CAR_Public/100311.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 11, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 49

                            Headlines

ARAMARK CORP: Accused in Calif. Suit of Double-Billing Consumers
BAXTER INT'L: Trial in ERISA Violations Suit Set for April
BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Plasma-Derived Therapies Suit
BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Heparin-Related Suits
CARDIONET INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Violations Suit

CERADYNE INC: Court Gives Final Okay to Settlement in "Vargas"
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Two Antitrust Lawsuits
COMCAST CORP: "Brantley" Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of Suit
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Penn.
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Oppose Certification in "Urban" Suit

CTS CORP: Named as Co-Defendant in "Iglesias" Suit Versus Toyota
DIAMOND FOODS: Stember Feinstein Investigating Walnut Ad Claims
E&J GALLO: Sued in Calif. Over Phony French Pinot Noir
EQUIFAX INC: Settlement in "Gillespie" Suit Gets Final Approval
GLOBAL CROSSING: Suit Against Three Subsidiaries Dismissed

HARTFORD LIFE: Continues to Defend RICO-Violations Suit
HURON CONSULTING: Faces Consolidated Complaint Over Restatements
ISILON SYSTEMS: W.D. Wash. Approves Securities Case Settlement
LENDER PROCESSING: Faces "Schneider" Suit in Florida
LIZ CLAIBORNE: Has Yet to Respond to "Tyler" Securities Lawsuit

MARTIN COUNTY: Fla. Ct. Won't Certify Class in Airport Noise Case
MDL 2151: Mar. 25 JPMDL Hearing on Centralization of Toyota Cases
MERCK & CO: Accused of Manipulating Temodar Patent Process
MICROSOFT CANADA: B.C. Sup. Ct. Certifies Class in Antitrust Case
NEW ORLEANS: La.Sup.Ct. Declines to Disrupt School Workers' Suit

ONEOK INC: Plaintiff's Appeal on Decertification Still Pending
POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY: Officers Sue in N.D. Ill. for Pension Credit
STEC INC: Faces Consolidated Suit in California
ZENITH NATIONAL: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Del. Suit Says

                            *********

ARAMARK CORP: Accused in Calif. Suit of Double-Billing Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Aramark double billed for
food and drink in box suites at Angel Stadium during the 2009
baseball season, a class action claims in Orange County Court,
Anaheim.

A copy of the Complaint in Reynoso, et al. v. Aramark Corp., et
al., Case No. 30-2010-00349867 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)
(Bauer, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/08/Aramark.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Herbert Hafif, Esq.
          Greg K. Hafif, Esq.
          Charles E. Hill, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT HAFIF, APC
          269 West Bonita Ave.
          Claremont, CA 91711-4784
          Telephone: 909-624-1671


BAXTER INT'L: Trial in ERISA Violations Suit Set for April
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has
scheduled a trial for April 2010 in a purported class action
against Baxter International Inc., according to the company's
Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In October 2004, a purported class action was filed against
Baxter and its current Chief Executive Officer and then current
Chief Financial Officer and their predecessors for alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended.

Plaintiff alleges that these defendants, along with the
Administrative and Investment Committees of the company's 401(k)
plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants
by offering Baxter common stock as an investment option in each
of the plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004.

In March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan
participants who elected to acquire Baxter common stock through
the plans between January 2001 and the present.

In April 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
denied Baxter's interlocutory appeal and upheld the trial court's
denial of Baxter's motion to dismiss.

On Sept. 28, 2009, the trial court partially granted Baxter's
motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing claims related
to the 2004 timeframe.

Fact discovery has been completed in this matter and expert
discovery is proceeding.

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the
lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter
applies a combination of expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance
patient care worldwide.


BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Plasma-Derived Therapies Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc., continues to defend a suit alleging
that it artificially increased the price of plasma-derived
therapies, according to the company's Feb. 23, 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 others, in eleven lawsuits
brought in various U.S. federal courts alleging that Baxter and
certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output and
artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since
2004.

The complaints attempt to state a claim for class action relief
and in some cases demand treble damages.  These cases have been
consolidated for pretrial proceedings before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the
lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter
applies a combination of expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance
patient care worldwide.


BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Heparin-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc., continues to defend purported class
actions over the recall of heparin products, according to the
company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In connection with the recall of heparin products in the United
States, approximately 650 lawsuits, some of which are purported
class actions, have been filed alleging that plaintiffs suffered
various reactions to a heparin contaminant, in some cases
resulting in fatalities.

In June 2008, a number of these federal cases were consolidated
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for
pretrial case management under the Multi District Litigation
rules.  A trial date for the first of these cases is scheduled
for early 2011.

In September 2008, a number of state court cases were
consolidated in Cook County, Illinois for pretrial case
management, with a scheduled trial date for the first of these
cases in January 2011.  Discovery is ongoing with respect to
these matters.

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the
lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter
applies a combination of expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance
patient care worldwide.


CARDIONET INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CardioNet, Inc., faces a consolidated suit alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to the company's
Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Commencing on Aug. 26, 2009, two putative class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania naming CardioNet, Inc., Randy Thurman and Martin P.
Galvan as defendants and alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaints purport to bring claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the company's common stock between April
30, 2009 and June 30, 2009 and between April 30, 2009 and July
10, 2009.

The complaints allege that the defendants issued various
materially false and misleading statements relating to the
company's projected performance that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of its securities.

The complaints further allege that the alleged misstatements were
revealed to the public on June 30, 2009 and July 10, 2009 when
the company made certain announcements regarding potential lower
pricing for commercial and Medicare reimbursement rates.

These actions were consolidated on Sept. 9, 2009 under docket
number 09-3894.

On Oct. 26, 2009, two competing motions were filed for
appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the
requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.

On Dec. 22, 2009, the Court appointed lead plaintiff, but denied
its request for appointment of lead counsel and required lead
plaintiff to file an amended motion for approval of its selection
of class counsel.

Lead Plaintiff filed their amended motion for appointment of lead
counsel on Jan. 15, 2010, was granted on Feb. 3, 2010.
Lead Plaintiff must file an amended consolidated complaint by
Feb. 19, 2010 and the company has until March 26, 2010 to
respond.

