/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100225.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 25, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 39


* Correction re Halliburton Co. Story in Yesterday's Edition

AMERICAN HONDA: C.D. Calif. Rejects Civic Hybrid Settlement
AMERICAN INT'L: Shareholder, But Not Bondholder, Class Certified
ENCORE MARKETING: Accused of Racketeering in New Jersey Suit
GAMESTOP INC: Accused of Not Reimbursing Automobile Expenses
HERTZ CORP: High Court Says HQ is Where Executives Are Located

J.M. HALLOWEEN: Sued for Reneging on $500 Grocery Coupon Deal
LOWER MERION: Ordered Not to Activate Student Laptop Web Cams
ORSU METALS: Ontario Court Approves Class Action Settlement Pact
PACIFIC INVESTMENT: High Court Rejects Class Certification Appeal
SEATTLE SUPERSONICS: Preliminary Approval of $1.6 Mil. Settlement

THIN CARE: Jillian Michaels' Defamation Suit Now Available
TOYOTA MOTOR: Lieff Cabraser Files Sudden Acceleration Lawsuit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Automaker's U.S. President Apologizes for Failures
WILTON INDUSTRIES: Recalls Bristol & Martha Stewart Tea Pots
ZENITH NATIONAL: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Suit Claims


* Correction re Halliburton Co. Story in Yesterday's Edition
In the Class Action Reporter's article yesterday entitled
"“HALLIBURTON CO: Class Loses Second Bid to Secure Certificatio,"
we misstated that the firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz were attorneys in the case.  Wolf Haldenstein has no
involvement in that case.

AMERICAN HONDA: C.D. Calif. Rejects Civic Hybrid Settlement
Chris Rizo at Legal Newsline reports that an otherwise dreary
Monday in the nation's capital turned especially bright earlier
this week for noted legal reformer Ted Frank after learning he
helped to keep nearly $3 million out of the pockets of trial
lawyers -- at least for now -- in True v. American Honda Motor
Co., Case No. 07-cv-00287 (C.D. Calif.) (Phillips, J.).  

Mr. Frank, who runs the Washington-based Center for Class Action
Fairness, had objected to a proposed settlement in a lawsuit
against American Honda Motors Co. Inc. that alleged the car
company defrauded thousands of consumers out of nearly $7,000
when they purchased the Honda Civic Hybrid instead of a
conventional Honda Civic.

Torrance, Calif.-based American Honda Motors Co. was originally
sued in 2007 over mileage claims it made about its Honda Civic
Hybrid, model years 2003 through 2008.

The proposed settlement had called for $2.95 million to go to the
plaintiffs' attorneys, while the 158,000 consumers they
represented in the California case would get unlikely-to-be-
redeemed coupons that could have been used toward the purchase of
a new Honda or Acura.

"These kinds of settlements are far too common," Mr. Frank told
Legal Newsline on Tuesday, noting that class action settlements
are supposed to provide meaningful relief to the class not just a
fat check to trial lawyers pursing the case.

Under the rejected settlement, to be eligible class members would
have had to "follow a contorted procedure to claim their
coupons," Frank's motion to the court said. He noted that the
settlement would have required coupon recipients to watch a fuel
economy video of unknown length, even if they no longer owned a
Civic Hybrid.

"This settlement recovers a pittance for the class, while
plaintiffs' counsel is paid $2.95 million -- in cash, not DVDs or
rebates," Mr. Frank quipped in his motion to U.S. District Court
Judge Virginia Phillips in the Central District of California,
urging her to reject the settlement.

In a 66-page tentative order, she did just that. Litigation in
the long-running case may now move forward, Mr. Frank said.

Class counsel in the case was the Chimicles & Tikellis LLP firm
in Haverford, Pa., Blecher and Collins of Los Angeles and the
Washington firm of Cuneo Gilber & Laduca LLP.

Mr. Frank's nonprofit Center for Class Action Fairness objected
to the settlement in December on behalf of class member Robyn
Major of Philadelphia, Pa.

Under the proposed settlement, also opposed by 25 state attorneys
general, the class members would have been able to choose between
two rebate coupons.

One would allow for a $1,000 rebate on the purchase of certain
new Honda or Acura vehicles before Oct. 31, 2011, if the class
member trades in their Civic Hybrid; or they could get a coupon
that allows a $500 rebate with no trade-in requirement.

A third option allowed class members to receive $100, but only if
the class member complained about fuel economy to Honda before
March of last year.

