CAR_Public/100401.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 1, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 64

                            Headlines

ADAM BERGER: Charged with Selling Shares Below Market Valuation
ARTHROCARE CORP: Motion to Dismisses Consolidated Suit Pending
AT&T MOBILITY: Sued for Charging Illegal Fees on Internet Access
CONSOL ENERGY: Buying CNX Shares for Unfair Price, Suit Says
CROSS COUNTRY: Reaches Agreement to Settle Suit Versus MedStaff

CARL KARCHER: Accused of Violating California Labor Code
CHASE HOME: Accused of Improper Charges for Flood Insurance
CUTERA INC: Appeal on Closing of Consolidated Suit Still Pending
CUTERA INC: Final Hearing in $950,000 Settlement on April 6
INTERMUNE INC: Motion to Dismiss Four California Suits Pending

KEAIS RECORDS: Sued for Medical Record Cost Overcharges
KELLOGG COMPANY: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Consumers
MARWAHA INVESTMENTS: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages
MEDIVATION INC: Faces Suit Over Dimebon Drug in California
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Final Approval for $80M Settlement on June 18

MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Morrison" Suit
NOVELL INC: Being Sold to Elliot for Too Little, Mass. Suit Says
ONCOR ELECTRIC: Tex. Suit Complains About Defective Smart Meters
OPENTV CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Calif.
OVERSEE.NET INC: Accused of Manipulating Auction Bidding

PRINCETON REVIEW: Settlement Pact in "Townsend" Gets Final Okay
SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Accused in D.C. of Defrauding Students
SOUTHERN STAR: Plea in Decertification of "Price I" Suit Pending
SOUTHERN STAR: Appeal in "Price II" Case Ruling Remains Pending
UNITED MARKETING: Sued in Ill. for Deceptive Business Practices

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA: Professor Accused of Sexual Harassment
UTSTARCOM INC: Preliminary Approval Hearing Set for May 10
VCG HOLDING: Suit Against Classic Affairs Subsidiary Dismissed
VCG HOLDING: Continues to Defend Suits Over Going Private Deal
WELLS FARGO: Court Certifies Class in Suit Over Overdraft Fees

YELP! INC: Removes Boris Levitt's Complaint to N.D. Calif.

                            *********

ADAM BERGER: Charged with Selling Shares Below Market Valuation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Shaffer, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Adam Berger, et al., Case No. BC434395  (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty. Mar. 24, 2010), accuses Mr. Berger, the current
CEO and chairman of the Board of Spark Networks, Inc., of
breaching his fiduciary duty by selling all of the outstanding
shares of the Company not already owned by Great Hill Partners,
LLC and Great Hill Partners III, LP, for a ridiculously low price
of $3.10 per share.  Mr. Shaffer believes that the allegiance of
the members of a Special Committee formed by Spark Networks,
Inc., to evaluate the offer is to Great Hill, having been
appointed to their positions by the private equity firm, which
has voting control, and should therefore be replaced by a
committee of truly independent directors.

Spark maintains dating Web sites that allow adults to meet
online, including Jdate.com, AmericanSingles.com,
BlackSingles.com, and ChristianMingle.com.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230-7600
          Telephone: (310) 839-0442

               - and -
        
          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad St., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500


ARTHROCARE CORP: Motion to Dismisses Consolidated Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
ArthroCare Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated suit
captioned In Re ArthroCare Corporation Securities Litigation
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, according to the company's March 15, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

                           Class Actions

On April 4, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in
Federal court in the Southern District of Florida against the
company and certain of its former executive officers, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suit is McIlvaine v.
ArthroCare, et al.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading financial statements and
making material misrepresentations regarding the company's
internal controls, business, and financial results.  On Oct. 28,
2008, the court granted the Company's motion to transfer this
case to the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas

On July 25, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in
Federal court in the Western District of Texas against the
company, and certain of its current and former executive
officers, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suit is
Strong v. ArthroCare, et al.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading financial statements and
making material misrepresentations regarding our internal
controls, business, and financial results.

                    Derivative Actions

On Aug. 7, 2008, a derivative action styled Weil v. Baker, et
al., was filed in Federal court in the Southern District of
Florida against the company and its then-current directors
alleging breach of fiduciary duty based on the company's alleged
improper revenue recognition, improper reporting of such revenue
in SEC filings and press releases, failure to maintain adequate
internal controls, and failure to supervise management.  On Oct.
14, 2008, the court granted the company's motion to transfer this
case to the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas.

On March 4, 2009, a derivative action styled King v. Baker, et
al., was filed in Federal court in the Western District of Texas
against the company's current directors, a former director,
certain of its current and former executive officers and other
employees and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP alleging (i)
disgorgement under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; (ii)
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5;
(iii) breach of fiduciary duty; (iv) abuse of control; (v) gross
mismanagement of us; (vi) waste of corporate assets; (vii)
insider trading; and (viii) unjust enrichment.

On April 29, 2009, a derivative action styled Barron v. Baker, et
al., was filed in Federal court in the Western District of Texas
against the company's current directors and a former director
alleging breach of fiduciary duty based on its improper revenue
recognition, improper reporting of such revenue in SEC filings
and press releases, failure to maintain adequate internal
controls, and failure to supervise management.

                    Consolidated Action

On Oct.28, 2008 and thereafter, the two putative securities class
actions and the shareholder derivative actions were consolidated
and designated: In Re ArthroCare Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00574-SS in the U.S. District Court,
Western District of Texas.

On Dec. 10, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' counsel
were appointed in the putative consolidated securities class
action.  The Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint on Dec. 18, 2009.

ArthroCare filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint on February 16, 2010.

The federal court stayed the derivative actions pending the
resolution of all motions to dismiss the Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint and any further amended consolidated class
action complaints.

ArthroCare Corporation -- http://www.arthrocare.com/-- is a  
medical device company that develops, manufactures and markets
surgical products, many of which are based on its Coblation
technology.  The company's business is divided into three
business units: Sports Medicine, Ear Nose and Throat (ENT), and
Spine.  Each of the Sports Medicine, ENT and Spine business units
market and sell their products in two principal geographic
markets: Americas (North and South America) and International
(all other geographies).  Many of its products are based on its
Coblation technology, which uses bipolar radiofrequency energy to
create a plasma field to remove and shape soft tissues, such as
cartilage and tendons.  ArthroCare's bipolar Coblation devices
also include both an active and return electrode at the tip. Its
Coblation-based systems consist of a controller unit with
accessories and an assortment of sterile, single-use disposable
devices that are engineered to address specific types of
procedures.


