CAR_Public/100208.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 8, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 26

                            Headlines

ALLIED DEFENSE: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Del. Suit Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Audible Settlement Agreement Under Appeal
EMPLOYERS MUTUAL: Doctor Rejects Insurer's $48 Settlement Offer
EMULEX CORP: California Court Dismisses "Robbins" Suit
EMULEX CORP: Continues to Defend Amended Complaint in Delaware

EMULEX CORP: Continues to Defend "Chan" Lawsuit in Delaware
G. WILLI-FOOD: Examining Settlement Offer in "Sugar Free" Suit
HEALTHWAYS INC: Accused in Tenn. of Mismanaging Pension Plan
INTERNATIONAL COAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
KB HOME: Reaches Settlement Agreement in "Bagley" Suit

KELLOGG COMPANY: Healthy Nutri-Grain Bars Not Healthy, Suit Says
KLA-TENCOR: Awaits Final Ruling on Shareholder Suit in Delaware
NEW YORK: Suit Complains About New Medicaid Living Arrangements
NORTHERN TRUST: Accused of Mismanaging Pension Plans in Ill. Suit
OSHKOSH CORP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending

QUIXOTE CORP: Enters Agreement to Settle Two Suits in Illinois
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Suits Over F.A.A. Violations Remain Pending
ST. JOSEPH: Accused in Maryland of Misleading Patients
TISHMAN SPEYER: Agrees to Stuyvesant Town Class Certification
TOYOTA MOTOR: Accelerator Defect Lawsuit filed in E.D. Ky.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Accelerator Defect Lawsuit Filed in S.D. Fla.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Burg Simpson Files Class Action Suit in D. Colo.
TUESDAY MORNING: Lawsuit by Non-exempt Employees Remains Stayed
TUESDAY MORNING: Still No Ruling on Decertification Appeal
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Stumpf" Suit

VISTAPRINT N.V.: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Remains Pending
WESTERN DIGITAL: Unit Defends "Durrani" Suit Over Unpaid Wages

                            *********

ALLIED DEFENSE: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Del. Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Allied Defense Group is
selling itself too cheaply to Chemring Group, for $59 million or
$7.25 a share, shareholders say in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Shareholders' Class Action Complaint for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty in Bergman v. The Allied Defense Group, Inc., et
al., Case No. 5242 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/02/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman M. Monhait, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 Market St., Suite 1401
          Citizens Bank Center
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-656-4433

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          1050 30th St., NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: 202-337-8000


AMAZON.COM INC: Audible Settlement Agreement Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
The agreement settling a securities class-action involving
Amazon.com, Inc.'s subsidiary, Audible, Inc., is currently under
appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according
to the company's Jan. 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In June 2001, Audible, the company's subsidiary acquired in March
2008, was named as a defendant in a securities class-action filed
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
related to its initial public offering in July 1999.

The lawsuit also named certain of the offering's underwriters, as
well as Audible's officers and directors as defendants.

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York.

The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration
statement for Audible's offering failed to disclose that the
underwriters allegedly solicited and received "excessive"
commissions from investors and that some investors allegedly
agreed with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the
aftermarket in order to inflate the price of Audible's stock.

Audible and its officers and directors were named in the suits
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and other related
provisions.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorney and expert
fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.

In March 2009, all parties, including Audible, reached a
settlement of these class actions that would resolve this dispute
entirely with no payment required from Audible.

The settlement was approved by the Court in October 2009, and
that settlement is currently under appeal to the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- offers services to  
consumer customers, seller customers and developer customers.  
The company serves its consumer customers through its retail
Websites.  it offers programs that enable seller customers to
sell their products on the company's Websites and their own
branded Websites.  It serves developer customers through Amazon
Web Services, which provides access to technology infrastructure
that developers can use to enable virtually any type of business.  
In addition, the company generates revenue through co-branded
credit card agreements and other marketing and
promotional services, such as online advertising.  The company's
operations are organized into two principal segments: North
America and International.


EMPLOYERS MUTUAL: Doctor Rejects Insurer's $48 Settlement Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris at The Madison County Record reports that Madison
County, Ill., chiropractor Frank Bemis turned down $48 to settle
a class action billing dispute, because his lawyers at
LakinChapman wouldn't collect a fee.

Andrew Kuhlmann of LakinChapman wrote on Jan. 20 that the offer
didn't account for the relief Bemis requested from Employers
Mutual Casualty.

Bemis alleges that Employers Mutual took discounts from bills of
members of preferred provider organizations but broke a promise
to steer patients to them.

"In addition to reimbursement of all PPO reductions, plaintiff
requests an award of attorney's fees under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act," Kuhlmann wrote.

"At a minimum, then, attorneys' fees remain outstanding, and
plaintiff's claims are not moot," he wrote.

"Because plaintiff seeks relief beyond the alleged tender, there
is no need to even analyze whether the tender could prevent class
certification," he wrote.

His brief buttressed an earlier motion to certify a class of
health care providers who received less than they billed for
workers compensation cases.

Bemis sued in 2005, days before the national class action
fairness act took effect.

He claimed breach of contract, though his lawyers still haven't
found a contract.

"If there is a contractual relationship between Employers and the
class members, then the common, predominating question is whether
Employers had an obligation to provide financial incentives in
exchange for taking the PPO discounts," Kuhlmann wrote.

"If, on the other hand, there is no contractual relationship,
then the common, predominating issue is whether Employers
committed fraud and/or was unjustly enriched by its uniform
conduct of taking PPO discounts when it had no contractual
right," he wrote.

Class certification remains pending.

Employers Mutual hopes to avoid a class action in any event, for
it filed a third party suit against bill review company Fair
Isaac.

Employers Mutual and Fair Isaac don't agree on potential
liability, but they agree in opposition to class certification.

They would apply an Illinois Supreme Court decision from 2005,
Avery v. State Farm, that restricted class actions.

According to Kuhlmann, the Court reversed class certification in
Avery due to material differences in policies.

"Here, there are no material differences among the relevant
provider agreements," he wrote.

"All of the provider agreements contain the express term 'PPO'
and/or 'preferred provider,'" he wrote.

"There simply is no need to review each provider's agreement," he
wrote.

"Individual fact finding will not be necessary," he wrote.


EMULEX CORP: California Court Dismisses "Robbins" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange,
has dismissed without prejudice a lawsuit filed by Jim Robbins
against Emulex Corp., according to the company's Jan. 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2009.

