/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100210.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, February 10, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 28


AOL LLC: Judge Armstrong Trims Federal Claims in Calif. CPL Suit
AT&T INC: N.D. Ill. Lawsuit Challenges Internet Service Tax
BEIERSDORF NORTH: Accused in Connecticut of False Advertising
CRM HOLDINGS: Glancy Binkow Files Shareholder Suit in S.D.N.Y.
DELL INC: 9th Cir. Says Customers Can Sue for Defective Computers

E*TRADE SECURITIES: Accused in Calif. of Charging Inactivity Fees
FORD MOTOR: Ontario Court Certifies Windsor Autoworker Class
FUNSTERS' GRAND CASINO: Hearing on Employee Payroll Payment Plan
GREENHOUSE: Accused of Libel & Slander by Author in New York Suit
MDL 1817: CertainTeed Settles Organic Roofing Shingles Litigation

NOKIA CORP: S.D.N.Y. Suit Says Phonemaker Hid Production Delays
OHIO: Accused of Charging Sales Tax on Cash for Clunkers Trades
QUAKER OATS: Transfat-Free Granola Bars Have Transfat, Suit Says
ROTHMAN FURNITURE: Sued in Mo. for Bait-and-Switch Sales Pitch
ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action Suit in Wake of Earl Jones Scam

TOYOTA MOTOR: Accelerator Pedal Defect Lawsuit Filed in S.D.N.Y.
TOYOTA MOTOR: McCuneWright Files Suit in Calif. to Expand Recall
TOYOTA MOTOR: Plans to Recall 300,000 Prius Hybrids Worldwide
UNITED PARCEL: Colo. Suit Complains About "Air-In-Ground" Program
UNITED STATES: White House Requests $1.15 Bil. for Black Farmers

WELLS FARGO: Sued in Calif. for Excess Interest on Student Loans


AOL LLC: Judge Armstrong Trims Federal Claims in Calif. CPL Suit
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge in San Francisco trimmed the federal claims from a class
action accusing AOL of illegally publishing a database of the
search queries of more than 650,000 members.

A group of California AOL members said the online publication of
their queries violated various California consumer protection
laws and three federal laws: the Electronic Communications
Privacy and federal laws against unjust enrichment and the public
disclosure of private facts.

AOL argued that its users were required to sue in Virginia courts
based on a forum selection clause in their member agreements.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong initially dismissed
the complaint, but the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, specifying that the AOL
member agreement is "unenforceable as to California resident
plaintiffs bringing class action claims under California consumer

AOL argued that this 9th Circuit mandate meant that all other
claims not based on California consumer protection laws had to be

Judge Armstrong agreed.

"[W]hile Plaintiffs have a right to allege a federal claim, they
have cited no authority to support their contention that they
have a right to adjudicate their claims in federal court where
the claim at issue is one over which the state courts have
concurrent jurisdiction," she wrote.

"In sum, the Court finds no merit to Plaintiffs' assertion that
the forum selection clause cannot be applied to claims arising
under federal law."

Judge Armstrong dismissed the federal claims without prejudice,
saying the plaintiffs could re-file them in Virginia state court.

She also dismissed a named plaintiff who doesn't live in
California and didn't allege any claims under state consumer
protection laws.

A copy of the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong's Feb. 1, 2010,
Order in Doe 1, et al. v. AOL, LLC, Case No. 06-cv-05866 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
          One California St., Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-433-3200

               - and -

          C. Oliver Burt, III, Esq.
          4280 Professional Center Drive, Suite 350
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: 561-835-9400

          Richard R. Wiebe, Esq.
          425 California St., Suite 2025
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-433-3200

               - and -
          James K. Green, Esq.

          JAMES K. GREEN, P.A.                                
          One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1602
          250 Australian Ave. South
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401                                 
          Telephone: 561-659-2029

AOL, LLC, the Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick J. Carome, Esq.
          Samir C. Jain, Esq.
          D. Hien Tran, Esq.
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: 202-663-6000

AT&T INC: N.D. Ill. Lawsuit Challenges Internet Service Tax
WBBM Newsradio 780 reports that Todd Herst, of north suburban
Lincolnshire, Ill., alleges in a federal class-action lawsuit
that "despite the fact that federal and Illinois law prohibit
taxation on internet access, AT&T improperly has and continues to
illegally charge Illinois customers state and local sales tax on
internet access on its monthly bills."

The Complaint in Herst v. AT&T, Inc., and AT&T Mobility, LLC,
Case No. 10-cv-00798 (N.D. Ill.) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.), cites the
1998 Internet Tax Fairness Act, claiming the law currently
prohibits state and local governments from imposing taxes on
internet access, including access offered by a service provider.

The suit was also filed on behalf of all other Illinois consumers
who signed a contract with AT&T and were charged tax for internet
access. Monetary damages to consumers are "likely in the millions
of dollars," the suit claims.

The six-count suit seeks judgment against AT&T for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment and damages under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, among others, and seeks an unspecified amount
in damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Rhead Shepherd, Esq.
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880

BEIERSDORF NORTH: Accused in Connecticut of False Advertising
Christine Stuart at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal class action claims the maker of NIVEA beauty products
falsely advertises that using its creams can bring "a reduction
of up to 3 cm on targeted body parts such as thighs, hips, waist,
and belly." The named plaintiff, a California woman, disputes
Beiersdorf Inc.'s claim that its anti-cellulite creams will make
her "bikini confident!"

Lead plaintiff Patricia Wiener claims Beiersdorf falsely
advertises its products, including NIVEA Good-Buy Cellulite Gel-
Cream and NIVEA My Silhouette!

