CAR_Public/100301.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 1, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 41

                            Headlines

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Faces Amended Complaint Over $15 Checked Fee
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Refund Won't End Baggage Fee Suit, Court Says
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Appeal of Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Pending
BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: 1st Cir. Wants Oil Spill Class Certified
CALIFORNIA: Poor Areas Face More Teacher Layoffs, Suit Claims

CANANDAIGUA NATIONAL: Bank Wants Suit in New York Dismissed
CARACO PHARMA: Continues to Defend Securities Violations Suit
DEUTSCHE BANK: Las Vegas Condo Buyers Sue to Recover Deposits
GANZ USA: N.D. Calif. Dismisses Webkinz Antitrust Suit
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Automotive Filters Suits Still Pending

INT'L GAME: No Lead Plaintiff Yet in Securities Fraud Suit
INT'L GAME: Motion to Consolidate Two ERISA Suits Still Pending
KAISER PERMANENTE: Accused of Not Paying Overtime in Calif. Suit
LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit
LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Directors Face Suit Over Fertitta Pact

LOS ANGELES: 9th Cir. Dismisses Racketeering Class Action Suit
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Continues to Defend Sixth Amended Complaint
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Fairness Hearing in "McGreevey" Set for May
ROVI CORP: Plaintiff Appealing Dismissal of "Subscription" Suit
SCOTSMAN GROUP: Recalls 43,000 Commercial Ice Cube Machines

SOUTHWESTERN BELL: 5th Cir. Won't Revive Texas Antitrust Suit
TERRA INDUSTRIES: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Suit Claims
TOYOTA MOTOR: Lieff Cabraser Files Acceleration Lawsuit in Calif.
VESTIN REALTY: Gets Favorable Ruling in San Diego Class Suit

                            *********

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Faces Amended Complaint Over $15 Checked Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
AirTran Holdings, Inc., faces an amended complaint alleging that
the company conspired with Delta Air Lines, Inc., in imposing
$15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage, according
to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air and AirTran in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that AirTran conspired
with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of
checked luggage.  The initial complaint sought treble damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United
States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on
domestic flights beginning Dec. 5, 2008.

Subsequent to the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other
nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class
actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta,
Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada.  All of the
cases were consolidated before a single judge in Atlanta.

An amended complaint filed in February 2010 in the consolidated
action broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and
AirTran also cut capacity on competitive routes and raised
prices.  The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief against a
broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities and attorneys
fees.

AirTran Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.airtran.com/-- conducts all  
of its flight operations through its wholly owned subsidiary,
AirTran Airways, Inc..  The company operates scheduled airline
service throughout the United States and to selected
international locations.  Approximately half of its flights
originate or terminate at its hub in Atlanta, Georgia and it
serves a number of markets with non-stop service from its focus
cities of Baltimore, Maryland, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Orlando,
Florida.  As of Feb. 1, 2010, the company operated 86 Boeing
B717-200 aircraft (B717) and 52 Boeing B737-700 aircraft (B737)
offering approximately 700 scheduled flights per day to 63
locations in the United States, including San Juan, Puerto Rico,
and to Orangestad, Aruba, Cancun, Mexico, and Nassau, The
Bahamas.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the company
initiated service to seven domestic locations and initiated
service to three international destinations.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Refund Won't End Baggage Fee Suit, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that American
Airlines can't "pick off" a class action simply by refunding a
woman's $40 baggage fee after a canceled flight, an Illinois
appeals court ruled.

Andrea Barber filed a class action against the airline when her
flight to Chicago's O'Haire Airport to White Plains, N.Y., was
canceled.  Ms. Barber claimed that because she refused to take
another flight, the ticket agent would not refund her fee.

After Ms. Barber sued, American refunded her fee.  That was
enough to satisfy the trial court, which dismissed the case as
moot.   

Judge Robert Gordon saw things differently on appeal and reversed
the decision.  He ruled that American could not "pick off" the
lawsuit simply by refunding the fee.

"By seeking discovery promptly and filing a motion to compel it,
plaintiff exercised the required reasonable diligence in pursuing
her class action claim," Judge Gordon wrote.

"Thus, defendant's unilateral act of crediting plaintiff's credit
card did not make plaintiff's claim moot," he added.


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Appeal of Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud
class action against Authentidate Holding Corp. and certain of
its current and former officers and directors remains pending in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 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.

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class
action complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the company and certain
of current and former officers and directors.  The plaintiffs in
these actions allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the
company failed to disclose that the U.S. Postal Service could
cancel its August 2002 contract with it if the company did not
meet certain performance metrics, and when it disclosed in 2005
that the USPS could cancel its contract because the company had
not met those performance metrics, the market price of its stock
declined.  The class-action complaints seek unspecified monetary
damages.

Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders filed motions
seeking to consolidate the class actions and to be appointed a
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

On Oct. 5, 2005, the court consolidated the class actions as "In
re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05
Civ. 5323 (LTS)," and appointed the Illinois State Board of
Investment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in January
2006, asserting the same claims as the prior complaints and also
alleged that the company violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting that it possessed certain patentable technology.

In July 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety.  Certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and the
plaintiffs were given leave to replead those claims, which were
not dismissed with prejudice.

In August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which does not assert any claims relating to the company's
patents, but which otherwise is substantially similar to the
prior complaint.  The second amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages.

The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on Nov.
13, 2006.

On March 26, 2009, the company reported that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with
prejudice the shareholder class actions filed against the company
and certain of its current and former directors and former
officers.

On April 24, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of
the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

A hearing in the case was held before the Second Circuit on
Feb. 3, 2010.

