CAR_Public/100118.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, January 18, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 11

                            Headlines

AEROVIAS DE MEXICO: 9th Cir. Won't Reinstate Tourism Tax Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: Lawsuit Contests Billing & Collection Tactics
CANDELA CORP: Motion to Consolidate Two Actions Remain Pending
CINTAS CORP: Court Yet to Approve Settlement Pact in Veliz Suit
CIT GROUP: Defends Securities Exchange Act Violations Suit

CIT GROUP: Continues to Defend Securities Act Violation Suit
HEALTH NET OF ARIZONA: Accused of Improper Policy Termination
HSBC BANK: N.Y. Suit Challenges Unsolicited Credit Card Practice
IVIVI TECHNOLOGIES: Inks MOU to Settle Shareholder Complaint
JABIL CIRCUIT: Continues to Defend 2nd Amended Complaint in Fla.

JAVELIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Schnipper" Suit in Massachusetts
KAISER FOUNDATION: Calif. Class Suit Seeks Interest on Judgments
LAWSON SOFTWARE: Court Denies Certification Bid in "Cruz" Suit
MONROE MUFFLER: Missouri Lawsuit Questions Hidden Shop Fees
NATIONAL BEEF: Unit Defends Suit over Spreading of Wastewater

NEW YORK: Suit Accuses State of Abusing 500 Troubled Teens
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Has Yet to be Served Suit Over Corrosion
TOYOTA MOTOR: Fla. Suit Alleges Unjust Enrichment from Car Defect
TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Face Reese-Levering Violations Suit
TRIAD GUARANTY: Continues to Defend "Phillips" Suit in N.C.

USANA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Chirco" Suit in Nevada Court

                            *********

AEROVIAS DE MEXICO: 9th Cir. Won't Reinstate Tourism Tax Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that Mexican
airline passengers lost their bid to reinstate a class action
accusing Aeromexico of collecting a so-called "tourism tax" for
the Mexican government, even though Mexican citizens are exempt
from the tax.  A copy of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Sanchez v.
Aerovias De Mexico, S.A. de C.V., dba Aeromexico, No. 08-55588
(9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/01/05/08-55588.pdf

The trial court proceeding is Sanchez v. Aerovias De Mexico, S.A.
de C.V., dba Aeromexico, Case No. 07-cv-07280 (C.D. Calif.)
(Real, J.).


BANK OF AMERICA: Lawsuit Contests Billing & Collection Tactics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of
America and its debt collecting arm double-billed on a mortgage
and strung the customer along for months, not returning calls and
refusing to refund the money or offer compensation, a retired
U.S. Navy captain claims in a class action in Superior Court.

Capt. Peter Dabbieri says Bank of America and its subsidiary, BAC
Home Loans Services, twice withdrew $9,800 for his monthly
payment on a home in Redondo Beach, and refused to refund the
money despite promising to do so.

More than 5 years after he got the mortgage loan from Bank of
America, Mr. Dabbieri says, he was notified that BAC was taking
over the loan. Then he got notice that he was late on payment,
owed late fees and needed to make a payment immediately.
     
Mr. Dabbieri says that should not have happened, as he paid the
mortgage by automatic deduction from his Bank of America checking
account.
     
Mr. Dabbieri says he called BAC to clear up the problem. Later,
he says he found that BAC had withdrawn both the payment he made
over the phone and the regularly scheduled automatic payment he
had set up with Bank of America.
     
Mr. Dabbieri says that BAC told him when it took over his loan
that he should not expect his automatic payment withdraw schedule
to change unless notified otherwise.
     
Repeated calls to resolve the mix-up led through a long string of
customer service representatives. All but one refused to give
their last name, left him on hold for a long time, and their
supervisors never returned his calls, Mr. Dabbieri says.
     
He says he was twice promised refunds that never came and was
finally told that "because BAC had caused so many double
payments, BAC would need weeks to return them all," and that he
would get no compensation for his troubles.

Finally, as Mr. Dabbieri began preparing this lawsuit, he says,
BAC retuned the $9,800.
     
Mr. Dabbieri seek damages and an accounting for negligence,
violations of business codes, conversion and unjust enrichment.
     
He is represented by Ray Gallo, Esq., of San Rafael, Calif.


CANDELA CORP: Motion to Consolidate Two Actions Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to consolidate two actions against Candela Corp. remains
pending in the Massachusetts Superior Court.