Beiersdorf pushes the products through bogus claims in a variety
of media, and through the endorsement of former supermodel Tyra
Banks, according to the complaint.  Banks is not a party to the

The complaint cites Beiersdorf's "Cellulite Gel-Cream" label,
which makes statements such as, "NIVEA body Good-bye Cellulite
Gel-Cream visibly reduces the appearance of cellulite" thanks to
"L-Carnitine," which "supports the conversion of fat into

Its label for another product claims, "Applied at least 2-3 times
a week, NIVEA Goodbye Cellulite Patches get to work fast on the
targeted body areas - thighs, buttocks and stomach.  Results:
After three applications the skin is noticeably toned and
smoother.  After 4 weeks the signs of cellulite on the skin are
visibly reduced."

The class claims there is no scientific evidence to substantiate
these claims.

The New York Times reported in June 2009 that the market for
topical creams was more than $47 million in 2008 and is expected
to increase to $62 million by 2013.  The June 6, 2009 Times
article quotes a University of California clinical associate as
saying, "Realistically, there is no cure for cellulite."

The class seeks disgorgement, restitution and damages for breach
of warranty, false advertising and consumer law violations.  They
are represented by James Miller with Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller
and Shah of Chester, Conn.  

A copy of the Complaint in Wiener v. Beiersdorf North America
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00159 (D. Conn.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          65 Main St.
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: 860-526-1100

               - and -

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: 954-515-0123

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          35 E. State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 610-891-9880

CRM HOLDINGS: Glancy Binkow Files Shareholder Suit in S.D.N.Y.
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased the securities of CRM Holdings, Ltd. between
December 21, 2005 and November 5, 2008, inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint in Munter v. CRM Holdings, Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-_____ (S.D.N.Y.), is available from the court or
at http://www.glancylaw.com/pdf/CRM.pdffrom Glancy Binkow &  
Goldberg LLP.  

Please contact the Firm by phone to discuss this action or to
obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at
(888) 773-9224, by email at shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
the Firm's Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com/

The Complaint charges CRM Holdings and certain of the Company's
executive officers and directors with violations of federal
securities laws. CRM Holdings is a provider of workers'
compensation insurance products.  Its main business activities
include underwriting primary workers compensation insurance
policies, underwriting workers' compensation reinsurance and
excess insurance policies, and providing fee-based management and
other services to self-insured entities.  The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that their public statements concerning CRM Holdings'
financial performance and prospects were materially false and
misleading.  Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
Defendants and their affiliates engaged in a fraudulent scheme
and course of business to grow membership in eight self-insured
groups (the "Trusts") previously administered by CRM, by charging
premiums below commercial rates; (2) that the membership growth
inflated gross trust revenues while reducing net paid premium
income to the level that the assets of the Trusts would become
insufficient to cover liabilities; (3) that, accordingly, the
Trusts would fall below "fully funded" status; (4) that, as part
of their fraudulent scheme and course of business to cover up the
difference between assets and liabilities, Defendants and their
affiliates disguised the true financial conditions of the Trusts
by engaging in certain improprieties designed to result in
minimal projected claims liability, including under-reserving
individual claims and utilizing improper actuarial/accounting
methods; (5) that Defendants and their affiliates provided the
New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) with materially
false and/or misleading financial and actuarial reports for the
Trusts which reflected artificially reduced liabilities; (6)
that, as a result of the above, the Company was exposed to
hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities relating to the
under-funding of the Trusts; (7) that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (8) that, as a result of the
above, the Company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 3, 2008, CRM Holdings disclosed that it had received a
letter from the WCB indicating its intention to initiate legal
proceedings against the Company on behalf of the Trusts related
to CRM Holdings' actions while acting as the administrator and
broker of record for the Trusts. On this news, over the next two
days of trading, shares of CRM Holdings declined $0.61 per share,
or 24.31%, to close on October 7, 2008 at $1.91 per share.

Then, on November 5, 2008, CRM Holdings reported its financial
results for the 2008 fiscal third quarter and announced that
during third quarter the Company had approximately $2.5 million
of loss reserve increases that would have otherwise been
reflected in the first and second quarter of 2008.

As a result of this news, over the following three days of
trading, CRM Holdings shares declined $0.58 per share, or more
than 36%, to close on November 7, 2008, at $1.03 per share, on
high volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move
the Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to
serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal
requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg,
Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at
(310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our Web site at

The members of Ms. Munter's legal team are:

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818

               - and -  

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
               - and -  

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847

DELL INC: 9th Cir. Says Customers Can Sue for Defective Computers
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that
customers who bought defective Dell notebook computers can sue as
a class because the binding arbitration agreement in the "Terms
and Conditions of Sale" is unenforceable, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled.  Customers filed suit in
district court against Dell in 2005 after purchasing defective
notebook computers worth $1,200 to $1,500.  The sales agreement
barred disputes from being brought against the company by a
consumer class, and instead provided that all claims be resolved
individually and through arbitration.

The individual customers refused to engage in arbitration,
claiming it was "not economically feasible for them" to bring
separate suits.

The district court denied the customers bid to file jointly and
ultimately dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, despite a
request that they be allowed to appeal the arbitration order.

The three-judge, San Francisco-based appeals panel ruled that the
"Plaintiffs did not cause any unreasonable delay in the
progression of their case," so dismissal for failure to prosecute
was not proper.

Judge Lyle Strom wrote for the panel that the "public's interest
in a resolution on the merits weighed strongly in plaintiffs'
favor, and less drastic and more appropriate alternatives were

The appeals panel also ruled that the arbitration agreement in
the sales contract is unenforceable because it calls for disputes
to be settled under Texas law.

In this case, California has a greater interest because the
plaintiffs live and filed suit in California.

Because Dell's class action waiver is "unconscionable" under
California law, it cannot be enforced.

