CAR_Public/100524.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 24, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 100

                            Headlines

ADT SECURITY: Sued for Imposing Illegal Early Termination Fee
BOK FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Oklahoma
CADENCE DESIGN: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
D.R. HORTON: California Court Dismisses "Wilson" Suit
FORD MOTOR: Golomb & Honik Suit Alleges Minivans are Unsafe

GOOGLE INC: Accused in Oregon Suit of Wi-Fi Privacy Invasion
HONEYWELL INT'L: Sued, with PPG, in N.J. for Chromium Monitoring
INTERSTATE BATTERY: Accused of Deceptive Business Practices
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Accused in N.Y. Suit of False Imprisonment
KINDER MORGAN: Various Affiliates Defend "Lugliani" Suit

LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Breach of Contract
PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls 17,800 Plastic Strap-On Tree Steps
REED ELSEVIER: County Appeals Recusal Motion in Lexis Nexis Suit
SERVICE CORPORATION: Defends "Conley" Suit in Texas

SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in Fla.
SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Sands" Suit in Calif.
SERVICE CORPORATION: Defends "Prise" Suit in Pennsylvania
SERVICE CORPORATION: Class Certification in "Helm" Suit Denied
SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Stickle" in Arizona

SERVICE CORPORATION: Approval of Settlement in "Welch" Pending
SUBRBAN PROPANE: D. N.J. Lawsuit Challenges Price Disclosure
TUESDAY MORNING: Lawsuit by Non-exempt Employees Remains Stayed
UNITED STATES: Dept. of Defense Accused of Not Paying Bonuses
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Accused of Failing to Pay Vacation Pay

XCEL ENERGY: Oral Arguments in Rehearing Plea Set for May 24
XCEL ENERGY: Unit Remains a Defendant in Gas-Trading Suit

                            *********

ADT SECURITY: Sued for Imposing Illegal Early Termination Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Maddox, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ADT Security Services, Inc. Case No. 2010-CH-21300
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 18, 2010), asserts violations of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
and breach of contract.  Ms. Maddox says that the security system
supplier wrongfully charged an early termination fee on its
security service contracts.  Ms. Maddox alleges that ADT's
uniform early termination fee is an invalid penalty designed to
discourage unsatisfied clients from canceling their security
service contracts.  Ms. Maddox canceled her contract with ADT
when its security system alarm at her residence failed to work
properly.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 North La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500


BOK FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
BOSC, Inc., continues to be a defendant in a putative class
action as a result of underwriting SemGroup Energy Partners, LP's
Initial Public Offering.

BOSC is BOK Financial's subsidiary.

BOSC has been joined as a defendant in a putative class action
brought on behalf of unit holders of SemGroup Energy Partners, LP
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933 against all of the underwriters of
issuances of partnership units in the Initial Public Offering in
July 2007 and in a Secondary Offering in January 2008.

BOSC underwrote $6.25 million of units in the Initial Public
Offering.  BOSC was not an underwriter in the Secondary Offering.

No new developments were repored in BOK Financial Corp.'s April
30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

BOK Financial Corp. -- http://www.bokf.com/-- is a regional  
financial services company that provides commercial and consumer
banking, investment and trust services, mortgage origination and
servicing, and an electronic funds transfer network.  Holdings
include Bank of Albuquerque, N.A., Bank of Arizona, N.A., Bank of
Arkansas, N.A., Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., Bank of Texas, N.A.,
Colorado State Bank & Trust, N.A., Bank of Kansas City, N.A.,
BOSC, Inc., Cavanal Hill Investment Management, Inc., the
TransFund electronic funds network, and Southwest Trust Company,
N.A. Shares of BOK Financial are traded on the NASDAQ under the
symbol BOKF.


CADENCE DESIGN: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has denied Cadence Design Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act, according to the company's April 30,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010.

During fiscal 2008, three complaints were filed in the District
Court all alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5  
promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of Cadence's common stock.

The three complaints are:

     (1) Hu v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister,
         William Porter and Kevin S. Palatnik, filed on Oct. 29,
         2008;

     (2) Vyas v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J.
         Fister, and Kevin S. Palatnik, filed on Nov. 4, 2008;
         and

     (3) Collins v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J.
         Fister, John B. Shoven, Kevin S. Palatnik and William
         Porter, filed Nov. 21, 2008.

On March 4, 2009, the District Court entered an order
consolidating these three complaints and captioning the
consolidated case In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

The District Court also named a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
for the consolidated litigation.  The lead plaintiff filed its
consolidated amended complaint on April 24, 2009, naming Cadence,
Michael J. Fister, Kevin S. Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin
Bushby as defendants, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5  promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Cadence's common stock who traded Cadence's common stock between
April 23, 2008 and Dec. 10, 2008.

The amended complaint alleged that Cadence and the individual
defendants made statements during the Alleged Class Period
regarding Cadence's financial results that were false and
misleading because Cadence had recognized revenue that should
have been recognized in subsequent quarters.  The amended
complaint requested certification of the action as a class
action, unspecified damages, interest and costs, and unspecified
equitable relief.