AT&T MOBILITY: Sued for Charging Illegal Fees on Internet Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T Mobility charges an
illegal fee for Internet access for "smart phones," a class
action claims in District of Columbia Federal Court.
Shareholder Class Action

A copy of the Complaint in Armstrong v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, Case
No. 10-cv-00501 (D. D.C.) (Roberts, J.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/30/CellPhone.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Harry Huge, Esq.
          THE HUGE LAW FIRM PLLC
          1080 Wisconsin Ave., N.W., Suite 3016
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: 202-965-4672
          E-mail: harryhuge@comcast.net
               
               - and -

          Theodore H. Huge, Esq.
          THEODORE HUGE LAW FIRM LLC
          31 Broad St.
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: 843-793-4702
          E-mail: thh@thehugelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
          Mary D. Winter, Esq.
          James Frickleton, Esq.
          BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSOn & GORNY, P.C.
          715 Swifts Highway
          Jefferson City, MO 65109
          Telephone: 573-659-4454
          E-mail: chiprob@earthlink.net
                  marywinter@earthlink.net


CONSOL ENERGY: Buying CNX Shares for Unfair Price, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders of CNX Gas
Corp. says Consol Energy is buying up all the shares it does not
already own for the unfair price of $38.25 a share, in Delaware
Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Gummel v. CONSOL Energy, Inc.,
Case No. 5377 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/30/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Bldg.
          1000 West St., 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-984-3800

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Eric M. Andersen, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad St., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-363-7500


CROSS COUNTRY: Reaches Agreement to Settle Suit Versus MedStaff
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., has reached an agreement in
principle to settle the matter Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda
v. MedStaff, Inc., according to the company's March 15, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Feb. 18, 2005, the company's MedStaff subsidiary became the
subject of a purported class action lawsuit captioned Maureen
Petray and Carina Higareda v. MedStaff, Inc., filed in the
Superior Court of California in Riverside County.  The lawsuit
relates to only MedStaff corporate employees working in
California.  The claims alleged under this lawsuit are generally
similar in nature to those brought by Darrelyn Renee Henry in a
lawsuit against the company, which was dismissed (Darrelyn Renee
Henry vs. MedStaff, Inc., et. al.).

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, violations of certain
sections of the California Labor Code, the California Business
and Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid wages and penalties.  
MedStaff currently has less than 50 corporate employees in
California.

The Plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda, purport to
sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
and allege that MedStaff failed, under California law, to provide
corporate employees while in on-call status with meal periods and
rest breaks, and pay for those missed meal periods and rest
breaks; failed to compensate the employees for all hours worked;
failed to compensate the employees for working overtime; failed
to keep appropriate records to keep track of time worked; failed
to pay Plaintiffs and their purported class as required by law.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order enjoining MedStaff
from engaging in the practices challenged in the complaint and
for full restitution of all monies, for interest, for certain
penalties provided for by the California Labor Code and for
attorneys' fees and costs.

On Feb. 5, 2007, the court granted class certification.

On Oct. 16, 2008, MedStaff filed a Motion to Decertify the class
which was denied on Dec. 19, 2008.

Trial was scheduled to occur in the second quarter of 2010;
however, in December 2009, the company reached an agreement in
principle to settle this matter.  As a result, the company
accrued a pre-tax charge of $345,000 (approximately $209,000
after taxes) related to this lawsuit.  The final settlement
agreement will be subject to court approval.

Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. --
http://www.crosscountryhealthcare.com/-- provides healthcare  
staffing services.  The company offers a suite of staffing and
outsourcing services to the healthcare market, which include
being a national provider of nurse and allied staffing services
and multi-specialty locum tenens services; a provider of clinical
trials services to global pharmaceutical and biotechnology
customers; and a provider of other human capital management
services focused on healthcare.


CARL KARCHER: Accused of Violating California Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------
Felton Henderson, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., Case No. BC434473   
(Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. Mar. 24, 2010), charges the
restaurant chain with violating the California Business and
Professions Code and California Labor Code by forfeiting their
vacation pay, not paying them meal and rest period premiums, and
failure to pay overtime wages, among others.

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

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

               - and -
    
          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Westmoreland, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          13952 Bora Bora Way, Suite F-320
          Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
          Telephone: (310) 478-5789


CHASE HOME: Accused of Improper Charges for Flood Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sheila I. Hofstetter, individually and on behalf of a class v.
Chase Home Finance, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01313 (N.D.
Calif. March 29, 2010), alleges that the mortgage loan originator
required her to purchase flood insurance to protect the $175,000
she borrowed, and that if she didn't, Chase would purchase it for
her.  Chase charged Ms. Hofstetter's account $1,575 for the flood
insurance premium, despite informing her three weeks earlier that
her credit line had been reduced from $175,000 to $0, and
therefore, she no longer needed to obtain flood insurance.  She
further states that other than a required initial disbursement,
which she paid back immediately, she never drew on her credit
line.  She claims that Chase refused to reverse the charges.  Ms.
Hofstetter alleges violations under the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Business and Professional
Code.

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

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 277-7235
          E-mail: Helland@nka.com

               - and -

          James H. Kaster, Esq.
          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: Kaster@nka.com
                  Lukas@nka.com      


CUTERA INC: Appeal on Closing of Consolidated Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the closing of a consolidated
suit against Cutera, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's
March 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Two securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
company and two of its executive officers in April 2007 and May
2007, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California following declines in the company's stock
price.

The plaintiffs claim to represent purchasers of the company's
common stock from Jan. 31, 2007 through May 7, 2007.  The
complaints generally allege that materially false statements and
omissions were made regarding our financial prospects, and seek
unspecified monetary damages.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court ordered the two cases consolidated.  
On Dec. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated, amended
complaint, and on Jan. 31, 2008, the company filed a motion to
dismiss that complaint.

On Sept. 30, 2008, in response to the company's motion, the Court
issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs' amended complaint
without prejudice.  On Oct. 28, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a
Notice Of Intention Not to File A Second Amended Consolidated
Complaint.

On Nov. 25, 2008, the Court closed the case on its own
initiative.

On Nov. 26, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on April 16, 2009
the plaintiffs filed their opening brief with that Court, on June
17, 2009, the company filed its response to plaintiffs' brief, on
July 1, 2009 the plaintiffs filed their response to the company's
brief, and on Feb. 11, 2010 both parties presented oral argument
to the Court of Appeals.

No decision has yet been rendered by the Court of Appeals.

Cutera, Inc. -- http://www.cutera.com/-- is a global medical  
device company specializing in the design, development,
manufacture, marketing and servicing of laser and other light-
based aesthetics systems for practitioners globally.  The company
offer products based on three platforms: CoolGlide, Xeo and
Solera. CoolGlide offers laser applications for hair removal,
treatment of a range of vascular lesions, including leg and
facial veins, and Laser Genesis a skin rejuvenation procedure
that reduces fine lines, reduces pore size and improves skin
texture.  The Xeo is a platform on which a customer can use
application that offer to remove unwanted hair, treat vascular
lesions and rejuvenate the skin by treating discoloration,
improving texture, reducing pore size, and treating fine lines
and laxity.  The Solera systems use either infrared (Solera
Titan) or pulsed light (Solera Opus) and can be used to remove
unwanted hair, treat vascular lesions and rejuvenate the skin.


CUTERA INC: Final Hearing in $950,000 Settlement on April 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
An April 6, 2010, hearing has been scheduled to consider final
approval of a settlement in a suit against Cutera, Inc., alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to
the company's March 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the company in January
2008 in the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, by Bridgeport
Pain Control Center, Ltd., seeking monetary damages, injunctive
relief, costs and other relief.

The complaint alleges that the company violated the TCPA by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff
and other recipients nationwide during the four-year period
preceding the lawsuit without the prior express invitation or
permission of the recipients.  Two state law claims, limited to
Illinois recipients, allege a class period of three and five
years, respectively.

Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile
advertisements may be entitled to damages of $500 per violation
for inadvertent violations and $1,500 per violation for knowing
or willful violations.

On Feb. 22, 2008, the company removed the case to federal court
in the Northern District of Illinois.

