CAR_Public/100408.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 8, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 68

                            Headlines

AMBASSADORS GROUP: Defends Securities Suit in Washington
AMERICAN HONDA: Settles Accord & Acura Brake Wear Lawsuit
BEAR LAKE: Inks Conditional Class Action Settlement
BIG 5: June 11 Hearing Set in Preliminary Approval of Settlement
CARTER'S INC: Appeal of Plaintiffs in Two Suits Remains Pending

CARTER'S INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Georgia
COOPER TIRE: Court Approves $7.05 Million Settlement in "Cates"
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Drenckhahn Class Certification Ruling Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Certification in Ward Suit Still Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "George" Suit in California

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Defends Suit on Failure to Give Proper Seating
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Awaits Decision in Ellis Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Final Approval of Suit Settlement
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Approval of "Fuel" Suit Settlement
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Milk" Suit Pending

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Salmon" Suit in Calif.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs' Injunction Denial Appeal Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Castaneda Plaintiffs Appeal Decertification
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Pytelewski Suit in Calif.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Defends "Hawk" Complaint in Washington

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Settlement Final Approval in "Williams"
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Head Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Ruling
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Accused in Calif. of Invasion of Privacy
CUMULUS MEDIA: Overtime Lawsuit Removed to N.D. Calif.
DRESS BARN: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Consolidated Suit

DRESS BARN: In Negotiations to Settle California Suit
DRESS BARN: Wage & Hour Suit Against Tween in Preliminary Stages
HERTZ CORP: Suit Against Hertz Equipment Unit in Discovery
HERTZ CORP: Continues to Defend Concession Recovery Fees Suit
HERTZ CORP: TCPA Violations Suit in Kansas Remains Stayed

HERTZ CORP: Tourism Assessment-Related Suit in Discovery Stage
HERTZ CORP: Appeal in Consolidated Suit Dismissal Still Pending
HUMANA MILITARY: 11th Cir. Decertifies Class in Medical Care Suit
JAKARTA: Citizen Group Preparing to Sue City Administration
LEGAL BUCKS: Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement

SONY CORPORATION: Third Optical Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
TUESDAY MORNING: Cal. Sup. Ct. Declines to Review Decertification
VACCINE LITIGATION: High Court Will Hear Preemption Arguments
WEBMD HEALTH: "Feinstein" Suit in New York Concluded
WEBMD HEALTH: Subsidiaries Face TCPA-Violations Lawsuit in Conn.

                            *********

AMBASSADORS GROUP: Defends Securities Suit in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------
Ambassadors Group, Inc., continues to defend a securities class
action alleging violations of federal securities laws, according
to the company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the company's Common Stock
between Feb. 8, 2007 and Oct. 23, 2007.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington by plaintiff Plumbers Union Local
No. 12 Pension Fund.

On Oct. 22, 2009, the Court appointed International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers Local 351 as lead plaintiff.

On Nov. 23, 2009, lead plaintiff IBEW 351 filed a motion to
withdraw as lead plaintiff and sought appointment of Plumbers
Union as substitute lead plaintiff.  On Jan. 7, 2010, a hearing
was held and the Court appointed Plumbers Union as lead plaintiff
and required any amended complaint shall be served and filed on
or before Jan. 11, 2010.  Plumbers Union filed its amended
complaint on Jan. 11, 2010.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the company's Common Stock.

The company has reviewed the amended complaint and deny the
allegations contained therein.  The company has tendered our
defense and indemnity under applicable insurance coverage and
defense counsel in Seattle, Washington has been retained to
represent the company.

The company believes that the likelihood that it will ultimately
incur a loss in connection with this litigation is remote.  "We
cannot estimate the possible loss to our Company, if any, at this
time. The actual cost to resolve this case will depend upon many
factors such as the outcome of mediation, pre-trial motions,
trial and any appeals.  However, we believe any loss incurred
will not have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.  We
intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and any alleged claims
for damages," the Company says.

Ambassadors Group, Inc. -- http://ambassadorsgroup.com-- is a  
socially conscious, education company located in Spokane,
Washington.  Ambassadors Group is the parent company of
Ambassador Programs, Inc., World Adventures Unlimited, Inc. and
Book Rags, Inc., an educational research website.  The company
also oversees the Washington School of World Studies, an
accredited travel study and distance learning school.


AMERICAN HONDA: Settles Accord & Acura Brake Wear Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jensen at The New York Times reports that Honda has
agreed to settle a class-action suit that claims the rear brakes
in 750,000 late model Accords and Acura TSXs are wearing out more
than twice as fast as they should.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 21, 2009,
Browne, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No.
09-cv-06750 (C.D. Calif.), claims that unreasonable wear was due
to a defective design that caused "excessive force to be applied
to the vehicle's rear wheels."

It covers 2008 and 2009 Accords and 2009 Acura TSXs as well as a
small number of 2010 models.  The suit says the rear pads wear
out in 15,000 to 20,000 miles when they should last at about
70,000 miles, that Honda has refused to provide repairs under the
new-car warranty and failed to warn new buyers that the rear
brakes would require such frequent repairs.

The suit attributes the problem to a new braking system that
included four-wheel discs and an electronic brake distribution
system that became standard on the 2008 Accord and 2009 TSX.

On its Web site, Honda described electronic brake distribution as
"a more exacting method of ensuring that proportionate braking
forces are applied to the brakes. In order to avoid needless ABS
cycling during a nonemergency stop, E.B.D. uses the ABS sensors
to detect impending rear-wheel lockup. Then it signals an
additional ABS solenoid to reduce braking force to the rear and
add more to the front."

Honda has come up with a new brake pad and can make adjustments
to the braking system that will "greatly increase the lifespan of
those rear brake pads," said:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com

who is one of the lawyers who filed the case.

Chris Martin, a Honda spokesman, said the automaker did not
comment on pending litigation.

The proposed settlement says that Honda denies there is a defect
or that it has done anything wrong. The settlement also says
neither Honda nor the plaintiffs' lawyers have identified a
safety problem.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has about 350
owner complaints about the issue on its Web site.

Jerry Ongaro of Naperville, Ill., filed his complaint with the
Center for Auto Safety.  Mr. Ongaro said he was charged $256 for
new rear brakes on his 2008 Accord after only 26,000 miles. "Most
of the miles I put on this particular car have been expressway.
No stop and go.  Strictly zoom, zoom.  Back and forth.  I was
dumbfounded," he said in an interview.

"I just got very angry at the seeming indifference Honda had with
this," he said. "I was really frustrated, this is my eighth
Honda. They have been great cars."

Judge Margaret M. Morrow of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California is scheduled in May to
consider whether the settlement is fair to owners and deserves
preliminary approval.  If she grants preliminary approval,
interested parties have the opportunity to comment.  She would
consider final approval later this year.

Here's what is proposed:

     (A) Owners who had the pads replaced and rotors resurfaced
before approval of the settlement would be reimbursed for one
half of the cost, or a maximum of $125, "whichever is less." That
would be for repairs in which the original worn pads were
replaced with pads of the same type. Owners can file claims for
multiple repairs, and the work does not need to have been done at
a Honda dealership.

     (B) Owners who complained on the N.H.T.S.A. Web site
typically said they paid from $100 to $300 for the repair, which
sometimes included the brake rotors being smoothed out.

     (C) Owners will also be given a one-time payment of up to
$150 to have the new, redesigned brake pads installed.

Mr. Gibbs said the $150 should pay for most repairs, but some
consumers might have to pay an extra $10 or $20. He said that
seemed like the best deal possible because there would be no
guarantee that consumers would get more after a trial.

"Cases like this, when you are alleging that a wear part is
defective, are extraordinarily difficult to prove and to win,"
Mr. Gibbs said.