CardioNet, Inc. -- http://www.cardionet.com/-- provides  
continuous, real-time ambulatory outpatient management solutions
for monitoring relevant and timely clinical information regarding
an individual's health. The Company is focused on the diagnosis
and monitoring of cardiac arrhythmias, or heart rhythm disorders,
through its core Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry (MCOT),
event and Holter services.  The company's CardioNet Monitoring
Center provides analysis and response for all incoming
electrocardiogram (ECG) data.  The company provides all cardiac
arrhythmia monitoring services for mobile cardiac outpatient
telemetry (MCOT) at this location.  The company has developed an
ambulatory, continuous and real-time arrhythmia monitoring
solution that represents advancement over event and Holter
monitoring.  In addition to MCOT, the Company offers event and
Holter monitoring services.  It provides cardiologists and
electrophysiologists who prefer to use a single source of
arrhythmia monitoring services.


CERADYNE INC: Court Gives Final Okay to Settlement in "Vargas"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Orange County gave its final
approval to the settlement of a purported class-action lawsuit
against Ceradyne, Inc., which alleged that the representative
plaintiff, a former Ceradyne employee, and the putative class
members, were not paid overtime at an appropriate overtime rate,
according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit, styled Daniel Vargas, Jr. v. Ceradyne, Inc., Civil
Action No. 07CC01232, was filed on March 23, 2007.

The suit alleges that the purportedly affected employees should
have had their regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating
overtime, adjusted to reflect the payment of a bonus to them for
the four years preceding the filing of the complaint.

The complaint further alleges that a waiting time penalty should
be assessed for the failure to timely pay the correct overtime
payment.  

Ceradyne has filed an answer denying the material allegations of
the complaint.  

A motion for class certification was filed on or about Aug. 11,
2008.  Ceradyne has filed an opposition claiming that there are
no common questions of fact that can be generalized across the
class.  It has also opposed the motion on the basis that the
Plaintiff has not established his suitability as a class
representative, particularly because he is a former employee
whose interests conflict with the current employees.

The motion for class certification was heard on Nov. 13, 2008,
and class certification was granted.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the court entered an order certifying the class.  
Ceradyne contends that the lawsuit is without merit on
the basis that the bonuses that have been paid are discretionary
and not of the type that are subject to inclusion in the regular
hourly rate for purposes of calculating overtime.

After a request for review by the Court of Appeals of the
decision to grant class certification, a day-long mediation
before a third-party neutral mediator, and an evaluation of the
cost of litigation and the financial exposure in the case,
Ceradyne agreed to provide a settlement fund of $1.25 million to
resolve all issues in the litigation.  The settlement
specifically states that neither party is admitting to liability
or lack thereof.

Ceradyne believed that based upon the cost of further defense and
the exposure in the case, it was best to settle the matter.

On Jan. 8, 2010, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.  The settlement funds will be paid to a third party
administrator on or before March 18, 2010.

Ceradyne, Inc. -- http://www.ceradyne.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets advanced technical ceramic products,
ceramic powders and components for defense, industrial,
automotive/diesel and commercial applications.  It operates
through six segments: Advanced Ceramic Operations, ESK Ceramics,
Semicon Associates, Thermo Materials, Ceradyne Canada and
Ceradyne Boron Products.  The company's products include
lightweight ceramic armor for soldiers and other military
applications; ceramic industrial components for erosion and
corrosion resistant applications; ceramic powders, including
boron carbide, boron nitride, titanium diboride, calcium
hexaboride, and zirconium diboride, which are used in manufacture
of armor and a range of industrial products; BORONEIGE boron
nitride powder for cosmetic products, and evaporation boats for
metallization of materials for food packaging and other products.  
Its products are sold into four principal markets: defense,
industrial, automotive/diesel and commercial.


COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Two Antitrust Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation continues to defend two purported class
action lawsuits filed by its subscribers in connection with the
company's certain subscriber exchange transactions with other
cable providers, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company was named as a defendant in two purported class
actions originally filed in December 2003 in the U.S. District
Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

The potential class in the Massachusetts case, which has been
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is the
company's subscriber base in the "Boston Cluster" area, and the
potential class in the Pennsylvania case is the company's
subscriber base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters," as
those terms are defined in the complaints.

In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain subscriber
exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in
unlawful horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek
damages under antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Philadelphia Cluster subscribers were certified in May
2007 while classes of Chicago Cluster subscribers were certified
in October 2007.

In March 2009, as a result of a Third Circuit Court of Appeals
decision clarifying the standards for class certification, the
order certifying the Philadelphia Cluster class was vacated
without prejudice to the plaintiffs filing a new motion.

In January 2010, in its decision on the plaintiffs' new motion,
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified a class subject to
certain limitations.  The plaintiffs' claims concerning the other
two clusters are stayed pending determination of the Philadelphia
Cluster claims.

Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider  
of video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable
services), offering a variety of entertainment, information and
communications services to residential and commercial customers.  
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served
approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high-
speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and
passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and
the District of Columbia.  Comcast operates in two segments:
Cable and Programming.  The company operates in two segments:
Cable and Programming.  The Cable segment, which generates
approximately 95% of the company's consolidated revenue, manages
and operates cable systems in the United States.  The Cable
segment also includes the operations of its regional sports
networks.  The Programming segment consists primarily of its
consolidated national programming networks, E!, Golf Channel,
VERSUS, G4 and Style.


COMCAST CORP: "Brantley" Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the suit styled
Rob Brantley et al v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al., remains pending
in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the
company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied certain certification motions in the purported class-
action lawsuit entitled, "Rob Brantley et al v. NBC Universal,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007cv06101," which names Comcast Corp.,
as a defendant.

The company was among the defendants named in the purported
class-action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Sept. 20, 2007.

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are:

       -- Rob Brantley,
       -- Darryn Cooke,
       -- William Costley,
       -- Beverly Costley,
       -- Christina Hills,
       -- Michael B. Kovac,
       -- Michelle Navarrette,
       -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and
       -- Joseph Vranich.

