CAR_Public/100602.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 2, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 107

                            Headlines

AIR FRANCE 358: Canadian Appeals Court to Review Settlement Today
ALLIED MEDICAL: Sued in Ga. Over Unaccredited Sonography Program
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Defends Suits of SAI's Sale of Interests
BELO CORP: Continues to Defend Wage Payment Violations Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Amador" and "Adams" Suits

CAREER EDUCATION: Defends "Lilley" Suit in Illinois
CAREER EDUCATION: Class Certified in "Schuster" Lawsuit
CAREER EDUCATION: Defends "Vasquez" Suit in California
CARTER'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Suit in Georgia
CARTER'S INC: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Two Suits

CONVERGYS CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Intervoice Suit Pending
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Two New Suits Over Hertz Deal
EUROPEAN AIR AUTHORITIES: Airlines Sue to Recoup Ash Cloud Losses
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages
GOOGLE INC: Suit Complains About Google Street View Technology

GOOGLE INC: Sued for Using Street View to Intercept Personal Data
HAWK CORP: Appeal on Class Certification Ruling Pending
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement
KENT STEWART: Iowa Businessman Faces Concrete Price-Fixing Suit
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: "Croul" Labor Complaint Removed to N.D. Calif.

MAGIC BROADCASTING: Accused of Not Paying Overtime to Workers
MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois
MOTOROLA INC: Court Okays Filing of Second Amended Complaint
PACIFIC COMMUNITY: Notice of Settlement of ATM Fee Class Action
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Second Amended Complaint

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Merger
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Right-of-Way Suits
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs' Reconsideration Motion Pending
ST. JUDE: Makes $7.8 Million in Payments for Two Settlements
ST. JUDE: Trial in Ontario Silzone-Related Suit Ongoing

ST. JUDE: Faces Securities Suit in Minnesota
TACO BELL: Accused of in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Proper Wages
TENET HEALTHCARE: Appeal on Certification Denial Remains Pending
TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits
TRAILER BRIDGE: Puerto Rico Court Dismisses Suit

VIRGINIA: Suit Complains About Refusal to Enforce D.C. Judgments
WILLIAMS COS: Continues to Defend Colorado Royalties Litigation
WILLIAMS COS: Two Midstream Subsidiaries Remain Defendants

                            *********

AIR FRANCE 358: Canadian Appeals Court to Review Settlement Today
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Tyler at the Toronto Star reports that a $12 million
settlement for passengers injured in the crash of Air France
flight 358 is before the Ontario Court of Appeal today.

Air traffic control agency NAV Canada, which faces potential
liability for mental damages suffered by those on board, says it
was prejudiced by the terms of the settlement in a class-action
lawsuit brought by passengers against Air France, Airbus S.A.S.
and evacuation equipment maker Goodrich Corp.

The settlement, approved last December, prevents NAV Canada from
conducting any further pre-trial questioning of the other
defendants.  NAV Canada was also named in the lawsuit but wasn't
part of the settlement.

Meanwhile, in court documents, lawyers for 184 passengers in the
class action accuse NAV Canada of "scandalous" conduct for
alleging they entered into a secret pact with Air France and the
defendants who settled, which would see a portion of any damages
paid by NAV Canada funneled back to them.


ALLIED MEDICAL: Sued in Ga. Over Unaccredited Sonography Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that a
class action claims the Atlanta-based Institute of Allied Medical
Professions lured 100 students into its program in Diagnostic
Medical Sonography with false promises of accreditation.  
Students say classes were delayed for so long that some had to
start paying off their student loans before the classes even
started, and when they graduated they found that the program was
unaccredited.

The complaint in Fulton County Superior Court claims the
Institute has accepted about 100 students into its diagnostic
sonography program since 2003.  For their $2,500 tuition,
students were promised 851 classroom hours and 1,000 hours of
clinical internships, the class claims.

The Institute promised that the program would be accredited by
the time the students graduated, according to the complaint.  The
class claims that while they attended classes the school showed
them materials that allegedly showed the accreditation process
was under way.  And they claim that the Institute falsely
promised that if they graduated before the accreditation was
complete, the accreditation would retroactively apply to them.

But that's not what happened, the students say.  They say they
didn't get what they were promised even while they were in
school: classes began 6 to 12 months late; more than 851 hours
were required to complete the courses; and they didn't get their
promised 1,000 hours of clinical internship either.

Some students say they had to start paying off their student
loans before the courses began.  And when they graduated, they
found that the program had not been accredited.

The class claims that despite its promises, the Institute knew
its students would not be able to take the state certification
examination without a 4-year degree and without working for at
least a year as a sonographer.  Most of the 11 named plaintiffs
do not have a 4-year degree.

The class demands punitive damages for breach of contract, bad
faith, negligence and unjust enrichment.  