The settlement proposes that $2 million for fees and expenses be
shared by Mr. Gibbs and the other lawyers in the case, including
those from Berk Law of Washington.


BEAR LAKE: Inks Conditional Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Bear Lake Gold Ltd. has reached an agreement in principle to
settle the class action commenced in Ontario against the Company,
its directors and certain of its current and former officers.  
The claims in the Class Action remain unproven and the Class
Action has not received court approval.

The agreement in principle provides for the settlement, release
and dismissal of all claims asserted against the Company and the
individual proposed defendants other than the Company's former
Vice President Exploration (it is currently anticipated that a
settlement including Mr. Bernard Boily will be reached by April
9, 2010).  The settlement amount is to be funded primarily
through directors and officers insurance coverage, with a
contribution from the Company. The agreement in principle remains
subject to final settlement documentation and court approval.  
The proposed settlement does not and will not constitute any
admission of liability by the Company or its officers, directors
or employees.

Prior coverage of the litigation appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Aug. 27 and 31, 2009.  


BIG 5: June 11 Hearing Set in Preliminary Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider preliminary approval of a settlement
agreement in purported class action against Big 5 Sporting Goods
Corporation is set for June 11, 2010, according to the company's
March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 3, 2010.

On Aug. 6, 2009, the company was served with a complaint filed in
the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego,
entitled Shane Weyl v. Big 5 Corp., et al., Case No. 37-2009-
00093109-CU-OE-CTL, alleging violations of the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code.

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf
of the company's hourly employees in California for the four
years prior to the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that the company failed to provide
hourly employees with meal and rest periods and failed to pay
wages within required time periods during employment and upon
termination of employment.

The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, an award of
one hour of pay (wages) for each workday that a meal or rest
period was not provided; restitution of unpaid wages; actual,
consequential and incidental losses and damages; pre-judgment
interest; statutory penalties including an additional thirty
days' wages for each hourly employee in California whose
employment terminated in the four years preceding the filing of
the complaint; civil penalties; an award of attorneys' fees and
costs; and injunctive and declaratory relief.

On Dec. 14, 2009, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed to
settle the lawsuit.

On Feb. 4, 2010, the parties filed a joint settlement and a
motion to preliminarily approve the settlement with the court.
The court has scheduled a hearing for June 11, 2010, to consider
the parties' request to preliminarily approve the proposed
settlement.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company agreed to
pay up to a maximum amount of $2.0 million, which includes
payments to class members who submit valid and timely claim
forms, plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses, an enhancement
payment to the class representative, claims administrator fees
and payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency.

Under the proposed settlement, in the event that fewer than all
class members submit valid and timely claims, the total amount
required to be paid by the company will be reduced, subject to a
minimum payment amount calculated in the manner provided in the
settlement agreement.  The company's anticipated total payments
pursuant to this settlement have been reflected in a legal
settlement accrual recorded in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009.

The company admitted no liability or wrongdoing with respect to
the claims set forth in the lawsuit.  Once final approval is
granted, the settlement will constitute a full and complete
settlement and release of all claims related to the lawsuit.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation --
http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/-- is a sporting goods retailer  
in the United States operating 384 stores in 11 states under the
Big 5 Sporting Goods name at the fiscal year ended Jan. 3,
2010(fiscal 2009).  The company provides a line of products
offering in a traditional sporting goods store format that
averages approximately 11,000 square feet.  The product mix
includes athletic shoes, apparel and accessories, as well as
selection of outdoor and athletic equipment for team sports,
fitness, camping, hunting, fishing, tennis, golf, snowboarding
and in-line skating. It conducts its business through Big 5
Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary.  It conducts its gift card
operations through Big 5 Services Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Big 5 Corp.


CARTER'S INC: Appeal of Plaintiffs in Two Suits Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs over the dismissal of two complaints
against Carter's, Inc., remain pending in the Seventh Circuit,
according to the company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 2, 2010.

A class action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 29, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
company claiming breach of contract arising from certain
advertising and pricing practices with respect to Carter's brand
products purchased by consumers at Carter's retail stores
nationally.

The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff has since filed an amended complaint, alleging breach
of contract on behalf of a nationwide class and Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act claims on behalf of Illinois consumers.

On Feb. 3, 2009 the same plaintiff's attorney filed a second,
nearly identical action against the company in the same court but
in the name of a different plaintiff.

The parties filed an agreed upon motion to consolidate this
second action with the first case and to stay the need for
response in the second case until after the court had ruled upon
a pending motion to dismiss the first case.

On April 15, 2009, the Amended Complaint in the first case was
dismissed for failure to state a claim for breach of contract and
for failure to adequately allege damages.

The company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the second
case on the same grounds, which the Court granted on April 29,
2009.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in each action on
May 1, 2009.

The appeals have been consolidated and fully briefed.

On Dec. 2, 2009, plaintiffs and the company presented oral
arguments before the Seventh Circuit.

Carter's, Inc. -- http://www.carters.com/-- is a marketer of  
apparel for babies and young children in the United States.  The
company owns two brand names in the children's apparel industry,
Carter's and OshKosh.  Carter's offers multiple product
categories, including baby, sleepwear, playclothes and other
accessories.  The company sells its products to national
department stores, chain and specialty stores, discount
retailers, and as of Dec. 29, 2007, through 228 Carter's and 163
OshKosh outlet and brand retail stores.  Under its Carter's
brand, the company designs, sources and markets an array of
products, primarily for sizes newborn to seven.  Its Carter's
brand is sold in department stores, national chains, specialty
stores, off-price sales channels, and through its Carter's retail
stores.  Carter's sells its Just One Year and Child of
Mine brands through the mass channel at Target and Wal-Mart,
respectively.


CARTER'S INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carter's, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated action
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal
securities laws.

                      Plymouth Action

A shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 19, 2008 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
entitled Plymouth Country Retirement System v. Carter's, Inc.,
No. 1:08-CV-02940-JOF.

The Amended Complaint filed on May 12, 2009 in the Plymouth
Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the
1934 Securities Exchange Act, and alleges that between Feb. 1,
2006 and July 24, 2007, the company and certain current and
former executives made misrepresentations to investors regarding
the successful integration of OshKosh into the company's
business, and that the share price of the company's stock later
fell when the market learned that the integration had not been as
successful as represented.

Defendants in the Plymouth Action filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal
securities laws on July 17, 2009, and briefing of that motion was
complete on October 22, 2009.

                      Mylroie Action

A shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on Nov. 17, 2009 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
entitled Mylroie v. Carter's, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-3196-JOF.

The Complaint in the Mylroie Action asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, and alleges
that between April 27, 2004 and Nov. 10, 2009, the company and
certain current and former executives made misstatements to
investors regarding the company's accounting for discounts
offered to some wholesale customers.

                    Consolidated Action

The Court consolidated the Plymouth Action and the Mylroie Action
on Nov. 24, 2009.

The parties have agreed that an amended complaint in the
Consolidated Action will be filed after the company releases a
planned restatement of prior financial results.  By stipulation,
the company will respond to the amended complaint to be filed by
the Lead Plaintiff in the Consolidated Action.

No updates were disclosed in the company's March 2, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Jan. 2, 2010.

Carter's, Inc. -- http://www.carters.com/-- is a marketer of  
apparel for babies and young children in the United States.  The
company owns two brand names in the children's apparel industry,
Carter's and OshKosh.  Carter's offers multiple product
categories, including baby, sleepwear, playclothes and other
accessories.  The company sells its products to national
department stores, chain and specialty stores, discount
retailers, and as of Dec. 29, 2007, through 228 Carter's and 163
OshKosh outlet and brand retail stores.  Under its Carter's
brand, the company designs, sources and markets an array of
products, primarily for sizes newborn to seven.  Its Carter's
brand is sold in department stores, national chains, specialty
stores, off-price sales channels, and through its Carter's retail
stores.  Carter's sells its Just One Year and Child of
Mine brands through the mass channel at Target and Wal-Mart,
respectively.


