CAR_Public/100222.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 22, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 36

                            Headlines

ALLREDS DESIGN: Recalls 900 Baby Bracelets & Pacifier Clips
AVIAT NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Del.
BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Complains About Privacy Assist Services
BEBE STORES: Continues to Defend Former Employee's Suit
BEBE STORES: Faces "Unpaid Wages" Lawsuit in Los Angeles

BEBE STORES: Continues to Defend Suit by California Customer
CHICAGO: Transport Dept. Accused of Employee Race Discrimination
COMPUTER SCIENCES: No Schedule Yet for Oral Arguments in Appeal
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Lawsuit Over Stock Option Backdating Pending
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settlement Hearing Today in Madison County

DELAWARE STATE: Accused of Discriminating Female Athletes
GOOGLE INC: California Suit Complains About Buzz Program
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE:  Files Answer to "Avery" Lawsuit
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Ross" Lawsuit in California
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Settles Securities Suit for $169 Million

LOWER MERION: Accused of Spying on Students in Philadelphia Suit
MICHIGAN: Home-Based Day-Care Workers Sue Over Paying Union Dues
MONSANTO CO: Suit Complains About Payroll Policies & Procedures
PANASONIC CONSUMER: N.J. Suit Complains About Plasma TV Programs
SIGMA ALDRICH: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Complaint in Ohio

TC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Calif. Hourly Employees' Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Kahn & Assoc. Files Throttle Control Suit in Ill.
TOYOTA MOTOR: N.Y. Suit Says Prius Headlights Are Defective
TOYOTA MOTOR: Accused of Inflating Share Price in New York Suit
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Plant Contaminated Water, Fla. Suit Says

UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint

* Manatt Adds Litigation Partner Becca Wahlquist in Los Angeles

                            *********

ALLREDS DESIGN: Recalls 900 Baby Bracelets & Pacifier Clips
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Allreds Design (doing business as Hidden Hollow Beads), of Fort
Duchesne, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of about 900 Allreds
Design Baby Bracelets and Pacifier Clips. Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The recalled bracelets and pacifier clip clasps contain high
levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and
can cause adverse health effects.

Allreds Design received one report of a 10-month-old child who
was treated by a physician for elevated lead levels.

This recall includes Allreds Design brand baby bracelets and
pacifier clips. The bracelets are sold in sizes 0-6 months, 1-4
years, and 4-8 years of age. The baby bracelets and pacifier
clips have crystal and plastic beads in various colors with a
metal clasp.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10139.html

The recalled items were manufactured in the United States and
bold by resale stores and other consignment retailers nationwide
from June 2008 through December 2008 for about $5.

Consumers should immediately take these recalled bracelets and
pacifier clips away from children and contact Allreds Design for
instructions on how to receive a replacement bracelet or pacifier
clip.  For additional information, please contact Allreds Design
toll-free at (866) 695-3551 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.


AVIAT NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Del.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aviat Networks, Inc., fka Harris Stratex Networks, Inc.,
continues to defend a consolidated class action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
according to the company's Feb. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 1, 2010.

The company and certain of its current and former executive
officers and directors were named in a federal securities class
action complaint filed on Sept. 15, 2008, by plaintiff Norfolk
County Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the company's securities from Jan. 29, 2007 to July
30, 2008, including shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who
exchanged shares of Stratex Networks, Inc. for the company's
shares as part of the merger between Stratex Networks and the
Microwave Communications Division of Harris Corporation.

This action relates to the restatement of the company's prior
financial statements.

Similar complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court of
Delaware on October 6 and October 30, 2008.  Each complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and seeks, among other relief, determinations that the
action is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The actions were consolidated on June 5, 2009 and a consolidated
class action complaint was filed on July 29, 2009.

Aviat Networks, Inc. -- http://www.aviatnetworks.com/--  
previously known as Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., is the
wireless expert in advanced IP network migration, building the
foundation for the 4G/LTE broadband future. We offer best-of-
breed transformational wireless solutions, including LTE-ready
microwave backhaul, WiMAX access and a complete portfolio of
essential service options that enable wireless public and private
telecommunications operators to deliver advanced data, voice,
video and mobility services around the world.


BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Complains About Privacy Assist Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of
America takes money from customers' accounts to pay for services
they didn't order and don't want, a class action claims in
Federal Court.  The class claims the bank charges for "Privacy
Assist" services without informing them, and refuses to refund
the money when customers catch on.

The class claims Bank of America has been withdrawing $8.99 from
their accounts every month for "Privacy Assist," which includes
credit monitoring and free access to online credit reports.

Privacy Assist Premier offers identity theft insurance for $12.99
a month, and Privacy Assist Complete includes anti-virus software
for $18.99.

Some plaintiffs say they have overdrawn on their bank accounts
because of these automatic withdrawals, also known as "electronic
funds transfers."

Lead plaintiff Steven Chavez says he was charged for several
months of Privacy Assist before he noticed the withdrawals from
his account in September 2009, when he became suspicious of a
$17.99 charge on his bank statement labeled "Privacy Assist."

When he complained to Bank of America, it denied affiliation with
Privacy Assist, Mr. Chavez says, though the complaint identifies
Privacy Assist as a "wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America."

Mr. Chavez says he contacted Privacy Assist directly, but was
refused a refund.

Mr. Chavez says he was never provided with any anti-virus
software from Privacy Assist, and before he saw the charges on
his bank statement, he had never even heard of Privacy Assist.

He said he asked the bank to cancel the service but Bank of
America and Privacy Assist are still taking his money, and have
"drained his bank account and even caused him to incur several
overdraft fees from Bank of America."

The class seeks the return of all money withdrawn from their
accounts and damages for unfair business practices, unjust
enrichment, conversion and violation of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Chavez v. Bank of America Corporation,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-00653 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/18/BofAPrivacy.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin. F. Ruf, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Coby M. Vink, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-201-9150


BEBE STORES: Continues to Defend Former Employee's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Bebe stores, inc., continues to defend a lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, alleging failure
to pay wages, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Jan. 2, 2010.

