CAR_Public/100322.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 22, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 56

                            Headlines

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend "Weber" Suit in New York
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend "Wozniak" Suit in Calif.
CARTER'S INC: Class Loses Bid to Revive Deceptive Pricing Suit
CITY OF LOS ANGELES: Sued for Rejecting Disability Claim
COVENTRY HEALTH: FHGC Wants Summary Judgment Vacated

COVENTRY HEALTH: Faces Securities Suit in Maryland
COVENTRY HEALTH: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit
CYBERSOURCE CORP: Continues to Defend "Wilgus and Varner" Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Court Approves $9.5 Mil. Settlement in Beacon Suit
FANTASY CASTLE: Sued for California Labor Code Violations

FIRST NIAGARA: Court Denies Lift of Stay in Two Suits
FIT INTERNATIONAL: Columbian Couple Sued for Alleged Ponzi Scam
ILLINOIS: Settlement in Mental Health Suit Awaits Court Approval
LIBERIA: Corrupt Officials Accused of Defaming Medical School
METLIFE INC: Court Approves Settlement Agreements in Two Suits

METLIFE INC: American Dental Assoc. Appeal Order in Suit v. MLIC
METLIFE INC: Motion to Remand Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit
METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of "Thomas" Suit
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Litigation

METLIFE INC: Contract Breach Suits v. Medical Providers Pending
MRS GOOCH: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
NORTHRIDGE MILLS: Sued for Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA: Co-Payments Excessive, Suit Claims
PROGRESS ENERGY: PEF Units Faces Suit Over Nuclear Cost-Recovery

PROMPT DELIVERY: Sued for Failure to Pay Wages
SODEXO INC: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
SOUTHWEST WATER: Another Shareholder Lawsuit Filed in Los Angeles
TELEFUND INC: Accused of Unfair Labor Code Violations
TOYOTA MOTOR: Leiff Cabraser Files N.Y. Sudden Acceleration Suit

VALERO ENERGY: Continues to Defend Fuel Temperature Suits in KS
VALERO ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Rosolowski" Lawsuit
WADDELL & REED: Faces FLSA-Violations Suit in California

                            *********

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend "Weber" Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc., continues to defend a consumer class
action in the U.S. District Court or the Northern District of New
York.

On May 18, 2007, Debra A. Weber filed a consumer class action
lawsuit against the company, OrthoClear, Inc. and OrthoClear
Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a OrthoClear, Inc.).

The complaint alleges two causes of action against the OrthoClear
defendants and one cause of action against the company for breach
of contract.  The cause of action against the company titled
"Breach of Third Party Benefit Contract" references the company's
agreement to make Invisalign treatment available to OrthoClear
patients, alleging that the company failed "to provide the
promised treatment to Plaintiff or any of the class members".

On July 3, 2007, the company filed its answer to the complaint
and asserted 17 affirmative defenses.

On July 20, 2007, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
on the Third Cause of Action (the only cause of action alleged
against the company).

On Aug. 24, 2007, Weber filed a motion for class certification.  
On Oct. 1, 2007, the company filed an opposition to the motion of
class certification and the company currently awaiting rulings
from the Court.  OrthoClear has filed a motion to dismiss.

The initial case management conference and all discovery has been
stayed pending the Court's decision on the motion for class
certification, OrthoClear's motion to dismiss and the company's
motion for summary judgment.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 26, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Align Technology, Inc. -- http://www.aligntech.com/-- designs,  
manufactures, and markets the Invisalign system, a method for
treating malocclusion, or the misalignment of teeth. Invisalign
corrects malocclusion using a series of clear, nearly invisible,
removable appliances that gently move teeth to a desired final
position.  The Invisalign system is regulated by the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a Class II medical
device.  The company distributes majority of its products
directly to customers, the orthodontist, and the general
practitioner (GP) dentist.  The Invisalign system is sold in
North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Japan.  In
addition, it serves smaller country markets in Europe, the Middle
East and Africa. Its major products include Invisalign Full,
Invisalign Express, Invisalign Teen, Invisalign Assist and
Retention.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend "Wozniak" Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In August 2009, Plaintiff Charles Wozniak filed a lawsuit against
the company and its Chief Executive Officer and President, Thomas
M. Prescott, on behalf of a claimed class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Align
between Jan. 30, 2007 and Oct. 24, 2007.

The complaint alleges that Align and Mr. Prescott violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that Mr.
Prescott violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class
period the company failed to disclose that it had shifted the
focus of its sales force to clearing backlog, causing a
significant decrease in the number of new case starts.

The Court has recently selected a lead plaintiff.

Align Technology, Inc. -- http://www.aligntech.com/-- designs,  
manufactures, and markets the Invisalign system, a method for
treating malocclusion, or the misalignment of teeth. Invisalign
corrects malocclusion using a series of clear, nearly invisible,
removable appliances that gently move teeth to a desired final
position.  The Invisalign system is regulated by the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a Class II medical
device.  The company distributes majority of its products
directly to customers, the orthodontist, and the general
practitioner (GP) dentist.  The Invisalign system is sold in
North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Japan.  In
addition, it serves smaller country markets in Europe, the Middle
East and Africa. Its major products include Invisalign Full,
Invisalign Express, Invisalign Teen, Invisalign Assist and
Retention.


CARTER'S INC: Class Loses Bid to Revive Deceptive Pricing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that customers who claimed they
were tricked into thinking that the regular prices at Carter's
Inc. were bargains compared to the phony "suggested" prices lost
their bid to revive a class action against the children's
clothing store.