COOPER TIRE: Court Approves $7.05 Million Settlement in "Cates"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
approved the settlement agreement in the matter Cates, et al v.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company.  As a result of the approval, the
related suit Johnson, et al v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company has
been dismissed with prejudice, according to the company's March
2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 18, 2006, a group of the company's union retirees and
surviving spouses filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of a purported class
claiming that the company was not entitled to impose any
contribution requirement pursuant to the letter agreements and
that Plaintiffs were promised lifetime benefits, at no cost,
after retirement under the terms of the union-Company negotiated
Pension and Insurance Agreements in effect at the time that they
retired.

On May 13, 2008, in the case of Cates, et al v. Cooper Tire &
Rubber Company, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio entered an order holding that a series of pension and
insurance agreements negotiated by the company and its various
union locals over the years conferred vested lifetime health care
benefits upon certain company hourly retirees.

The Court further held that these benefits were not subject to
the caps on the company's annual contributions for retiree health
care benefits that the company had negotiated with the union
locals.  Subsequent to that order, the Court granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The company
initiated the process of pursuing an appeal of the order to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, while simultaneously reviewing
other means of satisfactorily resolving the case through
settlement discussions.

As a result of the settlement discussions and in an attempt to
resolve the claims relating to health care benefits for the
company's hourly union-represented retirees, a related lawsuit,
Johnson, et al v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, was filed on Feb.
3, 2009, with the Court on behalf of a different, smaller group
of hourly union-represented retirees.  The second case was stayed
pending the parties' settlement discussions.

In April, 2009, the parties negotiated a tentative agreement
intended to resolve all related claims for these matters.
Pursuant to the Court's order, the parties submitted a proposed
settlement agreement for approval.  The proposed settlement
agreement, which is subject to Court approvals, provides for:

     1) a cash payment of $7.05 million to the Plaintiffs for
        reimbursement of costs; and

     2) modification to the company's approach and costs of
        providing future health care to specified current
        retiree groups which will result in an amendment to the
        company's retiree medical plan.

Notices of the proposed settlement agreement were sent to class
members on Oct. 13, 2009.  Deadline for objections by class
members to the proposed settlement agreement was Dec. 10, 2009.

On Feb. 2, 2010, the Court entered an order approving the
settlement, in its entirety, as being fair, reasonable and
adequate and dismissed, with prejudice, the case and a related
lawsuit, Johnson, et al v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company.

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company -- http://www.coopertire.com/-- is  
a manufacturer of replacement tires.  Cooper focuses on the
manufacture and sale of passenger and light truck replacement
tires.  The company operates through two segments: North American
Tire Operations and International Tire Operations.  The North
American Tire Operations segment produces passenger car and light
truck tires, primarily for sale in the United States replacement
market.  Major distribution channels and customers include
independent tire dealers, wholesale distributors, regional and
national retail tire chains, and other large automotive products
retail chains.  In the United Kingdom, the International Tire
Operations segment produces passenger car, light truck, racing
and motorcycle tires and markets these products primarily to
dealers in the replacement markets in the United Kingdom,
continental Europe and Scandinavia.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Drenckhahn Class Certification Ruling Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification motion by the plaintiff's in Drenckhahn v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 08-cv-01408 (C.D. Calif.)
(Nguyen, J.).  

The suit principally alleges denial of overtime compensation.  
The complaint alleges misclassification of certain California
managers.

On March 6, 2008, Costco filed a motion to dismiss.  On May 15,
2008, the court partially granted the motion, dismissing certain
claims and refusing to expand the statute of limitations for the
remaining claims.

An answer to the complaint was filed on May 27, 2008.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 17, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Feb. 14, 2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Alan Harris, Esq.
          David Zelenski, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: 323-962-3777
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  dzelenski@harrisandruble.com

Costco is represented by:

          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          Kenwood C. Youmans, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          2029 Century Park E., Ste. 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: 310-277-7200
          E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com

               - and -  

          Timothy Michael Rusche, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-270-9662
          E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Certification in Ward Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification motion by the plaintiff in Ward v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., et al., Case No. 08-cv-02013 (C.D. Calif.)
(Nguyen, J.), remains pending.  

The putative class action, filed on Jan. 24, 2008, purportedly
brought on behalf of two groups of former California employees:
an "Unpaid Wage Class" and a "Wage Statement Class."

The "Unpaid Wage Class" alleges that the company improperly
deducts employee credit card balances from final paychecks, while
the "Wage Statement Class" alleges that final paychecks do not
contain the accurate and itemized information legally required
for wage statements

On May 29, 2008, the court granted in part a motion to dismiss,
dismissing with prejudice the wage-itemization claims.

On May 5, 2009, the Court denied the company's motion for summary
judgment.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 17, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Feb. 14, 2010.

The parties are represented by the same lawyers appearing in
Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 08-cv-01408 (C.D.
Calif.) (Nguyen, J.).  

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "George" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp., faces a putative class action in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, according to
the company's March 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 14, 2010.

The suit is George v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No.
37-2010-00086734-CU-OE-CTL.

The suit was filed on March 1, 2010, alleging that as to
California non-exempt employees the company has unlawfully denied
meal and rest breaks, failed to pay wages, failed to provide
accurate wage-itemization statements, failed to maintain time
records, and willfully failed to pay termination wages.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Defends Suit on Failure to Give Proper Seating
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to defend a purported class
action alleging that it failed to provide reasonable seating to
employees in violation of California law, according to the
company's March 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 14, 2010.

The suit was filed on Oct. 28, 2009 and is styled Jade Jue v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No.
489091.

Plaintiff seeks restitution/disgorgement, compensatory damages,
various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Awaits Decision in Ellis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. and other parties in Shirley "Rae" Ellis
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. C-04-3341-MHP (N.D. Calif.),
still await a decision from the Ninth Circuit.

The case, brought as a class action on behalf of certain present
and former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of
promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and California state law.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.  Class certification was granted by
the district court on Jan. 11, 2007.

On May 11, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted a petition to hear the company's appeal of the
certification.  The appeal was argued on April 14, 2008.  
Proceedings in the district court have been stayed during the
appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 17, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Feb. 14, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Final Approval of Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to await final approval of a
settlement that will resolve two class suits, according to the
company's March 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 14, 2010.

The suits are:

     (1) In Evans, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
         No. BC351869, filed in theSuperior Court for the County
         of Los Angeles), and

     (2) Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Index No. 06-007555,
         commenced in the Supreme Court of Nassau County, New
         York and removed to the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York.

The suits asserted that the company violated various provisions
of California and New York common law and statutes in connection
with a membership renewal practice.

Under that practice, members who paid their renewal fees late
generally had their twelve-month membership renewal periods
commence at the time of the prior year's expiration rather than
the time of the late payment.

Plaintiffs in these two actions seek compensatory damages,
restitution, disgorgement, preliminary and permanent injunctive
and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment
interest and, in Evans, punitive damages.

On April 2, 2009, the district court preliminarily approved a
settlement that, if finally approved, will resolve both of these
actions.

The settlement entails a provisional certification of a
nationwide class of present and former Costco members who from
March 1, 2001, to March 31, 2009, paid their membership renewal
fees late and had their renewal periods commence at the prior
year's expiration date rather than the date of payment.

Depending upon their individual circumstances, class members can
be eligible for up to a three-month extension of their current
membership or, if they are no longer Costco members, a temporary
membership of up to three months.  Other than payments to two
class representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash
payments to class members.