On May 6, 2009, Mr. Robbins filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated stockholders of the company.  
The complaint names the members of the Board and the company as
defendants.

The complaint asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares relating to the
company's January 2009 amendments to its Bylaws, adoption of a
new stockholder rights plan to replace its expiring rights plan,
and amendments to its Key Employee Retention Agreements, and
actions in response to Broadcom's announcement of its proposal to
acquire the company.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, a
constructive trust upon any benefits improperly received as a
result of the alleged wrongful conduct and breach of any duty
owed to the holders of Shares, and costs, including attorneys'
and expert fees.

The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on Dec. 15, 2009.

Emulex Corp. -- http://www.emulex.com/-- is a provider of a  
range of storage networking infrastructure solutions that connect
servers, storage and networks within the data center.  The
company's product portfolio includes host bus adapters (HBAs),
converged network adapters (CNAs), mezzanine cards for blade
servers, and embedded storage bridges, routers, switches and
input/output controllers (IOCs).  The company's host server
products (HSP) include both fiber channel-based connectivity
products and enhanced Ethernet-based products that support
Internet protocol (IP) and storage networking, including
transmission control protocol (TCP)/IP, Internet small computer
system interface (iSCSI), network attached storage (NAS), IOC
solutions, and fibre channel over Ethernet (FCoE).  The company's
fibre channel-based products include LightPulse, HBAs, custom
form factor solutions for original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
blade servers and application specific integrated circuits
(ASIC).


EMULEX CORP: Continues to Defend Amended Complaint in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emulex Corp. continues to defend an Amended Class action in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, according to the
company's Jan. 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27,
2009.

                         Middleton Suit

On April 27, 2009, Reid Middleton filed a lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of the company and
derivatively on behalf of the Company.  The original complaint
named the members of the Board as defendants and the Company as a
nominal defendant.

The complaint asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of shares of the company's
common stock and a derivative claim for devaluation of the
company stemming from the company's January 2009 amendments to
its Bylaws, adoption of a new stockholder rights plan to replace
its expiring rights plan, and amendments to its Key Employee
Retention Agreements, and actions in response to Broadcom's
announcement of its unsolicited April 21, 2009 takeover proposal
to acquire the company.  The original complaint sought
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest
and costs, including attorneys' and expert fees.

On May 11, 2009, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
granted plaintiff Reid Middleton's motion to expedite proceedings
and set a trial date in the three foregoing Delaware lawsuits
beginning on July 8, 2009.  On July 6, 2009, the Court of
Chancery continued the July 8, 2009 trial date indefinitely.

On Dec. 3, 2009, the plaintiff's attorneys filed an application
for an award of attorney's fees and expenses.  The Court rejected
the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees on Dec. 18, 2009.

                     Pipefitters Suit

On May 11, 2009, Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan
filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders
of the Company and derivatively on behalf of the Company.  The
original complaint named the members of the company's Board as
defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant.

The complaint asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares relating to the
Company's January 2009 amendments to its Bylaws, adoption of a
new shareholder rights plan to replace its expiring rights plan,
amendments to its Key Employee Retention Agreements, and actions
in response to Broadcom's announcement of its proposal to acquire
the company.  The original complaint also asserted a derivative
claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on the same actions.  
The original complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief,
including mandatory injunctive relief, and costs, including
attorneys' and expert fees.

                        Norfolk Suit

On May 12, 2009, Norfolk County Retirement System filed a lawsuit
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of the
company.  The original complaint named the members of the
Company's Board and the Company as defendants.

The original complaint asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty on behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares relating
to the Company's January 2009 amendments to its Bylaws, adoption
of a new shareholder rights plan to replace its expiring rights
plan, and amendments to its Key Employee Retention Agreements,
and actions in response to Broadcom's announcement of its
proposal to acquire the company.  The original complaint sought
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest
and costs, including attorneys' and expert fees.

                    Amended Class Action

On Sept. 17, 2009, Reid Middleton, Pipefitters Local No. 636
Defined Benefit Plan and Norfolk County Retirement System filed a
Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The amended complaint is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and all
other similarly situated stockholders of the company and,
alternatively, derivatively on behalf of the company.  The
complaint names the members of the Board as defendants and the
company as a nominal defendant.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares and,
alternatively, a derivative claim for devaluation of the company
stemming from the company's January 2009 amendments to its
Bylaws, adoption of a new stockholder rights plan to replace its
expiring rights plan, and amendments to its Key Employee
Retention Agreements, and actions in response to Broadcom's
announcement of its proposal to acquire the company.

The complaint seeks declaratory relief, compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including attorneys' and expert fees.

On Oct. 13, 2009, the defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint.

Emulex Corp. -- http://www.emulex.com/-- is a provider of a  
range of storage networking infrastructure solutions that connect
servers, storage and networks within the data center.  The
company's product portfolio includes host bus adapters (HBAs),
converged network adapters (CNAs), mezzanine cards for blade
servers, and embedded storage bridges, routers, switches and
input/output controllers (IOCs).  The company's host server
products (HSP) include both fiber channel-based connectivity
products and enhanced Ethernet-based products that support
Internet protocol (IP) and storage networking, including
transmission control protocol (TCP)/IP, Internet small computer
system interface (iSCSI), network attached storage (NAS), IOC
solutions, and fibre channel over Ethernet (FCoE).  The company's
fibre channel-based products include LightPulse, HBAs, custom
form factor solutions for original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
blade servers and application specific integrated circuits
(ASIC).


EMULEX CORP: Continues to Defend "Chan" Lawsuit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emulex Corp. continues to defend a suit filed by a stockholder in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, according to the
company's Jan. 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27,
2009.

On May 7, 2009, Kamwai Fred Chan filed a lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of the
company.  The complaint names the members of the Board and the
company as defendants.

The complaint asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares relating to the
Company's January 2009 amendments to its Bylaws, adoption of a
new stockholder rights plan to replace its expiring rights plan,
and amendments to its Key Employee Retention Agreements, and
actions in response to Broadcom's announcement of its proposal to
acquire the Company.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, interest and costs, including attorneys'
and expert fees.

