---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 21, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 77

                            Headlines

AIR TRANSPORT: Court Dismisses Three Claims Against ABX Air
APPLE INC: California Suit Complains About Defective iPhones
AROTECH CORP: Approval of $2.9 Million Settlement Still Pending
BE LLC: Sued for Unlawful Collection of Advance "Membership Fees"
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Colombians File Class Action Lawsuit

CLARK COUNTY: Suit Complains About Child Welfare System
CLEARWIRE CORP: Accused of Making Unauthorized Text Messages
COMPELLENT TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Misleading Shareholders
COMPUTERTRAINING.COM INC: Accused in Michigan Suit of Fraud
COMCAST CORP: ERISA Plan Participant Class Certified in E.D. Pa.

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Wage and Hour Lawsuit for $200,000
DAVE & BUSTERS: E.D. Tex. Lawsuit Complains About ATM Fees
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Marketing Practices Questioned in Ill. Suit
FAIRLEY CISCO: Ga. Court to Decide if Gas Pump Suit Can Proceed
FIRST AID CLINIC: Charged with Sending Unauthorized Faxes

FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Faces Amended Complaint in Texas
GJC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 3,200 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
HARTFORD INSURANCE: $10 Mil. Settlement Preliminary Approved
HOBOKEN, N.J.: Rent Controlled Landlord Class Certified
HYUNDAE HEALTH: Sued Over Hidden Video Cameras in Locker Room

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Levaquin Lawsuit Filed in E.D. Texas
JOS. A. BANK: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 8
JOS. A. BANK: Defends Racial Discrimination Suit in California
KIT DIGITAL: Plaintiffs in "Vittengl" Drop Class Allegations
LE HING: Recalls 200 Baby Walkers

MDL 2047: Chinese Drywall Plaintiffs May Never Collect Judgment
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Defends Securities Suit in Texas
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 3rd Cir. May Revive $184 Mil. Class Action
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: To Seek Dismissal of Second Amended Complaint
OKLAHOMA: State Says DHS Caseworkers Aren't Overloaded

OSI RESTAURANT: Continues to Defend "Ervin" Wage & Hour Suit
PALM INC: Class Member's Appeal of Attorney's Fees Pending
PAMRAPO BANCORP: Defends Suit Against BCB Bancorp Merger
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Acknowledges Receipt of Class Action Suit
STATION CASINOS: Proceedings in Nevada Labor Suit Stayed

UNITED STATES: NYC Asks 2nd Cir. to Intervene in 9/11 Settlement
WELLS FARGO: Fails to Meet HAMP Obligations, Ill. Suit Claims
WET SEAL: Final Hearing for Settlement Agreement in April
WET SEAL: Class Certification Filing Deadline on May 21
YELLOWPAGES.COM LLC: Suit Complains About YP Clicks! Program

                            *********

AIR TRANSPORT: Court Dismisses Three Claims Against ABX Air
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
dismissed three of the five claims in a complaint against ABX
Air, Inc., according to Air Transport Services Group Inc.'s March
31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

ABX is a subsidiary of Air Transport.

On Dec. 31, 2008, a former ABX employee filed a complaint against
ABX, a total of four current and former executives and managers
of ABX, Garcia Labor Company of Ohio, and three former executives
of the Garcia Labor companies.

The case was filed as a putative class action against the
defendants, and asserts violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Practices Act.

The complaint, which seeks damages in an unspecified amount,
alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to hire illegal
immigrant workers to depress the wages paid to hourly wage
employees during the period from December 1999 to January 2005.

On Jan. 23, 2009, ABX and the four current and former executives
and managers of ABX filed an answer denying the allegations
contained in the complaint.

On July 24, 2009, ABX and the current and former executives of
ABX filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On March 18, 2010, the Court issued a decision dismissing three
of the five claims, constituting the basis of Plaintiff's cause
of action.

Air Transport Services Group Inc. -- http://www.atsginc.com/--  
is a holding company whose principal subsidiaries include three
independently United States-certificated airlines and an aircraft
leasing company. The three airlines, ABX Air, Inc. (ABX), Capital
Cargo International Airlines, Inc. (CCIA), and Air Transport
International, LLC (ATI), primarily transport cargo within the
United States and include operations in Europe, Central America,
South America, and Asia. ATSG's leasing subsidiary, Cargo
Aircraft Management, Inc. (CAM), leases aircraft to ATSG's
airlines and to external customers. During the year ended
December 31, 2008, the Company operated three segments: DHL, ACMI
Services and CAM. The Company's other business operations include
aircraft maintenance and modification services, aircraft part
sales, equipment leasing and maintenance, mail handling for the
United States Postal Service (USPS), specialized services for
aircraft fuel management and freight logistics.


APPLE INC: California Suit Complains About Defective iPhones
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple uses a
defective "Liquid Submersion Indicator" to refuse to honor its
warranty for broken iPhones, frustrated customers say in a
federal class action.  The class claims Apple uses the faulty
indicator to blame the customer, even when their phone has been
nowhere near water.

Lead plaintiff Charlene Gallion says her iPhone inexplicably
stopped working properly 6 months after she bought it.  An Apple
store employee said she was not entitled to a new iPhone because
the warranty had been voided when the phone was submerged in
water.

Ms. Gallion said her iPhone had never been wet, but the employee
insisted that it must have.  The liquid submersion indicator had
turned pink, which "could only be triggered by exposure to a
significant amount of liquid, such as being dropped into a toilet
or a glass of water," according to the complaint.

But Ms. Gallion says the external indicators can be set off by
other types of moisture, "such as a palm that becomes sweaty
after a workout."

With no way to refute the employee's assertion, Ms. Gallion says
she had to accept Apple's offer to sell her a "discounted"
replacement phone.

But she says the replacement iPhone also stopped working after 6
months, and once again Apple said that the warranty was void
because the indicator showed that the phone had been damaged by
water.

The class claims that Apple does not attempt to verity whether
phones really were damaged by water, but relies on the liquid
submersion indicators.  It adds that Apple does not allow
customers to be present during the alleged "inspection" of their
phones.

The class demands an order requiring Apple to extend the
warranties, restitution and damages for breach of warranty,
fraud, unfair business practices and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Gallion v. Apple, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01610 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AppleDunk.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.
          Dina E. Micheletti, Esq.
          FAZIO MICHELETTI LLP
          2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
          San Ramon, CA 94583
          Telephone: 925-543-2555

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
          THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
          188 The Embarcadero, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-546-6800

               - and -

          Earl L. Bohachek, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EARL L. BOHACHEK
          One Maritime Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-434-8100


AROTECH CORP: Approval of $2.9 Million Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arotech Corporation awaits approval from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York of the $2.9 million
settlement resolving a consolidated complaint, according to the
company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In May 2007, two purported class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the company and certain of its officers and directors.  
These two cases were consolidated in June 2007.

The Class Action Complaint seeks class status on behalf of all
persons who purchased the company's securities between Nov. 9,
2004 and Nov. 14, 2005, and alleges violations by the company and
certain of its officers and directors of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
primarily related to the acquisition of Armour of America in 2005
and certain public statements made by us with respect to the
business and prospects during the Period. T
he Class Action Complaint also alleges that the company did not
have adequate systems of internal operational or financial
controls, and that its financial statements and reports were not
prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules.  The Class Action
Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

In January 2010, the company reached an agreement with lead
plaintiffs to settle the Class Action Complaint.  Under the terms
of the proposed settlement, the lawsuit will be dismissed with
prejudice, and the company and all its current and former
officers and directors named in the complaint will receive a full
and complete release of all claims asserted against them in the
litigation, as well as any related claims that could have been
asserted.  The claims will be settled for $2.9 million.  The
monetary payment for this settlement will be funded entirely from
insurance proceeds.  The agreement is subject to court approval.

Arotech Corporation -- http://www.arotech.com/-- is a defense  
and security products and services company, engaged in three
business areas: armoring for military and non-military air and
ground vehicles; simulation for military, law enforcement and
commercial markets, and batteries and charging systems for the
military.  The company operates primarily through its 100%-owned
subsidiaries, which it has organized into three divisions:
Training and Simulation Division, Armor Division and Battery and
Power Systems Division.