On June 8, 2009, Cadence and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.

On Sept. 11, 2009, the District Court held that the plaintiffs
had failed to allege a valid claim under the relevant legal
standards, and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The District Court gave the plaintiffs leave
to file another amended complaint, and the plaintiffs did so on
Oct. 13, 2009.

The amended complaint filed on Oct. 13, 2009, names the same
defendants, asserts the same causes of action, and seeks the same
relief as the earlier amended complaint.

Cadence moved to dismiss the Oct. 13, 2009, amended complaint.  
The District Court denied the motion to dismiss on March 2, 2010.

Cadence Design Systems, Inc. -- http://www.cadence.com/--  
develops electronic design automation (EDA) software and
hardware.  The company licenses software, sells or leases
hardware technology, and provides design, methodology and
education services throughout the world to help manage and
accelerate electronics product development processes.  Its range
of products and services are used by the electronics companies to
design and develop complex integrated circuits (ICs) and
electronics systems.  The company offers its customers three
license types for its software: perpetual, term and subscription.


D.R. HORTON: California Court Dismisses "Wilson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has dismissed the lawsuit captioned James Wilson, et al.
v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., after the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss the lawsuit in exchange for a waiver of costs, according
to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

The putative class action was filed on March 24, 2008, by five
customers of Western Pacific Housing, Inc., one of the company's
wholly-owned subsidiaries, against the company, Western Pacific
Housing, Inc., and the company's affiliated mortgage company
subsidiary, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.

The complaint sought certification of a class alleged to include
persons who, within the four years preceding the filing of the
suit, purchased a home from the company, or any of its
subsidiaries, and obtained a mortgage for such purchase from the
company's affiliated mortgage company subsidiary.

The complaint alleged that the company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and Sections 16720, 17200 and 17500 of the
California Business and Professions Code by effectively requiring
homebuyers to apply for a loan through the company's affiliated
mortgage company.

In June 2009 the complaint was amended to limit the putative
class to California customers only and the claims asserted were
limited to alleged violations of the California Business and
Professions Code.

The complaint alleges that the homebuyers were either deceived
about loan costs charged by our affiliated mortgage company or
coerced into using the company's affiliated mortgage company, or
both, and that discounts and incentives offered by the company or
its subsidiaries to buyers who obtained financing from the
affiliated mortgage company were illusory.

The action seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount and
injunctive relief.

In January 2010, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their lawsuit
in exchange for a waiver of costs.

On April 8, 2010, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice by the
court.

The suit is James Wilson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al.,
Case No: 08 CV 592 BEN RBB, (S.D. Calif.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: 858-551-1223
          Fax: 858-551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com

Representing the defendants is:

          John T. Brooks, Esq.
          Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps
          600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101-3372
          Phone: 619-236-1414
          Fax: 619-232-8311
          E-mail: jtbrooks@luce.com


FORD MOTOR: Golomb & Honik Suit Alleges Minivans are Unsafe
-----------------------------------------------------------
In response to complaints by owners of a Ford Windstar, model
years 1999-2003, alleging a risk of severe injury caused by a
defect in the design of the vehicle's rear axle, Golomb & Honik,
P.C., filed a class action law suit against Ford Motor Company in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The rear axles on Ford Windstar model years 1999-2003 are
unsealed hollow cylinders that collect and trap water and other
corrosive agents.  According to the complaint, Ford's failure to
install proper drainage ports into these axles causes them to
rust from the inside out. This rust eventually causes the axles
to crack, and ultimately split into two separate pieces.  The
axles on affected Ford Windstars are susceptible to failing while
the vehicle is being operated. It is believed that more than
949,000 Windstars were manufactured with a defective axle.

The plaintiff, Aaron D. Martin and the Class are represented by
Damien Zillas, Esquire, of Golomb & Honik, P.C., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. In May 2010, while plaintiff Martin's 2001 Windstar
minivan was being operated, it cracked and broke apart into two
separate pieces due to internal rust.

Although this design flaw has been widely discussed in the
automobile community and failures of the axle assembly have been
previously documented, Ford has failed to remedy the defects or
offer replacements for this potentially dangerous product. Nor
has Ford notified owners of 1999 - 2003 Windstars that their
vehicles might be prone to sudden failure during operation.
The lawsuit alleges that Ford is in breach of its implied
warranty of merchantability and its express warranty. According
to Mr. Zillas, "The axle on these minivans can fall apart while
they are being driven, potentially causing serious injury or
death, and for that reason we urge anyone in possession of a
1999-2003 Windstar to contact us."


GOOGLE INC: Accused in Oregon Suit of Wi-Fi Privacy Invasion
------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Brown at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action accuses Google of violating privacy by running a
fleet of cars that snoop into Wi-Fi streams at businesses and
private homes while gathering information for Google Street View.
In a related case, a German regulator on Tuesday threatened to
sue Google unless it turned over a hard drive that could reveal
what sort of information the company had collected.