A copy of the Complaint in Burgess, et al. v. Institute of Allied
Medical Professions, Case No. 2010CV186071 (Ga. Super. Ct.,
Fulton Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/28/GaSchool.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter D. Copeland, Esq.
          PETER D. COPELAND, P.C.
          P.O. Box 448
          Clarkston, GA 30021
          Telephone: 404-299-2444


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Defends Suits of SAI's Sale of Interests
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc., continues to defend putative class
action lawsuits in connection with the sale of private placement
interests by its subsidiary Securities America, Inc., according
to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

In July 2009, two issuers of private placement interests (Medical
Capital Holdings, Inc./Medical Capital Corporation and affiliated
corporations and Provident Shale Royalties, LLC and affiliated
corporations) sold by the company's subsidiary Securities
America, Inc. (SAI) were placed into receivership, which has
resulted in the filing of several putative class action lawsuits
and numerous arbitrations naming both SAI and Ameriprise
Financial as well as related regulatory inquiries and actions.

The putative class actions and arbitrations generally allege
violations of state and/or federal securities laws in connection
with SAI's sales of these private placement interests.  These
actions were commenced in September 2009 and thereafter, and seek
unspecified damages.

Currently, two arbitrations have been scheduled for hearings
later this year, in November and December 2010, with the other
scheduled arbitration hearings set to begin in 2011.

Motions to dismiss have been filed in three of the putative class
actions.

On Jan. 26, 2010, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed an
Administrative Complaint against SAI, and on Feb. 16, 2010, SAI
filed an Answer.

At this time, an Administrative Hearing in this matter has been
scheduled to commence July 20-22, 2010.

On April 15, 2010, the four Medical Capital-related class actions
were centralized and moved to the Central District of California
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under
the caption In re: Medical Capital Securities Litigation.

On May 27, 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
will hold a hearing regarding centralizing the Provident Shale-
related class actions.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a holding company, which primarily
conducts business through its subsidiaries to provide financial
planning and products and services that are designed to be
utilized as solutions for clients' cash and liquidity, asset
accumulation, income, protection and estate and wealth transfer
needs.  The company's foreign operations in the United Kingdom
are conducted through its subsidiary, Threadneedle Asset
Management Holdings Sarl.


BELO CORP: Continues to Defend Wage Payment Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Belo Corp. continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit
alleging failure to pay wages.

On April 13, 2009, four former independent contractor newspaper
carriers of The Press-Enterprise, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated individuals, filed a purported class-
action lawsuit against A. H. Belo, the company, Press Enterprise
Company, and as yet unidentified defendants in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Riverside.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated California
laws by allegedly improperly categorizing the plaintiffs and the
purported class members as independent contractors rather than
employees, and in doing so, allegedly failed to pay minimum,
hourly and overtime wages to the purported class members and
allegedly failed to comply with other laws and regulations
applicable to an employer-employee relationship.

Plaintiffs and purported class members are seeking minimum wages,
unpaid regular and overtime wages, unpaid rest break and meal
period compensation, reimbursement of expenses and losses
incurred by them in discharging their duties, payment of minimum
wage to all employees who failed to receive minimum wage for all
hours worked in each payroll period, penalties, injunctive and
other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

No further developments were reported in the company's May 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Belo Corp. -- http://www.belo.com/-- one of the nation's largest  
pure-play, publicly-traded television companies, owns and
operates 20 television stations (nine in the top 25 markets) and
their associated Web sites.  Belo stations, which include
affiliations with ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW and MyNetwork TV, reach
more than 14 percent of U.S. television households in 15 highly-
attractive markets.  Belo stations rank first or second in nearly
all of their local markets.


CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Amador" and "Adams" Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend two suits
captioned Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and
Career Education Corporation; and Adams, et al. v. California
Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation, according to
the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On Sept. 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and former
students of the California Culinary Academy filed a complaint in
the California Superior Court in San Francisco.

Plaintiffs plead their complaint as a putative class action and
allege four causes of action:

     (1) fraud;

     (2) constructive fraud;

     (3) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and

     (4) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
         Act.

Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations
to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process.  The
alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of
the admissions process, the students' employment prospects upon
graduation from CCA and CCA's ability to arrange beneficial
student loans.

Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on or about Sept. 3,
2009, that alleges claims for fraud (misrepresentations); fraud
(omissions), violations of the Unfair Competition Law and
Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs' class
is defined as students who enrolled in the four years prior to
the filing of the initial complaint in the Le Cordon Bleu
Culinary program and/or the Baking and Pastry program.  Students
who enrolled in the Hotel and Restaurant Management program are
not included in the class.

On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the
Amador action filed the Adams action on behalf of Jennifer Adams
and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class.
The Adams action also is styled as a class action and is based on
the same allegations underlying the Amador action and attempts to
plead the same four causes of action pled in the Amador action.  
The Adams action has been deemed related to the Amador action and
is being handled by the same judge.  The Adams action has been
stayed.

The parties have conducted discovery on class certification
issues in the Amador action, but the Court has not yet set a
briefing schedule or a hearing date on a motion for class
certification.

Plaintiffs recently filed a fifth amended complaint alleging the
same causes of action, but including new claims based on:

    (1) violations of the California Education Code, which was
        recently reinstated by the California legislature; and

    (2) violations of the Le Cordon Bleu license agreement.

The company will be filing a motion to dismiss these new claims.  
The motion will be heard in June 2010.

The parties have also been engaged in mediation sessions and
settlement discussions regarding the Amador and Adams actions.
The mediation did not result in a settlement but the parties are
continuing to negotiate.