A copy of the decision in Omstead, et al. v. Dell, Inc.,
No. 08-16479 (9th Cir.), is available at:

The trial court proceeding is Olmstead, et al. v. Dell, Inc.,
Case No. 06-cv-06293 (N.D. Calif.) (Hamilton, J.).

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          Kristen E. Law, Esq.
          780 Third Ave. 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-355-9500

               - and -

          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          1331 Lamar St., Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: 713-581-8295

               - and -

          John L. Malesovas, Esq.
          425 Austin Ave., 10th Floor
          Waco, TX 76701
          Telephone: 254-753-1777

               - and -

          Anthony L. Vitullo, Esq.
          13155 Noel Rd., Suite 1000
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: 972-934-9100

               - and -

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Patrick DeBlase, Esq.
          8648 Wilshire Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: 310-854-4444
Dell, Inc., the Defendant-Appellee, is represented by:

          Paul Schlaud, Esq.
          Kim E. Brightwell, Esq.
          Matt Frederick, Esq.
          221 West Sixth St., Suite 1000
          Austin, TX 78701     |     
          Telephone: 512-334-4500  

               - and -

          Douglas R. Young, Esq.
          C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
          Russ Building
          235 Montgomery St., 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-954-4400

E*TRADE SECURITIES: Accused in Calif. of Charging Inactivity Fees
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims online stock broker E*Trade Securities
charges customers for not making enough trades, despite promising
not to do that.  For every inactive quarter, E*Trade takes $40,
sometimes selling off people's stock to pay itself the fees, the
class claims.

Lead plaintiff Joseph Roling says he noticed in 2007 that E*Trade
"was making notes on his account for $40 'quarterly inactivity
fees,'" taking the money every quarter he did not make a trade.

Mr. Roling says that when he complained, E*Trade representatives
said they were "entitled to charge and collect such fees and told
[him] there was nothing he could do to avoid the charges."

He claims this violates E*Trade's own policy, as stated on its
Web site, which promises that E*Trade will "not charge fees when
your account is inactive for a period of time."

By 2008, the value of stocks in Mr. Roling's account had dwindled
down to the amount of inactivity fees E*Trade was charging him,
so it sold his stocks and closed his account, he says.

He seeks restitution and class damages for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Roling v. E*Trade Securities LLC,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-00488 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: 714-352-5200

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Steven L. Lezell, Esq.
          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-589-6370

FORD MOTOR: Ontario Court Certifies Windsor Autoworker Class
Dave Hall at The Windsor Star reports that a lawsuit brought on
behalf of Ford Motor Company employees with respect to a planned
third work shift at the company's Oakville assembly plant has
been certified as a class action suit by the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.

The plaintiffs -- Gabriel Levesque, Brenda Austin and Matthew
Beltrano -- were all bargaining unit employees on layoff from
Ford's operations in Windsor when the company announced plans to
add a third shift in Oakville.

The Plaintiffs in Levesque v. Ford Motor Company of Canada,
Limited, Court File No. 08-4590-CP (Ont. Super. Ct. J.), were
offered employment in connection with Ford's plans to introduce a
third shift on July 28, 2008, according to Scarfone Hawkins LLP,
the law firm representing the plaintiffs.

"We are pleased that this action has been certified and will now
move ahead as a class proceeding," said:

          David Thompson, Esq.
          One James Street South, 14th Floor
          P.O. Box 926, Depot 1
          Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3P9
          Telephone: 905-523-1333

"This will enhance access to justice for all affected individuals
and will allow claims to be determined in an efficient and
economic manner."

The suit alleges that, in April of 2008, Ford made a business
decision to initiate a third work shift in Oakville. Ford
advertised its need for employees and offered positions of
employment but subsequently determined, immediately prior to the
employment start date, that it would not implement the third work

The suit further alleges that individuals offered positions were
at the time gainfully employed elsewhere but resigned their other
employment in anticipation of starting employment with Ford.

According to Scarfone Hawkins, Ford attributed its change of
decision to extreme shifts in market conditions based on a
downturn in sales of cross-over vehicles.

The suit has been brought on behalf of all individuals, including
the estates of deceased individuals, who were offered employment
by Ford as general assemblers in connection with the planned
third shift.

The Plaintiffs are also represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Shinehoft, Esq.
          15 Bond Street
          Hamilton, Ontario L8P 1T3
          Telephone: 905-529-3476

FUNSTERS' GRAND CASINO: Hearing on Employee Payroll Payment Plan
                  IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING

individually and on behalf of      )
all the members of the class of    )
persons similarly situated,        )
                                   )   NO. 03-2-05566-2 KNT
               Plaintiffs,         )
          v.                       )
                                   )   HONORABLE ANDREA DARVAS
husband and wife and the marital   )
community comprised thereof, SCOTT )
husband and wife, and the marital  )   FEBRUARY 24, 2010
community comprised thereof,       )
               Defendants.         )


NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you as a member of the class in this
lawsuit brought by named plaintiffs Eufemia "Emma" Morgan, Nancy
Pitchford, and Daniel McGillivray against Gerald Kingen and Scott
Switzer. The action is brought as a class action on behalf of the
employees of Funsters' Grand Casino for unpaid wages from the
March 23, 2003, and April 11, 2003, payrolls.

Judgment has been entered for total wages owed (doubled) of
$241,428.96, plus prejudgment interest. The Court has also
separately awarded attorney fees and costs to class counsel.
At a hearing on January 29, 2010, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed distribution to class members.