After the announcement of the company's proposed merger with
Syneron Medical, Ltd., on Sept. 24, 2009 and Oct. 30, 2009, two
putative class action lawsuits, captioned Claude Colp v. Gerard
Puorro, et al., No. 09-4092 and Chelsea Colombo v. Candela
Corporation, et al., No. 09-4666, were filed in the Suffolk
County Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior
Court against Candela and the members of Candela's board of
directors.

On Nov. 5, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the Colp
action.

The plaintiffs in the two actions purport to sue on behalf of a
class of Candela stockholders, and allege that members of
Candela's board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to
Candela stockholders through, among other things, the failure to
maximize shareholder value, the use of an unfair or flawed
process in connection with the proposed merger between Candela
and Syneron, and the omission of material information and/or the
provision of materially misleading information concerning the
merger.

The complaints further allege that Candela, with others, aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

One or both of the complaints seek, among other relief:
rescission of the merger agreement; an injunction against the
merger; rescission of the transaction (or damages) if
consummated; an order requiring disclosure of all material
information relating to the proposed merger; as well as an award
of all costs and disbursements of the actions, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

Plaintiffs, Candela and the named individual defendants have
requested that the Court consolidate the two actions.

If consolidation is ordered, the Amended Complaint is expected to
be the operative complaint for the consolidated action, according
to the company's Nov. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
26, 2009.

Candela Corp. -- http://www.candelalaser.com/-- is engaged in  
the development and commercialization of aesthetic laser that
allow physicians and personal care practitioners to treat a
variety of cosmetic and medical conditions, which include
permanent hair reduction on all skin types; skin rejuvenation,
skin tightening and wrinkle reduction; vascular lesions, such as
rosacea, facial spider veins, leg veins, port wine stains,
angiomas and hemangiomas; all-color tattoo removal; skin
resurfacing scars, stretch marks and warts; removal of benign
pigmented lesions, such as sun spots, age spots, freckles, and
Nevus of Ota/Ito; acne and acne scars; sebaceous hyperplasia;
pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB); psoriasis, and other cosmetic
skin treatments.  It offers a range of products based on
technologies focusing on the aesthetic and cosmetic laser
applications.  Candela's product line includes GentleMax,
AlexTriVantage, GentleLASE, GentleYAG, Vbeam, Smoothbeam,
SmoothPeel and QuadraLASE.


CINTAS CORP: Court Yet to Approve Settlement Pact in Veliz Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has yet to issue a decision on the proposed settlement
of class action claims in Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corp., et al.,
Case No. 03-cv-1180, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009.

Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit styled
Paul Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corporation, filed on March 19,
2003, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, alleging that Cintas violated
certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable to its
service sales representatives, whom Cintas considers exempt
employees, and asserting additional related ERISA claims.

On April 5, 2004 and February 14, 2006, the Court stayed the
claims of all plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements
pending arbitration of those claims.  Claims made in the Veliz
action therefore are pending before the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California and Judge Bruce Meyerson (Ret.),
an Arbitrator selected by the parties.

On Aug. 5, 2009, the parties in the Veliz action reached a
settlement in principle.

When the settlement is fully documented and approved by the
Court, the settlement will resolve all claims now pending or that
could have been brought relating to the subject matter of the
case before the Court and the Arbitrator.  Cintas expects that
the approval process will take several months.  The principal
terms of the settlement provide for an aggregate cash payment of
approximately $23,950,000 which is accrued in current accrued
liabilities at Nov. 30, 2009.  The pre-tax impact, net of
insurance proceeds, was $19,477.000.

Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com/-- provides specialized  
products and services to businesses of all types primarily
throughout the United States and Canada.  The company is a
provider of corporate identity uniforms through rental and sales
programs, as well as a significant provider of related business
services, including entrance mats, restroom products and
services, first aid, safety and fire protection products and
services, document management services and branded promotional
products.  Cintas classifies its businesses into four operating
segments: Rental Uniforms and Ancillary Products; Uniform Direct
Sales; First Aid, Safety and Fire Protection Services, and
Document Management Services.  The company provides its products
and services to approximately 800,000 businesses of all types,
from small service and manufacturing companies to corporations.


CIT GROUP: Defends Securities Exchange Act Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group Inc., continues to defend putative class actions
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
according to the company's Jan. 8, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 25, 2008 and August 22, 2008, putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against CIT, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer.