In Portland, lead plaintiff Vicki Van Valin claims Google
operates vehicles mounted with "wireless sniffers" that decode
Wi-Fi data. She claims Google captured and decoded her Social
Security number, banking information, medical records and other
personal information, then stored the data on servers where
"hundreds if not thousands" of Google employees could see it.

Google uses a "fleet of specially adapted vehicles," and uses
tricycles and snowmobiles to map areas not accessible by full-
sized cars, according to the complaint.

Each vehicle is mounted with nine cameras which together record a
360-degree view.  The cameras have been the subject of previous
lawsuits accusing Google of privacy invasion.

Ms. Van Valin says the vehicles also have "3G/GSM/WiFi" antennas
to scan open Internet connections.  She says Google uses
"wireless sniffers" to "secretly capture" information flowing
over each wireless network the vehicle passes.

The information must be decoded before it is understandable, Ms.
Van Valin says, so Google stores the data on its servers before
decoding it, making it accessible to "hundreds if not thousands
of Google employees."

Ms. Van Valin says the fact that it is unreadable in its raw
form, and must be decoded to be read, makes it "understood to be
private, protected information by users and operators of home-
based WiFi systems."

Ms. Van Valin, who works from home, says she used her open
wireless connection "to transmit and receive personal and private
data, including but not limited to personal emails, personal
Internet research and viewing, work-related documents, work-
related Internet research and viewing, credit card information,
banking information, personal identification information such as
Social Security numbers, date of birth, medical information and
telephone calls made using a voice over Internet (VOIP)
protocol."

Ms. Van Valin demands punitive damages for privacy invasion and
violations of computer laws, and an injunction stopping Google
from intercepting any more information.

In Germany on Tuesday, a regulator for the city-state of Hamburg
gave Google until May 26 to hand over a hard drive containing
information it collected and stored in Germany.

A copy of the Complaint in Van Valin, et al. v. Google, Inc.,
Case No. 10-cv-00557 (D. Or.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/Google.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rick Klingbeil, Esq.
          RICK KLINGBEIL, PC
          520 SW Sixth, Suite 950
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: 503-473-8565
          E-mail: rick@klingbeil-law.com

               - and -

          Brady Mertz, Esq.
          BRADY MERTZ LAW OFFICE
          2285 Liberty St. NE
          Salem, OR 97301
          Telephone: 503-385-0121
          E-mail: brady@bradymertz.com

               - and -

          Brooks Cooper, Esq.
          BROOKS COOPER
          520 SW 6th Ave., Suite 914
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: 971-645-4433
          E-mail: brooks@bcooper-law.com


HONEYWELL INT'L: Sued, with PPG, in N.J. for Chromium Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Smith at the New Jersey Independent reports that at least
three Jersey City residents filed a class action lawsuit last
week against two area companies for health problems that
allegedly arose or could arise from the presence of chromium
residue in sites near where they have lived.

The suit, brought by residents Mattie Halley, Latrecia Smith and
Barry Wein, is the first of its kind that seeks medical screening
and monitoring, according to a spokeswoman for one of the law
firms involved. It alleges that Honeywell International and PPG
Industries dumped and failed to clean up carcinogenic hexavalent
chromium at more than 100 sites in Jersey City. It also seeks
compensation for property owners whose properties may be devalued
as the result of toxic pollution.

Honeywell and PPG have been in the hotseat in recent years over
historic chromium disposal practices. Both companies produced
chromium for industrial use during the first half of the 20th
century, and a by-product known as chrome ore processing residue
(COPR) - a substance that can remain in soil, water and air for
decades - has been implicated as a potential cause of lung cancer
in those who suffer long-term exposure, such as residents of
areas near COPR sites.

"The defendants' internal records demonstrate they had early
knowledge of cancer risks associated with exposure to hexavalent
chromium," says Steven German, an attorney for one of the
plaintiffs. According to the lawsuit, PPG and Honeywell
deliberately attempted to mislead regulatory agencies about these
risks.

Representatives for the plaintiffs have mounted a website
describing the lawsuit and identifying contaminated properties;
the site also seeks to recruit additional plaintiffs by offering
a free case evaluation to those who think they may be affected.

A copy of the Complaint in Smith, et al. v. Honeywell
International, Inc., and PPG Industries, Inc., Civil Action No.
_________ (N.J. Super. Ct., Hudson Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/files/chromeclassactioncomplaint.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven J. German, Esq.
          Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq.
          GERMAN RUBENSTEIN LLP
          19 West 44th St., Suite 1500
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-704-2020

               - and -  

          Esther E. Berezofsky, Esq.
          Gerald J. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS CUKER & BEREZOFSKY
          Woodland Falls Corporate Center
          210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: 856-667-0500

               - and -  

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Elizabeth Petersen, Esq.
          Rebecca J. Davis, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C.
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-524-5777

               - and -  

          Howard A. Janet, Esq.
          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Kenneth M. Suggs, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 320
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: 410-653-3200


INTERSTATE BATTERY: Accused of Deceptive Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Interstate Battery System of
America tricks customers by listing replacement auto batteries'
"list price" as 20 percent higher than their actual retail price,
a class action claims in Oakland, Calif., Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Milano v. Interstate Battery System of
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02125 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Philip B. Obbard, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California St., Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-981-4800
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  pbo@girardgibbs.com
                  ds@girardgibbs.com


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Accused in N.Y. Suit of False Imprisonment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that JetBlue held passengers
captive on the tarmac at JFK Airport for 11 hours on Valentine's
Day 2007, a class action claims in Queens County Court, N.Y.