The proposed distribution of the judgment will take place in two

"Phase 1" distribution will including the following: (1) each
class member will receive double the amount of his or her total
wages due; (2) each class member will receive prejudgment
interest, distributed on a pro rata basis as described below; (3)
class counsel will receive costs and attorneys' fees incurred by
class counsel in this litigation over the past 7 years that have
already been awarded and approved by the Court; (4) each of the
class representatives will receive $5,000 for his or her work on
the case, for a total distribution of $15,000.

"Phase 2" distribution will involve: (1) distribution of post-
judgment interest accrued through the date of distribution of the
principal judgment on a pro rata basis; (2) distribution of any
additional attorney fees and costs awarded for trial court
proceedings since May 1, 2006.


1. Unpaid Wages, Doubled

Each class member will receive double the amount of his or her
total wages due from the March 28, 2003, and April 11, 2003,

2. Prejudgment Interest

The Court awarded $41,896.96 in prejudgment interest.
Distribution of the prejudgment interest to each class member
will be made on a pro rata basis determined by a percentage of
that class member's wages owed divided by the Principal Judgment

3. Attorneys' Fees and Costs

On May 1, 2006, this Court awarded class counsel attorneys' fees
of $118,624.51, and costs of $10,387.62. On June 20, 2008, this
Court awarded class counsel attorneys' fees of $67,426.26, and
costs of $3,146.88 related to the Division I appeal. The judgment
on this amount, with interest, is now $84,873.36.  On January 14,
2010, the Supreme Court awarded class counsel attorneys' fees of
$39,010.00, and costs of $787.40.

The total amount of $253,682.89 in attorney fees and costs
awarded by the Court will be distributed to the law firm of Short
Cressman & Burgess, as Class Counsel.

4. Class Representative Fees

Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) will be paid to each of the three
class representatives, Eufemia "Emma" Morgan, Nancy Pitchford,
and the estate of Daniel McGillivray, as compensation for their
time spent representing the interests of the class and
participating in the litigation.


1. Post-judgment Interest

After payment under Phase 1, class counsel can determine the
total amount of the post-judgment interest that has accrued since
May 1, 2006.  Post-judgment interest will be distributed on a pro
rata basis determined by each class member's percentage of wages
owed compared to the principal judgment amount. Some post-
judgment interest has accrued on the attorney fee and costs
portion of the judgment and that will be distributed to Class
Counsel.  If the funds in trust are insufficient to cover the
total amount of post-judgment interest accrued, the Class will
ask the Court to order the Defendants to supplement the court

2. Fees and Costs

Since the trial court award of fees and costs on May 1, 2006, the
Class has incurred additional fees in the litigation.  The Class
intends to file a motion asking the Court to order the Defendants
to pay reasonable fees and costs. Any distribution of such award
would take place in Phase 2.


Each class member should contact the Claims Manager, Margaret
Moynan, at 206-223-2005, or via e-mail to mmoynan@scblaw.com, and
provide her with your current home address, phone number, e-mail
address, and social security number.

If you have an objection to the proposed distribution, you can
send your written objection to the Claims Manager:

          Margaret Moynan, Esq.
          999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
          Seattle, WA 98104-4088

or you can e-mail her at mmoynan@scblaw.com.  Please include your
phone number, address, e-mail address, and other contact
information so class counsel can talk to you about your
objection.  We will then have a Court hearing to approve the
actual amount each class member will receive.

As a member of the Class, you have the right to make any
objection you would like to the proposed distribution of the
judgments.  But you must send your objection in writing to the
Claims Manager by no later than February 19, 2010.  Any objection
received by the Claims Manager after this date will not be valid
and will not be considered by the Court.

The Court will conduct a hearing on whether the proposed
distribution should receive final approval at 10:00 a.m. on
February 24, 2010.  

                    DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT


GREENHOUSE: Accused of Libel & Slander by Author in New York Suit
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that urban
fiction author Teri Woods says Greenhouse nightclub managers
defamed her when they called her racial discrimination lawsuit a
"publicity stunt."  Ms. Woods' new complaint, in Bronx County
Court, follows a 2009 class action in which she claims the club
prohibited guests, including her daughter, from attending a party
celebrating the release of her new novel.

Ms. Woods and her guests demanded $1 billion in damages in last
year's class action.

At the time, the club's attorneys said that Ms. Woods' guest list
had more than 100 more guests than she predicted.  The attorneys
added that they were considering pursuing criminal charges
against Woods for allegedly extorting one of the co-owners in a
text message, The Daily News reported last year.

In her new filing, Ms. Woods sued the club and its co-owners,
John Bakhshi and Barry Mullineaux, alleging the same claims as in
the original class action, along with new libel and slander

Ms. Woods owns two film production companies and two publishing
companies, which printed her 18 novels (including her most famous
book, "True to the Game").

The book release party was slated for Aug. 6, 2009.  Ms. Woods
says that she hired DJ Suss-one to play at the club.  She says
her guest list included more than 175 people, most of whom were
black, and many of whom "traveled great distances to attend this

Ms. Woods says her daughter was denied entry, as were reporters
from The New York Times, Huffington Post, Daily News and Media

While they were shut out, she says, many white patrons were
allowed into the "un-crowded" club.

Ms. Woods says she spent nearly two hours trying to persuade
management to let her guests enter, and while they were outside,
her guests endured "various racially offensive remarks, slurs and
innuendo" and watched "a stream of white patrons allowed in."

Eventually, she says, she was "forced to abandon" the book
release party.

Ms. Woods and her guests filed a class action against Greenhouse,
Bakhshi and Mullineaux on Oct. 6, 2009.

After that claim, Woods says, Greenhouse defamed her in a "Press
Conference Fact Sheet," which stated, "This is not an issue of
race, but merely a publicity stunt on the part of Ms. Woods."  
She says the club made the same statements at a press conference,
adding slander to libel.