Emulex Corp. -- http://www.emulex.com/-- is a provider of a  
range of storage networking infrastructure solutions that connect
servers, storage and networks within the data center.  The
company's product portfolio includes host bus adapters (HBAs),
converged network adapters (CNAs), mezzanine cards for blade
servers, and embedded storage bridges, routers, switches and
input/output controllers (IOCs).  The company's host server
products (HSP) include both fiber channel-based connectivity
products and enhanced Ethernet-based products that support
Internet protocol (IP) and storage networking, including
transmission control protocol (TCP)/IP, Internet small computer
system interface (iSCSI), network attached storage (NAS), IOC
solutions, and fibre channel over Ethernet (FCoE).  The company's
fibre channel-based products include LightPulse, HBAs, custom
form factor solutions for original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
blade servers and application specific integrated circuits
(ASIC).


G. WILLI-FOOD: Examining Settlement Offer in "Sugar Free" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd., is currently examining an offer
to settle a purported class action lawsuit, according to the
company's Jan. 29, 2010, Form F-1/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.  

On April 16, 2009, the company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit alleging that the company misled its customers by
illegally marking a product that it imports and sells as "sugar
free", according to the Israeli Consumer Protection Law, 1981.

The group which the lawsuit desires to represent are any Israeli
resident who bought this product due to such person's preference
for a sugar free or a reduced sugar product.

According to the plaintiff, the Group consists of 2,000
customers.

The plaintiff appraises the company's damages at NIS2,000
(approximately $510) and the damages of the entire Group to be
NIS4 million (approximately $1 million).

On Oct. 12, 2009 a preliminary hearing was held.

In the beginning of the hearing, the judge mentioned to the
plaintiff's attorney that the lawsuit does not meet a procedure
of a purported class action and asked both parties to reach for a
settlement within 30 days.

The company received an offer from the plaintiff attorney to
settle the lawsuit for NIS30,000 (approximately $8,000).

The company is currently examining the offer with its legal
counsel.

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. -- http://www.willi-
food.co.il/eng/ -- is engaged in the import, export, marketing,
and distribution of food products.  The company purchases food
products from over 220 suppliers located around the world,
suppliers located in Israel, in the Far East (China, India, the
Philippines and Thailand), in Eastern Europe (Bulgaria and
Latvia), in South America (Argentina), in the United States and
in Western, Northern, and Southern Europe (Sweden, Denmark,
Greece, The Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Belgium,
Germany, France, Turkey and Cyprus).  In February 2008, the
company's subsidiary Gold Frost purchased a majority interest
from the owners of a dairy distributor in Denmark, Kirkeby
International Foods A/S (Kirkeby).  In January 2008, the Company
purchased 51% of the interests of Shamir Salads (2006) Ltd.  As
of July 22, 2009, the company held more than 95% interest in Gold
Frost Ltd.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Accused in Tenn. of Mismanaging Pension Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Healthways
dumped their own stock for more than $9 million at inflated
prices while the company was losing money, and imprudently kept
buying the stock for employees' pension plan, an ERISA class
action claims in Nashville Federal Court.

A copy of the Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act in Coppess v. Healthways,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00109 (M.D. Tenn.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/02/EmployERISA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
          Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
          BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
          2400 Crestmoor Rd.
          P.O. Box 150734
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: 615-248-2828

               - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY& McKENNA
          295 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-983-1300


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Coal Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended
complaint filed by Saratoga Advantage Trust remains pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, according to the company's Jan. 29, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed on Jan. 7, 2008, against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading statements in
the registration statements filed in connection with the
company's November 2005 reorganization and December 2005 public
offering of common stock.

In addition, the complaint challenges other of the company's
public statements regarding its operating condition and safety
record.

On July 6, 2009, Saratoga filed an amended complaint asserting
essentially the same claims but seeking to add an individual co-
plaintiff.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

International Coal Group, Inc. -- http://www.intlcoal.com/--  
produces coal in Northern and Central Appalachia with a range of
mid to high British thermal unit (Btu), low to medium sulfur
steam and metallurgical coal.  The company is headquartered  in
Scott Depot, W.V.


KB HOME: Reaches Settlement Agreement in "Bagley" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
KB Home has reached a settlement in principle in the suit
captioned Bagley et al., v. KB Home, et al., according to the
company's Jan. 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov.
30, 2009.

On March 16, 2007, plaintiffs Reba Bagley and Scott Silver filed
an action brought under Section 502 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The action was brought against the company, its directors,
certain of its current and former officers, and the board of
directors committee that oversees the KB Home 401(k) Savings
Plan.

After the court allowed leave to file an amended complaint,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Tolan Beck and Rod
Hughes as additional plaintiffs and dismissing certain
individuals as defendants.  All four plaintiffs claim to be
former employees of KB Home who participated in the 401(k) Plan.

Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated that all defendants breached fiduciary
duties owed to plaintiffs and purported class members under ERISA
by failing to disclose information to and providing misleading
information to participants in the 401(k) Plan about our alleged
prior stock option backdating practices and by failing to remove
our stock as an investment option under the 401(k) Plan.  
Plaintiffs allege that this breach of fiduciary duties caused
plaintiffs to earn less on their 401(k) Plan accounts than they
would have earned but for defendants' alleged breach of duties.

The parties to the litigation have reached a settlement in
principle, and the court was informed of this development on Dec.
1, 2009.

A scheduled hearing on our motion for summary judgment was taken
off calendar, and the company expects the final settlement to be
submitted to the court for approval during the month of February
2010.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen J Fearon, Jr., Esq.
         Squitieri & Fearon LLP
         32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-421-6492
         E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Stephen M. Fishback, Esq.  
         Keller Fishback and Jackson LLP
         18425 Burbank Boulevard Suite 610
         Tarzana, CA 91356-6918
         Phone: 818-342-7442
         Fax: 818-342-7616
         E-mail: sfishback@kfjlegal.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Marc T.G. Dworsky, Esq.  
         Munger Tolles & Olson
         355 S. Grand Ave., 35th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
         Phone: 213-683-9100
         E-mail: marc.dworsky@mto.com

              - and -

         Michael M. Farhang, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
         333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7005
         E-mail: mfarhang@gibsondunn.com


KELLOGG COMPANY: Healthy Nutri-Grain Bars Not Healthy, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kellogg pushes its
Nutri-Grain Bars as healthy though they contain unhealthy
artificial transfat, which contributes to heart disease, cancer
and diabetes, according to a class action in San Diego Federal
Court.