The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/--  
family offer high-quality education to a diverse student
population of over 116,000 students across the world in a variety
of career-oriented disciplines.  The approximately 90 campuses
that serve these students are located throughout the U.S. and in
France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral,
master's, bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and
certificate programs.  Approximately 40% of our students attend
the web-based virtual campuses of American InterContinental
University, Colorado Technical University, International Academy
of Design & Technology and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary
Arts.  CEC is an industry leader whose brands are recognized
globally.  Those brands include, among others, American
InterContinental University; Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical
University; Harrington College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools,
including the International University of Monaco; International
Academy of Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon
Bleu North America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.  
Through its schools, CEC is committed to providing quality
education, enabling students to graduate and pursue rewarding
careers.


CAREER EDUCATION: Defends "Lilley" Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend the matter
Lilley, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al., pending
in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, according to
the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On Feb. 11, 2008, a class action complaint was filed naming as
defendants Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown
College, Inc.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Sept. 5, 2008.

The five plaintiffs named in the amended complaint are current or
former students who allegedly attended a medical assistant
program at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville,
Illinois, and the class is alleged to be all persons who enrolled
in that program.  The amended class action complaint asserts
claims for unfair conduct and deceptive conduct under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as
well as common law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and
fraudulent omission.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions relating to the quality of
education, quantity of financial aid, fixed tuition, graduate
employability and salaries and clinical externships. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims of unfair
practices under the Act and fraudulent omission.

By Order dated June 24, 2009, the Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' fraudulent omission claim (Count IV
of the Amended Complaint), and denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' Illinois Consumer Fraud Act Claim.

Defendants have filed answers and affirmative defenses in
response to the amended complaint.

The parties have begun initial written discovery and the case was
set for a case management conference on May 26, 2010.

The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/--  
family offer high-quality education to a diverse student
population of over 116,000 students across the world in a variety
of career-oriented disciplines.  The approximately 90 campuses
that serve these students are located throughout the U.S. and in
France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral,
master's, bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and
certificate programs.  Approximately 40% of our students attend
the web-based virtual campuses of American InterContinental
University, Colorado Technical University, International Academy
of Design & Technology and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary
Arts.  CEC is an industry leader whose brands are recognized
globally.  Those brands include, among others, American
InterContinental University; Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical
University; Harrington College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools,
including the International University of Monaco; International
Academy of Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon
Bleu North America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.  
Through its schools, CEC is committed to providing quality
education, enabling students to graduate and pursue rewarding
careers.


CAREER EDUCATION: Class Certified in "Schuster" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah
County has entered a formal order granting class certification in
the matter Schuster, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.
and Career Education Corporation, according to the company's May
5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On March 5, 2008, original named plaintiffs Shannon Gozzi and
Megan Koehnen filed a complaint in Portland, Oregon.

Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative
class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:

     (1) violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act and
     (2) unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which
added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract.

Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. made a
variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to
WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon
graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at
WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as
compared to salaries they may earn after graduation.

On May 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in
which they simply changed the statement "Claims Subject to
Mandatory Arbitration" on the caption to "Claims Not Subject to
Mandatory Arbitration" (emphasis added).  WCI and CEC filed an
answer on June 13, 2008 and WCI subsequently moved to dismiss
certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's Unlawful Trade
Practices Act; that motion was granted on Sept. 12, 2008.

Shannon Gozzi subsequently withdrew as a named plaintiff and is
now asserting claims merely as an absent class member, and former
named plaintiff Meghan Koehnen's claims have been dismissed.  
Jennifer Schuster is now the sole named Plaintiff, and she filed
a third amended complaint on Nov. 20, 2008.

Defendants filed an answer on Dec. 5, 2008.

Plaintiffs filed their most recent operative pleading, a fourth
amended complaint, on Sept. 2, 2009, and Defendants filed an
answer on Oct. 15, 2009.

The parties completed written discovery on class issues.  
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Aug. 31,
2009, and oral argument on the motion was heard on Oct. 29, 2009.

On Feb. 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class
certification on part of the UTPA and fraud claims purportedly
based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those
claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and
unjust enrichment claims.  The class will consist of students who
enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and Feb. 5, 2010, excluding
those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for
academic reasons.

The parties are currently engaged in merits discovery.

The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/--  
family offer high-quality education to a diverse student
population of over 116,000 students across the world in a variety
of career-oriented disciplines.  The approximately 90 campuses
that serve these students are located throughout the U.S. and in
France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral,
master's, bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and
certificate programs.  Approximately 40% of our students attend
the web-based virtual campuses of American InterContinental
University, Colorado Technical University, International Academy
of Design & Technology and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary
Arts.  CEC is an industry leader whose brands are recognized
globally.  Those brands include, among others, American
InterContinental University; Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical
University; Harrington College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools,
including the International University of Monaco; International
Academy of Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon
Bleu North America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.  
Through its schools, CEC is committed to providing quality
education, enabling students to graduate and pursue rewarding
careers.


CAREER EDUCATION: Defends "Vasquez" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend the matter
Vasquez, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation, pending in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and
Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation.