"Class members who are signed into a long-term lease or who
simply cannot afford to buy a new car are barred from any benefit
whatsoever," Mr. Frank argued in court papers.

Objecting to the proposed settlement were the attorneys general
from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and West

AMERICAN INT'L: Shareholder, But Not Bondholder, Class Certified
Grant McCool at Reuters reports that a U.S. judge on Monday
certified a class action lawsuit for stockholders, but not
bondholders, against American International Group Inc.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts denied a request by three Ohio
state public pension funds to certify the class of bondholders
against the giant insurer.

The lawsuit filed in 2004 against AIG, former chairman and CEO
Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, outside auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP and several other corporate and individual defendants
contends that false statements were made about the insurance
giant's financial assets.

Mr. Greenberg and another defendant General Re, already settled
the claims.  See Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2009.  

The lawsuit claims AIG made "numerous and repeated material
omissions and mistatements, including AIG's quarterly and annual
financial statements" from October 28, 1999, to April 1, 2005.

"Although we continue to believe that no class should be
certified, we are pleased that the court refused to certify any
bondholder claims and significantly limited the equityholder
claims," AIG said in a statement.

It said the firm, which was bailed out by the U.S. government in
the wake of the financial meltdown, had already paid $800 million
to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fund to compensate
investors, including those that are part of the alleged class in
this lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs in In Re: American International Group Inc
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-08141 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Batts, J.), are represented by:

          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-907-0700

               - and -

          Louis Gottlieb, Esq.
          200 Connecticut Avenue
          Norwalk, CT 06854
          Telephone: (212) 907-0872

and the defendants are represented by:

          Steven Ian Froot, Esq.
          570 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212)-446-2300

               - and -

          George Abraham Zimmerman, Esq.
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-2000

ENCORE MARKETING: Accused of Racketeering in New Jersey Suit
Courthouse News Service reports that ProFlowers, Encore Marketing
International, EasySaver Rewards, and Provide Commerce
surreptitiously and fraudulently charge monthly fees to people
who order from them, a class action claims in Newark Federal

A copy of the Complaint in Herbst v. Encore Marketing
International Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as
Doc. 7821 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Feb. 19, 2010 (D. N.J.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:
          Jay J. Rice, Esq.
          Elliott L. Pell, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: 973-618-0400

GAMESTOP INC: Accused of Not Reimbursing Automobile Expenses
Anthony Daniel, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. GameStop Corp., Case No. BC432231 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty. Feb. 19, 2010), accuses the retailer of failing
to reimburse store managers and assistant managers for their out-
of-pocket expenses for the use of their personal vehicles as a
requirement of employment, in violation of the California Labor

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caleb H. Liang, Esq.
          George R. Kingsley, Esq.
          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: 818-990-8300

HERTZ CORP: High Court Says HQ is Where Executives Are Located
The Associated Press reports that the U.S, Supreme Court ruled
Tuesday in Hertz v. Friend, No. 08-1107 (U.S.), that a
corporation's principal place of business is where the company's
executives work, not where the company's products are sold.

The unanimous ruling by the high court likely will make it harder
to sue out-of-state corporations in state courts, which are
considered friendlier to class-action lawsuits than are federal

Hertz Corp. was sued in California state court by employees there
seeking unpaid overtime and vacation wages. But the company,
which keeps its headquarters in New Jersey, wanted the trial
moved to federal court since the plaintiff and defendant would be
from two different states.

A federal judge sent the case back to state court, saying that
because most of Hertz's business was done in California, that was
the company's principal place of business, and the class action
lawsuit should be heard there.  The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco agreed in Hertz v. Friend,
et al., 297 Fed. Appx. 690, No. 08-80011 (9th Cir.).  

The Supreme Court overturned that decision, sending the case back
to federal court.

"We conclude that the phrase 'principal place of business' refers
to the place where the corporation's high level officers direct,
control and coordinate the corporation's activities," Justice
Stephen Breyer wrote. "Lower federal courts have often
metaphorically called that place the corporation's 'nerve
center.' We believe that the 'nerve center' will typically be
found at a corporation's headquarters."

Before the High Court, Hertz is represented by:

          Frank B. Shuster, Esq.
          230 Peachtree St., NW, Suite 2400
          Atlanta, GA  30303-1557
          Telephone: (404) 525-8622

and the Respondents are represented by:

          Robert J. Stein III, Esq.
          1 MacArthur Place, Suite 200
          Santa Ana, CA  92707
          Telephone: (714) 852-6837

The trial court proceeding is Friend, et al. v. The Hertz
Corporation, Case No. 07-cv-05222 (N.D. Calif.) (Chen, J.).

