/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091228.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 28, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 254 Headlines ALLSTATE CORP: Settlement in "Medical Bill Review" Suit Approved ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Automated Database ALLSTATE CORP: GCOP Lawsuit in Louisiana Remains Pending ALLSTATE CORP: La. AG's Flood Insurance Suit Now Before 5th Cir. ALLSTATE CORP: Still Defending "Worker Classification" Lawsuit ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suit CITIGROUP: N.Y. Suit Gripes About AT&T Universal Card Practices DEAN FOODS: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in Tenn. DEAN FOODS: "Indirect Purchasers" Suit in Tennessee Stayed DEAN FOODS: Faces Antitrust Complaint in Vermont GE HEALTHCARE: Copy of Ala. Medical Imaging Complaint Available HANOVER INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Ky. Pension Plan Suit HANOVER INSURANCE: Plaintiffs' Plea on "Katrina" Suit Pending HANOVER INSURANCE: Anti-Assignment Ruling Appeal Still Pending HEWLETT PACKARD: Calif. Suit Gripes About Random Cursor Movement IBC-HEARTHWARE: Accused of False Advertising Claims in N.J. Suit MIDLAND NATIONAL: Policyholders Sue for Overcharges in E.D. Wis. NEW HAVEN: White Firefighters Seek Back Pay, Damages & Legal Fees NORTH DAKOTA: Settlement Provides Refunds to Medicaid Recipients SOLEUS INT'L: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement Pact SOUTH CAROLINA: Continues to Defend Rights-of-Way Suit STEWART INFORMATION: Settles Four Suits Versus Stewart Title STEWART INFORMATION: Obtains Dismissal of Several Antitrust Suits VERIZON: Sued, with Vodafone, Over Data Charges in S.D. Calif. WISHART NORRIS: Disgruntled Law Firm Client Fishing for Others XE SERVICES: Employment Class Action Suit Filed in E.D.N.C. ********* ALLSTATE CORP: Settlement in "Medical Bill Review" Suit Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corp. has received preliminary approval of a settlement in a class action over its medical bill review processes, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. There is a number of state and nationwide class action lawsuits pending in various state courts challenging the legal propriety of Allstate's medical bill review processes on a number of grounds, including the manner in which Allstate determines reasonableness and necessity. These lawsuits, which to a large degree mirror similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in the industry, allege these processes are used by Allstate systematically to undervalue claims. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in the form of contractual and extra-contractual damages. The company denies these allegations. One nationwide class action was certified. Allstate has received preliminary approval of a settlement of this class action which is immaterial in amount. The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the holding company for Allstate Insurance Company. The company's business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates. Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and investment products business. It conducts its business primarily in the United States. ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Automated Database --------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a nationwide putative class action that challenges its use of a vendor's automated database in valuing total loss automobiles, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. To a large degree, this lawsuit mirrors similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in the industry. Plaintiffs allege that Allstate systematically underpays first party total loss vehicle claims. The plaintiffs are seeking actual and punitive damages. The lawsuit is in the early stages of discovery. The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the holding company for Allstate Insurance Company. The company's business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates. Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and investment products business. It conducts its business primarily in the United States. ALLSTATE CORP: GCOP Lawsuit in Louisiana Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a putative class action alleging that it did not properly calculate payment for general contractor overhead and profit, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The company has been sued in a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs allege that they were entitled to, but did not receive, payment for general contractor overhead and profit or that the GCOP they received was not adequate to compensate them for the entire costs of a general contractor. The plaintiffs also alleged that Allstate incorrectly calculated depreciation on property losses. The Court granted partial summary judgment, and dismissed the claim challenging the method of calculating depreciation. In October 2008, the Court heard plaintiffs' motion to certify three subclasses: -- the first class would impose a "three trade rule", meaning any time three or more trades are reflected on the estimate, GCOP must be paid; -- the second class encompassed the alleged miscalculation of GCOP when both general and specialty contractors are involved; and -- the third class sought to impose on the company statutory penalties for its alleged breach of contract with regard to the first two subclasses. The Court denied plaintiffs' motion on the certification of the two subclasses regarding the "three trade rule" and statutory penalties. The plaintiffs' motion for certification of the third subclass alleging that GCOP is not properly calculated when both general and specialty contractors are involved is pending. The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the holding company for Allstate Insurance Company. The company's business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates. Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and investment products business. It conducts its business primarily in the United States. ALLSTATE CORP: La. AG's Flood Insurance Suit Now Before 5th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed by the Louisiana Attorney General, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The Louisiana Attorney General filed a class action lawsuit in state court against Allstate and other insurers on behalf of Road Home fund recipients alleging that the insurers have failed to pay all damages owed under their policies. The insurers removed the matter to federal court. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the matter to state court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the claims involving a Road Home subrogation agreement. In March 2009, the district court denied the State's request that its claims be remanded to state court. As for the defendant insurers' motion, the judge granted it in part and denied it in part. Dismissal of all of the extra-contractual claims, including the bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty claims, was granted. Dismissal also was granted of all claims based on the Valued Policy Law and all flood loss claims based on the levee breaches finding that the insurers flood exclusions precluded coverage. The remaining claims are for breach of contract and for declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of claims by the insurers. The judge did not dismiss the class action allegations. The defendants also had moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the State had no standing to bring the lawsuit as an assignee of insureds because of anti-assignment language in the insurers' policies. The judge denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration on the assignment issue but found the matter was ripe for consideration by the federal appellate court. The defendants have filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit has accepted review. After the Fifth Circuit accepted review, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, asserting that the class claims on which federal jurisdiction was premised have now effectively been dismissed as a result of a ruling in a related case. The Fifth Circuit has denied the motion for remand, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to refile the motion for remand after the Fifth Circuit disposes of the pending appeal. The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the holding company for Allstate Insurance Company. The company's business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates. Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and investment products business. It conducts its business primarily in the United States. ALLSTATE CORP: Still Defending "Worker Classification" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a lawsuit involving worker classification issues, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. This lawsuit is a certified class action challenging a state wage and hour law. The plaintiffs seek monetary relief, such as penalties and liquidated damages, and non-monetary relief, such as injunctive relief. The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the holding company for Allstate Insurance Company. The company's business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates. Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and investment products business. It conducts its business primarily in the United States. ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a putative nationwide class action has been filed by former employee agents alleging various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, including a worker classification issue, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes. This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial court in 2005. In June 2007, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the case. Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at this time. In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third Circuit along with the merits of the appeal. In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision which granted the company's motion to dismiss the case, remanded the case to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the case be reassigned to another trial court judge. The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the holding company for Allstate Insurance Company. The company's business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates. Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and investment products business. It conducts its business primarily in the United States. CITIGROUP: N.Y. Suit Gripes About AT&T Universal Card Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Citigroup dba AT&T Universal Card shakes down customers by charging them $39 late fees and jacking their interest rate up to 29.99 percent, even if they pay on time, a class action claims in Queens County Court, N.Y. A copy of the Complaint in Silver v. Citigroup Inc., Index No. ________ (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/21/Banks.