
are allegedly similarly situated.

The case involves claims that current and former nonexempt
employees working in these positions in California from October
2005 to the present:

     (1) were not reimbursed for certain expenses incurred in
         connection with the discharge of their duties and

     (2) were denied rest breaks and meal periods as required
         for nonexempt employees under California wage and hour
         laws.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The company says Mimi's Cafe has complied with the California
wage and hour laws at issue in the Diaz lawsuit, according to its
Dec. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 23, 2009.

The company is evaluating the results of similar proceedings in
California and is consulting with advisors with specialized
expertise.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/
-- is a full-service restaurant company that operates two
restaurant concepts: Bob Evans Restaurants and Mimi's Cafes.  The
company is also a producer and distributor of pork sausage and
complementary homestyle convenience food items.  As of April 24,
2009, Bob Evans Restaurants (including Bob Evans Restaurants &
General Stores) were located in 18 states, primarily in the
Midwest, mid-Atlantic and Southeast, and Mimi's Cafes were
located in 24 states, primarily in California and other western
states.  Bob Evans offers a variety of quality, homestyle food
products to retail and foodservice customers.  It sells its
retail food products under the Bob Evans and Owens brand names.  
The company's food products include approximately 45 varieties of
fresh, smoked and fully cooked pork sausage and hickory-smoked
bacon products.  It also offers approximately 65 complementary,
convenience food items in the refrigerated and frozen areas of
grocery stores.


CARB GAS LITIGTION: 9th Cir. Dismisses Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit dismissed as too broad an antitrust class
action accusing major oil producers of conspiring to limit the
supply of cleaner-burning gasoline and fix prices for wholesale
buyers.  

A copy of the per curiam opinion in Gilley Enterprises, Inc., v.
Atlantic Richfield Company; Chevron Corporation; Exxon
Corporation; Mobil Oil Corporation; Exxon/Mobil Corporation;
Shell Oil Company; Texaco Inc.; Tosco Corporation; Ultramar
Diamond Shamrock; Valero Corporation; Conocophilips Petroleum
Corporation; Chevron/Texaco Corporation; Tesoro Corporation,
No. 06-56059 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/12/02/06-56059.pdf

Gilley Enterprises is represented by:

          Charles M. Kagay, Esq.
          SPIEGEL, LIAO & KAGAY LLP
          388 Market Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111

The oil companies are represented by:

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          COHELAN & KHOURY
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101-5305

               - and -  

          Hojoon Hwang, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco CA 94105
          
               - and -  

          Peter H. Mason, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
          555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          
               - and -  

          David M. Foster, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
          Market Square
          801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-2623
          
               - and -  

          Patrick J. Sullivan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK J. SULLIVAN
          810 Mission Avenue
          Oceanside, CA 92054


CONNECTICUT: Sued for Nixing Medical Services to Legal Immigrants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart at Courthouse News Service reports that when the
Connecticut General Assembly approved the state budget in
September it killed the State Medical Assistance For Non-Citizens
program and left more than 3,000 poor legal immigrants without
health insurance. A Superior Court class action claims that
offering such programs to native-born citizens while refusing
them to legal immigrants who have been in the country for less
than five years violates the Constitution's Equal Protection
clause.

When a similar federally funded program for legal immigrants
ended in 1997, Connecticut decided to continue funding its
program, despite the loss of matching federal funds.

The lead plaintiff in this case is Hong Pham, who emigrated from
Vietnam in September 2005 and has lived in Connecticut since
2007.  She was notified on Nov. 20 that her state health care
benefits would end on Dec. 1.

Ms. Pham left California for Connecticut in 2007 to escape her
abusive husband and since arriving has been unable to find
employment, she says.
     
She has hepatitis B and must have regular laboratory tests to
assess her liver function. She has a handful of other health
problems that require regular medical attention.  She lives on
$470 a month, plus a $325 food stamp allotment, "and cannot
afford to pay for her necessary medical care," according to the
complaint.