A copy of the Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Lanham
Act, Unfair Competition Law, Common Law of Unfair Competition,
False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act in
Higginbotham, et al. v. Kellogg Company, et al., Case No.
10-cv-00255 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/02/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          888 Turquoise St.
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Telephone: 858-488-1672

               - and -           

          Jared H. Beck, Esq.
          BECK & LEE BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS
          28 West Flagler St., Suite 555
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: 305-789-0072


KLA-TENCOR: Awaits Final Ruling on Shareholder Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final judgment has not been entered in the Delaware Chancery
Court putative class action filed by a plaintiff claiming to be a
KLA-Tencor Corp. shareholder.

As part of a derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Chancery
Court on July 21, 2006, which has been stayed pending a ruling on
the motion to terminate a federal derivative action, a plaintiff
claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholder also asserted a separate
putative class action claim against the company and certain of
its current and former directors and officers.

The plaintiff alleges that shareholders incurred damage due to
purported dilution of KLA-Tencor common stock resulting from
historical stock option granting practices.

On March 17, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the
putative class action claim.  Plaintiff sought leave to appeal
the stay decision, and the Company opposed plaintiff's
application.  On April 14, 2009, the Chancery Court denied
plaintiff's application to appeal.  Plaintiff subsequently filed
a notice of appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court seeking to
overturn the Chancery Court's denial of the application to eal,
which the Delaware Supreme Court denied on April 27,
2009.

No further updates were reported in the company's Jan. 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

KLA-Tencor Corporation -- http://www.kla-tencor.com/-- is a  
supplier of process control and yield management solutions for
the semiconductor and related microelectronics industries.  Its
products are also used in a number of other industries,
including light emitting diode (LED) and data storage
manufacturing, and solar process development and control.  The
Company's portfolio of products, services and software are
designed to help integrated circuit (IC) manufacturers manage
yield throughout the entire fabrication process, from research
and development to final volume production.


NEW YORK: Suit Complains About New Medicaid Living Arrangements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Perlow at Courthouse News Service reports that hundreds
of people with traumatic brain injuries may be forced out of
their community living facilities and placed in institutions, due
to a new provision in the state's Medicaid program, according to
a federal class action.

The class claims say the state Department of Health is violating
the Constitution and the Medicaid Act by abruptly transferring
scores of "waiver" participants to different service providers,
without adequate notice and without ensuring that services will
continue.

They seek an injunction to halt the transfer.

The Department of Health has administered the Home and Community
Based Services Medicaid Waiver for Individuals with Traumatic
Brain Injuries since 1995.  The waiver uses Medicaid funding to
help people adjust to living in the community.

At least 150 waiver participants will be affected by the new
policy, but the plaintiffs say the "actual number of individuals
involved is substantially higher."

The plaintiffs all receive daily support services through the
waiver program so "they can live as independently as possible in
the community."

"Waiver services are provided based on the participant's unique
strengths, needs, choices and goals," the complaint states.  "The
individual is the primary decision-maker and works in cooperation
with providers to develop plans for services.  This process leads
to personal empowerment, increased independence, greater
community inclusion, self-reliance and meaningful and productive
activities."

Now many face the prospect of being confined to an institution,
due to an amendment to the TBI Medicaid Waiver that requires that
providers be licensed by the Department of Health as a Home Care
Services Agency.

The Department of Health directed 18 to 20 agencies - some with
as little as one month notice - to transfer their waiver
participants to different, state-approved providers.

Due to the lack of service providers "to absorb the transitioning
waiver participants, some may be forced into institutions," the
class says.

They say that even for waiver participants who are expected to
transfer relatively "smoothly" to another provider, "there will
be unavoidable harm to those participants due to the abrupt
nature of the transition, loss of familiar care givers, loss of
routine, stress, anxiety, emotional outbursts, set backs in
addiction control with corresponding negative consequences, and
emotional reactivity that could result in self harm to the
participant or harm to others."

A copy of the Complaint in Branham, et al. v. Daines,
Case No. 10-cv-00111 (N.D.N.Y.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/02/NYMedicaid.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
                    
          Robert W. Lukow, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK
          472 South Salina St., Suite 300
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: 315-475-3127


NORTHERN TRUST: Accused of Mismanaging Pension Plans in Ill. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that Northern
Trust exposed schoolteachers' and firefighters' pension plans to
billions of dollars in losses while "taking up to 40 percent of
the earnings" when the investments did make money, a class action
claims in Federal Court.  Chicago schoolteachers and Atlanta
firefighters say Northern Trust mismanaged their pension plans
"in flagrant violation of its duties," by locking them into high-
risk, long-term investments, instead of short-term, highly liquid
investments as expected.

The Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago,
along with the City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Plan, say
Northern Trust disregarded their best interests because it could
financially benefit from the high-risk investments, including a
securities-lending program, "taking up to 40 percent of the
earnings" from the collateral pools as part of its compensation
scheme.

Despite warnings from Northern's own chief economist, beginning
around 2004, the company invested the collateral pools in
"hundreds of millions of dollars of securities backed by
mortgages and other consumer loans" and "exotic, unregistered
securities," and "billions more in securities issued by banks
with massive exposure to mortgages and consumer loans," according
to the 43-page complaint.

The class claims that even though the collateral pools suffered
unrealized losses in 2007 and 2008, due to "the subprime mortgage
collapse and growing financial crisis," Northern refused to sell
securities at a loss because it would have been forced to
consolidate the pools, which may have resulted in a multibillion-
dollar loss for itself.

Northern "continued to hold high-risk securities in the mere
hopes that the issuers of those securities would survive the
financial crisis," the class claims.

In April 2008, Northern declared that it would not sell such
investment vehicles any longer; this was just months before the
securities lending program saw "massive realized losses,"
according to the complaint.

Northern then decided to limit withdrawals from the pools, under
the notion that the massive losses "impaired" the pool's
liquidity, the complaint states.  Northern bad the brass to blame
program participants for the disaster, and unfairly seized their
earnings and demanded millions of dollars from them to "offset
the realized losses," the class adds.

The Public School Teachers' Pension has $9.2 billion in assets
under management, according to the complaint.

The class claims that the investment of collateral from
Northern's securities lending program "was intended to generate
only modest returns, with a primary focus on preservation of
capital and liquidity."  It says that Northern agreed to
"indemnify and hold harmless" participants for losses, if it
happened to stray from its promise to invest the cash collateral
in "safe, liquid instruments."

Although "the damages suffered by each individual class member
may be relatively small," the complaint states, they include
"hundreds of millions of dollars of unregistered, illiquid
securities that plummeted in value."

The pension plans sued Northern Trust Investments and the
Northern Trust Company for breach contract and fiduciary duty,
and breach of good faith and fair dealing.  They demand that the
withdrawal limitations on the collateral pools be lifted, and the
return of their seized earnings.

