CAR_Public/100414.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 14, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 72

                            Headlines

ADECCO INC: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
CKE RESTAURANTS: Faces Six Stockholder Suits Over Planned Merger
CONSTAR INT'L: Dismissed as Defendant in Securities Lawsuit
DIAMOND FOODS: Accused of Falsely Advertising Walnuts as Cure-All
DOMINGUEZ INTERSTATE: Charged with Labor Code Violations

E.I. DUPONT: Lead Plaintiff Incentive Awards Debated in W.Va.
ETREBY COMPUTER: Accused of Leaking Confidential Health Info
FOX NETWORKS: Sued for Disability Discrimination
FRIENDLY FRANCHISEE: Sued for Non-Payment of Wages and Overtime
GREYSTONE HOMES: Construction Defects in "Stevenson Ranch" Alleged

HITACHI LTD: Seventh Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
HOME DEPOT: Faces Third Amended ERISA-Violations Suit
HOME DEPOT: California Court Okays Settlement in Five Lawsuits
INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Faces Consolidated Suit Over ITG Merger
JELD-WEN: Notice of Settlement with Century Window Purchasers

LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Agrees to Settle San Diego "Stephens" Suit
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Agrees to Settle "Kohlenberg" Suit
MICHAEL FOODS: Dismissal Plea for Two Suits Still Pending
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Accused in Nev. of Misleading Shareholders
PARTNERSHIP FOR STRONG FAMILIES: Did Not Pay Overtime, Suit Says

SPARK NETWORKS: Faces Suit Over Great Hill Buyout Proposal
SPARK NETWORKS: Faces "Shaffer" Suit in California over Buyout
STERLING CHEMICALS: Continues to Defended vs. Ex-Employees Suit
SUNSHINE MAKERS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
TOYS R US: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit by Internet Retailers

UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Dismisses Suit Over Prisoner Wages
VERTRO INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment in Consolidated Suit
WELLS FARGO: Minority Neighborhood Borrower Class Certified
ZUMIEZ INC: $1.35 Million Settlement Gets Court Preliminary Nod
ZUMIEZ INC: Certification Hearing in "Berg" Suit Set for May 28

* Mocked Celebrities File Class Action Suit on "South Park"

                            *********

ADECCO INC: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Carlos Lopez and Javier Contreras, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Adecco, Inc., et al., Case No.
BC435346 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 8, 2010),
accuses the employment agency of failing to pay minimum, regular
and overtime wages, and failing to provide meal and rest periods,
in violation of California labor laws.  Mr. Lopez worked as a
non-exempt hourly "employee" for Adecco, Inc., et al., from
October 13, 2008, through May 5, 2009.  Mr Contreras is currently
working as a non-exempt hourly "worker" for the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and are represented by:

          Craig L. Chisvin, Esq.
          Laureen Charles, Esq.
          CHISVIN & ASSOCIATES
          3130 Wilshire Blvd., Fourth Floor
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 820-4488


CKE RESTAURANTS: Faces Six Stockholder Suits Over Planned Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
CKE Restaurants, Inc., faces putative stockholder class action
lawsuits over its planned merger with Western Acquisition
Holdings, Inc., according to the company's March 25, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Jan. 25, 2010.

On Feb. 26, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Western Acquisition Holdings, Inc. (Parent), and
Western Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
(Merger Sub), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and
into the company, with the company surviving the Merger as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.  Parent and Merger Sub are
affiliates of Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P.

In connection with the Merger Agreement, six putative stockholder
class action lawsuits have been filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and in the Superior Court of California for the County
of Santa Barbara.

                    Delaware Actions

On March 1, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, named
Pieces of Eight Master Fund LP v. CKE Restaurants, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 5290, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against the Company, each of the company's directors, and THL,
asserting that the company and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger and
asserting that THL aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
duty.

On March 12, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, named
Richard F. Warnock SEP IRA et al. v. Allumbaugh et al., Case No.
5340, was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court against the
company, each of its directors, Parent and Merger Sub.  The
lawsuit alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Proposed Merger. The complaint also
names Parent and Merger Sub as defendants and charges both
parties with aiding and abetting the directors' alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.

                    California Actions

On March 3, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, named
Hendricks v. CKE Restaurants, Inc. et al., Case No. 1342245, was
filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa
Barbara against the company, its directors, and THL.   The
lawsuit alleges that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger.  The
Complaint also names the company and THL as defendants and
charges them with aiding and abetting the directors' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

On March 5, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, named
Inglima v. Allumbaugh et al., Case No. 1342293, was filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara
against the Company, each of its directors, Parent and Merger
Sub.  The lawsuit alleges that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger. The
complaint also names the Company, Parent and Merger Sub as
defendants and charges them with aiding and abetting the
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  Also on March 5,
2010, a putative stockholder class action, named Curtis v.
Allumbaugh et al., Case No. 1342349, was filed in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara against the
company, each of its directors, THL, Parent and Merger Sub.  The
lawsuit alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Proposed Merger.  The complaint
also names THL, Parent and Merger Sub as defendants and charges
them with aiding and abetting the directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

On March 11, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, named
McDonald v. CKE Restaurants, Inc. et al., Case No. 1342415, was
filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa
Barbara against the company, each of its directors, and THL.  The
lawsuit alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Proposed Merger.  The complaint
also names the company and THL as defendants and charges both
parties with aiding and abetting the directors' alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.

CKE Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.ckr.com/-- owns, operates,  
franchises or licenses 3,116 quick-service restaurants, which are
referred to in the company's industry as QSRs, primarily under
the brand names Carl's Jr. and Hardee's. Carl's Jr. restaurants
are primarily located in the Western United States.  The Hardee's
restaurants are located in the Southeastern and Midwestern United
States.


CONSTAR INT'L: Dismissed as Defendant in Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has approved the stipulation dismissing Constar International,
Inc., from a consolidated securities class-action lawsuit,
according to the company's March 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

The company and certain of its present and former directors,
along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various
underwriters, were named defendants in the consolidated putative
securities class action suit, captioned In re Constar
International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-
05020.