BE LLC: Sued for Unlawful Collection of Advance "Membership Fees"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trisha Drago, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Be., LLC, Dynamic Shocases, LLC, MTS Holdings Group, Inc.,
1901 Co., et al., Case No. BC435935 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty. Apr. 15, 2010), accuses the entertainment company of
conspiring with the other Defendants to extract illegal advance
fees for supposed "Be membership fees" in violation of
California's Advance-Fee Talent Services Act.  Ms. Drago says Be
and the other Defendants misrepresented that that they could help
her daughter secure employment in the entertainment industry as a
professional actress, when in reality they had only the slightest
connection to it.  Ms. Drago alleges that after she canceled her
contract with Be, she was promised a refund.  She hasn't received
it.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ethan Preston, Esq.
          PRESTON LAW OFFICES
          1658 North Milwaukee Ave., Suite 253
          Chicago, IL 60622
          Telephone: (312) 492-4070
          E-mail: ep@eplaw.us

               - and -          
          
          Robert M. Bramson, Esq.
          Michael S. Strimling, Esq.
          BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          E-mail: rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com
                  mstrimling@bramsonplutzik.com

               - and -

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckham, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Colombians File Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
DemocracyNow.com reports that dozens of Colombians have filed a
class-action lawsuit against fruit giant Chiquita Brands
International for its role in financing a right-wing paramilitary
group in the 1990s.  In 2007, Chiquita admitted to paying
millions of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of
Colombia, known as the AUC. Some of the plaintiffs allege they
were injured or had family members killed as a result of
Chiquita's support for the group.


CLARK COUNTY: Suit Complains About Child Welfare System
-------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that Clark
County's child welfare system shows "deliberate indifference to
the health and safety of the children it is obligated to
protect," 13 foster kids say in a federal class action.  The
National Center for Youth Law's 80-page complaint demands
sweeping changes in the county's foster care system, and damages
for the children.

It complains of physical, sexual and psychological abuse by
foster parents, and neglect and indifference from caseworkers and
other officials.

"Defendants' child welfare system routinely fails in its legal
obligations, duties and responsibilities to foster children," the
complaint states.  "Although defendants have long been aware of
these failures, in many instances their proposed solutions have
been ineffective, and in many cases they have taken no action at
all."

In one example, plaintiffs say a baby girl and her older brother
were taken from their home and put into a foster home, where the
little girl was locked in a closet and her brother was beaten for
trying to help her.

When doctors got to the girl, she was dehydrated and had bruises
on her forehead, cuts on her legs and a "diaper rash so severe
that her buttocks were ulcerated and bleeding."

Another girl was bounced around 40 foster care settings in the 15
years she's been in the system, and was even returned to an
aunt's home despite the girl's having reported abuse and neglect
there.

One 12-year-old, deaf since birth, endured sexual, physical and
emotional abuse by his parents and grandparents before being
placed in the foster care system.  "Despite knowing his
impairments, defendants have failed to place [the boy] in homes
able to meet his special needs," the lawsuit states.
More than 10 studies in the past 7 years have documented the
department's failure to protect children from abuse in the foster
care system, the complaint states.

A similar suit brought by the National Center for Youth Law in
2006 was dismissed after failing to get class-action status.

Plaintiffs want state and county agencies to put together plans
that educate foster parents how to care for children and to
appoint representatives for children in court, as required by
state and federal law.  They also want early intervention
services provided to the county's foster children.

Listed as defendants are the Nevada Department of Health and
Human Services Director Michael Wilden; Diane Comeaux,
administrator of the Nevada Division of Child and Family
Services; Clark County Manager Virginia Clementine; and Tom
Morton, director of the Clark County Department of Family
Services.

A copy of the Complaint in Henry A., et al., v. Willden, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00528 (D. Nev.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/FosterKids.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruno Wolfenzon, Esq.
          Gregory M. Schulman, Esq.
          WOLFENZON SCHULMAN & ROLLE
          6725 Via Austi Pkwy, Suite 260
          Las Vegas, NV 89119
          Telephone: 702-836-3138

               - and -

          Lori A. Schechter, Esq.
          Mary F. Hansbury, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Rosenberg, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market St., Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: 415-268-7000

               - and -

          William Grimm, Esq.
          Leecia Welch, Esq.
          Bryn Martyna, Esq.
          Camille Roberts, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          405 14th St., 15th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 510-835-8098


CLEARWIRE CORP: Accused of Making Unauthorized Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Damasco, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Clearwire Corporation, Case No. 2010-CH-16649 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. Apr. 16, 2010), accuses the internet service
provider of making unsolicited voice and text calls to consumers'
cellular telephones to promote its internet products and
services, in violation of their right to privacy and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Damasco says wireless spam harms consumers because they
frequently have to pay their cell phone service providers for the
receipt of these unauthorized text messages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6470


COMPELLENT TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Misleading Shareholders
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Compellent
Technologies inflated the share price through false and
misleading statements to sell 3.3 million shares for $64 million,
and the price plunged by 24 percent when the truth came out,
shareholders claim in Minneapolis Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in McDonald v. Compellent Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01566 (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq.
          Kirsten D. Hedberg, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, P.L.L.P.
          651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-341-0400
          E-mail: carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com
                  kirsten.hedberg@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: 770-392-0090

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS, LLP
          303 East 17th Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: 303-861-1764


COMPUTERTRAINING.COM INC: Accused in Michigan Suit of Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that
ComputerTraining.com took more than $5 million in tuition from
students in 14 states, charging as much as $28,000 apiece, then
abruptly shut down without offering refunds, a class action
claims in Federal Court.  Twenty named plaintiffs say CRCI Corp.
promised "world-class information technology training," and job
placements, then "siphoned massive amounts of student loan funds"
from students' accounts with Sallie Mae and other loan companies.

ComputerTraining.edu, operated by CTCI, and its affiliate
ComputerTraining.com, claimed to be "one of the nation's most
successful educational institutions," the students say.

ComputerTraining advertised nationwide on radio, television and
the Internet.  It promised students they could earn Microsoft
certifications through its 6-month program, credentials as an "IT
professional," and long-term access to career services, the
students say.

Prospects were solicited by ComputerTraining's so-called
"admissions representatives," who were actually trained
salespeople, the students say.

Students say ComputerTraining demanded tuition in advance, except
for students who got loans through Sallie Mae, who had to pay
only half of the tuition up front.  Tuition for
ComputerTraining's programs was up to "as much as $28,000 or
more," and most students found themselves "obtaining one or more
student loans, borrowing money from family or friends, or tapping
into savings, such as IRAs and 401(k) accounts" in order to
enroll, the class claims.

ComputerTraining promised in its course catalogs that it would
provide full refunds to students if the school closed before
their training was completed, the class says.  But they add that
ComputerTraining had an "unconscionable clause" in its enrollment
agreement, requiring students "as far away as Missouri, Georgia,
Michigan, Kansas and other states" to arbitrate complaints in
Baltimore.

Another provision prevented students from bringing a
representative or class action against the company, the class
says.

In 2009, despite ComputerTraining's financial trouble with its
lender, Branch Banking & Trust, the company "launched an
admissions push," hiring more salespeople, slashing tuition
rates, and "enrolling as many students as possible," all the
while knowing that it could not provide the services it was
selling, the class says.

Students say that on Dec. 31, 2009 they received an email from
ComputerTraining saying that all of its schools and corporate
offices had been closed by the Branch Bank without warning, and
that students would receive refunds.

The class says ComputerTraining had taken millions of dollars in
tuition from students' accounts just days before shutting down.

The students were left with "partially completed educations,
massive student loan debt and nothing to show for the time and
money they had invested," according to the complaint.  And the
students say they have not received any refunds from
ComputerTraining, as promised.

The class demands damages for negligence, breach of fiduciary
duties, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, fraud and civil conspiracy.

A copy of the Complaint in Smith, et al. v. ComputerTraining.com,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-11490 (E.D. Mich.) is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/ComputerSchool.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Thomas H. Howlett, Esq.
          Dean M. Googasian, Esq.
          THE GOOGASIAN FIRM, P.C.
          6895 Telegraph Rd.
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301-3138
          Telephone: 248-540-3333
          E-mail: thowlett@googasian.com
                  dgoogasian@googasian.com


COMCAST CORP: ERISA Plan Participant Class Certified in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon P. Duffy at The Legal Intelligencer reports that a
federal judge has certified a class action ERISA suit against
Comcast Corp. in which employees of the cable television giant
claim they suffered losses in the company stock fund because it
was heavily invested in Comcast stock during a period when its
price was falsely inflated.

At the heart of the suit are accusations that Comcast executives
made overly optimistic predictions about the company's growth in
early 2007, driving the price of the stock up, despite being
aware of market forces that were sure to result in significantly
lower growth.

Many of Comcast's subscribers had joined under a promotional
package known as the "Triple Play" -- a bundle consisting of
telephone, video and Internet services that was discounted to $99
per month for the first year -- but the company was facing
intense competition from AT&T and Verizon, which were offering
similar discounts. As a result, the suit said, Comcast saw tens
of thousands of subscribers defect to its competition in 2007.