A copy of the Complaint in Public School Teachers' Pension
& Retirement Fund of Chicago, et al. v. Northern Trust
Investments, N.A., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00619 (N.D. Ill.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/02/PensionChicago.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          2835 N. Sheffield Ave., Suite 409
          Chicago, IL 60657
          Telephone: 773-883-5382

               - and -

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 212-554-1400
          
               - and -       

          Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: 858-793-0070


OSHKOSH CORP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oshkosh Corp.'s motion to dismiss an amended consolidated
complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the company's Jan.
28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 19, 2008, a purported shareholder of the company filed a
complaint seeking certification of a class action lawsuit
docketed as Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Oshkosh Corporation
and Robert G. Bohn.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially
inadequate disclosures and material omissions leading to the
company's issuance of revised earnings guidance and announcement
of an impairment charge on June 26, 2008.

Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially
similar allegations were filed.

These lawsuits have been consolidated and an amended complaint
has been filed.

The amended complaint substantially expands the class period in
which securities law violations are alleged to have occurred and
names Charles L. Szews, David M. Sagehorn and the company's
independent auditor as additional defendants.

On July 24, 2009, the defendants filed their motions to dismiss
the lawsuit, and the motions have been fully briefed.

Oshkosh Corp. -- http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/-- designs,  
manufactures and markets a broad range of specialty access
equipment, commercial, fire & emergency and military vehicles and
vehicle bodies.  Oshkosh Corporation manufactures, distributes
and services products under the brands of Oshkosh(R), JLG(R),
Pierce(R), McNeilus(R), Medtec(R), Jerr-Dan(R), Oshkosh Specialty
Vehicles, Frontline(TM), SMIT(TM), CON-E-CO(R), London(R)and
IMT(R)Oshkosh products are valued worldwide in businesses where
high quality, superior performance, rugged reliability and long-
term value are paramount.


QUIXOTE CORP: Enters Agreement to Settle Two Suits in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quixote Corp., on Jan. 28, 2010, entered into memorandums of
understanding with plaintiffs' counsel and the other named
defendants to settle two purported class action lawsuits that
were filed following the announcement of the pending offer made
by Trinity Industries, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary THP
Merger Co., to acquire the company's outstanding common stock at
$6.38 per share to be followed by a back-end merger.

The lawsuits are:

     (1) Superior Partners, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
         Similarly Situated vs. Leslie J. Jezuit, Bruce Reimer,
         Daniel P. Gorey, Robert D. van Roijen, Lawrence C.
         McQuade, Duane M. Tyler, Clifford D. Nastas, Quixote
         Corporation and Trinity Industries, Inc.
         (Case No. 10 CH 0613) filed on Jan. 13, 2010 in the
         Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
         Division; and

     (2) Ralph A. Ardito, Individually and on Behalf of All
         Others Similarly Situated vs. Bruce Reimer, Leslie J.
         Jezuit, Daniel P. Gorey, Robert D. van Roijen,
         Lawrence C. McQuade, Duane M. Tyler, Clifford D.
         Nastas, Quixote Corporation, Trinity Industries, Inc.
         and THP Merger Co. (Case No. 10 CH 2544) filed on
         Jan. 20, 2010 in the same Court.

Under the terms of the memorandums of understanding, the company,
the other named defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to
settle the Superior Partners lawsuit and dismiss the Ardito
lawsuit as moot, subject to court approval.

As part of the settlement, the defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing and deny that the previous disclosures were inadequate
but the company agreed to make available certain additional
information to its stockholders.

The memorandums of understanding further contemplate that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to members
of the proposed settlement class.

If finally approved by the court, the settlement will resolve all
of the claims that were or could have been brought on behalf of
the proposed settlement class in the action being settled,
including all claims relating to the Offer, the Merger, the
Merger Agreement, the adequacy of the merger consideration, the
negotiations preceding the Merger Agreement, the adequacy and
completeness of the disclosures made in connection with the Offer
and the Merger and any actions of the individual defendants in
connection with the Offer, the Merger or the Merger Agreement,
including any alleged breaches of the fiduciary duties of any of
the defendants, or the aiding and abetting thereof.

If the court does approve of the settlement after a notice
period, then all public stockholders who did not elect to opt out
of such settlement will be bound thereby.

In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in
the memorandums of understanding, and subject to approval by the
court, the named defendants or their insurers will pay to
plaintiffs' counsel in the Superior Partner action for their fees
and expenses an amount not to exceed $431,000, and the named
defendants or their insurers will pay to plaintiff's counsel in
the Ardito action an amount not to exceed $169,000 and, per the
settlement with the plaintiff in the Ardito action, the
settlement of the Superior Partners action moots the Ardito
action.

Neither payment will affect the amount of consideration to be
paid to stockholders of the Company in connection with the Offer
and the subsequent merger. Furthermore, any payment is also
conditioned on the Offer being consummated so the Company's
stockholders will not indirectly bear such payment.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, the settlement is
subject to the approval of Trinity, which may not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed. Trinity has given its approval to the
settlement described by the memorandums of understanding.

The company and the other defendants maintain that the lawsuits
are completely without merit.  Nevertheless, in order to avoid
costly litigation and eliminate the risk of any delay to the
closing of the Offer and subsequent merger, and because the only
effect of the settlement on the stockholders is to provide
additional disclosure, the defendants have agreed to the
settlement contemplated in the memorandum of understanding,
according to the company's Jan. 29, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Quixote Corp. -- http://www.quixotecorp.com/-- through its  
subsidiaries, develops, manufactures and markets highway and
transportation safety products to protect, direct and inform
motorists and road workers in both domestic and international
markets.  As of June 30, 2009, the company operated in two
segments: Protect and Direct segment, and Inform segment.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Suits Over F.A.A. Violations Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. continues to defend two purported class-
action lawsuits over alleged violations of Federal Aviation
Administration safety regulations.

During the first quarter and early second quarter of 2008, the
company was named as a defendant in two putative class actions on
behalf of persons who purchased air travel from the Company while
the company was allegedly in violation of FAA safety regulations.

Claims alleged by the plaintiffs in these two putative class
actions include breach of contract, breach of warranty,
fraud/misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and negligent and
reckless operation of an aircraft.

No further updates were reported in the company's Jan. 29, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a  
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the U.S.  Southwest predominantly serves short-haul routes with
high frequencies.  It complements this service with more medium
to long-haul routes, including transcontinental service.