The suit is In Re: Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-05323 (S.D.N.Y.)(Swain, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard William Gonnello, Esq.
         Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
         Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
         Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
         280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-894-7200
         Fax: 212-894-7272
         E-mail: rgonnello@entwistle-law.com
                 aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
                 jwhitman@entwistle-law.com

              - and -

         Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Irwin Howard Warren, Esq.
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: 212-310-8000
         Fax: 212-833-3148
         E-mail: irwin.warren@weil.com


BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: 1st Cir. Wants Oil Spill Class Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonya Angelica Diehn at Courthouse News Service reports that the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ordered a
federal judge to reconsider his refusal to certify a class of
Massachusetts property owners affected by an oil spill, saying
his "spare treatment" of facts requires another look.

A 2003 spill from a fuel tanker tugged by the Bouchard
Transportation Co. released about 98,000 barrels of fuel oil on
about 90 miles of shore along Buzzards Bay.  Property owners sued
for liability, nuisance and damages in 2006.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro denied the property owners'
request for class certification, agreeing with the transportation
company that each individual plaintiff must show specific damages
to their property.

But the Boston-based appeals court said the plaintiffs showed
enough evidence of common issues to prevent outright dismissal of
their request for class certification.  Mass tort does not
necessarily require every plaintiff to show specific entitlement
to recovery, Chief Judge Sandra Lynch wrote for the three-judge
panel.

With most damages falling in the $12,000 to $39,000 range,
individual legal fights may not be worthwhile, especially
considering the probable need for expert witnesses, the ruling
states.

An extensive system detailing the degree of oil discharged in
specific zones during cleanup could be used in a class action,
the court added.

The 1st Circuit vacated and remanded the issue of class
certification for further fact-finding.

A copy of the decision in Gintis, et al. v. Bouchard
Transportation Company, Inc., et al., No. 09-1717 (1st Cir.), is
available at:

     http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-1717P-01A.pdf

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:
          
          Jason B. Adkins, Esq.
          John Peter Zavez, Esq,
          Noah Rosmarin, Esq.
          ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C.
          90 Canal St., Suite 500
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: 617-367-1040

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:
          
          Ronald W. Zdrojeski, Esq.
          Linda L. Morkan, Esq.
          Peter R. Knight, Esq.
          ROBINSON & COLE, LLP
          One Boston Place, 25th Floor
          Boston, MA 02108-4404
          Telephone: 617-557-5900

               - and -

          Austin P. Olney, Esq.
          Robert G. Goulet, Esq.
          Christopher DeMayo, Esq.
          DEWEY & LEBOEUF, LLP
          260 Franklin St.
          Boston, MA 02110  
          Telephone: 617-748-6800


CALIFORNIA: Poor Areas Face More Teacher Layoffs, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal class action claims that public school students in Los
Angeles are denied the basic education guaranteed by the
California Constitution as the district plans to lay off
thousands of teachers.  Due to California's budget fiasco, the
state expects to send out 14,000 reduction-in-force notices to
teachers this spring -- nearly 5 percent of the teaching force --
despite its rank as 46th in the nation in per-pupil spending.

Students at Samuel Gompers, John H. Liechty, and Edwin Markham
Middle Schools, in the city's poorest areas, with the highest
concentration of minorities, were hit the hardest, according to
the Superior Court complaint.  Already "denied the basic
educational opportunity guaranteed them by the California
Constitution," according the complaint.

Those schools expect to lose or already have lost 50 to 70
percent or more of their teachers.

Schools in wealthier areas face far fewer layoffs.

And the layoffs affect teachers who were prepared and committed
to serve the poor, minority, urban students, the class claims.  
Such schools have a higher percentage of non-English speakers,
less access to materials, and more students with learning
disabilities than schools in wealthier districts.

The class of students and parents say their schools had
"successfully recruited a critical mass of teachers committed to
staying at the schools and becoming a foundation for an
experienced, effective teaching corps."  But that has been
demolished, the class claims.

The class adds that because their schools had the highest
concentration of young teachers, they were disproportionately
affected by the reduction in force, which dismissed teachers with
less experience first.

Since layoffs began, the plaintiff students have been taught by a
string of substitutes.  Some students have had as many as 9
substitutes so far this school year, several of whom do not have
credentials in the areas they teach -- or no credentials at all,
the complaint states.

(Schools traditionally rotate such "permanent substitutes," as
they must pay them more per day after a certain period, so
disrupting students' learning saves the state money.)

Many teachers who are assigned to the poor urban schools from the
state's "Rehire List" quit after a few days or weeks because they
are unable to keep control of classrooms, or they don't want to
work in the poor areas, the class claims.

"Effective instruction is not merely a matter of whether a
teacher is able to teach the course content; it is also a matter
of whether the teacher is able to teach that content to the
students who attend that school," the complaint states.

In the past 5 years, Gompers Middle School, in Watts in South
Central Los Angeles, has had fewer than 15 percent of its
students perform at or above proficient levels on state
achievement testing, the complaint states.  Markham Middle
School, also in Watts, had only 13 percent of its students score
as proficient.

California expects to send out 14,000 reduction-in-force notices
by this spring, said Ramon Cortines, Los Angeles Unified School
District Superintendent.  California has about 307,000 public
schoolteachers.

Receiving a RIF notice does not guarantee that a teacher will be
laid off; many schools do not complete the hiring process until
late August.  But receiving a RIF notice makes teachers fear for
their job and seek a new one.  They become demoralized,
distracted and can't focus on teaching, which exacerbates an
already devastating situation, the class claims.