A copy of the Complaint in Biscone v. JetBlue Airways
Corporation, et al., Index No. 3776/2008 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/Humans.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul S. Hudson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL S. HUDSON, PC
          4411 Bee Ridge Rd. #274
          Sarasota, FL 34233
          Telephone: 410-940-8934
          E-mail: globetrotter1947@hotmail.com
     

KINDER MORGAN: Various Affiliates Defend "Lugliani" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Various affiliates of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., defend
a suit captioned James Lugliani vs. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et
al., pending in the Superior Court of California, Orange County.

James Lugliani, a former Kinder Morgan employee, filed suit in
January 2010 against various Kinder Morgan affiliates.

On behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and
former employees, Mr. Lugliani claims that the Kinder Morgan
defendants have violated the wage and hour provisions of the
California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code by:

     (1) failing to provide meal and rest periods;

     (2) failing to pay meal and rest period premiums;

     (2) failing to pay all overtime wages due;

     (3) failing to timely pay wages;

     (4) failing to pay wages for vacation, holidays and other
         paid time off; and

     (5) failing to keep proper payroll records.

Because the case was only recently filed and served, the Kinder
Morgan defendants have not yet filed an answer.  The defendants
will file their answer in February 2010 and intend to vigorously
defend the case.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Houston-based Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. owns or
operates approximately 26,000 miles of pipelines and 150
terminals.  The company's pipelines transport more than two
million barrels per day of gasoline and other petroleum products,
and up to seven billion cubic feet per day of natural gas.  The
company operates through four segments: Products Pipelines,
Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2 and Terminals.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The petition for rehearing filed by each of the parties to the
class-action lawsuit, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No.
3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR, is pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.

The putative class-action complaint was filed on Nov. 1, 2002, by
the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., and
certain BCO Independent Contractors on behalf of independent
contractors who provide truck capacity to the company and its
subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements before the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the
company and certain of its subsidiaries.

The complaint was amended on April 7, 2005.  The Amended
Complaint alleged that certain aspects of the company's motor
carrier leases and related practices with its BCO Independent
Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and
sought injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and
attorney's fees.

On Aug. 30, 2005, the District Court granted a motion by the
plaintiffs to certify the case as a class-action.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the District Court ordered the decertification
of the class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of
determining remedies.

Immediately thereafter, trial commenced for purposes of
determining what remedies, if any, would be awarded to the
remaining named BCO Independent Contractor Plaintiffs against
these Landstar subsidiaries:

        -- Landstar Inway, Inc.,
        -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and
        -- Landstar Ranger, Inc.

On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
request for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of the
defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings
related to the decertification of the class and the denial of the
plaintiffs' requests for damages and injunctive relief.

On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by
Plaintiffs for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of
the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its
rulings related to the decertification of the plaintiff class and
other important elements of the Litigation relating to liability,
injunctive relief and monetary relief.

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit of certain of the District Court's rulings
in favor of the Defendants.  The Defendants asked the Appellate
Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal with the
Appellate Court with respect to certain other rulings of the
District Court.

On Sept. 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its ruling, which,
among other things, affirmed the District Court's rulings that:

       -- the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable
          federal leasing regulations from charging
          administrative or other fees to BCO Independent
          Contractors in connection with voluntary programs
          offered by the Defendants through which a BCO
          Independent Contractor may purchase discounted
          products and services for a charge that is deducted
          against the compensation payable to the BCO
          Independent Contractor (a "Charge-back Deduction"),

       -- the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or
          disgorgement with respect to violations by Defendants
          of the applicable federal leasing regulations but
          instead may recover only actual damages, if any, which
          they sustained as a result of any such violations, and

       -- the claims of BCO Independent Contractors may not be
          handled on a class action basis for purposes of
          determining the amount of actual damages, if any, they
          sustained as a result of any violations.

Further, the analysis of the Appellate Court confirmed the
absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs of the
federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of
all leases currently in use between the Defendants and BCO
Independent Contractors.

However, the ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District
Court's rulings:

       -- that an old version of the lease formerly used by
          Defendants but not in use with any current BCO
          Independent Contractor complied with applicable
          disclosure requirements under the federal leasing
          regulations with respect to adjustments to
          compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on
          certain loads sourced from the U. S. Dept. of Defense,
          and

       -- that the Defendants had provided sufficient
          documentation to BCO Independent Contractors under the
          applicable federal leasing regulations relating to how
          the component elements of Charge-back Deductions were
          computed.

The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court
to permit the Plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief with respect
to these violations of the federal leasing regulations and to
hold an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an
opportunity to produce evidence of any damages they actually
sustained as a result of such violations.