The plaintiffs team -- led by attorneys Mark C. Rifkin of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz in New York and Michael D.
Donovan of Donovan Searles in Philadelphia -- alleges that the
truth was revealed in a series of disclosures over the course of
2007 that caused Comcast's stock price to plummet from a high of
more than $28 in February to just over $18 in December.

Nearly identical accusations were also lodged in a securities
fraud suit brought by outside investors. But Comcast dodged a
bullet in 2008 when a federal judge tossed out the securities
fraud suit after concluding that the investors had failed to back
up their claims that Comcast executives were aware of the falsity
of their bullish statements at the time they made them.

"Plaintiffs do not identify specific documents that would contain
facts or figures indicating that any of the 'undisclosed true
facts' were true or known to the defendants, much less any other
details about the content of those documents," Chief U.S.
District Judge Harvey Bartle III wrote.

Instead, Bartle found, the allegations in the suit were limited
to a "barebones sketch" of how budget and subscriber data
documents are purportedly compiled and reviewed at Comcast.

Now the same judge, in Moore v. Comcast Corp., Case No.
08-cv-00773, (E.D. Pa.), has ruled that similar claims by
investing employees are subject to a less exacting standard
because the Employee Retirement Income Security Act allows
company stock plan participants to allege that the company
breached its fiduciary duty by failing to make "prudent"
investments.  A copy of Judge Bartle's ruling is available at:

     http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/10D0354P.pdf

The ERISA class action was filed on behalf of a class of more
than 89,000 participants in the plan which, at the end of 2006,
had assets of about $2.2 billion, with approximately 13 percent,
or $293 million of the plan assets, consisting of Comcast stock.

Comcast's defense team, led by:

          M. Norman Goldberger, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
          Telephone: 215.665.8500
          E-mail: goldbergermballardspahr.com

argued that lead plaintiff Janell Moore had no standing to sue
because she can't claim to have suffered a loss since she
realized a profit of nearly $8,000 in her sale of Comcast stock
options.

In their motion to dismiss, the defense team argued that any loss
that Moore suffered in her plan holdings must be offset by the
enhanced gain that she realized through her sale of Comcast
options.

Bartle disagreed, saying, "In our view, Moore's unrelated sale of
Comcast stock options has no relevance as to whether she has
suffered any injury from defendants' purported breach of ERISA
fiduciary duties with respect to the plan." Moore's stock options
were granted to her and sold by her "in transactions outside of
and independent of the plan," Bartle noted.

"The defendants fail to cite to a single case where a court has
applied non-plan profits to the calculation of an ERISA
plaintiff's plan losses," Bartle wrote.

Bartle also rejected a defense argument that Moore would be
barred from suing by the terms of a release she signed at the
time her employment with Comcast was terminated.

Such a release would not bar Moore from pursuing the sort of
ERISA claim she filed, Bartle found, because Comcast had a
"continuing duty" under ERISA to review the prudence of the
plan's holdings and divest the plan of imprudent funds.

"If the defendants failed properly to exercise that duty
throughout the class period, defendants have committed a
continuing wrong," Bartle wrote.

"As a continuing wrong, the breach of fiduciary duty is
continually arising anew. Thus, the release does not bar Moore
from proceeding with the claim," Bartle wrote.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Wage and Hour Lawsuit for $200,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., has agreed to settle a purported wage
and hour class action in New York for $200,000, according to the
company's April 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28,
2010.

Like other restaurant chains and retail employers, in a few
states the company has been faced with allegations of purported
class-wide wage and hour violations.

In April 2009, a former Red Lobster employee filed a purported
class action in New York state court, alleging wage and hour
violations and meal and rest break practices in violation of New
York law, seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Although the company believes that its practices were lawful,
following mediation with the plaintiffs, the company reached a
settlement of these claims for approximately $200,000.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DAVE & BUSTERS: E.D. Tex. Lawsuit Complains About ATM Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey at The Southeast Texas Record reports that a
Collin County resident believes he was improperly charged fees
for withdrawing money from two automated teller machines.  Donald
Thomas said the charges violate federal rules because there was
not posted or electronic notice of the fee.

Thomas filed a class action, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, against Dave & Busters Inc. on April 13 in
the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas.

"Defendant failed to post on or at the Dave & Busters ATMs a
notice that a fee will be imposed for withdrawing cash or for a
balance inquiry, resulting in Defendant's improper imposition of
a fee to users of the Dave & Busters ATM," the court documents
state.

The lawsuit alleges that Dave & Busters Inc. are violating the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which states banks must provide a
screen or paper notice that a fee will be charged for electronic
fund transfers services or balance inquiries.

The plaintiff is asking the judge to award statutory damages and
a disgorgement of all monies from the electronic fund transfers
that violated the law. Thomas is asking the court to issue a
permanent injunction to prevent Dave & Busters from continuing to
violate the EFTA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric G. Calhoun, Esq.
          Richard J. Pradarits, Jr., Esq.
          TRAVIS AND CALHOUN PC
          1000 Providence Towers East
          5001 Spring Valley Road
          Dallas, TX 75244
          Telephone: 972-934-4100

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider will preside over the
litigation, which has been assigned Case No. 10-cv-00187.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Marketing Practices Questioned in Ill. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed last week in Illinois Circuit Court alleges
Discover Financial Services (NYSE: DFS) and United Marketing
Group "conspired to bilk potentially thousands of small
businesses out of untold amounts of money through a scheme
involving deceptive telemarketing and illegal billing practices."    

According to Plaintiff Mc-K Sales, which operates Briggs Lake
General Store in rural Minnesota, Discover deliberately transmits
its merchant customers' confidential contact and account
information to UMG.  The Plaintiff claims that UMG used that
information to contact it directly and requested confirmation of
several seemingly harmless pieces of information, including the
business's name and address.  Mc-K claims Discover then
continually withdrew funds from its merchant and checking
accounts on UMG's behalf.  When questioned, Discover claimed the
charges were authorized, and directed Plaintiff to UMG.  UMG, for
its part, produced an altered voice recording purporting to be
one of the Plaintiff's employees consenting to the charges.

The lawsuit asserts deceptive telemarketing and illegal billing
practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act.  Mc-K accuses Discover and UMG of
conspiring to defraud current and former Discover Network
merchants through a scheme where merchant account holders were
charged, without their authorization, $49.95 per month for fees
for a UMG Membership Program known as "Merchant Technical
Solutions," after Discover provided UMG with their contact and
billing information.  Businesses billed for the program say that
they failed to discover these charges until much later because
the Defendants debited the subscription fees from different
accounts under different names.

"The relationship between small businesses and credit card
companies is based on trust. Discover grossly breached that trust
by actively facilitating the exploitation of its own customers,"
says Plaintiff's attorney, Will Haselden of Edelson McGuire, LLC.
"Without Discover's merchants, Discover Card holders have nowhere
to use their credit cards, and Discover's whole business suffers.  
Discover should be catering to its merchants' needs rather than
treating them as vehicles for generating questionable revenue."
Edelson McGuire recently brought suit against UMG on behalf of
consumers alleging similar deceptive marketing and billing
practices.    

The Plaintiff in Mc-K Sales, Inc. v. Discover Financial Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-16321 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.),
is represented by:

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

               - and -  

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


FAIRLEY CISCO: Ga. Court to Decide if Gas Pump Suit Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Stepzinski at The Florida Times-Union reports from
Brunswick, Ga., that adversaries turned unlikely allies Friday in
urging a federal judge to stay out of a state civil racketeering
lawsuit accusing Fairley Cisco, who died last week, and his
companies of defrauding fuel customers out of millions of
dollars.

The suit filed by District Attorney Stephen Kelley in Camden
County Superior Court is nearing a settlement calling for about
$3.75 million to be divided among customers and two fuel
companies defrauded as a result of deliberately mis-calibrated
gas pumps at Cisco's three former gas stations.

Lawyers representing clients in a separate but similar federal
class-action lawsuit are trying to stop that settlement. They
assert little, if any, money would be left to compensate the
class-action clients if the settlement goes forward. So, they
have asked a federal judge to step in and stop it.

U.S. District Judge J. Randal Hall promised to rule quickly, but
specified no time frame.

Kelley is pitted against Cisco's two daughters and his companies
in the racketeering suit. They are united, however, in opposing
federal court intervention. They are joined by Sommers Oil Co.
and Gowen Oil Co. Inc., which also claim to be victims of Cisco's
fraud scheme.

