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  * * *