The company has agreed not to oppose a request for an award of
attorneys' fees to class counsel in an amount up to $5 million.  
The court is considering whether the settlement should receive
final approval.

In the third quarter of 2009, the company recorded an adjustment
to deferred membership fees of $27 million and a reserve was
established in the amount of $7 million to cover the expected
costs of the certificates, payment of attorneys' fees to class
counsel, and certain expenses of settlement administration.

A hearing concerning settlement approval is set for March 29,
2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Approval of "Fuel" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is awaiting final approval from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas of the settlement in
the matter In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices
Litigation, according to the company's March 17, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Feb. 14, 2010.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the
company, alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by
selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related
expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the
energy equivalent received by the consumer.

The company is named in these actions:

     -- Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.);

     -- Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation,
        et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.);

     -- Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North
        America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.);

     -- James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
        Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);

     -- Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience
        Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.);

     -- Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.);

     -- Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.);

     -- James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North
        America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.);

     -- Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.);

     -- Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum,
        Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.);

     -- Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.);

     -- Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC,
        et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.);

     -- J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
        Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);

     -- Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
        et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.);

     -- William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
        Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.);

     -- Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America,
        Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tex.);

     -- S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation,
        et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.);

     -- Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al.,
        Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and

     -- Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al.,
        Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On April 12, 2009, the company agreed to a settlement involving
the actions in which it is named as a defendant.

Under the settlement, which is subject to final approval by the
court, the company has agreed, to the extent allowed by law, to
install over five years from the effective date of the settlement
temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama,
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
and Virginia.

Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does
not provide for cash payments to class members.

On Aug. 18, 2009, the court preliminarily approved the settlement
and a hearing was set for April 1, 2010, to consider final
approval of the settlement.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Milk" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of all claims
against Costco Wholesale Corp. in a consolidated complaint
remains pending, according to the company's March 17, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Feb. 14, 2010.

The company has been named as a defendant in two purported class
actions relating to sales of organic milk.

The suits are:

     (1) Hesse v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975
         (W.D. Wash.); and

     (2) Snell v. Aurora Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449
         (D. Col.).

Both actions claim violations of the laws of various states,
essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its supplier
Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled "organic."

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 18, 2008.

With respect to the company, plaintiffs seek to certify four
classes of people who purchased Costco organic milk.

Aurora has maintained that it has held and continues to hold
valid organic certifications.

The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, actual,
compensatory, statutory, punitive and/or exemplary damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 3, 2009, the court entered an order dismissing with
prejudice, among others, all claims against the company.

Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Salmon" Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to defend a purported class
action relating to sales of farm-raised salmon, according to the
company's March 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 14, 2010.

The suit is Farm Raised Salmon Coordinated Proceedings, Los
Angeles Superior Court Case No. JCCP No. 4329.

The action alleges that the company violated California law
requiring farm-raised salmon to be labeled as "color added."

The complaint asserts violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and
the California False Advertising Law, and negligent
misrepresentation, and seeks restoration of money acquired by
means of unfair competition or false advertising and compensatory
damages in unspecified amounts, injunctive relief remedying the
allegedly improper disclosures, and costs and attorneys' fees.

A California Superior Court ruling dismissing the action on the
ground that federal law does not permit claims for mislabeling of
farm-raised salmon to be asserted by private parties was reversed
by the California Supreme Court.

The company has denied the material allegations of the complaint.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs' Injunction Denial Appeal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the decision of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York denying their request for a
preliminary injunction seeking to prevent Costco Wholesale Corp.
from selling shrimp trays.

A purported nationwide class action styled In Verzani, et ano.,
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 09-CV-2117 was filed against the
company.

The plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and violation
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, based on the failure
of the company to disclose on the label of its "Shrimp Tray with
Cocktail Sauce" the weight of the shrimp in the item as distinct
from the accompanying cocktail sauce, lettuce, and lemon wedges.

The complaint seeks various forms of damages, including
compensatory and treble damages and disgorgement and restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and
prejudgment interest.

On April 21, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction, seeking to prevent the company from selling the
shrimp tray unless the company separately discloses the weight of
the shrimp and provides shrimp consistent with the disclosed
weight.

By orders dated July 29 and Aug. 6, 2009, the court denied the
preliminary injunction motion and dismissed the claim for breach
of contract.

Plaintiffs are appealing.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 17, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Feb. 14, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Castaneda Plaintiffs Appeal Decertification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter Anthony Castaneda v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., Case No. BC-399302, is appealing the ruling of
the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles denying the
plaintiff's motion for class certification, according to the
company's March 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 14, 2010.

Discovery is still ongoing in a purported class action styled
Anthony Castaneda v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-399302.

The case was purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of
present and former hourly employees in California, in which the
plaintiff principally alleges that the company's routine closing
procedures and security checks cause employees to incur delays
that qualify as uncompensated working time and that effectively
deny them statutorily guaranteed meal periods and rest breaks.

The complaint was filed on Oct. 2, 2008, and the company's motion
to dismiss was partially granted.

Discovery is ongoing.

On Feb. 1, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and that ruling has been appealed.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Pytelewski Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp continues to defend the complaint styled
Mary Pytelewski v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the
County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2009-00089654, according to the
company's March 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 14,
2010.

The purported class action was filed on May 15, 2009, on behalf
of present and former hourly employees in California, claiming
denial of wages and false imprisonment during the post-closing
jewelry and till "pull," when security measures allegedly cause
employees to be locked in the warehouses.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Defends "Hawk" Complaint in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to defend a purported class
action styled Raven Hawk v. Costco Wholesale Corp., King County
Superior Court, Case No. 09-242196-0-SEA, according to the
company's March 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 14,
2010.

A case purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of present
and former hourly employees in California, in which the

The suit was filed on Nov. 9, 2009, in the State of Washington.
  
Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory damages,
various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Settlement Final Approval in "Williams"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. awaits final approval of a settlement in
the matter Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., U.S.
District Court (San Diego), Case No. 02-CV-2003 NAJ (JFS),
according to the company's March 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 14, 2010.

The case is purportedly brought as class actions on behalf of
certain present and former Costco managers in California, in
which plaintiffs principally allege that they have not been
properly compensated for overtime work.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Head Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the suit styled Terry Head v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., Case No. BC-409805, are appealing the ruling of the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles granting summary
judgment in favor of Costco Wholesale Corp., according to the
company's March 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 14,
2010.

A case purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of certain
present and former Costco managers in California, in which
plaintiffs principally allege that they have not been properly
compensated for overtime work.  The suit is styled Greg Randall
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., filed in the Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-296369.

On Feb. 21, 2008 the court tentatively granted in part and denied
in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  That order
was finalized by the court on May 13, 2008.

The parties in Randall have agreed on a partial settlement of the
action, resolving all claims except for the miscalculation claim,
requiring a payment of up to $16 million by the company, which
was substantially paid in the first quarter of 2010.

The miscalculation claim from the Randall case was refiled as a
separate action by stipulation and styled Terry Head v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., filed in the Superior Court for the County of
Los Angeles, Case No. BC-409805.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the court granted the company's motion for
summary judgment, and that ruling has been appealed.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Accused in Calif. of Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that Countrywide
Financial employees stole and sold "tens of thousands, or
millions" of customers' personal financial information, invading
their privacy and exposing them to identity theft, a class action
claims in Ventura County Court, Calif.  The class seeks to know,
among other things, whether Countryside merely aided and abetted
the theft and illegal dissemination, or whether it was "an
architect of the plan".

Sixteen named plaintiffs sued Countrywide Financial, Countrywide
Home Loans, and Bank of America, which bought Countrywide, the
poster boy for the subprime mortgage crisis.

The class claims the defendants do not dispute that customers'
private financial information was "disseminated."  It wants to
know "whether the dissemination was intended as a plan or scheme,
or was intentional; [and] whether any of the defendants was
simply aiding and abetting, rather than an architect of the plan
to disseminate the personal information."

