CAR_Public/100526.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, May 26, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 102

                            Headlines

ALABAMA: Undocumented Immigrant Sues to Access Crime Victim Fund
AUSTRALIA: Angry Insulation Installers Consider Class Action
AYRES HOTEL: Sued for Violations of the California Labor Code
BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violations Suit in Ga.
BEAZER HOMES: Reaches Agreement to Settle North Carolina Suit

BEAZER HOMES: Agrees to Settle Homeowners' Suit in Mecklenburg
BEAZER HOMES: Defends RESPA-Violations Suit in California
BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend Suit Over Chinese-Made Drywall
BRINKER INT'L: Labor Suit Ruling Remains Under High Court Review
CHOCOLATE SOUP: Recalls 70 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts

CITY OF MEDFORD: Helps Employees Oppose Class-Action Benefit Suit
CVS CAREMARK: Workers Sue in E.D.N.Y. for Unpaid Security Checks
DAVITA INC: Continues to Defend Blue Cross Arbitration Demand
DAVITA INC: Ex-Employee Suit Versus Gambro Healthcare Ongoing
DAVITA INC: Continues to Defend Two Suits in California

DELTEX: New Zealand's High Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Anticipating Additional Shareholder Litigation
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls 54,000 Notebook Computer Batteries
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settlement in "Williams" Gets Preliminary OK
MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Md. Speed Camera Trial Scheduled for July 12

NVR INC: Ex-Employee's Suit Remains Pending in New York
SONY COMPUTER: 6th "Removal of OS Option" in PS3 Suit Filed
STERLING FINANCIAL: Defends Securities Violations Suit in Wash.
STERLING FINANCIAL: Defends Two ERISA Violations Suit in Wash.
SUNRISE SENIOR: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Wages

TACAZA INC: Sued for Violations of California Wage and Hour Laws
U.S. FOODSERVICE: Removes "Downs" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
UNITRIN INC: Units Continue to Face Hurricane-Related Lawsuits

                            *********

ALABAMA: Undocumented Immigrant Sues to Access Crime Victim Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
federal class action, a woman who was shot three times during a
home invasion claims the State of Alabama refused her request for
help from its Crime Victims Compensation Fund because she was an
undocumented immigrant.  But Bernarda Uriostegui says the law
that established the fund does not prohibit undocumented
immigrants from receiving benefits.

Ms. Uriostegui says the Crime Victims Compensation Act was
enacted to help victims of violent crimes with medical care, lost
income, burial expenses and rehabilitation, among other things.

Ms. Uriostegui says the Alabama Crime Victims Compensation
Commission denied her claim because she was undocumented.

But Ms. Uriostegui says the Commission is not able to "determine
who is and who is not a legal resident," but is "making such a
determination."

She claims that though the Alabama Administrative Code states
that "illegal aliens are barred from receiving compensation from
the Victim's Fund," this is "clearly at odds with the clear and
expressed language of the Victim's Act."

Ms. Uriostegui adds that excluding undocumented aliens from
participating in the Victim's Fund will not prevent immigrants
from entering Alabama.  And she points out that the fund is
"partially funded by the offenders themselves, some of whom may
be illegal aliens."

She sued the Alabama Crime Victims Compensation Commission and
its officers, alleging constitutional violations equal protection
and the supremacy clause.  She seeks an injunction, class
certification, costs and other relief.

A copy of the Complaint in Uriostegui v. The Alabama Crime
Victims Compensation Commission, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01265
(N.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/21/Alien.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Freddy Rubio, Esq.
          RUBIO LAW FIRM, P.C.
          438 Carr Ave., Suite 1
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: 866-387-4082
          E-mail: frubio@rubiolawfirm.com

               - and -

          Edgar C. Gentle, III, Esq.
          Diandra S. Debrosse, Esq.
          GENTLE TURNER & SEXTON
          Two North Twentieth Bldg.
          2 North 20th St., Suite 1200
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-716-3000
          E-mail: escrowagen@aol.com   
                  ddebrosse@gtandslaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Angry Insulation Installers Consider Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sabra Lane at ABC News reports that insulation installer Kellie
Jackson says the Australian Government owes her business money
for work done under the scrapped program.

A group of around 30 installers held a protest outside Parliament
House Monday morning to demand more support from the Government.

They gathered on the spot where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd assured
them in February he would help keep their businesses afloat.

Some of them are considering joining a class action, including
New South Wales installer Kellie Jackson.

Ms Jackson says the Government owes her business money for work
done under the scrapped program.

"A lot of the insulation installers here today, they're all
stuffed. They've got nothing," she said.

Ms Jackson, who spoke with Mr Rudd personally in February, says
he is as bad as the dodgy installers he denounced at the time.

"As far as I'm concerned he's one of the shonks because he's run
from the problem. He's just up and left us all with nothing," she
said.

Lenny Churproff drove his insulation truck from Sydney with a
simple message on all sides: "Ruined by Rudd."

Mr Churproff painted the message over his business signage. He
says he would like Mr Rudd to explain what he meant when he told
installers he would help them.

"I need to know why, what that means because I held onto that,
those words, and said 'OK, well something good might come out of
this', and to date nothing has," he said.

Workers under the troubled green loans program joined the
protest.

They are submitting a compensation claim with the Government for
$5,000 each.

Another company is trying to recoup more than $500,000 it says it
is owed by the Government.

Another supplier, Todd Sanderson, says he feels let down by the
Government.

"If it was a stupid business decision on our behalf we'd cop it
on the chin, but we did nothing wrong. The Government created the
rules and we played by them," he said.

"We weren't shonks. We were a legitimate business and our
reputation is now at stake. Our company is now at stake."

No Government ministers attended the protest, but the
Opposition's environment spokesman Greg Hunt did.

He says Mr Rudd should apologise to the installers.