On Aug. 25, 2009, following negotiations between the parties, the
parties entered into a settlement agreement that would resolve
the case on a class-wide basis.  The Court gave its preliminary
approval to the proposed settlement on Aug. 27, 2009, and a final
hearing on the settlement is scheduled for April 6, 2010.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company will cause to be
paid a total of $950,000 in exchange for a full release of
facsimile-related claims.

Cutera, Inc. -- http://www.cutera.com/-- is a global medical  
device company specializing in the design, development,
manufacture, marketing and servicing of laser and other light-
based aesthetics systems for practitioners globally.  The company
offer products based on three platforms: CoolGlide, Xeo and
Solera. CoolGlide offers laser applications for hair removal,
treatment of a range of vascular lesions, including leg and
facial veins, and Laser Genesis a skin rejuvenation procedure
that reduces fine lines, reduces pore size and improves skin
texture.  The Xeo is a platform on which a customer can use
application that offer to remove unwanted hair, treat vascular
lesions and rejuvenate the skin by treating discoloration,
improving texture, reducing pore size, and treating fine lines
and laxity.  The Solera systems use either infrared (Solera
Titan) or pulsed light (Solera Opus) and can be used to remove
unwanted hair, treat vascular lesions and rejuvenate the skin.


INTERMUNE INC: Motion to Dismiss Four California Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
InterMune, Inc.'s motions to dismiss four complaints remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's March 15, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On May 8, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California entitled Deborah Jane
Jarrett, Nancy Isenhower, and Jeffrey H. Frankel v. InterMune,
Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No. C-08-02376
(Jarrett Action).  Plaintiffs alleged that they were administered
Actimmune, and they purported to sue on behalf of a class of
consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune.  The complaint
alleged that the company fraudulently misrepresented the medical
benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and promoted
Actimmune for IPF.  The complaint asserted various claims against
the Company, including civil RICO, unfair competition, violation
of various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust
enrichment.  The complaint sought various damages in an
unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and the
reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs.  The
complaint also sought equitable relief.

On June 11, 2008, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
entitled Linda K. Rybkoski v. InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen,
and Genentech, Inc., Case No. CV-08-2916 (Rybkoski Action).  
Plaintiff in this action alleged that she was administered
Actimmune and purported to sue on behalf of a class of consumers
and other end-payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged
virtually identical facts to those alleged in the Jarrett Action;
it also asserted the same claims against the company and sought
the same relief.  On July 23, 2008, the Rybkoski Action was
ordered related to the Jarrett Action and is now pending before
the same judge and is proceeding on the same schedule.

On Aug. 8, 2008, a similar complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California entitled
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Genentech, Inc., InterMune,
Inc., and W. Scott Harkonen, Case No. CV-08-3797 (Zurich Action).  
Plaintiff in the Zurich Action, which allegedly provides health
and pharmacy benefits to its insureds in the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories, alleged that
it paid for prescriptions of Actimmune and purported to sue on
behalf of a class of third-party payors of Actimmune.  The
complaint alleged similar facts to those alleged in the Jarrett
and Rybkoski Actions, and it also asserted civil RICO, unfair
competition, various state consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment claims against the company.  The complaint sought
various damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest
on all damages, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal
fees and costs.  The complaint also sought a declaration that the
conduct alleged was unlawful, as well as injunctive relief.  On
Sept. 5, 2008, the Zurich Action was ordered related to the
Jarrett Action and assigned to the same judge.

On Sept. 26, 2008, Plaintiffs in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and
Zurich Actions filed an identical First Amended Class Action
Complaint in all three actions.  The First Amended Complaint, a
putative nationwide class action on behalf of consumers and other
end-payors of Actimmune, was very similar to the first complaint
that was filed in the Jarrett Action.  It alleged the same basic
facts, namely, that the company fraudulently misrepresented the
medical benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and
promoted Actimmune for IPF.  The First Amended Complaint asserted
various claims against the company, including civil RICO, unfair
competition, violation of various state consumer protection
statutes, and unjust enrichment.  The First Amended Complaint
sought various damages in an unspecified amount, including the
same categories of damages and other relief that were originally
sought in the Jarrett Action.

On Oct. 20, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the Jarrett,
Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions.  On Sept. 29, 2008, a similar
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California entitled Government Employees Health
Association, Inc. v. InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen and
Genentech, Inc., Case No. CV-08-4531 (GEHA Action).

Plaintiff in the GEHA Action is allegedly a national health
insurance plan serving federal employees and retirees, as well as
their families.  Plaintiff alleges that it paid for more than $4
million of Actimmune prescriptions during the class period, and
it purports to sue on behalf of a class of consumers and other
end-payors of Actimmune.  The complaint alleged that the company
fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune for
the treatment of IPF and promoted Actimmune for IPF.

The complaint asserted the same causes of action against the
company as the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions, including
civil RICO, unfair competition, violation of various state
consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment.  The
complaint sought various damages in an unspecified amount,
including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
on any monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs'
legal fees and costs.  The complaint also sought appropriate
equitable relief.

The GEHA Action was subsequently related to the other actions, so
that all four are pending before the same judge.  By stipulation,
the parties to the GEHA Action agreed that the briefing already
submitted on the motions to dismiss in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and
Zurich Actions would constitute the briefing on a motion to
dismiss in the GEHA Action.  On Feb. 26, 2009, the Court
consolidated the Jarrett, Rybkoski, Zurich, and GEHA Actions for
pretrial purposes.

The motions to dismiss in all four cases were heard on Feb. 2,
2009.  On April 28, 2009, the Court granted the motions to
dismiss the complaints in all four cases in their entirety.  The
Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaints and
ordered any such amended complaints to be filed within 30 days.

On May 28, 2009, plaintiffs in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich
Actions filed a single Second Amended Complaint, which added Joan
Stevens as a named plaintiff in the Zurich Action, and which
alleges that the company fraudulently misrepresented the medical
benefits of Actimmune to treat IPF.  The Second Amended Complaint
eliminated the civil RICO claim and asserts other claims against
the company, including unfair competition, false advertising,
violation of various state consumer protection statutes, and
unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks various damages in an
unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and the
reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs.  The
complaint also seeks equitable relief.  Also on May 28, 2009,
plaintiff in the GEHA Action filed a First Amended Complaint,
which makes substantially similar allegations, brings the same
claims, and seeks the same relief against the company as the
Second Amended Complaint in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich
Actions.

On June 29, 2009, the company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Jarrett,
Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions and the First Amended Complaint in
the GEHA Action.  On July 27, 2009, Zurich American Insurance
Company dismissed its claims against the company.  The Court
heard oral argument on the motions to dismiss on Sept. 11, 2009.

On Nov. 6, 2009, the Court granted the motions to dismiss in
part, dismissing with prejudice the claims under the fraud prong
of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False
Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and
the consumer protection statutes of numerous other states.  The
Court's November 6 Order also dismissed with prejudice the claims
under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, with the
exception of GEHA's MPA claim, on which the Court requested
supplemental briefing.  The Court's Nov. 6, 2009 Order allowed
plaintiffs to file amended complaints to allege claims under the
unfair and unlawful prongs of the UCL.  The company and GEHA
filed supplemental briefs concerning GEHA's MPA claim on Nov. 23,
2009.

