CAR_Public/091217.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, December 17, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 249

                            Headlines

AT&T INC: Residents Abandon Appeal of Plaintiffs' Lawyers' Fees
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Acknowledges Receipt of Securities Fraud Suit
CITY OF FARGO: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Resist Disclosure of Claimants
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Paying $200 Mil. to Settle Backdating Affair
DON'S GYM: Fitness Center Closes & Members Explore Class Action

DYNAMEX INC: Hearing on Plaintiffs' Plea Set for Today
FLINT, MICHIGAN: Strip Search Settlement Gets Interim Approval
FORTUNET INC: Minority Shareholders Sue Company & Majority Holder
GERMANY: 34,000 Plaintiffs Want Vorratsdatenspeicherung to Stop
HARD ROCK: San Diego Hotel Accused of Bait-and-Switch Scheme

IMAX CORP: Canadian Court Certifies Shareholder Class
JAPAN: Tokyo Firebombing Victims' Class Action Suit Dismissed
MAITLAND NEWCASTLE DIOCESE: Australian Settlement Talks Underway
METROPCS: Class Action Challenges "Unlimited International Calls"
NEUROMETRIX INC: D. Mass. Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit

NEW YORK CITY: 2nd Cir. Upholds 2007 Child Services Settlement
OPTION ONE: Accused of Labor Code Violations in Calif. Lawsuit
SONY ELECTRONICS: VAIO GRX Notebook Settlement Hearing on Feb. 18
SPRINT NEXTEL: Accused in Calif. of Billing Hidden Surcharges
WYNN RESORTS: Seeks Dismissal of D. Nev. Second-Hand Smoke Suit

* NERA Releases Updated Securities Class Action Litigation Report

                            *********

AT&T INC: Residents Abandon Appeal of Plaintiffs' Lawyers' Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that six residents have
dropped their appeal of a judge's ruling against them in a class
action suit against AT&T.  The $65 million suit was settled last
month, and covered in the Nov. 19, 2009, edition of the Class
Action Reporter.  Edward Luby, a lawyer from University City who
represented five residents, told the newspaper last week that he
filed a dismissal with the Missouri Court of Appeals.  The
residents had sought to intervene in the AT&T suit so they could
challenge the amount of attorneys' fees. St. Louis Circuit Judge
Edward Sweeney denied their motion and was sharply critical of
the residents in his lengthy order.   He said their request was
"replete with erroneous statements" and that they had unfairly
attacked John Mulligan Jr., University City's city attorney.


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Acknowledges Receipt of Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Superior Energy Inc. confirmed it has been notified of a
class action lawsuit commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  Sgalambo v.
McKenzie, et al., Case No. 09-cv-10087 (S.D.N.Y.) (Scheindlin,
J.), purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Canadian Superior between January 14, 2008 and February
17, 2009.  The complaint alleges that certain former executives
of Canadian Superior violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by failing to disclose information concerning its prospects in
Trinidad and Tobago.  The complaint also names a current officer
of Canadian Superior as a defendant.  Canadian Superior has not
been named a defendant in the case as it sought protection under
Canadian bankruptcy and reorganization laws and has since
reorganized.  Canadian Superior intends to take any necessary
steps to protect its interests in this matter.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100

Last week, The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., related that the Complaint
charges that certain of Canadian Superior's former executives
violated federal securities laws.  On August 16, 2007, Canadian
Superior and Challenger Energy announced that BG International
Limited entered into a farm-in agreement and joint operating
agreement with Canadian Superior to participate in the
exploration drilling and development of the Intrepid Block 5(c).
The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) the
discovered reserves for Intrepid Block 5(c) were below the
economic threshold for development; (ii) that Canadian Superior
had notified BG of its intention to commence a corporate sale in
November 2008 to overcome the financial constraints that were
preventing it from meeting its funding obligations under the
Joint Operating Agreement; (iii) that Canadian Superior had
violated the terms of the Joint Operating Agreement with BG,
potentially endangering its interest in the Joint Venture; and
(iv) Canadian Superior failed to timely pay Maersk, the drilling
operator, and potentially other contractors.