Her attorneys with Greater Hartford Legal Aid seek class
certification and an injunction.

Their case may be helped by the comments of Attorney General
Richard Blumenthal, who in July wrote a letter to Gov. M. Jodi
Rell warning her that killing the program could raise
"significant constitutional issues and concerns."

Mr. Blumenthal wrote that in 2004 that he wrote an official
opinion stating that eliminating the program is "not clearly
unconstitutional," but would raise "serious constitutional issues
in litigation, and the outcome could not be predicted with
certainty."
     
In that letter Mr. Blumenthal said he would defend the state
against any action brought against it.
     
"My duty is to defend the laws approved by the legislature and
signed by the governor when they are challenged, and I will do so
here if the SMANC program is eliminated," Mr. Blumenthal wrote.
     
A copy of the Complaint in Pham v. Starkowski, Case No. _______
(Ct. Super. Ct., Hartford), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/04/CTHealth.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg Bass, Esq.
          Susan Garten, Esq.
          Nicholas Yorio, Esq.
          GREATER HARTFORD LEGAL AID
          999 Asylum Ave., 3rd Floor
          Hartford, CT 06105


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Plaintiff Gets Court Nod to Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted the
lead plaintiff's request to amend the complaint to reflect the
Court's June 2008 order dismissing certain claims and defendants
in a consolidated amended complaint against Franklin Resources,
Inc.

Lawsuits were filed against Franklin and certain of its adviser
and distributor affiliates, individual Franklin officers and
directors, a former Franklin employee, and trustees of certain
Franklin Templeton Investments mutual funds.

In 2004, the lawsuits were consolidated for coordinated
proceedings with similar lawsuits against numerous other mutual
fund complexes in a multi-district litigation titled "In re
Mutual Funds Investment Litigation," pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. 04-md-15862.

Plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints in the MDL on
Sept. 29, 2004.

The three consolidated lawsuits involving the company include:

     -- a class action (Sharkey IRO/IRA v. Franklin
        Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01310),

     -- a derivative action on behalf of the Funds (McAlvey v.
        Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01274),
        and

     -- a derivative action on behalf of Franklin (Hertz v.
        Burns, et al., Case No. 04-cv-01624).

The lawsuits seek, among other forms of relief, one or more of:

     -- unspecified monetary damages;

     -- punitive damages;

     -- removal of Fund trustees, directors, advisers,
        administrators, and distributors;

     -- rescission of management contracts and distribution
        plans under Rule 12b-1 promulgated under the Investment
        Company Act of 1940; and

     -- attorneys' fees and costs.

On Feb. 25, 2005, the company-related parties filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended class action and Fund derivative
action complaints.

On June 26, 2008, the court issued its order granting in part and
denying in part the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint.

In its order, the court dismissed certain claims, while allowing
others under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and under Sections 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 to remain, and dismissed all class action
claims against the named Funds.

Pursuant to stipulation, the court also dismissed all claims
against certain individual defendants, including the independent
trustees to the named Funds, and a former Franklin executive.

On Sept. 4, 2009, the court entered as its order the parties'
stipulation to dismiss without prejudice the remaining Fund
trustee defendants named in the consolidated amended class action
complaint.

On Oct. 22, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part
lead plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the consolidated
amended class action complaint, granting lead plaintiff's request
to amend the complaint to reflect the court's June 2008 order
dismissing certain claims and defendants, and to add certain
detail to existing allegations, while denying lead plaintiff's
request to introduce a new theory of liability.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated fund derivative
action remains under submission with the court, according to the
company's Nov. 24, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

In addition, pursuant to stipulation, the derivative action
brought on behalf of Franklin has been stayed since 2004.