The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive
fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The
plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the
admissions process during the alleged class period.

The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who
purchased educational services from California School of Culinary
Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the
limitations periods applicable to the herein alleged causes of
action (including, without limitation, the period following the
filing of the action)."

Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim
and the Court has dismissed it.

The parties are engaged in class discovery.

The Court has not yet set a briefing schedule or a hearing date
on a motion for class certification.

The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/--  
family offer high-quality education to a diverse student
population of over 116,000 students across the world in a variety
of career-oriented disciplines.  The approximately 90 campuses
that serve these students are located throughout the U.S. and in
France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral,
master's, bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and
certificate programs.  Approximately 40% of our students attend
the web-based virtual campuses of American InterContinental
University, Colorado Technical University, International Academy
of Design & Technology and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary
Arts.  CEC is an industry leader whose brands are recognized
globally.  Those brands include, among others, American
InterContinental University; Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical
University; Harrington College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools,
including the International University of Monaco; International
Academy of Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon
Bleu North America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.  
Through its schools, CEC is committed to providing quality
education, enabling students to graduate and pursue rewarding
careers.


CARTER'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Suit in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carter's, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss an amended and
consolidated complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, according to the company's May 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010.

                      Plymouth Action

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

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

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

                      Mylroie Action

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

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

                    Consolidated Action

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

On March 15, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
filed their amended and consolidated complaint.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2010, and
briefing of the motion is scheduled to be completed in July 2010.

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


CARTER'S INC: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Two Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has issued a
decision affirming the dismissal of two complaints against
Carter's, Inc.

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

The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief.

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

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

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

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

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

The appeals have been consolidated and fully briefed.

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

On March 15, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit issued a decision in Kim, et al. v. Carter's, Inc., Nos.
09-2169, 09-2186, in which it affirmed the earlier dismissal of
two class action lawsuits against the company claiming breach of
contract (putatively on behalf of a nationwide class) and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (putatively on behalf of an Illinois
class) arising from certain advertising and pricing practices
with respect to the company's brand products purchased by
consumers at the company's retail stores.

There is no further possibility of appeal by the plaintiffs.  
Accordingly, this case is now fully resolved, according to the
company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010.

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


CONVERGYS CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Intervoice Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the ruling denying class
certification in a consolidated lawsuit against Intervoice, Inc.,
remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, according to Convergys Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its
acquisition of Intervoice.

Several related class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Intervoice during the period from
Oct. 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000.

The plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into
one proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice as well as certain
named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on
behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Intervoice and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the
financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger with
Brite and the alleged future business projections of Intervoice.  
They have asserted that these alleged statements resulted in
artificially inflated stock prices.

The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint because it
lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the
pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in
part and reversed in part.  The Fifth Circuit remanded a limited
number of issues for further proceedings in the District Court.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice
stock during the Class Period.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted Intervoice's petition
to appeal the District Court's decision to grant Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's
class-certification order and remanded the case to the District
Court for further consideration in light of the Fifth Circuit's
decision in Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance
Telecom, Inc.

The parties filed additional briefing in the District Court
regarding class certification and are awaiting the District
Court's ruling.

The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint and Intervoice moved to dismiss
portions of that amended complaint.  On March 14, 2008, the
District Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part.

Intervoice has largely completed the production of documents in
response to the plaintiffs' requests for production.

On July 7, 2009, the District Court ordered the parties to file
additional briefing regarding class certification in light of the
Fifth Circuit's more recent decision in Alaska Electric Pension
Fund v. Flowserve Corporation, No. 07-11303 c/w 08-
10071, http://is.gd/2drBW(5th Cir. June 19, 2009).

On Oct. 26, 2009, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class.  The named plaintiffs' claims remain
pending in the District Court.

On Nov. 9, 2009, the Plaintiffs sought permission from the Fifth
Circuit to appeal the District Court's order denying class
certification.

In December 2009, the Fifth Circuit accepted the Plaintiff's
appeal and on Jan. 15, 2010, the Fifth Circuit granted the
Plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal the denial of class
certification.  The case has been stayed in the District Court
pending the Fifth Circuit's decision on the Plaintiffs' appeal of
the denial of class certification.

On Feb. 12, 2010, the Fifth Circuit decided Archdiocese of
Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.  Based on the
Halliburton opinion, the company filed a motion to reconsider the
grant of permission to appeal.

On March 23, 2010, the Fifth Circuit denied the motion to
reconsider.

The Plaintiffs' brief was due to be filed in the Fifth Circuit on
May 24, 2010.

Convergys Corp. -- http://www.convergys.com/-- is a global  
player in relationship management.  The Company provides its
clients with solutions to support their customers (Customer
Solutions) and employees (human resource (HR) Solutions).  It
has three segments: Customer Management, which provides
outsourced customer care solutions, as well as professional and
consulting services to in-house customer care operations;
Information Management, which provides convergent rating,
charging and billing solutions for the global communications
industry, and Human Resources Management, which provides human
resource business process outsourcing (HR BPO) solutions and
learning solutions.  In September 2008, Convergys announced the
closing of its acquisition of Intervoice, Inc.  In October 2008,
the Company announced the acquisition of Ceon Corporation, a
developer of product lifecycle management and multi-play
fulfillment software for communications service providers.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Two New Suits Over Hertz Deal
---------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., faces two additional suits
in relation to its proposed transaction with Hertz, according to
the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On April 28, 2010, a purported class action complaint relating to
the proposed transaction with Hertz was filed in Oklahoma state
court against the company, its directors, certain of its officers
and Hertz by Marc S. Henzel, individually and on behalf of all of
the company's stockholders, excluding the defendants and their
affiliates.