ST. JOSEPH: Accused in Maryland of Misleading Patients
------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that St. Joseph
Medical Center misinformed patients to persuade hundreds, and
perhaps thousands of them, that they needed risky cardiac
catheterization and stent placement, a class action claims in
City Court.  The hospital in Towson, Md. does about 6,500 cardiac
catheterizations a year at roughly $10,000 a pop, according to
the complaint.

"St. Joseph is among the top 199 cardiovascular hospitals in the
United States, and operates a cardiac catheterization center
which performs approximately 6,500 procedures a year at an
enormous profit," the complaint states.  "Each catheterization
procedure costs approximately $10,000."

The class claims St. Joseph recommended and performed the
procedures without obtaining informed consent.  The patients say
they were shown cardiac catheterization reports that "materially
misrepresented the condition of their arteries."

"St. Joseph and its agents obtained the plaintiffs' consent to
cardiac catheterization and stent placement by misinforming the
plaintiffs that their coronary arteries were blocked at levels
which indicated that insertion of a cardiac stent was necessary,"
the complaint states.

It claims that St. Joseph encouraged patients to consent to "a
harmful, invasive, and risky coronary procedure for [the
hospital's] financial benefit."

"As a result of St. Joseph's actions, the plaintiffs, in addition
to having to incur a medical procedure that included risks of
death, heart attack, st[r]oke and coronary artery damage, will be
forced to endure long term drug therapy and monitoring and will
suffer from increased risks of serious medical complications,
including the risk of scar tissue forming inside or near the
stent which would obstruct the blood supply in the artery."

The named plaintiff says she received a letter from St. Joseph in
December 2009 that stated, "'On September 11, 2008, you had a
cardiac catheterization procedure with stent placement performed
at St. Joseph Medical Center.  I am writing to let you know that
a subsequent clinical review of your cardiac catheterization
report was different than the original report and may be relevant
to your ongoing care and treatment.'

"St. Joseph sent similar letters to over 350 patients who had a
cardiac stent procedure performed at St. Joseph," according to
the complaint.

All these patients face long-term risks associated with stent
placement "including risks of blood clots, heart attacks, and
prolonged use of extensive blood thinners," the complaint states.

They also were damaged financially by the cost of the procedure,
the insurance benefit payments made to St. Joseph on their
behalf, and the costs of their future medical monitoring and
treatment.

"On information and belief, St. Joseph performed hundreds, if not
thousands, of similar medically [sic] stent procedures on its
patients without obtaining informed consent."

The class seeks punitive damages for fraud, negligence, unjust
enrichment, and being operated upon without informed consent.

A copy of the Complaint in Fallows v. St. Joseph Medical Center,
Inc., Case No. 24-C-10-00817 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore City), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/02/HeartCath.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Peter G. Angelos, Esq.
          Patricia J. Kasputys, Esq.
          Daniel K. Miller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS
          100 North Charles St.
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: 410-649-2000

               - and -

          William H. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
          Richard V. Falcon, Esq.
          William H. Murphy III, Esq.
          MURPHY & FALCON, P.A.
          1 South St., 23rd Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: 410-539-6500

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 2, 2010, in a
statement sent to WBAL-TV, the hospital said: "SJMC continues to
put our patients' best interests first.  Since first becoming
aware of these issues involving a single physician, SJMC has
taken aggressive action to correct the problem, including by
providing information to the patients who are potentially
affected.

"Based on medical review, the hospital does not believe that
patients who were treated and received a stent that was not
supported by their catheterization film are at immediate risk. As
part of its effort, SJMC also has notified the patients' primary
care physicians and cardiologists to inform them of the
situation. Patients and their physicians have been contacted by
letter sent via overnight delivery."

A hospital representative said recently that the physician is no
longer employed or affiliated with the hospital.  A
representative
for Dr. Midei told 11 News that the doctor wasn't ready to
comment yet.


TISHMAN SPEYER: Agrees to Stuyvesant Town Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ilaina Jonas at Reuters reports that the owners of a vast New
York City apartment complex agreed on Wednesday to allow a
tenant's lawsuit regarding rent increases to proceed as a class
action.

New York's highest court had ruled in October that the owners had
improperly raised the rents of certain rent-stabilized
apartments.

A joint-statement with lawyers representing Tishman Speyer and
the tenants of Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village said the two
sides agreed to extend an interim agreement reached in December
to adjust the rents of apartments affected by last year's court
ruling.

Under the extended agreement, tenants will continue to pay the
lower of either their lease rent or an estimated stabilized rent
through June 2010 and will be allowed to renew their leases.

In addition, money held in an escrow account in connection with
November and December 2009 rents will be fully reimbursed to the
tenants, the attorney's said in a statement.

A lawsuit seeking damages for the rent increases will also be
allowed to proceed as a class action, the lawyers added.

Earlier this year, the owners defaulted on about $4.4 billion of
debt used in 2006 to finance the $5.4 billion sale of Stuyvesant
Town/Peter Cooper Village to a group led by Tishman Speyer and
BlackRock Inc.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Accelerator Defect Lawsuit filed in E.D. Ky.
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Estep and Ryan Alessi at the Lexington Herald-Leader report
that Toyota sold large numbers of vehicles that were defective
because they could accelerate without warning and hid complaints
about the issue from federal investigators and the public, two
Northern Kentucky couples have alleged in a lawsuit.

The suit says a Boone County woman and a Grant County woman were
hurt in accidents caused by stuck gas pedals in Toyotas.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Covington,
seeks certification as a class action. If that happens, many more
people could join the lawsuit.

The suit might be the first filed in the federal courts' Eastern
District of Kentucky - which includes Lexington - over the issue
of Toyota accelerators sticking.

Last week, Toyota issued a global recall of nearly 4.6 million
vehicles to fix a gas pedal that can stick when depressed. Some
2.3 million of those cars - including some of Toyota's best-
selling models, such as the Camry and Corolla - are in the United
States.

As part of the recall effort, Toyota halted production and sales
of the eight recalled models. The production stop included a line
that produces the Camry and Avalon at the company's Georgetown
plant, its largest in North America.

The company announced this week that it had come up with a fix
for the accelerator problem.

Other lawsuits have been filed against Toyota since the company
issued the recall, including one filed Tuesday by civil action
attorney Stan Chesley in Cincinnati.