A former employee sued the company in a complaint filed July 27,
2006 in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County (Case
No. CIV 456550) alleging a failure to pay all wages, failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
provide meal periods, violation of Labor Code Section 450,
violation of Labor Code Section 2802 and California Code of
Regulations Section 11040(9)(A), statutory wage violations (late
payment of wages), unlawful business practices under Business and
Professions Code Section 16720 and Section 17200, conversion of
wages and violation of Civil Code Section 52.1.

The plaintiff purports to bring the action also on behalf of
current and former California bebe employees who are similarly
situated.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory, statutory, punitive, restitution
and injunctive relief.

The court has formally denied class certification regarding
certain claims Plaintiff has moved to be certified.

Plaintiff has since moved to substitute in a new purported class
representative and a hearing on the matter has been set for Feb.
22, 2010.

bebe stores, inc. -- http://www.bebe.com/-- designs, develops  
and produces a line of contemporary women's apparel and
accessories.  The company's target customer is a 21 to 35-year-
old woman.  Its product offering includes a range of separates,
tops, sweaters, dresses, active wear and accessories in the
lifestyle categories.


BEBE STORES: Faces "Unpaid Wages" Lawsuit in Los Angeles
--------------------------------------------------------
Bebe stores, inc., faces a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, alleging failure to pay wages,
according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 2, 2010.

A former employee sued the company in a complaint filed in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (BC 429230) and
served on the company Feb. 4, 2010, alleging a failure to pay all
wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, violation
of Labor Code Section 450, Section 2802 and California Code of
Regulations Section 11070(9)(A), statutory wage violations (late
payment of wages), unlawful business practices under Business and
Professions Code Section 16720 and Section 17200, and other
associated claims.

The plaintiff purports to bring the action also on behalf of
current and former California bebe employees who are similarly
situated.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory, statutory, punitive, restitution
and injunctive relief.

The case has been filed by the same law firm who filed a suit in
the  Superior Court of California, San Mateo County (Case No. CIV
456550).

bebe stores, inc. -- http://www.bebe.com/-- designs, develops  
and produces a line of contemporary women's apparel and
accessories.  The company's target customer is a 21 to 35-year-
old woman.  Its product offering includes a range of separates,
tops, sweaters, dresses, active wear and accessories in the
lifestyle categories.


BEBE STORES: Continues to Defend Suit by California Customer
------------------------------------------------------------
Bebe stores, inc., continues to defend a lawsuit filed by a
customer in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 2, 2010.

A customer sued the company in a complaint filed Oct. 14, 2009 in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles (BC 423835) alleging the company violated the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act, Civil Code Section 1747.08.

The plaintiff purports to bring the action also on behalf of
other California bebe customers who are similarly situated.  

The company has filed its answer, is investigating the claims and
formal discovery has commenced.

bebe stores, inc. -- http://www.bebe.com/-- designs, develops  
and produces a line of contemporary women's apparel and
accessories.  The company's target customer is a 21 to 35-year-
old woman.  Its product offering includes a range of separates,
tops, sweaters, dresses, active wear and accessories in the
lifestyle categories.


CHICAGO: Transport Dept. Accused of Employee Race Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class
action claims that a Chicago Department of Transportation
supervisor commonly referred to black employees as "Mambo
Gorilla" and "nigger," and segregated minority employees by
assigning them to work only on the city's "gang-infested" South
Side.

Lead plaintiff Patty Young, who has worked as a field specialist
for the department since 1989, says she was called a "black
bitch" and forced to work different hours than white employees by
supervisor Joseph Annunzio.

Racism and sexism "pervades the culture" of the CDOT, Ms. Young
claims, but nowhere more so than at the 2340 W. Ogden office,
where Mr. Annunzio works.

Throughout 2005 and 2006, Mr. Annunzio, a field director, used
racial and sexist epithets on a regular basis, calling Asians,
Indians and Hispanics "fucking foreigners," and draping a cloth
over his head while telling black employees that he was a grand
wizard in the Ku Klux Klan, Ms. Young says.

She says Mr. Annunzio sang a song called "Magilla Gorilla" in the
presence of black employees while imitating a gorilla, and would
make pretend gang gestures in front of them.

She says Mr. Annunzio forced nonwhite employees to work different
hours and at desks segregated from white employees.  And she says
he forced nonwhite employees to work on the city's crime-ridden
South Side and denied them promotions and raises.

Ms. Young says she complained several times to higher-ups in the
department and the city government, but got nowhere.

After filing a complaint, Ms. Young says she was forced to
reimburse the department for equipment stolen out of her car, in
violation of policy.  She was fired in early 2009 and was
reinstated several months later, the complaint states.

Ms. Young and the class, which includes all nonwhite employees of
the department in 2005 and 2006, sued the department, Mr.
Annunzio and six administrators for racial discrimination, gender
discrimination, retaliation and other charges.

The class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified
damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Young v. City of Chicago Department of
Transportation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00989 (N.D. Ill.), is
available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/17/RacismChi.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth R. Halpern, Esq.
          John R. Malkinson, Esq.
          Allison L. Chaplick, Esq.
          MALKINSON & HALPERN, P.C.
          208 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1750
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: 312-427-9600

               - and -

          Marc M. Hamilton, Esq.
          HAMILTON & BRICE
          204 W. 79th St.
          Chicago, IL 60619
          Telephone: 773-651-8481


COMPUTER SCIENCES: No Schedule Yet for Oral Arguments in Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to
schedule oral arguments in the appeal of the plaintiffs against
the summary judgment ruling entered in the consolidated class
action lawsuit captioned In Re Computer Sciences Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. CV 08-2398 (C.D. Calif.) (Otero, J.),
according to the company's Feb. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 1, 2010.