J.M. HALLOWEEN: Sued for Reneging on $500 Grocery Coupon Deal
Qiana Carswell, individually and on behalf of a class v. J.M.
Halloween Sales, Inc., dba Mattress Zone Outlet, Docket No. 2010-
CH-07533 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Feb. 22, 2010), asserts breach of
contract claims and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act, 815 ILCS 502/2.  Ms. Carswell says that Mattress Zone Outlet
advertised in 2009 that she'd receive a $500 grocery coupon if
she made a $599 purchase.  She made the $599 purchase.  She
received the $500 coupon.  She was then told she'd need to buy
more merchandise.  She was then told that the coupon was
worthless because BBZ Resource Management, Inc., dba
ClaimYourGroceries.com went bankrupt.  

Ms. Carswell is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq.
          120 S. LaSalle St., 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200

LOWER MERION: Ordered Not to Activate Student Laptop Web Cams
Jeff Schreiber at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge late Monday ordered Lower Merion School District not to
activate "any and all Web cams embedded in laptop computers
issued to students," nor to take remote screen shots from them;
and to preserve evidence; but not to contact any students or
parents about the issues raised by a federal class action the
families have filed.  The class action came after a family
claimed that 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 Web cam
embedded in minor plaintiff's personal laptop issued by the
school district," according to the original complaint.

U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois late Monday signed off on a
Stipulation and Order signed by attorneys for the school district
and the putative class.

The class claimed in its Feb. 11 federal filing that Lower Merion
School District had spied on students and their 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 school district last year issued 1,800 or more laptop
computers to students at its two high schools.

Judge DuBois held the Monday hearing on the plaintiffs' motion
for an emergency restraining order and permanent injunction.

Mark Haltzman, attorney for the lead plaintiffs, Harriton High
School sophomore Blake Robbins and his family, filed the proposed
restraining order on Friday.

Judge DuBois' order covered Mr. Haltzman's major concerns, and
some issues raised by counsel for the school district in his
filing Monday.

The order addressed five points of contention:

     1. Lower Merion School District is prohibited from remotely
activating any webcams embedded in laptop computers issued to
students, or from remotely taking screenshots of the computers.

The school district told The Associated Press last week that
school officials had turned on students' Web cams 42 times in the
past 14 months.  The school district said it did so to try to
find missing computers, not to spy on students.  After Courthouse
News broke the story, the school district assured parents that it
would stop remotely accessing the students' Web cams, but Mr.
Haltzman sought the court order to be sure.

     2. While the putative class action is pending, the district
and its employees will not contact any students or families of
students who have been issued a laptop computer about the issues
in the complaint.

There are exceptions.  The district may contact families about
curricular and instructional matters, administrative matters not
germane to the controversy, disciplinary matters, guidance
counseling and report cards, so long as it is not related to
issues connected with the lawsuit.

The district's lead counsel Henry Hockheimer Jr. said in court
Monday that the school has been bombarded with questions about
the case.  Mr. Hockheimer said the school has a practice of
providing parents and students with district-wide e-mail updates
on matters of importance to the administration.

The updates, Mr. Hockheimer insisted Monday, are essential to
Lower Merion School District's continuing function as a school

"These are taxpayers," he said, "and the school district wants to
keep its constituency informed."

But Mr. Haltzman insisted in his motion on Friday and again in
court on Monday that the school district is providing misleading

Mr. Haltzman said that the day after the story broke, "The school
principal denied the allegations over the loudspeaker, and this
was before any investigation had been done."

Judge DuBois ordered that if the school district wishes to
provide an update on the pending action, a copy of any statement
it issues must be provided with six hours advance notice to
plaintiff's counsel, and shall be disseminated only with consent.

The school district is free to provide "new software, software
updates, or other such releases for the students' laptops ... but
only after receiving written consent ... from plaintiffs'
counsel, to ensure that such new software, software updates or
releases will not alter or destroy evidence that may be needed as
part of the litigation."

Both parties must assess whether any software updates have that
capability; if it is established that no harm can be done, then
prior consent will not be needed.

Most of the courtroom wrangling on Monday was to address that

The school district wanted to retain the ability to update
district software and computers without restraint, citing
concerns about viruses and other dangers.  The class counsel was
concerned that updates or other measures could result in
spoliation of evidence.

"We don't even know for sure what software they are using,"
Mr. Haltzman said.