Franklin Resources, Inc. -- https://www.franklintempleton.com/ --
is an investment management company.  The company is a holding
company for various subsidiaries that, together with the company,
are referred to as Franklin Templeton Investments, a global
investment management organization offering investment choices
under the Franklin, Templeton, Mutual Series, Bissett, Fiduciary
and Darby brand names.  In its primary investment management
business and operating segment, it provides investment management
and other related services to open-end and closed-end investment
companies and funds, unregistered funds, and other private,
institutional, high-net-worth and separately-managed accounts in
the United States and internationally.  In its secondary business
and operating segment, banking/finance, it provides clients with
select retail banking, private banking and consumer lending
services through its bank subsidiaries.  In February 2008, the
Company acquired a 49% interest in Vietcombank Fund Management.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Brochu v. Loto Quebec Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial of the class action, Brochu v. Loto Quebec, is ongoing,
according to International Game Technology's Dec. 2, 2009, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Oct. 3, 2009.

Loto Quebec commenced an action in warranty against VLC, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of IGT, and another manufacturer of video
lottery machines in October 2003, in the Superior Court of the
Province of Quebec, District of Quebec, seeking indemnification
for any damages that may be awarded against Loto Quebec in a
class action suit, also filed in the Superior Court of the
Province of Quebec.

The class action claim against Loto Quebec, to which neither IGT
nor any of its affiliates are parties, was filed by Jean Brochu
on behalf of himself and a class of other persons who allegedly
developed pathological behaviors through the play of video
lottery machines made available by Loto Quebec in taverns and
other public locations.

In this action, the plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of the
class damages of approximately CAD$578.7 million, representing
CAD$4,863 per class member, and CAD$119.0 million in punitive
damages.

Loto Quebec filed its Plea in Defense in the main action in
February 2006.

On Aug. 1, 2008, Loto Quebec filed a discontinuance of the action
in warranty against VLC.

Notwithstanding the discontinuance, Loto Quebec may still pursue
the claims it asserted, or could have asserted, in the action in
warranty through arbitration against VLC.

The trial of the class action against Loto Quebec commenced on
Sept. 15, 2008.

International Game Technology -- http://www.igt.com/--) is a  
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and network systems,
as well as licensing and services.  The company maintains an
array of entertainment-inspired gaming product lines. In addition
to its United States production facilities in Nevada, it
manufactures gaming products in the United Kingdom and through a
third-party manufacturer in Japan.  The company derives its
revenues from the distribution of electronic gaming equipment and
network systems, as well as licensing and services. Gaming
operations generate recurring revenues by providing customers
with its proprietary gaming equipment and network systems, as
well as licensing, services, and component parts.  Its product
sales include the sale of gaming equipment and network systems,
as well as licensing, services, and component parts.  In January
2009, it acquired certain operating assets of Progressive Gaming
International Corp.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Faces Suit Over Stock Price Inflation
---------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology faces a putative securities fraud
class action on allegations that it inflated its stock price
through misleading statements, according to the company's
Dec. 2, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 3, 2009.

On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes
of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act against IGT and certain of its officers, one of whom
is a director.

The complaint alleges that between Nov. 1, 2007 and Oct. 30,
2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price through a series
of materially false and misleading statements or omissions
regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects.

Plaintiff's counsel issued a press release on July 30, 2009,
announcing the lawsuit's pendency, the claims asserted, the
purported class period, and the right of any class member to seek
lead plaintiff status.  The press release initiated the 60-day
statutory period for shareholders to file a motion to seek lead-
plaintiff status.

International Game Technology -- http://www.igt.com/--) is a  
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and network systems,
as well as licensing and services.  The company maintains an
array of entertainment-inspired gaming product lines. In addition
to its United States production facilities in Nevada, it
manufactures gaming products in the United Kingdom and through a
third-party manufacturer in Japan.  The company derives its
revenues from the distribution of electronic gaming equipment and
network systems, as well as licensing and services. Gaming
operations generate recurring revenues by providing customers
with its proprietary gaming equipment and network systems, as
well as licensing, services, and component parts.  Its product
sales include the sale of gaming equipment and network systems,
as well as licensing, services, and component parts.  In January
2009, it acquired certain operating assets of Progressive Gaming
International Corp.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Plaintiffs Wants Jordan & Carr Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs in the case captioned Jordan, et al.
v. International Game Technology, et al., to consolidate their
case with the suit captioned Carr, et al. v. International Game
Technology, et al., remains pending.