The class claims that the defendants were slow to admit the
massive breaches of confidentiality, and offered little help when
they finally did admit it.

It adds that the defendants delayed informing customers about the
breaches to "gain time and money to extricate defendants from the
financial stress [they] had created."

According to the complaint, "Beginning in 2008 -- coincidentally
after they sold their mortgage portfolios under wrongful and
fraudulent 'securitization pools,' and coincidentally after their
mortgage portfolio went into massive default as a result thereof
--- Countrywide learned that the financial information of
potentially millions of customers had been stolen by certain
Countrywide agents, employees or other individuals."

The plaintiffs say their identities have been stolen or
compromised, their credit histories have been "shattered," and
they've been unable to obtain loans, lines of credit or real
estate financing.

"Countrywide delayed several months before informing their
customers," the complaint states.  "Finally, Countrywide informed
only certain of their customers by letter and offered in
settlement to refer the customers/borrowers to counseling, when
it was Countrywide that needed to review and repair its internal
procedures and it was Countrywide that needed to repair damages
done to the credit of its customers."

The class seeks more than $20 million for invasion of privacy and
aiding and abetting, and punitive damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Jackson, et al. v. Bank of America
Corporation, et al., Case No. 56-200-003604 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Ventura Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/05/Cntrywide.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mitchell J. Stein, Esq.
          MITCHELL J. STEIN & ASSOCIATES
          2950 Buskirk Ave., Suite 300
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: 914-843-7957
          E-mail: mitchell@dobieco.org


CUMULUS MEDIA: Overtime Lawsuit Removed to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mas, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v.
Cumulus Media, Inc., et al., Case No. RG10494862 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Alameda Cty.) was filed on January 21, 2010.   Mr. Mas
charges the radio broadcasting company with failure to pay
overtime wages; failing to pay waiting time penalties; and non-
reimbursement of business expenses, in violation of state labor
laws.  Mr. Mas and other class members were formerly or are
currently employed as "account executives" by Cumulus Media.

On April 2, 2010, Cumulus Media, on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction, removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case
No. 10-cv-01396 to the proceeding.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cindi L. Pusateri, Esq.
          Hien Nguyen, Esq.
          MEYER WHITE LLC
          515 South Flower St., Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300
          Telephone: (213) 236-3660
          E-mail: cpusateri@meyerwhite.com
                  hnguyen@meyerwhite.com

               - and -    

          Theresia Moser, Esq.
          MEYER WHITE LLC
          Southern Dairies Building
          621 North Avenue, N.E., Suite C-160
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2864
          Telephone: (404) 537-5330
          E-mail: tmoser@meyerwhite.com
            
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert w. Ottinger, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          One Market
          Spear Tower, 36th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293-8223
          E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com


DRESS BARN: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dress Barn, Inc., continues to pursue approval of an
agreement to settle the claims in a consolidated action over its
merger with Tween Brands, Inc., according to the company's
March 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 23, 2010.

Tween Brands, the members of Tween Brands' board of directors
and, in certain of the lawsuits, Dress Barn, Dress Barn's chief
executive officer and/or Merger Sub, were named as defendants in
several purported class action lawsuits that were filed by Tween
Brands stockholders in either the Common Pleas Court of Franklin
County, Ohio or the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Plaintiff Clair Rand filed the first suit in Ohio on June 29,
2009, naming as defendants Tween Brands, its six directors, Dress
Barn, and its chief executive officer.

Plaintiff Sarah Elliott filed a similar suit in Ohio on July 8,
2009, naming as defendants only Tween Brands and its directors.

Plaintiff Cheryl Dutiel filed a similar suit in Delaware on July
17, 2009, naming as defendants Tween Brands, its six directors,
Dress Barn, and Merger Sub.

Plaintiff Edward Hirsch filed a similar suit in Ohio on Aug. 4,
2009, naming the same defendants as plaintiff Dutiel.

Following the defendants' motions to stay the Ohio suits in favor
of the Delaware litigation, the three Ohio plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their suits and together filed a similar suit in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on Aug. 28, 2009, but did not include
Dress Barn or its chief executive officer as defendants.

Amended complaints have been filed in each of the two Delaware
actions.

The amended complaints allege, among other things, that Tween
Brands and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by
allegedly failing to obtain adequate consideration in the
proposed merger, agreeing to certain provisions in the merger
agreement, and issuing allegedly inadequate disclosure documents;
and (in the Dutiel complaint) that Dress Barn, by obtaining non-
public information about Tween Brands, aided and abetted the
Tween Brands directors' alleged breach in failing to obtain
adequate consideration for the merger.

The suits seek, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of
the merger.

The parties have engaged in initial discovery proceedings.

By letter decision dated Oct. 2, 2009, the Delaware Chancellor
consolidated the two Delaware actions and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel for plaintiffs.

All defendants and plaintiffs, through Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel,
reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims in all the
now-consolidated actions, subject to the approval of the Delaware
Court of Chancery.

Under the parties' agreement in principle:

     (i) the defendants will provide supplemental disclosures to
         stockholders, which are contained in the proxy
         statement/prospectus,

    (ii) the parties will present to the Delaware Court of
         Chancery a Stipulation of Settlement and any other
         necessary documents to obtain the prompt approval by
         the Court of the settlement and the dismissal with
         prejudice and release of all claims against all
         defendants held by the plaintiffs and class members,
         and

   (iii) plaintiffs' attorneys will make an application to the
         Court for an award of fees and expenses from
         defendants.

The settlement is contingent upon, among other things,
consummation of the merger and approval by the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

The Dress Barn, Inc. -- http://www.dressbarn.com/-- operates  
women's apparel specialty stores, principally under the names
dressbarn, dressbarn woman and maurices.  As of July 25, 2009,
the Company operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District
of Columbia, including 684 dressbarn Combo stores (a combination
of its dressbarn and dressbarn woman brands), 721 maurices
stores, 120 dressbarn stores and 34 dressbarn woman stores.  Its
dressbarn stores are typically operated as Combo stores, offering
both dressbarn and larger-sized dressbarn woman merchandise.  The
Dress Barn, Inc. also operates stand-alone dressbarn and
dressbarn woman stores in certain markets. Its dressbarn brands
cater to 35 to 55 year-old women, sizes 4 to 24.  The dressbarn
stores offer in-season and casual fashion located primarily in
convenient strip shopping centers in major trading and markets
and surrounding suburban areas.  As of July 25, 2009, the company
operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District of Columbia.


DRESS BARN: In Negotiations to Settle California Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Tween Brands, Inc., is in settlement negotiations to resolve a
consolidated suit in California, according to The Dress Barn,
Inc.'s March 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 23, 2010.

Tween Brands is a subsidiary of Dress Barn.

Between November 2008 and October 2009, Tween Brands was sued in
three purported class action lawsuits alleging that Tween Brands'
telephone capture practice in California violated the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act, which protects consumers from having to
provide personal information as a condition to a credit card
transaction.

All three cases were consolidated in California state court.

A mediation was held in January 2010.  The parties are currently
in settlement negotiations.

The Dress Barn, Inc. -- http://www.dressbarn.com/-- operates  
women's apparel specialty stores, principally under the names
dressbarn, dressbarn woman and maurices.  As of July 25, 2009,
the Company operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District
of Columbia, including 684 dressbarn Combo stores (a combination
of its dressbarn and dressbarn woman brands), 721 maurices
stores, 120 dressbarn stores and 34 dressbarn woman stores.  Its
dressbarn stores are typically operated as Combo stores, offering
both dressbarn and larger-sized dressbarn woman merchandise.  The
Dress Barn, Inc. also operates stand-alone dressbarn and
dressbarn woman stores in certain markets. Its dressbarn brands
cater to 35 to 55 year-old women, sizes 4 to 24.  The dressbarn
stores offer in-season and casual fashion located primarily in
convenient strip shopping centers in major trading and markets
and surrounding suburban areas.  As of July 25, 2009, the company
operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District of Columbia.