The complaint alleges that the consideration that the company's
stockholders will receive in connection with the proposed
transaction is inadequate and that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating
and approving the Merger Agreement.  The complaint further
alleges that the company and Hertz aided and abetted the alleged
breaches by the company's directors.

The complaint seeks various forms of relief, including injunctive
relief that would, if granted, prevent the proposed transaction
from being consummated in accordance with the agreed-upon terms.

The case is styled Henzel v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,
Inc., et al. (No. CJ-2010-02761, Dist. Ct. Tulsa County).

Two other purported class actions have been filed asserting
substantially identical claims and seeking similar relief against
the company, its directors, certain of its officers and Hertz.

The first of these is styled Rosendale v. Dollar Thrifty
Automotive Group, Inc., et al. (No. CJ-2010-02893, Dist. Ct.
Tulsa County) and was filed on May 4, 2010 in Oklahoma state
court by Michael Rosendale individually and on behalf of all of
the Company's stockholders, excluding the defendants and their
affiliates.

The second is styled Sinclair v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,
Inc., et al. (No. 5456, Del. Ch. Ct.) and was filed on May 5,
2010 in Delaware state court by Cynthia Sinclair, individually
and on behalf of all of the company's stockholders, excluding the
defendants and their affiliates.  

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--  
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of daily
rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through
company-owned stores.  The company leases vehicles to franchisees
for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle
rental franchises worldwide and provides sales and marketing,
reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other
services to franchisees.  It owns DTG Operations, Inc., Dollar
Rent A Car, Inc. and Thrifty, Inc.  The company has two
additional subsidiaries, Rental Car Finance Corp. and Dollar
Thrifty Funding Corp., which are special purpose financing
entities.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Dollar and
Thrifty had 741 locations in the United States and Canada of
which 400 were company-owned stores and 341 were locations
operated by franchisees.


EUROPEAN AIR AUTHORITIES: Airlines Sue to Recoup Ash Cloud Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Gould at Reuters reports that budget airline easyJet
plans a class action lawsuit to win compensation for flight bans
imposed by Europe's air safety authorities following a volcanic
eruption in April, its chief executive told a German magazine.

"We are already working on it with a group of other companies,
including those outside the low-cost sector," Andrew Harrison
told Wirstschaftswoche in an interview released ahead of
publication on Monday.

"It will be a suit from all airlines," he said, declining to give
further details.

EesyJet declined to comment further.

Most of Europe's airspace was closed for nearly a week from April
15 after a huge ash cloud from an Icelandic volcano stranded
millions of business passengers and holidaymakers and paralyzed
freight and businesses.

The flight ban cost easyJet between 50 million and 75 million
euros ($61 million and $92 million), said Harrison, who is due to
step down as chief executive by the end of June to take the helm
at British hotel operator Whitbread.

"That was a natural catastrophe and there is no reason why the
consequences must be borne by the airlines alone, particularly
when it became apparent afterwards that a closure of that size
was unnecessary," he said.

Lufthansa has also demanded compensation for the ban.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) said the
airlines lost more than $1.7 billion of revenues due to the
volcano crisis.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brown, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-
00375163 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. May 24, 2010), accuses
the credit information provider of failing to pay overtime wages,
failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay all
wages upon ending of employment, failing to provide itemized wage
statements, and unfair business practices in violation of the
Bus. & Prof. Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2030 Main St., Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 724-9200
          
               - and -

          Roger R. Carter, Esq.
          THE CARTER LAW FIRM
          2030 Main St., Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4737

               - and -

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          8105 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 1070
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250


GOOGLE INC: Suit Complains About Google Street View Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that federal class
actions in Washington and San Francisco joined German regulators
in complaining that while Google sent vehicles all over world to
take photos for maps, it was "surreptitiously collecting private
information" from unguarded Wi-Fi networks.  The class in DC
Federal Court claims Google made the intercepted information
available to its vendors and contractors.

In Washington, the class demands statutory and punitive damages
for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Google launched its "Google Street View" technology in 2007,
dispatching "specially adapted cars," "Google Trikes" and even
snowmobiles to capture images of streets around the world.

Along with sophisticated cameras and GPS units, the class says
Google equipped its vehicles with "antennas for scanning 3G/GSM
and Wi-Fi hotspots."

Google has admitted to the German Commissioner for Data
Protection and Freedom of Information that it picked up Wi-Fi
signals and swiped "payload data."

The District of Columbia class claims that "Google admitted that
its street view vehicles throughout the world were actually
capturing . . . data consisting of all or part of any documents,
e-mails, video, audio and VOIP information being sent over the
wireless Internet."