On Oct. 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of participants in the company's employee pension plans,
naming as defendants the company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan
Committee, and several current and former officers and directors.

The complaints, which seek unspecified damages, allege breaches
of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, 29 U.S.C Sections 1109 and 1132.

The complaints alleges that between Nov. 1, 2007 and Oct. 30,
2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price through a series
of materially false and misleading statements or omissions
regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects.

The complaints further allege that the defendants breached
fiduciary duties to Plan Participants by failing to disclose
material facts to Plan Participants, failing to exercise their
fiduciary duties solely in the interest of the Participants,
failing to properly manage Plan assets, failing to diversify Plan
assets, and permitting Participants to elect to invest in Company
stock.

The actions, filed in the US District Court for the District of
Nevada, are captioned:

     -- Carr, et al. v. International Game Technology, et al.,
        Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and

     -- Jordan, et al. v. International Game Technology, et al.,
        Case No. 3:09-cv-00585.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the Jordan plaintiffs moved for consolidation of
the two actions, which motion is currently pending.

Defendants have not yet been served in the action, according to
the company's Dec. 2, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct.
3, 2009.

International Game Technology -- http://www.igt.com/-- is a  
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and network systems,
as well as licensing and services.  The company maintains an
array of entertainment-inspired gaming product lines. In addition
to its United States production facilities in Nevada, it
manufactures gaming products in the United Kingdom and through a
third-party manufacturer in Japan.  The company derives its
revenues from the distribution of electronic gaming equipment and
network systems, as well as licensing and services. Gaming
operations generate recurring revenues by providing customers
with its proprietary gaming equipment and network systems, as
well as licensing, services, and component parts.  Its product
sales include the sale of gaming equipment and network systems,
as well as licensing, services, and component parts.  In January
2009, it acquired certain operating assets of Progressive Gaming
International Corp.


JOS. A. BANK: Enters Agreement to Settle Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., has entered into an agreement in
order to settled a consolidated class action complaint, according
to the company's Dec. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2009.

On July 24, 2006, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and Robert N. Wildrick, then the company's Chief
Executive Officer and now its Chairman of the Board, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland by Roy T. Lefkoe,
Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-01892-WMN.

On Aug. 3, 2006, a lawsuit substantially similar to the class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for Maryland by Tewas
Trust UAD 9/23/86, Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-02011-WMN.

The Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as
those in the class action and purported to assert the same claims
and seek the same relief.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the class action and the Tewas Trust Action
were consolidated under the Class Action case number (1:06-cv-
01892-WMN) and the Tewas Trust Action was administratively
closed.

Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund was appointed the lead
plaintiff in the Class Action and filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.

R. Neal Black, then the company's Executive Vice President for
Merchandising and Marketing and now its President and Chief
Executive Officer, and David E. Ullman, the company's Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, were added as
defendants.

On behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between Dec. 5,
2005 and June 7, 2006, the Class Action purports to make claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, based on the company's disclosures during
the Class Period.

The Class Action seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorneys'
fees.

The company's Motion to Dismiss the Class Action was not granted.

In late October 2009, the company and MLAF agreed to settle the
Class Action for an amount that is within the limits of the
company's insurance coverage. The company and MLAF have also
agreed that the definitive settlement documents will reflect
that, at the time of the settlement, the substantial discovery
completed did not substantiate any of the claims against the
individual defendants.  The settlement is to be finalized in
definitive settlement documents which will be subject to a number
of conditions, including approval by the U.S. District Court for
Maryland.