DRESS BARN: Wage & Hour Suit Against Tween in Preliminary Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A wage and hour lawsuit against Tween Brands, Inc., is in its
preliminary stages, according to The Dress Barn, Inc.'s March 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 23, 2010.

Tween Brands is a subsidiary of Dress Barn.

The suit was filed on Jan. 21, 2010, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California.  The purported class
action alleges, among other things, that Tween Brands violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by not properly paying its employees
for overtime and missed rest breaks.

This wage and hour lawsuit is in its preliminary stages.  Tween
Brands is investigating the claims made in the lawsuit.

The Dress Barn, Inc. -- http://www.dressbarn.com/-- operates  
women's apparel specialty stores, principally under the names
dressbarn, dressbarn woman and maurices.  As of July 25, 2009,
the Company operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District
of Columbia, including 684 dressbarn Combo stores (a combination
of its dressbarn and dressbarn woman brands), 721 maurices
stores, 120 dressbarn stores and 34 dressbarn woman stores.  Its
dressbarn stores are typically operated as Combo stores, offering
both dressbarn and larger-sized dressbarn woman merchandise.  The
Dress Barn, Inc. also operates stand-alone dressbarn and
dressbarn woman stores in certain markets. Its dressbarn brands
cater to 35 to 55 year-old women, sizes 4 to 24.  The dressbarn
stores offer in-season and casual fashion located primarily in
convenient strip shopping centers in major trading and markets
and surrounding suburban areas.  As of July 25, 2009, the company
operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District of Columbia.


HERTZ CORP: Suit Against Hertz Equipment Unit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
A nationwide class action against Hertz Equipment Rental
Corporation is currently in the discovery stage, according to
Hertz Corp.'s March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

HERC is Hertz Corp.'s wholly owned equipment rental subsidiary.

On Aug. 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint
against HERC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.  In November 2006, the complaint was amended to add
another plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro, and more claims.

The Davis Landscape matter purports to be a nationwide class
action on behalf of all persons and business entities who rented
equipment from HERC and who paid a Loss Damage Waiver or an
Environmental Recovery Fee.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and injunction
prohibiting HERC from engaging in acts with respect to the LDW
and ERF charges that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
and claim that the charges violate the Uniform Commercial Code.
The plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages with the return of all LDW and ERF charges paid,
attorneys' fees and costs as well as other damages.  The court
has granted class certification, denied the company's motion for
summary judgment and the case is in the discovery stage.

The Hertz Corporation -- http://www.hertz.com/-- owns general  
use car rental brand and equipment rental businesses in the
United States and Canada.  The company operates through two
segments: car rental and equipment rental.  In its car rental
business segment, the company and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
8,100 locations in approximately 145 countries.  Hertz has a
network of company-operated rental locations both in the United
States and in all European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, the company rents equipment through
approximately 322 branches in the United States, Canada, France,
Spain, and China, as well as through international licensees.  
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the company launched
Rent2Buy, a solution to buy a used rental car, which operates in
select states, including California and Hawaii.  In April 2009,
it acquired Advantage Rent A Car. In addition, in April 2009, it
acquired Eileo, S.A.S.


HERTZ CORP: Continues to Defend Concession Recovery Fees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Corp. continues to defend a purported nationwide class
action in relation to concession recovery fees, according to the
company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Oct. 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
The plaintiffs have agreed to not pursue claims against
Enterprise for the time being and the case has thus far only
proceeded against Hertz.  The Sobel case purports to be a
nationwide class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars
from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were separately charged
airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental
charges.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an
injunction prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging those
airport fees that are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law.
The complaint also seeks attorneys' fees and costs.

Relevant documents were produced and depositions were taken.  The
parties have each filed motions for summary judgment, and the
motions are now before the court awaiting a decision.

The Hertz Corporation -- http://www.hertz.com/-- owns general  
use car rental brand and equipment rental businesses in the
United States and Canada.  The company operates through two
segments: car rental and equipment rental.  In its car rental
business segment, the company and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
8,100 locations in approximately 145 countries.  Hertz has a
network of company-operated rental locations both in the United
States and in all European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, the company rents equipment through
approximately 322 branches in the United States, Canada, France,
Spain, and China, as well as through international licensees.  
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the company launched
Rent2Buy, a solution to buy a used rental car, which operates in
select states, including California and Hawaii.  In April 2009,
it acquired Advantage Rent A Car. In addition, in April 2009, it
acquired Eileo, S.A.S.


HERTZ CORP: TCPA Violations Suit in Kansas Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action against Hertz Corp. alleging violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act remains stayed, according to
the company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.
     
On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation was commenced in
the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.

The case was subsequently transferred to the District Court of
Johnson County, Kansas.  The Fun Services matter purports to be a
class action on behalf of all persons in Kansas and throughout
the United States who on or after four years prior to the filing
of the action were sent facsimile messages of advertising
materials relating to the availability of property, goods or
services by HERC and who did not provide express permission for
sending such faxes.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, attorney's fees and costs.

In August 2009, the court issued an order that stayed all
activity in this litigation pending a decision by the Kansas
Supreme Court in Critchfield Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Taranto
Group, Inc., another Telephone Consumer Protection Act case.
The Kansas Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Critchfield
case in January of 2010 and the company believes that the stay in
the Fun Services litigation will remain in effect until
approximately mid-2010.

The Hertz Corporation -- http://www.hertz.com/-- owns general  
use car rental brand and equipment rental businesses in the
United States and Canada.  The company operates through two
segments: car rental and equipment rental.  In its car rental
business segment, the company and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
8,100 locations in approximately 145 countries.  Hertz has a
network of company-operated rental locations both in the United
States and in all European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, the company rents equipment through
approximately 322 branches in the United States, Canada, France,
Spain, and China, as well as through international licensees.  
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the company launched
Rent2Buy, a solution to buy a used rental car, which operates in
select states, including California and Hawaii.  In April 2009,
it acquired Advantage Rent A Car. In addition, in April 2009, it
acquired Eileo, S.A.S.


HERTZ CORP: Tourism Assessment-Related Suit in Discovery Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
An action against Hertz Corp. in relation to a 2.5% tourism
assessment is in discovery stage, according to the company's
March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company is currently a defendant in a proceeding that
purports to be a class action brought by Michael Shames and Gary
Gramkow against The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA,
Inc., Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast
Leasing Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission, and
Caroline Beteta.

Originally filed in November of 2007, the action is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
and plaintiffs claim to represent a class of individuals or
entities that purchased rental car services from a defendant at
airports located in California after Jan. 1, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants agreed to charge
consumers a 2.5% tourism assessment and not to compete with
respect to this assessment, while misrepresenting that this
assessment is owed by consumers, rather than the rental car
defendants, to the California Travel and Tourism Commission.  The
complaint also alleges that defendants agreed to pass through to
consumers a fee known as the Airport Concession Fee, which fee
had previously been required to be included in the rental car
defendants' individual base rates, without reducing their base
rates.

Based on these allegations, the complaint seeks treble damages,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.  The court has dismissed all claims against the CTTC, and
plaintiffs dropped their claims against Caroline Beteta.  The
court also dismissed all claims against the rental car defendants
except for the federal antitrust claim.

The plaintiffs' have appealed the dismissal of their claims
against the CTTC to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The remaining claim against the company, the
federal antitrust claim, is in the discovery stage.