A copy of the decision in Kim, et al. v. Carter's Inc., Nos.
09-2169 and 09-2186 (7th Cir.), is available at
http://is.gd/aP20D

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Peter Lubin, Esq.
          DITOMMASO-LUBIN
          17 W. 220 22nd Street, Suite 200
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: 630-333-0002


CITY OF LOS ANGELES: Sued for Rejecting Disability Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Burns, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. BC433551
(Calif.  Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Mar. 12, 2010), accuses the
City of Los Angeles of rejecting a disability claim she filed
with the City of Los Angeles on October 26, 2009, in violation of
the California Business and Professions Code.  Ms. Burns became
disabled after suffering an injury while performing her duties as
a detective with the Los Angeles Police Department, and charges
the City of Los Angeles with making improper deductions for
pension contributions from her workers compensation pay in
violation of California law.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
          Graham B. Lippsmith, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904
          E-mail: tgirardi@giradikeese.com
                  glippsmith@girardikeese.com
          
               - and -

          Bradley C. Gage, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GOLDBERG & GAGE
          23002 Victory Boulevard
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 340-9252       
          E-mail: bgage@goldbergandgage.com


COVENTRY HEALTH: FHGC Wants Summary Judgment Vacated
----------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc.'s subsidiary First Health Group Corp,
Inc., is appealing the ruling granting the plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment in a state court class action lawsuit
against FHGC, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Four providers who have contracts with FHGC filed a state court
class action lawsuit against FHGC and certain payors alleging
that FHGC violated Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act, which
requires a payor accessing a preferred provider network contract
to give a one time notice 30 days before that payor uses the
discounted rate in the preferred provider network contract to pay
the provider for services rendered to a member insured under that
payor's health benefit plan.

These provider plaintiffs allege that the Any Willing Provider
Act applies to medical bills for treatment rendered to injured
workers and that the Act requires point of service written notice
in the form of a benefit identification card.

If a payor is found to have violated the Act's notice provision,
the court may assess up to $2,000 in damages for each instance
when the provider was not given proper notice that a discounted
rate would be used to pay for the services rendered.

In response to the state court class action, FHGC and certain
payors filed a suit in federal court against the same four
provider plaintiffs in the state court class action seeking a
declaratory judgment that FHGC's contracts are valid and
enforceable, that its contracts are not subject to the Any
Willing Provider Act since that Act does not apply to medical
services rendered to injured workers and that FHGC is exempt from
the notice requirements of the Act because it has contracted
directly with each provider in its network.  The federal district
court ruled in favor of FHGC and declared that its contracts are
not subject to the Any Willing Provider Act, that FHGC was exempt
from the Act's notice provision because it contracted directly
with the providers, and that FHGC's contracts were valid and
enforceable, i.e., the four provider plaintiffs were required to
accept the discounted rate in accordance with the terms of their
written contracts with FHGC.
Despite the federal court's decision, the provider plaintiffs
continued to pursue their state court class action against FHGC
and filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking damages
of $2,000 for each provider visit where the provider was not
given a benefit identification card at the time the service was
performed.

In response to the motion for partial summary judgment filed in
the state court action, FHGC obtained an order from the federal
court which enjoined, barred and prevented any of the four
provider plaintiffs or their counsel from pursuing any claim
against FHGC before any court or tribunal arising under
Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act.  Despite the issuance of
this federal court injunction, the provider plaintiffs and their
counsel pursued their motion for partial summary judgment in the
state court action.

Before the state court held a hearing on the motion for partial
summary judgment, FHGC moved to decertify the class on the basis
that the four named provider plaintiffs had been enjoined by the
federal court from pursuing their claims against FHGC.  The state
court denied the motion to decertify the class but did enter an
order permitting FHGC to file an immediate appeal of the state
court's denial of the motion.

Even though FHGC had filed its appeal and there were no class
representatives since all four named plaintiffs had been enjoined
from pursuing their claims against FHGC, the state court held a
hearing and granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment.

The trial court granted the motion despite the fact that (1) the
court lacked jurisdiction due to the appeal filed by FHGC
challenging the denial of its motion to decertify the class; (2)
there were no named class representatives because all four named
plaintiffs had been enjoined from pursuing their claims against
FHGC; (3) none of the providers in the class ever submitted a
claim for payment to FHGC and therefore FHGC never made any
discounted payments to any of the providers in the class in the
absence of notice; (4) FHGC has contracted directly with every
provider in the class and therefore, under the Act's express
language, FHGC was exempt from giving notice under the Act; and
(5) the claims of the provider plaintiffs are time barred.

The amount of the partial judgment was for $262 million.

FHGC has taken an appeal from the entry of that judgment seeking
to vacate its entry as invalid as a matter of law and has also
taken an appeal from the lower court's denial of FHGC's motion to
decertify the class.  FHGC will file a motion with the federal
court for sanctions against the provider plaintiffs and their
counsel for violating the injunction issued by the federal
district court which barred and enjoined them from pursuing their
claims against FHGC in the state court action.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com/
-- is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in
Bethesda, Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies,
network rental and workers' compensation services companies.  
Through the company's Health Plan and Medical Services Business,
Specialized Managed Care Business, and Workers' Compensation
Business divisions, it provides a range of risk and fee-based
managed care products and services to a range of individuals,
employer and government-funded groups, government agencies, and
other insurance carriers and administrators.  In July 2009, the
company announced that it has completed its previously announced
divestiture of First Health Services Corporation (FHSC) to
Magellan Health Services, Inc.  On Feb. 1, 2010, the Company
completed the acquisition of Preferred Health Systems, Inc.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Faces Securities Suit in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc., faces a securities class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, according
to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Sept. 3, 2009, a shareholder, who owns less than 5,000 shares,
filed a putative securities class action against the company and
three of its current and former officers in the federal district
court of Maryland.

Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, three other
shareholders and/or investor groups filed motions with the court
for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of
lead and liaison counsel.  By agreement, the four shareholders
submitted a stipulation to the court regarding appointment of
lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison
counsel.

In December 2009, the court approved the stipulation and ordered
the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated and amended complaint.  
AS of Feb. 26, 2010, no consolidated and amended complaint has
been filed.

The purported class period is Feb. 9, 2007 to Oct. 22, 2008.  The
complaint alleges that the company's public statements contained
false, misleading and incomplete information regarding the
company's profitability, particularly the profit margins for its
Medicare PFFS products.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com/
-- is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in
Bethesda, Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies,
network rental and workers' compensation services companies.  
Through the company's Health Plan and Medical Services Business,
Specialized Managed Care Business, and Workers' Compensation
Business divisions, it provides a range of risk and fee-based
managed care products and services to a range of individuals,
employer and government-funded groups, government agencies, and
other insurance carriers and administrators.  In July 2009, the
company announced that it has completed its previously announced
divestiture of First Health Services Corporation (FHSC) to
Magellan Health Services, Inc.  On Feb. 1, 2010, the Company
completed the acquisition of Preferred Health Systems, Inc.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc., faces a consolidated lawsuit alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On Oct. 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the
Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative
ERISA class action lawsuit against the company and several of its
current and former officers, directors and employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering and maintaining company stock in the Plan
after it allegedly became imprudent to do so and by allegedly
failing to provide complete and accurate information about the
company's financial condition to plan participants in SEC filings
and public statements.