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. -- http://www.josbank.com/-- is a  
designer, retailer and direct marketer (through stores, catalog
and Internet) of men's tailored and casual clothing and
accessories.  It sells all of its products exclusively under the
Jos. A. Bank label through its 460 retail stores (as of Jan. 31,
2009, which includes seven outlet stores and 12 franchise stores)
located throughout 42 states and the District of Columbia in the
United States, as well as through the company's nationwide
catalog and Internet operations.  Its products are targeted at
the male career professional and emphasize the Jos. A. Bank brand
of tailored and casual clothing and accessories.  The company's
products, which range from the original Jos. A. Bank Executive
collection to the more luxurious Jos. A. Bank Signature
collection to the exclusive Jos. A. Bank Signature Gold
collection.  Jos. A. Bank operates through two segments: Stores
and Direct Marketing.


JOS. A. BANK: Faces Racial Discrimination Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., faces a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on
allegations of racial discrimination, according to the company's
Dec. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

On Nov. 12, 2009, Casey J. Stewart, a former employee of the
company, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (Case number CV 09 5348
JL) alleging racial discrimination by the company with respect to
hiring and terms and conditions of employment.

The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the
case as a class action, declaratory and injunctive relief, an
order mandating corrective action, reinstatement, back pay, front
pay, general damages, exemplary and punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. -- http://www.josbank.com/-- is a  
designer, retailer and direct marketer (through stores, catalog
and Internet) of men's tailored and casual clothing and
accessories.  It sells all of its products exclusively under the
Jos. A. Bank label through its 460 retail stores (as of Jan. 31,
2009, which includes seven outlet stores and 12 franchise stores)
located throughout 42 states and the District of Columbia in the
United States, as well as through the company's nationwide
catalog and Internet operations.  Its products are targeted at
the male career professional and emphasize the Jos. A. Bank brand
of tailored and casual clothing and accessories.  The company's
products, which range from the original Jos. A. Bank Executive
collection to the more luxurious Jos. A. Bank Signature
collection to the exclusive Jos. A. Bank Signature Gold
collection.  Jos. A. Bank operates through two segments: Stores
and Direct Marketing.


NATIONWIDE GENERAL: Accused of Overcharging Auto Policyholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nationwide General Insurance
overcharges people whose vehicles have antitheft systems, a class
action claims in Philadelphia Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Fassett, et al. v. Nationwide General
Insurance Company, Case No. 09-cv-_____ (E.D. Pa.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/04/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer E. Agnew, Esq.
          Ira Neil Richards, Esq.
          Kenneth I. Trujillo, Esq.
          Gary Goldstein, Esq.
          TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLC
          1717 Arch St., Suite 3838
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-731-9004

               - and -  

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

               - and -  

          Joseph E. Mariotti, Esq.
          CAPUTO & MARIOTTI, P.C.
          730 Main Street
          Moosic, PA 18507
          Telephone: 570-342-9999


NETAPP INC: Del. Plaintiff Not Seeking Fees & Expenses Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, confirmed that its
request for payment was not directed against NetApp, Inc.,
according to its Dec. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 30,
2009.

On May 20, 2009, the company disclosed that it had entered into a
merger agreement with Data Domain, Inc. under which it would
acquire Data Domain in a stock and cash transaction.  On July 8,
2009, Data Domain's Board of Directors terminated the merger
agreement and, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Data
Domain paid the company a $57,000 termination fee.

On June 12, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of the shareholders of Data Domain.  The lawsuit named as
defendants the Data Domain directors, and NetApp and its merger
subs.

The suit alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the Data Domain
board of directors and aiding and abetting such breach by NetApp.  
The complaint initially sought injunctive relief and damages.

On Aug. 26, 2009, the plaintiff moved to dismiss its action and
requested attorneys' fees and expenses based on the benefit
allegedly conferred by the plaintiff's lawsuit upon Data Domain's
shareholders.

In addition, on Nov. 6, 2009, the plaintiff confirmed by
stipulation that its request for attorneys' fees and expenses was
not directed against the company and that it did not seek any
award of fees or expenses from the company or its merger subs.