"The message to the Prime Minister is very clear. Apologise for
misleading them. Apologise for destroying their industry and have
the courage to offer a genuine package to them," he said.

Mr Hunt says if the Opposition was in charge, things would be
different.

"Well, there's $1 billion which the Government set aside in the
budget last week to both fix the roofs and fix the insulation
program," he said.

"More than $500 million of that is unallocated and so there is
money there to ensure there is a legitimate payout for small
business of long standing and good history."

The installers say the Government has been slow to pay
outstanding claims and that legitimate small businesses have been
excluded from any of the remediation programs.

But Government sources says small business claims are taking some
time to process as the Government does not want to pay up to $60
million to companies that have committed fraud.

It says the $15 million to help with inventory costs is fair and
it says some of the more vocal companies complaining about the
program have serious compliance problems in relation to safety,
fire and potential fraud.


AYRES HOTEL: Sued for Violations of the California Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Shepherd, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Ayres Hotel Company, Inc., Case No. 2010-00372924  
(Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. May 17, 2010), accuses Ayres
Hotel of failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay
overtime wages, failing to furnish accurate wage statements, and
unfair business practices in violation of the Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code.  Ms. Shepherd was employed as a front desk clerk and
reservation agent at a hotel location owned and operated by Ayres
Hotel in Ontario, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dylan Pollard, Esq.
          Matt C. Bailey, Esq.
          POLLARD BAILEY
          9701 Wilshire Blvd., 10th Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 854-7650


BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violations Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., continues to defend a putative class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

On April 30, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of a purported class consisting of present and former
participants and beneficiaries of the Beazer Homes USA, Inc.
401(k) Plan.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties, including those
set forth in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as a
result of the investment of retirement monies held by the 401(k)
Plan in common stock of Beazer Homes at a time when participants
were allegedly not provided timely, accurate and complete
information concerning Beazer Homes.

Four additional lawsuits were filed subsequently making similar
allegations and the court consolidated these five lawsuits.
The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants Beazer
Homes, its chief executive officer, certain current and former
directors of the company, including the members of the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, and certain
employees of the company who acted as members of the Company's
401(k) Committee.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on two of the
plaintiffs' five claims but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed
with the three other claims.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- is a  
diversified homebuilder.  The company designs, sells and builds
single-family and multi-family homes. The Company acts as the
general contractor for the construction of its home communities.  
Beazer's project development operations are controlled by its
operating divisions.  The company also offers title insurance
services to its homebuyers in several of its markets.


BEAZER HOMES: Reaches Agreement to Settle North Carolina Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., has reached a tentative agreement to
settle a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, Salisbury Division, according
to the company's May 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

A putative class action was filed on April 8, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
Salisbury Division, against Beazer Homes, U.S.A., Inc., Beazer
Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation.

The Complaint alleges that Beazer violated the Real Estate
Settlement Practices Act and North Carolina Gen. Stat. Section
75-1.1 by (1) improperly requiring homebuyers to use Beazer-owned
mortgage and settlement services as part of a down payment
assistance program, and (2) illegally increasing the cost of
homes and settlement services sold by Beazer Homes Corp.

The purported class consists of all residents of North Carolina
who purchased a home from Beazer, using mortgage financing
provided by and through Beazer that included seller-funded down
payment assistance, between Jan. 1, 2000, and Oct. 11, 2007.
The Complaint demands an unspecified amount of damages, equitable
relief, treble damages, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on June 4, 2008.  
On July 25, 2008, in lieu of a response to the motion to dismiss,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint which the company moved to
dismiss.  The magistrate judge recommended that the district
court grant the defendants' motion to dismiss the RESPA claim but
deny the motion to dismiss the Section 75-1.1 claim and on March
8, 2010, the court adopted the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation in full.

The parties have reached a tentative agreement to settle the
lawsuit, which will be partially funded by insurance proceeds and
is subject to court approval.  Under the terms of the settlement,
the action will be dismissed with prejudice, and the company and
all other defendants will not admit any liability.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- is a  
diversified homebuilder.  The company designs, sells and builds
single-family and multi-family homes. The Company acts as the
general contractor for the construction of its home communities.  
Beazer's project development operations are controlled by its
operating divisions.  The company also offers title insurance
services to its homebuyers in several of its markets.


BEAZER HOMES: Agrees to Settle Homeowners' Suit in Mecklenburg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., has agreed to settle the suit pending in
the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, County of
Mecklenburg, North Carolina.

Beazer Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation are named as
defendants in a lawsuit filed on July 3, 2007.

The complaint was filed on behalf of individual homeowners who
purchased homes from Beazer in Mecklenburg County and alleges
certain deceptive conduct by the defendants and brings various
claims under North Carolina statutory and common law, including a
claim for punitive damages.  The case was assigned to the docket
of the North Carolina Business Court.

The plaintiffs filed four amended complaints, and the company
filed a motion to dismiss each of the complaints filed by the
plaintiffs.  With the exception of all claims of one plaintiff
and one claim as to all plaintiffs, which claims have now been
dismissed, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The parties have settled the lawsuit and a portion of the
settlement amount will be funded through insurance proceeds.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- is a  
diversified homebuilder.  The company designs, sells and builds
single-family and multi-family homes. The Company acts as the
general contractor for the construction of its home communities.  
Beazer's project development operations are controlled by its
operating divisions.  The company also offers title insurance
services to its homebuyers in several of its markets.


BEAZER HOMES: Defends RESPA-Violations Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., continues to defend a putative class
action lawsuit alleging violation of the Real Estate Settlement
Practices Act, according to the company's May 3, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Beazer Homes and several subsidiaries were named as defendants in
a putative class action lawsuit originally filed on March 12,
2008, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Placer.