The class seeks damages up to $10,000 per violation, punitive
damages, and want Google enjoined from destroying the personal
data it has collected.

A copy of the Complaint in Colman v. Google, Inc., Case No. 10-
cv-00877 (D. D.C.) (Bates, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/28/EveryonevGoogle.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip S. Friedman, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN LAW OFFICES, PLLC
          2401 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 410
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: 202-293-4175


GOOGLE INC: Sued for Using Street View to Intercept Personal Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Stokes, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated v. Google Inc., Case No. 10-cv-02306 (N.D. Calif. May
26, 2010), accuses the global technology company of using its
Google Street View vehicles to record electronic data being
transmitted over the open Wi-Fi networks of millions of U.S.
citizens, in violation of the Wiretap Act, the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, California's Computer Crime Law, and the Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code.  Mr. Stokes, who uses an open Wi-Fi network at his
residence, says   that Google admitted on May 14, 2010, that it
had been using its Street View vehicles to collect payload data
of open Wi-Fi networks since 2007.  Payload data refers to the
actual data being carried by a network, including the content of
websites, passwords entered, and the bodies of emails.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
          30021 Tomas St., Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

         Jay Edelson, Esq.
         Michael J. Aschenbrener, Esq.
         Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
         EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
         350 N. LaSalle St., Sutie 1300
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 589-6370
         E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                 maschenbrener@edelson.com
                 brichman@edelson.com


HAWK CORP: Appeal on Class Certification Ruling Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Hawk Corp.'s appeal on the granting of class certification in a
lawsuit captioned Paul Mickle v. Wellman Products Group, LLC,
Case No. CJ 2007 06914, is pending in the District Court for
Tulsa County, Oklahoma, according to the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit was filed on Oct. 16, 2007.

Mr. Mickle alleges violation of wage and hour laws by one of the
company's subsidiaries, Wellman Products Group, Inc.

The case purports to be a class action on behalf of Mr. Mickle
and other allegedly "similarly situated" employees.

Discovery as to the class certification is finished.  The
plaintiffs have been granted their Motion for Class
Certification.

The company disagrees with the class certification and filed an
appeal on Jan. 7, 2010.  Briefing on the appeal of the class
certification.

As of April 12, 2010, all briefing for the compay's appeal was
complete.

Hawk Corporation -- http://www.hawkcorp.com/-- is a leading  
supplier of friction materials for brakes, clutches and
transmissions used in airplanes, trucks, construction and mining
equipment, farm equipment, recreational and performance
automotive vehicles.  Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Hawk has
approximately 950 employees at 11 manufacturing, research, sales
and international rep offices and administrative sites in 7
countries.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave its preliminary approval to the settlement agreement
resolving the consolidated action against Juniper Networks, Inc.,
according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On July 14, 2006, and Aug. 29, 2006, two purported class actions
were filed in the Northern District of California against the
company and certain of the company's current and former officers
and directors.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the Court consolidated the two actions as In re
Juniper Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04327-JW,
and appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs.  
The lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
on Jan. 12, 2007, and filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on April 9, 2007.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by manipulating stock option
grant dates to coincide with low stock prices and issuing false
and misleading statements including, among others, incorrect
financial statements due to the improper accounting of stock
option grants.  The Amended Consolidated Complaint asserts claims
for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Juniper Networks' publicly-traded securities
from July 12, 2001, through and including Aug. 10, 2006.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages in an unspecified amount.

On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain
of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007.
On March 31, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The order
dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim to the
extent it was based on challenged statements made before July 14,
2001.  The order also dismissed, with leave to amend, plaintiffs'
section 10(b) claim against Pradeep Sindhu. The order upheld all
of plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs did not amend their
complaint.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Court certified a plaintiff class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
bacquired the company's securities from July 11, 2003 to Aug. 10,
2006 inclusive, and were damaged thereby, including those who
received or acquired Juniper Networks' common stock issued
pursuant to the registration statement on SEC Form S-4, dated
March 10, 2004, for the company's merger with NetScreen
Technologies Inc.; and purchasers of Zero Coupon Convertible
Senior Notes due June 15, 2008 issued pursuant to a registration
statement on SEC Form S-3 dated Nov. 20, 2003.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and the current and
former officers and directors of the company, their immediate
families, their heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity
controlled by any such person.

On Feb. 5, 2010, the company and the lead plaintiffs entered into
an agreement in principle to settle the claims against the
company and each of the company's current and former officers and
directors.  The settlement is contingent upon approval by the
Boards of Trustees of the lead plaintiffs and approval by the
Court.

Under the proposed settlement, the claims against the company and
its officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice and
released in exchange for a $169.0 million cash payment by the
company.  The company considers the proposed payment to be
probable and reasonably estimable and, therefore, recorded the
cash settlement amount as a pre-tax operating expense in its
consolidated statement of operations for the fourth quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 12, 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement and scheduled a fairness hearing for Aug. 30,
2010, to consider whether to grant final approval of the
settlement.