She seeks damages for lost book sales, loss of publicity, future
books and movies, humiliation and loss of reputation.

Copies of the Summons and Ms. Woods' Verified Complaint in Woods
v. Greenhouse, et al., Index No. 300871-2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Bronx Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nonnenmacher, Esq.
          Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Ave., Suite 7210
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: 212-465-1110

MDL 1817: CertainTeed Settles Organic Roofing Shingles Litigation
CertainTeed Corporation and Counsel for the Plaintiffs in In re:
CertainTeed Corporation Roofing Shingles Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1817; Master Docket No. 07-md-01817 (E.D. Pa)
(Pollak, J.), have entered into an agreement to settle a class
action alleging that organic asphalt shingles manufactured by
CertainTeed from July 1, 1987, through 2005 are subject to
premature failure and otherwise do not perform in accordance with
the reasonable expectations of users.  CertainTeed denies these
allegations and asserts that the vast majority of the shingles
are free of any defect and will last throughout the warranty
period.  The parties have agreed to the settlement to avoid the
expense, inconvenience, and distraction of further protracted
litigation and to fully resolve this matter.  

Organic shingles were made with a felt reinforcement material, as
contrasted with the fiberglass reinforced material used in
CertainTeed shingles today.  The settlement relates to organic
shingles under the brand names Hallmark Shangle, Independence
Shangle, Horizon Shangle, Custom Sealdon, Custom Sealdon 30,
Sealdon 20, Sealdon 25, Hearthstead, Solid Slab, Master Slab,
Custom Saf-T-Lok/Saf-T-Lok and the Custom Lok 25.  The Horizon,
Independence, Hallmark, and Hearthstead brands were marketed in
both organic and fiberglass formulations, but only organic
shingles, which CertainTeed no longer manufactures, are covered
by the Settlement Agreement.  Although the settlement covers
potential class members throughout the U.S. and Canada, the
organic shingles in question were sold primarily in the upper
Midwestern states and in the Canadian provinces north of those

The settlement agreement provides enhanced compensation for the
removal and replacement of organic shingles during the warranty
period.  The amount paid per claimant depends upon a number of
factors such as (1) whether the claimant originally purchased the
shingles; (2) the terms of the warranty; (3) how many damaged
shingles are on the roof; (4) how long the shingles have been on
the roof; (5) whether the shingles are damaged as defined in the
Settlement Agreement; (6) whether the damage was due to a
manufacturing defect or was caused by circumstances outside of
CertainTeed's control; and (7) whether the claimant has already
settled the warranty claim under CertainTeed's standard warranty.  
The amount paid per claimant is fixed as specified in the
Settlement Agreement and will not be affected by the number of
people who file claims under the settlement.

Potential class members have legal rights under the settlement.  
For example, class members must decide whether to stay in the
class and obtain the settlement's benefits. If they do not want
to participate, they must opt out by May 11, 2010.  If they do
not opt out, they will be automatically bound by the terms of the
settlement.  If they want to stay in the class, they need do
nothing at this time, although class members who want a
distribution from the settlement must file a claim form by the
deadline that applies to their particular situation.  The
deadline for filing claims ranges from 90 days to 25 years,
depending on the individual circumstances of the claim.  
Because this is a class action settlement, the agreement must be
approved by a judge -- in this case, by United States District
Court Judge Louis H. Pollak.  A hearing will be held on June 8,
2010 in Philadelphia, Pa., concerning approval of the settlement.  

People who own or owned buildings with CertainTeed organic
shingles and believe they may qualify for a payment under this
settlement can obtain additional information about the settlement
by checking the Web site hosted by CAC Services Group, LLC, at:


by calling 1-888- 898-4111, or by writing to:

          CertainTeed Claims Administrator
          1400 Union Meeting Road
          Blue Bell, PA 19422-0761

Last month, as related in the Class Action Reporter, Clayton D.
Halunen, Esq., of HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES, one of the lead attorneys
representing consumers in Minnesota as well as 17 other states,
indicated that the settlement has an expected value to the class
of between $400 and $600 million, depending on the number of
claims made.

Class Counsel named in the Settlement Notice are:

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105

               - and -  

          Charles LaDuca, Esq.
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002

               - and -  

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401

Liaison Counsel for the Class is:

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

CertainTeed is represented by:

          Lawrence T. Hoyle, Jr., Esq.
          Suite 1500, One South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107

NOKIA CORP: S.D.N.Y. Suit Says Phonemaker Hid Production Delays
phonesreview.co.uk reports that a class action complaint was
filed on the 5th of February in the United States of America
which claims Nokia top executives hid product delays from their
investors during 2008 reports, citing a Reuters reports.  

City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. Nokia Corp., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00967 (S.D.N.Y.), also names Nokia's chief
executive Olli-Pekka Kallasyuo, chief financial officer Rick
Simonson and head of Nokia phone business Kai Oistarmo as

Nokia has stated they will vigorously defend themselves against
the class action case and has said that Nokia has looked at said
allegations within the complaint and as far as Nokia is concerned
they have no merit.

OHIO: Accused of Charging Sales Tax on Cash for Clunkers Trades
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Ohio
charged sales tax on the full value of vehicles people bought in
the Cash for Clunkers program, without deducting the value of the
trade-in, in Franklin County Court, Columbus.