The Court has not issued any further order on that claim.  On
Dec. 23, 2009, the individual plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint and GEHA filed a Second Amended Complaint.  Both
complaints assert claims under the unlawful and unfair prongs of
the UCL and under the MPA.

On Jan. 25, 2010, the company and the other defendants each filed
motions to dismiss the new complaints.  Pursuant to stipulation
of the parties, plaintiffs' oppositions to those motions were due
on Feb. 15, 2010, and the motions are set to be heard on March
15, 2010.  The Court had stayed discovery until at least the time
of the hearing on the first motions to dismiss, and no party has
sought to conduct discovery following that Feb. 2, 2009 hearing.

InterMune, Inc. -- http://www.intermune.com/-- is a biotech  
company focused on developing and commercializing therapies in
pulmonology and hepatology.  In November 2008, InterMune together
with Roche and Pharmasset, Inc. (Pharmasset) announced the
initiation of INFORM-1, a dual combination clinical trial
investigating the combination of two oral antiviral molecules in
the absence of interferon.  In August 2009, the vompany together
with Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. and F. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd.
(collectively Roche) began a Phase IIb study testing RG7227 in
combination with PEGASYS (peginterferon alfa-2a) and COPEGUS
(ribavirin), the standard of care (SOC) in hepatitis C virus
(HCV).


KEAIS RECORDS: Sued for Medical Record Cost Overcharges
-------------------------------------------------------
Sandman, Levy and Petrich, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated v. Keais Records Service, Inc., Case No.
2010-L-003821 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. Mar. 29, 2010), accuses
Keais of overcharging the firm, patients and health care
practitioners for medical records provided by it, in violation of
Illinois statutes.  Sandman, Levy and Petrich, an Illinois law
firm, says that as a matter of course it is required to request
medical records on behalf of its clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Bosco, Esq.
          Justin E. Burtnett, Esq.
          LAROSE & BOSCO, LTD.
          200 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2810
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 642-4414


KELLOGG COMPANY: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kellogg misrepresented the
safety of its peanut-containing snacks in a Salmonella outbreak
that killed 9 and made more than 22,000 people sick, according to
a class action in Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Benavides v. Kellogg Company, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-02294 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/30/Kellogg.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          MILSTEIN, ADELMAN & KREGER, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: 310-396-9600


MARWAHA INVESTMENTS: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Joselyn Sura, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Marwaha Investments Inc., Case No. BC434490 (Calif. Super.
Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty. Mar. 24, 2010), charges the Subway(R)
Restaurants operator with failing to provide rest and meal
periods, not paying overtime wages, and violations of the
Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff demands a jury trial and is represented by:

          Jose Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY, APLC
          9900 Irvine Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 713-9477

               - and -   

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          Amy T. Wootton, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES, LP
          15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 860
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 386-0444
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com
                  awootton@hamnerlaw.com


MEDIVATION INC: Faces Suit Over Dimebon Drug in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Medivation, Inc., faces a purported securities class action
lawsuit over its dimebon drug, according to the company's
March 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On March 9, 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming as defendants the company and certain of its
officers.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchanges Act of
1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements
made by the company related to dimebon.  The plaintiff alleges
among other things that the defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements about the effectiveness of dimebon for the
treatment of Alzheimer's disease making it impossible for
stockholders to gain a realistic understanding of the drug's
progress toward FDA approval.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased the company's common stock between July 17, 2008 and
March 2, 2010.  The plaintiff seeks damages, an award of its
costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief.

Medivation, Inc. -- http://www.medivation.com/-- is a  
biopharmaceutical company with small molecule drugs in clinical
development to treat three medical needs: Alzheimer's disease,
Huntington's disease and castration-resistant prostate cancer.
The Company has formed separate subsidiaries to hold the product
candidates it is developing. The Company's subsidiary Medivation
Neurology, Inc. holds its Dimebon technology, and its subsidiary
Medivation Prostate Therapeutics, Inc. holds its MDV300 series
technology.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Final Approval for $80M Settlement on June 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing for the final approval of an $80 million settlement
in a consolidated class action case against MoneyGram
International, Inc., has been set for June 18, 2010, according to
the company's March 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The company and certain of its present and former officers and
directors are defendants in a consolidated class action case in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota captioned
In re MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities Litigation.
The Consolidated Complaint was filed on Oct. 3, 2008, and alleges
against each defendant violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5  under
the Exchange Act and alleges against Company officers violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Consolidated Complaint
alleges failure to adequately disclose, in a timely manner, the
nature and risks of the Company's investments, as well as
unrealized losses and other-than-temporary impairments related to
certain of the company's investments.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks recovery of losses incurred by
stockholder class members in connection with their purchases of
the Company's securities.

On Feb. 24, 2010, the parties entered into a non-binding
Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to which the parties agreed,
subject to final approval of the parties and the court, to settle
this action for a cash payment of $80 million, all but $20
million of which would be paid by the company's insurance
carriers.

On March 9, 2010, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement
to settle the case on terms consistent with the Memorandum of
Understanding.  On March 10, 2010, the Court issued an Order that
preliminarily approved the settlement.

The parties will seek final approval of the settlement at a
hearing currently set for June 18, 2010.

MoneyGram International, Inc. -- http://www.moneygram.com/--  
offers more control and more choices for people separated by
distance or with limited bank relationships to meet their
financial needs. A leading global payment services company,
MoneyGram International helps consumers to pay bills quickly and
safely send money around the world in as little as 10 minutes.
Its global network is comprised of 190,000 agent locations in
nearly 190 countries and territories. MoneyGram's convenient and
reliable network includes retailers, international post offices
and financial institutions.


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Morrison" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc., continues to defend a suit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, as amended.

On April 22, 2008, Delilah Morrison, on behalf of herself and all
other MoneyGram 401(k) Plan participants, brought an action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The complaint alleges claims under ERISA, including claims that
the defendants breached fiduciary duties by failing to manage the
plan's investment in company stock, and by continuing to offer
company stock as an investment option when the stock was no
longer a prudent investment.  The complaint also alleges that
defendants failed to provide complete and accurate information
regarding company stock sufficient to advise plan participants of
the risks involved with investing in company stock and breached
fiduciary duties by failing to avoid conflicts of interests and
to properly monitor the performance of plan fiduciaries and
fiduciary appointees.

Finally, the complaint alleges that to the extent that the
company is not a fiduciary, it is liable for knowingly
participating in the fiduciary breaches as alleged.  On Aug. 7,
2008, plaintiff amended the complaint to add an additional
plaintiff, name additional defendants and additional allegations.

For relief, the complaint seeks damages based on what the most
profitable alternatives to Company stock would have yielded,
unspecified equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 25, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 15, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

MoneyGram International -- http://www.moneygram.com/-- offers  
more control and more choices for people separated by distance or
with limited bank relationships to meet their financial needs. A
leading global payment services company, MoneyGram International
helps consumers to pay bills quickly and safely send money around
the world in as little as 10 minutes. Its global network is
comprised of 190,000 agent locations in nearly 190 countries and
territories. MoneyGram's convenient and reliable network includes
retailers, international post offices and financial institutions.


NOVELL INC: Being Sold to Elliot for Too Little, Mass. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Novell is
selling itself too cheaply to Elliot Associates, a private equity
firm, for $5.75 a share or $2 billion, in a class action in
Suffolk County Court, Boston.