The defendants in the case are:

       -- NBC Universal, Inc.,
       -- Viacom Inc.,
       -- The Walt Disney company,
       -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Cable Inc.,
       -- Comcast Corp.,
       -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
       -- Cox Communiations, Inc.,
       -- The Directv Group, Inc.,
       -- Echostar Satellite LLC,
       -- Charter Communications, Inc., and
       -- Cablevision Systems Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video
programming have entered into agreements with the defendants who
distribute video programming via cable and satellite, which
preclude the distributors from reselling channels to subscribers
on an a la carte (or channel-by-channel) basis in violation of
federal antitrust laws.

They seek treble damages for the loss of their ability to pick
and choose the specific channels to which they wish to
subscribe, and injunctive relief requiring each distributor
defendant to resell certain channels to its subscribers on an a
la carte basis.

The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the
U.S. who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video
service provided by one of the distributor defendants.

In December 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case.

On March 12, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss, with
permission for the plaintiffs to replead their complaint.  On
March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs served an amended complaint.

The company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss an
amended complaint in April 2008.  In June 2008, the court denied
the motions to dismiss.

In July 2008, the company and the other defendants filed motions
to certify certain issues decided in the court's June 2008 order
for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  
On Aug. 8, 2008, the court denied the certification motions.

In October 2009, the Central District issued an order dismissing
the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs have
appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suit is Rob Brantley et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-06101 (C.D. Calif.) (Snyder, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
          Blecher & Collins
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-622-4222
          E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Arthur J. Burke, Esq.
          Davis Polk and Wardwell
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-752-2005
          E-mail: arthur.burke@dpw.com

               - and -  

          John D. Lombardo, Esq.
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513
          Phone: 213-243-4000
          E-mail: john.lombardo@aporter.com

               - and -

          Steven F. Cherry, Esq.
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6321
          E-mail: steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com


COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation continues to defend a consolidated suit
alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, according to
the company's Feb. 23, 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 in twenty-two purported class actions
filed in federal district courts throughout the United States.

All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings.

In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of
all plaintiffs in the multi-district litigation, the plaintiffs
allege that the company improperly "tie" the rental of set-top
boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust
laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California,
Illinois and Alabama.

The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment and seek
relief on behalf of a nationwide class of the company's premium
cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium
cable customers from California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania
and Washington.

In January 2010, the company moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama.

                     West Virginia AG's Case

The West Virginia Attorney General filed a complaint in West
Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that the company
improperly "ties" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of
premium cable services in violation of the West Virginia
Antitrust Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act.

The Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment
and restitution.

The company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for West
Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and
consolidated with the multi-district litigation.

There were oral arguments in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
in December 2009 in connection with a motion by the Attorney
General to remand the case back to West Virginia state court.

Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider  
of video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable
services), offering a variety of entertainment, information and
communications services to residential and commercial customers.  
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served
approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high-
speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and
passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and
the District of Columbia.  Comcast operates in two segments:
Cable and Programming.  The company operates in two segments:
Cable and Programming.  The Cable segment, which generates
approximately 95% of the company's consolidated revenue, manages
and operates cable systems in the United States.  The Cable
segment also includes the operations of its regional sports
networks.  The Programming segment consists primarily of its
consolidated national programming networks, E!, Golf Channel,
VERSUS, G4 and Style.


COMCAST CORP: Continues to Oppose Certification in "Urban" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation continues to oppose class certification in
the suit styled Urban v. Comcast Corporation et al., according to
the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The suit was filed on Feb. 15, 2008, on behalf of plaintiff
Robert Urban.  Aside from the company, the suit also named as
individual defendants:

       -- Brian L. Roberts;
       -- Ralph J. Roberts;
       -- S. Decker Anstrom;
       -- Kenneth J. Bacon;
       -- Sheldon M. Bonovitz;
       -- Edward D. Breen;
       -- Julian A. Brodsky;
       -- Joseph J. Collins;
       -- Michael Cook;
       -- Jeffrey A. Honickman;
       -- Judith Rodin;
       -- Michael I. Sovern;
       -- Lawrence J. Salva; and
       -- Unknown Fiduciary Defendants 1-30.

The proposed class comprises participants in the company's
retirement-investment (401)(k) plan that invested in the plan's
company stock account.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in managing the plan.  Mr. Urban is seeking
unspecified damages.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in June 2008, and in
July 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On Oct. 29, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part
that motion.  The Court dismissed a claim alleging that
defendants failed to provide complete and accurate disclosures
concerning the plan, but did not dismiss claims alleging that
plan assets were imprudently invested in company stock.

In June 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to have the case
certified as a class action and the company filed a response
opposing that motion.

The suit is Urban v. Comcast Corporation et al., Case No.
08-cv-00773 (E.D. Penn.)(Bartle, J.).

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          Donovan Searles, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-732-6067
          Fax: 215-732-8060
          E-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com

              - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gainey & McKenna
          295 Madison Ave., 4th Fl
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-1300

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas S. Gigot, Esq.
          Groom Law Group, Chartered
          1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-857-0620

              - and -

          M. Norman Goldberger, Esq.
          Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
          One Logan Square, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, pA 19103
          Phone: 215-496-7021
          E-mail: mgoldberger@hangley.com


CTS CORP: Named as Co-Defendant in "Iglesias" Suit Versus Toyota
----------------------------------------------------------------
CTS Corporation has been named as a co-defendant in a product
liability class action suit captioned Iglesias v. Toyota, et al.

The suit was filed Feb. 8, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of
the class based on allegations that certain of the company's
products, as incorporated into certain models of Toyota motor
vehicles, are in some way defective.