The class sued the State of California and the Los Angeles
Unified School District, alleging violations of equal protection
under the Constitution.  They seek an injunction, costs and fees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Rosenbaum, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 W. 8th St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-977-9500


CANANDAIGUA NATIONAL: Bank Wants Suit in New York Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Canandaigua National Corp.'s  principal operating subsidiary, The
Canandaigua National Bank and Trust Company, has filed a motion
to dismiss action seeking class action status alleging violations
of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, according to the company's
Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In October 2009, the Bank was served with a Summons and Complaint
filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
in an action seeking class action status alleging that the Bank
violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
1693 et seq. and its implementing regulations 12 C.F.R Section
205 et seq. by failing to post a notice on or at two of its
automatic teller machines advising consumers who transact an
electronic funds transfer of the fact that a fee may be imposed
for the transaction and the amount of the fee.

The plaintiff is seeking statutory damages on behalf of the class
and attorney's fees.

Damages are capped by statute at $500,000, exclusive of costs and
fees.

On Nov. 24, 2009, the Bank by its counsel moved to dismiss the
class action allegations.

Although settlement negotiations are ongoing, in the event a
settlement is not achieved, the Bank intends to defend the matter
vigorously.

No estimate of potential loss to be incurred by the company can
be made by management at Dec. 31, 2009.

Canandaigua National Corporation -- http://www.cnbank.com/-- is  
a bank holding company.  The company's principal operating
subsidiaries are The Canandaigua National Bank and Trust Company
(the Bank), Home Town Funding, Inc. and Genesee Valley Trust
Company (GVT).  The Bank provides a range of financial services
to its retail, commercial and municipal customers through a range
of deposit, lending, trust, investment, and insurance products.  
These products are delivered through the Bank's network of
community banking offices, which include drive-up facilities and
automatic teller machines (ATM), other remote cash-dispensing
machines, its customer call center, and the Internet.  The Bank
is a majority owner in a real estate investment trust (REIT),
which invests in a portion of the Bank's amortizing residential
real estate loans, and a portion of the Bank's amortizing
commercial real estate loans.


CARACO PHARMA: Continues to Defend Securities Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., continues to defend a
purported class action lawsuit alleging securities violations,
according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On July 17, 2009 and July 23, 2009, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the company and certain of its
executive officers.

The lawsuits allege securities violations related to the
company's public statements on U.S. Food and Drug Administration
compliance issues made between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009.

On Sept. 15, 2009, plaintiffs in both of the purported lawsuits
filed motions for consolidation of the cases and for approval of
lead plaintiff.

On Nov. 9, 2009, a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal was entered
by the Court dismissing one of the two cases, effectively
consolidating the cases.

On Jan. 13, 2010, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order
appointing the lead plaintiff and lead counsel for plaintiff.  

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. --
http://www.caraco.com/-- is engaged in the business of  
developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and
private-label pharmaceuticals to wholesalers, distributors,
warehousing and non-warehousing chain drugstores and managed care
providers, throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Las Vegas Condo Buyers Sue to Recover Deposits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that a group of
Californians who bought planned condos at the troubled
Cosmopolitan high-rise project on the Las Vegas Strip say
Deutsche Bank "perverted the class-action system" and
"railroaded" buyers into an unfair settlement that netted $64
million worth of deposits, all while "playing coy" as to whether
the project will even include condos at all.  "Defendants have
walked away laughing, having duped both the majority of buyers
and the court," plaintiffs claim in Los Angeles Superior Court.

About 39 condo purchasers in "one of the largest
condominium/hotel developments in Las Vegas history" say they
were recruited "with aggressive sale tactics" and told the
project would be finished by 2008.

But the original developer, 3700 Associates, defaulted on its
construction loan in 2007, and Deutsche Bank foreclosed on the
project, according to the complaint.

"Construction ground to a virtual halt," the lawsuit states, and
Deutsche Bank announced that the complex would not be done in
2008, but "would perhaps be completed sometime in 2010."

According to the complaint, "What Deutsche Bank did not reveal
was that they were considering -- and would later decide -- to
abandon the condominium component of the Cosmopolitan entirely
and develop it exclusively as a hotel."

Plaintiffs say they have tried to get their deposits, interest
and attorneys' fees back, citing the language of the contract
that calls for the refund of those monies "if their condominium
units would not be completed as planned."

But defendants have "flatly refused to return a cent, despite
facing multiple arbitrations and a class action lawsuit,"
according to the complaint.

Deutsche Bank then "conceived a fraudulent plot to keep tens of
millions of plaintiffs' deposits, even though they did not intend
to deliver their condominiums," the lawsuit states.

Plaintiffs say the plan was simple: "Defendants brazenly
concealed their abandonment of the condominium project from both
the court and plaintiffs," while stating the project would be
completed as planned and holding plaintiffs to their contracts.

Based on defendants' "malicious concealment, the majority of
buyers were railroaded into an unfair class action settlement,
accepting a mere 60.9 percent net, after attorneys' fees, of
their deposits and forfeiting the remaining 39.1 percent to
Deutshe Bank," according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs say they refused to accept the 60.9 percent of their
deposits, "when they knew that they were entitled not only to the
entire amount plus interest, but also to their attorneys' fees."

They say defendants have refused to negotiate, or even confirm
whether the Cosmopolitan will include condos when completed.

"If Deutsche Bank has always intended to complete plaintiffs'
condominium units, why would its counsel coyly refuse to confirm
this fact?" the complaint asks.

Plaintiffs seek at least $64 million for fraud and conversion,
along with attorneys' fees.  They also want the class action
settlement rescinded.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Park, Esq.
          LURIE & PARK
          Comerica Bank Building
          15303 Ventura Boulevard, 9th Floor
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818-380-3022


GANZ USA: N.D. Calif. Dismisses Webkinz Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that Ganz USA
convinced a federal judge in San Francisco to dismiss the
antitrust claims in a class action accusing the company of
forcing retailers to buy at least $1,000 in unrelated Ganz
products in order to buy its popular Webkinz plush toys.