The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder during the period from
April 18, 2007 to March 5, 2008.

The lawsuit is premised upon allegations that the company made
false and misleading statements and or omissions about its
financial condition by failing to account in its financial
statements or, in the case of the preferred stockholder, its
registration statement and prospectus, for private student loans
related to a pilot training school, which, plaintiffs allege were
highly unlikely to be repaid and should have been written off.

Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified damages and
interest.

CIT Group Inc. -- http://www.cit.com/-- is a bank holding  
company with more than $60 billion in finance and leasing
assets that provides financial products and advisory services to
small and middle market businesses.


CIT GROUP: Continues to Defend Securities Act Violation Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group Inc., continues to defend a putative class action
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, according to
the company's Jan. 8, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 15, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
the holder of CIT PrZ equity units against CIT, its Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and members of its
Board of Directors.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 with respect to the company's registration
statement and prospectus filed with the SEC on Oct. 17, 2007
through March 5, 2008.

The lawsuit is premised upon allegations that the company made
false and misleading statements and or omissions about its
financial condition by failing to account in its financial
statements or, in the case of the preferred stockholder, its
registration statement and prospectus, for private student loans
related to a pilot training school, which, plaintiffs allege were
highly unlikely to be repaid and should have been written off.

Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified damages and
interest.

CIT Group Inc. -- http://www.cit.com/-- is a bank holding  
company with more than $60 billion in finance and leasing
assets that provides financial products and advisory services to
small and middle market businesses.


HEALTH NET OF ARIZONA: Accused of Improper Policy Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Health Net of Arizona
rescinds insurance policies on pretextual reasons, a class action
claims in Maricopa County Court, Phoenix.

A copy of the Complaint in Navas v. Health Net of Arizona, Inc.,
et al., Case No. CV2009-040094 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/06/InsurePhx.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amdrew J. DeFusco, Esq.
          Randall S. Udelman, Esq.
          DEFUSCO & UDELMAN PLC
          Scottsdale Financial Center III
          7272 E. Indian School Rd., Suite 206
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Telephone: 480-970-5600


HSBC BANK: N.Y. Suit Challenges Unsolicited Credit Card Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that HSBC Bank illegally sends
unsolicited credit cards to people with whom it has no business
relationship, putting them at risk of identity theft, a class
action claims in Central Islip Federal Court, N.Y.

A copy of the Complaint in Nasca v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No.
10-cv-00007 (E.D.N.Y.) (Wexler, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/06/Banks.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN, LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: 516-522-2621

               - and -  

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle St., 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-739-4200


IVIVI TECHNOLOGIES: Inks MOU to Settle Shareholder Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Ivivi Technologies, Inc., has entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle a purported shareholder class action
complaint, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Sept. 24, 2009, the company entered into an Asset Purchase
Agreement with Ivivi Technologies, LLC (Buyer) and Ajax Capital,
LLC, entities controlled by Steven M. Gluckstern, the company's
Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer.  Pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement,
at the closing, the company will sell substantially all of the
assets of the company to the Buyer, other than cash and certain
other excluded assets set forth in the Asset Purchase Agreement,
and the Buyer will assume certain specified ordinary course
liabilities of the Company as set forth in the Asset Purchase
Agreement.

Subsequent to the announcement of the transactions contemplated
by the Asset Purchase Agreement, a purported shareholder class
action complaint, captioned Lehmann v. Gluckstern, et. al., was
filed by one of the company's shareholders in the Chancery
Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Bergen County on
Oct. 30, 2009, naming the company, its directors, Ivivi
Technologies, LLC and Ajax Capital as defendants.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed sale of the
company's assets to the Buyer.  It also alleges that the Buyer
and Ajax aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by the company's directors.  Among other things, the
complaint seeks to enjoin the company and its directors from
completing the Transaction.  In the alternative, the plaintiff
seeks to either rescind the Asset Purchase Agreement or recover
damages in the event the Transaction is completed.

The company, the other defendants and the plaintiffs entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding, dated as of Jan. 5, 2010.

The MOU provides, among other things, that in consideration for
full settlement and release of all claims under the Complaint:

     1. the company agreed to disclose certain additional
        information in the definitive Proxy Statement to be
        filed by the company regarding the Transaction with the
        SEC and mailed to the company's shareholders (such
        information has already been included in the revised
        preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on
        Dec. 29, 2009);

     2. the company agreed to terminate the Voting Agreement;

     3. the company's outside directors agreed to waive any
        board fees due to them for services rendered as a
        director of the company.