Three similar actions by different plaintiffs were later filed in
the same court and were consolidated on Dec. 9, 2009.

A consolidated complaint has not yet been filed.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com/
-- is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in
Bethesda, Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies,
network rental and workers' compensation services companies.  
Through the company's Health Plan and Medical Services Business,
Specialized Managed Care Business, and Workers' Compensation
Business divisions, it provides a range of risk and fee-based
managed care products and services to a range of individuals,
employer and government-funded groups, government agencies, and
other insurance carriers and administrators.  In July 2009, the
company announced that it has completed its previously announced
divestiture of First Health Services Corporation (FHSC) to
Magellan Health Services, Inc.  On Feb. 1, 2010, the Company
completed the acquisition of Preferred Health Systems, Inc.


CYBERSOURCE CORP: Continues to Defend "Wilgus and Varner" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CyberSource Corporation continues to defend an action entitled
Brian E. Wilgus and Robert C. Varner, Jr. v. CyberSource Corp.,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On July 19, 2002, an action entitled Brian E. Wilgus and Robert
C. Varner, Jr. v. CyberSource Corp., Civil Action No. 02-L-995,
was filed by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and, purportedly,
a class of all other similarly situated persons in the Circuit
Court for the Third Judicial District, Madison County, Illinois.

Plaintiffs became employees of CyberSource upon the closing of
the acquisition by CyberSource of PaylinX Corporation.  The
plaintiffs' employment with CyberSource were terminated in 2002
pursuant to a reduction in force.

The action alleges that CyberSource breached contractual
obligations by not providing the plaintiffs with the ability to
exercise stock options on a timely basis upon closing of the
Merger.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

On Aug. 30, 2004, the court granted certification of the
plaintiff class, excluding roughly 25 former employees and
officers that signed lock-up agreements and/or releases.  The
members of the class have been notified of the action, and, to
the best of the company's knowledge, two employees have opted out
of the litigation.

Discovery has completed but a trial date has not yet been set.

On Sept. 5, 2006, the company filed a motion for summary
judgment.  On Oct. 2, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
company's motion for summary judgment.  On Oct. 13, 2006, the
Company filed a response to the Plaintiff's opposition.

A hearing was held on Dec. 7, 2006 on the motion for summary
judgment.  On Jan. 22, 2008, the court granted the company's
motion for summary judgment.

On Jan. 31, 2008, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.  On June 9,
2008, Plaintiff filed its appeal brief.  On Aug. 19, 2008, the
Company filed a response brief.

On Jan. 7, 2009, a hearing was held by the court.  On Aug. 27,
2009, the district appellate court issued a decision reversing
the summary judgment granted by the trial court.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Company filed a Petition for Leave with
the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.  On Nov. 4, 2009,
Plaintiffs filed an answer to the company's petition.

On Nov. 25, 2009, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois
denied the company's petition for appeal and the case is in the
process of being sent back down to the Appellate District.

CyberSource Corporation -- http://www.cybersource.com/-- is a  
provider of electronic payment and risk management solutions. Its
solutions enable electronic payment processing for Web, call
center, and point-of-sale environments.  CyberSource partners
with and connects to a network of payment processors and other
payment service providers to offer merchants a single source
solution.  Its payment solutions allow e-Commerce merchants to
accept a range of online payment options, from credit cards and
electronic checks, to global payment options and payment types.  
CyberSource also offers industry risk management solutions to
help online merchants address complexities, such as credit card
fraud, online tax requirements, and export controls.  Its
Professional Services help to design, integrate, and optimize
commerce transaction processing systems for merchants.  
CyberSource markets its solutions under two brands: CyberSource
Advanced for and Authorize.Net.


FACEBOOK INC: Court Approves $9.5 Mil. Settlement in Beacon Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge in San Jose approved a $9.5 million consumer class action
settlement against Facebook, stemming from its Beacon advertising
program that the class claimed violated peoples' privacy.  The
controversial program launched in November 2007 allowed Facebook
members to view their friends' purchases at Internet retailers
like Zappos, Overstock.com, Blockbuster and Hotwire.

The class comprised over 3.6 million Facebook users.  U.S.
District Judge Richard Seeborg awarded lead plaintiff Sean Lane
$10,000, while the other named representatives will receive
amounts ranging from $1,000 to $5,000.

A copy of the Honorable Richard Seeborg's March 17, 2010, Order
in
Lane, et al. v. Facebook Inc., et al., Case No. 08-cv-03845 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:

    
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/17/facebook%20ruling.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
                    
          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-920-3072
          
               - and -

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818-990-1299

               - and -

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY
          1045 North Zang Blvd.
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: 214-943-6100


FANTASY CASTLE: Sued for California Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Carter, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Fantasy Castle, Inc., et al., Case No. BC433666 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Mar. 12, 2010), charges the defendants with
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, unlawful
deductions from their paychecks, illegal tip collection, failure
to provide meal and rest periods, and failure to compensate for
or provide uniforms, in violation of the Labor Code.  In
addition, the Plaintiff demands that the Defendants pay
terminated class members 30 days' wages as waiting penalties,
reimbursement for tips, tip-out fees and other wages.  Ms. Carter
and the class members claim to be current or former dancers of
the defendants during the four years prior to the filing of the
complaint.

The Plaintiff asks for a jury trial and is represented by:

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          23277 Ventura Boulevard
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 225-9040

               - and -

          Stephen M. Harris, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          E-mail: smh@kpclegal.com


FIRST NIAGARA: Court Denies Lift of Stay in Two Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Two class actions against First Niagara Financial Group, Inc.,
remains stayed after the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania, denied the plaintiffs' motions to lift the
stay of proceedings, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company has entered into a merger agreement with Harleysville
National Corporation, and expects the merger to close early in
the second quarter of 2010.

The company has been named as a defendant in two separate class
actions:

     (1) Seibert v. Harleysville National Corp., et al.; and
     (2) McAuvic v. Geraghty, et al.

Both actions challenge the terms of the proposed merger.