Class members claimed that Ganz illegally tied its Webkinz toys
to other "core-line" products, forcing them to buy those products
through Ganz instead of other producers.

Each Webkinz toy is linked to an interactive Web site, called
Webkinz World, that allows users to take care of a virtual pet by
earning points through online games.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in San Francisco said the
plaintiffs needed to show how the allegedly tied products reduced
consumer choice.

"However, the complaint does not allege that consumers are unable
to purchase the competing manufacturers' products from other
retailers," Judge White wrote.

The judge also tossed an antitrust injury claim, saying the
alleged inability to stock store shelves with competing products
"does not amount to recognizable harm to competition."

"Plaintiffs do not allege that Ganz's conduct has in any way
affected the price of the tied products or even the overall price
for the bundled goods," he wrote.

Judge White also granted Ganz's motions to dismiss state claims
for consumer fraud under New York and Illinois law, and unfair
competition under California law.

A copy of the Honorable Jeffrey S. White's Feb. 17, 2010, Order
in In re: Webkinz Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-01987
(N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/24/Webkinz.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Nancy L. Fineman, Esq.
          Douglas Y. Park, Esq.
          Matthew K. Edling, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY
          840 Malcom Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: 650-697-6000


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Automotive Filters Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., continues to face purported class-
action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada over allegations that 12
filter manufacturers engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig
bids, and allocate U.S. customers for after-market automotive
filters, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Initially, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut on March 31, 2008, by S&E Quick Lube, a
filter distributor, under the caption, "S&E Quick Lube
Distributors Inc. v. Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:2008-cv-00475."  It is a purported class-action lawsuit brought
on behalf of direct purchasers who bought filters from the
defendants.

Parallel purported class-action lawsuits, including those on
behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by
other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the U.S., and
Canada.

The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district
litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice notified
Honeywell on Jan. 21, 2010 that it has officially closed its
investigation into possible collusion in the replacement auto
filters industry.

The consolidated lawsuit is S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v.
Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No. 2008-cv-00475 (Conn.)
(Arterton, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kerry R. Callahan, Esq.
          Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
          One State St., Po Box 231277
          Hartford, CT 06123-1277
          Phone: 860-548-2600
          E-mail: krcallahan@uks.com


INT'L GAME: No Lead Plaintiff Yet in Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has yet to
appoint a lead plaintiff in a putative securities fraud class
action against International Game Technology, 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.

The suit was filed on July 30, 2009, by the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 alleging causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act against IGT and certain of its officers, one of whom is a
director.

The complaint alleges that between Nov. 1, 2007 and Oct. 30,
2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price through a series
of materially false and misleading statements or omissions
regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects.

The Court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

International Game Technology -- https://www.igt.com/ -- is a
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and systems
products.  IGT maintains an array of entertainment-inspired
gaming product lines. In addition to its United States production
facilities in Nevada, it manufactures gaming products in the
United Kingdom, and through third-party manufacturers in Japan
and China.  The company derives its revenues from the
distribution of electronic gaming equipment, systems, services
and licensing.  It operates in two segments: North America and
International. North America consists of its operations in the
United States and Canada, comprising 77% of consolidated revenues
during the fiscal year ended October 3, 2009 (fiscal 2009).  
International consists of its operations in all other
jurisdictions worldwide, comprising 23% of consolidated revenues
during fiscal 2009.  In January 2009, it acquired Progressive
Gaming International Corporation.


INT'L GAME: Motion to Consolidate Two ERISA Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion to consolidate two putative class action
lawsuits against International Game Technology remains pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, 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.

On Oct. 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of participants in the company's employee pension plans,
naming as defendants the company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan
Committee, and several current and former officers and directors.

The complaints, which seek unspecified damages, allege breaches
of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, 29 U.S.C Sections 1109 and 1132.  The complaints allege
similar facts as the securities class action lawsuit.
The complaints further allege that the defendants breached
fiduciary duties to Plan Participants by failing to disclose
material facts to Plan Participants, failing to exercise their
fiduciary duties solely in the interest of the Participants,
failing to properly manage Plan assets, failing to diversify Plan
assets, and permitting Participants to elect to invest in Company
stock.

The actions are captioned:

     (1) Carr et al. v. International Game Technology et al.,
         Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and

     (2) Jordan et al. v. International Game Technology et al.,
         Case No. 3:09-cv-00585.

In October 2009, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the two
actions which motion is currently pending.

Defendants need not respond until the Court rules on the
consolidation motion.

International Game Technology -- https://www.igt.com/ -- is a
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and systems
products.  IGT maintains an array of entertainment-inspired
gaming product lines. In addition to its United States production
facilities in Nevada, it manufactures gaming products in the
United Kingdom, and through third-party manufacturers in Japan
and China.  The company derives its revenues from the
distribution of electronic gaming equipment, systems, services
and licensing.  It operates in two segments: North America and
International. North America consists of its operations in the
United States and Canada, comprising 77% of consolidated revenues
during the fiscal year ended October 3, 2009 (fiscal 2009).  
International consists of its operations in all other
jurisdictions worldwide, comprising 23% of consolidated revenues
during fiscal 2009.  In January 2009, it acquired Progressive
Gaming International Corporation.


KAISER PERMANENTE: Accused of Not Paying Overtime in Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Permanente stiffs
workers for overtime, a class action claims in Alameda County
Court, Oakland.

A copy of the Complaint in Washington v. Kaiser Permanente, et
al., Case No. RG10500062 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/25/Kaiser.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel H. Qualls, Esq.
          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          Aviva N. Roller, Esq.
          QUALLS & WORKMAN, LLP
          244 California St., Suite 410
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-782-3660


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Restaurants, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated
class-action lawsuit in Delaware following the announcement of
the company's merger agreement with Fertitta Holdings, Inc.