A copy of the Complaint in Witmer v. Novell, Inc., et al., Case
No. 10-1023 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/29/Novell.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP
          63 Atlantic Ave., 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617-742-9700

               - and -

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          Tiffany Oldham, Esq.
          CARNEY WILLIAMS BATES BOZEMAN & PULLIAM, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Dr.
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: 501-312-8500


ONCOR ELECTRIC: Tex. Suit Complains About Defective Smart Meters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that Texas' biggest
electric company installed defective "smart meters" that drove
residential customers' bills to nearly $2,000 a month, according
to a class action in Dallas County Court.  The class claims Oncor
Electric Delivery Co. is "laughing all the way to the bank."

Named plaintiffs Robert and Jennifer Cordts say their monthly
electric bills of $400 to $700 were driven above $1,800 after
their smart meter was installed.

Smart meters deliver more information to the utility company than
standard meters, and can adjust billing for time of day or
season, allegedly so consumers pay less during times of low
demand and more when demand is high.

But the Cordts say that when they questioned Oncor about their
exorbitant bills, the company asked them "about Christmas lights
and the temperature at which they maintain their thermostat."  
Then they got another bill for more than $1,800.

"The Cordts have now received three months of bills totaling just
under $5,000," the complaint states.  "The part of this story
that is more absurd than the objectively egregious amount of the
billing is Oncor's explanation -- geez, it's sure been pretty
cold lately."

The complaint adds: "Instead of looking the Texas consumer in the
eye and providing a truthful explanation for exorbitant
overbilling, Oncor is giving everyone the run-around.  Consumers
are tired of being told that a 200 percent overnight increase in
their electric bill following installation of a 'smart' meter is
due to an 'unusually cold winter' or a change in their energy
consumption choices."

Oncor has installed around 829,000 smart meters, according to the
complaint.  It adds that Oncor conducted "side-by-side" meter
tests to try to persuade the public there is nothing wrong with
the smart meters, but the tests "only address whether a given
smart meter measures electricity in the same manner as a
traditional meter," and does not answer whether the communication
or software systems are accurately sending the data for billing.

The class claims that CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric
admitted there were technological glitches with smart meters
after it installed the meters in the Houston-area.  The meters
were not "accurately reporting consumer usage of electricity and
improperly overbilling consumers for electricity they had not
consumed," according to the complaint.

The Cordts seek class certification and damages for fraud and
negligence.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Original Petition in Cordts, et al. v.
Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC, Case No. 10-03504 (Tex.
Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/30/SmartMeters.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason M. Berent, Esq.
          Michael S. Wilson, Esq.
          BERENT & WILSON, LP
          7557 Rambler Rd., Suite 560
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: 214-692-5800
          E-mail: jberent@berentwilson.com
                  mwilson@berentwilson.com


OPENTV CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
OpenTV Corp. continues to defend a consolidated suit captioned In
Re OpenTV Shareholder Litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the company's
March 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Oct. 23, 2009, Salvatore L. Giordano, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company, each of its current directors,
Kudelski SA and Kudelski Interactive Cayman, Ltd.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the offer
by Kudelski Interactive Cayman, Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Kudelski SA, to purchase for $1.55 per share all of the
company's outstanding Class A ordinary shares not owned by
Kudelski or its affiliates.  The case is one of four putative
class action lawsuits filed by OpenTV shareholders in connection
with that offer, although it is the only one of the four cases
that names OpenTV as a defendant.

On Nov. 5, 2009, all four putative class action lawsuits were
consolidated for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California under the caption In Re
OpenTV Shareholder Litigation.

On Oct. 29, 2009, the Kudelski-related defendants and the
plaintiffs executed a Memorandum of Understanding tentatively
settling the litigation.  The Memorandum of Understanding
provides, among other things, for the settlement in principle of
all of the lawsuits (including the Giordano lawsuit) on the terms
set forth therein, which do not include the payment of any
amounts by OpenTV.  The settlement is subject to, among other
things, documentation in a formal settlement agreement and court
approval.

OpenTV Corp. -- http://www.opentv.com/-- is a provider of  
software solutions for digital and interactive television.  The
company's software enables cable, satellite, telecommunications,
and digital terrestrial operators, referred to as network
operators.  It sells its software solutions principally to
network operators and manufacturers of digital set-top boxes and
also sells related software solutions to broadcasters,
programmers and advertisers.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company's
software had been deployed by more than 58 network operators for
its middleware solutions and 13 network operators for its
advertising solutions worldwide, and had been shipped in more
than 121 million digital set-top boxes and digital televisions.  
The company manages its units within two segments: Middleware
Solutions and Advertising Solutions.


OVERSEE.NET INC: Accused of Manipulating Auction Bidding
--------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Resmer, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Oversee.net, Inc., Case No. BC434426  (Calif. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Mar. 24, 2010), charges the Internet domain
name seller with manipulating bids in its auctions for expired
domain names, in violation of the California Auction Law, the
California Civil Code, and the California Business and
Professions Code.  

Oversee.net owns 100% of SnapNames, the largest online auction
site for expiring Internet domain names.  Mr. Resmer claims a
SnapNames employee bid in a significant percentage of its
auctions from 2005 through 2009 and that in participating in the
bids the SnapNames employee artificially drove up prices,
benefitting Oversee.net.  SnapNames initially denied the practice
but later admitted that one of its employees bid at the auctions
on Nov. 4, 2009.

Mr. Resmer tells the Court that he participated in a SnapNames
auction on July 21, 2006, for "wedriveyou.com" and paid $80 for
that Internet domain name.  Mr. Resmer alleges that a SnapNames
employee using the name "halvarez" also participated in the
auction, and that had halvarez not participated in the auction,
he would have paid $20 less.  

The Plaintiff wants a jury trial and is represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
          30021 Tomas St., Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com
           
               - and -
   
          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Michael J. Aschenbrener, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  maschenbrener@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com


PRINCETON REVIEW: Settlement Pact in "Townsend" Gets Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement in a putative class action against The
Princeton Review, Inc., has received approval from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, according to
the company's March 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Sept. 19, 2008, a putative class action captioned Virginia B.
Townsend v. The Princeton Review, Inc. (Case No. 8:08-CIV-1879-T-
33TBM) was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division relating to
the Security Incident alleging negligence, breach of contract and
unfair trade practices.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief
including the provision of personal data monitoring and identify
theft insurance and unspecified enhancement of the security of
the company's computer data systems, together with attorneys'
fees and costs.

In July 2009 the parties entered into a settlement agreement
which was granted final approval by the Court on Dec. 2, 2009.
Under the settlement agreement, the company will provide
specified identity protection service to the class members that
elect to participate and pay the fees and expenses of plaintiffs'
counsel as approved by the Court.  The company believes that the
full cost of the settlement will be within the limits of its
applicable insurance policies.

The Princeton Review, Inc. -- http://www.princetonreview.com/--  
provides integrated classroom-based, print and online products
and services that address the needs of students, parents,
educators and educational institutions.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, the company operated through the three divisions:
the Test Preparation Services division, which provides classroom-
based, as well as online test preparation courses; the
Supplemental Education Services (SES) division, which provides
tutoring and No Child Left Behind supplemental educational
services, and the K-12 Services division, which provides a range
of services to K-12 schools and school districts to help primary
and secondary school students and teachers improve academic
performance.  In March 2009, the company announced the completion
of its previously announced sale of the assets of its K-12
Services Division to CORE Education and Consulting Solutions,
Inc.  In December 2009, the company completed the acquisition of
Penn Foster Education Group, Inc.


SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Accused in D.C. of Defrauding Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that Southeastern
University students say the school defrauded them of thousands of
dollars -- as much as $41,500 per student -- without warning them
that it "lacked the accreditation that it represented it had."  
The Superior Court class action claims that Southeastern and the
Graduate School, which acquired Southeastern, "lacked the ability
to prepare students academically or professionally . . . lacked
the university backing that it claimed it had . . . did not have
in place 'clinical externships'" as promised, and its graduates
did not qualify to take certification exams, as promised.

The class claims the school made numerous promises to prospective
students, including external internships and the chance to take
certification exams in Cardiovascular Technology and Medical
Technology.  The students, who were told they would make
"significant salaries upon graduation," paid from $10,000 to
$41,500 for tuition and materials, according to the complaint.

Students in the Cardiovascular Technology program say the school
promised they would get more than 700 observational and practical
hours before graduation, and that the university offered
"interactive" classrooms and qualified faculty.

But as the school took their money, the class claims, declining
enrollment created financial instability and the university knew
that it faced losing its accreditation.  It also knew that the
external internships and the certification exams would not be
available.

"Not a single plaintiff or consumer graduated from
[Southeastern's] program," according to the complaint.

The seven named plaintiffs seek class damages for fraud, unfair
trade practices and breach of contract, and $10 million in
punitive damages.  

A copy of the Complaint in Williams, et al. v. Southeastern
University, et al., Case No. 0001667-10 (D.C. Super. Ct.), is
available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/29/SEU.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
                    
          John Hermina, Esq.
          HERMINA LAW GROUP
          Laurel Lakes Executive Park
          8327 Cherry Lane
          Laurel, MD 20707
          Telephone: 301-206-3166


SOUTHERN STAR: Plea in Decertification of "Price I" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider a ruling by the District
Court, Stevens County, Kansas, denying class certification in the
matter Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.,
Case No. 99 C 30, remains pending, according to Southern Star
Central Corp.'s March 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 28, 1999,
wherein the named plaintiffs have sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting,
accounting and unjust enrichment, their Fourth Amended Class
Action Petition alleges that the defendants have undermeasured
the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas
they have obtained from or measured for Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead for
punitive damages.

On Aug. 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Southern Star Central Gas.

Despite a denial by the Court on April 10, 2003 of their original
motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs continue to seek
the certification of a class.

The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for a second
time was fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument on that
motion on April 1, 2005.

On Sept. 18, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' most recent
motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider that ruling on Oct.
2, 2009.

The defendants, including Central, filed a response in opposition
to the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on Jan. 18, 2010.  
The Plaintiffs filed a reply, and oral argument, which was
presented before a different judge, was heard on Feb. 10, 2010.

It is unknown when the Court will rule on the pending motion, or
whether the Plaintiffs will petition for an appeal if their
motion for reconsideration is denied.   

Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding  
company for its regulated natural gas pipeline operations and
development opportunities.  The company operates through its
wholly owned operating subsidiary, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Central).  Central is an interstate natural gas
transportation company that owns and operates a natural gas
pipeline system. The pipeline system operates in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming. The
system serves customers in these seven states, including
metropolitan areas in Kansas and Missouri, its main market areas.


SOUTHERN STAR: Appeal in "Price II" Case Ruling Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider a ruling by the District
Court, Stevens County, Kansas, denying class certification in the
matter Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.,
Case No. 03 C 23, remains pending, according to Southern Star
Central Corp.'s March 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The putative class-action suit was filed on May 12, 2003.  The
named plaintiffs from Price Litigation I have sued the same
defendants.

The plaintiffs in Price Litigation I sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting substantially identical legal and equitable theories,
as in Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that the
defendants have undermeasured the British thermal units, or BTU,
content of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas
they have obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead
for punitive damages.

On Nov. 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Central.

The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with
the plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price
Litigation I, was fully briefed and the court heard oral argument
on this motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to
a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs.  It is
unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

On Sept. 18, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider that ruling on Oct.
2, 2009.

The defendants, including Central, filed a response in opposition
to the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on Jan. 18, 2010.  
The Plaintiffs filed a reply, and oral argument, which was
presented before a different judge, was heard on Feb. 10, 2010.  
It is unknown when the Court will rule on the pending motion, or
whether the Plaintiffs will petition for an appeal if their
motion for reconsideration is denied.

Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding  
company for its regulated natural gas pipeline operations and
development opportunities.  The company operates through its
wholly owned operating subsidiary, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Central).  Central is an interstate natural gas
transportation company that owns and operates a natural gas
pipeline system. The pipeline system operates in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming. The
system serves customers in these seven states, including
metropolitan areas in Kansas and Missouri, its main market areas.


UNITED MARKETING: Sued in Ill. for Deceptive Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that United
Marketing Group conspired with three online stores to defraud
customers by "enrolling" them in "membership programs" without
their knowledge and billing them monthly, in exchange for nothing
in return, a class action claims in Cook County Court.  The
alleged conspirators include Permission Interactive, Pike's Peak
Direct Marketing and Taylor Gifts.

The class claims that after buying something through one of the
online merchants, the retailers gave their bank card information
to United Marketing Group, which charged them from $10 to $20 per
month for so-called membership programs, which provided them
nothing in return.

"UMG purports to sell negative-option membership programs" or
"membership programs," according to the complaint.  UMG claims
that this provides consumers with discounts and benefits at a
"variety of companies."

In reality, UMG gets credit- or debit-card information from
merchants after a customer buys something from an online store,
then charges a monthly fee without the customer's knowledge
authorization, according to the complaint.

"In thousands of instances, consumers are entirely unaware they
have been deceptively or fraudulently enrolled in a UMG
Membership Program and, as a result, consumers -- though
repeatedly billed by UMG -- get nothing in return."

Because UMG's fraudulent charges are relatively small, customers
often do not notice them for months, the class claims.  First,
UMG enrolls its victims in a 30-day trial membership for $1, then
charges them from $10 to $20 per month, according to the
complaint.  The class claims that UMG's "membership programs," in
most cases, are entirely unrelated to their original retail
transaction.

When a customer discovers the fraud, UMG will cancel the service,
but will not provide refunds, the class says.

It adds that after Permission, Pike's Peak or Taylor transmit a
customer's account information to UMG, the online retailers
receive "a share of the charge and thereby profit from each
unauthorized charge."

Yet the companies tell their customers that they do not know how
UMG got ahold of the confidential billing information, the class
claims.

Sometimes UMG enrolls a consumer in more than one membership
program at a time, the class claims.

Named plaintiff Janet Casinover says that in August 2009 she
bought a "Potty Patch" for her dog through Permission Interactive
and gave the company her debit card number.  In February this
year, she noticed two separate, recurring charges on her bank
statements: "UMG*EDGE" and "UMG*MYAD," each for $14.95.

Ms. Casinover says she called UMG several times, was always
placed on hold, and eventually had to cancel her debit card,
according.

Three other named plaintiffs say they managed to cancel
enrollment in the UMG membership programs, but were denied full
refunds.