A copy of the Complaint in Brown v. Levin, Case No. 10CVH021753
(Ohio C.P. Ct., Franklin Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Theresa L. Groh, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          35 East Seventh St., Suite 600
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513-345-8291

               - and -

          Charles R. Saxbe, Esq.
          Elizabeth J. Watters, Esq.
          65 East State St., Suite 1000
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614-221-4000

QUAKER OATS: Transfat-Free Granola Bars Have Transfat, Suit Says
Courthouse News Service reports that Quaker Oats claims its Chewy
Granola Bars have no transfat, though they actually contain
"dangerous amounts" of it, a class action claims in San Jose
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
Chacanaca, et al. v. The Quarter Oats Company, Case No.
10-cv-00502 (N. D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jared H. Beck, Esq.
          28 West Flagler St., Suite 555
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: 305-789-0072

ROTHMAN FURNITURE: Sued in Mo. for Bait-and-Switch Sales Pitch
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Rothman
Furniture Stores used a bait and switch sales promotion and
didn't deliver on its promises, a class action claims in St.
Louis County Court.

Named plaintiffs Brenton and Vernita Jones say they bought more
than $1,200 worth of furniture from Rothman during the promotion
in May 2009.  A Rothman radio commercial stated that customers
who bought $600 worth of furniture would get $600 in free
gasoline and customers who spent $600 more would also get $600 in
free groceries, according the complaint.

The Joneses say they requested the free gas and groceries and had
to fill out paperwork to enroll in the program.  They say the
program required them to submit monthly gas and grocery receipts
for more than $100, after which they would receive two $25 debit
cards each month for 24 months.  But even after complying with
the terms of the program, the Joneses say they have received
debit cards with a total value of only $70.

The class seeks punitive damages for violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.   

A copy of the Jones' Petition for Individual and Class Action
Relief in Jones, et ux. v. Rothman Furniture Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 10SL-CC00487 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David T. Butsch, Esq.
          James J. Simeri, Esq.
          Matthew R. Fields, Esq.
          231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: 314-863-5700

ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action Suit in Wake of Earl Jones Scam
Canwest News Service reports that a victim of disgraced former
financial adviser Earl Jones sought in court Friday authorization
for a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all affected parties
against Royal Bank, whose Beaconsfield, Que., branch handled much
of Jones' banking between 1981 and 2008.

In her Superior Court submission, Montreal resident Virginia
Nelles claims that "in order to carry out his fraudulent Ponzi
scheme," Mr. Jones deposited and paid out funds from an account
at Royal Bank titled "Earl Jones in trust," which in effect was
"nothing more than a personal bank account of Earl Jones, as
opposed to a trust account."

Ms. Nelles' submission notes that the bankruptcy trustee
determined about $1 million a year was withdrawn from that
account to pay the personal expenses of Jones and his family, and
argues Jones would not have been able to work his scheme without
"the negligence and willful blindness of the Royal Bank of

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The Royal Bank did not respond to calls for comment.

Mr. Jones pleaded guilty Jan. 15 to two charges of using deceit
and falsehood to defraud investors of $50.3 million. He will be
sentenced this month.

The class action seeks compensation equal to the total amount of
funds deposited by clients in the "Earl Jones In Trust" account
from 1981 to 2008, less amounts they received, plus interest.

Ms. Nelles' lawyers have asked for the motion to be heard in
court Feb. 26.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Accelerator Pedal Defect Lawsuit Filed in S.D.N.Y.
Richard J. Arsenault, Esq., of Neblett, Beard & Arsenault, along
with co-counsel have filed a class action lawsuit against Toyota
Motor Sales and Toyota Motor Corporation in the United States
District Court Southern District of New York.

In the lawsuit, vehicle owners allege that Toyota concealed the
true nature of the defect in their electronic throttle controls
by initially claiming that their vehicles' sudden acceleration
problems were caused by floor mats.  In doing so, the suit
alleges that Toyota engaged in deceptive conduct and breached
expressed warranties.

A copy of the Complaint in Davis v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00900 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), is
available at:


"Uncontrollable vehicle acceleration is obviously a very serious
and potentially life-threatening problem.  The questions include
what did Toyota know, when and why did this happen in the first
place. This lawsuit seeks to compensate the many victims of both
economic and physical harm," said Mr. Arsenault, a veteran of
class action and consumer protection litigation.

Mr. Arsenault claims Toyota's misconduct has had a serious
financial impact on its customers, who have seen their car values
drop radically after the recalls were announced.

"Toyota has a responsibility to their customers and the motoring
public to create safe, properly functioning vehicles," said Mr.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages against
Toyota.  It alleges that Toyota breached implied warranties of
merchantability by designing, manufacturing, distributing and
selling vehicles after it became apparent they were defective.

"Understandably, Toyota owners believed that their vehicles were
safe. Had they known about these problems, do you think they
would have bought these cars?  And now, they have to deal with
confusion about whether they should even be driving these
vehicles and what to do with them," added Mr. Arsenault.  "These
customers should not have to bear this financial burden,
especially since many are already suffering from the impacts of
the current recession.  Toyota needs to step up to the plate and
make this right."

Mr. Davis is represented by:

          Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
          113 East 27th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-684-1880

               - and -  

          Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
          John R. Whaley, Esq.
          P.O. Box 1190
          Alexandria, LA 71309-1190
          Telephone: 318-487-9874

               - and -  

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: 216-621-8484

               - and -  

          Frank E. Piscitelli, Esq.
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: 216-931-7000

               - and -

          Mark Geragos, Esq.
          Shelley Kaufman, Esq.
          Tamar Arminak, Esq.    
          644 S. Figueroa St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-625-3900

               - and -

          D. Scott Kalish, Esq.
          405 Western Reserve Bldg.
          1468 West Ninth Street
          Cleveland, OH 44113

TOYOTA MOTOR: McCuneWright Files Suit in Calif. to Expand Recall
The law firm of McCuneWright, LLP has filed a request for a
preliminary injunction in United States District Court for the
Central District of California seeking an immediate order
requiring Toyota to expand the Sudden Unintended Acceleration

McCuneWright, which filed the first and leading class action
lawsuit against Toyota to force the automaker to remedy the
sudden unintended acceleration defects in all affected makes and
models, is asking the court to issue a specific order requiring
Toyota to provide a brake over-ride system on all Toyota models
equipped with Electronic Throttle Control System -- intelligent
("ETCS-i") that have experienced significant numbers of sudden
acceleration events.