Each of the parties to the Litigation has filed a petition with
the Appellate Court seeking rehearing of the Appellate Court's
ruling.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

The suit is Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 02-cv-01005
(Fla.) (Adams, J).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Cohen, Esq.
          Daniel R. Unumb, Esq.
          Paul D. Cullen, Esq.
          Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq.
          Joseph A. Black, Esq.
          Susan Van Bell, Esq.
          THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20007-3770
          Telephone: 202-944-8600

               - and -  

          Michael R. Freed, Esq.
          BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND, PL
          Humana Centre Building
          76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: 904-366-1500

Representing the defendants are:

          Daniel R. Barney, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT & HANSON, P.C.
          1850 M St., NW, Suite 280
          Washington, DC 20036-5804
          Telephone: 202-783-5485

               - and -  

          Timothy W. Wiseman, Esq.
          Robert L. Browning, Esq.
          Gregory M. Feary, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVEN, LIGHT & HANSON, P.C.
          10 W. Market St., Suite 1500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968
          Phone: 317-637-1777
          Fax: 317-687-2414

               - and -

          Andrew Tysen Duva, Esq.
          Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT
          50 North Laura St., Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: 904-353-2000


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nationwide Life Insurance
breaches contracts by adding "cost of insurance" charges to
premiums, a class action claims in Buffalo Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Meidenbauer v. Nationwide Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 10-cv-00409 (W.D.N.Y.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/insure.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Manning, Esq.
          John J. Giardino, Esq.
          Craig R. Bucki, Esq.
          PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP
          3400 HSBC Center
          Buffalo, NY 14203
          Telephone: 716-847-8400
          E-mail: cbucki@phillips1ytle.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Miller, Esq.
          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER LLC
          800 W. 47th St., Suite 630
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-561-6500

               - and -

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Lee R. Anderson, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Rd., Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-714-7100


PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls 17,800 Plastic Strap-On Tree Steps
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Primal Vantage Co., Inc., of Randolph, N.J., announced a
voluntary recall of about 17,800 Ameristep Plastic Strap-On Tree
Steps.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

The plastic portion of the step can break, posing a fall hazard
to the user.

Primal Vantage has received six complaints of step breakage,
including two reports of consumers being bruised and cut.

This recall involves a plastic tree step that attaches to a tree
via a nylon strap and a large metal buckle.  It is used to climb
a tree in order to hunt from an elevated position.  Models 105
and 155 both have either a 10/08 or 12/08 date code, which is
stamped on the plastic portion of the step.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10236.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
December 2008 through November 2009, through various outdoor and
sporting goods retailers nationwide as a 3-step package in model
105 or as a single step in model 155.

Consumers should stop using the tree steps immediately.  They
should contact Primal Vantage for details on how to obtain a full
refund.  Consumers are asked not to return the product to retail
stores as refunds can only be provided by Primal Vantage.  For
additional information, contact Primal Vantage toll free at (866)
972-6168 between 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday or visit their website at
http://www.treestandcustomerservice.com/to print a return form  
or for further information on how to locate the date code on your
tree step.


REED ELSEVIER: County Appeals Recusal Motion in Lexis Nexis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that
county lawyers have appealed a startling setback for a mandatory
e-filing system owned and operated by Lexis Nexis in Atlanta's
courts.  A judge outside the county ruled earlier this month that
no local judge could hear the class action against both the
county and the giant publisher over fees imposed outside state
law.

DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Castellani on May 4
granted a motion to disqualify and recuse all Fulton County State
and Superior Judges from the case.  According to the order,
"There exists at this point at least an appearance of
impropriety, i.e., a situation in which reasonable minds might
perceive that the ability of one of the Fulton County State or
Superior Court judges to carry out his or her responsibilities
respecting the instant action with impartiality, integrity and or
competence is impaired."

The case was referred to Chief Judge Cynthia J. Becker of the
Stone Mountain Circuit.  Ms. Becker is the administrative judge
of the Fourth Judicial Administrative District and will appoint a
judge who is not a member of the Fifth Judicial Administrative
District, which includes Fulton County, to preside over the case.

At issue is that Fulton County State and Superior Court judges
"are alleged to have participated in the scheme enacted by the
defendants to impose a mandatory e-filing system upon litigants
in Fulton County State and Superior Courts, charging certain fees
in connection therewith; that the judges have participated in
this scheme by promulgating a pilot program or otherwise issuing
administrative orders authorizing co-defendant Lexis-Nexis
Courtlink Inc.'s mandatory e-filing scheme and charge of fees
therewith."

Attorneys Steven Newton, Shuli Green and Auden Grumet represent
W. Phillip McCurdy III, Michael Cawthon, Nelson Picklesimer,
Kenneth Clowdus as administrator for the estate of Kenneth Larry
Clowdus and The Best Jewelry Manufacturing Co.

Mr. Newton said in an interview that he considered the county's
appeal futile.

"Fulton County is trying to delay the hearing on the merits, but
I don't think they will win an appeal on this issue," Mr. Newton
said.  "Judge Castellani's order was very detailed.  It could
have not been any more clear.  It was not a close call.  It was
not even an iffy call."