Federal courts generally are prohibited from intervening in state
cases except in a few limited circumstances. Kelley and the other
lawyers told Hall these circumstances neither warrant nor justify
the federal court stepping in.

Kelley said Cisco's assets totaled about $12 million when the
state filed the racketeering lawsuit in March 2008. They've
dwindled to about $4 million since then, he said.

The class-action was filed by plaintiffs Jonathan Smith,
Streamline Logistics LLC, Betty Padgett, B&L Express Inc., John
Darnell, Linda Fifield and Henry Edwards on behalf of themselves
and others unnamed on Feb. 14, 2008. Their lawyers have asserted
that more than 300 parties have contacted them asking to be
included in the action, which seeks nearly $10 million.

Cisco used illegal proceeds gained through the fuel fraud scheme
to support his businesses and lifestyle, prosecutors had alleged.
Under Georgia law, customers who prove they were victims and
prove their damages are entitled to be compensated from any cash
or property forfeited to the state. They must be paid first,
Kelley said.

Dorian Britt, who represents the class-action victims, argued
that Hall has the authority to essentially seize some or all of
that money and set it aside for his clients.

Cisco, 67, was buried Wednesday in Folkston. He died April 8 of
still undetermined causes at his St. Marys home. Investigators
suspect Cisco might have died of an overdose of prescription
medication. An autopsy was inconclusive.


FIRST AID CLINIC: Charged with Sending Unauthorized Faxes
---------------------------------------------------------
Ballard Nursing Center, Inc., on behalf of itself and a class v.
First Aid Clinic, LLC, Case No. 2010-CH-16644 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty. Apr. 16, 2010), charges the clinic of sending
unsolicited advertisements to consumers' telephone facsimile
machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and common law.  Ballard says
unauthorized faxes deprive recipients of the use of their fax
machine and cause wear and tear on their fax machines.  Ballard
further alleges that by sending unauthorized fax advertisements,
Defendants converted to their own use ink, toner and paper
belonging to recipients of its fax messages.
          
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Michelle R. Teggelaar, Esq.
          Julie Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle St., 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Faces Amended Complaint in Texas
---------------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries, Inc., faces an amended complaint alleging
misleading statements and material omissions in connection with
the company's earnings guidance for 2007 and the fourth quarter
of 2007, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Aug. 7, 2009, a class action suit was commenced in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of the company between May 8, 2007
and Jan. 23, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the time period indicated,
Flotek failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
company's true financial condition, business and prospects.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose the following adverse facts, among others:

   (i) the company was experiencing weakness in its Rocky
       Mountain sales region due to its decision to not cut
       prices to the level of its competitors;

  (ii) the company's operating profit margins were being
       negatively impacted as customers increasingly opted to
       rent equipment instead of purchasing it;

(iii) sales in the company's chemicals division were declining
       due to a decrease in fracing activity; and

  (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
       statements concerning the company's guidance and
       prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
       relevant times.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Feb. 4, 2010,
alleging misleading statements and material omissions in
connection with the company's earnings guidance for 2007 and the
fourth quarter of 2007.  The amended complaint does not quantify
the alleged actual damages.

Flotek Industries, Inc. -- http://www.flotekind.com/home.php--    
is supplying drilling and production related products and
services to the energy and mining industries.  The company's core
focus is oilfield specialty chemicals and logistics, downhole
drilling tools and downhole production tools.  Flotek offers its
products primarily through its sales organizations, as well as
through independent distributors and agents.  The company's
reportable segments are Chemical and Logistics, Drilling Products
and Artificial Lift.  


GJC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 3,200 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
GJC International of Florida Inc., of Plantation, Fla., announced
a voluntary recall of about 3,200 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The children's jackets have drawstrings through the hood which
pose a strangulation hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry
voluntary standard in 1997) to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings
in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.  

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves children's Niko brand hooded sweatshirts
with drawstrings through the hood.  The garment-dyed sweatshirts
were sold in mango, kiwi, rust, denim, pink, brown and periwinkle
and in sized 2T through 5T.  A tag that reads, "Niko's
SPORTSLINE" is sewn on the back neck of the garment.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10199.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Pakistan and sold
through gift shops, children's stores, souvenir and resort stores
in Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, Maryland and
Michigan from June 2007 through January 2008 for about $8.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard or return the sweatshirts to
GJC International of Florida Inc. for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact GJC International of Florida
collect at (954) 581-4646 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.



HARTFORD INSURANCE: $10 Mil. Settlement Preliminary Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris at The Madison Record reports that LakinChapman
class actions against insurers American Family and Hartford are
approaching their conclusion.

On April 6, Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack granted
preliminary approval to a $10 million settlement with Hartford in
a case from 2000.

"It's been around a long time," Stack said. "It's got some
whiskers on it."

Plaintiff Winnie Madison claims Hartford cheated accident victims
on medical bills.

Robert Schmieder of LakinChapman told Stack that Hartford would
provide $7.5 million for providers, insurers and beneficiaries,
and $2.5 million in legal fees.

Stack congratulated both sides and ended the hearing.

Then he started another in a suit a few days older, against
American Family.

He had certified a class action against American Family in 2002,
but the former Lakin Law Firm didn't submit a class notice.

At the hearing, Andrew Kuhlmann of LakinChapman told Stack both
sides were working informally on a notice, "full speed ahead."

Stack said he wasn't sure those words should be used in this
case.

Kuhlmann said trial or other disposition would be swift.

He asked permission to serve interrogatories that would identify
witnesses for depositions and relate to policy language and claim
reviews.

For American Family, Tony Martin of St. Louis asked Stack not to
distract his focus from the notice.

"Let's work on that and go from there," Martin said.

Stack asked for further briefs.


HOBOKEN, N.J.: Rent Controlled Landlord Class Certified
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Maurer at the Journal reports that the New Jersey Superior
Court has certified a class action lawsuit against the city of
Hoboken by a cadre of the city's past and present landlords of
multifamily properties seeking a release from the city's rent
control ordinance.

The suit also names as defendants the Hoboken Rent Leveling and
Stabilization Board, Board Administrator Suzanne Hetman, Mayor
Dawn Zimmer and the Hoboken City Council.

The owners of approximately 8,000 rental units are represented
by:

          Charles X. Gormally, Esq.
          BRACH EICHLER LLC
          101 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: 973.228.5700
          E-mail: cgormally@bracheichler.com

The suit, which seeks damages in the "hundreds of millions" and
injunctive and declaratory relief, asks the court to grant the
owners a release from the ordinance.

Gormally argued that the way the Rent Leveling and Stabilization
Board handles record keeping and the amounts that people are
being charged places landlords in a difficult position.

The legal rent calculation process deems it illegal for a
property owner not to have a particular form in his or her file,
yet the board never required this form to be filed, he said. In
2006, the administration began to require the form retroactively,
applying the law as if the form was always accepted, he said.

"The ordinance has been administered in an unconstitutional
fashion for far too long," Gormally said.

The city admits there's a problem with the ordinance.

Hoboken Corporation Counsel Michael Kates said he will defend the
ordinance and "not roll over and play dead." The matter should be
settled by City Council action and not the courts, he said.

"Our interest is in getting it fixed and not litigating to the
Supreme Court," Kates said.

Superior Court Judge Bernadette DeCastro certified the class
action complaint earlier this month on the grounds that landlords
were being denied due process of law.

In October, Superior Court Judge Shirley Tolentino ruled that
Hoboken's Rent Leveling Office acted in an "arbitrary and
capricious way" in its administration of the rent control
ordinance.

In that case, the owner of a Bloomfield Street property was
forced to rescind rent hikes allowable under the city's legal
rent calculation process because he didn't file a vacancy
decontrol form in keeping with the city's ordinance.

City officials for several years never had a form, and refused
homemade forms.  Therefore, Tolentino found fault with penalizing
the owner.


HYUNDAE HEALTH: Sued Over Hidden Video Cameras in Locker Room
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Shin, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Hyundae Heath Center, Inc., Case No. BC435934 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 15, 2010), accuses Hyundae of
installing concealed video cameras in the men's locker room at
the health center.  Mr. Shin alleges that Hyundae's videotape
captured him in "various states of undress", in gross violation
of his right to privacy as guaranteed by the California
Constitution and state common law.   

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn Khorrami, Esq.
          Robert J. Drexler, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Hall, Esq.
          KHORRAMI POLLARD & ABIR LLP
          444 South Flower St., 33rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 596-6000
          
               - and -            

          Micharel D. Waks, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. WAKS
          300 East San Antonio Drive
          Long Beach, CA 90807
          Telephone: (562) 326-5002


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Levaquin Lawsuit Filed in E.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey at The Southeast Texas Record reports that an
antibiotic sold since 1997 is the subject of a proposed class
action that argues the drug causes a higher incidence of tendon
injuries.