NetApp, Inc. -- http://www.netapp.com/-- provides storage and  
data management solutions.  The company offers solutions for
storing, managing, protecting and archiving business data.  The
company is engaged in the design, manufacturing, marketing and
technical support of networked storage solutions.  It offers
storage solutions that incorporate its unified storage platform
and the functionality of the data and storage resource management
software.  NetApp markets its products in the United States and
in foreign countries through its sales personnel and
subsidiaries.  NetApp focuses on the data management and storage
markets, offering an array of solutions from its high-end
products designed for large enterprise customers to entry level
products designed for mid-sized enterprise customers.  The
company sells its products and services to end users through a
direct sales force, value-added resellers, system integrators,
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and distributors.


NETAPP INC: Calif. Suit Plaintiff Dismisses Claims in Oct. 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
dismissed by stipulation all claims against the company and its
merger subs, according to the company's Dec. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 30, 2009.

On May 20, 2009, the company disclosed that it had entered into a
merger agreement with Data Domain, Inc. under which it would
acquire Data Domain in a stock and cash transaction.  On July 8,
2009, Data Domain's Board of Directors terminated the merger
agreement and, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Data
Domain paid the company a $57,000 termination fee.

On June 19, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of Data Domain's shareholders.  The lawsuit named as
defendants Data Domain, the Data Domain directors, and NetApp and
its merger subs.

The suit alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the Data Domain
board of directors and aiding and abetting such breach by NetApp.  
The complaint initially sought injunctive relief and damages.

On July 23, 2009, the plaintiff in the California Suit purported
to serve an amended complaint alleging a single claim for
attorneys' fees and expenses based on the benefit allegedly
conferred by the plaintiff's lawsuit upon Data Domain's
shareholders.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the plaintiff dismissed by stipulation all
claims against the company and its merger subs.

NetApp, Inc. -- http://www.netapp.com/-- provides storage and  
data management solutions.  The company offers solutions for
storing, managing, protecting and archiving business data.  The
company is engaged in the design, manufacturing, marketing and
technical support of networked storage solutions.  It offers
storage solutions that incorporate its unified storage platform
and the functionality of the data and storage resource management
software.  NetApp markets its products in the United States and
in foreign countries through its sales personnel and
subsidiaries.  NetApp focuses on the data management and storage
markets, offering an array of solutions from its high-end
products designed for large enterprise customers to entry level
products designed for mid-sized enterprise customers.  The
company sells its products and services to end users through a
direct sales force, value-added resellers, system integrators,
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and distributors.


QWEST: Sued for Failing to Honor Broadband "Price for Life" Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Vuong at The Denver Post reports that a proposed class-
action lawsuit filed Monday alleges Denver-based Qwest failed to
live up to its "Price for Life" guarantee on high-speed Internet
service.

Plaintiff Rick Grosvenor, a Utah resident, claims Qwest in August
2008 hiked his broadband service rate to $49.99 a month from
$31.99 a month even though he had signed up for the "Price for
Life" promotion in 2007.  The price guarantee requires a two-year
commitment.

After Mr. Grosvenor complained to the company, his monthly charge
was lowered to $36.99, a rate he still pays today under protest,
according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Denver.

Qwest spokeswoman Monica Martinez declined comment on pending
litigation.

The company still offers a "Price for Life" deal.

Mr. Grosvenor's attorney:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-1764

also represents plaintiffs in another pending proposed class-
action suit in Denver federal court that alleges Qwest charges a
$200 early-termination fee on broadband customers who say they
never agreed to long-term contracts that included such a fee.

"Qwest imposes this $200 fee on its (Internet) customers
regardless of the customer's reason for canceling service, the
time remaining on the subscriber's alleged oral term commitment
and the lack of an agreement signed by the customer agreeing to
such terms," the lawsuit states.

Qwest has argued in a court filing that a similar complaint was
dismissed in Washington state.