The brake override system is a failsafe system that enables the
onboard computer to detect when both the throttle and the brake
are being activated simultaneously, recognize that there is an
error in the signals it is receiving, and immediately return the
throttle to idle.  It is an important failsafe system used by
other vehicle manufacturers to keep a sudden unintended
acceleration event from turning into a runaway vehicle with
resulting crashes, injuries, and deaths.

Toyota has recently announced that it will install this important
safety device on all new Toyota and Lexus vehicles.  In its
November 26, 2009, recall, Toyota also announced that it would
retroactively install this important safety device on just six
existing models and further limited the recall to only recent
model years -- 2007 -- 2010 Toyota Camry, 2005 -- 2010 Toyota
Avalon, 2007 -- 2010 Lexus ES 350, 2007 2010 Lexus GS 350, 2006
-- 2010 Lexus IS 250, and 2006 2010 Lexus IS 350.

The preliminary injunction motion asserts that by limiting this
brake over-ride system recall to recent model years for just six
vehicle models, Toyota has left more than 75 percent of the
affected models and model years out of this important recall.
"Toyota cannot justify limiting this important recall to models
and model years that include less than 25 percent of the reported
sudden acceleration problems," says Richard McCune, a partner at
McCuneWright, LLP. "Toyota has identified an important solution
to this problem and it has a duty to its customers and to public
safety the apply it to all the Toyota vehicles. Toyota shouldn't
wait until there's another deadly crash."

On November 5, 2009, McCuneWright filed the first and leading
class action on sudden unintended acceleration, Choi, et. al. v.
Toyota Motor Company, et. al., Case No. 09-cv-08143 (C.D.

The preliminary injunction and supporting exhibits can be found
on the Court's website or is available at:


TOYOTA MOTOR: Plans to Recall 300,000 Prius Hybrids Worldwide
From Tokyo, Kelly Olsen at The Associated Press reports that
Toyota plans to recall about 300,000 Prius hybrids worldwide over
a brake problem and notified the U.S. and Japanese governments
yesterday, citing a Kyoda news report.

The recall of the gas-electric Prius will cover cars that went on
sale since May last year through January, Kyodo news agency
reported late Monday.

Kyodo, which did not identify its sources for the information,
said the automaker will notify authorities in Japan and the U.S.
of its plan, which will cover more than 270,000 of the hybrids
sold in the two countries.

Toyota spokeswoman Ririko Takeuchi said no decision on a Prius
recall has been made.  Kenji Sugai, an official in Japan's
Transport Ministry section in charge of recalls, said it had not
been informed of any such plan by Toyota.

The Kyodo report follows others in Japanese media recently that
the world's largest automaker has decided to announce a recall
early this week.  The company has only said it will soon announce
plans to deal with the braking problem.

At least 100 drivers of Prius cars in the U.S. have complained to
the government that their antilock brakes seemed to fail
momentarily while driving on bumpy roads. The Japanese government
has also received dozens of complaints. Toyota plans to fix a
software glitch to correct the problem. The government says the
problem is suspected in four crashes that caused two minor

Toyota says the brakes will work if the driver keeps pushing the

Toyota has already recalled more than 7 million other cars for
repairs in the U.S. and other countries over a sticky accelerator
and floor mats that can get caught in the gas pedal.

The Prius is the world's top-selling gas-electric hybrid and its
fuel efficiency has drawn intense interest amid concerns about
global warming and dependence on fossil fuels.

Toyota has sold 300,000 of the vehicles in about 60 countries.
Kyodo reported recalls in other countries will follow those in
Japan and the U.S. The company says it has already fixed vehicles
that went on sale since last month.

Though there have been reports that Toyota will recall the cars,
the company has an option of a "service campaign," in which the
company would simply notify owners to bring their cars in for

UNITED PARCEL: Colo. Suit Complains About "Air-In-Ground" Program
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal RICO
class action claims that United Parcel Service for years has
charged customers a premium to ship packages by air while
actually shipping them by truck to save money on fuel and add to
its bottom line.  The class claims the "Air-In-Ground program"
has earned UPS "hundreds of millions of dollars" in ill-gotten
gains since 1995.

Lead plaintiff Arapahoe Hyundai of Denver says that the purpose
of the Air-In-Ground program is to "collect the higher price
charged for air transportation while actually transporting
packages more cheaply by ground."

The class claims that UPS charges fuel surcharges for air
shipping even if it ships the packages by truck.

UPS denied the allegations and said the lawsuit is "baseless."

"Every package we send is transported in some part by ground,"
said Susan Rosenberg, a UPS spokeswoman in Atlanta.

Ms. Rosenberg said the company's standard service contract states
that UPS "reserves the right to use any mode of transportation,"
and that pricing for package delivery is based not on mode of
delivery but on the "service level."

But Arapahoe Hyundai's complaint states that, compared to air
shipment, shipping by ground "constitutes a materially different
level of service."  Shipping by air costs two to three times more
than shipping by ground, according to the complaint.

"When a customer selects the level of service (air or ground) for
his package, he does not know that UPS has already pre-determined
whether his air package will actually be shipped by air or
ground," the complaint states.  "UPS does not tell the customer
his air package will be shipped by ground or that he will be
paying a higher price for a level of service he will not

Ms. Rosenberg says that the company has been "very openly talking
about shifting some packages from air to ground" to minimize its
carbon footprint.  She said on Thursday that the company had not
yet been served with the lawsuit but contests the charges.