The purported class is defined as all persons who purchased a
home from the defendants or their affiliates, with the assistance
of a federally related mortgage loan, from March 25, 1999, to the
present where Security Title Insurance Company received any money
as a reinsurer of the transaction.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated RESPA and
asserts claims under a number of state statutes alleging that
defendants engaged in a uniform and systematic practice of giving
and/or accepting fees and kickbacks to affiliated businesses
including affiliated and/or recommended title insurance
companies.  The complaint also alleges a number of common law
claims.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages under RESPA,
unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages and
injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.  Defendants removed the action to federal court and
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint which substituted new
named-plaintiffs.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint, which the federal court granted in part.

The federal court dismissed the sole federal claim, declined to
rule on the state law claims, and remanded the case to the
Superior Court of Placer County.  The company filed a
supplemental motion to dismiss/demurrer regarding the remaining
state law claims in the Second Amended Complaint and the state
court sustained defendants' demurrer but granted the plaintiffs
leave to amend their claims.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed a Third Amended Complaint which
defendants removed to federal court based on the presence of a
federal question and pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
and thereafter moved to dismiss.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the case.

The federal court granted the plaintiffs' motion and remanded the
case to the Superior Court of Placer County.

The defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the remand order
and a demurrer in state court as to all counts of the Third
Amended Complaint.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- is a  
diversified homebuilder.  The company designs, sells and builds
single-family and multi-family homes. The Company acts as the
general contractor for the construction of its home communities.  
Beazer's project development operations are controlled by its
operating divisions.  The company also offers title insurance
services to its homebuyers in several of its markets.


BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend Suit Over Chinese-Made Drywall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., continues to defend a purported class
action complaint over drywall that was manufactured in China,
according to the company's May 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On June 3, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed by
the owners of one of the company's homes in its Magnolia Lakes'
community in Ft. Myers, Florida.

The complaint names the company and certain distributors and
suppliers of drywall and was filed in the Circuit Court for Lee
County, Florida on behalf of the named plaintiffs and other
similarly situated owners of homes in Magnolia Lakes or
alternatively in the State of Florida.

The plaintiffs allege that the company built their homes with
defective drywall, manufactured in China, that contains sulfur
compounds that allegedly corrode certain metals and that are
allegedly capable of harming the health of individuals.
Plaintiffs allege physical and economic damages and seek legal
and equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's fees.
This case has been transferred to the Eastern District of
Louisiana pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- is a  
diversified homebuilder.  The company designs, sells and builds
single-family and multi-family homes. The Company acts as the
general contractor for the construction of its home communities.  
Beazer's project development operations are controlled by its
operating divisions.  The company also offers title insurance
services to its homebuyers in several of its markets.


BRINKER INT'L: Labor Suit Ruling Remains Under High Court Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc., is awaiting a decision from
California's highest court in a decertified class-action suit
related to meal and rest breaks.  

Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed a
lawsuit against Brinker in California Superior Court alleging
violations of California labor laws with respect to meal and rest
breaks.  The lawsuit seeks penalties and attorney's fees and was
certified as a class action in July 2006.

On July 22, 2008, the California Court of Appeal decertified the
class action on all claims with prejudice.

On Oct. 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted a writ to
review the decision of the Court of Appeal.

No further updates on the case were reported in the company's May
3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 24, 2010.

Brinker International, Inc. -- http://www.brinker.com/-- is  
principally engaged in the ownership, operation, development, and
franchising of the Chili's Grill & Bar, Maggiano's Little Italy,
and On The Border Mexican Cantina restaurant concepts.


CHOCOLATE SOUP: Recalls 70 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Chocolate Soup, of Raytown, Mo. announced a voluntary recall of
about 70 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood that can 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 "Happy Kids" brand hooded sweatshirts sold
as part of a set.  The sweatshirt and pants sets were sold in
pink, red, yellow and green, and in sizes 2T through 6X.  "Happy
Kids" is printed on the neck tag inside the sweatshirts.  
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10737.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Chocolate Soup stores in Georgia, Texas, Tennessee,
Missouri and North Carolina from June 2009 to February 2010 for
about $45.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard.  Consumers can also return
the product to the store where purchased for a full refund.  For
more information, contact Chocolate Soup collect at (314) 576-
1221 between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday.


CITY OF MEDFORD: Helps Employees Oppose Class-Action Benefit Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Mann at the Mail Tribune reports that nearly 100
management employees for the city of Medford don't want any part
of a class-action suit that could raise health costs and extend
benefits to retired workers.

"Ninety percent of the management employees don't want to be part
of the class-action lawsuit," said Doug Detling, director of
human resources. He based his findings on a petition sent out to
the 105 employees in this category working for the city.

In a resolution passed this week, the City Council agreed to
contribute $20,000 to pay for attorney's fees to find a way for
management staff to help scuttle a class-action suit.

The legal wrangling stems from a suit filed in 2006 in U.S.
District Court in Medford by Joseph Bova of the Public Works
Department and Marlene Scudder of the Medford Police Department.
Bova still works under contract with the city.

Bova has argued that the city is legally obligated to provide
bridge health insurance to retired employees until they reach age
65. According to city officials, the retiree benefits would
increase health insurance costs by more than $500,000 annually.

Detling said these employees worry that they will have to pay an
additional $200 a month in insurance premiums if they can't block
the suit. Currently they pay $17.40 a month. Another $200 would
have to be paid by the city itself as the cost of coverage would
increase on average from $1,059 to $1,469 a month for each
employee.

Many management employees wonder why they are part of the suit.

Medford police Chief Randy Schoen said he sent the attorney
representing the management employees a letter more than a year
ago asking that he not be part of any class-action suits. Several
other letters were sent by other city management staff, he said.

"I'm disappointed because his office never responded to those
letters," he said.