Levaquin, a broad spectrum fluoroquinolone antibiotic, is
marketed as a first-line therapy for common bronchitis and
sinusitis infections. It is also approved for the use in
treatment of various upper respiratory infections, urinary tract
infections, prostatitis and other bacterial infections.

During 2008, Lisa Presley, 31, began taking Levaquin. During her
treatment, she claims that she began to suffer from Achilles
tendonitis. She says her injuries are severe and permanent.

On behalf of herself and others similar situated, Presley filed
suit against Johnson and Johnson, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceuticals
Inc. and Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and
Development LLC on April 8 in the Beaumont Division of the
Eastern District of Texas.

The lawsuit states that "Levaquin . . . induced tendon injury
involves the degradation of the tendon tissue, leading to severe
and permanent injuries."

Causes of action filed against the defendants include negligence,
strict product liability for manufacturing and/or design defect
and for failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties
for the design, manufacture, production, testing, study,
inspection, labeling, marketing, advertising, sales, promotion,
and distribution of the drug, fraud, unjust enrichment and
violation of consumer protection laws.

The complaint argues that Levaquin is in a class of antibiotics,
fluoroquinolones, which are associated with serious side effects.
Previous drugs within this class have been removed from the
market.

Although the drug contained a warning regarding the risks of
tendon injury and rupture, including a warning about the drug's
increased risks while using corticosteroids, the lawsuits argue
that the labeling did not accurately portray the risks.

Presley is seeking damages for medical expenses, loss of income,
permanent disability, disfigurement, pain and suffering, mental
anguish and physical impairment.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher T. Kirchmer Esq.
          PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM LLP
          490 Park Street
          P.O. Box 4905
          Beaumont, TX 77704
          Telephone: (409) 835-6000

               - and -  

          Thomas H. McGowan. Esq.
          PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM LLP
          1 Riverfront Place, Suite 605
          Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501) 374-3655

U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Crone is assigned to the
litigation, which has been assigned Case No. 10-cv-00200.


JOS. A. BANK: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 8
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has set a
July 8, 2010, hearing to consider approval of the settlement
agreement in a consolidated class action complaint against Jos.
A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., according to the company's March 31,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

On July 24, 2006, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and Robert N. Wildrick, then the company's Chief
Executive Officer and now its Chairman of the Board, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland by Roy T. Lefkoe,
Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-01892-WMN.

On Aug. 3, 2006, a lawsuit substantially similar to the class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for Maryland by Tewas
Trust UAD 9/23/86, Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-02011-WMN.  The
Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as those
in the class action and purported to assert the same claims and
seek the same relief.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the class action and the Tewas Trust Action
were consolidated under the Class Action case number (1:06-cv-
01892-WMN) and the Tewas Trust Action was administratively
closed.

Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund was appointed the lead
plaintiff in the Class Action and filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.

R. Neal Black, then the company's Executive Vice President for
Merchandising and Marketing and now its President and Chief
Executive Officer, and David E. Ullman, the company's Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, were added as
defendants.

On behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between Dec. 5,
2005 and June 7, 2006, the Class Action purports to make claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, based on the company's disclosures during
the Class Period.  The Class Action seeks unspecified damages,
costs and attorneys' fees.

The company's Motion to Dismiss the Class Action was not granted.

In late October 2009, the company and MLAF agreed to settle the
Class Action for an amount that is within the limits of the
company's insurance coverage. The company and MLAF have also
agreed that the definitive settlement documents will reflect
that, at the time of the settlement, the substantial discovery
completed did not substantiate any of the claims against the
individual defendants.

The Stipulation of Settlement entered into by the company and
MLAF includes a statement that, at the time of the settlement,
the substantial discovery completed did not substantiate any of
the claims asserted against the individual defendants.

The U.S. District Court for Maryland has preliminarily approved
the Stipulation and the settlement set forth therein, subject to
further consideration at a settlement hearing scheduled for July
8, 2010.

At the settlement hearing, the U.S. District Court for Maryland
is expected to determine whether the proposed settlement of the
Class Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved.

JoS. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. -- http://www.josbank.com/--  
designs, manufacturers and sells men's classically-styled
tailored and casual clothing, sportswear, footwear and
accessories.  The company sells its full product line through 473
stores in 42 states and the District of Columbia, a nationwide
catalog and an e-commerce website.


JOS. A. BANK: Defends Racial Discrimination Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., defends a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on
allegations of racial discrimination, according to the company's
March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

On Nov. 12, 2009, Casey J. Stewart, a former employee of the
company, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (Case number CV 09 5348
JL) alleging racial discrimination by the company with respect to
hiring and terms and conditions of employment.

The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the
case as a class action, declaratory and injunctive relief, an
order mandating corrective action, reinstatement, back pay, front
pay, general damages, exemplary and punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

JoS. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. -- http://www.josbank.com/--  
designs, manufacturers and sells men's classically-styled
tailored and casual clothing, sportswear, footwear and
accessories.  The company sells its full product line through 473
stores in 42 states and the District of Columbia, a nationwide
catalog and an e-commerce website.


KIT DIGITAL: Plaintiffs in "Vittengl" Drop Class Allegations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter Julie Vittengl et al. vs. ROO HD, Inc.,
served an amended complaint, dropping the class action
allegations and adding KIT digital, Inc., as a defendant,
according to the company's April 5, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

In November 2007, the company's wholly-owned subsidiary, ROO HD,
Inc., n/k/a KIT HD, Inc., was named as the defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit entitled Julie Vittengl et al. vs.
ROO HD, Inc., in New York Supreme Court, Saratoga County, New
York.

The suit, brought by four former employees of Wurld Media, Inc.,
purportedly on behalf of themselves and "others similarly
situated," claims that KIT HD's acquisition of certain assets of
Wurld was a fraudulent conveyance and that KIT HD is the alter-
ego of Wurld.

Plaintiffs seek the appointment of a receiver to take charge of
the company's property in constructive trust for plaintiffs and
payment of plaintiffs' unpaid wages and costs of suit, both in an
unspecified dollar amount.

KIT HD filed its answer to the complaint in January 2008.  In
December 2009, plaintiffs served an amended complaint, dropping
the class action allegations and adding the company as a
defendant; otherwise, it is essentially the same as its
predecessor.

In February 2010, KIT HD and the company answered the amended
complaint, and the case will shortly enter into discovery.

KIT digital, Inc. -- http://www.kitd.com/is a leading, global  
provider of on-demand, Internet Protocol (IP)-based video asset
management systems (VAMS).  KIT VX, the company's end-to-end
software platform, enables enterprise clients to acquire, manage
and distribute video assets across the three screens of today's
world: the personal computer, mobile device, and IPTV-enabled
television set.  The application of VX ranges from commercial
video distribution to internal corporate deployments, including
corporate communications, human resources, training, security and
surveillance.  KIT digital's client base includes more than 600
enterprise customers across 30+ countries, including The
Associated Press, Best Buy, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Disney-ABC,
General Motors, Google, Hewlett-Packard, IMG Worldwide, Intel,
McDonald's, News Corp, Telefonica, the U.S. Department of
Defense, Verizon, and Vodafone.  KIT digital is headquartered in
Prague, and maintains principal offices in Cologne, Dubai,
London, Melbourne (Australia), New York, Stockholm and Toronto.


LE HING: Recalls 200 Baby Walkers
---------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Le Hing Inc., of South El Monte, Calif., nnounced a voluntary
recall of about 200 Baby Walkers.   Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The walkers can fit through a standard doorway and are not
designed to stop at the edge of a step.  Babies using these
walkers can be seriously injured or killed.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

The recalled walkers are intended for babies 6 months and older.
The item number L-0809EN is printed on the side of the box.  The
walkers are blue or pink with a white tray.  A picture of the
recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10198.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold though
small independent retailers and discount stores in California and
Arizona from June 2009 through August 2009 for between $25 and
$28.

Consumers should stop using these walkers immediately and return
them to the store where purchased for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Le Hing Inc. collect at (626)
575-8566 between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday
through Friday.


MDL 2047: Chinese Drywall Plaintiffs May Never Collect Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Lin at The American Lawyer reports that a federal judge
in New Orleans ruled earlier this month that a Chinese
manufacturer of noxious drywall owes seven Virginia homeowners
$2.6 million to completely replace the offending material and all
other affected building fixtures. Thousands of similar cases
could be on the way.  Do Chinese companies need to worry?