On June 16, 2008, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, as amended on Oct. 18, 2008, with Fertitta Holdings
(Parent), and Fertitta Acquisition Co. (Merger-Sub), which are
solely owned by Tilman J. Fertitta, the company's Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer, to acquire all of the
company's issued and outstanding capital stock.

James F. Stuart, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. et al., was
filed on June 26, 2008 in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  The company was are named as a defendant along with
its directors, Parent and Merger Sub.  Stuart is a putative class
action in which plaintiff alleges that the merger agreement
unduly hinders obtaining the highest value for shares of the
company's stock.  Plaintiff also alleges that the merger is
unfair.  Plaintiff seeks to enjoin or rescind the merger, an
accounting and damages along with costs and fees.

David Barfield v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. et al., was filed on
June 27, 2008 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  
The company was named in this case along with its directors,
Parent and Merger Sub.  Barfield is a putative class action in
which plaintiff alleges that the company's directors aided and
abetted Parent and Merger Sub, and have breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to engage in a fair and reliable sales process
leading up to the merger agreement. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin or
rescind the transaction, an accounting and damages along with
costs and fees.

Stuart and Barfield were consolidated by court order.

The consolidated action is proceeding under Consolidated C.A. No.
3856-VCL; In re: Landry's Restaurants, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation.

In their consolidated complaint, plaintiffs allege that the
company's directors breached fiduciary duties to its stockholders
and that the preliminary proxy statement filed on July 17, 2008
fails to disclose what plaintiffs contend are material facts.  
Plaintiffs also alleged that the company, Parent and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

No further developments were reported in the company's Feb. 11,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com/
-- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment
company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of
full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the
names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's Seafood
House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart House.


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Directors Face Suit Over Fertitta Pact
------------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Restaurants, Inc.'s Board of Directors face a purported
class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty for renegotiating
the merger agreement with the Fertitta Holdings Inc., according
to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 16, 2008, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, as amended on Oct. 18, 2008, with Fertitta Holdings
(Parent), and Fertitta Acquisition Co. (Merger-Sub), which are
solely owned by Tilman J. Fertitta, the company's Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer, to acquire all of the
company's issued and outstanding capital stock.

On Feb. 5, 2009, a purported class action and derivative lawsuit
entitled Louisiana Municipal Police Employee's Retirement System
on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated shareholders
of Landry's Restaurant's, Inc. and derivatively on behalf of
minimal defendant Landry's Restaurant's, Inc. was brought against
all members of the company's Board of Directors, Fertitta
Holdings, Inc., and Fertitta Acquisition Co. in the Court at
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, a breach of a fiduciary
duty by the directors for renegotiating the Merger Agreement with
the Fertitta entities, allowing Mr. Fertitta to acquire shares of
stock in the company and gain majority control thereof, and
terminating the Merger Agreement without requiring payment of the
reverse termination fee.

The suit seeks consummation of the merger buyout at $21.00 a
share or damages representing the difference between $21.00 per
share and the price at which class members sold their stock in
the open market, or damages for allowing Mr. Fertitta to acquire
control of the company without paying a control premium, or
alternately requiring payment of the reverse termination fee or
damages for the devaluation of the company's stock.

Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com/
-- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment
company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of
full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the
names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's Seafood
House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart House.


LOS ANGELES: 9th Cir. Dismisses Racketeering Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a
racketeering class action that accused the Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department of keeping people in custody too long and then
coercing them into accepting $500 to settle their over-detention
claims.

Lead plaintiff J. Avalos claimed he spent more than two months in
jail after being arrested on an Orange County warrant for
domestic abuse.  On the day of his release, a deputy sheriff in
street clothes allegedly had him sign some papers, though Mr.
Avalos doesn't speak English.

Mr. Avalos said he didn't understand that the papers were an
offer to settle his over-detention claim for $500.

According to Mr. Avalos, the offer was based on his weekly salary
as a janitor.  He said he received a check for $500 and cashed
it.

Mr. Avalos filed suit on behalf of himself and more than a
hundred others who had been detained to long and were
"fraudulently, oppressively, extortionately, or with threats
duped into compromising their monetary claims for sums far less
than those claims are worth."

The lawsuit alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution and the
RICO Act, an anti-racketeering law.

In August 2007, the district court granted the defendants summary
judgment on all claims, and the 9th Circuit affirmed.

The three-judge panel in Pasadena said Mr. Avalos failed to
establish that the officers or the sheriff's department have a
"policy, practice or custom of over-detaining inmates" needed to
allege civil rights violations.

"Avalos has failed to allege any improper acts by the named
defendants that could be construed as constituting a pattern of
racketeering activity and he failed to show any harm to a
business or property interest," Judge Consuelo Callahan wrote.

A copy of the opinion in Avalos v. Baca, No. 07-56511 (9th Cir.),
is available at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?554d

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Marion R. Yagman, Esq.
          Joseph Reichmann, Esq.
          YAGMAN & YAGMAN & REICHMAN
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: 310-452-3200

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          David D. Lawrence, Esq.
          Michael D. Allen, Esq.
          Justin W. Clark, Esq.
          FRANSCELL, STRICKLAND, ROBERTS & LAWRENCE, O.C.
          100 West Broadway, Suite 1200
          Glendale, CA 91210
          Telephone: 818-545-1925


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Continues to Defend Sixth Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
NorthWestern Corp. continues to defend a sixth amended complaint
alleging violations of the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act,
according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

The company is a defendant, along with its predecessor entities
the Montana Power Company (MPC) and pre-bankruptcy NorthWestern
Corporation (NOR), in an action (Gonzales Action) pending in the
Montana Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County,
alleging fraud, constructive fraud and violations of the Unfair
Claim Settlement Practices Act all arising out of the adjustment
of workers' compensation claims.  Putnam and Associates, the
third party administrator of such workers' compensation claims,
also is a defendant.