SAN DIEGO: Police Charged with Pushing Homeless to Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that San Diego's
Police Department is "ruthlessly" driving homeless people away
from downtown, where they receive help from a church and homeless
shelter, by conducting illegal "raids," destroying their
property, and telling them to "head for the Arizona border," a
class action claims in Federal Court.

The Isaiah Project, a Christian group that helps the homeless by
giving them shopping carts for their possessions, called "Born
Again Baskets," and nine homeless San Diegans say the city,
several of its departments, and the Downtown San Diego
Partnership is violating their civil rights.

The homeless people say they left their possessions -- including
family photos, winter clothes, medications and other necessities
-- along the street in downtown San Diego's East Village while
they used the bathroom or entered a church or mission, and when
they returned they found police officers and city sanitation
workers had destroyed their property.

They say they were often made to watch as their possessions were
crushed while police officers mocked them.

One class member says he asked a police officer who has just
destroyed his possessions, "What am I supposed to do now?"

"You can head for the Arizona border," the officer replied. "I
hear Phoenix is nice this time of year."

The class wants the raids stopped and compensation for their
losses.

"The city knows that these items are not trash and that they have
been placed outside the church or the shelter only temporarily,
while their owners are inside seeking necessities such as food
and use of the bathroom," the complaint states. "The city also
knows that these things belong to homeless people and constitute
the entirety of their possessions."

A spokesman for the city's Environmental Services Department, a
defendant, told a local weekly that his department had joined
with city police for 27 such "abatements," from July 1, 2008 to
June 30 this year, and that no one complained about it.

A copy of the Complaint in The Isiah Project, Inc., et al. v.
City of San Diego, et al., Case No. 09-cv-02699 (S.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/04/SDHomeless.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Scott Dreher, Esq.
          Rovert Scott Norman, Esq.
          Carlos Americano, Esq.
          DREHER LAW FIRM
          Historic Louis Bank of Commerce Bldg.
          835 Fifth Ave., Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-230-8828

               - and -  

          David Blair-Loy, Esq.      
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF DAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
          P.O. Box 87131
          Dan Diego, CA 92138-7131
          Telephone: 619-232-2121


SCOTTS MIRACLE: Michigan Court Approves Request to Dismiss Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
granted The Scotts Miracle-Gro Co.'s request to dismiss a
purported class action, according to the company's Nov. 24, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In late 2008, the company, and its indirect subsidiary, EG
Systems, Inc., doing business as Scotts LawnService(R) were named
as defendants in a purported class action relating to Scotts
LawnService(R) application of certain pesticide products.

In the suit, Mark Baumkel, on behalf of himself and the purported
classes, sought an unspecified amount of damages, plus costs and
attorneys' fees, for alleged claims involving breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and violation of the state of Michigan's
consumer protection act.

On Sept. 28, 2009, the court granted the company's and Scotts
LawnService's motion and dismissed the suit with prejudice.
Since that time, the company and Mr. Baumkel have agreed to a
confidential settlement that, among other things, precludes an
appeal of the decision.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company -- http://www.scotts.com/--  
markets lawn fertilizer, grass seed and growing media products
within the United States.


TOSHIBA: Quebec Suit Complains Projection TV Bulbs Don't Last
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toshiba claims the lamps in
its 2004-05 model digital light projection TVs last for 6,000 to
8,000 hours, but they often burn out after 300 hours, according
to a class action in Quebec Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ben-Eli v. Toshiba of Canada Limited,
et al., Case No. 06-000491-098 (Quebec Super. Ct., D. Montreal),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/04/ToshibaTVs.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Orenstein, Esq.  
          ORENSTEIN & ASSOCIATES
          2015 Peel Street, Suite 300
          Montreal, Quebec H3A 1T8
          CANADA
          

WASHINGTON: Suit Says State Not Providing Service to Mentally Ill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that Washington
state declared in 2002 that mentally ill children on Medicaid
need in-home and community based health services instead of
"cycling in and out of hospitals, juvenile detention centers,
long-term psychiatric institutions, and foster care placements
that may be hundreds of miles away from their homes and
families," but has done nothing to make that happen, a class
action claims in Federal Court.