This action, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, is a consolidation of two complaints:

     -- Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc., et
        al., Case No. 03-5020, filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and

     -- Frejek v. Constar International Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 03-5166, filed on Sept. 15, 2003.

A consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004,
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on
Nov. 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants in these lawsuits
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  They
seek class-action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the company has incurred certain indemnification and contribution
obligations to the other defendants with respect to this lawsuit.

The court has previously denied the company's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as
well as the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On May 7, 2007, the Special Master issued a Report and Order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
company filed objections to the Report and Order.

The Court later overruled the company's objections, adopting the
Special Master's Report and Order, and granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On March 18, 2008, the company filed a Rule 23(f) Petition in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking leave to take
an immediate appeal from the class certification ruling.

On April 30, 2008, the Third Circuit entered an Order granting
the company's Rule 23(f) Petition.

The parties have briefed the appeal, and oral argument was held
on July 13, 2009.  At the company's request, the Special Master
and the District Court have agreed to stay all further
proceedings before the District Court pending the outcome of the
appeal, with the exception of certain limited discovery.  

In connection with the company's emergence from Chapter 11 and in
accordance with the Plan, all such claims are to be subordinated
pursuant to Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and treated as
equity interests.  The Plan further provides that all pre-
petition equity interests in Constar will be extinguished, as
will any claims relating to, or arising in connection with, such
equity interests (or the purchase or sale of such interests),
including all indemnification and contribution obligations
referred to above.

The company and the plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation to
dismiss Constar from the action based on the Plan.

This stipulation dismissing Constar from the action was approved
by the District Court on November 4, 2009.

The suit is In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020 (E.D. Pa.) (Ludwig, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephanie M. Beige, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414
          E-mail: beige@bernlieb.com

               - and -  

          Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
          MILBERG WEISS BERGHAD HYNES & LERACH, LLP
          401 B. Street, STE. 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          E-mail: andrewb@lcsr.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          E-mail: dcheck@sbclasslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Steven B. Feirson, Esq.
          Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
          Scott A. Thompson, Esq.
          DECHERT, PRICE & RHOADS
          1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
          Phone: 215-994-2749
          Fax: 215-994-2222
          E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com
                  michael.kichline@dechert.com
                  scott.thompson@dechert.com


DIAMOND FOODS: Accused of Falsely Advertising Walnuts as Cure-All
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Wise, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Diamond Foods, Inc., Case No. BC435297 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty. Apr. 7, 2010), charges the marketer of the Diamond
Brand of walnuts of falsely claiming in its marketing campaigns
that its brand of walnuts is a cure-all for ailments from heart
disease to arthritis, in violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and the California Business and Professions
Code.  Mr. Wise says that because of these false claims, Diamond
sells Diamond Walnuts for $8 per pound, which is twice the cost
of generic walnuts.

The Plaintiff demands a jury trial and is represented by:

          James M. Lee, Esq.
          LEE TRAN & LIANG
          601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 4025
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612-3737

               - and -  

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Roger E. Borg, Esq.
          Michael E. Velarde, Eswq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP APC
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          

DOMINGUEZ INTERSTATE: Charged with Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Abel Torres and Alfonso Salgado, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Dominguez Interstate Carwash, Inc., Case
No. BC435345 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 8, 2010),
asserts violations of the California Labor Code, Industrial Wage
Commission Wage Order 9, and the Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code.  
Messrs. Torres and Salgado accuse the "employment agency" of
failing to pay reporting time pay, obliging workers to pay for
uniforms as a condition of employment, failing to provide workers
with a suitable place to eat, failing to pay wages for work
performed, not providing rest periods, unlawful wage deductions,
and not paying earned wages on time.

The Plaintiffs demand a jury trial and are represented by:

          Craig L. Chisvin, Esq.
          Laureen Charles, Esq.
          CHISVIN & ASSOCIATES
          3130 Wilshire Blvd., Fourth Floor
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 820-4488      


E.I. DUPONT: Lead Plaintiff Incentive Awards Debated in W.Va.
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at LegalNewsline.com reports from Clarksburg, W.Va.,
that when Harrison County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Bedell asked
for any objections to $127 million being paid to attorneys in a
class action lawsuit against DuPont during a 2008 hearing, no
class member in attendance responded.

Two months later, those same attorneys asked Bedell if he would
authorize $75,000 payments to the 10 lead plaintiffs in the case.

Despite the company's objection, Bedell eventually ordered
$50,000 for each of the lead plaintiffs. The payments will come
out of the attorneys fees.

Those payments are termed "incentive awards," but DuPont called
them incentives for collusion.

"It is common. It is nothing that is promised," said Hill, whose
firm Hill Peterson Carper Bee & Deitzler teamed with several
other firms on the once-$381 million case. "In fact, the lead
plaintiffs are specifically promised nothing."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last year
that incentive awards are fine, as long as the figure isn't tied
by a prior agreement to the amount recovered.

DuPont initially succeeded in opposing the awards, but Bedell
changed his mind after a motion to reconsider. DuPont contended
state law did not recognize the awards and that it is improper to
pay a witness.

"The class representatives may have had a greater interest in
maximizing the amount of attorneys fees and expenses awarded to
Plaintiffs' counsel than in maximizing the amount of recovery
paid to absent class members," DuPont's attorneys wrote.

"These payments create a powerful incentive for improper
collusion between class representatives and the class counsel who
pays them."

DuPont, however, did not appeal the incentive awards to the West
Virginia Supreme Court, which cut the $196 million punitive
damages award in half on March 23 before shipping the case back
to Harrison County for a jury trial to determine if the lawsuit
was filed before the statute of limitations had expired.

The lawsuit alleged DuPont released arsenic, cadmium and lead
into the environment around its Harrison County smelter. DuPont
will pay $140 million in medical monitoring costs for the class
members if it is found that the lawsuit was filed timely.