Portland attorney Steve Brischetto, who represents Bova and the
management employees, said he received letters from city
employees, but only after the court had decided they were part of
the class-action suit.

He said the city itself is to blame for not taking the correct
legal steps to make it possible for these employees to opt out of
the suit.

"The city is trying to duck its head in the sand to the fact that
they never asked particular management folks to opt out of a
class-action suit," he said. "The city attorney didn't ask for
any opt-out provision."

Schoen said that contrary to what Brischetto said, he thinks his
letter was sent before the courts decided who was part of the
class-action suit.

"I'm not sure I agree with his opinion of it," Schoen said. "It's
almost like we've been forced into something we didn't want to be
part of."

Brischetto said the city and management employees have placed
themselves in an interesting legal position.

On the one hand the employees are suing the city, but at the same
time the city is giving them money to hire an attorney to get
them out of the suit.

Detling said it is irrelevant whether some employees want to opt
out of the suit.

Detling himself said he decided to remain a participant in the
suit for tactical reasons, to keep track of the legal maneuvering
on the part of Brischetto.

"After the class action was established, there has been zero
communication with Steve Brischetto, who is representing the
class," he said.

Detling said he never thought the city was wrong in asserting it
should not provide bridge coverage until a retired employee
reaches age 65.

"I thought all along this was a ridiculous lawsuit," he said.

In a separate suit that has similar legal arguments, former City
Attorney Ron Doyle and three other former city employees claimed
they were entitled to a bridge health insurance plan until they
reached age 65. The other former employees who joined in the suit
were Robert Deuel, Benedict Miller and Charles Steinberg.

The courts are treating the two cases differently because Doyle
was already retired when he filed the legal action, while Bova
was still employed with the city.

In February, an Oregon Supreme Court ruling determined the city
of Medford is obligated to provide health benefits to its
retirees, but only under certain circumstances.

On Sept. 4, 2009, Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Mark
Schiveley wrote in an opinion that the former city employees
should have been covered by a bridge health insurance plan until
they reached age 65.

Both the Bova and Doyle cases are still being argued in the
courts.

Detling said the $20,000 will allow the management employees to
hire their own attorney to try to prevent any legal action that
could force the city to pay the benefits to its retired employees
and to raise their rates. Detling said the employees have hired
Portland attorney Lisa Umscheid.

"As far as we are concerned Mr. Brischetto doesn't represent us
any longer," he said.


CVS CAREMARK: Workers Sue in E.D.N.Y. for Unpaid Security Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Case No. 10-cv-02075, on behalf of
a class of current and former CVS employees alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State labor laws.
The lawsuit contends that employees at CVS stores are subjected
to off-the-clock security checks at the end of each shift which
can take up to 30 minutes. It also accuses the Rhode Island based
company of forcing employees to work through meal and rest breaks
without compensation and of failing to pay overtime wages.

The suit was filed by Jeanne D'Esposito and Gerald Lawrence of
Lowey, Dannenberg, Cohen & Hart and Louis Ginsberg of the Law
Offices of Louis Ginsberg, P.C. and alleges that after clocking
out, employees are required to wait for a manager to be paged and
then submit to a search of their person and personal belongings.
The suit also maintains that employees are not paid overtime
wages and are routinely required to work during paid meal and/or
rest breaks and after they clock out.

For more information about the lawsuit contact Jeanne D'Esposito
at 914-997-0500 or Louis Ginsberg at 1-800-LOSTJOB
(1-800-567-8562), ext: 13.

               About Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart

Lowey Dannenberg -- http://www.lowey.com/-- has represented  
sophisticated clients in complex litigation for more than 40
years. The firm's principal fields of practice are investor
representation, healthcare cost recovery, antitrust, bankruptcy
and creditors rights, and consumer protection.

           About the Law Offices of Louis Ginsberg, P.C.

Louis Ginsberg, Esq. -- http://www.louisginsberglawoffices.com/
-- has practiced employment law for his entire 22-year career.
Mr. Ginsberg's cases are often discussed in The N.Y. Daily News,
The New York Post and other newspaper and Internet media.  His
law firm has won numerous cases that have had profound impacts on
the New York employment laws and have established new precedents
in the law.  Mr. Ginsberg has represented CEOs, professional
athletes, an Olympian, a Congressman and television commentators.
He has litigated all types of employment matters including wage
and overtime pay issues, as well as issues involving wrongful
termination, sexual harassment, employment discrimination, and
breach of contract.


DAVITA INC: Continues to Defend Blue Cross Arbitration Demand
-------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. continues to defend a demand for class arbitration by
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana.

The suit was filed in August 2005 against Gambro AB, DVA Renal
Healthcare (formerly known as Gambro Healthcare) and related
entities.

The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on
behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of the defendants
for health care goods and services from on or about January 1991
through at least December 2004.

The complaint alleged, among other things, damages resulting from
facts and circumstances underlying Gambro Healthcare's 2004
settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and certain
agencies of the U.S. government.

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was
compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter.

In November 2006, the plaintiff filed a demand for class
arbitration against the company and DVA Renal Healthcare.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

DaVita Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- provides dialysis  
services for those diagnosed with chronic kidney failure, a
condition also known as chronic kidney disease.  The company has
over 1,500 outpatient dialysis facilities and acute units in over
700 hospitals.  The company is located in 43 states and the
District of Columbia, serving approximately 115,000 patients.


DAVITA INC: Ex-Employee Suit Versus Gambro Healthcare Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gambro Healthcare continues to face a complaint filed by a former
employee over failure to provide overtime wages.

Gambro Healthcare was purchased by the company in 2005.

In June 2004, Gambro Healthcare was served with a complaint filed
in the Superior Court of California by one of its former
employees who worked for its California acute services program.  
The complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among
other things, that DVA Renal Healthcare failed to provide
overtime wages, defined rest periods and meal periods, or
compensation in lieu of such provisions and failed to comply with
certain other California labor code requirements.