The Hertz Corporation -- http://www.hertz.com/-- owns general  
use car rental brand and equipment rental businesses in the
United States and Canada.  The company operates through two
segments: car rental and equipment rental.  In its car rental
business segment, the company and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
8,100 locations in approximately 145 countries.  Hertz has a
network of company-operated rental locations both in the United
States and in all European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, the company rents equipment through
approximately 322 branches in the United States, Canada, France,
Spain, and China, as well as through international licensees.  
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the company launched
Rent2Buy, a solution to buy a used rental car, which operates in
select states, including California and Hawaii.  In April 2009,
it acquired Advantage Rent A Car. In addition, in April 2009, it
acquired Eileo, S.A.S.


HERTZ CORP: Appeal in Consolidated Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in a consolidated action where Hertz
Corp. is a defendant remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's March 2, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company is currently a defendant in a consolidated action
captioned "In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation" pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Originally filed as two separate actions in December of 2007, the
consolidated action purports to be a class action brought on
behalf of all persons and entities that have paid an assessment
since the inception of the Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism
Assessment Program in California on Jan. 1, 2007.

The other defendants include various of the company's
competitors, including Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car
Rental USA, Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.,
Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., Avalon Global Group, Enterprise Rent-
A-Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car,
Inc., Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-
Car, Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc., as well as The California Travel
and Tourism Commission, and Dale E. Bonner.

The complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief, that all
assessments collected and to be collected be held in trust,
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.  The district court has dismissed all of plaintiffs'
claims against all defendants.

Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The Hertz Corporation -- http://www.hertz.com/-- owns general  
use car rental brand and equipment rental businesses in the
United States and Canada.  The company operates through two
segments: car rental and equipment rental.  In its car rental
business segment, the company and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
8,100 locations in approximately 145 countries.  Hertz has a
network of company-operated rental locations both in the United
States and in all European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, the company rents equipment through
approximately 322 branches in the United States, Canada, France,
Spain, and China, as well as through international licensees.  
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the company launched
Rent2Buy, a solution to buy a used rental car, which operates in
select states, including California and Hawaii.  In April 2009,
it acquired Advantage Rent A Car. In addition, in April 2009, it
acquired Eileo, S.A.S.


HUMANA MILITARY: 11th Cir. Decertifies Class in Medical Care Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a lawsuit accusing Humana
Military Healthcare Services of systematically underpaying
hospitals for veterans' medical care can't proceed as a class
action, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ruled.

The court decertified a class of 260 hospitals in six states,
agreeing with Humana that the hospitals' individual claims
trumped the common issues.

Because each state has its own body of laws and methods of
payment, the three-judge panel ruled, a class action would likely
be "severely unmanageable."

The federal government contracted Humana in 1995 to provide
medical care to veterans.  The HMO then entered into agreements
with hospitals in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Tennessee and parts of Louisiana and Arkansas for
certain outpatient services.

In November 1999, Humana changed how it reimbursed hospitals,
resulting in lower payments for most providers.  Several
hospitals filed suit, grouping their contracts into six
categories that they claimed could serve as subclasses in a class
action.

"Notably, however, one of the six categories was a
'miscellaneous' one containing over 20 contracts," Judge Stanley
Marcus wrote for the Atlanta-based panel.

"Given the lack of uniformity within several of the proposed
contract subclasses, the existence of more than 20 contracts that
do not belong to any meaningful category, and the likely need for
at least some subdivision according to applicable state law,
there may be little value left in a class action," Judge Marcus
wrote.

Class certification "was an abuse of discretion," he concluded,
reversing and remanding.   

A copy of the decision in Sacred Heart Health Systems, Inc., et
al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc., No. 08-16430
(11th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200816430.pdf


JAKARTA: Citizen Group Preparing to Sue City Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------
Evi Mariani at The Jakarta Post reports that Jakarta
administration is facing a civil lawsuit over its 2030 spatial
planning after it dismissed a legal warning from Citizens
Coalition for Jakarta 2030 and refused to scrap a much-debated
draft plan.

In a press conference on Sunday, members of the coalition said
they extended an invitation to the public to join the class
action. Any residents who felt the administration should open
more public participation in formulating the capital's future
were encouraged to join.

"We have opened several posts as well as uploaded the class
action form on our website," Nurkholis Hidayat, a member from
Jakarta Legal Aid Institute said.

Nurkholis said they would leave the invitation open for two weeks
before filing the lawsuit with the district court. "We have
already secured several people who would be our principal
plaintiffs. We need about 10 people as principals," he went on.

The coalition said the city administration had violated four laws
and a ministerial regulation; the 2007 Spatial Planning Law, the
2008 Public Information Freedom Law, the 2005 ratification of
international Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Law, the 2009 Environmental Law and Protection Law and a
ministerial regulation on guide to formulating spatial planning.

Governor Fauzi Bowo has insisted that the city had invited public
participation adequately by holding focus group discussions,
building a website and holding public consultations. However, the
coalition said the ministerial regulation required more
exhibitions, neighborhood meetings and opening feedback posts,
among others.

Coalition members have said the focus group discussions the city
had invited only experts, which resembled elitist practices of
the oudated New Order. "They built the website in December 2009,
which is too late," Irvan Pulungan from Indonesian Center for
Environmental Law said.

Meanwhile, the public consultations were more a series of events
where the city administration told the public about the content
of the draft but not really listened to what the public had to
say, the coalition continued.

Besides the lawsuit, the coalition also called on City Council to
remove the deliberation of the spatial planning from its agenda.
The spatial planning draft is number 2 in the priority list of
bylaws to be passed this year.

"The administration has more than six months before 2011 to gain
wider public participation," Irvan said.

The administration also has to conduct a Strategic Environmental
Study before formulating the draft plan as stipulated in the 2009
environmental management law.

Nurkholis said the class action lawsuit could take up to six
months but they were ready to work longer to "ensure all citizens
participate actively in the city development and planning" in the
future.


LEGAL BUCKS: Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
    ATTENTION PERSONS WHO RECEIVED ADVANCES FROM LEGAL BUCKS

          NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

If you received a litigation advance from Legal Bucks, LLC, or
LBFund I, LLC, from June 15, 2001, to December 31, 2008, you may
be a member of a class action that entitles you to certain rights
and benefits.

Please go to http://www.legalbucksclassaction.com/to obtain  
information about:

     (1) the proposed settlement of all claims asserted in this
         action;

     (2) the procedure and time for making claims against the
         Settlement Fund;

     (3) a request for an award of fees and reimbursement of out-
         of-pocket expenses of plaintiffs'' counsel in this
         action and for an incentive payment for the Plaintiffs;

     (4) your right to opt out of the class action on or before
         June 25, 2010;

     (5) a hearing on whether the proposed settlement of this
         case is fair, reasonable and adequate as to the class
         and should be given final approval by the Court and to
         consider the Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses,
         to be held on June 28, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom A
         of the Superior Court of Rockingham County, N.C.

Counsel for the class may be reached directly by contacting:

          Frederick Berry, Esq.
          BARRON & BERRY, L.L.P.
          301 S. Greene St., Ste. 310
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 274-4782


SONY CORPORATION: Third Optical Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Area Systems, LLC, on behalf of itself and and others
similarly situated v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No.
10-cv-01403 (N.D. Calif. Apr. 2, 2010), accuses the multinational
conglomerate of violating antitrust laws by conspiring with other
optical disc drive manufacturers and sellers to fix the price of
optical disc drives sold in the United States.  Optical disc
drives are used in computers and other consumer electronics
products.  Bay Area asks the Court to require the Defendants to
restore all profits unlawfully obtained through the Defendants'
actions.