The class claims that many medical services the children need
"may become available only if the child's parent relinquishes
custody to the foster care system, tearing the child away from a
caring and loving family environment and introducing further
instability."

Failure to provide the services increases the "and in many cases
ensur(es) that the children will be hospitalized and/or enter the
"juvenile delinquency system," according to the complaint.
     
Guardians of 10 institutionalized children say the kids suffer
from "family separation and instability, including homelessness,
eviction, foster care placement, and out-of-state placement,
repeated and avoidable hospitalizations, unnecessary and harmful
juvenile detention, segregation through unnecessary, prolonged
and often harmful institutionalization, and worsening mental and
physical health conditions contributing to their decline
socially, academically and in daily living."

For institutionalized children under 21, the class sued Secretary
of the Department of Social and Health Services Susan Dreyfus.

They want declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce the
Medicaid Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the
Rehabilitation Act and the 14th Amendment, so that intensive home
and community based services will be provided.

A copy of the Complaint in T.R., et al. v. Dreyfus, Case No.
09-cv-_____ (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/04/WashKidHealth.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Regan Bailey, Esq.
          Susan Kas, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON
          315 5th Ave. South, Suite 850
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: 206-324-1521

               - and -  

          Susan E. Foster, Esq.
          Frederick B. Rivera, Esq.
          Travis A. Extrom, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Ave., Suite 4800
          Seattle, WA 89101-3099
          Telephone: 206-359-8000

               - and -  

          Jane Perkins, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          211 N. Columbia St.
          Chapel Hill, NC 27514
          Telephone: 919-968-6308

               - and -

          Patrick Gardner, Esq.
          Fiza Quraishi, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          405 14th St., 15th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 510-835-8098


WET SEAL: Labor Code Violation Suit in Los Angeles Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc., continues to face a lawsuit alleging
violations of the State of California Labor Code, according to
the company's Dec. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
Oct. 31, 2009.

On July 19, 2006, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, on behalf
of certain of the company's current and former employees that
were employed and paid by the company on an hourly basis during
the four-year period from July 19, 2002 through July 19, 2006.  
The company was named as a defendant.

The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.

On Nov. 30, 2006, the company reached an agreement to pay
approximately $300,000 to settle this matter, subject to Superior
Court approval.

On May 18, 2007, the Superior Court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the court issued its order granting final
approval of the class action settlement, subject to appeal.

On April 28, 2008, a notice of appeal of the judgment was filed.

On May 6, 2009, the Court reversed and remanded the case for the
Superior Court to re-evaluate the fairness of the settlement,
which is expected to take place in December 2009.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a national  
specialty retailer operating stores selling apparel and accessory
items designed for female customers aged 13 to 35 years.  As of
Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 496 retail stores in 47
states, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.  Its products can also be
purchased online.  The company operates two nationwide, primarily
mall-based, chains of retail stores under the names Wet Seal and
Arden B.  


WET SEAL: Dec. 2009 Status Conference Hearing Set in Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange has set a status conference on Dec. 15, 2009, in a
complaint against The Wet Seal, Inc., according to the company's
Dec. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

On May 22, 2007, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange on behalf of
certain of the company's current and former employees who were
employed and paid by the company during the four-year period from
May 22, 2003 through May 22, 2007.  The company was named as a
defendant.

The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.

Discovery is ongoing and the Court has indicated that the class
certification filing date and briefing schedule will be set at a
status conference on Dec. 15, 2009.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a national  
specialty retailer operating stores selling apparel and accessory
items designed for female customers aged 13 to 35 years.  As of
Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 496 retail stores in 47
states, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.  Its products can also be
purchased online.  The company operates two nationwide, primarily
mall-based, chains of retail stores under the names Wet Seal and
Arden B.  

                            *********

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  * * *