The Gonzales Action was first filed on Dec. 18, 1999, against MPC
(NOR acquired MPC in 2002) and was stayed due to the chapter 11
bankruptcy filing of NOR.  On Aug. 10, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court
approved a "Bankruptcy Settlement Stipulation" which permitted
the Gonzales Action to proceed, assigned to plaintiffs NOR's
interest in MPC's insurance policies (to the extent applicable to
the allegations made by plaintiffs), released NOR from any and
all obligations to the plaintiffs concerning such claims, and
preserved plaintiffs' right to pursue claims arising after Nov.
1, 2004, relating to the adjustment of workers' compensation
claims. To date, no insurance carrier has indicated that coverage
is available for any of the claims.

On Sept. 30, 2009 the Montana State Court granted the plaintiffs'
motions to file a sixth amended complaint and partially granted
the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Montana State Court excluded the fraud claims from its class
certification.

The new complaint seeks to hold the company jointly and severally
liable for the acts of MPC and NOR and alleges that the company
negligently or intentionally sabotaged plaintiffs' ability to
recover under the MPC insurance policies.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages from all
defendants.

Due to the individual nature of the claims, the company believes
the class certification was improper under Montana law, and the
company continues to believe that the new complaint violates the
bankruptcy stipulation.

The company has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State
of Montana with respect to these issues and intend to continue to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.  The company also believes the
sixth amended complaint violates the Bankruptcy Settlement
Stipulation and have filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court
seeking enforcement of the Bankruptcy Settlement Stipulation.  
The motion before the Bankruptcy Court is pending.  In addition,
settlement discussions concerning these claims are ongoing.

NorthWestern Corporation -- http://www.northwesternenergy.com/--  
is a provider of electricity and natural gas in the Upper Midwest
and Northwest, serving approximately 650,000 customers in
Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska.


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Fairness Hearing in "McGreevey" Set for May
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana has scheduled
a fairness hearing for May 2010 on the proposed settlement in the
matter McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Co., et al., Case
No. 2:03-cv-00001-SHE, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company is one of several defendants in a class action
lawsuit entitled McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Company,
et al., now pending in U.S. District Court in Montana.

The lawsuit, which was filed by former shareholders of The
Montana Power Company, most of whom became shareholders of Touch
America Holdings, Inc., as a result of a corporate reorganization
of The Montana Power company), contends that the disposition of
various generating and energy-related assets by The Montana Power
Company are void because of the failure to obtain shareholder
approval for the transactions.

Plaintiffs thus seek to reverse those transactions, or receive
fair value for their stock as of late 2001, when plaintiffs claim
shareholder approval should have been sought.  NorthWestern is
named as a defendant due to the fact that the company purchased
The Montana Power Company L.L.C. (now CFB), which plaintiffs
claim is a successor to the Montana Power Company.

The company is one of the defendants in a second class action
lawsuit brought by the McGreevey plaintiffs, also entitled
McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Company, et al., pending
in U.S. District Court in Montana.  The company was dismissed
from this lawsuit by the U.S. District Court in Montana in
February 2009.

In June 2006, the company and the McGreevey plaintiffs entered
into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the McGreevey
plaintiffs in all of the actions.  This agreement was approved by
the Bankruptcy Court in November 2006; however on Jan. 11, 2008,
the U.S. District Court in Montana suggested that the settlement
agreement was invalid and enjoined the plaintiffs from taking any
further action in any of these matters.

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's injunction to the
Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where a determination is
pending.  In January 2009, the U.S. District Court in Montana
asked all parties to submit memorandum discussing the party's
willingness to enter into a global settlement of the matter.

In October 2009, the parties to the various lawsuits reached a
global settlement involving various agreements, which must be
approved by the U.S. District Court in Montana and the Delaware
Bankruptcy Court.  In November 2009, the parties submitted
documentation concerning the settlement to the U.S. District
Court in Montana for its approval.  Approval of the settlement by
the U.S. District Court in Montana is still pending.

A fairness hearing concerning the proposed settlement is
scheduled for May 2010.  If the court approves the settlement,
the company will receive approximately $2.0 million from the
Touch America bankruptcy estate and have no remaining liability
in the litigation.

The suit is McGreevey, et al. v. Montana Power Co., et al., Case
No. 03-00001 (Mont.) (Haddon, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Wade Dahood, Esq.
          Knight Dahood Mclean Everett & Dayton
          P.O. Box 727
          Anaconda, MT 59711-0727
          Phone: 406-563-3424
          Fax: 406-563-7519

          Milton Datsopoulos, Esq.
          Datsopoulos Macdonald & Lind
          201 W. Main, Central Square Building, Suite 201
          Missoula, MT 59802
          Phone: 406-728-0810
          Fax: 406-543-0134
          E-mail: mdatsopoulos@dmllaw.com

               - and -

          Allan M. McGarvey, Esq.
          McGarvey Heberling Sullivan & McGarvey,
          745 S. Main Street
          Kalispell, MT 59901-2529
          Phone: 406-752-5566
          Fax: 406-752-7124
          E-mail: amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Kimberly A. Beatty, Esq.
          Browning Kaleczyc Berry & Hoven
          PO Box 1697
          Helena, MT 59624-1697
          Phone: 406-443-6820
          Fax: 406-443-6883
          E-mail: kim@bkbh.com


ROVI CORP: Plaintiff Appealing Dismissal of "Subscription" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff is appealing the dismissal of a purported class
action lawsuit against Rovi Corp., according to the company's
Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit is John Burke v. TV Guide Magazine Group, Inc., Open
Gate Capital, Rovi Corp., Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc.,
and filed on Aug. 11, 2009.  The plaintiff claims that the
company's former subsidiary, TV Guide Magazine, breached
agreements with its subscribers and violated consumer protection
laws with its practice of counting double issues toward the
number of issues in a subscription.