The lawsuit, filed Jan. 6, is the fourth claim against Fulton
County and Reed Elsevier, owner of Lexis-Nexis Courtlink.

The Fulton County Superior Court case was originally filed in May
2009, then voluntarily dismissed and refiled on Jan. 6.  Mr.
Newton filed a similar lawsuit against Lexis-Nexis Courtlink and
Fulton County in Federal Court.  He filed the original federal
claim in December 2007 but withdrew it in March 2008, then
refilled it in June 2008.

That case was dismissed in March 2009.

A copy of Fulton County, Georgia's Petition for Interlocutory
Appeal in McCurdy, et al. v. Fulton County Georgia, et al., Case
No. 2010-CV-179757 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.) (Baxter, J.), is
available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/Interlocutory.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Steven J. Newton, Esq.
          Shuli Green, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN J. NEWTON, P.C.
          215 14th St., NW
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: 404-874-5006

               - and -

          Auden Grumet, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AUDEN L. GRUMET, LLC
          1718 Peachtree St., NW
          South Tower, Suite 1080
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: 770-458-3845


SERVICE CORPORATION: Defends "Conley" Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend the
securities suit captioned Conley Investment Counsel v. Service
Corporation International, et al., Civil Action 04-MD-1609,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.

The Securities Lawsuit resulted from the transfer and
consolidation by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
of three lawsuits:

     (1) Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corporation International,
         et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL; in the U.S.
         District Court for the District of Nevada;

     (2) Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corporation International,
         et al .; Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL; in the U.S.
         District Court for the District of Nevada; and

     (3) Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corporation International,
         et al.; Cause No. 04-CV-20114; in the U.S. District
         Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Securities Lawsuit names as defendants SCI and several of
SCI's current and former executive officers or directors.

The Securities Lawsuit is a purported class action alleging that
the defendants failed to disclose the unlawful treatment of human
remains and burial sites at two cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale and
West Palm Beach, Florida.  No discovery has occurred.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading
provider of deathcare products and services.  At March 31, 2010,
the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387
cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states,
eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico.  Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity
Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value,
caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend the matter
Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris
Holding of Florida, Inc, a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland
Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., Case
No.; 04-25646 CA 32, pending in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The suit was filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia,
who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986,
when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc.  
Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of
the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia.  
Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor record keeping, spacing
issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford to
purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the
decedent could not be readily located.  Subsequently, the
decedent's grave was located and verified.

In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to
certify a class of all persons buried at this cemetery whose
burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this was due to
poor record keeping, maps, and surveys at the cemetery.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third amended class action
complaint and added two additional named plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well
as equitable and injunctive relief.

No class has been certified in this matter.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading
provider of deathcare products and services.  At March 31, 2010,
the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387
cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states,
eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico.  Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity
Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value,
caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction.  


SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Sands" Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend the matter
F. Charles Sands, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al., Case No.
BC421528, pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District.

The suit was filed in September 2009 against SCI and certain
subsidiaries regarding its Eden Memorial Park cemetery in Mission
Hills, California.

The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of cemetery plot owners
and their families.  The plaintiff also seeks the appointment of
a receiver to oversee cemetery operations.

The plaintiff claims the cemetery damaged and desecrated burials
in order to make room for subsequent burials.  Since the case is
in its preliminary stages, the company cannot quantify its
ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading
provider of deathcare products and services.  At March 31, 2010,
the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387
cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states,
eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico.  Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity
Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value,
caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction.  


SERVICE CORPORATION: Defends "Prise" Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend the matter
Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Service Corporation
International, Cause No. 06-164, pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The suit was filed by two former Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc.
employees in December 2006 and purports to have been brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all Alderwoods
and SCI-affiliated employees who performed work for which they
were not fully compensated, including work for which overtime pay
was owed.

The court has conditionally certified a class of claims as to
certain job positions for Alderwoods employees.

Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violations of the FLSA,
failure to maintain proper records, breach of contract,
violations of state wage and hour laws, unjust enrichment, fraud
and deceit, quantum meruit, negligent misrepresentation, and
negligence.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unpaid wages,
liquidated, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading
provider of deathcare products and services.  At March 31, 2010,
the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387
cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states,
eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico.  Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity
Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value,
caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction.  


SERVICE CORPORATION: Class Certification in "Helm" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs to certify the matter Helm, et al.
v. AWGI & SCI, as a class action has been denied by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

Two suits were filed on Dec. 5, 2007, by counsel for plaintiffs
in the matter Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., and
Service Corporation International, Cause No. 06-164, in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Almeda.

The suits are:

     (1) Bryant, et al. v. Service Corporation International,
         et al., Case No. RG-07359593; and

     (2) Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI, Case No. RG-07359602.

The suits assert state law claims similar to the federal claims
asserted in the "Prise" suit.  The suits were removed to federal
court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco/Oakland Division.

The Bryant case is now Case No. 3:08-CV-01190-SI and the Helm
case is now Case No. C 08-01184-SI.