     3. The school district will preserve all electronic data,
images and other media pertinent to the case.

     4. The school district may maintain its practice of "taking
possession of laptops that are currently possessed by students
with appropriate authorization only at the end of the school year
or in the events of breakage or other technical failure," but the
school district must work with forensic consultants on both sides
of the litigation in doing so.

The parties must also cooperate with law enforcement authorities,
the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI or the Montgomery County
District Attorney's Office with regard to preserving the data on
those laptops.

     5. Finally, the laptop in Mr. Robbins' possession will be
turned over to a third-party forensic consultant, and the hard
drive will be imaged via a mutually agreed-upon procedure.  That
consultant will also retain possession of the device throughout
the case.

A copy of the Honorable Jan E. DuBois' Feb. 20, 2010, Stipulation
and Order in Robbins, et al. v. Lower Merion School District, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00665 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:


Blake J. Robbins, Michael E. Robbins and Holly S. Robbins, the
Plaintiffs, are represented by:

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

Lower Merion School District, the Board of Directors of Lower
Merion School District and Christopher W. McGinley, the
Defendants, are represented by:

          Arthur Makadon, Esq.
          Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., Esq.
          Paul Lantieri III, Esq.
          William B. Igoe, Esq.
          1735 Market St., 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
          Telephone: 215-665-8500

ORSU METALS: Ontario Court Approves Class Action Settlement Pact
Orsu Metals Corporation, the London-based precious and base
metals exploration and development company, disclosed that the
settlement of the class action claim filed by Pysznyj against
Orsu Metals Corporation (fka European Minerals Corporation),
William G. Kennedy and James Cole on 2 June 2008 has been
approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  The
settlement will become effective on 22 March 2010 after expiry of
the 30-day appeal period.  Given that no class members objected
to the settlement, no appeal is expected.  In addition the
Company retains the right to cancel the settlement if too many
class members opt out during the 60-day opt out period, which
will commence no later than 5 April 2010.  However, it is not
expected that this right will need to be triggered.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 2, 2009, Orsu
Metals reached an agreement to settle the Claim for C$2.2
million, which is shared equally between the company and its
insurer, which was subject only to the approval of the court.  In
entering into the Agreement, neither the Company nor any of the
other defendants have made any admission of liability, wrongdoing
or fault in relation to the Claim.

The Claim relates to the announcement by EMC on 31 March 2008
that it was reviewing its accounting for derivatives to ensure
compliance with certain provisions of the CICA Handbook and that
it anticipated that such review would result in a restatement of
EMC's interim financial statements for the first three fiscal
quarters of 2007.  The plaintiff served the Claim against the
Company and its former CEO, William G. Kennedy, and CFO, James
Cole, claiming general and special damages in the amount of
CAD$50,000,000 and punitive damages in the amount of

PACIFIC INVESTMENT: High Court Rejects Class Certification Appeal
Doug Halonen at Pensions & Investments reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court Monday rejected without comment Pacific Investment
Management Company LLC's appeal of a lower court ruling granting
class-action status to a lawsuit claiming the money manager
illegally manipulated the futures market for some 10-year
Treasury notes.

Traders who filed the lawsuit claimed they lost more than $600
million in 2005 because PIMCO artificially raised the price of
the notes.

The Supreme Court denied PIMCO's petition for a writ of
certiorari filed in Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, et
al. v. Hershey, et al., No. 09-517 (U.S.), seeking review of a
July 2009 decision in Kohen, et al. v. Pacific Investment
Management Company LLC, et al., No. 08-1075 (7th Cir.) that
affirmed the granting of class-action status in Hershey,
et al, v. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, Case No.
05-cv-04681 (N.D. Ill.) (Guzman, J.).

"PIMCO's attempt to derail this suit at the outset is ill-timed,
ill-conceived and must fail,"  Appellate Court Judge Richard
Posner wrote in the Seventh Circuit's decision.

Granting class-action status in a lawsuit can create a huge
potential liability for a defendant, increasing the pressure on
the defendant to settle, Mr. Halonen says.