On Aug. 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class action complaint in Quan,
et al.  v. CSC, et al., CV 06-3927 (E.D.N.Y.), made allegations
of backdating stock options against the Company.  On Sept. 21,
2006, a related ERISA class action complaint was filed in Gray,
et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-5100 (E.D.N.Y.).  The complaints
named as defendants the company, the company's Retirement and
Employee Benefits Plans Committee and various directors and
officers, and alleged various violations of the ERISA statute.

The two ERISA actions were consolidated and, on Feb. 28, 2007,
plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class action complaint.  On
Jan. 8, 2008, the consolidated proceeding was transferred to
California.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed their
memorandum in opposition to the motion.  Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for class certification, and defendants filed their
memorandum in opposition to the motion on Aug. 11, 2008.  On
Sept. 2, 2008, Judge Otero issued orders denying defendants'
motion to dismiss, and also denying plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Defendants answered the complaint and the parties
conducted discovery.  

On Nov. 13, 2008, plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification and the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition
on Dec. 8, 2008.  On Dec. 29, 2008, Judge Otero granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  

On Jan. 13, 2009, defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting that the Court of
Appeals accept their appeal from the order granting class
certification.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on Jan. 23,
2009.  The Court of Appeals denied defendants' request for
permission to appeal on March 12, 2009.  

Discovery closed on April 28, 2009.  

Defendants and plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment
on May 4, 2009.  Reply briefs were filed on May 22, 2009.

On July 13, 2009, the District Court entered an Order granting
summary judgment in favor of the company and the other
defendants.  On July 28, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On Aug. 10, 2009, the CSC defendants filed a notice of cross
appeal regarding recovery of costs.  Plaintiffs filed their
opening appellate brief on Sept. 9, 2009 and defendants filed
their opposition brief on the merits and brief on costs on Oct.
30, 2009.

Plaintiffs' reply brief on the merits and opposition brief on
costs was filed on Dec. 14, 2009.

The CSC defendants' reply brief on the issue of costs was filed
on Jan. 11, 2010.

The Ninth Circuit has not yet scheduled oral argument.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in  
the information technology and professional services industry.  
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings include
IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional
services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.  Systems
integration encompasses designing, developing, implementing and
integrating complete information systems.  Consulting and
professional services includes advising clients on the
acquisition and utilization of IT and on business strategy,
security, modeling, simulation, engineering, operations, change
management and business process reengineering.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Lawsuit Over Stock Option Backdating Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Morefield vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case
No. 09-cv-1176 (D. Nev.), is pending.

On May 29, 2009, the class action lawsuit was filed in state
court against the company and certain current and former officers
and directors asserting claims for declarative and injunctive
relief related to stock option backdating.  The alleged factual
basis for the claims is the same as that which was alleged in
prior derivative actions.  

On June 30, 2009, the company removed the state court proceeding,
Morefield v. Computer Sciences Corporation, Case No. A-09-591338-
C (Clark Cty. Nev.) to federal court.  

The defendants deny the allegations in the Complaint.  

On July 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court, and that motion is now fully briefed and
awaiting decision.

The federal court has suspended further activity pending a ruling
on the remand motion.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Jan. 1, 2010.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in  
the information technology and professional services industry.  
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings include
IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional
services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.  Systems
integration encompasses designing, developing, implementing and
integrating complete information systems.  Consulting and
professional services includes advising clients on the
acquisition and utilization of IT and on business strategy,
security, modeling, simulation, engineering, operations, change
management and business process reengineering.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settlement Hearing Today in Madison County
------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison County Record reports that a seven
year-old class action over fees charged by a mortgage broker may
be at an end.

Madison County Circuit Judge David Hylla is scheduled to hear
arguments in favor of its settlement Feb. 22.

The suit was one of several filed against mortgage brokers on
behalf of borrowers who claimed they were overcharged.

Lead plaintiff Todd Morgan is also involved in a 2004 class
action against Countrywide Home Loans Inc. that remains open.

The settlement fairness hearing set to take place today relates
to his 2003 class action against Countrywide.

The settlement fairness hearing was set for Jan. 20. However, it
was rescheduled the week before by agreement of the parties
according to the case's docket sheet.

Mr. Morgan is represented by Paul Marks, Esq.

Countrywide is represented by Beth Bauer. Esq.

The case is Madison case number 03-L-980.



DELAWARE STATE: Accused of Discriminating Female Athletes
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Delaware State University
discriminates against its female athletes, an equestrian claims
in a class action in Delaware Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Blakely v. Delaware State University,
Case No. 99-mc-09999 (D. Del.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/17/TitleIX.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald G. Poliquin, Esq.
          YOUNG, MALMBERG & HOWARD, P.A.
          30 The Green
          Dover, DE 19901
          Telephone: 302-672-5600


GOOGLE INC: California Suit Complains About Buzz Program
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Google's
latest email feature, Buzz, illegally shares users' personal
information without their consent, a class action claims in
Federal Court.  Gmail users say the program could reveal "the
names of a doctor's patients or a lawyer's clients," or the
contacts of a gay person "who was struggling to come out of the
closet and had contacted a gay support group."

Lead plaintiff Eva Hibnick filed the action on behalf of more
than 31 million people whose Gmail accounts were automatically
linked to the feature regardless of whether they wanted it or
not, according to the lawsuit.

Google's Buzz program allows users to post updates, photos and
videos for "followers" to view.

"Google created the 'follower' and 'following' lists by using an
algorithm that selected those email contacts with whom a Gmail
user communicated most frequently," the suit states.

By contrast, social networking sites like Facebook only share
people's information after both agree to become "friends."

"Google forced upon its Gmail users Google's own definition of a
proper social network, all in an effort to jump-start Google's
entry into a new consumer market," the class claims.