Mr. Chesley filed the suit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court
on behalf of Hugh and Pamela Cox, the Cincinnati Enquirer
reported. The lawsuit says Toyota should take over the couple's
car payments because they can't drive their 2010 Camry and its
value has plummeted because of the accelerator problem, the
newspaper reported.

A spokeswoman for Toyota told the Herald-Leader that the company
cannot comment on pending lawsuits.

The suit filed in Northern Kentucky on Wednesday names Toyota
North America Inc., Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. and Toyota
Motor Corp. as defendants.

The plaintiffs are Tina and Fran Preedom of Grant County and
Debra and Ron Poynter of Boone County.

The couples and their attorney, Eric Deters of Independence,
could not be reached Wednesday.

However, the lawsuit says Debra Poynter was hurt in November
while standing in front of a bank in Kenton County when the gas
pedal on a 1994 Camry someone else was driving stuck. The car
jumped onto the sidewalk and crushed Poynter against the bank,
the lawsuit says.

Preedom was hurt in October when the gas pedal on her 2007 Tundra
stuck, causing her to crash into an embankment, the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit does not specify how much the couples want in damages
but says the "matter in controversy" is more than $5 million.
The lawsuit claims that in the 1990s, Toyota began installing an
electronic accelerator system that does not have a mechanical tie
between the gas pedal and throttle linkage, but rather is
controlled by sensors and a control unit.

That "drive by wire" system is vulnerable to electronic
interference and can have a problem with runaway acceleration,
the lawsuit says.

"Runaway acceleration events almost always begin suddenly and
without warning; the throttle opens so rapidly it is wide open
before the driver has time to react; the automobile continues out
of control despite desperate braking efforts by the driver; and,
unless the driver manages to disengage the engine quickly, the
likelihood of a catastrophic outcome is great," the lawsuit says.
The company did not include any sort of mechanical or electronic
"failsafe" system to let drivers regain control of vehicles with
a stuck gas pedal, even as complaints about the problem mounted,
the lawsuit said.

After the federal government started an investigation of 2002 and
2003 model Camrys, Toyota said it had gotten 123 complaints that
might relate to the "alleged defect," but "deceptively concealed"
many other potentially relevant complaints because it didn't
count some types of incidents, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also said Toyota's recent advisory that it had a fix
for the gas pedal is "dangerously misleading" because it lures
owners of newer models with low mileage into believing that there
is little possibility of a catastrophic loss of control.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Accelerator Defect Lawsuit Filed in S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
WPBF Channel 25 News reports that a West Palm Beach attorney
filed a class action lawsuit against Toyota after the automaker
recalled several models because of a brake pedal problem.

"This is on behalf of a class of owners of these vehicles that
are scared and frustrated," attorney Brian Smith told WPBF 25
News. "They're looking for answers from Toyota as to what the
problem is . . . and we're seeking compensation for the loss of
use of the vehicles, as well as diminished value."

The lawsuit still must be approved by a judge.

Toyota would not comment on pending litigation.

Mr. Smith has been involved in several high-profile lawsuits,
including Listerine, Peter Pan peanut butter and McDonald's.
Smith said he is still in litigation with Listerine and Peter
Pan, but he has reached a settlement with McDonald's.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Burg Simpson Files Class Action Suit in D. Colo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys at Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C. filed a
lawsuit in Colorado Federal Court this week against Toyota Motor
Corporation, alleging that Toyota has known for several years
about the unexpected acceleration problems that recently led
Toyota to temporarily stop selling and recall many of its most
popular models in the United States. The lawsuit, brought on
behalf of a Lakewood man, seeks a monetary recovery for all
Colorado residents who own the affected cars.

"The problem is that, even for people who have not experienced an
unexpected acceleration, they now own a car that they likely
wouldn't have bought or, at least, wouldn't have paid as much for
had they known about this dangerous, life threatening defect,"
said Michael Burg, one of the firm's principle shareholders.
"Toyota has been extremely slow to acknowledge the problem, slow
to fix it, and many automotive experts believe that they still
haven't correctly identified the problem."

Toyota's recalls were spurred by a fiery crash last year that
killed a California Highway Patrolman and his family.

Investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and San Diego County Sheriff's Department revealed
that the accident was the result of the car accelerating out of
the driver's control, despite his attempts to bring the car to a
stop. After Toyota attempted to blame the problem on the car's
floor mats, the NHTSA issued a press release characterizing
Toyota's explanation as "inaccurate and misleading."

The Toyota cars included in the lawsuit's proposed class are the
2007-2010 Camry, 2005-2010 Avalon, 2004-2009 Prius, 2005-2010
Tacoma, 2007-2010 Tundra, 2007-2010 Lexus ES350 and 2006-2010
IS250/IS350 2009, 2008-2010 Highlander, 2009-2010 Corolla, 2009-
2010 Venza, 2009-2010 Matrix, 2009-2010 Pontiac Vibe, 2010 Toyota
RAV4, and the 2008-2010 Toyota Sequoia.

Burg Simpson's attorneys have substantial experience in
litigating both consumer fraud and personal injury claims, both
of which could be at issue in this litigation.


TUESDAY MORNING: Lawsuit by Non-exempt Employees Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by hourly, non-exempt employees
against Tuesday Morning Corporation continues to remain stayed.

In December 2008, the lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs allege claims covering meal and rest period
violations.

This case has been stayed pending the outcome of another case.

No further updates were reported in the company's Jan. 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Tuesday Morning Corporation -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/--  
is a closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, housewares,
gifts and related items in the United States.  The company's
merchandise primarily consists of lamps, rugs, kitchen
accessories, small electronics, gourmet housewares, linens,
luggage, bedroom and bathroom accessories, toys, stationary and
silk plants, as well as crystal, collectibles and silver serving
pieces.


TUESDAY MORNING: Still No Ruling on Decertification Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit against Tuesday Morning Corp., have filed a
petition for review by the California Supreme Court on the order
of the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los
Angeles dismissing their claims, according to the company's Jan.
28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

During 2001 and 2002, the company was named as a defendant in
three complaints filed in the Superior Court of California in and
for the County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a statewide class made up of
some of the company's current and former employees, which they
claim are owed compensation for overtime wages, penalties and
interest.

The plaintiffs also sought attorney's fees and costs.

In October 2003, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with a sub-class of these plaintiffs consisting of managers-in-
training and management trainees which was paid in November 2005
with no material impact to the company's financial statements.

A store manager class was certified.

However, in August 2008, the company's motion for de-
certification of the class of store managers was granted, thereby
dismissing their class action claim.