CITY OF FARGO: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Resist Disclosure of Claimants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that lawyers who obtained the
$1.5 million settlement in Sauby v. City of Fargo, Case No.
07-cv-00010 (D. N.D.), a class action lawsuit over excessive
traffic fines in the city of Fargo, say they will continue to
fight a request to turn over names to child support enforcement
officials.

The state has said it would seek a subpoena to get the names of
about 14,000 people who have filed valid claims for
reimbursement, in order to find out if any of them are behind in
child support payments.

An attorney for the woman who filed the original lawsuit:

          Timothy Q. Purdon, Esq.
          VOGEL LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 2097
          200 N. 3 St., Ste. 201
          Bismarck, ND 58502-2097
          Telephone: 701-258-7899

says he believes the information is confidential.  Mr. Purdon and
other attorneys obtained a protective order to make sure the
matter is heard in federal court.

Child enforcement officials say the information is public and the
list will only be used in trying to collect money for families.

The Class Action Reporter covered the settlement on Dec. 3, 2009.  


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Paying $200 Mil. to Settle Backdating Affair
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Stein and Ron Steinblatt at "Globes" report that Comverse
Technology Inc. (Nasdaq:CMVT) is close to a compromise with
investors concerning a class action suit over the options
backdating affair.  Messrs. Stein and Steinblatt understand from
their sources that the company, which provides billing software
and systems and multimedia communications services, is expected
to pay investors between $200-250 million to settle the suit
against it in the US.  

The belief is that former Comverse founder Kobi Alexander, who
fled the US and settled in Namibia, will pay $60 million from his
own pocket as part of the settlement.

The company itself will pay between $140-170 million to investors
in a number of payments during 2010, while Alexander himself will
make an immediate payment of $50 million out of the total amount
he is agreeing to pay. As part of the compromise all parties
agree that Comverse will not admit any culpability over the
affair.

News broke of Comverse's backdating affair four years ago when it
became clear that the company and its managers had caused its
investors financial losses by backdating options, which resulted
in substantive accounting irregularities.

The likely compromise between Comverse, Alexander and the
investors as part of the class action suit filed by US law firm
Pomeranz on behalf of Menorah Mivtachim Holdings Ltd. (TASE:
MORA) follows an agreement with the US Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) last June by which Comverse was not required to
admit or deny the SEC charges in the affair, and was also not
required to pay a fine.


DON'S GYM: Fitness Center Closes & Members Explore Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHNT NEWS 19 in Huntsville, Ala., reports that Don's Gym and
Fitness Center in South Huntsville closed it's doors leaving some
without a place to work out, or the money paid for memberships.

Members say Don Smith, Jr., and Don Smith, Sr., were opening the
business for a few minutes to let some people pick-up their
workout equipment.  Things did not go as planned.

"Members just wanted to get answers.  Everyone showed up this
morning to get answers about why they were taking some equipment
out of the back," said Brent Smith.

The members told WHNT NEWS 19 their main problem is not getting
answers to their questions.  They did mention another issue they
have is with money.  They are asking what's going on with their
membership refunds.  

Some members told WHNT NEWS 19 that the gym collected membership
fees just days before it closed.  Several members at the gym said
they have already started talking to a lawyer about a class
action lawsuit.

The Better Business Bureau told WHNT NEWS 19 it is aware of the
situation.  The bureau says Don's Gym has an "A" rating with the
BBB and has never had any complaints until now.


DYNAMEX INC: Hearing on Plaintiffs' Plea Set for Today
------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, has a set a
hearing for today, Dec. 17, 2009, to consider the request of the
plaintiff for the Court to issue an Order adjudicating that there
is no merit to Dynamex Inc.'s Affirmative Defense, according to
the company's Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2009.

On April 15, 2005, a putative class action was filed against the
company by a former independent contractor in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that the company
unlawfully misclassified its California drivers as independent
contractors, rather than employees, and asserting, as a
consequence, entitlement on behalf of the purported class
claimants to overtime compensation and other benefits under
California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of certain operating
expenses, and various insurance and other benefits and the
obligation of the Company to pay employer payroll taxes under
federal and state law.