The Seibert and McAuvic complaints each charge that Harleysville
and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to Harleysville
stockholders by failing to negotiate a fair price for
Harleysville National Corporation stock.  In addition, the
plaintiffs claim that the process leading to the proposed merger
was unfair.

The complaints allege that the company aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty by Harleysville and its directors.
The complaints seek to enjoin the proposed merger and to recover
money damages.

There are also five substantially similar cases pending (four in
Philadelphia County and one in Montgomery County) naming only
Harleysville and its directors as defendants.

On Jan. 6, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Seibert and McAuvic cases
moved to lift the stay of proceedings previously stipulated by
the parties, and sought an order granting expedited discovery and
scheduling a preliminary injunction hearing.  On Jan. 7, 2010,
the Court denied plaintiffs' motions in their entirety.

First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.fnfg.com/--  
provides a range of retail and commercial banking, as well as
other financial services through its wholly owned savings bank
subsidiary, First Niagara Bank.  First Niagara Bank is a
community bank providing financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses through its branch network located
across Upstate New York and Western Pennsylvania.  The Bank's
subsidiaries provide a range of financial services to individuals
and small and medium size companies.  The subsidiaries include
First Niagara Commercial Bank (the Commercial Bank), whose
primary purpose is to generate municipal deposits; First Niagara
Funding, Inc., which primarily originates and holds some of the
Bank's commercial real estate and business loans, and First
Niagara Risk Management, Inc. (FNRM).


FIT INTERNATIONAL: Columbian Couple Sued for Alleged Ponzi Scam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that a Colombian
couple took $100 million from hundreds of investors in a Ponzi
scam through their Florida-based company, FIT International
Group, and when they were nailed for it, claimed to be
distributing their remaining $12,690.74 "for the 'benefit' of
creditors," a RICO class action claims in Federal Court.

Jairo Enrique Sanchez and Dilia Margarita Baez, whose last known
addresses are the same apartment in Bogota, also used the name
Forex International Team for their scam, according to the class,
which is estimated at 600 victims.

The FIT International Group was the main tool for their
predations, though "No such company has ever been incorporated,
as a corporation or limited liability company, in New York,
however," the investors say.

Foreign exchange markets trade roughly $3 trillion a day, making
it one of the largest markets in the world, according to the
complaint.  It's fertile ground for Ponzi schemes.

"Because there are no daily limits on trading or the hours for
trades, except weekends, there is nearly always an opportunity to
react to moves in the main currency markets and a low risk of
being caught in an investment without an opportunity to exit,"
the complaint states.

Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Baez solicited clients through "social
connections," particularly a dentist in Columbia named Mauricio
Vasquez Uribe, the complaint states.  Mr. Uribe is not a party to
this action.

After taking more than $100 million from investors over "the
course of several years," Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Baez "never
invested the money in Forex trading as they had promised, but
merely siphoned it away to secret private accounts at HSBC, UBS,
and others," the complaint states.

As the scheme unraveled in December 2008, the dentist Mr. Uribe
quickly pulled out, warned investors to withdraw their money, and
promptly redeemed the $2.2 billion he added to the enterprise,
the complaint states.

Then in March 2009, Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Baez manufactured
"catastrophic losses of purportedly as much as 70 percent to 80
percent to investor accounts," though they never had invested the
money to begin with, the class claims.  Then they fraudulently
filed for bankruptcy in Florida deflected "every single question"
from creditors by pleading their Fifth Amendment right, according
to the complaint.

The class seeks damages for fraud, racketeering and other
charges.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Gaytri Kachroo, Esq.
          KACHROO LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.
          Kendall Square Center
          245 First St., Suite 1800
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: 617-444-8779


ILLINOIS: Settlement in Mental Health Suit Awaits Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that the State of
Illinois will help thousands of people move out of large mental
institutions as part of a class action settlement.  The state has
5 years to help people move into apartments or small homes in a
process overseen by a court-appointed monitor.

A judge must approve the agreement, and specifics of the plan
remain to be decided, The Associated Press reported.

The settlement resolves claims by the American Civil Liberties
Union and other groups that said the state violated the civil
rights of 4,500 mentally ill people by forcing them into
institutions where they are forced to live with dozens, sometimes
hundreds of others with mental illness.

The 2005 complaint states that often the victims' only other
choice is to be homeless.  The plaintiff groups claim that the
state's practice of supporting the institutions and underfunding
alternatives such as supportive housing violates the Americans
with Disabilities Act.


LIBERIA: Corrupt Officials Accused of Defaming Medical School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that corrupt
Liberian officials with ties to rebels defamed a Liberian medical
school, calling it a "diploma mill," when its founder refused to
pay bribes, Dr. Jerroll Dolphin claims in a federal class action.
Dr. Dolphin established the St. Luke School of Medicine in
Monrovia, Liberia, in 1998.

In 2005, after the school had relocated because of civil war,
"organized conspirators and government officials, who were
angered because St. Luke School of Medicine refused to pay
bribes, attacked SLSOM in the media and on the Internet,"
according to the 66-page complaint.  The medical school and Dr.
Robert Farmer are also named plaintiffs.

Defendant Mohammed Sheriff, head of the J.R. Kennedy hospital in
Monrovia, "asked for a bribe of $6,000 USD a month to make SLSOM
a 'credible' institution in Liberia," according to the complaint.
Dolphin says he refused to pay.

Mr. Sheriff, who allegedly has ties to rebels and a reputation of
being "very ruthless" and "untrustworthy," intimidated the local
press into defaming Dr. Dolphin and his school by threatening to
have their press passes revoked, Dr. Dolphin says.

It was a frightening threat, as "The unemployment rate of Liberia
at that time was approximately 80 to 85 percent," according to
the complaint.

Dr. Dolphin says at least one other government official also
demanded bribes.  When he refused to pay, the school was
subsequently denounced as a fraud and the diplomas of graduates
were no longer accredited, he says.

Among the attacks, Dr. Dolphin says, was a radio broadcast by a
man "who called himself Dr. Kpoto" stating that the school was
"giving hundreds of 'fake' degrees to Indians from the streets
who came to Liberia to register as doctors."

That report claimed that the school was "taking thousands of U.S.
dollars for these fake degrees."

Dr. Dolphin says his school never issued hundreds of degrees and
that some students did not pay tuition at all.