The class members call the Buzz program an "indiscriminate
bludgeon" that could reveal "the names of a doctor's patients or
a lawyer's clients" or the contacts of a gay person "who was
struggling to come out of the closet and had contacted a gay
support group."

"This parade of horribles was more than hypothetical," the class
claims, citing a New York Times story of a woman whose contact
information was revealed to her abusive ex-boyfriend because
Google Buzz automatically selected him as one of her "followers."

Google responded with a Feb. 14 blog posting: "We've heard your
concerns loud and clear, and we've already taken steps to address
them."

Despite Google's attempt to alleviate users' privacy concerns by
allowing people to shut off the Buzz program, the class says
"Google has not sufficiently altered the Buzz program to remedy
the ongoing privacy violations."  Gmail users say they should
have to opt in to the program, not out.

Plaintiffs demand an injunction blocking Google from operating
Google Buzz without adequate privacy safeguards, plus unspecified
damages for alleged violations of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Hibnick v. Google Inc., Case No.
10-cv-00672 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/18/Google%20Buzz.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Adel Nadji, Esq.
          Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main St., Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-568-2555

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Donna F. Solen, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-429-2290


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE:  Files Answer to "Avery" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., has filed its answer to a
lawsuit alleging that the company failed to pay overtime wages,
according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On June 5, 2009, a potential class action lawsuit was filed
against the company by Alexandra Avery. Ms. Avery purports to
represent all 12-hourly employees and the complaint alleges
causes of action for restitution of unpaid wages as a result of
unfair business practices, injunctive relief for unfair business
practices, failure to pay overtime wages, and penalties
associated therewith.

On Dec. 23, 2009, the company filed an answer to the complaint,
generally denying all of the plaintiff's allegations.

The parties are currently exchanging initial discovery in the
action.

Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ihhioc.com/
-- is a physician owned company that acquired and began operating
the four hospital facilities: Western Medical Center in Santa
Ana; Western Medical Center in Anaheim; Coastal Communities
Hospital in Santa Ana, and Chapman Medical Center in Orange.


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Ross" Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., faces a potential class
action lawsuit filed by Julie Ross, according to the company's
Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed on Jan. 25, 2010, and Ms. Ross purports to
represent all similarly-situated employees and the complaint
alleges causes of action for violation of the California Labor
Code and unfair competition law.

Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ihhioc.com/
-- is a physician owned company that acquired and began operating
the four hospital facilities: Western Medical Center in Santa
Ana; Western Medical Center in Anaheim; Coastal Communities
Hospital in Santa Ana, and Chapman Medical Center in Orange.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Settles Securities Suit for $169 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Juniper Networks, Inc., has agreed in principle to settle the
securities class action litigations pending against the company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
contingent upon approval by the Boards of Trustees of the Lead
Plaintiffs in those actions.

The class actions were brought on behalf of persons and entities
who bought or acquired the publicly traded securities of the
company from July 11, 2003 through Aug. 10, 2006.

The litigation arose from events that occurred several years ago
relating to the granting of stock options to employees generally.
Those practices have long been eliminated and new controls put in
place.  Juniper is pleased to put this longstanding matter behind
it.

Under the proposed settlement, the claims against the company and
its officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice and
released in exchange for a $169 million cash payment by the
company.  In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles, the company will record the cash settlement amount as
a pre-tax charge in its GAAP consolidated statement of operations
for the fourth quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In its previous announcement of preliminary fourth quarter 2009
financial results on Jan. 28, 2010, the company reported GAAP net
income of $131 million, or $0.24 per diluted share.  The company
expects that this one-time charge will reduce previously reported
GAAP net income by approximately $108 million, or $0.20 per
diluted share, for the fourth quarter of 2009.

This settlement will not affect the company's previously reported
non-GAAP financial results for the fourth quarter of 2009.

These effects will be reflected in the consolidated financial
statements contained in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the Fiscal Year ended Dec. 31, 2009 which is expected to be
filed on or before March 1, 2010.

The proposed settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of
various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a
final stipulation of settlement and approval by the court
following notice to members of the class, according to the
company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

                   Consolidated Complaint

On July 14, 2006 and Aug. 29, 2006, two purported class actions
were filed in the Northern District of California against the
company and certain of the company's current and former officers
and directors.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the Court consolidated the two actions as In re
Juniper Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04327-JW,
and appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs.

The lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
on Jan. 12, 2007, and filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on April 9, 2007.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by manipulating stock option
grant dates to coincide with low stock prices and issuing false
and misleading statements including, among others, incorrect
financial statements due to the improper accounting of stock
option grants.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint asserts claims for violations
of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Juniper Networks' publicly-traded securities from July 12, 2001,
through and including August 10, 2006. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages in an unspecified amount.

On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain
of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007.

On March 31, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The order dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' section 10(b)
claim to the extent it was based on challenged statements made
before July 14, 2001.

The order also dismissed, with leave to amend, plaintiffs'
section 10(b) claim against Pradeep Sindhu.

The order upheld all of plaintiffs' remaining claims.

The order gave plaintiffs until May 1, 2008, to file an amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs chose not to amend their complaint.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Court certified a plaintiff class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities from July 11, 2003 to Aug. 10,
2006 inclusive, and were damaged thereby, including:

     -- those who received or acquired Juniper Networks' common
        stock issued pursuant to the registration statement on
        SEC Form S-4, dated March 10, 2004, for the company's
        merger with NetScreen Technologies Inc.; and

     -- purchasers of Zero Coupon Convertible Senior Notes due
        June 15, 2008 issued pursuant to a registration
        statement on SEC Form S-3 dated Nov. 20, 2003.