The California Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's de-
certification order and the plaintiffs have subsequently filed a
petition for review by the California Supreme Court.

Tuesday Morning Corporation -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/--   
is a closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, housewares,
gifts and related items in the United States.  The company's
merchandise primarily consists of lamps, rugs, kitchen
accessories, small electronics, gourmet housewares, linens,
luggage, bedroom and bathroom accessories, toys, stationary and
silk plants, as well as crystal, collectibles and silver serving
pieces.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Stumpf" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. continues to defend a securities suit
styled Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd., according to the
company's Jan. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 25,
2009.

The plaintiffs in the suit allege that Tyco, among others,
violated the disclosure provisions of the federal securities
laws.

The matter arises from Tyco's July 2000 initial public offering
of common stock of TyCom Inc, and alleges that the TyCom
registration statement and prospectus relating to the sale of
common stock were inaccurate, misleading and failed to disclose
facts necessary to make the registration statement and prospectus
not misleading.

The complaint further alleges the defendants violated securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning, among other things, executive compensation,
TyCom's business prospects and Tyco's and TyCom's finances.

The matter is in the pre-trial stages of litigation.

Pembroke, Bermuda-based Tyco International Ltd. makes electrical
and metal products (steel tubing, pipes, cables) for commercial
construction.  Its flow control unit makes valves and related
products for water, wastewater, and the oil and gas markets.


VISTAPRINT N.V.: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a consolidated
purported class action complaint against Vistaprint USA, Inc.,
remains pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas,
according to VistaPrint, N.V.'s Jan. 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On July 29, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
against Vistaprint Corp., Vistaprint USA, Inc., Vertrue, Inc. and
Adaptive Marketing, LLC.

Adaptive Marketing, LLC is a Vertrue, Inc. company that provides
subscription-based membership discount programs, including
programs that are offered on the company's Vistaprint.com
website.

The Texas Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated, among
other statutes, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-
Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Theft Liability Act, in
connection with certain membership discount programs offered to
the Company's customers on the Company's Vistaprint.com website.

The Texas Complaint also seeks recovery for unjust enrichment,
conversion, and similar common law claims.

Subsequent to the filing of the Texas complaint, in July, August
and September 2008, several nearly identical purported class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court, District
of New Jersey, the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Alabama, the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, the U.S.
District Court, District of Massachusetts, and the U.S. District
Court, District of Florida against the same Defendants, and in
one case Vistaprint Limited, on behalf of different plaintiffs.

The complaints in each of these nearly identical lawsuits include
substantially the same purported Federal and common law claims as
the Texas Complaint but contain different state law claims.

In addition, on Aug. 28, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit
asserting substantially the same Federal and common law claims as
the Texas Complaint, but containing a state law claim under the
Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, was filed by a
different plaintiff in the United States District Court, District
of Massachusetts, against Vistaprint Limited, Vistaprint USA,
Inc. and the Vertrue Defendants.

Among other allegations, the plaintiffs in each action claim that
after ordering products on the company's Vistaprint.com website
they were enrolled in certain membership discount programs
operated by the Vertrue Defendants and that monthly subscription
fees for the programs were subsequently charged directly to the
credit or debit cards they used to make purchases on
Vistaprint.com, in each case purportedly without their knowledge
or authorization.

The plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants failed to disclose
to them that the credit or debit card information they provided
to make purchases on Vistaprint.com would be disclosed to the
Vertrue Defendants and would be used to pay for monthly
subscriptions for the membership discount programs.

The plaintiffs have requested that the Defendants be enjoined
from engaging in the practices complained of by the plaintiffs.  
They also are seeking an unspecified amount of damages, including
statutory and punitive damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs for the purported
class.

In response to opposing motions filed by the plaintiffs and the
Defendants, on Dec. 11, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered the transfer of all of the outstanding cases
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.  As a result of the ruling of
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, on March 2, 2009,
four of the existing plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

On April 17, 2009, Vistaprint USA, Incorporated filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas dismissed all of the claims against the
Defendants and ruled on substantive grounds that the Defendants
had not violated any of the statutes or common law claims cited
by the plaintiffs.

In September 2009, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas.

VistaPrint, N.V. -- http://www.vistaprint.com-- is an online  
provider of coordinated portfolios of marketing products and
services to small businesses globally.  The company offers a
range of products and services ranging from printed business
cards, brochures and post cards to apparel, invitations and
announcements, holiday cards, calendars, creative design
services, copywriting services, direct mail services, promotional
gifts, signage, Website design and hosting services, and e-mail
marketing services.  The company has automated and integrated the
design and production process, from design conceptualization to
product shipment and service delivery.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Unit Defends "Durrani" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Technologies, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Western Digital Corp., continues to defend a putative
class-action complaint filed by Ghazala H. Durrani, a former
employee of the company, in the Alameda County (California)
Superior Court.

On March 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a putative class-action
complaint alleging that certain of the company's engineers have
been misclassified as exempt employees under California state law
and are, therefore, due unpaid hourly overtime wages and
other amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal and
rest periods.

By court order dated April 24, 2009, the case was transferred to
the Orange County (California) Superior Court, where it is now
pending.

On June 16, 2009, the company was dismissed from the case without
prejudice by stipulation, leaving WDTI as the sole remaining
defendant.

On June 4, 2009, WDTI filed its Answer to the Complaint, denying
the substantive allegations thereof and raising several
affirmative defenses.

The case is in the preliminary stages, with no formal discovery
having occurred.

A court hearing on whether the case should be certified as a
class action will likely not occur until mid 2010 at the
earliest, according to the company's Jan. 29, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Jan. 1, 2010.

Western Digital Corporation -- http://www.westerndigital.com/--  
designs, develops, manufactures and sells hard drives.  It sells
its products worldwide to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
and original design manufactures (ODMs) for use in
computer systems, subsystems or consumer electronics (CE)
devices, and to distributors, resellers and retailers.  The
company's hard drives are used in desktop computers, notebook
computers and enterprise applications, such as servers,
workstations, network attached storage, storage area networks and
video surveillance equipment.  Additionally, its hard drives are
used in CE applications, such as digital video recorders, and
satellite and cable set-top boxes.  It markets its hard drives
under brand names, including WD Caviar, WD Raptor, WD
VelociRaptor, WD Scorpio, WD Elements, My Passport, My Book, My
DVR Expander and GreenPower.

                            *********

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  * * *