/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100201.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 1, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 21 Headlines ALIANTE MASTER: Nevada Homeowner Associations Challenge Fees ALLTEL CORP: Ark. Sup. Ct. Ruling Might Revive Class Action Suit APPLE INC: Appellate Court Affirms Decision Dismissing Birdsong APPLE INC: "Royer-Brennan" Suit Remains Pending in Montreal APPLE INC: "Branning" Suit in California Remains Pending APPLE INC: iPOD Nano Litigation in California Concluded APPLE INC: Appeal to "St-Germain" Ruling Remains Pending APPLE INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Suit over iPod Tunes APPLE INC: "Somers" Suit in Northern California Still Pending APPLE INC: Continues to Face "Vitt" Suit over iBook G4 APPLE INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Suit vs. Jobs Still Pending APPLE INC: 2008 "Vogel" Suit Still Stayed Pending Ruling in Jobs CAPITAL ONE: Conn. Suit Complains about Payment Protection Plan CVS CAREMARK: Sued in D. Mass. for Labor Violations DISCOVER FINANICAL: Payment Protection Plan Suit Filed in Ill. EHARMONY.COM: Agrees to Pay $500,000 & Become More Gay Friendly INTERFRATERNITY COUNCIL: Calif. Class Action Complaint Available MERIAL LIMITED: D. N.J. Lawsuit Says Flea & Tick Medicine Unsafe NOVARTIS AG: Trial in U.S. Zelnorm Litigation to Start in June NOVARTIS AG: Statement to Defend Filed in Canada "Zelnorm" Suit NOVARTIS AG: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Wage & Hour Suit Pending NOVARTIS AG: Trial in Gender Discrimination Suit Set for April 7 NOVARTIS AG: "Zometa" Trial in New Jersey to Begin in June 2010 PRESTIGE FINANCIAL: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Debt Management Scam S&S HOMES: Calif. Lawsuit Claims 400 Homes are Defective STARBUCKS COFFEE: Recalls 12,200 Glass Water Bottles WAL-MART STORES: N.J. Suit Says Floor Model Warranties Worthless ********* ALIANTE MASTER: Nevada Homeowner Associations Challenge Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that about 150 homeowners' associations charge excess fees on foreclosed homes in their communities, then use threats and intimidation to collect the illegal fees, a class action claims in Clark County Court. About 10 developers say they bought foreclosed properties through trustee sales, but that the homeowners' associations illegally placed liens against the properties that went above the legal fees. "On multiple occasions," the homeowners' associations "have taken the property of plaintiffs under circumstances not amounting to robbery, and have obtain possession of money valued at $250 or more . . . by means of false pretenses," the lawsuit states. The homeowners' associations also hired collection agencies to intimidate plaintiffs "to promote or further the objectives of their criminal syndicate," the lawsuit states. The associations also made threats that if the liens weren't paid, the properties in question would remain clouded in title, precluding plaintiffs from selling their property, according to the complaint. Plaintiffs include Higher Ground LLC; RRR Homes; Triple Braided Court; Equisource LLC; Equisource Holdings LLC; Appleton Properties LLC; CBRIS LLC; MEGA LLC; and Southern Nevada Acquisitions LLC. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for racketeering, negligence and breach of contract, among other things. A copy of the Complaint in Higher Ground, LLC, et al. v. Aliante Master Association, et al., Case No. A-10-608741-C (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/26/Higher%20Ground%2016.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Adams, Esq. Assly Sayyar, Esq. ADAMS LAW GROUP, LTD. 8681 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 280 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: 702-838-7200 ALLTEL CORP: Ark. Sup. Ct. Ruling Might Revive Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed an order denying class certification in a lawsuit challenging Alltel's early termination fees. Peter Rosenow filed suit against Alltel Corp. and Alltel Mobile Communications after he canceled his cell phone service and was charged a $200 early termination fee. Mr. Rosenow argued that the fee violated the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. But the trial court denied his motion for class certification, ruling that each case had too many individual components to proceed collectively. Mr. Rosenow appealed this ruling, along with the trial court's refusal to strike expert testimony on the economic damages Alltel would incur if customers terminated service before their contracts expired. The state high court reversed, ruling that the trial court had improperly focused on the merits of the case rather than concentrating on the issue of class certification. "Conducting this merit-based analysis was an abuse of discretion," Justice Donald Corbin wrote. For the same reason, Justice Corbin overruled the lower court's decision to allow the expert's testimony. "As it is improper to consider the underlying merits at the class-certification stage of proceedings, (the expert's) opinion was not relevant to the issue of whether a class should be certified," Justice Corbin wrote. The state Supreme Court remanded for a proper look at whether Alltel customers constitute a class with common interests. A copy of the Court's Opinion in Rosenow v. Alltel Corp., et al., No. 09-463 (Ark.), is available at http://is.gd/7id6q APPLE INC: Appellate Court Affirms Decision Dismissing Birdsong --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court dismissing Birdsong v. Apple Inc., Case No. 06-02280 (N.D. Calif.) (Ware, J.), according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2009. The action was filed on Jan. 30, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. The plaintiff alleged that the company's iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. After the case was transferred to the Northern District of California, plaintiffs amended their claims to allege California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana law-based claim for exhibition for a Louisiana sub-class. Plaintiffs sought restitution, injunctive relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. On June 16, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice. On Dec. 30, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case with prejudice. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. NEBLETT, BEARD & ARSENAULT 2220 Bonaventure Court P.O. Box 1190 Alexandria, LA 71309 Phone: 318-487-9874 Fax: 318-561-2591 E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. BOHRER LAW FIRM 8712 Jefferson Hwy., Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: 225-925-5297 Fax: 225-231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com Representing the company is: James Alfred Lico, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-439-1400 Fax: 415-439-1500 E-mail: Jlico@kirkland.com APPLE INC: "Royer-Brennan" Suit Remains Pending in Montreal ----------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc., continues to face a suit styled Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2009. The suit was filed on Feb. 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. The allegations in the complaint are similar to the suit Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc. Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories, including the online sale of third-party audio and video products. APPLE INC: "Branning" Suit in California Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc., continues to face a suit styled Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., alleging unfair competition, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2009. Plaintiffs originally filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005 on behalf of putative classes of consumers and resellers. The case was transferred to Santa Clara Superior Court in May 2005. The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other relief. Plaintiffs subsequently filed multiple amended complaints adding new plaintiffs and new causes of action including claims for false advertising, fraud, conversion, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act). In general, the consumer plaintiffs allege that the company "shorted" the coverage provided under its warranties and AppleCare Protection Plan extended service contracts and sold plaintiffs used products that were represented to be new. In general, the reseller plaintiffs allege that the company damaged their businesses by opening the Apple retail stores and making misrepresentations in connection with doing so. On Oct. 28, 2009, the Court granted the consumer plaintiffs' motion to certify a class relating to their "shorting" claims, but denied class certification as to their "used as new" claims. Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories, including the online sale of third-party audio and video products. APPLE INC: iPOD Nano Litigation in California Concluded ------------------------------------------------------- The action filed against Apple, Inc., alleging defects in the iPod nano, has been concluded, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2009. The action is In re Apple iPod Nano Products Liability Litigation (formerly Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Calado, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Rappel v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Mayo v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Valencia v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Williamson v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Sioson v. Apple Computer, Inc. Beginning on Oct. 19, 2005, eight complaints were filed in various U.S. District Courts and two complaints were filed in California State Court alleging that the company's iPod nano was defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during normal use, rendering the screen unreadable. The federal actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to an April 17, 2006 order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated and Amended Master Complaint on Sept. 21, 2006, alleging violations of California and other states' consumer protection and warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment. The Master Complaint alleged two putative plaintiff classes: (1) all U.S. residents (excluding California residents) who purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured or designed using processes necessary to ensure normal resistance to scratching of the screen; and (2) all iPod nano purchasers other than U.S. residents who purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured or designed using processes necessary to ensure normal resistance to scratching of the screen. On May 4, 2006, the two California State Court actions were consolidated in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on June 8, 2006, alleging violations of California state consumer protection, unfair competition, false advertising and warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment. The Consolidated Complaint alleged a putative plaintiff class of all California residents who own an iPod nano containing a manufacturing defect that results in the nano being susceptible to excessive scratching. The parties reached a settlement and on April 28, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. On May 21, 2009, an objector appealed the Court's approved of the settlement. The appeal has been dismissed and the actions are now concluded. Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories, including the online sale of third-party audio and video products. APPLE INC: Appeal to "St-Germain" Ruling Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc.'s appeal from the ruling in favor of the plaintiff in the suit styled St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2009. The plaintiff filed the case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Aug. 5, 2005, seeking authorization to institute a class action for the refund by the company of the Canadian Private Copying Levy that was applied to the iPod purchase price in Quebec between Dec. 12, 2003 and Dec. 14, 2004 but later declared invalid by the Canadian Court. The company has completed a refund program for this levy. A class certification hearing took place Jan. 13, 2006. On Feb. 24, 2006, the Court granted class certification and notice was published during the last week of March 2006. The trial was conducted on Oct. 15 and Oct. 16, 2007. On Jan. 11, 2008, the Court issued a ruling in plaintiff's favor. The Court ruled that despite the company's good faith efforts with the levy refund program, the company must pay the amount claimed, and that the class is comprised of 20,000 persons who purchased an iPod in Quebec between Dec. 12, 2003 and Dec. 14, 2004. The Court ordered the company to submit a statement of account showing the amount received by the Canadian Private Copying Collective, and the amount that has already been paid to class members in Quebec under the company's levy refund program. The Court also ordered the parties to submit further briefing regarding the collective recovery award by Feb. 23, 2008. On Feb. 11, 2008, the company filed an appeal. Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories, including the online sale of third-party audio and video products. APPLE INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Suit over iPod Tunes -------------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc., continues to face a consolidated suit alleging unlawful tying of music and video purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2009. The action is a consolidated case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California combining two cases previously pending under the names: 1. Charoensak v. Apple Computer Inc. (formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer Inc.) filed on January 3, 2005; and 2. Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed on July 21, 2006. A Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 17, 2007 on behalf of a purported class of direct purchasers of iPods and iTunes Store content, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and video purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. The Consolidated Complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (Title 15 of the U.S. Code, Sections 1 and 2), California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California monopolization law. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief. On Dec. 22, 2008, the Court granted certification of plaintiffs' monopolization claims and denied without prejudice certification of their tying claims. On Oct. 30, 2009, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. On Dec. 21, 2009, the Court decertified the injunctive relief class and Rule 23(b)(3) damages class. Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories, including the online sale of third-party audio and video products. APPLE INC: "Somers" Suit in Northern California Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The complaint Somers v. Apple Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California remains pending, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2009. The complaint was filed on Dec. 31, 2007, on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (Title 15 of the U.S. Code Sections 1 and 2), California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California monopolization law. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories, including the online sale of third-party audio and video products. APPLE INC: Continues to Face "Vitt" Suit over iBook G4 ------------------------------------------------------ Apple, Inc., continues to face a purported class action styled Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2009. The suit was filed on Nov. 7, 2006, on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the iBook G4 alleging that the computer's logic board fails at an abnormally high rate. The complaint alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising). Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories, including the online sale of third-party audio and video products. APPLE INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Suit vs. Jobs Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The appeal of the plaintiffs on the ruling dismissing the purported class action Vogel v. Jobs et al., remains pending, according to according to Apple, Inc.'s Jan. 25, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2009. The suit was filed on Aug. 24, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and certain of the company's current and former officers and directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants' profits, failing to properly account for those grants and issuing false financial statements. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint, filed March 23, 2007, purports to be brought on behalf of several classes of holders of the company's stock and asserts claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as well as state law. The Consolidated Complaint seeks rescission of amendments to various stock option and other incentive compensation plans, an accounting and damages in an unspecified amount. The court entered judgment in the defendants' favor and dismissed the case on June 12, 2008. Plaintiffs' appeal of the judgment is pending. Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories, including the online sale of third-party audio and video products. APPLE INC: 2008 "Vogel" Suit Still Stayed Pending Ruling in Jobs ---------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action styled Vogel v. Apple Inc., et al., is still stayed pending a decision in the case Vogel v. Jobs et al., according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2009. The suit was filed on June 27, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and certain of the company's current and former officers and directors. The allegations, which arise out of the company's past stock option practices, are similar to those in the 2006 Vogel v. Jobs et al. action that was dismissed on June 12, 2008. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of several classes of holders of the company's stock and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to various stock option and other incentive compensation plans, an accounting and damages in an unspecified amount. The plaintiffs in the Vogel v. Jobs action appealed the ruling dismissing their case. As a result, on July 22, 2008, the Court stayed the Vogel v. Apple action pending resolution of the appeal. Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories, including the online sale of third-party audio and video products. CAPITAL ONE: Conn. Suit Complains about Payment Protection Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stuart at Courthouse News Service reports that Capital One calls it "Payment Protection" to charge 89 cents a month for every $100 on its customers' credit card balance, and forces them to "opt out" of the deal they never asked for -- even if customers are senior citizens who cannot receive benefits from it, a class action claims in Federal Court. Lead plaintiff Lisa Sullivan says was enrolled in the Payment Protection program in 2007. But when she was laid off in July 2009 and tried to claim the program's benefits, Capital One rejected her, she says. At the time she had a $547.96 balance on a card with a limit of $500. As a result, she says, Capital One charged her a $39 past due fee, $10 Capital Pay Transaction fee, $4.48 Payment Protection fee, and a $39 over the limit fee: $92.48 in fees for a $33.08 purchase. Ms. Sullivan says Capital One failed to disclose that the Payment Protection program is a finance charge and that the minimum payment does not include all fees it imposes -- including interest on the penalty fees. The class is estimated as 50,000 Connecticut cardholders. Sullivan seeks punitive damages for unjust enrichments and violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. A copy of the Complaint in Sullivan v. Capital One Bank, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00092 (D. Conn.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/26/CapOneHartford.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Miller, Esq. Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: 861-526-1100 CVS CAREMARK: Sued in D. Mass. for Labor Violations --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Caremark violates the Labor Code, a class action claims in Boston Federal Court. Griffith v. CVS Caremark Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-10106 (D. Mass.) (Saylor, J.), was filed on Jan. 25, 2010, and the Plaintiff is represented by: Marilyn T. McGoldrick, Esq. THORNTON & NAUMES, LLP 100 Summer Street, 30th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617-720-1333 DISCOVER FINANICAL: Payment Protection Plan Suit Filed in Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Discover Bank and Morgan Stanley enroll credit card holders in a "payment protection" plan without their consent and refuse to issue refunds when they try to cancel the "service" they never ordered, disgruntled customers say in a federal class action. Named plaintiff Marti Kelmer says the defendants contact customers and claim to be sending them information about the program. But the defendants actually send a package with the terms of the plan, informing customers they already have been enrolled, the complaint states. Mr. Kelmer claims the package includes an "Election and Acknowledgement Form." By signing the form, the customer states that he or she has read the plan and wanted to buy it. "At the bottom of the form, the following language is found: 'Note: Regardless of whether you send this form back to us, you are still enrolled in Payment Protection until canceled,'" the complaint states. Mr. Kelmer says that when he called to cancel, the defendants refused to refund the money they already had taken. Mr. Kelmer says the defendants tell customers they have proof that they consented to the enrollment -- but refuse to provide proof of this consent. The class consists of all Americans who were enrolled in the payment protection plan without consent and were charged a monthly fee. They seek damages and an injunction. Discover Bank, Morgan Stanley, DFS Services and Discover Financial Services are named as defendants. A copy of the Complaint in Kelmer v. DFS Services LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00050 (S.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/26/DiscoverPayProtect.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Carey, Esq. Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq. Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CAREY & DANIS, L.L.C. 8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105-1643 Telephone: 314-725-7700 EHARMONY.COM: Agrees to Pay $500,000 & Become More Gay Friendly --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that eHarmony.com on Tuesday agreed to pay out a half-million dollars and make its Web site more gay friendly to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by gays in California nearly three years ago. Additional details will appear in tomorrow's edition of the Class Action Reporter. INTERFRATERNITY COUNCIL: Calif. Class Action Complaint Available ---------------------------------------------------------------- As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 27, 2010, the South of Campus Neighborhood Association and a resident filed a class action lawsuit against the InterFraternity Council and dozens of Greek fraternities in Berkeley, Calif. The University of California is not named in the lawsuit. A copy of the Complaint in Sough of Campus Neighborhood Association, et al. v. InterFraternity Council, et al., Case No. 10494360 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/26/Drunks.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul L. Kranz, Esq. Louis Garcia, Esq. William Barnes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, CA 94710-2549 Telephone: (510) 549-5900 MERIAL LIMITED: D. N.J. Lawsuit Says Flea & Tick Medicine Unsafe ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that cour class actions in Newark Federal Court accuse chemical companies of selling flea and tick medicine that can hurt and kill pets. Defendants are Merial, Merck & Co., Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis for Frontline; Summit VetPharm and Sumitomo Corp, for Vectra 3d; Hartz Mountain and Sumitomo for Hartz UltraGuard; and Bayer Healthcare for K9 Advantix. A copy of the Complaint in Smith v. Merial Limited, et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 7638 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Jan. 25, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/26/CCAPetsFleas.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 210 Summit Avenue Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone (201) 391-7000 - and - Michael S. Green, Esq. GREEN & PAGANO, LLP 522 Route 18 P.O. Box 428 East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Telephone (732) 390-0480 - and - Paul Diamond, Esq. DIAMOND LAW OFFICE, LLC 1605 John Street, Suite 102 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone (201) 242-1110 NOVARTIS AG: Trial in U.S. Zelnorm Litigation to Start in June -------------------------------------------------------------- The first trial in the U.S. against Novartis AG's subsidiaries is expected to begin in Virginia in June 2010, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The company's subsidiaries are defendants in approximately 134 cases brought in U.S. and Canadian courts in which plaintiffs claim to have experienced cardiovascular injuries after being treated with Zelnorm, a medicine for irritable bowel syndrome and chronic constipation. The first trial in the U.S. is now expected to begin in Virginia in June 2010, after a case was dismissed that had been scheduled for trial in Louisiana in January 2010. Novartis AG -- http://www.novartis.com/-- is a Switzerland-based holding that, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of healthcare products. NOVARTIS AG: Statement to Defend Filed in Canada "Zelnorm" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A statement to defend was filed in a purported national class action against a subsidiary of Novartis AG in Canada, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The company's subsidiaries are defendants in approximately 134 cases brought in U.S. and Canadian courts in which plaintiffs claim to have experienced cardiovascular injuries after being treated with Zelnorm, a medicine for irritable bowel syndrome and chronic constipation. Novartis AG -- http://www.novartis.com/-- is a Switzerland-based holding that, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of healthcare products. NOVARTIS AG: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Wage & Hour Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs in a consolidated class action against U.S. subsidiaries of Novartis AG remains pending, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. A group of pharmaceutical sales representatives filed suit in a U.S. state court in California and in a U.S. federal court in New York against U.S. Novartis subsidiaries alleging that the companies violated wage and hour laws by misclassifying the sales representatives as "exempt" employees, and by failing to pay overtime compensation. The lawsuits were consolidated and certified as a class action. In January 2009, the U.S. federal district court for the Southern District of New York held the sales representatives were not entitled to overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and corresponding state wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment. Amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs' position were filed by the National Employment Lawyers Association and by the U.S. Department of Labor. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a brief in support of Novartis on Nov. 5, 2009. Novartis AG -- http://www.novartis.com/-- is a Switzerland-based holding that, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of healthcare products. NOVARTIS AG: Trial in Gender Discrimination Suit Set for April 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A trial in a class action against one of Novartis AG's U.S. subsidiaries is scheduled to begin on April 7, 2010, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Certain female pharmaceutical sales representatives brought a lawsuit in a U.S. federal court in New York against, among others, several U.S. Novartis subsidiaries, alleging they were discriminated against because of their gender. The district court granted, in part, plaintiffs' motion for class certification against one of the U.S. Novartis subsidiaries, but it dismissed all other US Novartis subsidiaries from the case. Discovery was required to be completed by Dec. 31, 2009, and the trial is scheduled to begin on April 7, 2010. Novartis AG -- http://www.novartis.com/-- is a Switzerland-based holding that, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of healthcare products. NOVARTIS AG: "Zometa" Trial in New Jersey to Begin in June 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A trial in a suit against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., a U.S. affiliate of Novartis AG, is scheduled to begin in June 2010, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Novartis Pharmaceuticals is a defendant in approximately 682 cases brought in U.S. courts in which plaintiffs claim to have experienced osteonecrosis of the jaw after treatment with Zometa or Aredia, which are used to treat patients whose cancer has spread to the bones. All purported class actions have been dismissed. A trial that began in Montana in October 2009 resulted in a plaintiff's verdict, and this verdict is currently under appeal. The next trial in a U.S. state court is scheduled to begin in New Jersey in June 2010. Novartis AG -- http://www.novartis.com/-- is a Switzerland-based holding that, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of healthcare products. PRESTIGE FINANCIAL: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Debt Management Scam --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Prestige Financial Solutions defrauds people by taking nonrefundable up-front fees for incompetent or nonexistent debt- reduction "services," in San Diego Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Soto v. Prestige Financial Solutions, Case No. 10-cv-00186 (S.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/26/DebtReducation.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Hyde, Esq. Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. David C. Leimback, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: 619-233-7770 S&S HOMES: Calif. Lawsuit Claims 400 Homes are Defective -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that S&S Homes of the Central Coast and Granite Pointe Estates built 400 defective houses, a class action claims in Kern County Court, Bakersfield. A copy of the Complaint in Oats, et al. v. S&S Homes of the Central Coast, Inc., et al., Case No. S-1500-CV-269126 (Calif. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/26/RealEsate.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Danil Monteleone, Esq. Jeffrey T. Belton, Esq. Mark A. Abell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIL MONTELEONE 8132 Tunney Ave. Reseda Ranch, CA 91335 Telephone: 818-349-9666 STARBUCKS COFFEE: Recalls 12,200 Glass Water Bottles ---------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Starbucks Coffee Company, of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of about 11,000 Glass Water Bottles in the United States and 1,200 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The glass water bottle and its stopper can shatter when the consumer is removing or inserting the stopper, posing a laceration hazard to consumers. The firm has received 10 reports of either glass stoppers or water bottles shattering, including eight reports of hand lacerations. This recall involves clear glass water bottles with SKU number 11003503. The 20-ounce water bottles have the words "Glass Water Bottle" printed on a blue label affixed to the bottle. A picture of the recalled product is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10125.html The recalled container was manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Starbucks company-operated stores and at Starbucks locations in Safeway and Target stores nationwide during January 2010 for about $9. Consumers should immediately stop using the glass water bottles and return the product to the Starbucks location where purchased to receive a full refund. Starbucks is also offering a complimentary beverage, of any size, to consumers upon return of the glass water bottles. For additional information, contact Starbucks at (877) 492-6333 between 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Eastern TImes, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.starbucks.com/ WAL-MART STORES: N.J. Suit Says Floor Model Warranties Worthless ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Wal-Mart and Sam's Club sell service plans to customers who buy floor models or demo models, though the retailers have "no intention of fulfilling its obligations" because such models are not eligible for coverage under the service plan, a class action claims in Camden, N.J., Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-______, docketed as Doc. 86 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Jan. 25, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/26/WalMartCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel R. Lapinski, Esq. Kevin P. Roddy, Esq. Keven H. Friedman, Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A. 90 Woodbridge Center Drive Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: 732-636-8000 - and - Scott R. Shepherd, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 475 White Horse Pike Collingswood, NJ 08107 Telephone: 856-858-1770 ********* 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 * * *