The company continues to oppose the certification of this matter
as a class action.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

DaVita Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- provides dialysis  
services for those diagnosed with chronic kidney failure, a
condition also known as chronic kidney disease.  The company has
over 1,500 outpatient dialysis facilities and acute units in over
700 hospitals.  The company is located in 43 states and the
District of Columbia, serving approximately 115,000 patients.


DAVITA INC: Continues to Defend Two Suits in California
-------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. continues to defend two class action complaints
alleging violations of the California Labor Code.

Several wage and hour claims have been filed against the company
in the Superior Court of California, each of which has been
styled as a class action.

In February 2007, June 2008, October 2008 and December 2008, the
company was served with five separate complaints, including two
in October 2008, by various former employees, each of which
alleges, among other things, that the company failed to provide
rest and meal periods, failed to pay compensation in lieu of
providing such rest or meal periods, failed to pay the correct
amount of overtime, failed to pay the rate on the "wage
statement," and failed to comply with certain other California
Labor Code requirements.

The company has reached a settlement and release of all claims
against it in connection with the complaints served in February
2007 and December 2008 and one of the complaints served in
October 2008.

The Company has fully funded the settlement which, pursuant to
the terms of the settlement agreement, will result in a dismissal
of the underlying court proceedings against it.  The overall
settlement amount was not material.

No further details were reported in the company's May 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

DaVita Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- provides dialysis  
services for those diagnosed with chronic kidney failure, a
condition also known as chronic kidney disease.  The company has
over 1,500 outpatient dialysis facilities and acute units in over
700 hospitals.  The company is located in 43 states and the
District of Columbia, serving approximately 115,000 patients.


DELTEX: New Zealand's High Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marta Steeman at BusinessDay.co.nz reports that the New Zealand's
High Court is allowing a class action by some of Feltex's
shareholders against the directors, sellers and organisers of the
June, 2004, Feltex share issue.

Qualifying shareholders are being urged to join the action
against the iconic carpet company. They are shareholders who
subscribed for shares in the May 5 2004 public offer and received
the shares which were alloted on June 2.

They must "opt in" to the legal action which is being organised
by Auckland consultant Tony Gavigan.

The High Court last week lifted an interim stay order to allow an
amended statement of claim to be filed and an "opt in'' consent
form to be sent to qualifying shareholders.

Those who opt in must also sign up to an agreement with Gavigan's
company, Joint Action Funding Limited (JAFL), over payment of a
success fee, if the case is successful.

There is some concern over whether the six-year statute of
limitation will come into play on June 2, the sixth anniversary
of the allotment of the Feltex shares to investors.

Qualifying shareholders will be represented by Eric Houghton, a
university student, whom the High Court has ruled is the sole
plaintiff.

The legal action is made against the directors of Feltex named in
the prospectus for the public offer, Credit Suisse Private Equity
Inc, the promoter, Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant
Partners LP, the seller of the shares and an issuer, First New
Zealand Capital and Forsyth Barr, the organisers and the joint
lead managers of the share issue.

An amended statement of claim alleges that all or some of the
defendants breached the Fair Trading Act in the way the share
issue was made and that the contents of the prospectus were
misleading.

The legal action is claiming some or all of the defendants are
liable to pay "qualifying shareholders'' compensation because the
prospectus contained untrue statements.

They are also asking the court to rule the parties are liable to
repay the purchase price for qualifying shareholders and the
defendants were negligent in the way the public offer was made
and about the contents of the prospectus.

A declaration is sought from the court as to each defendant's
liability under each cause of action.
Gavigan owns 90 per cent of JAFL. He has arranged some of the
funding for the legal action and is negotiating with New Zealand
and overseas commercial litigation providers for more funding.

Qualifying shareholders who opt in have no liability for the
plaintiff's costs of the proceedings and for an award of costs to
the defendants if the claim is unsuccessful.

If the court action is successful the qualifying shareholders
will pay between 30 per cent and 38 per cent of the amount
recovered, plus GST, to JAFL.

As well 25 per cent of the costs and disbursements of JAFL will
be deducted.  Relevant documents are available at
http://www.ftxit.com/


GOLDMAN SACHS: Anticipating Additional Shareholder Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., faces purported securities law
class actions in relation to a collateralized debt obligation
offering made in early 2007.

On April 23, 2010, a Goldman Sachs shareholder, which previously
had made a demand that the Board investigate and take action in
connection with auction rate securities matters, expanded its
demand to address other alleged misconduct by Goldman, Sachs &
Co., the Board and certain officers and employees of Goldman
Sachs and its affiliates.

The alleged misconduct was in connection with:

     (i) a collateralized debt obligation offering made in early
         2007 (the 2007 Transaction) that is the subject of a
         U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation
         and a civil action brought by the SEC on April 16,
         2010,

    (ii) the alleged failure by Goldman Sachs to adequately
         disclose the SEC investigation, and

   (iii) Goldman Sachs's 2009 compensation practices.

Goldman Sachs has been the subject of other legal claims and
regulatory inquiries and investigations with respect to the 2007
Transaction and the related SEC investigation and civil action,
including purported securities law class actions that name as
defendants Goldman Sachs and certain senior executives (including
Lloyd C. Blankfein and Gary D. Cohn, who are members of the
Board), allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek unspecified damages.

Goldman Sachs anticipates that additional putative shareholder
derivative actions and other litigation may be filed, and
regulatory and other investigations and actions commenced, with
respect to offerings of collateralized debt obligations.  

No additional details were reported in the company's May 3, 2010,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a leading global investment
banking, securities and investment management firm that provides
a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  
Founded in 1869, the firm is headquartered in New York and
maintains offices in London, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong and
other major financial centers around the world.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls 54,000 Notebook Computer Batteries
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hewlett-Packard Co., of Palo Alto, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 54,000 (70,000 units were previously recalled in
May 2009) Notebook Computer Batteries.