Juniper Networks, Inc. -- http://www.juniper.net/-- designs,  
develops and sells products and services that together provide
its customers with network infrastructure that creates responsive
and trusted environments for accelerating the deployment of
services and applications over a single Internet Protocol (IP)-
based network.  The company's operations are organized into two
business segments: Infrastructure and Service Layer Technologies
(SLT).  Its Infrastructure segment primarily offers scalable
routing products that are used to control and direct network
traffic from the core, through the edge, aggregation and the
customer premise equipment level.  Its SLT segment offers
solutions that meet an array of its customer's priorities, from
protecting the network itself, and protecting data on the
network, to maximizing existing bandwidth and acceleration of
applications across a distributed network.


LOWER MERION: Accused of Spying on Students in Philadelphia Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Schreiber at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims a suburban school district has been spying on
students and families through the "indiscriminant use of and
ability to remotely activate the webcams incorporated into each
laptop issued to students," without the knowledge or consent of
students or parents.

The named plaintiffs say they learned that Big Brother was in
their home when an assistant principal told their son that the
school district knew he "was engaged in improper behavior in his
home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded
in minor plaintiff's personal laptop issued by the school
district."

The families say the Lower Merion School District issued Webcam-
equipped personal laptop computers to each of its approximately
1,800 high school students: in Harriton High School in Rosemont,
and Lower Merion High School in Ardmore.  The schools issued the
computers as part of a "one-to-one" laptop computer initiative
lauded by Superintendent Christopher McGinley as an effort that
"enhances opportunities for ongoing collaboration, and ensures
that all students have 24/7 access to school based resources and
the ability to seamlessly work on projects and research at school
and at home."

But the parents and students say that, without their knowledge,
the access went both ways.  Nowhere in any "written documentation
accompanying the laptop," or in any "documentation appearing on
any Web site or handed out to students or parents concerning the
use of the laptop," was any reference made "to the fact that the
school district has the ability to remotely activate the embedded
webcam at any time the school district wished to intercept images
from that webcam of anyone or anything appearing in front of the
camera," the complaint states.

The complaint states: "On November 11, 2009, plaintiffs were for
the first time informed of the above-mentioned capability and
practice by the school district when Lindy Matsko ('Matsko'), an
assistant principal at Harriton High School, informed minor
plaintiff that the school district was of the belief that minor
plaintiff was engaged in improper behavior in his home, and cited
as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor
plaintiff's personal laptop issued by the school district.

"Michael Robbins thereafter verified, through Ms. Matsko, that
the school district in fact has the ability to remotely activate
the webcam contained in a student's personal laptop computer
issued by the school district at any time it chose and to view
and capture whatever images were in front of the webcam, all
without the knowledge, permission or authorization of any persons
then and there using the laptop computer.

"Additionally, by virtue of the fact that the webcam can be
remotely activated at any time by the school district, the webcam
will capture anything happening in the room in which the laptop
computer is located, regardless of whether the student is sitting
at the computer and using it.

"Defendants have never disclosed either to the plaintiffs or to
the class members that the school district has the ability to
capture webcam images from any location in which the personal
laptop computer was kept."

The class includes all students who were provided with a webcam-
enabled laptop computer, and their families.

Defendants include the Lower Merion School District, the Board of
Directors of the Lower Merion School District, and Superintendent
McGinley.

The plaintiffs seek class damages for invasion of privacy, theft
of private information, and unlawful interception and access to
electronic information, in violation of the Electronic
Communication Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, the
Stored Communications Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Fourth
Amendment, the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Act, and Pennsylvania common law.

A copy of the Complaint in Robbins, et al. v. Lower Merion School
District, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00665 (E.D. Pa.) (Dubois, J.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/18/Eyes.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark S. Haltzman, Esq.
          Stephen Levin, Esq.
          Frank Schwartz, Esq.
          LAMM RUBENSTONE LLC
          3600 Horizon Blvd., Suite 200
          Trevose, PA 19053-4900
          Telephone: 215-638-9330


MICHIGAN: Home-Based Day-Care Workers Sue Over Paying Union Dues
----------------------------------------------------------------
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation attorneys, a group of Michigan home-based day-care
providers have filed a class action federal lawsuit against
government union officials and Governor Granholm's Administration
for illegally forcing them to pay union dues.

Carrie Schlaud and Diana Orr of Lapeer County, Edward and Nora
Gross of Ingham County, and Peggy Mashke of Ogemaw County -- with
assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation -- filed
the federal suit last week on behalf of all of Michigan's 40,000
home-care providers.

The suit challenges a scheme created by Granholm, Michigan
Department of Human Services (DHS) officials, and a union front
group called "Child Care Providers Together Michigan" (CCPTM) to
designate home-care providers who accept state assistance as
"state employees" and foist CCPTM union political
"representation" on them. CCPTM is an operation run by the United
Autoworker (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees (AFSME) unions.

Under Gov. Granholm's direction, DHS officials created the
"Michigan Home Based Child Care Council" to provide the union
bosses with an entity to deal with as the "management" of the
home child-care providers. Even though only 15 percent of the
40,000 day-care providers voted in the union certification
election, the CCPTM union hierarchy was granted monopoly
bargaining privileges and political representation of all the
home-care providers.

The DHS now siphons union dues from the providers' paychecks and
forwards the money into the union bosses' bank accounts. Recent
media reports suggest that in exchange for their special
government-granted privileges to force Michigan's home-care
providers under union monopoly control, the union bosses
benefiting from this scheme contribute to various pro-compulsory
unionism politicians in Michigan, including Gov. Granholm.

The class action suit challenges the forced-unionism scheme on
the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees
of free political expression and association.

"This scheme is nothing more than pure political payback; union
bosses funnel millions of dollars to the campaigns of pro-forced
unionism politicians, and the same politicians are forcing home-
care providers to pay tens of millions of dollars into union boss
coffers," said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the
National Right to Work Foundation.

The federal lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division.