News about Judge Fallon's 108-page Findings of Fact & Conclusions
of Law in In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2047; Master Docket No. 09-md-02047 (E.D.
La.) appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Thurs., Apr. 15,
2010.

As a practical matter, probably not. "In general, collecting on a
U.S. judgment [in China] is difficult if not impossible," says
Gordon Gao, a litigation partner in Beijing with the Chinese law
firm Fangda Partners. Chinese law, he explains, only permits the
enforcement of foreign judgments through bilateral treaties. But
China doesn't actually have any such treaties with other
countries.

The defendant in the New Orleans drywall case -- the Shandong
province-based Taishan Gypsum Co. -- did not respond to the suit
at all, allowing a default judgment to be entered against it. The
drywall at issue, used in homes throughout the United States, is
said to emanate sulfuric fumes and corrode pipes and wiring.

Plaintiffs' counsel in the case, a group which includes lawyers
from Philadelphia's Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman and
Washington, D.C.'s Hausfeld, among other firms, have acknowledged
they will have a tough time collecting from the Chinese company,
even suggesting they may try to seize ships carrying Taishan
products in U.S. waters.

Plaintiff's lawyer Russ Herman of New Orleans' Herman, Herman,
Katz & Cotlar discussed that possibility with the Associated
Press last fall. But Mark Ross, a Louisiana maritime lawyer also
interviewed by the AP, called the idea "a bit of a stretch."

"How do you go about identifying what vessels to seize?" Ross
said. "How do you seize a vessel for merely transporting cargo,
which they might have been required to take by law."

Multinational corporations that win cases against Chinese
companies in the West often try to have a new hearing in a
Chinese court, says Gao, who is currently seeking exactly that
for PC security giant Symantec Corp. A Los Angeles federal court
awarded the company a $21 million default judgment against
several Chinese software counterfeiters in December 2007. Damages
are puny by comparison in Chinese courts, but many large
companies are more interested in injunctive relief anyway.

That's unlikely to be the case with the drywall plaintiffs, but
they may have other options in the United States. "There are
plenty of defendants for these guys to pursue in the U.S.," says
Steven Napolitano, a partner specializing in product liability
matters at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York. He
notes that American builders, developers and distributors are all
facing claims over the use of Chinese drywall. And one non-U.S.
manufacturer, German-Chinese joint venture Knauf Plasterboard
Tianjin Co., has chosen to defend itself in the U.S.

In his bellwether April 8 decision in the federal multi-district
litigation in New Orleans, district court Judge Eldon Fallon
concluded that no remedial measures are possible with Chinese
drywall; it must be completely removed. That ruling could have a
huge impact as the cases unfold.

"Even if they never collect a penny from the Chinese company,
it's going to affect the course of litigation pretty
dramatically," says Napolitano.

And though Chinese companies may not need to worry about paying
U.S. court judgments, the cases highlight continuing Chinese
product safety issues that will no doubt draw the attention of
Chinese regulators, who are already stung by previous blowups
over faulty food and toys.

"I'm sure officials are watching these cases," says Gao.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Defends Securities Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc., defends a lawsuit styled Material Yard
Workers Local 1175 Benefit Funds, et al. v. The Men's Wearhouse,
Inc., Case No. 4:09-cv-03265, according to the company's March
31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the company was named in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The class period alleged in the complaint runs from March 7, 2007
to Jan. 9, 2008.  The primary allegations are that the company
issued false and misleading press releases regarding its guidance
for fiscal year 2007 on various occasions during the alleged
class period.  The complaint seeks damages based on the decline
in the company's stock price following the announcement of
lowered guidance on Oct. 10, 2007, Nov. 28, 2007, and Jan. 9,
2008.

The case is in its early stages and discovery has not begun.

The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. -- http://www.menswearhouse.com/-- is  
a specialty retailer of men's suits and a provider of tuxedo
rental product in the United States and Canada.  At Jan. 30,
2010, the company operated 1,259 retail stores, with 1,142 stores
in the United States and 117 stores in Canada.  Its United States
retail stores are operated under the brand names of Men's
Wearhouse (581 stores), Men's Wearhouse and Tux (454 stores) and
K&G (107 stores) in 47 states and the District of Columbia.  Its
Canadian stores are operated under the brand name of Moores
Clothing for Men in 10 provinces.  It also operates a corporate
apparel and uniform program (operated as Twin Hill) and, in the
Houston, Texas area, a retail dry cleaning and laundry business
(operated as MW Cleaners).  At Jan. 30, 2010, it operated 581
Men's Wearhouse apparel stores in 47 states and the District of
Columbia.  These stores are referred to as Men's Wearhouse stores
or traditional stores.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 3rd Cir. May Revive $184 Mil. Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon P. Duffy at The Legal Intelligencer reports that the New
England Patriots may face even more punishment for
surreptitiously filming the signals of their opponents if a
federal appeals court revives a class action consumer fraud suit
brought by a fan of the New York Jets who says he was cheated out
of seeing fair games.

And judging from the tenor of last week's oral argument, the
appellate court could very well be poised to rule in favor of the
fans.

The NFL hit Patriots coach Bill Belichick with a $500,000 fine
and the team lost its first-round draft choice. But the suit,
filed by attorney and Jets season ticket holder Carl Mayer, seeks
$184 million in damages for fans.

A lower court judge tossed Mayer v. Belichick, Case No.
07-cv-04671 (D. N.J.), after declaring that the fans had suffered
no "cognizable injury" since they essentially got what they paid
for -- a seat in the stadium to watch a game.

But in an oral argument on Wednesday before a three-judge panel
of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the lawyers for the
Patriots and the NFL were given a serious grilling that suggested
the appellate court didn't take as dim a view of the suit.

The NFL's lawyer:

          Shepard Goldfein, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212.735.3000
          E-mail: shepard.goldfein@skadden.com

said the lower court properly recognized that fans cannot be
allowed to sue over violations of NFL rules.

But U.S. Circuit Judge Robert E. Cowen interrupted and said the
allegation was no ordinary day-of-game rule violation, such as
pass interference, but one that cut to the heart of the fairness
of the contest.

"They thought they were going to see a legitimate game," Cowen
said. "They didn't think they were going to see a game that was
rigged."

But Goldfein said everyone knows that NFL rules allow for teams
to study the signals of opponents, and that the Patriots violated
the rule by videotaping from the sidelines. But Goldfein also
said the rule was subject to interpretation and that Belichick
thought he was staying within the rule by simply not using the
videotapes on the same day they were made.

U.S. Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher said the $500,000 fine
imposed by the NFL showed that the violation was "egregious," and
asked: "Why shouldn't ticket holders have some recourse?"

Goldfein said rules infractions are "part of the game," and that
a ticket is no guarantee that a fan will watch a game free of
rules infractions.

But plaintiffs' lawyer:

          Bruce I. Afran, Esq.
          10 Braeburn Drive
          Princeton, NJ 08540-3463

argued that U.S. District Judge Garrett Brown of the District of
New Jersey erred in holding that the Patriots violation of the
rule didn't harm the fans.

While other NFL rules infractions are obvious and remedied on the
spot by officials, Afran argued that the Patriots' long-running
scheme to videotape opponents was different because it preceded
the game and gave the Patriots an unfair edge.

Afran, too, was peppered with hard questions from the judges.

Fisher wondered whether fans of professional wrestling matches
could sue over seemingly fixed or unfair matches, and Cowen
wondered if a "crooked referee" or a "thrown" game would be
actionable.

Afran insisted that the consumers' claims against the Patriots
were different because they were premised on actions of the
team's management that had the effect of concealing information
that a ticket holder "would want to know."

U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter, sitting on the appellate
court by invitation, asked whether the court should treat the
ticket as a contract or a license.

Afran said he considered it a contract, but that, for purposes of
the consumer fraud claim, it would make no difference because the
fans would still be able to meet every element of that claim.

Mayer also argued for the plaintiffs and told the judges that the
Patriots were clearly aware that the videotaping was in violation
of the rule because there was evidence that the on-indicator
light had been removed from the camera and that the camera
operator had been strictly instructed to report to only one
person after making the offending tapes.

In the suit, Afran and Mayer claim that an investigation led by
U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., revealed that the Patriots'
secret taping went on for seven years.

In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs lawyers said the case
was about "a massive, systematic organizational scheme to steal
opponents' signals and cheat ticket-holders of a contest played
according to NFL rules."

The brief said that "such pervasive cheating has consistently
given the Patriots an unfair, illegal advantage over its
opponents and systematically deprived plaintiffs of the right to
witness football matches played fairly as advertised and
according to NFL rules, which is what plaintiffs contracted for."