The recalled lithium-ion batteries can overheat, posing a fire
and burn hazard to consumers.

Since the May 2009 recall, HP has received 38 additional reports
of batteries that overheated and ruptured resulting in 11
instances of minor personal injury and 31 instances of minor
property damage.

This recall involved lithium-ion rechargeable batteries are used
with various model series of HP and Compaq notebook computers.
The chart below includes all notebook model numbers associated
with batteries recalled to date.  The computer model number is
located at the top of the service label on the bottom of the
notebook computer.  Not all batteries matching the bar codes are
being recalled.

                                       Battery Bar Codes (^ in the code
   Notebook Model Number                 can be any letter or number)
   ---------------------               --------------------------------

   HP Pavilion        

     dv2000, dv2500, dv2700            62940^^AXV^^^^, 65035^^B7U^^^^,
     dv6000, dv6500, dv6700            65035^^B7V^^^^, 65035^^BGU^^^^,
     dx6000, dx6500, dx6700            65035^^BGV^^^^

     dv9000, dv9500, dv9700            65033^^B7U^^^^, 65033^^B7V,
                                       65033^^BGU^^^^
  Compaq Presario

     A900                              62940^^AXV^^^^, 65035^^B7U^^^^,
     C700                              62940^^AXV^^^^, 65035^^B7U^^^^,
     F500, F700                        62940^^AXV^^^^, 65035^^B7U^^^^,
     V3000, V3500, V3700               65035^^B7V^^^^, 65035^^BGU^^^^,
     V6000, V6500, V6700               

   HP
     
     G6000, G7000                      62940^^AXV^^^^, 65035^^B7U^^^^,
                                       65035^^B7V^^^^, 65035^^BGU^^^^,
                                       65035^^BGV^^^^
   HP Compaq

     6510b, 6515b 6710b, 6710s         65000^^B5V^^^^
     6715b, 6715s

     6720s                             67059^^V8U^^^^, 67059^^V8V^^^^

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10240.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
computer and electronics stores nationwide, hp.com and
hpshopping.com from August 2007 through July 2008 for between
$500 and $3,000. The battery packs were also sold separately for
between $100 and $160.

Consumers should immediately remove the batteries referenced
above from their notebook computer and contact HP to determine if
their battery is included in this recall (even if the battery was
previously checked).  Consumers with recalled batteries will
receive a free replacement battery.  After removing the recalled
battery from their notebook computer, consumers may use the AC
adapter to power the computer until a replacement battery
arrives. HP recommends that only batteries obtained from HP or an
HP authorized reseller be used with HP notebook PCs.  For
additional information, visit the HP Battery Replacement Program
website at http://www.hp.com/support/BatteryReplacementor call  
(888) 202-4320 between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Central Time,
Monday through Friday.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settlement in "Williams" Gets Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Rome Division) gave its preliminary approval to the settlement
in the matter In Shirley Williams et al. v. Mohawk Industries,
Inc., according to the company's May 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 3, 2010.

Four plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit in January
2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Rome Division), alleging that they are former and
current employees of the company and that the actions and conduct
of the company, including the employment of persons who are not
authorized to work in the United States, have damaged them and
the other members of the putative class by suppressing the wages
of the company's hourly employees in Georgia.

The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including

     (a) treble damages;
     (b) return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and
     (c) attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

In February 2004, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, which was denied by the District Court in April 2004.
Following appellate review of this decision, the case was
returned to the District Court for further proceedings.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On March 3, 2008, the District Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Following appellate
review of the decision, the case was returned to the District
Court on the class certification issue.

In April 2010, the plaintiffs, the company and the company's
insurance carrier agreed to settle the litigation and the
District Court preliminarily approved the settlement.

The Company previously reserved for its portion of the
settlement.  The claims process is expected to begin in May 2010,
and the insurance carrier will have an option to terminate the
settlement if claims are filed by the majority of claimants.
Following the claims process, the settlement is further subject
to District Court approval.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a leading supplier of flooring for
both residential and commercial applications.  Mohawk offers a
complete selection of carpet, ceramic tile, laminate, wood,
stone, vinyl, and rugs.  These products are marketed under the
premier brands in the industry, which include Mohawk, Karastan,
Ralph Lauren, Lees, Bigelow, Dal-Tile, American Olean, Unilin and
Quick Step.  Mohawk's unique merchandising and marketing assist
the company's customers in creating the consumers' dream.  Mohawk
provides a premium level of service with its own trucking fleet
and over 250 local distribution locations.


MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Md. Speed Camera Trial Scheduled for July 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
           NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO RECEIVED AND PAID A CITATION ISSUED THROUGH A
    SPEED MONITORING SYSTEM OR "SPEED CAMERA" WHILE TRAVELING AT
    A SPEED AT LEAST 10 MILES PER HOUR ABOVE THE POSTED SPEED
    LIMIT AT A TIME PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 2009, OR TRAVELING AT A
    SPEED OF AT LEAST 12 MILES PER HOUR ABOVE THE POSTED SPEED
    LIMIT AT A TIME SINCE OCTOBER 1, 2009 WITHIN MONTGOMERY
    COUNTY, MARYLAND

THIS NOTICE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS

     1. A Class Action lawsuit titled Matthew C. Baker, et al. v.
Montgomery County, Maryland, et al., Case No. 295902-V was filed
in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland, stating
various causes of action against Montgomery County, Maryland,
Rockville, Maryland, Gaithersburg, Maryland, and Chevy Chase
Maryland, including claims of violating Maryland 21-809 by
improper operation of the "speed monitoring system".