On Dec. 29, 2009, the court in the Helm case denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading
provider of deathcare products and services.  At March 31, 2010,
the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387
cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states,
eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico.  Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity
Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value,
caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction.  


SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Stickle" in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend the matter
Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.,
Case No. 08-CV-83, pending in the U.S. District Court for
Arizona, Phoenix Division.

Counsel for plaintiffs in the matter Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods
Group, Inc., and Service Corporation International, Cause No. 06-
164, filed this case on Jan. 17, 2008, against SCI and various
related entities and individuals asserting Fair Labor Standards
Act and other ancillary claims based on the alleged failure to
pay for overtime.

In September 2009, the Court conditionally certified a class of
claims as to certain job positions of SCI affiliated employees.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading
provider of deathcare products and services.  At March 31, 2010,
the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387
cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states,
eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico.  Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity
Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value,
caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Approval of Settlement in "Welch" Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of the settlement in the mater Shauna Welch v.
California Cemetery & Funeral Services, LLC, Case No. BC 396793,
remains pending in the Superior Court of the State of California,
for the County of Los Angeles.

In August 2008, the plaintiff filed a class action on behalf of
employees of a subsidiary of Service Corporation International in
California for alleged violations of the California Labor Code
and the Business & Professions Code.

The plaintiff specifically alleges that she and the putative
class are unable to negotiate their paychecks without paying a
fee and/or without being subject to a waiting period since
paychecks are issued from an out-of-state bank.

Subject to court approval, the parties have agreed to settle this
case for an amount which is not material to the company.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading
provider of deathcare products and services.  At March 31, 2010,
the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387
cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states,
eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico.  Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity
Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value,
caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction.


SUBRBAN PROPANE: D. N.J. Lawsuit Challenges Price Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------
On March 17, 2010, the law firm of Nichols Kaster, PLLP filed a
nationwide consumer class action against Suburban Propane
Partners, L.P. and its operating subsidiary, Suburban Propane,
L.P. The lawsuit alleges that Suburban Propane unfairly charges
its customers excessive prices for propane, without disclosing
its per gallon price in advance of delivery. In addition, the
lawsuit alleges that Suburban Propane unlawfully charges its
customers a variety of fees that are not properly disclosed,
including tank pump out and pick up fees that are designed to
prevent customers from rejecting deliveries and choosing a
competitor.

Lead Plaintiff Robert Slack became so upset about Suburban
Propane's business practices that he launched his own website at
http://www.suburban-propane-class-action.com/in January of 2010,  
to express his concerns. According to the lawsuit, many of
Suburban Propane's customers from across the country have
submitted written comments to his website reporting similar
experiences, and have reported being charged prices of as much as
$7.00 per gallon.

Suburban Propane is the fourth-largest retail marketer of propane
in the United States, measured by retail gallons sold. According
to its most-recent Annual Report, residential customers accounted
for less than half (44%) of Suburban Propane's retail propane
sales by volume, but accounted for 61% of Suburban Propane's
margins on retail propane sales during the most recent fiscal
year, reflecting higher margins in its residential propane
business.

Plaintiffs' counsel Paul Lukas stated, "it is wrong for Suburban
Propane to exploit its residential customers by charging them
arbitrary and exorbitant propane prices and hidden fees that are
not disclosed until after delivery. When customers fill up the
gas tank in their car, they are told the price in advance, are
charged the same amount as the car in front of them, and are able
to have their tank filled by a competitor without paying
additional fees as a penalty. Suburban Propane's customers are
entitled to the same protections. In fact, these customers are
entitled to even greater protection because Suburban Propane owns
many of its customers' tanks, and literally has them over a
barrel because it does not allow other companies to fill those
tanks."

Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Kai Richter, Esq.
          Rebekah Bailey, Esq.  
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612.256.3200
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  bailey@nka.com

               - and -  

          Patricia Barasch, Esq.
          SCHALL & BARASCH, L.L.C.
          110 Marter Ave. Suite 302
          Moorestown Office Center
          Moorestown, NJ 08057
          Telephone: 856.914.9200
          E-mail: pbarasch@schallandbarasch.com

The case is entitled Slack et al v. Suburban Propane Partners,
L.P. et al, and is venued in federal district court in New
Jersey, near Suburban Propane's corporate headquarters in
Whippany, New Jersey.

Additional information about this case can be found at
http://www.nka.com/or may be obtained by calling Nichols Kaster,  
PLLP toll free at (877) 448-0492.


TUESDAY MORNING: Lawsuit by Non-exempt Employees Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by hourly, non-exempt employees
against Tuesday Morning Corporation continues to remain stayed.

In December 2008, the lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs allege claims covering meal and rest period
violations.

This case has been stayed pending the outcome of another case.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Tuesday Morning Corporation -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/--  
is a closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, housewares,
gifts and related items in the United States.  The company's
merchandise primarily consists of lamps, rugs, kitchen
accessories, small electronics, gourmet housewares, linens,
luggage, bedroom and bathroom accessories, toys, stationary and
silk plants, as well as crystal, collectibles and silver serving
pieces.