Juniper Networks, Inc. -- http://www.juniper.net/-- designs,  
develops and sells products and services that together provide
its customers with network infrastructure that creates responsive
and trusted environments for accelerating the deployment of
services and applications over a single network.  The company
serves the networking requirements of global service providers,
enterprises and public sector organizations, which view the
network to their success.  The company offers a product
portfolio, which spans routing, switching, security, application
acceleration, identity policy and control, and management
designed to provide performance, choice and flexibility.  The
company operations are organized into two segments:
infrastructure and service layer technologies (SLT).  The
company's infrastructure segment offers scalable routing and
switching products that are used to control and direct network
traffic from the core, through the edge, aggregation and the
customer premise equipment level.


KENT STEWART: Iowa Businessman Faces Concrete Price-Fixing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Globe reports that a businessman who pleaded guilty to
collusion and bid-rigging earlier this week has also been named
in several civil cases, including a class action suit, according
to court documents.

Kent Robert Stewart, Spirit Lake, Iowa, pleaded guilty to
participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate
competition by fixing prices and rigging bids for sales of ready-
mix concrete beginning as early as January 2008 and continuing
until as late August 2009.

Stewart was president of Great Lakes Concrete, which had its
principal places of business in Ocheyedan and Spencer, Iowa.

"During the relevant period, the defendant participated with
other persons and another entity engaged in the manufacture and
sale of ready-mix concrete, the primary purpose of which was to
fix prices and submit non-competitive, rigged bids for ready-mix
concrete sold in the Northern District of Iowa," court documents
state.  "In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendant engaged
in discussions with representatives of another ready-mix company.
During such discussions, agreements were reached regarding the
submission of non-competitive and rigged bids. . . ."

Concrete sold by one or more of the conspirator firms, equipment
and materials necessary to the production and distribution of
ready-mix concrete, and/or payments for ready-mix concrete,
traveled in interstate commerce, which the courts say was within
the flow of and substantially affected interstate trade and
commerce.

The sentencing agreement recommendation is that Stewart pay a
fine of $20,000 and serve a period of imprisonment of no more
than six months. Stewart has agreed to cooperate fully with the
courts in the prosecution of this case, the conduct of the
current federal investigation of violations of federal antitrust
and related criminal laws. He will be required to produce all
non-privileged documents, including claimed personal documents,
and make himself available for legal interviews. He must also
testify if called upon to do so in connection with any federal
proceedings, grand jury hearings or other judicial matters.

Stewart is now a party in several civil suits, including a class
action suit on behalf of persons who purchased Ready Mixed
Concrete. Because of Stewart and his co-conspirator's unlawful
conduct, the suit states, the plaintiffs paid artificially
inflated prices for the concrete. Due to the nature of the trade
and commerce involved, the plaintiff believes class members
number in the hundreds.


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: "Croul" Labor Complaint Removed to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Croul, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Case No. HG10510427
(Calif. Super. Ct. Alameda Cty.), was filed on April 19, 2010.  
Ms. Croul accuses the department store operator of failing to pay
overtime compensation, failing to provide meal and rest periods,
failing to provide itemized wage statements, failing to pay wages
upon termination of employees' employment, and unfair business
practices in violation of the California Business & Professions
Code.  

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction under Sec. 1332 of Title
28 of the federal statutory law, Kohl's Department Stores, on May
26, 2010, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California,  and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-02304 to the
proceeding.   

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Heather E. Abelson, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rodney B. Sorensen, Esq.
          Leila Narvid, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-7860
          E-mail: rbs@paynefears.com
                  ln@paynefears.com


MAGIC BROADCASTING: Accused of Not Paying Overtime to Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Magic
Broadcasting cheated workers of overtime and expenses, in Los
Angeles Superior Court.

Nicholas Ruggles, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all
other current or former employees v. Magic Broadcasting, LLC,
Magic Broadcasting Florida, LLC, and Does 1-150, Case No.
BC438656 (Calif. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.) was filed on May 27,
2010, and the plaintiff is represented by:

          Rene L. Barge, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Alison C. Gibbs, Esq.
          CLASS ACTION LITIGATION GROUP, APC
          4911 Warner Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: 714-884-4922
          E-mail: rbarge@class-action-attorneys.com
                  kodenbreit@class-action-attorneys.com
                  agibbs@class-action-attorneys.com


MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc., defend a securities class action case filed by
the St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust
Fund, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 3, 2010.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between Dec. 6, 2007, and Jan. 22, 2008, St.
Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against the company and certain
current and former officers and directors of the company on Jan.
21, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case
of the individual defendants, the control person provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act.

The primary factual assertions in the complaint are that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly made materially misleading
statements concerning Motorola's financial projections and sales
demand for Motorola phones during the class period.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief relating
to the purported inflation in the price of Motorola shares during
the class period.

The suit is St. Locie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension
Trust Fund v. Moborola, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00427 (N.D.
Ill.).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Freed, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          Julie D. Miller, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602-3455
          Telephone: (312) 220-0000

               - and -  

          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565

               - and -  

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          108 Norwich Avenue
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-3818


MOTOROLA INC: Court Okays Filing of Second Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint
which adds allegations concerning Motorola, Inc.'s accounting and
disclosures for certain transactions entered in the third quarter
of 2006, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 3, 2010.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between July 19, 2006 and Jan. 5, 2007, was
filed against the company and certain current and former officers
and directors of the company on Aug. 9, 2007.