The 10 class representatives were subjected to multiple physical
examinations, blood tests and depositions. The plaintiffs
attorneys said in court documents that the representatives spent
several hundred hours of their lives on the case.

Hill said any class member could have objected to the amount of
attorneys fees being paid, not just the representatives. DuPont
said the lack of objections meant the notice drafted by the
attorneys and the manner it was delivered was inadequate, a claim
the plaintiffs attorneys disputed.

"All class members have the opportunity to have an input on
this," Hill said. "The incentive awards are just a recognition.
They're not always awarded.

"It's a discretionary thing with the trial judge. In some cases,
the lead plaintiffs, in the course of representing all other
class members, have been put through the mill."

Hill said some of the class representatives in another lawsuit
against DuPont, filed in Parkersburg, were subjected to jeers in
public.

But DuPont said the request for incentive awards contradicted
testimony by the class representatives.

"At trial, Plaintiffs' counsel asked class representative
Rebeccah Morlock this question: 'Just so its very clear, are you
asking, Ms. Morlock, anything for yourself beyond what you're
asking for everybody in this courtroom.'

"Ms. Morlock gave this answer: 'No I'm not. I don't want
anything.' Now Ms. Morlock wants $50,000 for herself.

"Similarly, at trial, class representative Lenora Perrine
concluded her testimony by saying that she had been in court
everyday to support and be a part of the proceedings voluntarily
because 'I know it's not gonna help me much now... but i'm
thinking of the young people,' and 'I just felt like that's what
I needed to do.'

"Now Mrs. Perrine is asking for $50,000 for herself."

Tort reform advocate Ted Frank said large incentive awards, like
$50,000, keep the class representatives from having the
motivation to "act as monitors of the attorneys' fiduciary
responsibility to the class."

Frank is the founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness. His
organization files objections to proposed class action
settlements, usually where he feels the attorneys are benefitting
much more than the class members.

"The whole point of a class action is to generate efficiencies
that wouldn't be possible in individual actions -- so why are the
attorneys taking a one-third contingent fee instead of a much
smaller percentage?" Frank said.

"Courts determining the adequacy of a class representative should
do more to analyze whether the class representative controls the
attorney or vice versa."

Hill can counter that a judge signed off on the order authorizing
the payments.

"It's entirely up to the judge to say if they are appropriate.
There is a range that is acceptable. There is case law on this,"
Hill said.

"There's a place for it. There are checks and balances on it. If
a trial judge makes an award, its appealable. Even though
sometimes the appeals process grinds slowly, it grinds."


ETREBY COMPUTER: Accused of Leaking Confidential Health Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Demetria Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Etreby Computer Company, Inc. et al., Case No.
BC435303 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 7, 2010),
asserts violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act and the California Civil Code.  Ms. Rodriguez says that she
received prescription drugs dispensed by California retail
pharmacy stores who were contracted with the software developer.  
Ms. Rodriguez alleges that the software provider and Defendant
McKesson Corporation, a switch contractor that transmits
prescription claims on behalf of Etreby and its California retail
pharmacy clients to prescription drug plan payors, compromised
her confidential medical information when it disclosed this
information to Target Pharmacy in November 2009 for financial
gain.  Ms. Rodriguez believes Etreby permitted or was aware of
the sale of her and other individuals' personal health
information by McKesson to Target Pharmacy and was also aware
that the disclosure was for financial gain and not for the
purpose of providing health care services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armond Marcarian, Esq.
          Marc L. McCulloch, Esq.
          MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Penthouse Suite 2250
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 995-8787


FOX NETWORKS: Sued for Disability Discrimination
------------------------------------------------
Molly Hardy, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Fox Networks Group, Inc., et al., Case No. BC435468 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 8, 2010), accuses the
television broadcasting company of failing to pay employees for
missed rest breaks, in violation of California Labor Code and
Industrial Wage Commission Wage orders, not paying all wages owed
to employees, disability discrimination, wrongful termination in
violation of public policy, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and unfair competition of the Business &
Professions Code.  Ms. Hardy worked as an Executive Assistant for
Fox Networks from September 2006 through September 2009, when she
allegedly was unlawfully terminated.  Ms. Hardy says in June
2007, she decided to seek medical treatment for depression and
Fox referred her to a Dr. Bethany Gauvreau, who was hired to
treat Fox's employees.   In September 2009 while she was
undergoing treatment for depression, she alleges that Fox
Networks terminated her employment, accusing her of not
competently and professionally performing her job duties, "poor
attitude", and falsifying her time records.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas T. Hua, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS T. HUA
          433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 279-5239
          E-mail: Nhua@NicholasHuaLaw.com

               - and -
          
          Giacomo Gallai, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GIACOMO GALLAI
          433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 738-4044
          E-mail: gg@gallailaw.com


FRIENDLY FRANCHISEE: Sued for Non-Payment of Wages and Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arun Dhiri, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Friendly Franchisee Corporation, Case No. BC434065  (Calif.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 7, 2010), accuses the
administrative services provider of labor code violations
including failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to allow
rest and meal periods, late payment of termination wages, failure
to provide accurate itemized statements of hours worked, and
unfair competition in violation of the Business & Professions
Code.  In addition, Mr. Dhiri, on his own behalf, accuses FFC for
unlawful and wrongful termination in violation of public policy,
saying that FFC terminated him for complaining to his supervisors
about FFC's Labor Code violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas N. Silverstein, Esq.
          David A. Cohn, Esq.
          KESLUK & SILVERSTEIN, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 411
          Los Angeles, CA 90069-3309
          Telephone: (310) 273-3180
          E-mail: dsilversteinlaborlawattorney.com
                  dcohn@californialaborlawattorney.com