Arapahoe Hyundai seeks damages for breach of contract, fraudulent
inducement, fraudulent nondisclosure, intentional
misrepresentation and other charges.

It seeks treble damages, an injunction and restitution.

A copy of the Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18
U.S.C. Sec. 1961, et seq.), for Breach of Contract, for
Fraudulent Inducement, for Fraudulent Nondisclosure, for
Intentional Misrepresentation, for Negligent Misrepresentation,
for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing,
for Unjust Enrichment, and Demand for Jury Trial in Arapahoe
Hyundai, LLC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-
cv-00222 (D. Colo.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:
          Kirk D. Tresemer, Esq.
          Darren A. Natvig, Esq.
          IRWIN & BOESEN, P.C.
          4100 E. Mississippi Ave., Suite 1900
          Denver, CO 80246
          Telephone: 303-999-9999

               - and -

          Gerald P. McDermott, Esq.
          1890 Gaylord St.
          Denver, CO 80206
          Telephone: 303-399-6037

               - and -

          Peter J. McNulty, Esq.
          827 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: 310-471-2707

               - and -

          Paul R. Alanis, Esq.
          Loren S. Ostrow, Esq.
          ALANIS & OSTROW
          150 S. Los Robles Ave., Suite 665
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: 626-356-1188

               - and -

          Stephen C. Neal, Esq.
          Scott D. Devereaux, Esq.
          Kathleen H. Goodhart, Esq.
          Five Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: 650-843-5000

               - and -

          Matthew J. Geragos, Esq.
          150 S. Los Robles Ave., Suite 665
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: 626-449-8700

               - and -

          Jonathan H. Waller, Esq.
          G. Douglas Jones, Esq.
          Kirk D. Smith, Esq.
          1400 Park Place Tower
          2001 Park Place
          North Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-251-1000

UNITED STATES: White House Requests $1.15 Bil. for Black Farmers
"Pay up," an editorial piece in Monday's edition of The New York
Times says.  Claimants, the Times relates, are still looking for
their money, more than a decade after the federal Department of
Agriculture reached a landmark settlement for having cheated
generations of black farmers through "indifference and blatant
discrimination."  The 1999 agreement on what is known as the
Pigford class-action lawsuit was hailed as the biggest civil
rights settlement in American history. The judge estimated a
swift $2 billion payout -- or $60,000 each -- for victimized
black farmers.

It has not worked out that way, as the White House's new budget
confirms with a request for $1.15 billion to pay still-pending
claims from black farmers. The same amount was requested last
year but did not survive the self-interested knives and elbows of
the Congressional budget scrum.

The class-action suit detailed how eligible black farmers
traditionally were denied loans by the agriculture agency while
their white peers went to the head of the line for growing-season
wherewithal and homestead improvements.

After the settlement, some farmers got their money, but far too
many ran into a new buzz saw. They were stalled and rejected
through paperwork technicalities, tight deadlines and a lengthy
appeals process that officials insisted was necessary. There was
early confusion within the Obama administration about whether the
settlement process had been capped, but Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack insists no; the aim, he says, is to finally "close this
unfortunate chapter."

Pigford v. Glickman has not resonated across the land like Brown
v. Board of Education, but the very same history of crippling
injustice is at its heart.  The Pigford settlement will remain a
misnomer until the nation rights this historic injustice and pays
what it owes.

The Plaintiffs in Pigford, et al. v. Vilsack, Case No.
97-cv-01978 (D.C.) (Friedman, J.), and Brewington, et al.
v. Vilsack, Case No. 98-cv-01693 (D.C.) (Friedman, J.),
are represented by:

          David J. Frantz, Esq.
          1818 N Street, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-331-7050

               - and -  

          Phillip L. Fraas, Esq.
          1150 18th St. N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20036-3816
          Telephone: 202-572-9904

               - and -  

          Rose Sanders, Esq.
          P.O. Box 1290
          Selma, AL 36702-1290
          Telephone: 334-875-9264

The Office of the Monitor, established under a Consent Decree
entered in Pigford and Brewington, maintains a Web site at

The Monitor is:

          Randi Ilyse Roth, Esq.
          Post Office Box 64511
          St. Paul, MN 55164-0511
          Telephone: 877-924-7483

WELLS FARGO: Sued in Calif. for Excess Interest on Student Loans
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims Wells Fargo charged interest on thousands of
student loans when it was prohibited from doing so.  Lead
plaintiff Sharon Cheslow claims Wells Fargo capitalized interest
on consolidated student loans she was repaying, and of federal
Stafford loans that were in deferment while she was in college.

The promissory notes she signed stated that Wells Fargo was not
allowed to capitalize interest on loans in repayment or in
deferment, according to the complaint.  Ms. Cheslow says Wells
Fargo has added more than $1,000 to her principal loan balance so
far.  It also neglected to provide her with 30 days notice
regarding the capitalization of interest on her Stafford loan,
she says.

The class claims that Wells Fargo intended to violate the terms
of the notes.

Ms. Cheslow says she contacted the lender in October 2009 with
questions about the interest capitalization on her accounts and a
customer service representative told her that this "was not a
practice peculiar to her, but reflected Wells Fargo's general

She demands an injunction and class restitution and statutory and
punitive damages for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the California False Advertising Law and unfair competition.

A copy of the Complaint in Cheslow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 10-cv-00503 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberta L. Steele, Esq.
          300 Lakeside, Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 510-763-9800

               - and -

          Steven M. Sprenger, Esq.
          Michael D. Lieder, Esq.
          Bryce M. Miller, Esq.
          1400 Eye St., N.W., Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-265-8010

               - and -

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: 312-346-5100


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,

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  * * *