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

          Jack W. Lee, Esq.
          Brad Yamamuchi, Esq.
          MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
          360 Post St., 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 788-9000
          E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com  
                  byamamuchi@minamitamaki.com  

               - and -

          Gilmur R. Murray, Esq.
          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          MURRAY & HOWARD, LLP
          900 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 103
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 461-3200
          E-mail: gmurray@murrayhowardlaw.com
                  dhoward@murrayhowardlaw.com

Coverage of Slavin v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-01291 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Mon., Apr. 5, 2010, and coverage of Herman v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01362 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Tues., Apr. 6, 2010.  


TUESDAY MORNING: Cal. Sup. Ct. Declines to Review Decertification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linex Legal Ltd. reports that Fulbright & Jaworski LLP,
representing national retailer Tuesday Morning, Inc., obtained an
order decertifying a class of store managers and obtained an
appellate ruling upholding that order, and that the California
Supreme Court, despite pressure from the plaintiffs' bar, has now
not only refused to grant review of the appellate court's
decision, but has also refused to depublish that decision,
letting it stand as legal precedent in the State of California.

Tuesday Morning is represented by:

          Robert M. Dawson, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
          555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-892-9200
          E-mail: rmdawson@fulbright.com


VACCINE LITIGATION: High Court Will Hear Preemption Arguments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro at The National Law Journal reports that in spite of
recent courtroom losses, parents who blame their children's
autism at least in part on childhood vaccines say their legal
battle is far from over.

"We've always been in it to the very end," said Theresa Cedillo
of Yuma, Ariz., whose autistic daughter Michelle became the focus
of a key test case at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2007.
Even though the special master in the case ruled against her, Ms.
Cedillo said, "I am optimistic. We have met our burden."

One reason for her optimism is that the U.S. Supreme Court has
agreed to hear next fall the case of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, a non-
autism case that asks the justices to decide whether the federal
vaccine law pre-empts state law tort claims of vaccine design
defects.

David Frederick, a partner at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans
& Figel who trounced Wyeth in a drug pre-emption case last year,
will argue against Wyeth again in the Bruesewitz case. He'll face
off against former Stanford Law School dean Kathleen Sullivan,
now name partner and head of the appellate practice at Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

If Wyeth wins, then more than 5,000 families making autism-
related vaccine claims may not be allowed to sue vaccine makers
in tort actions after they are adjudicated under the so-called
"vaccine court" system Congress devised in 1986.

In part to keep vaccine manufacturers from leaving the field,
Congress established a special system for compensating vaccine
injuries. The cases are handled by the claims court in an
expedited, no-fault process. Claims are made against the
government, not vaccine makers. To a limited degree, the law left
the door open to taking cases to court after losing in the claims
system, and the high court will decide when that can happen.

If Wyeth loses, then parents may find a more sympathetic state-
court forum for their claims than the one Congress created. "The
system hasn't worked the way it was supposed to work at all,"
said New York University School of Law professor Mary Holland,
who has written legal briefs on the side of parents in autism
cases. "Through the Bruesewitz case, the Supreme Court will find
out the program is a disaster."

Ms. Cedillo agreed. "It wasn't supposed to be adversarial; it was
supposed to be quick and family-friendly," she said. "It has been
none of those things. The Supreme Court case could give us
another option."

Ms. Cedillo's daughter was born healthy in 1994 but, a week after
receiving the standard measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in 1995, she
ran high fevers and her development slowed. In 1997, she was
diagnosed with autism. Now 15, Michelle requires constant
monitoring because of frequent and life-threatening seizures,
according to her mother -- and her case is still pending. "It's
really sad."

The Cedillo family volunteered to be the first "test case" of one
of the theories of causation linking the vaccine to autism. After
a three-week hearing and the testimony of 17 witnesses against
her, a special master last year dismissed the claims, asserting
the evidence was "overwhelmingly contrary" to the claim that
vaccines containing mercury caused Michelle's disabilities.

Last month, Ronald Homer of Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan in Boston
challenged the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit. He claimed the system is biased because the
government fears that linking autism to vaccines will scare
parents away from having their kids vaccinated. "She was denied
compensation because she was a messenger," Mr. Homer wrote.

A second test case in which a family lost, Hazlehurst v. HHS, is
also on appeal at the Federal Circuit.

For its part, the government claims that Ms. Cedillo had six
expert witnesses of her own. In a brief filed in the Cedillo
case, Justice Department lawyer Lynn Ricciardella said the
special master's decision "reflects a careful and well-reasoned
analysis."


WEBMD HEALTH: "Feinstein" Suit in New York Concluded
----------------------------------------------------
A purported class action against WebMD Health Corp. has been
concluded after the plaintiff filed a stipulation of
discontinuance, according to the company's March 2, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In June 2009, a purported class action was filed on behalf of
stockholders of the company in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York.

The suit is Roberta Feinstein v. WebMD Health Corporation, et
al., No. 650369/2009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.).

The action named as defendants: the company; certain directors of
the company; and HLTH Corp.

The action alleged, among other things, that the members of the
company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties of
care, loyalty, good faith and candor in agreeing to the merger
and have attempted to unfairly deprive the company's stockholders
of the true value of their investment in the Company, with the
action containing additional allegations that HLTH aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty of the company's
directors.

The lawsuit sought, among other things, to certify plaintiff as
class representative, a declaration that the members of the
Company's Board of Directors have breached their fiduciary
duties, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and
expenses.  The plaintiff has filed a stipulation of
discontinuance, which concluded the matter.

WebMD Health Corp. -- http://www.webmd.com/-- is a provider of  
health information services to consumers, physicians and other
healthcare professionals, employers and health plans through its
public and private online portals and health-focused
publications.  The WebMD Health Network includes www.WebMD.com
(which it sometimes refer to as WebMD Health), its primary public
portal for consumers, and www.Medscape.com (which it sometimes
refer to as Medscape from WebMD), its primary public portal for
physicians and other healthcare professionals, as well as other
sites through which it provides its health and wellness content,
tools and services and select third party sites that WebMD
supports.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, The WebMD Health
Network had an average of approximately 61 million users per
month and generated approximately six billion aggregate page
views, and WebMD-owned sites accounted for approximately 95% of
the users and approximately 98% of the page views.


WEBMD HEALTH: Subsidiaries Face TCPA-Violations Lawsuit in Conn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
WebMD Health Corp.'s subsidiaries face a lawsuit captioned Roger
H. Kaye and Roger H. Kaye, MD PC v. WebMD, LLC, et al., alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to
the company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In December 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Dr. Roger H. Kaye (and
Roger H. Kaye MD PC) individually, and as an alleged class
action, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and under a
similar Connecticut statute, in the U.S. District Court, District
of Connecticut against subsidiaries of the company.

The lawsuit claims that faxes allegedly sent during the period
Aug. 1, 2006, to the present by subsidiaries of the company and
by the The Little Blue Book business that the company sold in
September 2009 were sent in violation of the TCPA and the
Connecticut statute.  The lawsuit seeks damages in excess of
$5,000,000.

The company has filed its answer denying that it has violated
either the TCPA or the Connecticut statute.  Discovery has
recently begun in the action.

WebMD Health Corp. -- http://www.webmd.com/-- is a provider of  
health information services to consumers, physicians and other
healthcare professionals, employers and health plans through its
public and private online portals and health-focused
publications.  The WebMD Health Network includes www.WebMD.com
(which it sometimes refer to as WebMD Health), its primary public
portal for consumers, and www.Medscape.com (which it sometimes
refer to as Medscape from WebMD), its primary public portal for
physicians and other healthcare professionals, as well as other
sites through which it provides its health and wellness content,
tools and services and select third party sites that WebMD
supports.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, The WebMD Health
Network had an average of approximately 61 million users per
month and generated approximately six billion aggregate page
views, and WebMD-owned sites accounted for approximately 95% of
the users and approximately 98% of the page views.

                            *********

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  * * *