Plaintiff.s original Motion for Class Certification was denied in
December 2006.

On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the Denial of the Motion
for Class Certification and remanded the matter for additional
discovery and re-hearing of the Motion. Pursuant to Order of the
Court, the names and contact information for members of the
putative class were produced by the company in January 2009.

In early February 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,
which among other matters, added an additional named Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs filed a new Motion for Class Certification in June,
2009, seeking the certification of a Class with four Subclasses,
each dependent on the type of service rendered by the independent
contractor and the weight of the vehicle provided by the
independent contractor.

On July 28, 2009, the Court granted the Motion.

The four subclasses are each subject to between four and eight
exclusions.

Plaintiffs proposed a Notice of Pendency of Class Action to be
sent to members of the Class.

The Court approved the Notice over the company.s objections in
early October.

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

Dynamex Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of  
same-day delivery and logistics services in the United States and
Canada.  The company operates in the same-day delivery services
segment, with two primary service offerings: same-day on-demand
delivery services, and same-day local and regional distribution
services, including outsourcing services, such as fleet management
and facilities management.


FLINT, MICHIGAN: Strip Search Settlement Gets Interim Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Egan at The Detroit News reports that a federal judge today
approved a $900,000 class-action settlement for more than 100
people who alleged they were illegally detained, strip searched,
and in some cases had their body cavities searched during a 2005
raid on a Flint dance club.

As part of the settlement, Flint police have agreed to institute
new policies and training to prevent unconstitutional searches
and arrests from happening again, the ACLU of Michigan, which
backed the plaintiffs in the case, said in a news release.
The settlement is to be paid by Flint and Genesee County.

According to an order issued by U.S. District Judge Stephen J.
Murphy III, $564,470 is to be divided among class members, about
$282,000 will go to attorney fees, and about $53,000 to pay costs
associated with the lawsuit.

"I am happy that this horrible and humiliating experience is
behind me," lead plaintiff Jennifer Thompson said in a prepared
statement.

"The entire ordeal was terrifying beyond belief."

A final fairness hearing in the case is set for Feb. 16.


FORTUNET INC: Minority Shareholders Sue Company & Majority Holder
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Yuri Itkis
is trying to buy up all the shares of Fortunet that he does not
already own, for the unfair price of $1.70 apiece, in Clark
County Court, Las Vegas.

A copy of the Complaint in Jungreis, et al. v. Itkis, et al.,
Case No. A-09-605118-B (Nev. D. Ct., Clark Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/10/SCAFortunet.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-363-7500

               - and -  

          Andrew P. Gordon, Esq.
          McDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP
          2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1000
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Telephone: 702-873-4100


GERMANY: 34,000 Plaintiffs Want Vorratsdatenspeicherung to Stop
---------------------------------------------------------------
Agence France-Presse reports from Berlin that Germany's biggest-
ever class action lawsuit began Tuesday, with over 34,000
plaintiffs seeking to overturn a law on keeping phone and
Internet records which they say infringes their right to privacy.

Since 2008, German telecom firms have been obliged by law to keep
a record of every email sent, every phone call made - mobile or
otherwise - and all Internet usage as part of measures to prevent
terrorism and fight crime.

They are not meant to record or listen to the phone calls or read
the emails. All that is kept is who emailed or phoned whom, and
which websites were visited; and to keep this log for six months
for police to be able to consult.

Critics say that the potential for errors and abuse is huge, that
a culture of excessive 'Big Brother' surveillance is pervading
other areas of life and that this and similar measures are being
implemented in a ham-fisted manner.

The German constitutional court, which was not expected to take a
decision on Tuesday, has in two previous rulings already forced
the authorities to curtail the retention of data, known as
'Vorratsdatenspeicherung.'

Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger found herself
in the unusual position of appearing both as plaintiff and
defendant, AFP notes, having joined the action as a member of the
opposition before becoming minister this year.


HARD ROCK: San Diego Hotel Accused of Bait-and-Switch Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that
promoters of the Hard Rock Hotel San Diego took tens of millions
of dollars through bait-and-switch contracts that led investors
to believe they would be treated like "rock stars" in suites that
cost as much as $2 million apiece, but let them use the rooms for
only 4 weeks a year, according to a federal class action.