Management also believes that this suit, with respect to CTS-
manufactured components, is without merit.  Toyota will defend,
indemnify, and hold the company harmless in accordance with the
terms of the indemnification agreement, according to the Equifax
Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

CTS Corporation -- http://www.ctscorp.com/-- is a manufacturer  
of electronic components and sensors and a supplier of
electronics manufacturing services.  The company designs,
manufactures, assembles and sells a line of electronic components
and sensors and provide electronics manufacturing services (EMS)
primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), for the
automotive, computer, communications, medical, industrial, and
defense and aerospace markets.  It operates manufacturing
facilities located throughout North America, Asia, and Europe and
serve major markets globally.  Sales and marketing are
accomplished through its sales engineers, independent
manufacturers' representatives, and distributors.  CTS has two
reportable segments: Electronics Manufacturing Services and
Components and Sensors.


DIAMOND FOODS: Stember Feinstein Investigating Walnut Ad Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC is
investigating possible claims related to the labeling of Diamond
Walnuts. Diamond Walnuts are manufactured by Diamond Foods, Inc.

On February 22, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration issued a
warning letter to Diamond Foods, Inc., about its "Diamond of
California Shelled Walnuts."  The FDA found the packaging for
that product makes an "unauthorized health claim" in violation of
the FDA regulations.  Specifically, the FDA found that the
Diamond Walnuts packaging labels representation about the "Omega-
3 fatty acid" content in walnuts makes it seem as if it was
related to a reduction in coronary heart disease (CHD).  The FDA
concluded "[t]here is not sufficient evidence to identify a
biologically active substance in walnuts that reduces the risks
of CHD."  The FDA also found some other Omega-3 fatty acid claims
on Diamond Walnut's website made it illegal to market the
product.

A copy of the FDA letter addressed to:

          Michael J. Mendes
          President and Chief Executive
          Diamond Food, Inc.
          1050 S. Diamond St.
          Stockton, CA 95201

is available at:

     http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm202825.htm

Stember Feinstein is investigating whether the mislabeling of
Diamond Shelled Walnuts violated consumer protection laws.  To
find out if you have a potential claim against Diamond Foods or
to be part of any class action the Firm may file, please contact:

          Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq.
          Ellen M. Doyle, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE
          429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1705
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (888) 355-1735, ext. 38  
          http://www.stemberfeinstein.com/
          E-mail: info@stemberfeinstein.com


E&J GALLO: Sued in Calif. Over Phony French Pinot Noir
------------------------------------------------------
Tim Fish at Wine Spectator reports that it looks like E&J Gallo's
headaches over the Red Bicyclette Pinot Noir scandal are far from
over.  On the heels of a Feb. 17 ruling in a French court that
found Gallo's suppliers guilty of selling it millions of bottles
of phony Pinot Noir, a Los Angeles law firm has filed a class-
action suit against the global wine giant and its Red Bicyclette
partners.

Claiming fraud and false advertising, the firm Kingsley &
Kingsley filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on
behalf of consumer Mark Zeller and against Gallo, French wine
merchant Ducasse and the large Languedoc cooperative Sieur
d'Arques.

The suit claims that the "Defendants, by labeling, marketing,
promoting, distributing, and selling the falsely labeled wine,
either knew or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have
known that their conduct was misleading and deceptive."

The equivalent of 18 million bottles of Red Bicyclette Pinot Noir
were routinely cut with cheaper Merlot and Syrah over several
vintages. Much of it was sold in the United States. The Treasury
Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is
also looking into the case, the latest in a series of
increasingly aggressive investigations into allegedly mislabeled
import wines from France and Italy. "We're definitely aware of
the issue," said Tom Houge, congressional liaison for the agency.
"It is absolutely something we watch."

Gallo vice president Susan Hensley said the company does not
comment on pending legal matters, but in a statement added, "We
continue to believe that we have operated in good faith to
provide a high-value experience to our consumers. It's important
to know that our contract with our French supplier guaranteed to
us that the wine we purchased would be Pinot Noir. There is no
way to chemically test wine to establish its varietal composition
with certainty."

The case dates back to 2006 as demand for inexpensive Pinot Noir
was growing. Gallo had been working with Limoux-based Sieur
d'Arques on various Red Bicyclette wines but the co-op did not
have enough Pinot to meet demand, so it turned to Ducasse to help
buy the varietal from other growers and producers.

In a 2008 audit by the French fraud agency, officials found
several inconsistencies. Ducasse had sold 53,889 hectoliters of
Pinot Noir when the entire region only produces around 53,000
hectoliters a year. In addition, the wine had been sold for 58
euros per hectoliter, much less than the typical bulk-wine market
price of 97 euros per hectoliter for Vin de Pays d'Oc Pinot Noir.

In January, all the suspects except two executives from Sieur
d'Arques pled guilty. Prosecutors told the court that the scam
produced 7 million euros in profit.

Kingsley & Kingsley specializes in class-action, personal injury
and employment law and is soliciting clients to join the suit.
"If consumers do not know that the region or varietals in
question are what the label says, especially in the lower end of
the wine trade, then labels will cease to have any meaning,"
says:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: 818-990-8300
  
"This lawsuit and potentially others like it are important to
deter unscrupulous conduct and ensure that companies spend the
time necessary to verify what they sell to the public."

The suit seeks an unspecified sum as restitution and damages
against Gallo and its Red Bicyclette partners.


EQUIFAX INC: Settlement in "Gillespie" Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
entered a final judgment approving the settlement agreement in
the matter Heather Gillespie, et al. v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, according to the Equifax Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In an action filed January 10, 2005, plaintiffs asserted on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals that
Equifax violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to
clearly and accurately disclose the date of first delinquency in
consumer credit file disclosures.

On Oct. 15, 2008, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for certification of a class action consisting of certain
consumers who resided in New Jersey or North Carolina during the
class period.  The class sought statutory and punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

On Aug. 25, 2009, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
with respect to all claims.

On Dec. 18, 2009, the District Court entered a final judgment
approving the settlement.

Equifax Inc. -- http://www.equifax.com/-- is a global provider  
of information solutions for businesses and consumers.  The
company's products and services are based on databases of
consumer and business information derived from numerous types of
credit, financial, employment and income, public record,
demographic and marketing data.  It uses analytical tools to
analyze this data to create customized insights, decision-making
solutions and processing services for businesses.  The company
operates in three global regions: North America (United States
and Canada), Europe (United Kingdom, Spain and Portugal) and
Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Honduras, Peru and Uruguay).  On Dec. 23, 2009, the company
formed a joint venture with Equifax Credit Information Services
Private Limited.  On Oct. 27, 2009, Equifax acquired IXI
Corporation.  On Nov. 2, 2009, the company acquired Rapid
Reporting Verification Company.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Suit Against Three Subsidiaries Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action in which three of Global Crossing
Limited's subsidiaries are defendants has been dismissed by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois,
according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.  