On Sept. 10, 2009, the company filed an answer to the complaint
along with a petition to remove the case to federal court.
On Dec. 18, 2009, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and
plaintiff has filed an appeal of that dismissal.

Rovi Corp. -- http://www.rovicorp.com/-- formerly Macrovision  
Solutions Corporation, provides a set of solutions that are
embedded in its customers' products and services and used by end
consumers.  The company's offerings include interactive program
guides (IPGs); embedded licensing technologies (such as
recommendations and search capability), standards based media
connectivity middleware, media recognition technologies,
licensing of its database of descriptive information about
television (TV), movie, music, books, and game content, and
content protection technologies and services.  The company sells
its products into the market verticals, such as service providers
(cable, satellite, telecommunications, mobile and Internet
service providers), consumer electronics (CE) manufacturers and
others.  In January 2009, the company sold its TVG Network
business and, in February 2009, it sold TV Guide Network and TV
Guide Online businesses.


SCOTSMAN GROUP: Recalls 43,000 Commercial Ice Cube Machines
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Scotsman Group LLC, of Vernon Hills, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 43,000 Scotsman(r) Commercial Modular Cube Ice
Machines (Modular Cubers).  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The solenoid, an electrical component in the product, can fail
and result in an electrical arc that can pose a fire hazard.

The company has received four reports of fires and 37 reports of
burned or melted components, resulting in replacement of machines
and component parts. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled machines are designed to be installed on top of ice
storage bins or ice dispensers, and typically are used in
commercial establishments. Model numbers begin with C0322, C0330,
C0522, C0530, C0630, C0830, C1030, C1448, C1848, C2148, EH130,
EH222, EH330, or EH430, and serial numbers of the recalled
machines within these model designations begin with 05, 06, 07,
08 or 09. Model and serial numbers are on the back of all
machines and, depending on the model, behind the machine's front
panel either in the lower right corner of the machine or on the
left side of the sheet metal wall that separates the larger
(equipment) compartment from the smaller (ice-making)
compartment.  Pictures pictures of the recalled product are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10147.html

Scotsman(r) commercial flake and nugget ice machines, commercial
undercounter cube ice machines, and residential ice machines are
not involved in this recall.

The recalled equipment was manufactured in the United States and
sold exclusively at commercial food service equipment
distributors and dealers nationwide from September 2006 through
December 2009 for between $4,000 and $14,000.

Customers should stop using the recalled ice cube machines
immediately and contact the company to schedule a free repair.  
For additional information, contact Scotsman at (800) 541-0520
between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday
through Friday or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.scotsman-ice.com/


SOUTHWESTERN BELL: 5th Cir. Won't Revive Texas Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that exclusive
contracts to provide phone, TV and Internet services to apartment
complexes and other multi-unit buildings don't violate federal
antitrust laws, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit ruled, affirming dismissal of a class action over the so-
called "Triple Play" services.

There are "too many competitive forces" involved in those
contracts to be "sufficiently isolated and thus economically
significant" under the Sherman Antitrust Act, according to the
three-judge panel in Houston.

Residents of a San Antonio apartment complex filed the class
action on behalf of people in five states who live in multi-unit
buildings that give AT&T the exclusive right to provide Triple
Play services of phone, television and Internet.

Class members said the agreements ran afoul of the Sherman Act
because they constitute an "illegal restraint on trade and an
attempt to monopolize the Triple Play services market."

For that to be the case, however, the class had to prove that a
multiple dwelling unit, or MDU, constitutes a "geographic market"
as defined in the Act.

The district court ruled that the class failed to prove this, and
the New Orleans-based appeals court agreed.

"It is undisputed that MDUs compete with each other for a
tenant's business," Judge Thomas Reavley wrote for the court.  
"Accordingly, an MDU owner has an incentive to provide the lowest
cost and highest quality services to attract a tenant's business.
It is therefore in the interest of each service provider to
provide lower-cost and higher-quality services than its
competitors in order to attract the MDU's business."

Also, before tenants sign a lease, they are free to shop around
for the best available Triple Play services offered, the court
noted.

"Therefore, the cost and quality of Triple Play services likely
play a factor in where a tenant chooses to live.  If a tenant
does not like the services of a particular MDU, that tenant can
make other living arrangements," Judge Reavley wrote.

The judge added that the average lease "rarely lasts more than a
year," so a tenant is never locked in to a specific contract for
long.

"[G]iven the competition that exists between MDU owners, the
competition that exists between service providers, and given the
highly mobile nature of today's society," he wrote, "we cannot
hold that a single MDU is so segregated as to be economically
significant and thus represents a plausible geographic market."  