The class claims that promoters sold investment contracts on
studios and suites at Hard Rock Hotel San Diego without
registering them with the SEC or qualifying them with the
California Department of Corporations because they didn't want
federal and state regulators reviewing the agreements.
     
The class claims the purchase contracts gave the hotel control of
the keys to the units and allowed investors to use them only 28
days a year. Whether the investors made money on the units wholly
depended on the efforts of the promoters, the complaint states.
     
The investors say the money they are receiving is only a fraction
of what they need to break even. They claim to have "suffered
tens of millions of dollars in damages."
     
The class claims that when they entered the agreements, they
thought had a choice about whether to use the promoters as
managers - but they had no such choice.
     
"The Hard Rock Hotel San Diego Investment Contract was an
artifice of deception" used to "shift substantial risks of the
[hotel] to dazzled investors," according to the complaint.
     
The defendant promoters include the Tarsadia Hotel, 5th Rock LLC,
MPK One LLC, Playground Destination Properties, and East West
Bank; the individual defendants are Tusher Patel, B.U. Patel, and
Gregory Casserly.
     
The class seeks rescission and damages for misrepresentation and
omissions, and securities and corporations violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Salameh, et al. v. Tarsadia Hotel, et
al., Case No. 09-cv-02739 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/10/HardRockSD.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Aguirre, Esq.
          Christopher S. Morris, Esq.
          Maria C. Severson, Esq.
          AGUIRRE, MORRIS & SERVERSON LLP
          44 West C Street, Suite 210
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-876-5364


IMAX CORP: Canadian Court Certifies Shareholder Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In a groundbreaking case, Jim Middlemiss at the Financial Post
reports, an Ontario Superior Court judge has certified a class-
action law suit against IMAX Corp., the Canadian entertainment
technology maven that pioneered giant-screen cinema.

Silver, et al. v. IMAX Corp., et al., Ct. File No. CV-06-3257-00
(Ont. Super. Ct. of J.), is notable because it is the first to
test changes to the Ontario Securities Act, which created civil
liability for what is called secondary market disclosure.  The
changes made it easier for disgruntled shareholders to sue
officers and directors of a company over alleged
misrepresentations or omissions in public disclosure documents;
however, until now, no one knew what the threshold for bringing
such a case would be.

In the ruling, that will no doubt be cheered by investors, and
jeered by Bay and Wall Streets, Justice Katherine van Rensburg
held that the hurdle for bringing such litigation should be set
low.

"There is no reason to read in a 'high' or 'substantial' onus
requirement for good faith in this type of proceeding," she
ruled, adding that "a threshold that is too difficult to meet
will eventually have little deterrent value."

The judge's findings, set out in two separate decisions, one
granting the plaintiffs leave to bring the case and another
certifying the action as a class suit, pave way for investors
Cliff Cohen and Marvin Neil Silver to sue a number of IMAX
officers and directors, including CEO Richard Gelfond and
chairman Bradley Wechsler over disclosures relating to the
company's 2005 financial statements.  Copies of the decisions
are available at http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/IMAX1.pdf
and http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/IMAX2.pdf

One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs:

          Jay Strosberg, Esq.
          SUTTS STROSBERG LLP
          600 - 251 Goyeau Street
          Windsor, Ontario N9A 6V4
          CANADA
          Telephone: 519-258-9333

told Mr. Middlemiss the judge "makes it clear that the
preliminary merits test . . . is not a high threshold.  This will
lower the bar and make it easier for investors to have access to
justice. . . ."

Another plaintiff lawyer:

          Dimitri Lascaris, Esq.
          SISKINDS
          680 Waterloo Street
          P.O. Box 2520
          London, Ontario N6A 3V8
          CANADA
          Telephone: 519-660-7844

added that the judge faced a "huge undertaking" because she was
interpreting legislation in Canada that had "no parallels."  He
added "it's a very good day for the investing public in Canada.
For a long time it's been difficult for them to advance their
claims in a class action setting. Finally, there's relief on the
class-action horizon."