"During the first eight years of SLSOM's existence, 1998 through
2006, SLSOM graduated 36 doctors," the complaint states.  "This
does not fit the definition of a 'diploma mill.'"

Dr. Dolphin says that though some campus areas may have needed
small repairs, he had plenty of books, computers, microscopes and
other equipment needed to support a student body.

Dr. Benson Barh, Sheriff and others bent on ruining Dolphin's
reputation held several press conferences and "kangaroo court"
hearings featuring a "list of 'haters' with prepared statements,
with similar statements, almost word-for-word, coming forth to
speak against SLSOM," according to the complaint.

Dr. Dolphin says that his passport was taken from him several and
he was unlawfully held and forced to stay in Liberia when he
wanted to fly to Ghana to visit his wife.  When he did travel to
Ghana or Los Angeles, Liberian press reported that he had "fled
Liberia for fear of prosecution" and was "thought to be in
hiding," Dr. Dolphin says.

By April 2005, the school had been removed from the International
Medical Education Directory, at the request of Dr. Isaac Roland,
director general of Liberia's National Commission on Higher
Education, according to the complaint.  Its graduates are not
allowed to take the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.

Defendants include the Pennsylvania-based Education Commission
for Foreign Medical Graduates, the Foundation for Advancement of
International Education and Research, and University of Illinois
professor Dr. George Gollin, an expert on "diploma mills."

Dr. Dolphin seeks damages for trade libel, false imprisonment,
negligence, violations of due process and equal protection,
conversion, conspiracy to commit civil rights violations,
emotional distress and loss of consortium.

A copy of the Complaint in St. Luke School of Medicine, et al.
v. Republic of Liberia, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01791 (C.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/17/Liberia.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thaddeus J. Culpepper, Esq.
          CULPEPPER LAW GROUPE
          556 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101, No. 302
          Pasadena, CA 91105
          Telephone: 626-786-2779


METLIFE INC: Court Approves Settlement Agreements in Two Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreements in two lawsuits challenging the
fairness of the Plan and the adequacy and accuracy of
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.'s disclosure to policyholders
regarding the Plan has received approval from the court,
according to MetLife, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 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 two lawsuits challenging the
fairness of the Plan and the adequacy and accuracy of
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.'s disclosure to policyholders
regarding the Plan.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated state court class action,
Fiala, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (Sup. Ct.,
N.Y. County, filed March 17, 2000), sought compensatory relief
and punitive damages against MLIC, the Holding Company, and
individual directors.  The court certified a litigation class of
present and former policyholders on plaintiffs' claim that
defendants violated section 7312 of the New York Insurance Law.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated federal court class action, In
re MetLife Demutualization Litig. (E.D.N.Y., filed April 18,
2000), sought rescission and compensatory damages against MLIC
and the Holding Company.  Plaintiffs asserted violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Plan, claiming that the Policyholder
Information Booklets failed to disclose certain material facts
and contained certain material misstatements. The court certified
a litigation class of present and former policyholders.

On Nov. 4, and 5, 2009, the courts in these cases issued orders
preliminarily approving a proposed settlement of this litigation
and directing the parties to give notice of the proposed
settlement to the class.

On Dec. 30, 2009 and Feb. 9, 2010, the courts conducted a hearing
jointly to determine the fairness of the proposed settlement,
class counsel's fee request, and other matters.

On Dec. 30, 2009, the federal court issued an order holding that
the notice given to the class members concerning the proposed
settlement was adequate under federal law.

On Feb. 12, 2010, the federal court approved the settlement in an
order that will become effective upon the state court's issuance
of its order approving the settlement.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.

      
METLIFE INC: American Dental Assoc. Appeal Order in Suit v. MLIC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit entitled The
American Dental Association, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al., are
appealing an order dated March 20, 2009, that dismissed their
lawsuit.

The suit was filed May 19, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

The American Dental Association and three individual providers
had sued the company, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and other non-
affiliated insurance companies in a putative class action
lawsuit.

The plaintiffs purported to represent a nationwide class of in-
network providers who alleged that their claims were being
wrongfully reduced by downcoding, bundling, and the improper use
and programming of software.

The complaint alleged federal racketeering and various state law
theories of liability.

On Feb. 10, 2009, the district court granted the company's motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint,
dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims except for breach of
contract claims.

Plaintiffs were provided with an opportunity to re-plead the
dismissed claims by Feb. 26, 2009.

Since plaintiffs never amended these claims, they were dismissed
with prejudice on March 2, 2009.  

By order dated March 20, 2009, the district court declined to
retain jurisdiction over the remaining breach of contract claims
and dismissed the lawsuit.  

On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this
order.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 26, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Motion to Remand Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to remand the class action entitled In Re Ins.
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation to state court in Florida is
pending.

The suit was filed Feb. 24, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for
the District Court of New Jersey.

In this multi-district class action proceeding (MDL No. 1663;
Master Docket Nos. 04-5184 and 05-1079), plaintiffs' complaint
alleged that the company, MLIC, several non-affiliated insurance
companies and several insurance brokers violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, and antitrust laws and committed
other misconduct in the context of providing insurance to
employee benefit plans and to persons who participate in such
employee benefit plans.

In August and September 2007 and January 2008, the court issued
orders granting defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice the
federal antitrust, the RICO, and the ERISA claims.

In February 2008, the court dismissed the remaining state law
claims on jurisdictional grounds.

Plaintiffs' appeal from the orders dismissing their RICO and
federal antitrust claims is pending with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

A putative class action alleging that the company and other non-
affiliated defendants violated state laws was transferred to the
District of New Jersey but was not consolidated with other
related actions.  Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to
state court in Florida is pending.

No further updates were reported in MetLife, Inc.'s  Feb. 26,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., continues to defend a putative class action
lawsuit styled Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et
al.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court, New York County, on
Jan. 22, 2007

The lawsuit was filed by a putative class of "market rate"
tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village against
parties including Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company and
Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company.  This group of
tenants claim that the Company, and since the sale of the
properties, Tishman Speyer as current owner, improperly charged
market rents when only lower regulated rents were permitted.

The allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax
abatements.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages for rent
overcharges.