A large portion of the company's North American network comprises
indefeasible rights of use purchased from Qwest Communications
Corporation on a fiber-optic communications system constructed by
Qwest within rights-of-way granted to certain railroads by
various landowners.

In May 2001, a purported class action was commenced on behalf of
such landowners in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois against Qwest and three of the company's
subsidiaries, among other defendants.

The complaint alleges that the railroads had only limited rights-
of-way granted to them that did not include permission to install
fiber-optic cable for use by Qwest or any other entities. The
action seeks actual damages in an unstated amount and alleges
that the wrongs done by us involve fraud, malice, intentional
wrongdoing, willful or wanton conduct and/or reckless disregard
for the rights of the plaintiff landowners.

As a result, plaintiffs also request an award of punitive
damages.

The company made a demand of Qwest to defend and indemnify the
company in the lawsuit.  In response, Qwest has appointed defense
counsel to protect the company's interests.

The plaintiffs' claims against the company relating to periods of
time prior to the company's Jan. 28, 2002 bankruptcy filing were
discharged in accordance with its Plan of Reorganization.

By agreement between the parties, the Plan of Reorganization
preserved plaintiffs' rights to pursue any post-confirmation
claims of trespass or ejectment.  If the plaintiffs were to
prevail, the company could lose its ability to operate large
portions of the North American network, although the company
believes that it would be entitled to indemnification from Qwest
for any losses under the terms of the IRU agreement under which
the company originally purchased this capacity.

As part of a global resolution of all bankruptcy claims asserted
against the company by Qwest, Qwest agreed to reaffirm its
obligations of defense and indemnity to the company for the
assertions made in this claim.  Since then, attempts have been
made to settle many of the class action lawsuits that have been
pending against Qwest regarding the rights of way issue.

In 2002, a proposed settlement was submitted to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois and was preliminarily
approved by the District Court, but rejected by the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2004.

During 2008, the parties to the various class actions reached
preliminary agreement to settle all of the pending cases and the
parties submitted to the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts a
motion for class certification and for approval of the proposed
settlement.  The District Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement and a number of objections to the settlement were
filed.

In a memorandum and order dated Sept. 10, 2009, the District
Court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction
over the claims, denied final approval of the settlement and
dismissed the case in its entirety.

A number of the plaintiff groups then requested the Court to
modify its decision.  In a revised memorandum and order dated
Dec. 9, 2009, the Court reiterated its holding that the Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and dismissed
the case.

Global Crossing Limited -- http://www.globalcrossing.com/-- is a  
communications solutions provider.  The company offers a range of
data, voice and collaboration services.  Its operations are based
principally in North America, Europe, Latin America and a portion
of the Asia/Pacific region.  The company operates through three
segments: Global Crossing (UK) Telecommunications Limited (GCUK)
and its subsidiaries (the GCUK Segment), which provide services
primarily to customers in the United Kingdom; GC Impsat Holdings
I Plc (GC Impsat), and its subsidiaries (the GC Impsat Segment),
which provide services primarily to customers in Latin America,
and GCL and its other subsidiaries (ROW Segment), which represent
all its operations outside of the GCUK Segment and the GC Impsat
Segment, and operates primarily in North America, with smaller
operations in Europe, Latin America and Asia.


HARTFORD LIFE: Continues to Defend RICO-Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Life Insurance Company continues to defend a putative
nationwide class action asserting claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, according to the
company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.  

In October 2005, a putative nationwide class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
the company and several of its subsidiaries on behalf of persons
who had asserted claims against an insured of a Hartford property
& casualty insurance company that resulted in a settlement in
which some or all of the settlement amount was structured to
afford a schedule of future payments of specified amounts funded
by an annuity from a Hartford life insurance company (Structured
Settlements).

The operative complaint alleges that since 1997 the Company has
systematically deprived the settling claimants of the value of
their damages recoveries by secretly deducting 15% of the annuity
premium of every Structured Settlement to cover brokers'
commissions, other fees and costs, taxes, and a profit for the
annuity provider, and asserts claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state law.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, and injunctive or
other equitable relief.

The company vigorously denies that any claimant was misled or
otherwise received less than the amount specified in the
structured-settlement agreements.

In March 2009, the district court certified a class for the RICO
and fraud claims composed of all persons, other than those
represented by a plaintiffs' broker, who entered into a
Structured Settlement since 1997 and received certain written
representations about the cost or value of the settlement.

The district court declined to certify a class for the breach-of-
contract and unjust-enrichment claims.

The company's petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of
the class-certification ruling was denied in October 2009.

A trial on liability and the methodology for computing class-wide
damages is scheduled to commence in September 2010.

Hartford Life Insurance Company is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., an
insurance and financial services company.  HLIC is among the
largest providers of insurance and investment products in the
United States.  The company also assumes fixed annuity products
and living and death benefit riders on variable annuities from
The Hartford's Japan operations and also cedes insurance risks to
affiliates and third party reinsurance companies.  At Dec. 31,
2009, total assets and total stockholder's equity were $221.3
billion and $6.2 billion, respectively.


HURON CONSULTING: Faces Consolidated Complaint Over Restatements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huron Consulting Group Inc., faces a consolidated complaint in
connection with the restatement of its financial statements,
according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

These purported shareholder class action complaints have been
filed in connection with the company's restatement in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:

     (1) a complaint in the matter of Jason Hughes v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren and Gary L.
         Burge, filed on Aug. 4, 2009;

     (2) a complaint in the matter of Dorothy DeAngelis v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
         Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on
         Aug. 5, 2009;

     (3) a complaint in the matter of Noel M. Parsons v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
         Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on
         Aug. 5, 2009;

     (4) a complaint in the matter of Adam Liebman v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge
         and Wayne Lipski, filed on Aug. 5, 2009;

     (5) a complaint in the matter of Gerald Tobin v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge
         and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on Aug. 7, 2009,

     (6) a complaint in the matter of Gary Austin v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge
         and Wayne Lipski, filed on Aug. 7, 2009 and

     (7) a complaint in the matter of Thomas Fisher v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
         Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on
         Sept. 3, 2009.