The class demands damages for consumer fraud, deceptive business
practices, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conspiracy and
violations of the Automatic Contract Renewal Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Van Tassell, et al. v. United
Marketing Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 10CH12791 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/30/CookCoCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          Will Haselden, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-589-6370
          E-mail: cdore@edelson.com
                  whaselden@edelson.com

               - and -

          Clifford A. Cantor, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
          627 208th Ave. SE
          Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
          Telephone: 425-868-7813
          E-mail: cacantor@comcast.net


UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA: Professor Accused of Sexual Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that a
student at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa says she was
sexually harassed in and out of class by her French teacher, who
touched and kissed her in his office for 90 minutes while telling
her he was "just trying to help her."

French professor Rafael Chiche told his class he had had to leave
France due to an affair with a student, according to the federal
complaint.

The Alabama student claims Mr. Chiche made "sexually
inappropriate and suggestive comments" to her and other students,
at least one of whom withdrew from class because of Mr. Chiche's
behavior.

The student says she stopped going to class due to the
"intimidating and hostile learning environment."  She says she
felt "fear and humiliation" -- especially when Mr. Chiche began
showing up at her job.

The student claims that when Mr. Chiche asked about her excessive
absenteeism, he threatened her with expulsion from school for the
"forged" medical excuses she provided.  Then, she says, Mr.
Chiche told her that if she submitted to his sexual advances, he
would not turn in the excuses the University.

She claims Mr. Chiche touched and kissed her in his office while
telling her he was "just trying to help her."

The complaint continues: "Chiche started rubbing her legs and
began touching her inappropriately.  [The plaintiff] asked
Chiche, 'if I don't do anything with you right now I will be
kicked out of school?' Chiche responded, while rubbing her face,
that he was trying to help her and that he could overlook the
excuses.  This continued for an hour and a half.

"Chiche suggested to [her] that if she would acquiesce to his
sexual advances he would not turn the excuses over to the dean of
her college: that although he had turned them in he could still
assure her that he could prevent her from receiving
consequences."

The student says that after she filed a complaint against
Mr. Chiche, the university told her she could not register for
the following semester because she was being given an academic
misconduct report for the false medical excuses.  She says she
was never informed of the outcome of the formal complaint she
filed against Mr. Chiche.

Also named as defendants are Robert F. Olin, Dean of the School
of Arts and Sciences, three other professors, and the Board of
Trustees at the University of Alabama.

A copy of the Complaint in Roberts v. Chiche, et al., Case No.
10-cv-00664 (N.D. Ala.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/29/AlabamaProf.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Brett M. Bloomston, Esq.
          Joseph J. Basgier, III, Esq.
          BLOOMSTON & BASGIER
          1330 21st Way South, Suite 120
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-212-9700

               - and -

          Samuel R. McCord, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL R. MCCORD
          2126 Morris Ave.
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-252-2100


UTSTARCOM INC: Preliminary Approval Hearing Set for May 10
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has set a May 10, 2010, hearing to consider preliminary approval
of a settlement agreement in the matter In re UTStarcom, Inc.
Securities Litigation, according to the company's March 15, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class action
lawsuits alleging federal securities violations were filed
against the company and various officers and directors of the
company.  The actions have been consolidated in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under the caption
In re UTStarcom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
C-04-4908-JW (PVT).

The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint on July 26, 2005.  The First Amended
Complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and was brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased the company's stock after April 16,
2003 and before Sept. 20, 2004.  On April 13, 2006, the lead
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding new
allegations and extending the end of the class period to Oct. 6,
2005.  In addition to the company defendants, the plaintiffs are
also suing Softbank.  Plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of
damages in an unspecified amount.

On June 2, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  On March 21,
2007, the Court granted defendants' motion and dismissed
plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

The Court granted plaintiffs leave to file a Third Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on May 25, 2007.  On July 13,
2007, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss and a motion to strike the Third Amended Complaint.  On
March 14, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion and
dismissed plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint.

The Court granted plaintiffs leave to file a Fourth Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on May 14, 2008.  On June 13,
2008, consistent with the Court's March 14, 2008 dismissal order,
the company and the individual defendants filed objections to the
form and content of the Fourth Amended Complaint.  On July 24,
2008, the Court overruled the objections.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain allegations
from the Fourth Amended Complaint.  On March 27, 2009, the Court
denied defendants' motion to dismiss and granted defendants'
motion to strike.  Discovery and motion practice are ongoing in
this litigation.  No trial date has been set.

Plaintiffs, the individual defendants and the company has signed
a stipulation of settlement providing for the settlement of the
case.  Defendant Softbank is not a party to the settlement.  The
settlement is contingent on approval by the court.
Under the terms of the settlement, the individual defendants' and
the company's insurers would pay the full amount of the
settlement.  The Court has scheduled a preliminary approval
hearing for May 10, 2010.

UTStarcom, Inc. -- http://www.utstar.com/-- is a provider of  
Internet Protocol (IP)-based communications products and
services.  The company designs, manufactures and sells IP-based
telecommunications infrastructure products.  Its primary product
suite includes Internet Protocol TV (IPTV), Next Generation
Network (NGN) and broadband solutions.  In addition, it also
sells handsets that are designed and manufactured for the China
market.  UTStarcom's solutions are designed to expand and
modernize telecommunications networks through network system
integration, lower operating costs and increased broadband
access.  In July 2008, the company divested its wholly owned
subsidiary, UTStarcom Personal Communications LLC (PCD) and
Mobile Solutions Business Unit (MSBU).  The company's business
segments include Multimedia Communications, Broadband
Infrastructure, Handsets, Services, Personal Communications
Division (PCD), and Other, which includes the Mobile Solutions
and Custom Solutions business units.


VCG HOLDING: Suit Against Classic Affairs Subsidiary Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The suit against VCG Holding Corp.'s subsidiary, Classic Affairs,
Inc., has been dismissed after the plaintiffs indicated that they
do not intend to seek leave to appeal from the Minnesota Supreme
Court the ruling of the Appellate Court, according to the
company's March 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In December 2007, a former employee of VCG's subsidiary Classic
Affairs, Eric Zajkowski, filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County
District Court, Minneapolis, Minnesota against VCG following his
termination from employment alleging that, in connection with his
employment, he was subject to certain employment practices which
violated Minnesota law.  The suit is Zajkowski, et. al. vs VCG
and Classic Affairs Litigation.

The initial action and subsequent pleading asserted that the
matter was filed as a purported class action.  Subsequent to the
filing of Zajkowski's Complaint, Zajkowski moved to amend his
Complaint to name additional Plaintiffs and later, to name
Classic Affairs as a party defendant.

VCG and Classic Affairs have answered this complaint denying all
liability.

Classic Affairs has also filed a Counter-Complaint against Mr.
Zajkowski based upon matters relating to his termination from
employment with Classic Affairs.

In December 2008 and early January 2009, the parties filed cross-
motions for Summary Judgment and Zajkowski filed a Motion for
Class Certification.  Following the motions, the Court issued a
series of rulings on those Motions.  In these rulings, the Court
has dismissed VCG as a party Defendant - having determined that
VCG is not directly liable to Zajkowski or the other Plaintiffs
on their claims.  The Court granted Summary Judgment to Zajkowski
as to one issue, but did not determine the scope or extent, if
any, of the alleged damages, ruling this issue, like the others,
are questions for a jury, and the Court dismissed two other
claims asserted by Zajkowski. In all other respects, the Court
has denied the parties respective Summary Judgment motions.