In an oral argument that lasted more than an hour on Wednesday,
all three judges expressed some skepticism of the plaintiffs'
claims during the first half. One judge wondered if the court
would be encouraging fans to file lawsuits every time they
disagreed with a referee's decision.

But the judges were much more aggressive when questioning the
lawyers for the NFL and the Patriots.

Cowen especially seemed swayed by the plaintiffs' arguments,
telling the defense lawyers that he considered the games to be
rigged when the Patriots "knew every signal and [were] able to
foretell every play that was going to be called."

But Goldfein insisted that, unlike an illegally fixed game, the
outcomes of the Patriots' games were not certain, and that fans
"got what they paid for."

Fisher asked if Goldfein believed that fans would have paid to
see the games if they knew of the Patriots' conduct. Goldfein
insisted they would.

Pratter asked: "Would you agree that, if this is a contract,
there's a fact question about breach?"

Goldfein refused, saying that no matter how the court viewed the
ticket -- as a contract or as a license -- the lower court was
still correct in holding that there was no legally cognizable
injury as a matter of law.


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: To Seek Dismissal of Second Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
NextWave Wireless Inc., intends to seek the dismissal of a aecond
amended consolidated complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, according to the
company's April 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
2, 2010.

On Sept. 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al.,
Defendants, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the company and certain of its
officers.

The suit alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The suit seeks unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive, equitable or
other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's common stock during the period from March 30, 2007 to
Aug. 7, 2008.

A second putative class action lawsuit captioned Benjamin et al.
v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al., was filed on Oct. 21, 2008
alleging the same claims on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during an extended class period, between Nov. 27,
2006 through Aug. 7, 2008.

On Feb. 24, 2009, the Court issued an Order consolidating the two
cases and appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  On May 15, 2009, the lead
plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, and on June 29, 2009, the
company filed a Motion to Dismiss that Amended Complaint.

On March 5, 2010, the Court granted the company's Motion to
Dismiss without prejudice and permitted the lead plaintiff 21
days from the date of the Order to file an Amended Complaint.

On March 26, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint.  NextWave intends to file a Motion to
Dismiss in response.

NextWave Wireless Inc. -- http://www.nextwave.com/-- is a  
holding company engaged in wireless technology that develops,
produces, and markets mobile multimedia and consumer electronic
connectivity products, including device-embedded software for
mobile handsets, client-server media platforms, media sharing
software for consumer electronics and pocket-sized mobile
broadcast receivers, and manages and maintains wireless spectrum
licenses.  The company's customers include handset and wireless
service providers. NextWave has two segments: Multimedia,
consisting of the operations of its wholly owned subsidiary
PacketVideo Corporation (PV) and Strategic Initiatives, focused
on the management of its wireless spectrum interests.


OKLAHOMA: State Says DHS Caseworkers Aren't Overloaded
------------------------------------------------------
NewsOn6.com reports that Oklahoma's Department of Human Services
says their sophisticated tracking system disproves claims that
their caseworkers see more than 12 to 16 clients.

New details have come to light last week in the federal class
action lawsuit against Oklahoma's child welfare system.

The state is fighting back against claims that caseworkers are
overloaded.  The group of attorneys suing DHS claimed the agency
didn't really know how many cases workers were assigned.

But new court documents filed last week claim each worker only
has 12 to 16 cases.

Attorneys for the Department of Human Services say Oklahoma is
one of only seven states with a federally approved tracking
system that monitors the number of clients each caseworker is
assigned.


OSI RESTAURANT: Continues to Defend "Ervin" Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. continues to defend a purported
class-action complaint alleging violations of state and federal
wage and hour law.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the purported class-action complaint styled
Ervin, et al. v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc., was filed in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

This lawsuit alleges violations of state and federal wage and
hour law in connection with tipped employees and overtime
compensation and seeks relief in the form of unspecified back pay
and attorney fees.

The complaint alleges a class-action under state law and a
collective action under federal law.

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

OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. --
http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com/-- which was formerly known  
as Outback Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant
company, with eight restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system-wide
restaurants.  The company operates in all 50 states and in 20
countries internationally, predominantly through company-owned
stores, but it also operates under a variety of partnerships and
franchises.


PALM INC: Class Member's Appeal of Attorney's Fees Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of a class member in a consolidated suit against Palm,
Inc., of the attorneys' fees award to class counsel, remains
pending, according to the company's April 2, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Feb. 26, 2010.

In September and October 2005, five purported consumer class
action lawsuits were filed against Palm, four in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Moya v.
Palm, Berliner v. Palm, Loew v. Palm, and Geisen v. Palm) and one
in the Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County (Palza
v. Palm), on behalf of all purchasers of Palm Treo 600 and Treo
650 products.

All five complaints allege in substance that Palm made false or
misleading statements regarding the reliability of its Treo 600
and 650 products in violation of various California laws, that
the products have certain alleged defects, and that Palm breached
its warranty of these products.  The complaints seek unspecified
damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and injunctive
relief.

In September 2005, a purported consumer class action lawsuit
entitled Gans v. Palm was filed against Palm in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
purchasers of the Treo 650 product.  The complaint alleges that,
in violation of various California laws, Palm made false or
misleading statements regarding automatic email delivery to the
Treo 650 product.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
restitution, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief.

Palm removed the Palza case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  Subsequently, all six cases
were consolidated before a single judge in that Court and the
plaintiffs provided a consolidated, amended complaint.

The parties have agreed to a tentative settlement.  On Jan. 7,
2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of a settlement of
this action and Palm provided notice to the settlement class
members. A hearing to determine final settlement approval was
conducted on May 23, 2008 and on July 9, 2008 the Court issued an
Order approving the settlement with respect to the class and
dismissing claims of the settlement class with prejudice.

Intervenors at the hearing filed an appeal of the Court's ruling
on Aug. 11, 2008.  On Sept. 25, 2008, the appellate court
dismissed it as being untimely and the District Court ruling
therefore became final.

On Jan. 6, 2010, a class member filed a Notice of Appeal of the
attorneys' fees award to class counsel.  The appeal is pending.

Palm, Inc. -- http://www.palm.com/us/-- is a provider of mobile  
products for individual users and business customers worldwide.  
Palm's products for consumers, mobile professionals and
businesses include Palm Pre, Treo and Centro smartphones, as well
as software, services and accessories.  The company sells its
products in two product lines: smartphones and handheld
computers.  The company's smartphones provide a range of
productivity tools, and personal and entertainment applications.  
Functionality and features found in all Palm smartphones include
support for various mobile telecommunications standards used to
transmit voice and data; wireless data applications, such as e-
mail, messaging and Web browsing; wireless communication
capabilities, such as Bluetooth and/or wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi);
multi-media features and productivity software; instant-on, one-
touch access, and non-volatile flash memory that protects stored
data.


PAMRAPO BANCORP: Defends Suit Against BCB Bancorp Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., defends a purported class action in
relation to its merger with BCB Bancorp, Inc., according to the
company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On June 29, 2009, the company and BCB entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which the company will merge with
and into BCB, with BCB as the surviving corporation.

On July 8, 2009, certain stockholders filed a purported class
action lawsuit seeking relief with respect to the Merger.

On Dec. 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the special meeting previously
scheduled for Dec. 22, 2009, until the company disseminated an
amendment to the respective proxy statement that provided certain
information that the plaintiffs asserted was material.

The supplemental disclosures, were made by the company on Jan. 1,
2010, pursuant to an agreement with the plaintiffs, whereby the
plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their pending motion for injunctive
relief in relation to the merger (but not any claims for money
damages) provided that the company included the supplemental
disclosures.

On Feb. 11, 2010, the stockholders voted to approve the Merger
and adopt the Merger Agreement.

Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.pamrapo.com/-- is a savings  
and loan holding company that operates principally through its
subsidiary, Pamrapo Savings Bank, S.L.A.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Acknowledges Receipt of Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews reports that Israeli communications operator Partner
Communications Co. Ltd. said a lawsuit was filed against it in
the Central District Court, alleging that the company charges its
subscribers for certain content services without their consent.

A motion was also filed in the Court to recognize the lawsuit as
class action proceeding.  If the lawsuit is recognized as a class
action, the total amount claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to
be about NIS 343 million.

Partner said it is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and at
this preliminary stage is unable to evaluate the probability of
success of the lawsuit or the range of potential exposure, if
any, with any degree of certainty.