In August 2007, the trial court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

In March 2009, New York's intermediate appellate court reversed
the trial court's decision and reinstated the lawsuit.  The
defendants appealed this ruling to the New York State Court of
Appeals, which in October 2009 issued an opinion affirming the
ruling of the intermediate appellate court.

The lawsuit has returned to the trial court for further
proceedings but is temporarily stayed to allow for settlement
discussions between the current owner and plaintiffs.

No further updates were reported in MetLife, Inc.'s  Feb. 26,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of "Thomas" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the order dismissing the class
action lawsuit captioned Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., et al., remains pending, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Feb.
26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

A putative class action complaint was filed against MLIC and
MetLife Securities, Inc.

Plaintiffs assert legal theories of violations of the federal
securities laws and violations of state laws with respect to the
sale of certain proprietary products by the company's agency
distribution group.

Plaintiffs seek rescission, compensatory damages, interest,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and expenses.

In January and May 2008, the court issued orders granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss in part, dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims except for claims under the Investment
Advisers Act.   

Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the Investment
Advisers Act was denied.

In March 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.

In August 2009, the court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

On Sept. 29, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
court's order dismissing the lawsuit.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., continues to defend claims in pending sales
practices litigation matters, according to the company's Feb. 26,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Over the past several years, the company has faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products.

Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including
punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees.

At Dec. 31, 2009, there were approximately 130 sales practices
litigation matters pending against the company.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Contract Breach Suits v. Medical Providers Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Putative nationwide class actions against Metropolitan Property
and Casualty Ins. Co. remain pending.

Two putative nationwide class actions, styled Shipley v. St. Paul
Fire and Marine Ins. Co. and Metropolitan Property and
Casualty Ins. Co. (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison County, filed Feb. 26
and July 2, 2003), have been filed against Metropolitan Property
and Casualty Ins. Co. in Illinois.

One suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the alleged
underpayment of medical claims arising from the use of a
purportedly biased provider fee pricing system.

The second suit currently alleges breach of contract arising from
the alleged use of preferred provider organizations to
reduce medical provider fees covered by the medical claims
portion of the insurance policy.

Motions for class certification have been filed and briefed in
both cases.

A third putative nationwide class action relating to the payment
of medical providers, Innovative Physical Therapy, Inc. v.
MetLife Auto & Home, et ano. (D. N.J., filed Nov. 12, 2007), was
filed against Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance
Company in federal court in New Jersey.

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order on
July 22, 2009, affirming the dismissal.

Simon v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co. (W.D. Okla.,
filed Sept. 23, 2008), a fourth putative nationwide class
action lawsuit relating to payment of medical providers, is
pending in federal court in Oklahoma.

No further updates were reported in MetLife, Inc.'s  Feb. 26,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


MRS GOOCH: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Jesus Perez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Mrs. Gooch Natural Food Market Inc., et al., Case No. BC433542
(Calif.  Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Mar. 10, 2010), accuses
Mrs. Gooch of failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide
accurate wage statements; failure to pay wages on time upon
separation of employment, in violation of the Labor Code; and
failure to pay all vested monies due in violation of the Business
and Professions Code.  Mr. Perez was employed by Defendant Whole
Foods Market, Inc., as an hourly paid employee from approximately
November 6, 2007, to March 11, 2009, when his employment was
terminated by Whole Foods.  Mr. Perez alleges that when he would
receive overtime compensation during a pay period in which he
also received a meal allowance wage, Whole Foods calculated his
overtime rate without including the meal allowance wages he
received on account of the missed meal period.  

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          N. Nick Ebrahimian, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 840
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 653-0086
          E-mail: Jlavi@Lelawfirm.com
                  Jbello@lelawfirm.com
                  Nebrahimian@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          David M. deRubertis, Esq.
          THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM
          21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 1180
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 227-8605
          E-mail: David@deRubertisLaw.com  


NORTHRIDGE MILLS: Sued for Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teodora Zepeda, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Northridge Mills, Inc., et al., Case No. BC433497
(Calif.  Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Mar. 15, 2010), accuses the
clothing manufacturer of, among other things, failure to pay
compensation for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime
compensation; and wrongful termination in violation of public
policy.  The plaintiffs allege that they were made to work for
more than 8 hours per day, or more than 40 hours per week,
without being properly compensated, that their pay stubs do not
accurately reflect all hours worked, and that they were made to
work with older less efficient sowing machines, thus receiving
less compensation than they had received when working on newer
equipment, and that afterwards they were terminated on the ground
that their productivity had decreased.  The Plaintiffs tell the
Court that this was a scheme employed by Northridge Mills to
discharge older workers so that they can be replaced with younger
more productive workers.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and is represented by:

          James Osborne, Esq.
          OSBORNE & ASSOCIATES
          14156 Magnolia Blvd., Suite 200
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
          Telephone: (818) 788-7776

               - and -

          Mark Schondorf, Esq.
          3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 384-5224


PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA: Co-Payments Excessive, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Pacificare of California and Secure Horizons Group Retiree
Medicare Advantage Plan charge more for co-payments for Medicare
patients who go to, but are not admitted to, emergency rooms, in
Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Snelling v. PacifiCare of California,
Inc. et al., Case No. 10-cv-01905 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/17/HealthInsure.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Blvd., Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: 310-836-6000

               - and -

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: 310-392-8801

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          SPECTER SPECTER EVANS & MANOGUE, P.C.
          Koppers Bldg., 26th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15291
          Telephone: 412-642-2300

               - and -

          Ellen M. Doyle, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE, LLC
          Allegheny Bldg., 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412-281-8400


PROGRESS ENERGY: PEF Units Faces Suit Over Nuclear Cost-Recovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy, Inc.'s Florida Power Corporation (PEF) segment
faces a lawsuit relating to PEF's nuclear cost-recovery,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On Feb. 8, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against PEF in state circuit
court in Sumter County, Fla., alleging that the Florida nuclear
cost-recovery statute (Section 366.93, Florida Statutes) violates
the Florida Constitution, and seeking a refund of all monies
collected by PEF pursuant to that statute with interest.

The complaint also requests that the court grant class action
status to the plaintiffs.