The case will go to the discovery process and is still years away
from being heard by a court, Mr. Middlemiss notes.  

IMAX Corp. is represented by:

          R. Paul Steep, Esq.
          Dana M. Peebles, Esq.
          McCARTHY TETRAULT
          Suite 5300, TD Bank Tower
          Toronto Dominion Centre
          Toronto, Ontario M5K 1E6
          CANADA
          Telephone: 416-362-1812


JAPAN: Tokyo Firebombing Victims' Class Action Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Mainichi Daily News reports that a case filed against the
Japanese government by victims of the 1945 Great Tokyo Air Raid,
calling for compensation for lack of support following World War
II, was dismissed on Monday.

One-hundred thirty-one family of the dead and survivors of the
March 10, 1945, U.S. Army Air Force firebombing of the capital --
which claimed the lives of about 100,000 -- filed suit against
the government calling for an apology and a total of 1.4 billion
yen in compensation for failing to provide support after the war.

However, Presiding Tokyo District Court Judge Toshihiko Tsuruoka
stated that "relief for victims of war is at base a political
consideration and should be decided through legislation, and
there is no choice but to allow legislation the greatest
latitude."  The plaintiffs plan to appeal.

The full story is available at:

     http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20091215p2a00m0na015000c.html


MAITLAND NEWCASTLE DIOCESE: Australian Settlement Talks Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Giselle Wakatama at ABC News reports that lawyers in Australia
are trying to negotiate a multi-million dollar settlement with
the Catholic Church for 24 victims of a paedophile Hunter Valley
priest.

The 24 men have joined a class action lawsuit for damages for
abuse they suffered at the hands of Father John Sidney Denham.

Fr. Denham is accused of molesting 40 boys, mainly at a Newcastle
Catholic High School in the 1970's and 80's.  He has pleaded
guilty to 29 child sex offences and a further 29 will be taken
into account during sentencing proceedings, starting in Sydney
today.

A lawyer acting for Dr. Denham's victims has told the ABC that he
is hoping to avoid court and negotiate a settlement with the
Maitland Newcastle Catholic Diocese.

It is understood each victim could be paid hundreds of thousands
of dollars.

On Friday, Pope Benedict apologised again for the actions of some
members of the clergy.


METROPCS: Class Action Challenges "Unlimited International Calls"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hood at ConsumerAffairs.com reports that a class action
lawsuit says that wireless provider MetroPCS promises "unlimited
international calls" for only $5 per month, but fails to mention
that calls to many countries are excluded. The suit accuses
MetroPCS of using "bait and switch/deceptive trade practices,"
including misleading advertising, to lure customers into signing
up for the plan.

Friedman v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-05415
(E.D.N.Y.) (Amon, J.), accuses MetroPCS of violating two New York
consumer protection laws "and substantially similar statutes of
different states."

Specifically, the action says that MetroPCS offered unlimited
international calls for a mere $5 a month, on top of the $45 flat
fee attached to the company's "Ultimate Unlimited" plan, but
never mentioned to consumers that the plan excludes calls to many
foreign destinations. According to the suit, class members bought
the service "in reliance of such advertisements."

MetroPCS's appeal comes from its non-traditional, flexible plans
marketed to city dwellers. The company offers "unlimited service"
for a flat monthly fee, and doesn't use contracts. It primarily
serves customers in larger cities, including New York, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Miami, and San Francisco. It
doesn't take much effort to find ads sporting MetroPCS's
trademark orange and purple logo plastered on the walls of subway
trains or bus depots.

Lead plaintiff Eli Friedman decided on a MetroPCS plan in
November after seeing such advertisements throughout New York
City. The ads suggested that international calls were practically
free under the company's wireless plans. A representative ad
cited in the complaint read, "Add the World. $5. Unlimited
International Calling."

Enticed, Mr. Friedman bought a phone, plan, and threw down the
extra $5 for international calls. According to the suit, neither
the ads nor the contract Friedman signed mentioned that calls to
certain countries were excluded from the carrier's offer of
"unlimited international calls." MetroPCS's salespeople also
neglected to mention the plan's signficiant limitations.