STATION CASINOS: Proceedings in Nevada Labor Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Clark County, Nevada, stayed the purported
class action complaint by Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie
St. Cyr against Station Casinos, Inc., pending resolution of the
company's bankruptcy proceedings, according to the company's
March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
complaint against the company and certain of its subsidiaries in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. CV-
00141.  The plaintiffs are all former employees of the company or
its subsidiaries.  The complaint alleged that the company:

     (i) failed to pay its employees for all hours worked,
    (ii) failed to pay overtime,
   (iii) failed to timely pay wages and
    (iv) unlawfully converted certain earned wages.

The complaint in the Federal Court Action sought, among other
relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages
in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.

On Oct. 31, 2008, the company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  During a hearing on that motion, the U.S. District
Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the
matter. After briefing regarding the jurisdiction question, on
May 16, 2009, the U.S. District Court dismissed the Federal Court
Action for lack of jurisdiction and entered a judgment in the
company's favor.

On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
complaint against the company and certain of its subsidiaries in
the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-09-595614-
C.  The complaint in the State Court Action alleges substantially
the same claims that were alleged in the complaint in the Federal
Court Action.

On Aug. 19, 2009, the corporate defendants, other than the
company, filed an answer responding to the complaint.
Subsequently, on Aug. 27, 2009, the corporate defendants, other
than the company, filed a motion to stay the State Court Action
pending the resolution of the company's bankruptcy petition.  
That motion was granted on September 30, 2009.

Station Casinos, Inc. -- http://www.stationcasinos.com/-- is a  
gaming and entertainment company that currently owns and
operates nine major hotel/casino properties (one of which is 50%
owned) and eight smaller casino properties (three of which are
50% owned), in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, as well as
manages a casino for a Native American tribe.


UNITED STATES: NYC Asks 2nd Cir. to Intervene in 9/11 Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett at the New York Law Journal reports that New York
City and its contractors are challenging Southern District of New
York Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein's authority to reject the $657
million settlement of the 9/11 respiratory cases.

The city filed a notice of appeal last week with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking to overturn three
orders issued by Hellerstein, which the city claims "delayed and
obstructed compensation for the plaintiffs and closure for all
settling parties."

The orders being challenged include one dated March 15 the
parties interpret as enjoining them from selecting their own
allocation neutral to make decisions on the amount some
plaintiffs will receive as opposed to others.

Hellerstein surprised the lawyers by issuing that order even
before he convened a March 19 hearing in which he said the $657
million settlement was "not enough" and vowed that attorney fees
would not come from the amount designated to compensate some
10,000 plaintiffs who responded to the terror attacks and cleared
debris from the site.

Attorneys for the city and its contractors, led by James Tyrrell
Jr. of Patton Boggs, claim that Hellerstein does not have the
power to interfere with a settlement reached among private
parties, although the money for the settlement will come from the
$1.1 billion WTC Captive Insurance Co. established with federal
funds to help meet insurance costs stemming from the response and
cleanup of ground zero.

"The parties had arrived at a settlement that we think was fair
through very difficult circumstances and provided the best
possible chance for immediate compensation to those who were
injured. And the judge, by blocking that settlement agreement,
has exceeded his authority," Tyrrell said Wednesday in an
interview.

Plaintiffs liaison counsel Paul Napoli of Worby Groner & Napoli
Bern, whose interests are for once aligned with those of the
city's, said he would weigh in at the circuit either as a
respondent or with an amicus brief backing the appeal.

"As far as the plaintiffs are concerned, we believe it's the
plaintiffs' decision as to whether or not to settle the case --
not the defense attorneys, not the judge, not the special
masters," Napoli said. The plaintiffs "alone have the right to
decide whether it's too little money, too much money or just the
right amount of money to accept the settlement," he said.

The settlement would not become effective unless 95 percent of
the plaintiffs opt in.

At the March 19 hearing, Hellerstein acknowledged that he was
stepping into new territory, because in private settlements "the
judge has no part," he said. "This is different. This is 9/11.
This is a case that has dominated my docket, and because of that,
I have the power of review."

The judge also referred on March 19 to his March 15 order barring
the two sides from selecting an allocation neutral.

"If I'm the judge, I can be reversed," he said. "If the parties
appoint someone, he's the dictator. We don't have dictators."

The March 15 order also bars the parties from engaging a panel of
physicians to assist the neutral.

The two other orders being appealed by the city and contractors
are the judge's March 23 order revising the parties' agreed-upon
schedule for implementing the settlement and his April 9 order
scheduling an April 27 fairness hearing.

Tyrrell said in an earlier statement that he had "no choice" but
to appeal because the judge's "orders demanding that he advise
the parties and approve the selection of the allocation neutral
and medical panel, in addition to conducting a fairness hearing,
are blocking plaintiffs' rights to choose to settle these cases."

Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo issued a statement
Wednesday saying the parties had tried to address the judge's
concerns.

But "the judge's statements and actions, together with his
refusal to even consider other viewpoints, have made it necessary
to appeal his rulings so that the plaintiffs and defendants can
proceed with a settlement they consider fair and reasonable,"
Cardozo said. "Without this, we will not be able to obtain a
settlement that provides compensation, certainty and closure to
the parties after years of litigation."

Hellerstein said at a hearing on Monday that he was "in the dark"
on whether any progress has been made on the renewed effort to
fashion an acceptable settlement.

The lawyers for the city and plaintiffs have been meeting with
special masters Aaron Twerski and James Henderson, including a
meeting on April 8, to fashion a settlement that will satisfy the
judge, including one that would address his stated concern that
the terms were too complicated for plaintiffs to make an informed
decision on whether to accept or reject the settlement.

But the two sides have made no progress on the amount of money to
be paid in the settlement, with the city, its major contractors
and WTC Captive insisting that any more money paid to the
plaintiffs today would jeopardize recovery for people who
contract illnesses in the future.


WELLS FARGO: Fails to Meet HAMP Obligations, Ill. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo fka Wachovia
took $25 billion in federal bailout money but refuses to adjust
troubled homeowners' mortgages under the Home Affordable
Modification Program, a class action claims in Chicago Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case
No. 10-cv-02348 (D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/BankBailout.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Steven Lezell, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Irina Slavina, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 N. LaSalle Ave., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  slezell@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  islavina@edelson.com


WET SEAL: Final Hearing for Settlement Agreement in April
---------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing is expected in April 2010 to re-evaluate the
fairness of the settlement agreement in a lawsuit alleging
violations of the State of California Labor Code against The Wet
Seal, Inc., according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

On July 19, 2006, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, on behalf
of certain of the company's current and former employees that
were employed and paid by the company on an hourly basis during
the four-year period from July 19, 2002 through July 19, 2006.  
The company was named as a defendant.

The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.

On Nov. 30, 2006, the company reached an agreement to pay
approximately $300,000 to settle this matter, subject to Superior
Court approval.

On May 18, 2007, the Superior Court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the court issued its order granting final
approval of the class action settlement, subject to appeal.

On April 28, 2008, a notice of appeal of the judgment was filed.

On May 6, 2009, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the
Superior Court to re-evaluate the fairness of the settlement, and
a final hearing will take place in April 2010.

As of Jan. 30, 2010, we have accrued an amount equal to the
settlement amount in accrued liabilities in our consolidated
balance sheet.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading  
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items.  As of Feb. 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.  
The company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/


WET SEAL: Class Certification Filing Deadline on May 21
-------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange has set a class certification filing deadline of May 21,
2010, in a complaint where The Wet Seal, Inc., is a defendant,
according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 30, 2010.

On May 22, 2007, a complaint was filed on behalf of certain of
its current and former employees who were employed and paid by
the company during the four-year period from May 22, 2003 through
May 22, 2007.  The company was named as a defendant.

The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.

Discovery is ongoing and the Court has set a class certification
filing deadline of May 21, 2010.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading  
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items.  As of Feb. 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.  
The company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/


YELLOWPAGES.COM LLC: Suit Complains About YP Clicks! Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Yellowpages.com and AT&T
misrepresent the benefits of their YP Clicks! program, a class
action claims in San Diego County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Prime Equity Holdings, Inc. v.
Yellowpages.com, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00798 (S.D. Calif.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          Sabrina S. Kim, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 S. Grand Ave., Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-617-1200
          E-mail: jwesterman@milberg.com
                  skim@milberg.com

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          E-mail: psafirstein@milberg.com
                  arado@milberg.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Lisa Rycus Mikalonis, Esq.
          Henri O. Harmon, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          2000 Town Ctr., Ste. 900
          Southfield, MI 48075-1100
          Telephone: 248-355-0300

               - and -

          Ari Kresch, Esq.
          KRESCH OLIVER
          24100 Southfield Rd.
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: 248-327-6556


                            *********

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  * * *