Progress Energy, Inc. -- http://www.progress-energy.com/-- is a  
holding company primarily engaged in the regulated electric
utility business.  The company's segments are Carolina Power &
Light Company (PEC) and Florida Power Corporation (PEF), both of
which are primarily engaged in the generation, transmission,
distribution and sale of electricity.  The Corporate and Other
segment primarily includes amounts applicable to the activities
of the company and Progress Energy Service Company (PESC) and
other miscellaneous non-regulated businesses.  The Utilities have
more than 22,000 megawatts of regulated electric generation
capacity and serves approximately 3.1 million retail electric
customers, as well as other load-serving entities.  At Dec. 31,
2009, PEC had a total summer generating capacity (including
jointly owned capacity) of 12,585 megawatts.  At Dec. 31, 2009,
PEF had a total summer generating capacity (including jointly
owned capacity) of 10,013 megawatts.


PROMPT DELIVERY: Sued for Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------
Farhad Rezaassa, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Prompt Delivery, Inc., et al., Case No. BC433647
(Calif.  Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Mar. 12, 2010), charges
Prompt Delivery with, among other things, failure to pay wages,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit paid rest
periods, failure to fully reimburse employees for work expenses;
illegal uniform policies; other violations of the Labor Code; and
unfair business practices.

Mr. Rezaassa and other members of the class are employed as Route
Drivers, non-Route Drivers, or substantially similar positions at
Prompt Delivery.  Mr. Rezaassa worked as a California-based
Driver from June 2006 to November 2007.  

The Plaintiff demands trial by jury and is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5627
          Telephone: (323) 54909100
          E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com    

               - and -
          
          Joseph Antonelli, Esq.
          Janelle Carney, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
          1000 Lakes Drive, Suite 450
          West Covina, CA 91790-2918
          Telephone: (626) 917-6228
          E-mail: Jantonelli@antonellilaw.com    

               - and -
           
          Raphael A. Katri, Esq.
          246 South La Cienega Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3302
          Telephone: (310) 940-2034
          Email: Rkatri@socallaborlawyers.com


SODEXO INC: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Roland Jose, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Sodexo, Inc., et al., Case No. BC433981 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty. Mar. 16, 2010), charges Sodexo with failure to
pay overtime wages; failure to allow and pay for meal and rest
periods; failure to pay compensation upon discharge; failure to
provide proper wage statement, in violation of the Labor Code;
and with unfair competition in violation of the California Bus. &
Prof. Code.  Mr. Jose claims that Sodexo erred in classifying
them as exempt from California's wage and hour laws, when they
perform non-exempt job duties which entitle them to overtime
compensation, proper meal and rest periods, among others.  The
Plaintiff was employed by Sodexo as Executive Chef from September
29, 2008, to October 2009, and assigned to Disney Studios,
located in Los Angeles County.  The members of the class are
current and former employees, employed by Sodexo as Executive
Chefs.  The Plaintiff says that the work class members performed
were routine manual duties that do not involve the exercise of
discretion or independent judgment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
         Alan S. Lazar, Esq.
         Marcus D. Bradley, Esq.
         Lynn P. Whitlock, Esq.
         MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
         29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
         Agoura Hills, CA 91301
         Telephone: (818) 991-8080

              - and -
         
         Walter Haines, Esq.
         UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
         110 Pine Avenue, Suite 725
         Long Beach, CA 90802
         Telephone: (888) 474-7242


SOUTHWEST WATER: Another Shareholder Lawsuit Filed in Los Angeles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zois Uselton, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. SouthWest Water Company, et al., Case No. BC433553 (Calif.  
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Mar. 11, 2010), charges SouthWest
Water's directors with breaching their fiduciary duties by
entering into a planned merger of the Company which acts against
the best interests of the plaintiff and other members of the
class.  Mr. Uselton, who owns shares in SouthWest Water common
stock, filed the complaint to prevent the individual Defendants
from pushing through with the merger plan.  Under the planned
merger, SouthWest Water would be acquired by institutional
investors controlling SW Merger Acquisition and its direct wholly
owned subsidiary SW Acquisition for approximately $275 million
and the assumption of roughly $152 million in debt.

The Plaintiff adds that the merger agreement's terms
substantially favor SW Merger and was designed to dissuade
potential suitors from making better offers.  The Plaintiff cites
the agreement of the individual Defendants to a "No Solicitation"
provision in Sec. 6.4 of the Merger Agreement that gives SW
Merger the opportunity to make a counter offer in case of a
superior offer for the Company.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the consideration to be paid
is way below the inherent value of the Company.

The Plaintiff demands a jury trial and is represented by:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Blvd., Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (31) 836-6000
          E-Mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -  

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Timothy J. Macfall, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market St., Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310


TELEFUND INC: Accused of Unfair Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
James Oscar, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Telefund, Inc., et al., Case No. BC433559 (Calif.  Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty. Mar. 11, 2010), charges Telefund with failing
to: (i) pay wages, (ii) provide meal periods, (iii) provide rest
periods, (iv) pay wages of terminated or resigned employees, (v)
comply with itemized wage statements; and violations of the
unfair competition law.

Mr. Oscar and other members of the class are hourly, non-exempt
employees who worked at Defendants' telemarketing facility who
claim to have not been paid all regular wages, overtime wages,
and double regular time wages consistent with California law.  

The Plaintiff demands trial by jury and is represented by:

          John Garay, Esq.
          9900 Irvine Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 713-9477
      
               - and -

          Glenn C. Nunes, Esq., Esq.
          THE NUNES LAW GROUP
          101 California St., Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA
          Telephone: (415) 946-8894
          
               - and -
          
          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES
          15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 860
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 386-0444


TOYOTA MOTOR: Leiff Cabraser Files N.Y. Sudden Acceleration Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Nelson of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, filed a lawsuit on behalf of
Nancy and Daniel Murtha of Cortlandt Manor, Westchester County,
New York, against Toyota Motor Corporation for the wrongful death
of their five-year-old son Jacob "Jake" Murtha.

On July 29, 2008, at approximately 9:45 a.m., Nancy Murtha, age
46, was driving her 2008 Lexus RX350 at a safe rate of speed,
traveling northeast on Watch Hill Road in Westchester County, New
York.  She was wearing her seat belt.  Her son Jake was in the
back seat, properly strapped into his child car seat.  

"I remember glancing in my rear view mirror and looking at my son
in a car seat in the back.  It was a sunny Tuesday morning in
July and Jake was excited that he was going to a birthday party
that afternoon," stated Nancy Murtha.  Jake then asked his mother
for help.  Mrs. Murtha tried to slow down to pull over to the
side of the road to assist him.  