The settlement is subject to, among other things:

     A. the drafting and execution of a formal stipulation of
        settlement and such other documentation as may be
        required to obtain final court approval of the
        settlement,

     B. the final court approval of the settlement and entry of
        a final order and judgment by the court providing for
        such release language as is contained in the settlement
        documents, and

     C. the entry of orders dismissing the Action with
        prejudice on the merits.

The company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with
respect to the facts and claims asserted, or which could have
been asserted, in the Action.

The settlement is not, and should not be construed as, an
admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant.

The company and its directors considered it desirable that the
Action be settled to prevent the delay of the Transaction and to
avoid the substantial burden, expense and risk of continued
litigation and to fully and finally resolve the matter.

Ivivi Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.ivivitechnologies.com/--  
is an early stage medical technology company focusing on
designing, developing and commercializing electrotherapeutic
technologies.  Ivivi has focused its research and development
activities on targeted pulsed electromagnetic field (tPEMF)
technology.  The company is marketing products utilizing its
tPEMF technology to various surgery markets for adjunctive use in
the treatment of post operative pain and edema in superficial
soft tissue.  The company is developing technology for other
therapeutic medical markets.


JABIL CIRCUIT: Continues to Defend 2nd Amended Complaint in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jabil Circuit, Inc., continues to defend a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, according to the company's
Jan. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009.

On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division against the company and various present and former
officers and directors, including:

    1. Forbes I.J. Alexander,
    2. Scott D. Brown,
    3. Laurence S. Grafstein,
    4. Mel S. Lavitt,
    5. Chris Lewis,
    6. Timothy Main,
    7. Mark T. Mondello,
    8. William D. Morean,
    9. Lawrence J. Murphy,
   10. Frank A. Newman,
   11. Steven A. Raymund,
   12. Thomas A. Sansone, and
   13. Kathleen A. Walters.

on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs comprised of persons
that purchased the company's shares between Sept. 19, 2001 and
June 21, 2006.

A second putative class action, containing virtually identical
legal claims and allegations of fact was filed on Oct. 12, 2006.

The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and on
Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust
Fund for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for Operating
Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action.

On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is purported to be
brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's
publicly traded securities between Sept. 19, 2001 and Dec. 21,
2006, and names the company and certain of its current and former
officers, including Forbes I.J. Alexander, Scott D. Brown, Wesley
B. Edwards, Chris A. Lewis, Mark T. Mondello, Robert L. Paver and
Ronald J. Rapp, as well as certain of our directors, Mel S.
Lavitt, William D. Morean, Frank A. Newman, Laurence S.
Grafstein, Steven A. Raymund, Lawrence J. Murphy, Kathleen A.
Walters and Thomas A. Sansone, as defendants.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and the
rules promulgated thereunder.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged that the
defendants engaged in a scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant
dates of options for various senior officers and directors,
causing the company's consolidated financial statements to
understate management compensation and overstate net earnings,
thereby inflating the stock price.

In addition, the complaint alleged that the company's proxy
statements falsely stated that the company had adhered to its
option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of
the company's shares on the trading date immediately prior to the
date of the grant.  Also, the complaint alleged that the
defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and circumstances
that led the company , on June 12, 2006, to announce that it was
lowering its prior guidance for net earnings for the third
quarter of fiscal year 2006.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserting claims
substantially similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
it replaced but adding additional allegations relating to the
restatement of earnings previously announced in connection with
the correction of errors in the calculation of compensation
expense for certain stock option grants.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 29, 2007.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and
the company then filed a reply memorandum in further support of
its motion to dismiss on Sept. 28, 2007.

On April 9, 2008, the Court dismissed the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint without prejudice and with
leave to amend such complaint on or before May 12, 2008.

On May 12, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserts substantially
the same causes of action against the same defendants, predicated
largely on the same allegations of fact as in the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint except insofar as the
plaintiffs added KPMG LLP, the company's independent registered
public accounting firm, as a defendant and added additional
allegations with respect to:

    (a) pre-class period option grants,

    (b) the professional background of certain defendants,

    (c) option grants to non-executive employees,

    (d) the restatement of our financial results for certain
        periods between 1996 and 2005 and

    (e) trading by the named plaintiffs and certain of the
        defendants during the class period.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint also includes an
additional claim for insider trading against certain defendants
pursuant to Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 promulgated pursuant to the
Exchange Act.  The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On Jan. 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed this dismissal on Feb. 20, 2009, and oral
arguments occurred in December 2009.