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Silver, Esq. 80-02 Kew Gardens Rd., Suite 316 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: 718-520-1010 DEAN FOODS: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in Tenn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Foods Co. and others in the milk industry still face a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee that accuses the defendants of working together to limit the price the Southeastern dairy farmers are paid for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing facilities. The company was named, among several defendants, in two purported class-action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007. The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, and allege generally that the company and others in the milk industry conspired against the dairy farmers. A third purported class-action antitrust complaint, known as a retailer action, was filed on Aug. 9, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The complaint in the retailer action was amended on March 28, 2008. The amended complaint alleges generally that the company, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry, lessened competition in the Southeastern U.S. for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the defendants' conduct also artificially inflated retail prices for direct milk purchasers. Four additional purported class-action complaints were filed on Aug. 27, 2007, Oct. 3, 2007, Nov. 15, 2007, and Feb. 13, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The allegations in these complaints are similar to those in the dairy farmer actions. On Jan. 7, 2008, the U.S. MDL Panel ordered the consolidation of all of the pending cases in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. On April 1, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the six dairy farmer actions, and ordered the retailer action to be administratively consolidated with the coordinated dairy farmer actions. A motion by the defendants to dismiss the dairy farmer actions was denied on May 20, 2008, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed by the dairy farmer plaintiffs on June 20, 2008. A joint motion to dismiss the retailer action was filed on Oct. 22, 2007. A hearing on the joint motion was held on Jan. 6, 2009. The motion to dismiss the retailer action was denied on July 27, 2009. Motions for class certification were filed in both actions on May 1, 2009 and are currently pending before the Court. A motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was filed on Sept. 18, 2009 and is currently pending before the Court. These matters are currently in discovery and the company intends to vigorously defend against them, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and beverage company. The company operates in two segments: DSD Dairy and WhiteWave-Morningstar. The DSD Dairy segment is a processor and distributor of milk and other dairy products in the country, with products sold under more than 50 familiar local and regional brands, and an array of private labels. The WhiteWave- Morningstar segment markets and sells a variety of nationally branded dairy and dairy-related products, such as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic milk and other dairy products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy products. WhiteWave-Morningstar markets and sells private label cultured and extended shelf life dairy products. DEAN FOODS: "Indirect Purchasers" Suit in Tennessee Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division stayed all proceedings in a purported class action lawsuit against Dean Foods Co., filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The complaint was filed on June 29, 2009 The allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the retailer consolidated lawsuit pending in the same court, but primarily involve state law claims. Because the allegations in this complaint substantially overlap with the allegations in the retailer action, on Sept. 1, 2009, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the outcome of the summary judgment motion in the retailer action. Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and beverage company. The company operates in two segments: DSD Dairy and WhiteWave-Morningstar. The DSD Dairy segment is a processor and distributor of milk and other dairy products in the country, with products sold under more than 50 familiar local and regional brands, and an array of private labels. The WhiteWave- Morningstar segment markets and sells a variety of nationally branded dairy and dairy-related products, such as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic milk and other dairy products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy products. WhiteWave-Morningstar markets and sells private label cultured and extended shelf life dairy products. DEAN FOODS: Faces Antitrust Complaint in Vermont ------------------------------------------------ Dean Foods Co. faces a purported class action antitrust complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Oct. 8, 2009, the company was named, among several defendants, in a purported class action antitrust complaint similar in nature to that of the dairy farmer actions. The complaint alleges generally that the company and others in the milk industry worked together to limit the price dairy farmers are paid for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing facilities. Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and beverage company. The company operates in two segments: DSD Dairy and WhiteWave-Morningstar. The DSD Dairy segment is a processor and distributor of milk and other dairy products in the country, with products sold under more than 50 familiar local and regional brands, and an array of private labels. The WhiteWave- Morningstar segment markets and sells a variety of nationally branded dairy and dairy-related products, such as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic milk and other dairy products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy products. WhiteWave-Morningstar markets and sells private label cultured and extended shelf life dairy products. GE HEALTHCARE: Copy of Ala. Medical Imaging Complaint Available --------------------------------------------------------------- As reported in the Dec. 21, 2009, edition of the Class Action Reporter, Becky Coudert filed a class-action lawsuit against GE Healthcare, Inc., for allegedly exposing her and possibly hundreds of other patients to excess radiation during medical imaging exams. A copy of the Complaint in Coudert v. GE Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-02510 (N.D. Ala.) (Johnson, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/21/BrainScan.pdf HANOVER INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Ky. Pension Plan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-action lawsuit against over a terminated employee's lump sum distribution, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit against The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., over a terminated employee's lump sum distribution are appealing the dismissal of the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The suit was filed by Jennifer A. Durand in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on March 12, 2007, under the caption Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan. Ms. Durand -- a former employee who received a lump sum distribution from her Cash Balance Plan at or about the time of her termination -- claims that she and others similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution because in computing the lump sum, the company understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The company filed a dismissal motion on the basis that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The motion was granted without prejudice in a decision dated Nov. 7, 2007. On Dec. 3, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of this dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On March 24, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an order reversing the dismissal and remanded the case to the district court. The suit is Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, Case No. 3:07-cv-00130-CRS (W.D. Ky.) (Simpson, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Eli Gottesdiener, Esq. GOTTESDIENER LAW FIRM, PLLC 498 Seventh Street Brooklyn, NY 11215-3613 Phone: 718-788-1500 Fax: 718-788-1650 E-mail: eli@gottesdienerlaw.com - and - Andrew S. Hartley, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW HARTLEY, PLLC 3423 Saybrook Road Lexington, KY 40503 Phone: 859-271-3731 Fax: 859-523-6112 E-mail: andrew@hartleyerisalaw.com Representing the defendants is: Angela Logan Edwards, Esq. WOODWARD, HOBSON & FULTON, LLP 101 S. Fifth Street, 2500 National City Tower Louisville, KY 40202-3175 Phone: 502-581-8000 Fax: 502-581-8111 E-mail: AEdwards@whf-law.com HANOVER INSURANCE: Plaintiffs' Plea on "Katrina" Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a ruling by the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, dismissing the class allegations in suit styled In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-4182, remains pending, according to Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The company has been named as a defendant in various litigations, including putative class actions, relating to disputes arising from damages which occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. As of Sept. 30, 2009, there were approximately 47 such cases. These cases have been filed in both Louisiana state courts and federal district courts. The cases generally involve, among other claims, disputes as to the amount of reimbursable claims in particular cases (e.g. how much of the damage to an insured property is attributable to flood and therefore not covered, and how much is attributable to wind, which may be covered), as well as the scope of insurance coverage under homeowners and commercial property policies due to flooding, civil authority actions, loss of landscaping, business interruption and other matters. Certain of these cases claim a breach of duty of good faith or violations of Louisiana insurance claims handling laws or regulations and involve claims for punitive or exemplary damages. The putative class actions were consolidated into the Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On June 16, 2009, the court issued an Order striking all class allegations in the Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On June 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's ruling dismissing the class allegations. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. -- http://www.hanover.com/-- is a holding company for The Hanover Insurance Company and Citizens Insurance Company of America, which are its principal property and casualty subsidiaries, and certain other insurance and non-insurance subsidiaries. The Company's primary business operations include insurance products and services in three property and casualty operating segments: Personal Lines, Commercial Lines, and Other Property and Casualty. HANOVER INSURANCE: Anti-Assignment Ruling Appeal Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s Petition for Permission to Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the District Court's ruling regarding anti-assignment provisions remains pending, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Aug. 23, 2007, the State of Louisiana (individually and on behalf of the State of Louisiana, Division of Administration, Office of Community Development) filed a putative class-action lawsuit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, entitled State of Louisiana, individually and on behalf of State of Louisiana, Division of Administration, Office of Community Development ex rel The Honorable Charles C. Foti, Jr., The Attorney General For the State of Louisiana, individually and as a class action on behalf of all recipients of funds as well as all eligible and/or future recipients of funds through The Road Home Program v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 07-8970. The complaint named as defendants over 200 foreign and domestic insurance carriers, including Hanover Insurance Group. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former Louisiana citizens who have applied for and received or will receive funds through Louisiana's "Road Home" program. On Aug. 29, 2007, the plaintiff filed an Amended Petition in this case, asserting a myriad of claims, including claims under Louisiana's Valued Policy Law, as well as claims for breach of contract, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fiduciary duty and Louisiana's bad faith statutes. The plaintiff seeks relief in the form of, among other things, declarations that: -- the efficient proximate cause of losses suffered by putative class members was windstorm, a covered peril under their policies; -- the second efficient proximate cause of their losses was storm surge, which plaintiff contends is not excluded under class members' policies; -- the damage caused by water entering affected parishes of Louisiana does not fall within the definition of "flood;" -- the damages caused by water entering Orleans Parish and the surrounding area was a result of man-made occurrence and are properly covered under class members' policies; -- many class members suffered total losses to their residences; and -- many class members are entitled to recover the full value for their residences stated on their policies pursuant to the Louisiana Valued Policy Law. In accordance with these requested declarations, the plaintiff seeks to recover amounts that it alleges should have been paid to policyholders under their insurance agreements, as well as penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs. The case has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, under the caption Louisiana State et al v. AAA Insurance et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05528-SRD- JCW. On March 5, 2009, the court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants. The court dismissed all claims for bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty and all claims for flood damages under policies with flood exclusions or asserted under the Valued Policy Law, but rejected the insurers' arguments that the purported assignments from individual claimants to the state were barred by anti-assignment provisions in the insurers' policies. On April 16, 2009, the court denied a Motion for Reconsideration of its ruling regarding the anti-assignment provisions, but certified the issue as ripe for immediate appeal. On April 30, 2009, defendants filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The suit is Louisiana State, et al. v. AAA Insurance, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05528-SRD-JCW (E.D. La.) (Duval, J.) Representing the plaintiffs are: Frank Charles Dudenhefer, Jr., Esq. CUMMINGS, CUMMINGS & DUDENHEFER 416 Gravier St. New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 504-523-2553 E-mail: fcdlaw@aol.com - and - Calvin Clifford Fayard, Jr., Esq. FAYARD & HONEYCUTT 519 Florida Ave., SW Denham Springs, LA 70726 Phone: 225-664-4193 E-mail: calvinfayard@fayardlaw.com Representing the defendants are: Ralph Shelton Hubbard, III, Esq. LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD 60l Poydras St., Suite 2775 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 504-568-1990 E-mail: rhubbard@lawla.com - and - Neil Charles Abramson, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP Canal Place, 365 Canal St., Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70130-6534 Phone: 504-566-1311 E-mail: abramson@phelps.com HEWLETT PACKARD: Calif. Suit Gripes About Random Cursor Movement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that cursors on Hewlett Packard's TX 2000 and TX2500 notebook computers move around randomly, making the computers useless, a class action claims in San Jose Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Baba, et al. v. Hewlett Packard Company, Case No. 09-cv-05946 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/21/Computers.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott R. Kaufman, Esq. 1400 Coleman Ave., Suite F-26 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: 408-727-8882 - and - Barbara Quinn Smith, Esq. MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO 9853 Johnnycake Ridge Road, Suite 302 Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: 440-354-4010 - and - Thomas A. Hargett, Esq. Thomas K. Caldwell, Esq. T. John Kirk, Esq. MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO 10100 Lantern Rd., Suite 150 Fishers, IN 46038 Telephone: 317-598-2040 IBC-HEARTHWARE: Accused of False Advertising Claims in N.J. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------\ Courthouse News Service reports that IBC-Hearthware sells its Nu Wave Oven with the false claim that it can "reduce the cholesterol levels" of people who cook their food in it, a class action claims in Bergen County Court, Hackensack, N.J. A copy of the Complaint in Hoffman v. IBC-Hearthware, Inc., Docket No. BER-L-10963-09 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/21/CCAOven.pdf MIDLAND NATIONAL: Policyholders Sue for Overcharges in E.D. Wis. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Midland National Life Insurance overcharges its policyholders, according to a class action in Milwaukee Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Thao v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 09-cv-01158 (E.D. Wis.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/21/Insure.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: K. Scott Wagner, Esq. HALE & WAGNER, S.C. 839 North Jefferson St., Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: 414-278-7000 - and - Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Richard M. Paul, III, Esq. Lee R. Anderson, sq. STEUVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Rd., Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-714-7100 - and - Stephen R. Miller, Esq. John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 800 West 47th St., Suite 630 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-561-6500 NEW HAVEN: White Firefighters Seek Back Pay, Damages & Legal Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Christoffersen at The Associated Press reports that a group of white New Haven, Conn., firefighters who won a discrimination case before the U.S. Supreme Court seeks back pay, damages and legal fees. The High Court ruled in June that New Haven officials violated white firefighters' civil rights when they threw out 2003 test results in which too few minorities did well. Fourteen firefighters who sued were promoted this month to lieutenant and captain. Karen Torre, Esq., the firefighters' attorney, filed papers last week in U.S. District Court in New Haven arguing the firefighters are entitled to back pay with interest for long-overdue promotions, several categories of damages and attorney fees. The firefighters were subject to "the humiliation and economic hardship of prolonged career stagnancy in a rancorous atmosphere fostered by raw racial divides," she said. Damages will be established at trial, she said. City officials said the Supreme Court ruling is limited to relief for 14 plaintiffs who would have been promoted if the 2003 tests had been certified. Other firefighters who sued and were not promoted reserve their right to challenge the city's position that they were not entitled to promotions but are to damages, Ms. Torre said. Bernard Jacques, Esq., an employment attorney in Hartford, said the claims could wind up costing New Haven $1 million or more. Cities typically have insurance to cover such losses, he said. "It's going to be tough on the city," Mr. Jacques said. "Even a settlement is going to be a large number." NORTH DAKOTA: Settlement Provides Refunds to Medicaid Recipients ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action settlement has been reached in Delacerda v. North Dakota Department of Human Services, Case No. 08-cv-00046 (D. N.D.) (Hovland, J.), a lawsuit arising from the North Dakota Department of Human Services' recovery of third-party payments to Medicaid recipients. Medicaid recipients who remitted a portion of a third-party settlement payment to the North Dakota Department of Human Services may be eligible to receive a partial refund of the amount remitted to the Department. Under the terms of the Settlement, the Department will refund to eligible Medicaid recipients the amount of the third-party payment received by the Department in excess of 40% of the gross third-party settlement. The "gross third-party settlement" is the entire amount of the settlement received by the Medicaid recipient, before any deductions such as attorney's fees or a payment to the Department. Claims must be filed by Feb. 8, 2010. Objections, if any, to the Settlement must be filed and served by Feb. 5, 2010. The Court will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 12, 2010. Copies of the full Settlement Agreement, the Complaint, and the Answer are posted at: www.nd.gov/dhs/info/publicnotice/index.html under the date December 10, 2009. The Class is represented by: Jeffrey S. Weikum, Esq. Craig A. Boeckel, Esq. PAGEL WEIKUM LAW FIRM 1715 Burnt Boat Drive, Madison Suite Bismarck, ND 58503 Telephone: (701) 250-1369 - and - Thomas A. Dickson, Esq. DICKSON LAW OFFICE 107 W. Main Ave., Suite 150 Bismarck, ND 58502 Telephone: (701) 222-4400 SOLEUS INT'L: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement Pact ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, a law firm with offices in California, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin announced preliminary approval of a settlement in the action captioned as Lawrence Sypher v. Soleus International Inc., Civil Action No. BC395530 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.). The litigation involved alleged misrepresentations concerning information in the marketing, advertising and sale of portable air conditioners using evaporative technology. The Court has preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of all persons or entities in the Untied States who purchased Soleus portable air conditioners (including the KY, LX, PE or PH series), which were advertised as using evaporative technology on or before October 20, 2009. If you believe that you are a member of the settlement class, you may be entitled to receive benefits under this class action settlement. If you have not received a class notice and claim form in the mail or by e-mail, and you'd like additional information about the settlement, please contact Elena M. DiBattista, Esq., at edibattista@sfmslaw.com or (866) 540-5505, ext. 201. A final approval hearing has been scheduled for May 7, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. before the Court. Claim forms must be postmarked no later than June 1, 2010. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP -- http://www.sfmslaw.com -- is a law firm that represents consumers, fiduciaries, beneficiaries and investors, including institutions and individuals, in class action and other complex litigation, and maintains offices in California, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The firm's attorneys have appeared in matters on behalf of our clients throughout the United States and have been appointed lead counsel in a number of class actions and corporate governance matters. SOUTH CAROLINA: Continues to Defend Rights-of-Way Suit ------------------------------------------------------ South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. continues to defend a rights- of-way lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. In May 2004, a purported class action lawsuit styled as Douglas E. Gressette, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and SCANA Corporation was filed in South Carolina's Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit. The plaintiff alleges that SCANA and SCE&G made improper use of certain easements and rights-of-way by allowing fiber optic communication lines and/or wireless communication equipment to transmit communications other than SCANA's and SCE&G's electricity-related internal communications. The plaintiff asserted causes of action for unjust enrichment, trespass, injunction and declaratory judgment, but did not assert a specific dollar amount for the claims. SCANA and SCE&G believe their actions are consistent with governing law and the applicable documents granting easements and rights-of-way. In June 2007, the Circuit Court issued a ruling that limits the plaintiff's purported class to owners of easements situated in Charleston County, South Carolina. In February 2008 the Circuit Court issued an order to conditionally certify the class, which remains limited to easements in Charleston County. In July 2008, the plaintiff's motion to add SCANA Communications, Inc. (SCI) to the lawsuit as an additional defendant was granted. Trial is not anticipated before the summer of 2010. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. -- http://www.sceg.com/-- generates and sells electricity to retail and wholesale customers, and purchases, sells and transports natural gas to retail customers. STEWART INFORMATION: Settles Four Suits Versus Stewart Title ------------------------------------------------------------ Stewart Information Services Corp. has settled all four class action lawsuits against its subsidiary Stewart Title of California, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Stewart Title of California was a defendant in four putative class action lawsuits filed in California state and federal courts. These lawsuits are commonly referred to as "wage and hour" lawsuits. These lawsuits generally claim, among other things, that: (i) the plaintiffs were misclassified as exempt employees and were not paid overtime, (ii) the overtime payments made to non-exempt employees were miscalculated and (iii) the plaintiffs worked overtime hours, but were not paid. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, statutory compensation, penalties and restitution, exemplary and punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest and attorneys fees. In October 2009, the company settled all four class action lawsuits within the amount reserved. Stewart Information Services Corp. -- http://www.stewart.com/-- is a real estate information, title insurance and transaction management company. The company provides title insurance and related information services required for settlement by the real estate and mortgage industries throughout the United States and international markets. Stewart also provides post-closing lender services, automated county clerk land records, property ownership mapping, geographic information systems, property information reports, flood certificates, document preparation, background checks and expertise in tax-deferred exchanges. The company's international division delivers products and services protecting and promoting private land ownership worldwide. Stewart's primary international operations are in Canada, the United Kingdom, Central Europe, Mexico, Central America and Australia. STEWART INFORMATION: Obtains Dismissal of Several Antitrust Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stewart Information Services Corp. has obtained dismissals of the claims in several antitrust class-action lawsuits over the price of title insurance, according to the company's Nov. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates for title insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized and licensed rate service organization. Other complaints were subsequently filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington, West Virginia, Texas and Delaware. All of the complaints make similar allegations, except that certain of the complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act statutes and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints generally request treble damages in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. Seventy-eight such complaints have been filed, each of which names the company and/or one or more of its affiliates as a defendant (and have been consolidated in the aforementioned states), of which seven have been voluntarily dismissed. As of Oct. 12, 2009, the company has obtained dismissals of the claims in Arkansas, California (where plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint), Delaware (where plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint for injunctive relief only), Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey (where plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint), New York, Pennsylvania (where plaintiffs may pursue injunctive relief only), Texas and Washington. The company is awaiting decisions on motions to dismiss in Ohio (where the Magistrate Judge has recommended dismissal) and West Virginia (where all proceedings have been stayed). The plaintiffs in New York and Texas have filed appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits, respectively. Stewart Information Services Corp. -- http://www.stewart.com/-- is a real estate information, title insurance and transaction management company. The company provides title insurance and related information services required for settlement by the real estate and mortgage industries throughout the United States and international markets. Stewart also provides post-closing lender services, automated county clerk land records, property ownership mapping, geographic information systems, property information reports, flood certificates, document preparation, background checks and expertise in tax-deferred exchanges. The company's international division delivers products and services protecting and promoting private land ownership worldwide. Stewart's primary international operations are in Canada, the United Kingdom, Central Europe, Mexico, Central America and Australia. VERIZON: Sued, with Vodafone, Over Data Charges in S.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon and Vodafone extract "data charges" from customers even if they disable the "Get It Now" feature, and even if their phones are turned off, a class action claims in San Diego Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Houck v. Cellco Partnership, et al., Case No. 09-cv-02846 (S>D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/21/CellPhone.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel L. Jensen, Esq. COUGLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-231-7423 - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Robert M. Rothman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. COUGLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: 631-367-7100 WISHART NORRIS: Disgruntled Law Firm Client Fishing for Others -------------------------------------------------------------- A legal notice published in The Charlotte Observer on Sat., Dec. 19, 2009, reads: Were you represented by Steven Ockerman or ANY attorney from the Wishart, Norris, Henninger & Pittman, PA law firm? My name is Tyler . . . My father hired Attorney Steven B. Ockerman to prepare a Court Order for an uncontested child support matter. On one line of the Court Order it stated child support payment of $150 every other week. The next line said $300 per month. You do not need to be a math major to realize that $150 every two weeks does NOT equal $300 per month. The Court Order was in conflict with itself and was not enforceable. Not a single payment has been made nor received in over three years. I have had to do without. Steven Ockerman (nor ANYONE from the Wishart, Norris, Henninger & Pittman, PA law firm located at 6832 Morrison Blvd. in Charlotte, NC) was willing to correct their mistake. Instead, Mr. Ockerman withdrew from the case. When the Judge asked Mr. Ockerman in Court if he wanted to "correct his mistake", he simply replied "No, Your Honor, I am all done with this case", and walked away. I am now an adult resident of Mecklenburg County and I am seeking out others who feel they have either not been properly represented, bullied, or feel they have been overcharged (by any attorney) of the Wishart, Norris, Henninger & Pittman, PA law firm. I plan to file a Class Action suit against this law firm and need others to come forward. You will not be charged for legal services and may be entitled to a Court awarded monetary settlement. Please call my friends at the Legal Justice Corporation (704) 208-9652 and leave your name, address, and phone number. An affidavit will be mailed to you. Please fill it out, return it and a representative will be in contact with you shortly. United We Stand . . . Divided We Fall! XE SERVICES: Employment Class Action Suit Filed in E.D.N.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Xe Services fka Blackwater Security Consulting stiffs employees for overtime and misclassifies them as independent contractors, according to a class action in Raleigh, N.C., Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Williams, et al. v. XE Services, LLC, Case No. 09-cv-00059 (E.D.N.C.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/21/EmployXe.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Theuer, Esq. JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC 555 E. Main St., Suite 1410 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 446-8047 ********* 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 * * *