GREYSTONE HOMES: Construction Defects in "Stevenson Ranch" Alleged
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian and Jodi Moriguchi, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Greystone Homes Inc., Case No. BC43180  
(Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 7, 2010), asserts
breach of express warranty against the home developer and breach
of implied warranties of the merchantable quality of properties
located within its housing housing development more familiarly
known as the "Stevenson Ranch" in Los Angeles County.  The
Moriguchis relate that the properties constructed by the
developer in said project contain various construction defects
that require repair and restoration to prevent further damage or
to restore the houses to their proper condition.  The Moriguchis
believe that the defects arose out of deficiencies in the design
or specifications of the properties and that the developer failed
to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the properties were
free of defects.  As a result of Greystone Home's negligence, the
Moriguchis relate that they suffered damages in an amount
presently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luke P. Ryan, Esq.,
          Megan M. Chodzko, Esq.
          SHINNICK & RYAN LLP
          1810 State St.
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-5900


HITACHI LTD: Seventh Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alec Berezin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
]v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01533 (N.D. Calif. Apr.
9, 2010) accuses the Japanese multinational corporation of
participating in a cartel to fix the price of Optical Disc Drive
products sold in the United States, resulting in purchasers of
ODD products paying more than what they would have paid in a
competitive market.

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; 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; coverage of Bay Area
Systems, LLC v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01403
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Thurs.,
Apr. 8, 2010; coverage of Carney v. Sony Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01406 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Fri., Apr. 10, 2010; coverage of Tabatabai v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01450 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Monday, Apr. 12, 2010; and
coverage of Wagner v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-01451 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Monday, Apr. 12, 2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Andrew S. Kingsdale, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSEIN, LLP
          275 Battery St., 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: jsaveri@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  akingsdale@lchb.com

               - and -
  
          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          Daniel B. Allanoff, Esq.
          MEREDITH COHEN GREENFOGEL & SKIRNICK, P.C.
          1521 Locust St., 8th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          E-mail: sgreenfogel@mcgslaw.com
                  dallanoff@mcgslaw.com

               - and -
          
          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS, MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Ave.
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
                  
               - and -
             
          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & KARON, P.C.
          55 Public Square, Suite 1500
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          E-mail: karon@gsk-law.com
     
               - and -
          
          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          116 John St., Suite 2310
          New York, NY 10038
          E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces Third Amended ERISA-Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc., faces a third amended complaint alleging
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the
company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
31, 2010.

In the second and third quarters of fiscal 2006, three purported,
but uncertified, class actions were filed against the company,
The Home Depot FutureBuilder Administrative Committee and certain
of the company's current and former directors and employees
alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violation of ERISA in
connection with the company's return-to-vendor and stock option
practices.

These actions were joined into one case in 2007, and the joint
amended complaint seeks certification as a class action,
unspecified damages, costs, attorney's fees and equitable and
injunctive relief.  The case is currently before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta,
following the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit in July 2008 reversing the District Court's
prior decision on standing, affirming its finding that the
plaintiffs failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided
under ERISA, and remanding the matter to the District Court for
further adjudication.

On Nov. 9, 2009, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
following their pursuit of administrative remedies.

The Home Depot, Inc. -- http://www.homedepot.com/-- is a home  
improvement retailer.  The Home Depot stores sell an assortment
of building materials, home improvement and lawn and garden
products, and provide a number of services.  The Home Depot
stores average approximately 105,000 square feet of enclosed
space, with approximately 24,000 additional square feet of
outside garden area.


HOME DEPOT: California Court Okays Settlement in Five Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles in California
approved The Home Depot, Inc.'s settlement with the plaintiffs in
five lawsuits containing multiple class-action allegations that
the company failed to provide meal breaks, according to the
company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
31, 2010.

The complaints were filed by current and former hourly associates
from the first quarter of 2004 through the fourth quarter of
2008.  

The settlement was approved on Jan. 27, 2010.

The Home Depot, Inc. -- http://www.homedepot.com/-- is a home  
improvement retailer.  The Home Depot stores sell an assortment
of building materials, home improvement and lawn and garden
products, and provide a number of services.  The Home Depot
stores average approximately 105,000 square feet of enclosed
space, with approximately 24,000 additional square feet of
outside garden area.


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Faces Consolidated Suit Over ITG Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Textile Group, Inc., faces a consolidated lawsuit
related to the merger of the company and a company formerly known
as International Textile Group, Inc. in late 2006, according to
the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Three substantially identical lawsuits have been filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, County of Greenville, State of South
Carolina related to the merger.

The first lawsuit was filed in 2008 and the second and third
lawsuits were filed in 2009, all by the same attorney.  These
three lawsuits were consolidated in 2010.

The actions name as defendants, among others, certain individuals
who were officers and directors of Former ITG or the company at
the time of the Merger.  The plaintiffs raise derivative and
direct (class action) claims and contend that certain of the
defendants breached certain fiduciary duties in connection with
the Merger.

The plaintiffs also make certain related claims against certain
of the defendants' former advisors.  While the Company is a
nominal defendant for purposes of the derivative action claims,
the company is not aware of any claims for affirmative relief
being made against it.

However, the company has certain obligations to provide
indemnification to its officers and directors (and certain former
officers and directors) against certain claims.

International Textile Group, Inc. -- http://www.itg-global.com/-
- is a diversified textile manufacturer that produces automotive
safety (including airbag fabric and airbag cushions), apparel,
government uniform, technical and specialty textiles.  ITG's
market presence includes operations principally in the United
States, China, Germany, Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic,
Mexico, Vietnam and South Africa.  The company considers its five
primary markets to be automotive safety, including airbag fabric
and airbag cushions; bottom-weight woven apparel fabrics,
including denim, synthetic and worsted fabrics; government
uniform fabrics, including fabrics for military dress uniforms
and battle dress uniforms; interior furnishings fabrics and
specialty fabrics and services, including commission printing and
finishing, narrow fabrics for seat belts and for military and
technical uses and technical fabrics used in a variety of
government, industrial and commercial applications.