The suit is Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil
Circuit, Inc. et al., Case No. 06-cv-01716 (M.D. Fla.) (Merryday,
J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William E. Hoese
         Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
         1101 Market St., Suite 2400
         Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
         Phone: 215-238-1700
         E-mail: whoese@kohnswift.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Chapman, Esq.
         Holland & Knight, LLP
         100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 4100, PO Box 1288
         Tampa, FL 33601-1288
         Phone: 813-227-8500
         Fax: 813-229-0134
         E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com


JAVELIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Schnipper" Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., on Jan. 5, 2010, was served with a
complaint naming it, certain of its directors, Myriad
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and MPI Merger Sub, Inc. as defendants in a
purported class action lawsuit captioned Schnipper v. Watson, No.
09-5439.

The case was filed on Dec. 23, 2009 in the Massachusetts Superior
Court.

The Complaint alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the proposed merger contemplated by the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated Dec. 18, 2009, among the company,
Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MPI Merger Sub, Inc. and a
stockholder representative.

Two other complaints, Parrish v. Watson, No. 10-0029 (Mass.
Super. Ct. filed Jan. 5, 2010) and Andrews v. Driscoll, No. 10-
0049 (Mass. Super. Ct. filed Jan. 6, 2010), making substantially
similar allegations, were filed against the company and certain
of the other defendants identified in the "Schnipper" suit
following the filing of the Complaint.

The Parrish complaint has been voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff, and the plaintiff's counsel in that action has
informed the company that the plaintiff intends to re-file the
action in the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts
Superior Court for Suffolk County, according to the company's
Jan. 8, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. --
http://www.javelinpharmaceuticals.com/-- is a specialty  
pharmaceutical company that applies technologies to develop new
products and improved formulations of existing drugs that target
medical need in the pain management market.  The company's
product candidates are focused on treating an array of pain
disorders ranging from acute and episodic moderate-to-severe pain
associated with cancer pain, post-operative pain, post-trauma
pain, such as orthopedic injury pain, procedural pain and burn
pain.  The company's products include Dyloject (injectable
diclofenac), Ereska (intranasal ketamine, formerly PMI-150) and
Rylomine (intranasal morphine).


KAISER FOUNDATION: Calif. Class Suit Seeks Interest on Judgments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Foundation Health
Plan refuses to pay post-judgment interest on medical malpractice
awards, a class action claims in Orange County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Haddad v. Kaiser Foundation Health
Plan, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2009 00332767 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Orange Cty.) (Andler, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/06/InsureKaiser.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Conforti, Esq.
          Michael J. Carras, Esq.
          CONFORTI & CARRAS, APC
          151 N. Kraemer Blvd., Suite 204
          Placentia, CA 92870
          Telephone: 714-577-1071


LAWSON SOFTWARE: Court Denies Certification Bid in "Cruz" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the
plaintiffs' request to treat the case against Lawson Software,
Inc., as a class action, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009.

On May 20, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of current and former business,
systems, and technical consultants.

The suit, Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al.,
alleges that the company failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, and alleges
violations of state record-keeping requirements.  The suit also
alleges certain violations of ERISA and unjust enrichment.

Relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401(k) plan
credits, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees.

The company successfully moved the case from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the District of
Minnesota.  The Minnesota Federal District Court has
conditionally certified the case under the FLSA as a collective
action and granted the company's motion to dismiss the two ERISA
counts and the state wage and hour claims, but the state wage and
hour claims were later re-instated in another motion.

Plaintiffs moved to treat the case as a class action for their
Minnesota state law claims, and that motion was denied on Jan. 5,
2010.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Llezlie Lloren Green, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, D.C., DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699
          E-mail: lgreen@cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Loretta Mae Gastwirth, Esq.
          Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
          190 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-747-0300
          Fax: 516-747-0653
          E-mail: lgastwirth@meltzerlippe.com

               - and -

          Sara Gullickson McGrane, Esq.
          Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A.
          220 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-373-8511
          Fax: 612-338-0535
          E-mail: smcgrane@felhaber.com  


MONROE MUFFLER: Missouri Lawsuit Questions Hidden Shop Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Auto Tire Car
Care Centers charge customers a hidden shop fee, a class action
claims in St. Louis County Court. The fee is not included when
customers are quoted prices for services, requires the customer
to pay more for the service than promised, is revealed to the
customer after Auto Tire has possession of the vehicle, and is
not tailored to the cost of supplies, the complaint states.