     2. This Notice is solely to inform members of the Classes of
the pendency of this litigation and to describe what to do if you
are a member of any Class(es) and want to be excluded from the
Class(es).

     3. The following Classes have been conditionally certified:

          (a) The Montgomery County Class, consisting of all
              persons who have received and paid a citation
              issued through a "Speed Monitoring System" as
              defined in the Maryland Code, Transportation
              Article, Section 21-809(5), to the owner of a
              vehicle traveling at a speed at least 10 miles per
              hour above the posted speed limit at a time prior
              to October 1, 2009, or traveling at a speed of at
              least 12 miles per hour above the posted speed
              limit at a time since October 1, 2009, within
              Montgomery County, Maryland, but not within the
              geographical limits of any municipal corporation,
              local political subdivision, or other local
              jurisdiction that had implemented a Speed
              Monitoring System at the time of the citation;

          (b) The Rockville Class, consisting of all persons who
              have received and paid a citation issued through a
              "Speed Monitoring System" as defined in the
              Maryland Code, Transportation Article, Section
              21-809(5), to the owner of a vehicle traveling at a
              speed at least 10 miles per hour above the posted
              speed limit at a time prior to October 1, 2009, or
              traveling at a speed of at least 12 miles per hour
              above the posted speed limit at a time since
              October 1, 2009, within the city limits of
              Rockville, Maryland;

          (c) The Gaithersburg class, consisting of all persons
              who have received and paid a citation issued
              through a "Speed Monitoring System" as defined in
              the Maryland Code, Transportation Article, Section
              21-809(5), to the owner of a vehicle traveling at a
              speed at least 10 miles per hour above the posted
              speed limit at a time prior to October 1, 2009, or
              traveling at a speed of at least 12 miles per hour
              above the posted speed limit at a time since
              October 1, 2009, within the city limits of the City
              of Gaithersburg;

          (d) The Chevy Chase Village Class, consisting of all
              persons who have received and paid a citation
              issued through a "Speed Monitoring System" as
              defined in the Maryland Code, Transportation
              Article, Section 21-809(5), to the owner of a
              vehicle traveling at a speed at least 10 miles per
              hour above the posted speed limit at a time prior
              to March 12, 2009.

     4. If you wish to remain in the Class(es), you should do
nothing. The Court's rulings will be binding on the class members
as to the claims asserted in the Lawsuit. If you remain in the
Class(es) you may not pursue a separate legal action asserting
any of the Class Action challenges or claims made in the Lawsuit.
     
     5. If you wish to be excluded from the Lawsuit, you must do
the following: Notify Class Counsel by email, facsimile or U.S.
mail, of your desire to be excluded, stating your name and
residence address, citation number, time, date and location of
violation, and a telephone number and email address at which you
may be reached (or the below opt-out form may be used and sent to
Class Counsel). This request for exclusion must be received by
Class Counsel no later than midnight on July 6, 2010.  Class
Counsel is:

          Timothy P. Leahy, Esq.
          Byrd & Byrd, LLC
          14300 Gallant Fox Lane, Ste. 120
          Bowie, MD 20715
          Telephone: (301) 464-7448
          Fax: (301) 805-5178
          E-mail: tleahy@byrdandbyrd.com

If you elect to be excluded from the Lawsuit (to "opt out"), you
may pursue your own legal remedies independent of the Lawsuit.

     6. A trial in this matter will begin before the Honorable
David A. Boynton of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland at the Circuit Court Courthouse, 50 Maryland Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland on July 12, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. The time and
date of this hearing may be continued or adjourned without
further notice.


NVR INC: Ex-Employee's Suit Remains Pending in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
NVR, Inc., continues to defend a suit filed by a former employee
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against the company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being
exempt from overtime wages.

These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit filed on
Oct. 29, 2004, by another former employee in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages,
including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the
overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other
fees and interest, and where available, multiple damages.

The suits were filed as purported class actions.  However, while
a number of individuals have filed consents to join and assert
federal claims in the New York action, none of the groups of
employees that the lawsuits purport to represent have been
certified as a class.

The lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey
and North Carolina have been stayed pending further developments
in the New York action.

No further developments were reported in the company's May 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

NVR Inc. -- http://www.nvrinc.com/-- operates in two business  
segments: homebuilding and mortgage banking.  The homebuilding
unit sells and constructs homes under the Ryan Homes, NVHomes and
Fox Ridge Homes trade names.  NVR Mortgage provides a variety of
financing programs, while settlement and title services for
buyers of NVR homes are provided by NVR Settlement Services.


SONY COMPUTER: 6th "Removal of OS Option" in PS3 Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Huber, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Case No.
10-cv-02213 (N.D. Calif. May 21, 2010), accuses the PlayStation 3
developer of intentionally disabling the "Other OS" feature and
other important features of its PlayStation video game console.  
Mr. Huber says that Sony Computer's action constituted breaches
of express and implied warranties, conversion, and violations of
numerous California and federal consumer protection laws.

On April 1, 2010, Sony announced that it was removing the "Other
OS" feature of the original PS3s from its Firmware 3.21, a new
system software update for the PS3 system, due to purported
"security reasons."  Mr. Huber relates that he downloaded and
installed the Firmware 3.21 update so could continue to play
games online, but this caused him to lose access to the "Other
OS" feature and the Linux system he installed in order to use the
PS3 as a personal computer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          E-mail: bsimon@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 91404
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
          15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K St., Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
         
Coverage of Kennedy v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc.,
Case No. 10-cv-01811 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Mon., May 3, 2010; coverage of Baker v. Sony
Computer Entertainment, LLC, Case No. 10-cv-01897 (N.D. Calif.),
appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Wed., May 5, 2010;
coverage of Densmore v. Sony Computer Entertainment America,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01945 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Wed., May 12, 2010; coverage of Wright v. Sony
Computer Entertainment America, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01975 (N.D.
Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Wed., May 12,
2010; and coverage of Harper v. Sony Computer Entertainment
America, Inc., Case No.  10-cv-02197 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in
yesterday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Defends Securities Violations Suit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation defends a putative securities
class action complaint alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, according to the company's May 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Dec. 11, 2009, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against Sterling and certain of its current and former
officers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 by making false and misleading statements concerning the
company's business and financial results.  The complaint alleges
that defendants failed to disclose the extent of Sterling's
delinquent commercial real estate, construction and land loans,
properly record losses for impaired loans, properly reserve for
loan losses, and properly account for our goodwill and deferred
tax assets.