JELD-WEN: Notice of Settlement with Century Window Purchasers
-------------------------------------------------------------
                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     Northern District of Ohio

If you are the first (original) owner of Century Window Products
in your home, you may be eligible to participate in a class
action settlement.  If you are the first (original) owner of
Century Window Products in your home, you may be eligible to
participate in a class action settlement.  If you qualify, you
may apply for benefits, exclude yourself from the settlement
(opt-out), or object to the settlement.

WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?

Century Window Products were manufactured and sold by JELD-WEN
between 1986 and 2002.  Class Representative Robert Stout has
brought a legal action against JELD-WEN, Robert Stout, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. JELD-WEN,
inc., case number 1:08-cv-0652, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio. He has alleged that
JELD-WEN breached its limited warranty with regard to the
Century windows and doors in his home. JELDWEN denies these
allegations and denies that it is liable to Robert Stout under
any legal theory. The Court has not decided the lawsuit.
The parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit. The settlement
does not mean that JELD-WEN has or has not breached its warranty.
The settlement includes the following groups of
people:

     Tier 1 includes all persons who are the Original Owner of
the Century Window Products in their home and who have, as of
March 5, 2010, made a claim pursuant to their Century Limited
Warranty for an issue related to the Werzalit frame in those
windows and/or doors, who did not receive any replacement product
or refund, and who did not sign a release. These persons may be
eligible for free replacement products from JELD-WEN, if
other conditions are met.

     Tier 2 includes all persons who are the Original Owner of
the Century Window Products in their home and who have, as of
March 5, 2010, made a claim pursuant to their Century Limited
Warranty for an issue related to those windows and/or doors, who
received replacement product or refund and who want replacement
windows and/or doors for any reason. These persons may be
eligible to purchase replacement products at a discount from
JELD-WEN.

     Tier 3 includes all persons who are the Original Owner of
the Century Window Products in their home who have not made a
claim pursuant to their Century Limited Warranty and who want
replacement windows and/or doors for any reason. These persons
may be eligible to purchase replacement products on a sliding-
scale discount from JELD-WEN.

HOW CAN YOU MAKE A CLAIM?

To determine if you are a member of this settlement class and how
to make a claim, contact this toll-free number, 1-877-289-4000,
or by going to the Settlement Website, at:

     http://www.centurywindowsettlement.com/

You must act promptly, as you must make a claim by December 6,
2010 to be eligible for any benefits.  

YOUR OTHER RIGHTS

If you are a Class Member but do not want to participate in the
settlement or do not want to be legally bound by it, you must
request to be excluded by July 7, 2010. Otherwise, you will not
be able to bring a breach of warranty action against JELD-WEN in
the future. If you exclude yourself, you cannot obtain any
benefits from this settlement. If you do not exclude yourself,
you may object to the settlement if you do so by July 16, 2010. A
detailed notice, available by calling the number listed below,
explains how to exclude yourself or object. The Court will hold a
hearing on August 6, 2010, at 11:30 a.m. to consider the fairness
of this settlement. The Court will also consider a request from
Class Counsel for reasonable attorneys' fees, including expenses.
You or your own lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the
hearing, at your cost.

                             *   *   *  

The Claims Administrator can be reached at:

          Century Window Products Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 11501
          Columbia, SC 29211

Class Counsel is:

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215

JELD-WEN is represented by:

          Stephen G. Morrison
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
          1320 Main St., Suite 1700
          Columbia, SC 29201


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Agrees to Settle San Diego "Stephens" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. and plaintiffs in the matter Mia
Stephens et al v. lululemon athletica inc., have agreed to the
general terms of a settlement, according to the company's March
25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2010.

On April 2, 2009, three former hourly company employees filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego Superior Court, California.

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various California
Labor Code sections by requiring employees to wear lululemon
clothing during working hours without reimbursing such employees
for the cost of the clothing and by paying certain bonus payments
to its employees in the form of lululemon gift cards redeemable
only for lululemon merchandise.

The complaint also alleges that the company owes waiting time
penalties as the result of failing to pay employees all wages
due at the time of termination.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

The company and the plaintiffs have agreed to the general terms
of a settlement which has not yet been finalized and which must
be submitted to the court for preliminary and final approval.

lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a  
designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in
North America.  Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the
lululemon athletica brand name.  The company offers a line of
apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops
and jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance,
running and general fitness.  It offers a line of performance
apparel and accessories for both women and men.  The company's
fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as
bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital
versatile discs, water bottles and headbands.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Agrees to Settle "Kohlenberg" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. and the plaintiff in the matter  Brett
Kohlenberg et al v. lululemon athletica inc., have agreed to the
general terms of a settlement, according to the company's March
25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2010.

On March 26, 2009, a former hourly Company employee filed a class
action lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court, California.

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various California
Labor Code sections by failing to pay its employees for certain
rest and meal breaks and "off the clock" work, and for penalties
related to waiting times and failure to provide itemized wage
statements.

The company and the plaintiffs have agreed to the general terms
of a settlement which has not yet been finalized and which must
be submitted to the court for preliminary and final approval.

lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a  
designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in
North America.  Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the
lululemon athletica brand name.  The company offers a line of
apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops
and jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance,
running and general fitness.  It offers a line of performance
apparel and accessories for both women and men.  The company's
fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as
bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital
versatile discs, water bottles and headbands.


MICHAEL FOODS: Dismissal Plea for Two Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Foods, Inc.'s motions to dismiss two consolidated amended
class-action complaint remains pending, according to the
company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
2, 2010.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against the company and
approximately 20 other defendants who are producers of shell
eggs, manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry
organizations alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and
processed-egg products.

Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes of direct and
indirect purchasers, and allege that defendants conspired to
reduce the supply of eggs by participating in animal husbandry,
egg-export and other programs of various egg-industry
associations.

In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The company currently has two motions to dismiss pending before
the Court:

     (1) a motion to dismiss the direct-purchaser plaintiffs'
         Second Consolidated Amended Complaint against Michael
         Foods, Inc.; and

     (2) a motion to dismiss the indirect-purchaser plaintiffs'
         Consolidated Amended Complaint against Michael Foods,
         Inc., and subsidiary Papetti's Hygrade Egg Products,
         Inc.