On Oct. 6, 2009, Plaintiff Thomas Fisher voluntarily dismissed
his complaint.

On Nov. 16, 2009, the remaining suits were consolidated and the
Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago, the
Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, the City of Boston
Retirement Board, the Cambridge Retirement System and the Bristol
County Retirement System were appointed Lead Plaintiffs.

Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Jan. 29, 2010.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
against Huron Consulting Group, Inc., Gary Holdren and Gary Burge
and claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Gary
Holdren, Gary Burge and Wayne Lipski.

The consolidated complaint contends that the company and the
individual defendants issued false and misleading statements
regarding the company's financial results and compliance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.

Lead Plaintiffs request that the action be declared a class
action, and seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the action, including attorneys' fees.

Huron Consulting Group Inc. --
http://www.huronconsultinggroup.com/-- is a provider of  
operational and financial consulting services.  The company
provides consulting services to a variety of organizations,
including academic institutions, healthcare organizations,
Fortune 500 companies, medium-sized businesses, and the law
firms.  Effective Jan. 1, 2010, the company operated three
segments: Health and Education Consulting, Legal Consulting and
Financial Consulting.  The Financial Consulting segment practices
primarily include the restructuring and turnaround, disputes and
investigations, accounting advisory and utilities service
offerings.  Its Health and Education Consulting segment provides
consulting services to hospitals, health systems, physicians,
managed care organizations, academic medical centers, colleges,
universities, and pharmaceutical and medical device
manufacturers.  Its Legal Consulting segment provides guidance
and business services to address the challenges that confront
legal organizations.


ISILON SYSTEMS: W.D. Wash. Approves Securities Case Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman entered an Order and Final
Judgment last week in Fouad v. Isilon Systems, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-cv-01764 (W.D. Wash.), finding and concluding that (a) the
federal securities class action satisfies the applicable
prerequisites for class action treatment under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) the terms of the proposed
settlement described in the Stipulation of Settlement dated
October 23, 2009, are fair, reasonable and adequate, and should
be approved by the Court; (c) the proposed allocation of the
Settlement fund is fair and reasonable and should be approved by
the Court; (d) the Order and Final Judgment as provided under the
Stipulation should be entered, dismissing the Action on the
merits and with prejudice, and to determine whether the release
of the Released Claims as against the Released Persons, as set
forth in the Stipulation, should be ordered; and (e) the
application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses should be approved.  

A copy of the decision is available at no charge at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100305b62


LENDER PROCESSING: Faces "Schneider" Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------
Lender Processing Services, Inc., faces a putative class action
complaint captioned Schneider, Kenneth, et al. vs. Lender
Processing Services, Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, according to the company's Feb.
23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed on Feb. 17, 2010.  

In a single count complaint, the plaintiffs seek to recover
unspecified damages for alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act relating to the preparation and use of
assignments of mortgage in foreclosure actions.

The defendants include two large banks, as well as LPS and its
document solutions subsidiary.

The complaint essentially alleges that the industry practice of
creating assignments of mortgages after the actual date on which
a loan was transferred from one beneficial owner to another is
unlawful.  The complaint also challenges the authority of
individuals employed by the company's document solutions
subsidiary to execute such assignments as officers of various
banks and mortgage companies.

Lender Processing Services, Inc. -- http://www.lpsvcs.com/-- is  
a provider of integrated technology and services to the mortgage
lending industry, with mortgage processing and management
services in the United States.  The company operates in two
segments: technology, data and analytics and loan transaction
services, which produced approximately 30% and 70%, respectively,
of the company's revenues during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.  A
number of financial institutions use LPS's solutions.


LIZ CLAIBORNE: Has Yet to Respond to "Tyler" Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Claiborne, Inc. has yet to respond to a purported class
action complaint for alleged violations of the federal securities
laws, according to its Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Jan.
2, 2010.

The complaint captioned Angela Tyler (individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated) v. Liz Claiborne, Inc, Trudy F.
Sullivan and William L. McComb, was filed in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of New York on April 28, 2009,
against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, William L.
McComb and Trudy Sullivan, a former President of the company.

The complaint alleges certain violations of the federal
securities laws, claiming statements and omissions surrounding
the company's wholesale business.

The company has not yet responded to the complaint.  The current
schedule provides for an amended complaint to be filed on April
19, 2010, and the company's responsive pleading to be filed on
June 18, 2010.

Liz Claiborne, Inc. -- http://www.lizclaiborne.com/-- designs  
and markets a global portfolio of retail-based brands.


MARTIN COUNTY: Fla. Ct. Won't Certify Class in Airport Noise Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa E. Holsman at tcpalm.com reports from Stuart, Fla., that
a judge Monday ruled that a six-year-old lawsuit against Martin
County, Fla., alleging excessive jet noise and pollution filed by
property owners near Witham Field will not be certified as a
class action suit.

In a 14-page ruling, Circuit Judge Elizabeth Metzger found in
part that "vast differences" existed between the properties
belonging to eight homeowners suing the county and the homes of
potentially thousands of residents living within a 2-mile radius
of the airport, which the class could have represented.

She noted too that properties owned by the plaintiff homeowners
had not suffered a decrease in property values and the impact
caused by airport operations varied from one home to another.

"Their claims are not typical of the proposed class members
claims," Metzger wrote in her March 8 order.

During the five-year-old dispute, the homeowners have indicated
they want compensation from the county for a drop in property
values, an inability to sell their homes, effects on conversation
and TV watching, and health problems related to the noise,
vibration and exhaust from jets.

Their original suit citing the Florida Constitution was dismissed
earlier. The complaint before Metzger is based on the U.S.
Constitution.