MONSANTO CO: Suit Complains About Payroll Policies & Procedures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Monsanto and Seminis
Vegetable Seeds use an electronic timekeeping method that shaves
time from workers' paychecks and cheats them of overtime, a class
action claims in Ventura County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Cortes v. Monsanto Company, et al.,
Case No. 56-2010-00366952 (Calif. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty.), is
available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/17/Monsanto.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 840
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: 323-653-0086

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: 818-609-0807


PANASONIC CONSUMER: N.J. Suit Complains About Plasma TV Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that improper programs in
Panasonic plasma TVs cause rapid voltage fluctuations that
degrade picture quality, a class action claims in Newark Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hughes v. Panasonic Consumer
Electronics Company, et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as
Doc. 7777 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Feb. 12, 2010 (D. N.J.), is
available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/17/Panasonic.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Golomb, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK
          1515 Market St., Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 215-985-9177

               - and -

          Joseph H. Aughtman, Esq.
          FISCHER GOLDASICH & AUGHTMAN, LLC
          One Federal Place
          1819 Fifth Ave. North, Suite 1050
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-423-8504


SIGMA ALDRICH: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Complaint in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma-Aldrich Corp.'s subsidiary continues to defend a class
action complaint related to a 2003 explosion in a column at the
company's Isotec facility in Miamisburg, Ohio, according to the
company's Feb. 10, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The complaint was filed against a subsidiary of the company in
the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas.

The case was separated into these four phases:
  
     -- phase one - existence of liability,
     -- phase two - quantification of any compensatory damages,
     -- phase three - existence of any punitive damages and
     -- phase four - quantification of any punitive damages.
  
Class certification was granted to phases one, three and four,
but denied to phase two.
  
Compensatory damages for all plaintiffs must be established
before the case can proceed to the punitive damages phases.
  
The company has accepted responsibility for phase one, existence
of liability.
  
The case is currently in the compensatory damages phase, where,
because no class status exists, each plaintiff must individually
establish actual damages.
  
The initial phase two, compensatory damages trial for 31
plaintiffs was completed on April 27, 2007 with a jury verdict
establishing actual damages of approximately two hundred dollars
per plaintiff.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal staying further action on the case
until the appeal has been resolved.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the jury's verdict on
compensatory damages.

The Ohio Supreme Court has heard oral argument in December 2009,
with a decision expected in early 2010.

Sigma-Aldrich Corp. -- http://www.sigma-aldrich.com/-- is a  
leading Life Science and High Technology company.  The company's
biochemical and organic chemical products and kits are used in
scientific research, including genomic and proteomic research,
biotechnology, pharmaceutical development, and as key components
in pharmaceutical, diagnostic and other high technology
manufacturing.  The company has customers in life science
companies, university and government institutions, hospitals and
in industry.  Over one million scientists and technologists use
the company's products. Sigma-Aldrich operates in 38 countries
and has 7,800 employees providing excellent service worldwide.  
The company is committed to accelerating our Customers' success
through leadership in Life Science, High Technology and Service.


TC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Calif. Hourly Employees' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TC Global, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit filed against
Tully's Coffee in California state court by a former store
employee alleging that Tully's failed to provide meal and rest
periods for its employees, according to the company's
Feb. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2009.

The suit was filed in December 2007 and the company anticipates
that the plaintiff will seek class action certification on behalf
of all hourly employees in Tully's California stores.

The plaintiff is seeking damages, restitution, injunctive relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs.  Similar lawsuits alleging missed
meal and rest periods have been filed in California against many
other companies.

The company is investigating the claims and intend to vigorously
defend this litigation, but cannot predict the financial impact
to us of the litigation at this time.  The company believes that
Tully's has complied with all laws that require providing meal
and rest periods for its employees.  The company has accrued
$277,000 as of Dec.27, 2009 to defend this litigation.

TC Global, Inc. -- http://www.tullyscoffeeshops.com/-- formerly  
Tully's Coffee, operates and franchises a chain of more than 150
coffeehouses under the Tully's Coffee banner (used under a
licensing deal with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters) offering a
variety of specialty blend coffees along with baked goods,
espresso, and related supplies.  The chain has locations in more
than a dozen states, mostly in Arizona, California, and
Washington; more than 80 stores are company-owned, while the rest
are franchised.  In addition to its coffeehouse chain, TC Global
sells coffee and brewing supplies online through its Web site.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Kahn & Assoc. Files Throttle Control Suit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn & Associates, Ltd., a Northfield, Illinois law firm with
substantial experience in the prosecution of nationwide consumer
and investor class actions filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court
of Cook County on behalf of a class of Illinois purchasers of new
and used Toyota and Lexus brand vehicles containing the
Electronic Throttle Control Systems Toyota first installed in the
1990s. According to the complaint, Toyota failed to install
proper fail safe features to prevent sudden acceleration episodes
to which the system is prone, concealed the problem from the
public for many years and has not properly addressed the problem
to date. The complaint alleges that thousands of Illinois
residents have had their lives disrupted and lost time and money
because they purchased what was incorrectly presented as an
especially safe and reliable vehicle.

The complaint seeks damages for Illinois purchasers for their
overpayment in purchasing their vehicles, their loss of use due
to fear of sudden acceleration, their loss of time in dealing
with this problem and for loss of resale value. Punitive damages
are also sought.

Kahn & Associates has been actively engaged in commercial
litigation in federal and state courts throughout the United
States for more than 25 years. Kahn & Associates has been
appointed lead or co-lead counsel in cases by a number of federal
and state courts throughout the United States on behalf of
aggrieved consumers and investors. For more information, contact:

          Mark E. King, Esq.
          DAVID B. KAHN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          One Northfield Plaza, Suite 100
          Northfield, IL 60093-1211
          Telephone: (847) 501-5083


TOYOTA MOTOR: N.Y. Suit Says Prius Headlights Are Defective
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports that Toyota's
2006-2009 Prius hybrids have defective High-Intensity Discharge
headlights that shut off "at random intervals," according to a
class action in Manhattan Federal Court.  The class claims that
"Toyota is aware of the problems with the HID System" and sent
letters to Prius owners in January in which it "admitted it had
received numerous complaints about HID System failures but
attempted to blame the HID System failures on normal bulb
outages."