The company is also a party to various other motions, filed by
multiple defendants, to dismiss portions of the complaints.

A decision on these motions is not expected until June 2010 or
later.

Michael Foods, Inc. -- http://www.michaelfoods.com/-- is one of  
the leading US producers of shell eggs and value-added egg
products (frozen, liquid, pre-cooked, dried).  It has other
operations, but eggs account for 70% of its sales.  The spuds
come in with its Northern Star subsidiary, which pre-shreds and
mashes potatoes.  The company's Crystal Farms subsidiary
packages and distributes cheese, butter and other dairy products.
Michael's customers include food processors,
foodservice distributors, and retail grocery stores throughout
North America, as well as in the Far East, South America, and
Europe. Investment firm, Thomas H. Lee Partners, owns almost 90%
of the company.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Accused in Nev. of Misleading Shareholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ormat Technologies directors
propped up the stock price with false and misleading statements,
and when they had to restate earnings the stock price dropped by
12.8 percent, shareholders say in Reno Federal Court.  Ormat is a
geothermal tech company.

A copy of the Complaint in Curtis v. Ormat Technologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00198 (D. Nev.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/09/SCA.pdf  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Wray, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK WRAY
          608 Lander St.
          Reno, NV 89509
          Telephone: 775-348-8877

               - and -

          U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
          Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 E. 40th St.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-779-1414

News about Stebelton v. Ormat Technologies, Inc., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-00156 (D. Nev.), making similar claims and filed by D.
Seamus Kaskela, Esq., David M. Promisloff, Esq., and Steven D.
Resnick, Esq., at Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP,
appeared in the Mar. 25, 2010, edition of the Class Action
Reporter.  


PARTNERSHIP FOR STRONG FAMILIES: Did Not Pay Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Partnership for Strong
Families stiffed workers for overtime, according to a class
action in Tallahassee Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Montoya v. Partnership for Strong
Families, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00128 (N.D. Fla.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/09/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sean Culliton, Esq.
          SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC
          2108 Delta Way
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Telephone: 850-385-9455
          E-mail: sean.culliton@gmail.com

              - and -

          John C. Davis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. DAVIS
          623 Beard St.
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Telephone: 850-222-4770
          E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net

               - and -

          Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
          TALBOTT LAW FIRM
          245 E. Intendencia St.
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: 850-437-9600
          E-mail: jj@talbottlawfirm.com


SPARK NETWORKS: Faces Suit Over Great Hill Buyout Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc., faces a class action lawsuit arising out of
the proposal by Great Hill Partners III, LP to purchase all of
the shares of the company that it does not already own, according
to the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The suit was filed on March 11, 2010, by L.I.S.T. Incorporated
against the company, Adam S. Berger, Jonathan B. Bulkeley,
Benjamin Derhy, Thomas G. Stockham, Michael A. Kumin, Great Hill
Equity Partners III, LP and Great Hill Partners, LLC in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty.

Spark Networks, Inc. -- http://www.spark.net/-- is a provider of  
online personals services in the United States and
internationally.  The Websites enable adults to meet online,
participate in a community, and form relationships.  The features
of the company's Websites include profiles, onsite e-mail
centers, real-time chat rooms, instant messaging services, and
offline singles events.  The Websites include JDate.com,
AmericanSingles.com, BlackSingles.com, and ChristianMingle.com.  
It also operates several international Websites and maintains
operations in the United States and Israel.


SPARK NETWORKS: Faces "Shaffer" Suit in California over Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc., faces a class action lawsuit styled Mike
Shaffer v. Spark Networks, Inc. et al, arising out of the
proposal by Great Hill Partners III, LP to purchase all of the
shares of the company that it does not already own, according to
the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The suit was filed on March 24, 2010, by Mike Shaffer against
Adam Berger, Michael Kumin, Jonathan Bulkeley, Benjamin Derhy,
Thomas G. Stockham, the company, Great Hill Partners, LLC and
Great Hill Equity Partners III, LP in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, alleging breach of fiduciary
duty.

Spark Networks, Inc. -- http://www.spark.net/-- is a provider of  
online personals services in the United States and
internationally.  The Websites enable adults to meet online,
participate in a community, and form relationships.  The features
of the company's Websites include profiles, onsite e-mail
centers, real-time chat rooms, instant messaging services, and
offline singles events.  The Websites include JDate.com,
AmericanSingles.com, BlackSingles.com, and ChristianMingle.com.  
It also operates several international Websites and maintains
operations in the United States and Israel.


STERLING CHEMICALS: Continues to Defended vs. Ex-Employees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Chemicals, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-
action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, according to the company's March 24, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Feb. 21, 2007 the company received a summons naming it,
several benefit plans and the plan administrators for those plans
as defendants in a class action, Evans et al. v. Sterling
Chemicals, et al., Case No. H-07-0625.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a proposed class of
retired employees of Sterling Fibers, Inc., one of its former
subsidiaries that the company sold in connection with its
emergence from bankruptcy in 2002.

The plaintiffs are alleging that the company was not permitted to
increase their premiums for retiree medical insurance based on a
provision contained in the asset purchase agreement between the
company and Cytec Industries Inc. and certain of its affiliates
governing the purchase of its former acrylic fibers business in
1997.

During its bankruptcy case, the company specifically rejected
this asset purchase agreement and the bankruptcy court approved
that rejection.  The plaintiffs are claiming that the company
violated the terms of the benefit plans and breached fiduciary
duties governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
and are seeking damages, declaratory relief, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

A trial for this matter was held during the second week of
November 2009 but the court has not yet as issued a ruling.