The complaint seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's common stock during the period from July 23, 2008 to
Jan. 13, 2009, damages of an unspecified amount and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is a bank  
holding company. Its principal operating subsidiaries are
Sterling Savings Bank and Golf Savings Bank.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the principal operating subsidiary of
Sterling Savings Bank was INTERVEST-Mortgage Investment Company
(INTERVEST).  The main focus of Golf Savings Bank, a Washington
State-chartered savings bank, is the origination and sale of
residential mortgage loans.  The company's revenues are derived
primarily from interest earned on loans and mortgage-backed
securities (MBS), fees and service charges, and mortgage banking
operations (MBO).


STERLING FINANCIAL: Defends Two ERISA Violations Suit in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation defends two putative class action
complaints alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, according to the company's May
3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Jan. 20 and 22, 2010, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against Sterling and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  The complaints allege that defendants
violated sections 404 and 405 of the ERISA, by breaching their
fiduciary duties to participants in the Sterling Savings Bank
Employee Savings and Investment Plan and Trust.

The complaints allege that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties from July 23, 2008 to the date the complaints were filed
by investing Plan assets in Sterling's securities when defendants
knew or should have known that the price of Sterling's securities
were inflated because Sterling had failed to disclose the extent
of Sterling's delinquent commercial real estate, construction and
land loans, properly record losses for impaired loans, properly
reserve for loan losses, and properly account for our goodwill
and deferred tax assets.

The complaints seek damages of an unspecified amount and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is a bank  
holding company. Its principal operating subsidiaries are
Sterling Savings Bank and Golf Savings Bank.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the principal operating subsidiary of
Sterling Savings Bank was INTERVEST-Mortgage Investment Company
(INTERVEST).  The main focus of Golf Savings Bank, a Washington
State-chartered savings bank, is the origination and sale of
residential mortgage loans.  The company's revenues are derived
primarily from interest earned on loans and mortgage-backed
securities (MBS), fees and service charges, and mortgage banking
operations (MBO).


SUNRISE SENIOR: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Lashone Purnell, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc., Case No.
2010-00372725 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. May 14, 2010),
accuses the senior living and health care services provider of
failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest
periods, failing to pay wages upon ending of employment, failing
to keep accurate payroll records, and unfair business practices
in violation of the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.

Ms. Purnell worked as an hourly paid caregiver at Sunrise Senior
Living.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Christopher L. Burrows, Esq.
          MAHONEY & BURROWS
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550


TACAZA INC: Sued for Violations of California Wage and Hour Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike W. Burns and Kristine M. Burns, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Tacaza, Inc., Case No. 2010-00371515
(Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. May 12, 2010), accuses the Famous
Dave's BBQ Restaurants franchisee of failing to provide rest and
meal breaks, failing to timely pay wages due at termination,
failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to
pay hourly wages including overtime, failing to indemnify
employees for necessary expenditures, all in violation of
California state wage and hour laws, and unfair business
practices, in violation of the Bus. & Prof. Code.

The plaintiffs were both employed as bartenders by defendant
Tacaza, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William S. Caldwell, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200


U.S. FOODSERVICE: Removes "Downs" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loretta Downs and D'Andre Parker, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Case No.
RG10508808 (Calif. Super. Ct. Alameda Cty.), was filed on
April 9, 2010.  The plaintiffs accuse the foodservice distributor
of failing to provide timely meal and rest periods, failing to
pay wages due, failing to pay compensation upon termination,
failing to provide accurate wage statements, and violations of
California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332,
U.S. Foodservice, on May 19, 2010, removed the lawsuit to the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, and the
Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-02163 to the proceeding.  

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Morris J. Baller, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          E-mail: mballer@gdblegal.com

               - and -

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          Charlie Stein, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1800 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          E-mail: cja@laborgators.com
                  cstein@laborgators.com

               - and -

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Avi Kreitenberg, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 601
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 400-1051
          E-mail: jhammond@kamberlaw.com
                  akreitenberg@kamberlaw.com      
         
The Defendant is represented by:

          Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California St., Suite 3900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-1000
          E-mail: jfife@winston.com

               - and -

          Benjamin M. Gipson, Esq.
          Emilie C. Woodhead, Esq.
          Audrey Shen Chui, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grnad Ave., Suite 3800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615-1750
          E-mail: bgipson@winston.com
                  ewoodhead@winston.com
                  achui@winston.com


UNITRIN INC: Units Continue to Face Hurricane-Related Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Unitrin, Inc., continue to defend a
significant volume of lawsuits, among them two statewide putative
class actions, in Florida, Louisiana and Texas.

The suits arise out of property damage caused by catastrophes and
storms, including major hurricanes that have occurred over the
last several years.

In these matters, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages, and equitable relief.

No further details were reported in the company's May 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Unitrin, Inc. -- http://www.unitrin.com/-- is a diversified  
insurance holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries,
is engaged in providing property and casualty insurance, life and
health insurance, and automobile finance services.  The company
serves the basic financial needs of individuals, families and
small businesses.  The company conducts its operations through
five operating segments: Kemper, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin
Direct, Life and Health Insurance, and Fireside Bank.

                            *********

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  * * *