When Mrs. Murtha hit the brake, instead of stopping, the Lexus
suddenly accelerated  and careened out of control.  The Lexus
violently impacted a rock wall located on the northwest shoulder
of the roadway.   As a result of the collision, Jake suffered
severe traumatic injuries and died hours later at Westchester
County Medical Center.  

"As I hit the brake, the car wouldn't stop.  It just kept on
going," Mrs. Murtha added.  "Jake was our youngest son and was
loved by our family.  We miss him dearly and have been devastated
by his loss."

The collision also nearly killed Mrs. Murtha.  She was knocked
unconscious, and went into a coma for six days.  Mrs. Murtha lost
her spleen and part of her intestines, and suffered injuries to
her neck, lower back, her right knee, and right hip.  

                       Allegations Against Toyota

Beginning in the late 1990s, Toyota manufactured, distributed and
sold vehicles with an electronic throttle control system ("ETC"),
including the 2008 Lexus RX350.  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.  

Toyota's ETC system failed to include a failsafe measure, known
as brake-to-idle override, that is in use by other vehicle
manufacturers.  The brake-to-idle override instructs the ETC
system to automatically reduce the engine to idle whenever the
brakes are applied without success.

"The complaint charges that 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 incorporated a brake-to-idle override
system to allow drivers to bring their vehicle under control,
even though these systems were inexpensive and incorporated into
vehicles sold by other manufacturers."

"A brake-to-idle override system would have allowed Mrs. Murtha
to bring her 2008 Lexus RX350 under control," Mr. Nelson added.  

                          Status of the Cases

The complaint was filed this week in federal court in the
Southern District of New York, where the Murtha family lives.  
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 necessary
steps to prevent sudden, unintended acceleration accidents in
order to increase its profits.

                           About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/-- is a sixty-plus attorney law  
firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972.  We
have offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville.  Lieff
Cabraser represents persons across America injured in accidents
involving Toyota and Lexus vehicles that suddenly accelerated.  
Since 2003, The National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser
as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.  


VALERO ENERGY: Continues to Defend Fuel Temperature Suits in KS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valero Energy Corp. continues to defend a lawsuit captioned In
re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No.
1840; Master Docket No. 1840, according to the company's
Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company was named in 21 consumer class
action lawsuits relating to fuel temperature.  The company has
been named in these lawsuits together with several other
defendants in the retail and wholesale petroleum marketing
business.

The complaints, filed in federal courts in several states, allege
that because fuel volume increases with fuel temperature, the
defendants have violated state consumer protection laws by
failing to adjust the volume or price of fuel when the fuel
temperature exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit.  The complaints seek
to certify classes of retail consumers who purchased fuel in
various locations.  The complaints seek an order compelling the
installation of temperature correction devices as well as
monetary relief.



The federal lawsuits are consolidated into a multi-district
litigation case in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.  Discovery has commenced.

The court has indicated that it will rule on the Kansas-based
class certification motion only, possibly in the spring of 2010,
and then make a decision on how to further proceed with the rest
of the docket.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and  
operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba
that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), CARB
diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel,
and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


VALERO ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Rosolowski" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Valero Energy Corp. continues to defend a purported class-action
lawsuit captioned Rosolowski v. Clark Refining Marketing, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 95-L 014703 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill.).

The purported class-action lawsuit was assumed by the company
after its acquisition of Premcor Inc. under a merger agreement
on Sept. 1, 2005.

The suit, filed on Oct. 11, 1995, relates in part to a release to
the atmosphere of spent catalyst containing low levels of
heavy metals from the now-closed Blue Island, Illinois refinery
on Oct. 7, 1994.  The release resulted in the temporary
evacuation of certain areas near the refinery.

The case was certified as a class action in 2000 with three
classes, two of which received nominal or no damages, and one of
which received a sizeable jury verdict.  That class consisted of
local residents who claimed property damage or loss of use and
enjoyment of their property over a period of several years.

In November 2005, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs
of $80.1 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in
punitive damages.

However, following the company's motions for new trial and
judgment notwithstanding the verdict (citing, among other
things, misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel and improper class
certification), the trial judge in November 2006 vacated the
jury's award and decertified the class.

The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to vacate the
$120 million judgment and decertify the class.  The plaintiffs'
appeal was heard before the state appeals court in February 2008,
and in June 2008, the state appeals court reversed the trial
court's decision to decertify the class and set aside the
judgment.

The appeals court preserved the company's rights, and on Aug. 4,
2008, the company appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear the case and returned
it to the trial court.  The company has submitted renewed
motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or,
alternatively, a new trial.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 26, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and  
operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba
that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), CARB
diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel,
and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


WADDELL & REED: Faces FLSA-Violations Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., faces a class action asserting
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In an action filed December 28, 2009, the company, along with
various of its affiliates, were sued in an individual action,
class action and Fair Labor Standards Act nationwide collective
action by two former advisors asserting misclassification of
financial advisers as independent contractors.

The suits is Michael E. Taylor, Kenneth B. Young, individuals, on
behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Waddell & Reed Development, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Waddell & Reed Financial Advisors, a fictitious
business name; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive; Case No. 09-CV-
2909 DMS WVG; in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA for minimum wages and
overtime wages, and under California Labor Code Statutes for
timely pay wages, minimum wages, overtime compensation, meal
periods, reimbursement of losses and business expenses and
itemized wage statements and a claim for Unfair Business
Practices under Section 17200 of the California Business &
Professions Code.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary
damages.  As yet, no responsive pleading has been filed.

Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. -- http://www.waddell.com/--  
conducts business through its subsidiaries.  The company is
engaged in providing investment management, investment product
underwriting and distribution, and shareholder services
administration to mutual funds and institutional and separately
managed accounts.  The company operates its business through
three distribution channels.  Its retail products are distributed
through its sales force of registered financial advisors or
through third-parties, such as other broker/dealers, registered
investment advisors and various retirement platforms.  It also
markets its investment advisory services to institutional
investors, either directly or through consultants.  On July 15,
2009, the company sold of its interest in its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Austin, Calvert & Flavin, Inc.


                            *********

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, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy 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  * * *