Stuart attorney Gene Zweben, who represents the homeowners, said
the ruling won't stop the lawsuit.

"Of course we're disappointed in the ruling," he said. "We felt
that we presented the evidence necessary to certify this as a
class action."

He said his clients will discuss their appeal options before
determining how to go forward.

Reached Monday, Martin County Senior Assistant Attorney David
Action said Metzger's ruling held no surprises and had been
expected.

"This is completely consistent with Florida law," Mr. Acton
noted.

Mr. Zweben though said being certified as a class action would
have eliminated the need for potentially thousands of individual
lawsuits filed against the county over the airport.

"Now they will have to go out and find someone to represent
them," he said.


MDL 2151: Mar. 25 JPMDL Hearing on Centralization of Toyota Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
At a hearing on March 25, 2010, in San Diego, the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will consider, and
entertain oral argument about, a motion by plaintiff Heather A.
Lane for centralization of defective gas penal products liability
cases filed against Toyota in federal courts in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and a
competing motion by plaintiffs Daniel Weimer, Jr., et al., for
centralization of those actions in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The JPMDL knows about these complaints filed against Toyota:

     * Seong Bae Choi, et al. v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al.,
       Case No. 09-cv-08143 (C.D. Calif.);

     * Eric Kmetz, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.,
       et al., Case No. 09-cv-08478 (C.D. Calif.);

     * Heather A. Lane v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.,
       Case No. 09-cv-09158 (C.D. Calif.);

     * Dale Baldiseeri v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., et
       al., Case No. 09-cv-09386 (C.D. Calif.);

     * Joseph Hauter, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.,
       et al., Case No. 10-cv-00105 (C.D. Calif.);

     * Michelle Lynch v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Case No.
       10-cv-326 (M.D. Fla.);

     * Jonathan Gellman v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.,
       Case No. 10-cv-20006 (S.D. Fla.);

     * Daniel Weimer, Jr., et al. v. Toyota Motor North America,
       Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00219 (E.D. La.);

     * Amanda R. Maillho v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et
       al., Case No. 10-cv-00279 (E.D. La.);

     * Gary T. Brock v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al.,
       Case No. 10-cv-00281 (E.D. La.); and

     * Michael Graves, et al. v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing,
       West Virginia, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-01247 (S.D.
       W.Va.).


MERCK & CO: Accused of Manipulating Temodar Patent Process
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Merck, Cancer Research
Technology, and Sanofi-Aventis manipulated the patent process and
filed sham litigation to extend their monopoly over a brain
cancer drug, Temodar, an antitrust class action claims in
Delaware Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.
v. Merck & Co. Inc., et al., Case No. 99-mc-09999 (D. Del.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/08/CancerDrug.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Goddess, Esq.
          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Telephone: 302-656-4433

               - and -

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          Noah H. Silverman, Esq.
          GARWIN, GERSTEIN & FISHER, L.L.P.
          1501 Broadway, Suite 1416
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-398-0055

               - and -

          David P. Smith, Esq.
          David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
          Erin R. Leger, Esq.
          THE SMITH FOOTE LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          720 Murray St.
          P.O. Box 1632
          Alexandria, LA 71309
          Telephone: 318-445-4480

               - and -

          Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
          Andrew Kelly, Esq.
          ODOM & DES ROCHES, L.L.P.
          Poydras Center, Suite 2020
          650 Poydras St.
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-522-0077

               - and -

          Russell A. Chorush, Esq.
          HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P.
          JP Morgan Chase Tower
          600 Travis, Suite 6710
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713-221-2000


MICROSOFT CANADA: B.C. Sup. Ct. Certifies Class in Antitrust Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Hall at the Vancouver Sun reports that a judge has certified
a class action lawsuit against computer software giant Microsoft
that alleges anti-competitive wrongdoing and has the potential to
be worth more than $1 billion in damages, if the legal action is
successful.

Microsoft has had to pay out billions to settle similar class
actions in the U.S.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elliot Meyers decided, in a ruling
released Monday, to certify the class action of the
representative plaintiff, Pro-Sys Consultants, against Microsoft
Canada.

Pro-Sys alleges that Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive
conduct starting in the 1980s when setting up its computer
operating systems and applications in computers to ensure its
dominance in the market, which allegedly drove competing
companies out of business.

The lawsuit further alleges that once companies were out of
business, Microsoft hiked its licensing fees, thereby
artificially inflating its prices.

"I have no doubt Microsoft will appeal," says:

          J.J. Camp, Esq.
          CAMP FIORANTE MATTHEWS
          4th Floor, Randall Building
          555 West Georgia Street
          Vancouver, BC V6B 1Z6
          CANADA
          Telephone: (604) 689-7555

who is representing the plaintiff company.  "This is a first
step," he said of the national class-action.  "We are working
with Quebec and Ontario lawyers."

The potential class members are residents of B.C. who, on or
after 1994, indirectly acquired a licence for Microsoft Operating
Systems and/or Microsoft applications software for their own use,
and those who purchased new computers pre-installed with
Microsoft software.

The plaintiffs expect that if the class action is successful in
Canada, the damages award could be roughly the same as the more
than $1 billion resulting from lawsuits settled in California.

The certification ruling is available at no charge at:

    http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/02/2010BCSC0285.htm


NEW ORLEANS: La.Sup.Ct. Declines to Disrupt School Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Louisiana's Supreme Court has
declined to get in the way of a class action lawsuit fighting the
dismissal of New Orleans public school employees following
Hurricane Katrina.

The suit alleges the school workers were wrongfully terminated
after most of the city was flooded following the 2005 storm.

The suit was filed by several of the fired employees.  The
Orleans school board and the state agency that took over many of
the city's schools are defendants in the suit, which has yet to
go to trial.

In 2008, a state judge granted class-action status, meaning all
of the fired employees could be covered by the suit. An appeal
court agreed last year and the Supreme Court decided not to
intervene last week. Attorneys estimate as many as 8,500 fired
employees are affected.