On July 21, 2009, the Court denied Zajkowski's and the other
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  Zajkowski appealed
that decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and on Sept. 22,
2009, the Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs request for
discretionary review.  Plaintiffs have indicated that they do not
intend to seek leave to appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The parties have held mediation in November 2009 and the case was
resolved.

The settlement terms, including the amounts, are confidential.  
The lawsuit has now been dismissed, with prejudice.  All related
costs have been accrued or paid as of Dec. 31, 2009.

VCG Holding Corp. -- http://www.vcgh.com/-- is in the business  
of acquiring, owning and operating nightclubs, which provide live
adult entertainment, restaurant and beverage services.


VCG HOLDING: Continues to Defend Suits Over Going Private Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
VCG Holding Corp. continues to defend lawsuits associated with
its proposed going private transaction, according to the
company's March 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Nov. 3, 2009, the company received a non-binding letter of
intent from the company's Chairman and CEO, Troy Lowrie, Lowrie
Management, LLLP, an entity controlled by Mr. Lowrie, and certain
other unidentified investors to acquire all of the outstanding
common stock of the company for $2.10 per share in cash.

In connection with the Proposal concerning the proposed Going
Private Transaction, the company has been served with three
complaints filed by various plaintiffs, alleging that they bring
purported derivative and class action lawsuits against the
xompany and each of the individual members of the Board on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated and derivatively
on behalf of the company.

On Nov. 13, 2009, the company was served with a complaint filed
by David Cohen in the District Court in Jefferson County,
Colorado.  In the complaint, Mr. Cohen alleges that he brings the
purported class action lawsuit against the company and each of
the individual members of the Board on behalf of the company's
stockholders.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Troy Lowrie, the
company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, has
conflicts of interest with respect to the Proposal and that in
connection with the Board's evaluation of the Proposal, the
individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duties under
Colorado law.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
certification of Mr. Cohen as class representative, either an
injunction enjoining the defendants from consummating or closing
the Going Private Transaction, or if the Going Private
Transaction is consummated, rescission of the Going Private
Transaction, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at
trial and an award of reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

On Nov. 20, 2009, the company was served with a complaint filed
by Gene Harris and William C. Steppacher, Jr. in the District
Court in Jefferson County, Colorado.  In the complaint, the
plaintiffs purport to bring a derivative and class action lawsuit
against the Company and each of the individual members of the
Board on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
and derivatively on behalf of the Company.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that Mr. Lowrie has conflicts of
interest with respect to the Proposal and that the individual
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties under Colorado
law in connection with the Proposal.  The complaint seeks, among
other things, certification of the plaintiffs as class
representatives, an injunction directing the Board members to
comply with their fiduciary duties, an accounting to the
plaintiffs and the class for alleged damages suffered or to be
suffered based on the conduct described in the complaint, an
award of the costs and disbursements of maintaining the action,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other
relief the court deems just and proper.

On Dec. 3, 2009, the company was served with a complaint filed by
David J. Sutton and Sandra Sutton in the District Court in
Jefferson County, Colorado.  In the complaint, the plaintiffs
purport to bring a class action lawsuit against the Company and
each of the individual members of the Board on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that Mr. Lowrie has conflicts of
interest with respect to the Proposal and that the individual
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties under Colorado
law in connection with the Proposal.  The complaint seeks, among
other things, certification of the plaintiffs as class
representatives, an injunction directing the Board to comply with
their fiduciary duties and enjoining the Board from consummating
the Proposal, imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the
plaintiffs and the class upon any benefits improperly received by
the defendants, an award of the costs and disbursements of
maintaining the action, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees, and such other relief the court deems just and
proper.

The plaintiffs in the three lawsuits have moved to consolidate
all three of the lawsuits into one suit together with a fourth
lawsuit arising out of the Proposal for the proposed Going
Private Transaction, in which the company was not named as a
defendant, filed on Dec. 11, 2009 by Brandon Ostry in the
District Court in Jefferson County, Colorado against Mr. Lowrie
and Lowrie Management, LLLP.  The court has indicated that it
will consider the consolidation motion if and when the plaintiffs
move for class certification.  As of the date hereof, the
plaintiffs have not yet moved for class certification.

VCG Holding Corp. -- http://www.vcgh.com/-- is in the business  
of acquiring, owning and operating nightclubs, which provide live
adult entertainment, restaurant and beverage services.


WELLS FARGO: Court Certifies Class in Suit Over Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge in San Francisco ruled that a class of Wells Fargo
customers claiming the bank calculates withdrawals to maximize
the amount of overdraft fees it can collect can proceed with its
action.       

In denying Wells Fargo summary judgment to dismiss, U.S. District
Judge William Alsup wrote, "While defendant's reply brief
repeatedly harps on plaintiffs' 'failure to set forth specific
facts showing a genuine issue for trial,' this argument
presupposes that Wells Fargo has met its burden on summary
judgment.  Indeed, this it has not done."

Wells Fargo attacked the class' method of calculating its
damages, which "sought to extrapolate 43 months of class-wide
damages -- amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars -- based
upon an analysis of a single month of transaction data for Wells
Fargo customers in California."

Wells Fargo maintained that the class' study of how the bank
posted transactions to determine damages was imperfect, since
there was no way the bank could post debit card transactions in
perfect chronological order.

Judge Alsup agreed with the bank's assertion that the class'
method for calculating its damages by sequencing the transactions
from the smallest to the highest dollar amount was inadequate,
but found the class' two other alternative methods acceptable.
In rejecting the lowest-to-highest method, Judge Alsup found the
ordering "didn't even attempt" to chronologically list the
disputed transactions.

While Judge Alsup said both sides conceded that the study did not
allow for perfect chronological ordering of transactions, the
class' alternative methods came close enough to be admissible
since "they are grounded on the premise that debit-card
transactions should have been posted chronologically."   

A copy of the Honorable William Alsup's March 26, 2010, Order in
Gutierrez, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., Case No.
07-cv-05923 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?5cf4


YELP! INC: Removes Boris Levitt's Complaint to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Boris Y. Levitt, on on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. 10-497777 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
San Francisco Cty.) was filed on March 12, 2010.  Mr. Levitt
accused Yelp! of manipulating the reviews of businesses that
posted offers and other business information for free on its Web
site, then
deleting positive reviews from users from the business page and
posting negative reviews on the top of the review page.  Mr.
Levitt complained that Yelp! would later contact the businesses
and offer them the opportunity to purchase advertising, and if
the businesses refuse, would continue to manipulate the overall
rating by removing most of the positive reviews, further causing
the overall rating of the businesses to decline futher.

On Mar. 29, 2010, Yelp! removed the lawsuit to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, and the
Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-01321 to the proceeding.  Yelp!,
which operates a advertising Website that provides information on
local businesses, states that the U.S. District Court has
original jurisdiction over this complaint under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d).

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
          Matthew D. Brown, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Kleine, Esq.
          Sarah R. Boot, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
          101 California St., 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence D. Murray, Esq.
          Robert C. Strickland, Esq.
          MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
          1781 Union St.
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 673-0555

                            *********

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  * * *