The suit is Evans, et al. v. Sterling Chemicals, et al., Case No.
H-07-0625 (S.D. Tex.) (Hoyt, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Ronald Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
          Davis & Davis, 1301 McKinney, Ste. 3500
          Houston, TX 77010
          Phone: 713-781-5200
          Fax: 713-781-2235
          E-mail: mweber@davis-davislaw.com


SUNSHINE MAKERS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sunshine Makers pushes its
"Simple Green" cleaner as nontoxic and environmentally clean, but
it contains 2-butoxyethanol, which has been linked to anemia,
birth defects and autoimmune diseases, a class action claims in
Santa Ana, Calif., Federal Court.

The case is Tilahun v. Sunshine Makers Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-00427 (C.D. Calif.) (Guilford, J.).


TOYS R US: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit by Internet Retailers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated class
action case brought by internet retailers, according to the
company's March 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
30, 2010.

On July 15, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted the class plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in a consumer class action commenced in
January 2006, which was consolidated with an action brought by
two Internet retailers that was commenced in December 2005.

Both actions allege that Babies "R" Us agreed with certain baby
product manufacturers to impose, maintain and/or enforce minimum
price agreements in violation of antitrust laws.

In addition, in December 2009, a third Internet retailer filed a
similar action and another class action was commenced making
similar allegations involving most of the same Defendants.

Toys "R" Us' Inc. -- http://www.toysrus.com/-- is one of the  
world's largest toy retailers.  Toys "R" Us sells its wares in
about 1,500 stores in the US and abroad and through Web sites.  
In addition to about 585 US namesake stores selling toys, games,
and other items for kids, Toys "R" Us sells infant and toddler
apparel, furniture, and feeding supplies at some 260 Babies "R"
Us stores in more than 40 states.  It's owned by KKR, Bain
Capital, and real estate firm Vornado Realty Trust, which
together took the toy seller private in a $6.6 billion deal.  
Toys "R" Us acquired troubled toy icon FAO Schwarz in 2009.


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Dismisses Suit Over Prisoner Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a
class action filed by inmates who say they were underpaid in
prison.  "[P]risoners have no enforceable right to be paid for
their work under the Constitution or international law," Judge
Richard Clifton wrote.

Current and former inmates who worked in federal prisons sued the
Federal Bureau of Prisons and prison officials, alleging Fifth
Amendment violations and unfair treatment under international
law.

The district court ruled for the prison officials and dismissed
the complaint, refusing to let the prisoners amend the complaint
or add a cause of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

On appeal, the prisoners said they worked for as little as 19
cents an hour, earning between $19 and $145 per month.  Such low
wages violate their due-process rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the prisoners claimed.

The three-judge panel in San Francisco upheld dismissal of the
case, ruling that the Constitution "does not provide prisoners
any substantive entitlement to compensation for their labor."

"We conclude that neither the Fifth Amendment nor international
law grants plaintiffs a judicially enforceable right to any level
of compensation for work performed in prison," Judge Clifton
wrote.

"A prisoner has no basis for asserting a violation of due process
simply because he is made or allowed to work for low pay as
punishment for a crime of which he was lawfully convicted."

A copy of the opinion in Serra, et al. v. Lappin, et al., No.
08-15969 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/04/09/08-15969.pdf

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          John Murcko, Esq.
          2831 Telegraph Ave.
          Oakland, CA 94609
          Telephone: 510-465-2456

               - and -

          William M. Simpich, Esq.
          1736 Franklin St., 10th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 510-444-0226

               - and -

          Stephen Perelson, Esq.
          265 Miller Ave.
          Mill Valley, CA 94941-2817
          Telephone: 415-383-1070

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Gregory G. Katsas, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001

               - and -

          Joseph P. Russoniello, Esq.
          United States Attorney
          450 Golden Gate Avenue, 11th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: 415-436-7200

               - and -

          Michael S. Raab, Esq.
          Alexander K. Haas, Esq.
          U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division,
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001


VERTRO INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment in Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit against Vertro,
Inc., are appealing the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida granting final judgment in favor of
the defendants, according to the company's March 25, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits
were filed against the company and certain of its former officers
and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.  The complaints alleged that we and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the individual defendants also violated Section
20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of MIVA.

Plaintiffs alleged generally that, during the putative class
period, we made certain misleading statements and omitted
material information and sought unspecified damages and other
relief.

The Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Nov.
16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor of all
Defendants on Dec. 7, 2009.  On Dec. 15, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.

Vertro, Inc., formerly MIVA, Inc., -- http://www.miva.com/-- is  
an Internet company that owns and operates the ALOT product
portfolio.  The company operated its range of products and
services through two divisions: MIVA Direct and MIVA Media as of
Dec. 31, 2008.  MIVA Direct offers home page, desktop application
and Internet browser toolbar products under the ALOT brand. The
ALOT Home Page, ALOT Desktop and ALOT Toolbar are designed to
make the Internet easy for consumers by providing direct access
to affinity content and search results.  The products generate
approximately two million Internet searches per day. MIVA Media
connected buyers and sellers online by displaying advertisements
in response to consumer search or browsing activity on select
Internet properties.  Prior to the MIVA Media Sale, MIVA Media
was an auction based pay-per-click advertising network that was
operated across North America and in Europe.  On March 12, 2009,
Adknowledge, Inc. acquired MIVA Media, the media division of the
company.


WELLS FARGO: Minority Neighborhood Borrower Class Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
             NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST
        WELLS FARGO BANK AND WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE

               A court has authorized this notice.

            This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

You may be a member of the Plaintiff Class in a lawsuit entitled
Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC337821.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges, on behalf of the Class, a
violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code 51), seeking
statutory damages and attorney fees. Plaintiffs allege that Wells
Fargo precluded certain loan officers, who were located in
predominantly minority neighborhoods, from using a computer
program called "Loan Economics" to price loans.  Plaintiffs
assert that borrowers who applied for their loans in these
locations were given higher-priced loans than other borrowers.
Wells Fargo denies all of plaintiffs' allegations and denies it
has engaged in any wrongdoing. Wells Fargo further contends that
its loan officers were not precluded from using Loan Economics.
Wells Fargo further claims that the use of Loan Economics by
Wells Fargo loan officers is an internal Wells Fargo matter that
had no effect on the services provided to borrowers.