Mark Porterfield, PIMCO spokesman, said the money manager had no

Before the High Court, PIMCO is represented by:

          Gregory G. Garre, Esq.
          555 11th Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-2207

and Mr. Hershey is represented by:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900

At the trial court level, PIMCO is represented by:

          Miles N. Ruthberg, Esq.
          Robert W. Perrin, Esq.
          355 S. Grand Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234

               - and -  

          Paul V. Konovalov, Esq.
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 2000
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 540-1235

               - and -  

          Sean M. Berkowitz, Esq.
          5800 Sears Tower
          233 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700

               - and -  

          William D. Marsillo, Esq.
          Marilyn C. Kunstler, Esq.
          Philip M. Bowman, Esq.
          David Boies, Esq.
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8201

               - and -  

          Jennifer Tan, Esq.
          William John Nissen, Esq.
          Mark R. Johnson, Esq.
          Eric Henry Grush, Esq.
          Thomas K. Cauley, Jr., Esq.
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000

               - and -  

          Matthew L. Larrabee, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 262-4500

               - and -  

          David A. Kotler, Esq.
          William Gibson, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          Princeton Pike Corporate Center
          P.O. Box 5218
          Princeton, NJ 08543-5218
          Telephone: (609) 620-3294

               - and -  

          Blake T. Hannafan, Esq.
          One East Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 527-0055

               - and -  

          Michael T. Hannafan, Esq.
          One East Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 527-0055

               - and -

          Nicholas Anthony Pavich, Esq.
          190 S. LaSalle St., #850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 233-2189

and the Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 4800
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 631-8622

               - and -  

          Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          One North Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500

               - and -  

          Craig Essenmacher, Esq.
          500 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900

               - and -

          Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400

SEATTLE SUPERSONICS: Preliminary Approval of $1.6 Mil. Settlement
LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that a preliminary order
approving the $1.6 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit
between three former Sonics season ticket holders and Clay
Bennett's Professional Basketball Club ownership group was issued
last week by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Jones.

The lawsuit stemmed from allegations that the PBC failed to honor
its gaurantee to offer the fanes the same price and priority
seats for three years when they renewed tickets prior to the
2006-07 season at KeyArena.  See Class Action Reporter, Oct. 25,

A final approval hearing is set for April 29, 2010

THIN CARE: Jillian Michaels' Defamation Suit Now Available
As reported in the Feb. 12, 2010, edition of the Class Action
Reporter, a plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit in California
against Jillian Michaels, Thin Care International and Basic
Research, accusing them of false advertising of a weight loss
product.  And, as reported in the Feb. 23, 2010, edition of the
Class Action Reporter, Jillian Michaels, in turn, filed a
defamation suit against the plaintiff's lawyer for statements she
made to TMZ about the class action lawsuit.  

A copy of the Complaint in Michaels, et al. v. Harnett, et al.,
Case No. 100902653 (Utah Dist. Ct., Salt Lake Cty.) (Quinn, J.),
is available at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?542f

Ms. Michaels and ThinCare are represented by:
          James E. Magleby, Esq.
          Peggy A. Tomsic, Esq.
          Eric K. Schnibbe, Esq.
          170 S. Main Street, Suite 850
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: 801-359-9000

TOYOTA MOTOR: Lieff Cabraser Files Sudden Acceleration Lawsuit
Robert J. Nelson, Esq., of the national plaintiffs' law firm
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, on behalf of Sandra
Livingston of Roosevelt, N.Y., filed a wrongful death lawsuit
Monday seeking general and punitive damages against Toyota Motor
Corporation for the death of her daughter Tyrene Livingston.  On
October 26, 2007, Tyrene's 2007 Toyota Yaris suddenly accelerated
and crashed while she was driving on U.S. Route 30 in East
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  

Prior to the fatal accident, Tyrene Livingston was a promising 21
year-old graduate student who was pursuing her Master's Degree in
Education at the University of Pittsburgh.  Tyrene was a
confident and inspirational young woman who often helped others
and volunteered her time to assist disadvantaged students.

"Tyrene was a wonderful and loving daughter who was and is loved
by her family and friends.  She was a leader, and she was
ambitious, confident, encouraging, spiritual, unselfish, focused
and respectful," stated her mother Sandra Livingston.  "Tyrene
would always go that extra mile when it came to helping others.  
As a student teacher she made her students feel important and
special.  Her goal was to pursue a career in education,
ultimately to become a superintendent and make a difference in
the lives of young people."  

"The complaint charges that Toyota for years was aware that its
vehicles were susceptible to sudden unintended acceleration,
leading to fatal accidents," stated plaintiffs' counsel Robert J.
Nelson, Esq.  "Yet, Toyota never made any significant changes to
improve the acceleration and electrical systems of its vehicles,
in spite of the availability of several safe and inexpensive

"As difficult and painful as it is for me to go through this
legal process, I feel it is necessary to do so.  I hope that it
will prevent another tragic death," Sandra Livingston explained.  
"Tyrene will not be coming back to us.  Her death has been and
continues to be most painful to bear, and if Toyota is at fault
they should be held accountable and take responsibility for their
mistake and make sure that it does not happen again."