The complaint continues: "Toyota's pattern and practice of
withholding information about defects or failing to properly
analyze and fix major safety defects has now become highly
public.

"Prius drivers suddenly lose illumination from one or both
headlights while driving, but this is not the result of bulbs
simply burning out over time, as Toyota would have customers
believe.  This is evident from Prius drivers reporting that their
HID headlights that stop working will suddenly begin functioning
again without bulb replacement.  Similarly, those persons that
have had bulb replacement often, soon thereafter, experience bulb
failure."

Named plaintiff Elliot Fixler adds, "Because Toyota refuses to
inform its customers about the true nature of this defect, Prius
drivers continue to drive under dangerous conditions -- sometimes
unaware that their HID headlights could both go out regardless of
whether the lamps were recently inspected by a dealer or the
headlights were replaced."

The class claims that even replaced the Electronic Control Unit
of the HID system does not fix the defect.  It claims that Toyota
merely installs "replacement parts that suffer from the same HID
System defect as the original parts."

And it claims that Toyota profits from the defect by selling
replacement bulb, and that its January letter "appears to offer
reimbursement only for the difference between the suggested
retail price and a new reduced retail price for bulbs, and it
capped at $150 per bulb," without labor costs, or costs for more
problems from the defective system.

Mr. Fixler seeks class damages for consumer law violations, and
claims that Toyota's conduct "included deception, fraud, false
pretenses, and the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission
of material facts".

A copy of the Complaint was not available at press time from the
Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          150 East 52nd St., 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-838-7797


TOYOTA MOTOR: Accused of Inflating Share Price in New York Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a shareholders class action
claims Toyota inflated its share price from Dec. 22, 2006 to
Feb. 2, 2010, through misleading reports about its business
operations and prospects, in Manhattan Federal Court.

The Feb. 11, 2010, edition of the Class Action Reporter
identified another shareholder lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Plant Contaminated Water, Fla. Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Izzy Kapnick at Courthouse News Service reports that industrial
runoff from a Pratt & Whitney plant contaminated drinking water
with carcinogenic waste, residents of a rural community say in a
federal class action.  Eight cases of pediatric brain cancer were
diagnosed in the community between 2005 and 2008, revealing an
occurrence rate more than six times the state average, according
to Palm Beach County's Department of Health statistics.

Residents of the area known as the Acreage say runoff from the
airplane parts manufacturer's now-defunct production site made
its way into their drinking water.  Property sales in the Acreage
have plummeted since the Department of Health launched an
investigation into the heightened cancer rates last year, and the
lead plaintiffs say the contamination has devalued their homes.

"Pratt and Whitney's operations at the subject property ...
produced acidic and alkaline rinse wastewater and hazardous
wastes.  [Its] waste generated at the property [has] in some
instances been collected in percolation ponds ... and incinerated
sites," the complaint states.

"The waste includes oil, sodium cyanide, thorium-dispersed
nickel, construction debris, unknown solid waste, solvents,
solvent sludges, asbestos, fuels, paints, pesticide and herbicide
residue, benzonitrite, mercury, and commercial and laboratory
chemicals."

The complaint does not cite any local test results for drinking
water wells.

The Department of Health's only available assessment of the Pratt
and Whitney site at issue dates back to 1988, when the plant was
still fully operational.

Widespread contamination was noted in the site report: the
surface water concentration of chlorinated hydrocarbons
(industrial solvents and degreasers) was more than 3 grams per
liter, with levels of dichloroethane exceeding 6 grams per liter
in some samples.

According to the EPA, the plant had been dumping industrial
solvents into nearby "sanitary landfills" since it opened in
1958. The EPA adds in a site narrative that during the plant's
early years, a 2,000-gallon trichloroethane leak from an
underground storage tank polluted soil at an isolated location at
the plant.

Studies have shown that chlorinated solvents have relatively low
absorption in soil, and that under the right conditions, they can
persist for years in groundwater.

Polychlorinated biphenyls, which the class attorney, Craig Zobel,
also cites as a possible contaminant, were found at a maximum
concentration of 4 grams per liter of groundwater at the Pratt
and Whitney plant, according to the Department of Health site
report.
PCBs were used in jet fuel heaters at Pratt and Whitney's engine
test sites, Mr. Zobel's complaint states.

In the late '80s, the plant installed a remedial aeration system
in its wells and began pumping out polluted groundwater.  Three
acres of land laden with industrial waste was capped and vented,
according to the EPA's site narrative.  Confident the
contamination was under control, the state removed the site from
its list of priority cleanups.

The Department of Health's 1988 report found that the plant's own
drinking water was safe because Pratt and Whitney constantly
screened the onsite wells.  However, "the presence and use of
potable wells off-site ... [had] not been addressed," according
to the report.

Pratt and Whitney and the Department of Environmental Protection
have insisted that the contamination is contained, and that years
of remediation efforts have been productive.  The DEP claims that
the mostly abandoned 7,000-acre plant, about 6 miles away from
the center of the cluster, poses no discernible risk.

According to the Department of Environmental Protection, it's
unlikely that the contaminated water has migrated into the
residential wells.

Further complicating the case, the industrial solvents and
degreasers cited in the lawsuit, and those that were most
prominent in the Health Department's old report on the Pratt and
Whitney site, are not definitively known to produce primary brain
cancers.

According to government studies archived in the Hazardous
Substances Database, chlorinated solvents are hepatotoxins, which
at high levels of exposure (more than 100 mg/kg/day for
dichloroethane), destroyed the livers of lab rats.