Despite MetroPCS's best efforts, it didn't take Mr. Friedman long
to figure out that the plan was nothing to write home about.

Shortly after signing up for his plan, he tried to place two
calls to the United Kingdom and Israel -- hardly third-world
nations -- and was unable to connect. He was told that placing
the calls successfully would require him to buy a MetroPCS-
provided calling card, defeating the purpose of buying a phone
plan that includes "unlimited international calls." Friedman's
plan became "of little or no value" once he learned of the number
of "important locations" that were off-limits under the plan.

The suit seeks an order of specific performance, asking that the
court compel MetroPCS to provide the international calls that
customers had to pay for out of their own pockets. In the
alternative, the class seeks reimbursement for the calls they
already made.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Edward N. Gewirtz, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: 212-697-6484


NEUROMETRIX INC: D. Mass. Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
NeuroMetrix, Inc. (Nasdaq: NURO), a health care company
transforming patient care through neurotechnology, today
announced that United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed the consolidated federal securities class
action lawsuit that had been pending against the company.

The lawsuit, filed against the company and certain officers on
behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased
NeuroMetrix common stock between October 27, 2005, and February
12, 2008, had alleged, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in various Securities and Exchange
Commission filings, press releases and other public statements in
violation of the federal securities laws. The Court entered a
judgment dismissing the complaint on December 8, 2009, rejecting
the plaintiffs' allegations in their entirety. The plaintiffs
have the ability to appeal the Court's decision.

NeuroMetrix -- http://www.neurometrix.com/-- is a science-based  
health care company transforming patient care through
neurotechnology.


NEW YORK CITY: 2nd Cir. Upholds 2007 Child Services Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed a challenge to a class-
action settlement over New York's alleged practice of removing
children from the homes of black and Latino parents or guardians
without properly investigating allegations of abuse and neglect.

Nearly 11 years ago, People United for Children filed a class
action against New York City, the city's Administration for Child
Services, its commissioner and then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani,
claiming the city's child-removal policies discriminated against
minorities and violated their constitutional, parental, privacy,
cultural and religious rights.  

In February 2007, U.S. District Judge Kevin Duffy approved the
parties' settlement, which took steps to keep parents better
informed and to eliminate potential bias.  The city also agreed
to pay nearly $100,000 in "incentive awards" to all but one named
plaintiff.

The Manhattan-based federal appeals court upheld the settlement
as "fair, adequate, and reasonable," despite the objections of
two class members.

A copy of the slip opinion in People United For Children, Inc. v.
The City of New York, Nos. 07-2042-cv(L), 07-2084-cv(CON), and
07-2636-cv(CON) (2d Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/5oqXf


OPTION ONE: Accused of Labor Code Violations in Calif. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Option One Mortgage, Sand
Canyon Corp., and H&R Block are accused of Labor Code violations,
in a single class action in Santa Ana, Calif.


SONY ELECTRONICS: VAIO GRX Notebook Settlement Hearing on Feb. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing to approve a settlement in Hapner v. Sony
Electronics Inc., Case No. 839244 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego
Cty.), is scheduled for Feb. 18, 2010.  

The lawsuit claims that Sony VAIO(R) GRX Notebook computers in
the 500 and 600 series were defectively designed and that the
solder joints holding the memory sockets onto the motherboards of
the computers would fail prematurely.  The Plaintiff claims this
resulted in failure to boot, inability to access installed
memory, freezing and other related symptoms.  Sony Electronics
Inc., the Defendant in the case, says it did not do anything
wrong and that there is nothing wrong with the computers.

To settle the litigation, Sony has agreed to reimburse certain
repair costs and not object to a request by plaintiffs' counsel
for up to $625,000 in legal fees.  