You are a member of the Plaintiff Class in this lawsuit if you
fit within the following description: (1) You obtained a first
trust deed-secured home loan ("loan") from Wells Fargo in an
amount in excess of one hundred fifty thousand dollars
($150,000); (2) Your loan was not a home equity loan; (3) Your
loan was funded between the time period May 1, 2002 and December
31, 2005; and, (4) You applied for the loan through a Wells Fargo
branch and/or office which is and/or was located within
the following area ("area"): (a) all of Los Angeles County,
except the area north of the San Gabriel Mountains; and (b)
either within, or within one mile (1 mile) from, an area
comprised of fifty percent (50%) or more minority population,
where "minority population" is defined as "the total population
of that geographic area less the population of non-Hispanic
whites of that geographic area," as established by the 2000
Census data. To obtain a partial list of Wells Fargo locations,
or a map of the subject area, contact Lead Counsel for Plaintiff
Class at the telephone and address below; or go to the website
http://www.WellsFargoLoanEconomicsClassAction.com/

The Court has restricted the Class to statutory damages of $4,000
per loan. Your participation in the Class waives any further
rights you have to actual damages and will preclude you from
seeking actual damages in connection with the Unruh Act claims.
Therefore, if you fit the above Description of the Class, you can
choose whether or not to remain a member of the Class on whose
behalf this lawsuit is being maintained. If you remain in the
class, your recovery will be limited to $4,000 per loan.

If you wish to remain in the Class, then you need not take any
action at this time. If you wish to be excluded from the Class,
your request for exclusion must be postmarked on or before May
15, 2010, and sent to:

          Wells Fargo Loan Economics Litigation
          c/o Dahl, Inc.
          P.O. Box 2061
          Faribault, MN 55021-2061

If you do not exclude yourself from the Class, you are not
required to hire your own lawyer, since Class Counsel represents
you. However, if you want your own lawyer to speak for you or
appear in Court, you must file a Notice of Appearance. Your
Notice of Appearance should be filed with the Court on or before
May 31, 2010.

This notice is not intended to be a complete and comprehensive
description of the matters identified and described herein. The
full notice is available by (1) calling or writing Lead Counsel
for Plaintiff Class at the telephone and address below; or (2)
visiting the website at:

     http://www.WellsFargoLoanEconomicsClassAction.com/

If you have any questions regarding this lawsuit or any portion
of this notice, you may contact Lead Counsel for the Plaintiff
Class.  Lead Counsel for the Plaintiff Class is:

          CAPPELLO & NOL LLP
          831 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: 800-700-1195
          Fax: 805-965-5950

               DO NOT CALL OR WRITE WELLS FARGO,
               THE COURT OR THE CLERK''S OFFICE.


ZUMIEZ INC: $1.35 Million Settlement Gets Court Preliminary Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Alameda County Superior Court gave its preliminary approval
to the $1.35 million settlement in the matter Evan Johnson v.
Zumiez, Inc., et al., Case No. RG08374968, according to the
company's March 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
30, 2010.

On March 5, 2008, a former employee commenced an action against
the company alleging that the company failed to pay all overtime
wages owing to him and other employees in California, failed to
provide meal breaks as required by California law, failed to
provide employees with proper itemized wage statements (pay
stubs) as required by California law, and failed to pay
terminated employees waiting time penalties under California
Labor Code section 203.

On July 16, 2009, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement to settle.

The claims made settlement agreement was submitted to the court
for preliminary approval, but the court denied approval without
prejudice and encouraged the parties to restructure and resubmit
the agreement to the court for approval.

The company and plaintiff's counsel renegotiated the settlement,
and resubmitted it to the court for approval.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March
16, 2010, and set a final approval hearing for July 13, 2010.

Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement
will have until June 1, 2010 to do so.  The total amount of the
renegotiated settlement is $1.35 million.

This entire amount will be paid out in settlement awards to the
class members, attorneys' fees and costs, claims administration
fees and other payments required by the settlement, with no
reversion of unclaimed funds to the company.

This accrued charge was recorded in selling, general and
administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of
operations for the three months ended Aug. 1, 2009.

Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based  
specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear,
equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name.  
As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily
located in shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states.


ZUMIEZ INC: Certification Hearing in "Berg" Suit Set for May 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court has set a May 28, 2010, class
certification hearing in the putative class action styled Chandra
Berg v. Zumiez Inc., Case No. BC408410, according to the
company's March 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
30, 2010.

The action was filed against the company on Feb. 25, 2009.

The action alleges causes of action for failure to pay overtime
wages to present and former store managers in California, failure
to provide meal periods and rest breaks to store managers,
failure to reimburse retail employees for clothing required by
the company's dress code, failure to reimburse retail employees
for business expenses, failure to provide store managers with
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay terminated
store managers all wages due at the time of termination, unfair
business practices and declaratory relief.

The company has filed an answer to the Complaint and discovery is
being conducted.

Subsequent to Jan. 30, 2010, the company attended a mediation
with the plaintiff wherein no settlement was reached.

The court has set the date of May 28, 2010 for a hearing on class
certification.

Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based  
specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear,
equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name.  
As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily
located in shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states.


* Mocked Celebrities File Class Action Suit on "South Park"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Sarto at Animation World Network reports that a slew of
celebrities who have felt the mocking scorn of the South Park
series gather together to file a class action lawsuit again our
favorite tikes in the 200th episode, airing this evening at 10:00
p.m., Eastern Time, on Comedy Central.  Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson,
George Lucas, Rob Reiner and Kanye West are only some of the
stars that the series has targeted in their quest to merge social
commentary with the darkest and nastiest humor allowed on cable
television.  A trailer's available at:

     http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/267115/?tab=featured

                            *********

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  * * *