Though some studies suggest the solvents cause liver and kidney
cancer, none note the presence of tumorigenesis in mammalian
brains.  Studies of occupational exposure have established
limited correlative links between chlorinated solvents and brain
cancer.

The Health Department's review of the cancer cluster shows that
there is a high prevalence of aggressive pediatric brain tumors
in the Acreage, but that rates of other tumors are not as
markedly elevated.

In the community's adult population, the overall cancer rate is
about 30 percent higher than the state's.  Whereas 1,055 total
cancer cases were to be expected in the Acreage from 1995 to
2007, based on the Health Department's statewide prevalence
rates, 1,369 were recorded.

Department of Health statements have previously suggested that
the Acreage's population data was skewed in early calculations,
and that as a result, the possibility remained that the brain
cancer cluster was simply a statistical outlier.

Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention helped
re-examine the cluster and sent a letter to the Department of
Health stating, "The main conclusion is that, even with the
denominator population ranging from 29,036 to 39,809 depending on
the method, [the rate] for female pediatric residents for brain
cancer remains statistically, significantly elevated."

Recent toxic tort cases against Pratt and Whitney have faltered.
In February 2006, a Connecticut Supreme Court judge dismissed the
claims of more than 50 families of Pratt and Whitney employees
who had suffered from aggressive brain tumors allegedly caused by
industrial solvent exposure.  The suit was time-barred, the judge
wrote, because it was filed more than 2 years after many of the
cancer victims had died.   

A copy of the Complaint in Reyes, et al. v. United Technologies
Corporation, Case No. 10-cv-80228 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/17/CancerCluster.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig R. Zobel, Esq.
          REID & ZOBEL, P.A.
          Esperante Building, Suite 1160
          222 Lakeview Ave.
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: 561-659-7700


UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corp. continues to defend a putative class action
complaint captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light
Company.

Fitchburg Gas is the company's wholly owned distribution utility
that provides both electric and natural gas service in the
greater Fitchburg area of north central Massachusetts.

A putative class action Complaint was filed against Fitchburg on
Jan. 7, 2009 in Worcester Superior Court in Worcester,
Massachusetts.

On April 1, 2009 an Amended Complaint was filed in Worcester
Superior Court and served on Fitchburg.

The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages
including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel
sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property
damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the
loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's
service territory in December 2008.

The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for
purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the
December 2008 Storm.

On Sept. 4, 2009, the Superior Court issued its order on the
company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part
and denying it in part.

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

Unitil Corp. -- http://www.unitil.com/-- is a public utility  
holding company. Unitil's principal business is the retail
distribution of both electricity and natural gas in New Hampshire
and Massachusetts, and the retail distribution of
natural gas in Maine.  Unitil has three retail distribution
utility subsidiaries: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., Fitchburg Gas
and Electric Light Company, and Northern Utilities, Inc.
(Northern).  Unitil's retail distribution utilities serve
approximately 170,000 customers in their franchise areas. Granite
State Gas Transmission, Inc. (Granite State), an
interstate natural gas transmission pipeline company, was
acquired by Unitil, along with Northern, from NiSource Inc. in
December 2008.  Unitil also provides energy brokering and
advisory services to large commercial and industrial customers
throughout the northeastern United States through its non-
regulated business segment, Unitil Resources, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Usource, LLC.


* Manatt Adds Litigation Partner Becca Wahlquist in Los Angeles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, has a new partner:

          Becca J. Wahlquist, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: 310-312-4000

in its Litigation division, based in the firm's Los Angeles
office.  Ms. Wahlquist comes to the firm from Kirkland & Ellis,
LLP, where she was a partner.

"I am excited about joining my new colleagues at Manatt -- the
firm's entrepreneurial spirit, coupled with its national
footprint and deep expertise, offer clients exceptional
representation."

Ms. Wahlquist focuses her practice on complex commercial
litigation, including contract disputes, business tort claims,
class-action cases, and putative class-wide arbitrations. She has
extensive experience authoring appellate briefs for numerous
federal circuits and state supreme courts, as well as the Supreme
Court of the United States.  Ms. Wahlquist has also successfully
argued before the California Court of Appeal.

"Becca has an impressive track record in and out of the
courtroom," said Chad S. Hummel, Esq., chair of Manatt's
Litigation division.  "Her wide-ranging experience and skill
successfully litigating complex business disputes will be a
significant asset to our clients. We are thrilled to have her on
our team."

The addition of Ms. Wahlquist closely follows the January 2010
addition of renowned trial and appellate lawyer Thomas C.
Morrison in Manatt's New York office.

"Manatt's stellar reputation and litigation profile set the firm
apart," said Ms. Wahlquist.

William T. Quicksilver, Esq., Manatt's managing partner and chief
executive officer, said Ms. Wahlquist's addition "presents an
opportunity to further enhance our strong national litigation
practice. We are pleased to welcome her to the firm."

Ms. Wahlquist earned her J.D., cum laude, from the New York
University School of Law and her M.A. in Literature from the
University of California at Los Angeles. She also earned an M.A.
in Literature and her B.A., cum laude, from Brigham Young
University.  Ms. Wahlquist was a law clerk to the Honorable
Louise Gruner Gans, New York State Supreme Court.

In March 2009, she received a California Lawyer Attorney of the
Year Award for an appellate victory before the Supreme Court of
California.

                About Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP -- http://www.manatt.com/and  
http://www.manatthealthsolutions.com/and  
http://www.manattjones.com/-- provides legal and consulting  
services to a global client base from offices in Los Angeles,
Orange County, Palo Alto, San Francisco, and Sacramento,
California; New York City and Albany, New York; and Washington,
D.C. Manatt includes Manatt Health Solutions, a healthcare policy
and strategic business advisory group, and ManattJones Global
Strategies, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary that develops and
implements strategies to expand client businesses and facilitate
their effective competition in global markets.

                            *********

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  * * *