UNITED STATES: Dept. of Defense Accused of Not Paying Bonuses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that the Pentagon
stiffed retiring civilian employees of performance-based annual
bonuses through a loophole in regulations, denying them the bonus
if they quit in the last 3 months of a calendar year, according
to a federal class action.

The class claims that employees' performance is reviewed between
Oct. 1 and Sept. 30 -- a full year -- but if an employee leaves
after Sept. 30 but before Jan. 1 of the following year, the
Pentagon won't pay the bonus.

The class claims the Pentagon's National Security Personnel
System, which replaced longevity-based pay with merit-based pay,
gives the government the ability to pay bonuses more than 90 days
after the employees have earned them.

The performance-based bonuses come "from a pool of money created
at least in part through the designation by the Secretary of
Defense of a percentage of all the civilian employees' annual pay
increases," according to the complaint.  The class claims this
means the employees themselves pay for their own bonuses with
contributions from their annual pay increases.

"DOD has wrongfully denied compensation to departing employees
who have contributed to and earned these performance-based
bonuses on the basis of technical departure timing issues that do
not find support in the regulations," the class claims.

Class representative Ralph Price says he was denied the bonus he
earned because he quit 1 day before the first payroll day of the
new year -- more than 3 months after he had earned his annual
bonus.

The class claims the Pentagon is violating the Administrative
Procedures Act, the Back Pay Act, and the Constitution.

It seeks back pay, and a declaration that the Pentagon cannot
deny performance-based bonuses to employees who have earned them.

A copy of the Complaint in Price v. Gates, et al., Case No. 10-
cv-00216 (E.D. Va.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/PentaBonuses.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa A. Bertini, Esq.
          Hyojin Bae, Esq.
          BERTINI O'DONNELL & HAMMER, PC
          999 Waterside Drive, Suite 1010
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: 757-670-3868
          E-mail: lbertini@bohlaw.net

               - and -

          David J. Meiselman, Esq.
          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          Rebecca Coll, Esq.
          Jerome Noll, Esq.
          MEISELMAN, DENLEA, PACKMAN, CARTON & EBERZ P.C.
          1311 Mamaroneck Ave.
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: 914-517-5000


VOLT MANAGEMENT: Accused of Failing to Pay Vacation Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Williams, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Volt Management Corporation, Case No. 2010-CH-21308
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 18, 2010), accuses the staffing and
placement services provider of not paying temporary employees all
earned and accrued vacation pay upon the termination of their
employment, in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, which provides that employees are entitled to a
proportionate share of vested vacation pay which cannot be
forfeited at the time of their termination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          David E. Stevens, Esq.
          Maureen A. Bantz, Esq.
          WERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008


XCEL ENERGY: Oral Arguments in Rehearing Plea Set for May 24
------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments in Xcel Energy, Inc.'s petition for rehearing on
the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversing the ruling of the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of Mississippi, are expected to be presented to the
Fifth Circuit panel on May 24, 2010, according to the company's
April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In 2006, Xcel Energy received notice of a purported class action
lawsuit filed in U. S. District Court in the Southern District of
Mississippi.  The lawsuit names more than 45 oil, chemical and
utility companies, including Xcel Energy, as defendants and
alleges that defendants' CO2 emissions "were a proximate and
direct cause of the increase in the destructive capacity of
Hurricane Katrina."

Plaintiffs allege in support of their claim, several legal
theories, including negligence and public and private nuisance
and seek damages related to the loss resulting from the
hurricane.

In August 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
against all defendants on constitutional grounds.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit reversed the district court decision, in part, concluding
that the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to overcome the
constitutional challenges that formed the basis for dismissal by
the district court.

A subsequent petition by defendants, including Xcel Energy, for
en banc review was granted.

Oral arguments are expected to be presented to the Fifth Circuit
panel on May 24, 2010.


The suit is Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/
-- is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the
U.S.


XCEL ENERGY: Unit Remains a Defendant in Gas-Trading Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, e prime, inc.,
remains a defendant in the matter Texas-Ohio Energy vs.
CenterPoint Energy et al.

e prime was in the business of natural gas trading and marketing
although e prime has not engaged in natural gas trading or
marketing activities since 2003.  Thirteen lawsuits have been
commenced against e prime and Xcel Energy (and NSP-Wisconsin, in
one instance); alleging fraud and anticompetitive activities in
conspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and manipulate
natural gas prices.

The initial gas-trading lawsuit, a purported class action brought
by wholesale natural gas purchasers, was filed in November 2003
in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California.  
e prime is one of several defendants named in the complaint.

This case is captioned Texas-Ohio Energy vs. CenterPoint Energy
et al.

The other twelve cases arising out of the same or similar set of
facts were filed.  Many of these cases involve multiple
defendants and have been transferred to Judge Phillip Pro of the
U. S. District Court in Nevada, who is the judge assigned to the
Western Area Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation.

No further details were disclosed in Xcel Energy's April 30,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/
-- is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the
U.S.

                            *********

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  * * *