A copy of the Honorable Thomas Reavley's Feb. 22, 2010, decision
in Wampler, et al. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, et
al., No. 09-50208 (5th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-50208-CV0.wpd.pdf

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          BINGHAM & LEA, P.C.
          319 Maverick St.
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: 210-224-1819

               - and -

          PULMAN CAPPUCCIO PULLEN & BENSON LLP
          2161 N.W. Military Drive, Suite 400
          San Antonio, TX 78213
          Telephone: 210-222-9494

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          MAYER BROWN LLP
          700 Louisiana St., Suite 3400
          Houston, TX 77002-2730
          Telephone: 713-238-3000

               - and -

          CLARK & CLARK
          3624 North Hills Drive, Suite 205 A
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: 512-241-1800

               - and -

          THE LAW OFFICES OF R. DAVID FRITSCHE
          921 Proton Road
          San Antonio, TX 78258
          Telephone: 210-227-2726


TERRA INDUSTRIES: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Terra Industries is selling
itself too cheaply to Yara International, for $4.1 billion or
$41.10 a share, shareholders say in Baltimore City Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Clark v. Terra Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 24-C-10-001302 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore City), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/24/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Yelena Trepetin, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN
          1925 Old Valley Road
          Stevenson, MD 21153
          Telephone: 410-332-0030


TOYOTA MOTOR: Lieff Cabraser Files Acceleration Lawsuit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Nelson, Esq., of the national plaintiffs' law firm
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, filed a personal injury
lawsuit seeking general and punitive damages against Toyota Motor
Corporation for severe injuries he suffered in an accident that
resulted from significant safety defects in a Toyota vehicle on
behalf of retired U.S. Army Colonel Harry Williams of Woodbridge,
Virginia last week.  On January 23, 2009, Col. Williams was
driving a 2009 Toyota Camry near the Jefferson Davis Highway in
Woodbridge, Va., when it suddenly accelerated and crashed.

Col. Williams, age 50, served our nation on active duty in the
U.S. Army for 26 years until his retirement in June 2008.  During
his service, Col. Williams earned two Master's Degrees and
received several awards and honors.  Since his retirement, Col.
Williams has served as Chief of the Congressional Inquiry
Division with the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison at
Headquarters, Department of Army, in the Pentagon, Washington,
D.C.

"The crash was a life-altering experience, causing major trauma
to my neck and back as well as a traumatic brain injury," Col.
Williams stated.  "My job requires me to be sharp, focused and
eloquent.  This incident has caused me difficulties in my work
and has negatively impacted my cognitive abilities, impaired my
ability to concentrate and speak eloquently, and affected my mood
and short-term memory."

"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.  "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
modifications."

                      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 throttle.  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, used 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 a brake-to-idle override
failsafe in the Camry that Col. Harry Williams was driving played
a direct role in the crash and injuries he suffered," commented
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
profits.

                    Description of the Accident

Retired Army Col. Harry Williams is a safe driver with an
excellent driving record of more than 30 years.  Prior to the
accident, Col. Williams rented a 2009 Toyota Camry from
Enterprise-Rent-A-Car.  

On January 23, 2009, at approximately 7:30 a.m., Col. Williams,
wearing his seat belt, was driving at a safe rate of speed,
proceeding eastbound on Cardinal Drive in Woodbridge, Virginia.  
As he reached the intersection of Cardinal Drive and Jefferson
Davis Highway, the Camry suddenly accelerated at a high rate of
speed.  Col. Williams was unable to stop the vehicle by braking.  

The Camry hit a 2005 Dodge Caravan that was attempting to make a
left hand turn from Neabsco Road onto southbound Jefferson Davis
Highway.  As a result of the collision, Col. Williams suffered a
loss of consciousness and sustained serious injuries, including a
traumatic brain injury, as well as neck, back, and leg injuries.  
Residual symptoms of the traumatic brain injury continue to
affect all aspects of Col. Williams' daily life.

The members of the legal team representing the Plaintiff in
Williams v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-01366 (C.D. Calif.) (Wu, J.), are:

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          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
accelerated.  

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

   http://www.usautoinjurylaw.com/cases/defects/acceleration/toyota-lexus.htm

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.


VESTIN REALTY: Gets Favorable Ruling in San Diego Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Vestin Mortgage, Inc., the manager of Vestin Realty Mortgage I,
Inc. (VRTA), and Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. (VRTB), said
that the California Superior Court ruled in favor of Vestin in
its San Diego class action lawsuit, according to the Feb. 12,
2010, Form 8-K filings of VRTA and VRTB with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit alleged that Vestin had engaged in a "roll up" when
the companies merged the two funds into real estate investment
trusts in 2006.

The lawsuit claimed that the dissenters, those who voted against
the mergers that created VRTA and VRTB, were entitled to roll-up
rights.

Michael V. Shustek, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President of both REITs, said "We are obviously very pleased with
the court's decision.  When we began the merger process, Vestin
engaged experienced and respected legal and accounting firms and
followed the Securities and Exchange Commission procedures
diligently.  We were always confident in our position that the
mergers were not roll ups and the court agreed with us"

"This case continued for three and a half years and has been a
significant expense to our shareholders."

"There is currently pending in Nevada a related case alleging
essentially the same core claims that were made in the class
action lawsuit.  While the plaintiffs in the Nevada case opted
out of the class action in favor of pursuing their own lawsuit,
the claims arise from the same core argument - that the mergers
resulted in a "roll up", giving the plaintiffs special rights.  
Now that a court has heard all of the evidence and ruled in favor
of Vestin, the company intends to continue to vigorously defend
the Nevada lawsuit."

Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
that invests in commercial real estate loans.  As of September
30, 2009, Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. had assets of
approximately $28.8 million.  Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. is
managed by Vestin Mortgage, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Vestin
Group, Inc., which is engaged in asset management, real estate
lending and other financial services through its subsidiaries.  
Since 1995, Vestin Mortgage Inc. has facilitated more than $2.0
billion in lending transactions.

Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. is a real estate investment trust  
that invests in commercial real estate loans.  As of September
30, 2009, Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. had assets of
approximately $110.7 million.  Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. is
managed by Vestin Mortgage, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Vestin
Group, Inc., which is engaged in asset management, real estate
lending and other financial services through its subsidiaries.  
Since 1995, Vestin Mortgage Inc. has facilitated more than $2.0
billion in lending transactions.


                            *********

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  * * *