Additional information about the settlement and the claims
process is available at http://esupport.sony.com/vaiogrxsettlement

The Plaintiff class is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
          Gary Kostow, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 610-891-9880

               - and -  

          James Miller, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: 860-526-1100

               - and -  

          Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          401 West A Street, Suite 2350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-235-2416

               - and -  

          Lawrence E. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN & ASSOCIATES
          432 Tulpehocken Ave.
          Elkins Park, PA 19027
          Telephone: 215-885-3302

               - and -  

          Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS D. MAURIELLO
          209 Avenida Fabricante, Suite 125
          San Clemente, CA 92672
          Telephone: 949-542-3555

               - and -  

          John Malesovas, Esq.
          MALESOVAS & MARTIN, LLP
          425 Austin Ave., 10th Floor
          P.O. Box 1709
          Waco, TX 76703-1709
          Telephone: 254-753-1777

               - and -  

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 215-564-2300

               - and -  

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          780 Third Ave., 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-355-9500

               - and -  

          Anthony L. Vitullo, Esq.
          FEE, SMITH, SHARP & VITULLO, LLP
          Three Galleria Tour
          13155 Noel Road, Suite 1000
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: 972-934-9100

               - and -  

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          KIESEL, BOUCHER & LARSON, LLP
          8648 Wilshire Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310-854-4444

Sony is represented by:

          Luanne Sacks, Esq.
          John R. Hurey, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: 415-836-2500

               - and -  

          Brian A. Foster, Esq.
          Nikki Wyll, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101-4297
          Telephone: 619-699-2632


SPRINT NEXTEL: Accused in Calif. of Billing Hidden Surcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sprint Nextel adds hidden
surcharges of as much as 10 to 20 percent to its phone bills, a
class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


WYNN RESORTS: Seeks Dismissal of D. Nev. Second-Hand Smoke Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green at the Las Vegas Sun reports that attorneys for Wynn
Las Vegas are seeking dismissal of a lawsuit claiming its casino
workers are exposed to dangerous second-hand tobacco smoke.

In court papers filed Friday, Wynn's attorneys argued that (A)
the suit appears to be part of a union campaign involving Wynn
casino dealers and (B) Wynn is in compliance with the Nevada
Clean Indoor Air Act, which specifically allows smoking in
casinos.

Kastroll v. Wynn Resorts, Ltd., Case No. 09-cv-02034 (D. Nev.),
was filed Oct. 20, 2009, in federal court in Las Vegas by dealer
and Transport Workers Union officer Kanie Kastroll, as reported
in the Oct. 23, 2009, edition of the Class Action Reporter.  

The suit, filed by Chicago class-action lawsuit firm
KamberEdelson LLC, seeks an order requiring Wynn "to take
reasonable measures to protect its employees from second-hand
smoke" and unspecified costs and attorney's fees.

Attorneys for the Las Vegas Strip resort:

          James J. Pisanelli, Esq.  
          Debra Spinelli, Esq.
          BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK
          100 City Parkway, Suite 1600
          Las Vegas, NV 89106
          Telephone: 702-382-2101

argued Friday: "The real basis for this action appears by all
measures to be the pursuit of a political agenda."

"Although not specifically disclosed in her pleading, plaintiff
is the president of a local union who has fought for years to
unionize a certain group of Wynn's casino workers. In what
appears to be either a retaliatory lashing out at the Wynn or an
otherwise shameless grab for publicity, plaintiff has filed this
action with no real causes of action under Nevada law, and no
jurisdiction whatsoever for this court," Wynn said in its filing.

"Plaintiff's complaint reads more like a union rally speech than
a legal pleading.  Whether her baseless and inflammatory
allegations are really designed to simply garner support and
appreciation from the people plaintiff hopes to represent in her
union is an obvious and fair question," Wynn's filing said.

The Wynn attorneys also asserted that with "the Nevada
Legislature's specific endorsement of Wynn's conduct, Wynn has no
duty to shield its employees from second-hand smoke and
plaintiff's claims must therefore fail."

Wynn's filing noted that the 2006 ballot measure creating the
Nevada Clean Indoor Act, as codified by the Legislature,
specifically exempts from regulation areas within casinos where
loitering by minors is already prohibited.

"In essence, plaintiff asks this court to override the Nevada
Legislature's judgment on these very issues and judicially
legislate how the gaming industry conducts its business," Wynn's
response said.

Wynn's attorneys also noted there's debate in the scientific
community about at what level second-hand smoke becomes dangerous
and that it would be impossible to determine whether injuries
associated with such smoke were sustained in a casino -- or
elsewhere.