ONEOK INC: Plaintiff's Appeal on Decertification Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in the denial of class
certification in the matter Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines,
et al. (f/k/a Quinque Operating Company, et al. v. Gas Pipelines,
et al.), Case No. 99C30, remains pending in the 26th Judicial
District, District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, Civil
Department, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

                             Price I

The suit was filed on May 28, 1999, against the company and its
division, Oklahoma Natural Gas, four subsidiaries of ONEOK
Partners, Mid-Continent Market Center, L.L.C., ONEOK Field
Services Company, L.L.C., ONEOK WesTex Transmission, L.L.C. and
ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. (formerly Koch Hydrocarbon, LP, successor
to Koch Hydrocarbon Company), as well as approximately 225 other
defendants.

Plaintiffs sought class certification for their claims for
monetary damages, alleging that the defendants had underpaid gas
producers and royalty owners throughout the United States by
intentionally understating both the volume and the heating
content of purchased gas.

After extensive briefing and a hearing, the Court refused to
certify the class sought by plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs then filed an
amended petition limiting the purported class to gas producers
and royalty owners in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming and limiting
the claim to undermeasurement of volumes.

Oral argument on the plaintiffs' motion to certify this suit as a
class action was conducted on April 1, 2005.

On Sept. 18, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for
class certification, which, in effect, limits the named
plaintiffs to pursuing individual claims against only those
defendants who purchased or measured their gas.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's denial of class certification, and
the defendants filed their brief on Jan. 18, 2010, in opposition
to plaintiffs' motion.

Oral argument on the motion was held on Feb. 10, 2010, and the
Court took the matter under advisement.

                            Price II

A suit captioned Will Price and Stixon Petroleum, et al. v. Gas
Pipelines, et al., 26th Judicial District, District Court of
Stevens County, Kansas, Civil Department, Case No. 03C232, was
filed on May 12, 2003, after the Court denied class status in
Price I.

Plaintiffs in this suit are seeking monetary damages based upon a
claim that 21 groups of defendants, including the company and its
division, Oklahoma Natural Gas, four subsidiaries of ONEOK
Partners, Mid-Continent Market Center, L.L.C., ONEOK Field
Services Company, L.L.C., ONEOK WesTex Transmission, L.L.C. and
ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. (formerly Koch Hydrocarbon, LP, successor
to Koch Hydrocarbon Company), intentionally underpaid gas
producers and royalty owners by understating the heating content
of purchased gas in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.

This suit has been consolidated with Price I for the
determination of whether either or both cases may properly be
certified as class actions.

ONEOK, Inc. -- http://www.oneok.com/-- is a diversified energy  
company.  The company is the general partner and own 42.8% of
ONEOK Partners, L.P., one of the largest publicly traded master
limited partnerships, which is a leader in the gathering,
processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S.
and owns one of the nation's premier natural gas liquids (NGL)
systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky
Mountain regions with key market centers.  ONEOK is among the
largest natural gas distributors in the United States, serving
more than 2 million customers in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas.  The
company's energy services operation focuses primarily on
marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S.  
ONEOK is a Fortune 500 company.


POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY: Officers Sue in N.D. Ill. for Pension Credit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that some Chicago Police officers
are alleging in a lawsuit that their pension board is illegally
denying them retirement benefits because it isn't giving them
credit for time they worked as Cook County Sheriff's deputies or
in the county jail.

The federal class action lawsuit was filed Monday in U.S.
District Court in Chicago.

Nine current and former officers say the Policemen's Annuity and
Benefit Fund of Chicago has continued its refusal to give them
the pension credit despite an appellate court ruling in favor of
a former Chicago police officer who sued. They say 200 or more
officers are being denied the credit without explanation, even as
the board is granting the credit to others.

The executive director of the board would not comment on the
lawsuit.


STEC INC: Faces Consolidated Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------
STEC, Inc., faces a consolidated class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court, Central District of California, according to
the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.  

From Nov. 6, 2009 through Dec. 11, 2009, six purported class
action complaints were filed against the company and several of
its senior officers and directors by these plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated:

     -- Fred Jean (filed Nov. 6, 2009),
     -- Hadi Sakhai (filed Nov. 6, 2009),
     -- Fred Greenwald (filed Nov. 9, 2009),
     -- Daniel Munter (filed Nov. 10, 2009),
     -- Jonathan Fischer (filed Nov. 19, 2009), and
     -- Marcel Weinberger (filed Dec. 11, 2009).

The complaints, which are purportedly brought on behalf of
persons who acquired the company's common stock during the period
of either June 16, 2009 (Sakhai, Greenwald, Munter, Fischer, and
Weinberger) or Aug. 3, 2009 (Jean) through Nov. 3, 2009, allege
claims against all defendants for violations under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
and claims against the individual defendants for violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants caused the company's common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices through false and
misleading statements and/or omissions related to its business
and that some of the individual defendants improperly sold
holdings.

The complaints seek compensatory damages for all damages
sustained as a result of the defendants' actions, including
interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other relief as the
court may deem just and proper.

In addition, the complaint filed by Sakhai purports to assert
claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and includes, as
defendants, the underwriters of a secondary public offering
conducted by the company on Aug. 6, 2009.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the Court consolidated the federal class
actions.

STEC, Inc. (formerly SimpleTech, Inc.) --
http://www.stec-inc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and  
markets custom memory solutions based on Flash memory and Dynamic
Random Access Memory technologies.  Headquartered in Santa Ana,
California, the company specializes in developing high-density
DRAM memory modules and high-speed, high-capacity solid state
Flash drives and memory cards used in sensitive and highly-
volatile environments.  STEC offers a comprehensive product line
of Flash and DRAM-based memory solutions used by original
equipment manufacturers, or OEMs.


ZENITH NATIONAL: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Del. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Zenith National Insurance is
selling itself too cheaply to Fairfax Financial, for $38 a share
or $1.4 billion, shareholders say in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in NECA-IBEW Pension Trust Fund v. Zenith
National Insurance Corp., et al., Case No. 5308 (Del. Ch. Ct.),
is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/08/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 North Market St., Suite 1401
          Citizens Bank Center
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-656-4433

               - and -

          Joseph E. White III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: 561-394-3399

                            *********

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  * * *