Named plaintiff John McCall said the fee is a predetermined
amount that Auto Tire requires customers to pay for common
services.

The class consists of all Auto Tire customers who paid the fee.
The class seeks and an injunction against deceptive trade.

A copy of the Complaint in McCall v. Monroe Muffler Brake, Inc.,
dba AutoTire Care Care Center, Case No. 09SL-CC05472 (Mo. Cir.
Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/06/AutoTire.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John E. Campbell, Esq.
          Erich V. Vieth, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 1450
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-2929


NATIONAL BEEF: Unit Defends Suit over Spreading of Wastewater
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Beef Packing Co. LLC's wholly-owned subsidiary, National
Beef Leathers LLC, continues to defend a suit alleging that it
spread wastewater sludge containing hexavalent chromium in four
counties in northwest Missouri, according to the company's Jan.
8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 28, 2009.

NBL has been named as a defendant in fourteen currently pending
lawsuits involving NBL's tannery located in St. Joseph, Missouri.

NBL purchased certain assets of the tannery from Prime Tanning in
March 2009.

The lawsuits are pending in the Circuit Courts of Buchanan
County, Clinton County, Ray County, and DeKalb County, Missouri
and in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri and were filed between April 22, 2009 and Dec. 17, 2009.

The lawsuits allege that Prime and NBL spread wastewater sludge
containing hexavalent chromium in four counties in northwest
Missouri.  The lawsuits include twelve actions filed by
individuals and two purported class actions.   The plaintiffs are
seeking an unspecified amount of damages for wrongful death,
personal injury, pain and suffering, economic damages, punitive
damages, diminished property values and medical monitoring.

A leading US meatpacker, National Beef Packing Co. LLC --
http://www.nationalbeef.com/-- pays close attention to what  
Americans eat for dinner. The company produces boxed, case-ready,
portion-controlled, and branded fresh beef products for domestic
and export customers. Its refrigerated trucking unit, National
Carriers, transports beef within the US. To woo the natural foods
consumer, the company offers the Naturewell Natural Beef and
NatureSource brands of corn-fed, naturally raised beef products
for sale. National Beef is owned by beef producers, who control
the company through their ownership of U.S. Premium Beef.


NEW YORK: Suit Accuses State of Abusing 500 Troubled Teens
----------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that the New York
State Office of Children and Family Services subjected 500
troubled youths in state detention to violent physical restraint,
and routinely denied them legally required mental health care
services, nine children and their parents claim in a federal
class action.

Among other wanton acts, state employees regularly employ a
dangerous form of control known as prone restraint - having two
adults hold the youth face-down on the floor while his hands are
held or cuffed behind him. Prone restraint exposes the victim to
risk of cardiac and respiratory arrest, back, arm and neck
injuries, abrasions, strained muscles and head injuries,
according to the complaint.

Such treatment led to the 2006 death of a Bronx teen at the Tryon
Boys' Residential Center in Johnston, and serious mental and
physical injuries to scores of others, the complaint states.

The families claim that OCFS Commissioner Gladys Carrion allowed
the behavior to continue despite red flags raised by the U.S.
Justice Department and a blue-ribbon panel appointed by Gov.
David Patterson.

The nine named plaintiffs, all of whom are identified by only
their initials, said their treatment violated the 14th Amendment,
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act.

They seek declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and
punitive damages, and of a monitoring system to ensure staff
accountability provision of adequate mental health assessments
and treatment.

The plaintiffs represent a class consisting of all youths held in
intake and "limited secure" facilities in New York State. Each
had been placed in rehabilitation after juvenile delinquency
proceedings.

The complaint quotes Carrion as having publicly stated that "more
than 80 percent of the children at these facilities have mental
health needs of clinical significance."

In light of that acknowledgement, "The failure to provide even
minimally appropriate mental health screening and treatment,
despite histories of trauma, abuse and mental health needs of the
majority of the children in OCFS facilities is unconscionable and
contributes to the unnecessary and persistent infliction of
improper physical force," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs say this behavior continued despite a scathing
August 2009 findings letter from the U.S. Department of Justice.