"Due its ubiquitous nature, the court can never be certain about
the source of any individual claimant's exposure to second-hand
smoke. Indeed, Wynn cannot control its employees' exposure to
tobacco smoke outside of the workplace. It may be true that many
of its employees are exposed to second-hand smoke on a regular
basis while at home or other places they frequent," Wynn's filing
said.


* NERA Releases Updated Securities Class Action Litigation Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
The credit crisis, now in its third year, and related financial
sector turmoil continued to fuel new federal securities class
action filings in 2009, according to NERA Economic Consulting's
bi-annual report, Recent Trends in Securities Class Action
Litigation: 2009 Year-End Update, released earlier this week.

According to NERA's report, securities class action filings are
expected to reach 235 cases in 2009, down from 253 filings in
2008. While filings may have declined year-over-year in 2009,
they still greatly exceed the 130 filings in 2006, before the
start of the credit crisis.

                  Credit Crisis Filings Waning

While the credit crisis continued to drive filings activity in
2009, with over 60 credit crisis cases filed through 30 November,
the pace of these cases has gradually declined throughout the
year. Credit crisis-related filings in the first half of 2009
outnumbered second-half filings by approximately two to one.

In 2008, over 40% of cases filed were credit crisis cases. To
date in 2009, however, this proportion has decreased to around
30%.

                       Exchange-Traded Fund
                 Litigation -- A New Phenomenon?

According to the Recent Trends in Securities Class Action
Litigation authors, one source of the increase in securities
class action filings in 2009 is the wave of filings on behalf of
investors in various exchange-traded funds (ETFs), a new
litigation phenomenon. In these cases, investors typically allege
that the defendants failed to disclose risks and the probability
of potential losses associated with the investments.

Thirteen ETF-related securities class action cases were filed
between August and November 2009.

                   Trends in Settlement Values

The average securities class action settlement in 2009 is $12
million, the lowest settlement value in this decade. This low
average, however, is driven by an "outlier" settlement-the 309
IPO laddering cases which were settled for an aggregate $568
million, but an average of less than $2 million per case.
Removing this outlier, the average settlement value in 2009 is
$42 million.

The median settlement value excluding IPO laddering settlements,
a much better indicator of actual trends, is $9 million for 2009-
similar to the 2007 and 2008 medians.

                   Future Shareholder Monetary
                       Settlements to Rise?

"We find that investor losses, which can be calculated using
publicly available data, historically have been the single most
powerful determinant of settlements," said Dr. Stephanie
Plancich, NERA Senior Consultant and report co-author. "In recent
years, median investor losses for settled cases have been well
over $300 million. For cases filed in 2008 and 2009, though,
median investor losses have been almost 40% higher, over $500
million. This may be an indication that although there has not
been an upward trend in recent settlements, future settlements
may be larger once these recently filed cases begin to settle in
more substantial numbers."

           Securities Class Action Trends Report Series

NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for
more than 15 years. Two reports are published a year: one at mid-
year and an annual review published at year's end. This year-end
report was authored by NERA Senior Consultant Dr. Stephanie
Plancich and Consultant Svetlana Starykh, and includes data on
filings and dismissals through 30 November 2009, and settlements
through 31 December 2009.

For more details, and to read the full report, visit:

     http://www.nera.com/recenttrends

                           About NERA

NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com/-- is a global  
firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and
quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges.
For nearly half a century, NERA's economists have been creating
strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy
recommendations for government authorities and the world's
leading law firms and corporations. We bring academic rigor,
objectivity, and real world industry experience to bear on issues
arising from competition, regulation, public policy, strategy,
finance, and litigation.

NERA's clients value our ability to apply and communicate state-
of-the-art approaches clearly and convincingly, our commitment to
deliver unbiased findings, and our reputation for quality and
independence. Our clients rely on the integrity and skills of our
unparalleled team of economists and other experts backed by the
resources and reliability of one of the world's largest economic
consultancies. With its main office in New York City, NERA serves
clients from over 20 offices across North America, Europe, and
Asia Pacific.

                            *********

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  * * *