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  * * *