In December 2009 a task force appointed by Gov. David Patterson
confirmed system-wide problems, finding that adult childcare
staff with the Office of Children and Family Services continue to
violently and unlawfully restrain members of the class, and
continue to fail to provide legally required mental health
services.

In addition to the Tryon Boys' Residential Center, facilities
named in the suit include the Pyramid Reception Center in the
Bronx, the Tryon Girls' reception Center and Girls' Limited
Secure Residential Center in Johnston, the Lansing Residential
Center in Lansing, the Highland Residential Center in Highland,
the Industry Limited Secure Residential Center in Rush, the
Finger Lakes Residential Center in Lansing, the Taberg
Residential Center in Taberg, and the Sgt. Henry Johnson Youth
Leadership Academy in South Kortright, N.Y.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christine Bella of the Legal
Aid Society, and:

          J. Peter Coll, Jr., Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          666 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10103-0001
          Telephone: 212-506-5000


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Has Yet to be Served Suit Over Corrosion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., has yet to be served in a
putative class action alleging premature corrosion of its strap
tie holdown products installed in buildings, according to the
company's Jan. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

A putative class action was filed against the company in the
Hawaii First Circuit Court styled Kai et al. v. Haseko Homes,
Inc., Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc.,
Case No. 09-1-1476 RAT.

The suit alleges premature corrosion of the company's strap tie
holdown products installed in buildings in a housing development
known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii, allegedly causing
property damage.

The case is a putative class action brought by the owners of
allegedly affected Ocean Pointe houses.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and punitive damages.  

The case appears to have been voluntarily dismissed, although the
company has been informed that it will be re-filed.

The case has not been served on the Company.

The company is investigating the facts underlying the claims
asserted, including, among other things:

     -- the cause of the alleged corrosion;

     -- the severity of any problems shown to exist;

     -- the buildings affected;

     -- the responsibility of the general contractor, various
        subcontractors and other construction professionals for
        the alleged damages;

     -- the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and

     -- the costs of repair, if needed.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. -- http://www.simpsonmfg.com/--   
is primarily a holding company.  Through its subsidiary, Simpson
Strong-Tie Company Inc. (SST), the company designs, engineers and
manufactures wood-to-wood, wood-to-concrete and wood-to-masonry
connectors, SST Quik Drive screw fastening systems and collated
screws, stainless steel fasteners, and pre-fabricated shear
walls.  SST Anchor Systems offers a line of adhesives, mechanical
anchors, carbide drill bits and powder actuated tools for
concrete, masonry and steel.  SST is the company's connector
products segment.  The company's subsidiary, Simpson Dura-Vent
Company, Inc. (SDV), designs, engineers and manufactures venting
systems for gas, wood, oil, pellet and other alternative fuel
burning appliances.  SDV is the Company's venting products
segment.  SST's Anchor Systems product line is included in the
connector product segment.  In January 2009, the company acquired
the business of RO Design Corp, doing business as DeckTools.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Fla. Suit Alleges Unjust Enrichment from Car Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toyota recalled vehicles for
an accelerator pedal that can get stuck under the floor mat,
according to a class action claim of unjust enrichment, in Miami
Federal Court.  

A copy of the Complaint in Gellman v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-20006 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/06/Toyota.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          Sarah Clasby Engel, Esq.
          HARKE & CLASBY LLP
          155 South Miami Ave., Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 536-8220


TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Face Reese-Levering Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. continues to face a consolidated class-
action suit over alleged violations of the Reese-Levering
Automobile Sales Finance Act of California, according to the
company's Nov. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

Initially two separate lawsuits were filed.  The first lawsuit,
"Garcia v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation," is a cross-
complaint, alleging a class action, filed on January 2007 in the
Superior Court of California Stanilaus County.  It claims that
the company's post-repossession notice failed to comply with the
Reese-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act of California.

The second cross-complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
California San Francisco County, alleging a class action.  The
suit, "Aquilar and Smith v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation,"
was filed in February 2008 and contains similar allegations
claiming that the company's post-repossession notices failed to
comply with Reese-Levering.

The plaintiffs in the Aguilar matter are seeking injunctive
relief, restitution and disgorgement, as well as damages.

The company has filed a petition to consolidate these cases as
they present nearly identical questions of law and fact.  The
cases have been consolidated in Stanislaus County as they
present nearly identical questions of law and fact.