                    Allegations Against Toyota

The complaint charges that beginning in the late 1990s, Toyota
manufactured, distributed and sold vehicles with an electronic
throttle control system ("ETC").  Unlike that of traditional
throttle control systems, where a physical linkage connects the
accelerator pedal to the engine throttle, in the ETC system, the
engine throttle is controlled by electronic signals sent from the
gas pedal to the engine throttle.  A sensor at the accelerator
detects how far the gas pedal is depressed and transmits that
information to a computer module which controls the engine

When Toyota first introduced the ETC, it continued to include a
mechanical linkage between the accelerator and the engine
throttle control.  Beginning with the 2002 model year, Toyota
began manufacturing and selling vehicles without such a
mechanical linkage. Further, Toyota's ETC system fails to include
a failsafe measure, known as brake-to-idle override, that is in
use by other vehicle manufacturers.  The brake-to-idle override
instructs the ETC system to automatically reduce the engine to
idle whenever the brakes are applied without success.

"The complaint charges that the lack of these two safety systems
-- the mechanical linkage between the accelerator and the engine
throttle control, and the brake-to-idle override failsafe -- in
millions of Toyota vehicles, including the 2007 Toyota Yaris that
was being driven by Tyrene Livingston, played a direct role in
preventing Tyrene from being able to bring her car under control,
and ultimately led to her death," commented Mr. Nelson.

The complaint was filed in federal court in Los Angeles as two of
the primary defendants, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and
Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., are both California corporations with
their headquarters located in Los Angeles.  The complaint seeks
general damages as well as punitive damages against Toyota for
its failure to recall its vehicles due to a known, significant
safety defect and refusal to take any steps to prevent sudden
unintended acceleration accidents in order to increase its

The members of the legal team representing the Plaintiff in
Livingston v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-_____ (C.D. Calif.), are:

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000

                        About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a sixty-plus attorney
law firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972.
With offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, Lieff
Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice, which includes
representing persons injured and families of loved ones who died
in auto accidents. Since 2003, The National Law Journal has
selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms
in the nation.  

Lieff Cabraser represents persons across America injured in
accidents involving Toyota and Lexus vehicles that suddenly

If you would like to learn more about your legal rights visit:


or call the Firm toll free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to
attorney Todd Walburg.  There is no charge or obligation for
Lieff Cabraser to review of your case.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Automaker's U.S. President Apologizes for Failures
James Lentz, the president of Toyota's U.S. operations, appeared
before the House Energy and Commerce Committee Tuesday and
apologized for the company's slow response to the sudden
acceleration problem.  Mr. Lentz also said that there's no with
Toyota's electronic throttle control system.  Mr. Lentz's
testimony before the congressional panel is available at:


WILTON INDUSTRIES: Recalls Bristol & Martha Stewart Tea Pots
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Copco, a division of Wilton Industries Inc., of Woodridge, Ill.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 132,000 Copco and Wild Leaf
Tea Co. Bristol model and Martha Stewart Collection(R) Enameled
Steel Tea Kettles.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The handle on the tea kettle can come loose, posing a burn hazard
to the consumer.

The firm has received eight reports of the handle becoming loose
or deformed. One minor burn to hands has been reported.

This recall involves Copco and Wild Leaf Tea Co. Bristol model
and Martha Stewart Collection(R) Enameled Steel Tea Kettles with
enamel finishes in white, crŠme, blue, cobalt, sand, red and
green.  Pictures of the recalled product are available at:


The recalled teapots were manufactured in Thailand and sold by
mail order, online and by retailers nationwide, including Macy's
and Linens 'n Things from October 2005 through January 2010 for
about $35.

Consumers should immediately stop using these tea kettles and
contact Copco for a refund.  For additional information, contact
Copco toll free at (866) 255-9237 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30
p.m., Central Time, Monday through Thursday, and between 8:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Central Time, Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.copco.com/

ZENITH NATIONAL: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Suit Claims
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Zenith
National Insurance is selling itself too cheaply, through an
unfair process, to Fairfax Financial Holdings, for $38 a share or
$1.4 billion, in Los Angeles Superior Court.  One of the
defendants is former FBI director William S. Sessions, who has
served as a Zenith director since 1993.


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  * * *