A complaint alleging a class action in the Superior Court of
California San Diego County, "McNess v. Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation," filed in September 2008, contains similar
allegations claiming that the company's post-repossession notice
failed to comply with Reese-Levering.

An additional complaint alleging a class-action suit in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, "Smith v.
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation," filed in December 2008, also
contains similar allegations claiming that the Company's post
repossession notice failed to comply with Reese-Levering.

The plaintiffs in the McNess and Smith cases are seeking
injunctive relief and restitution.

The McNess and Smith cases were consolidated with the Garcia
Cases in November 2008 and January 2009, respectively, as they
present nearly identical questions of law and fact.

A First Amended Cross-Complaint and Complaint was subsequently
filed in the Superior Court of California Stanislaus County in
February 2009.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/--
provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized
Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other
domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  It also provides finance products to
commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial
equipment dealers) and their customers.  TMCC provides a range
of finance products, including retail financing, leasing, and
dealer financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and
their customers.  It also provides marketing, underwriting, and
claims administration related to covering certain risks of
vehicle dealers and their customers.  TMCC also provide coverage
and related administrative services to its affiliates.  The
company is wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas
Corp. (TFSA).


TRIAD GUARANTY: Continues to Defend "Phillips" Suit in N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Triad Guaranty Inc., continues to defend a complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, according
to the company's Nov. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

On Feb. 6, 2009, James L. Phillips served a complaint against the
company, Mark K. Tonnesen and Kenneth W. Jones.

The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the company
between Oct. 26, 2006 and April 1, 2008 and the complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws by the company and two of
its present or former officers.

The court has appointed lead counsel for the plaintiff and an
amended complaint was filed June 22, 2009.

The company filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Aug. 21, 2009 and the plaintiff filed its opposition to the
motion to dismiss on Oct. 20, 2009.  The company's reply was due
Nov. 19, 2009.

Triad Guaranty Inc. -- http://www.triadguaranty.com/-- is a  
holding company.  Through its wholly owned subsidiary, Triad
Guaranty Insurance Corporation (Triad), the company provided
private mortgage insurance coverage in the United States.  Triad
ceased issuing new commitments for mortgage guaranty insurance
coverage on July 15, 2008, and is operating the business in run-
off.  Triad no longer writes new mortgage insurance policies but
continues to service the existing policies.  Servicing existing
policies includes receiving premiums on policies that remain in
force; cancelling coverage at the insured's request; terminating
policies for non-payment of premium; working with borrowers in
default to remedy the default and/or mitigate the Company's loss,
and settling all legitimate filed claims per the Company's
contractual obligations.  Prior to the commencement of run-off on
July 15, 2008, the company offered principally two products,
Primary and Modified Pool mortgage insurance.


USANA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Chirco" Suit in Nevada Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Usana Health Sciences Inc. continues to defend a purported class
action lawsuit filed with the State District Court in Clark
County, Nevada,

In April 2009, Joseph Chirco, a former USANA Associate filed a
purported class action lawsuit and named the company and certain
of its present and former officers and directors, as well as
other individuals, as defendants.

The proposed class consists of distributors who were Nevada
residents at any time since 1995.  The complaint, which is
essentially a copy of a complaint from a purported distributor
class action lawsuit filed against the company in California
state court in 2007, alleges a number of purported material
misrepresentations to the market in violation of state pyramid
law, deceptive business practices, and business fraud law.

The complaint seeks damages, general injunctive relief, pre-
judgment interest, costs, attorney's fees, and other further
relief deemed appropriate by the court.  The company believes the
claims in this complaint are distorted, not actionable under
applicable law, and without merit.

On June 2009, the company filed its answer to the complaint,
which contained a general denial of the allegations in the
complaint and set forth its affirmative defenses.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 10, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 3, 2009.

Based in Salt Lake City, Utah, USANA Health Sciences, Inc. --
http://www.usanahealthsciences.com/-- develops and manufactures  
science-based nutritional and personal care products.  The
company distributes and sells its products internationally
through a network marketing system, which is a form of direct
selling.  Its international markets include Canada, Mexico,
Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan,
Japan, and South Korea, and direct sales from the United States
to customers in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.  The
company distributes and sells its products through a network
marketing system, a form of direct selling, using independent
distributors that it refers to as Associates.  It also sells its
products directly to Preferred Customers who purchase the
company's products for personal use and are not permitted to
resell or distribute the products.

                            *********

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 2010.  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  * * *