The suit is Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case
of the individual defendants, the control person provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act.  The factual assertions in the
complaint consist primarily of the allegation that the defendants
knowingly made incorrect statements concerning Motorola's
projected revenues for the third and fourth quarter of 2006.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief relating
to the purported inflation in the price of Motorola shares during
the class period.

An amended complaint was filed Dec. 20, 2007, and Motorola moved
to dismiss that complaint in February 2008.

On Sept. 24, 2008, the district court granted this motion in part
to dismiss Section 10(b) claims as to two individuals and certain
claims related to forward looking statements, among other things,
and denied the motion in part.

On Aug. 25, 2009, the district court granted plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

On March 10, 2010, the district court granted plaintiff's motion
to file a second amended complaint which adds allegations
concerning Motorola's accounting and disclosures for certain
transactions entered in the third quarter of 2006.

Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- provides  
technologies, products and services for mobile phones.  Its
portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories,
digital entertainment devices, set-top boxes and video
distribution systems, analog and digital two-way radios, wireless
and wireline broadband network products, and end-to-end
enterprise mobility products.  The company operates under three
segments: Mobile Devices segment, Home and Networks Mobility
segment and Enterprise Mobility Solutions segment.  In April
2009, the company completed the sale of its biometric business
unit, including the Printrak trademark, to Safran SA, through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Sagem Securite.  In January 2010, the
company acquired SecureMedia from Innovation Advisors.  In
February 2010, the company acquired BitBand, a provider of
content management and delivery systems, specializing in video on
demand for Internet protocol television (IPTV).


PACIFIC COMMUNITY: Notice of Settlement of ATM Fee Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
          PACIFIC COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ATM
               NOTICE of CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

          Zintel v. Pacific Community Federal Credit Union,
                       Case No. CV09-5517

IF YOU USED THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ATM
REFERENCED IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH BETWEEN JULY 29, 2008, AND
JULY 28, 2009, AND WERE CHARGED A FEE FOR THE USE OF THAT ATM,
YOU MAY BE A CLASS MEMBER. THIS SETTLEMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR
RIGHTS.

This Notice relates only to one specific Pacific Community
Federal Credit Union ATM, located at 18600 Von Karman, Irvine,
California, and concerns a lawsuit about charging of fees at this
ATM.  

Mrs. Zintel sued Pacific Community Federal Credit Union under a
law called the Electronic Funds Transfer Act on the grounds that
the ATM did not have an externally posted fee notice. Pacific
Community Federal Credit Union denies Mrs. Zintel's claims but
has agreed to a settlement of the case.

The settlement includes everyone who was charged a fee for using
the ATM to access a personal (not business) account between July
29, 2008 and July 28, 2009. These people are called "Class
Members," and the time period that is covered is called the
"Class Period."

Under the law, the maximum that a group of people may recover in
a case like this one is the lesser of 1% of Pacific Community
Federal Credit Union's net worth or $500,000, plus any actual
damages that the class members suffered. Pacific Community has
stated that during the Class Period, there were approximately 168
transactions who were charged ATM fees at the subject ATM(s)
during the Class Period. Pacific Community Federal Credit Union
has agreed to establish a Settlement Fund of $18,000 to settle
the case. Class Members may make a claim on the Settlement Fund
to receive a pro rata share, up to a maximum of $100, so the
attorneys believe that a settlement allowing Class Members to
make a claim for up to $100 is fair and reasonable. The
Settlement Fund will also be used to pay the costs of notifying
Class Members of the Settlement and to process their claims, the
lawyers who filed the lawsuit their reasonable attorney fee, not
to exceed $10,000, and Mrs. Zintel $1,000 for her services as the
class representative.

On July 12, 2010 at 1:30 p.m., Judge Otis D. Wright will hold a
hearing to decide where to finally approve this settlement. YOU
DO NOT NEED TO ATTEND.

If the settlement is approved, all Class Members will be bound by
the resting judgment and court orders, and eligible Class Members
will be entitled to claim benefits under the settlement. You have
three choices: (1) If you want to receive your pro rata share of
the Settlement Fund, up to a maximum of $100, you must submit a
completed Claim Form, postmarked by JUNE 24, 2010 to the
attention of the Settlement Administrator, at 25876 The Old Road,
#304, Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381.  Failure to submit a Claim Form
will mean you receive no money but are still governed by a
Release of your rights to sue Pacific Community Federal Credit
Union for the ATM fee notice claims raised in this Lawsuit.
Download a Claim Form at http://www.morecaseinfo.com/or call  
Class Counsel at (661) 257-2854 to request a Claim Form. (2) If
you do not want to participate in the Settlement and want to
retain any right you may have to pursue your claim separately,
you must write a letter stating "EXCLUDE ME FROM THE ZINTEL V.
PACIFIC COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION SETTLEMENT." Include your
name and address and mail the letter to the attention of the
Settlement Administrator at 25876 The Old Road, #304, Stevenson
Ranch, CA 91381. Your letter must be postmarked by JUNE 24, 2010
to be valid. (3) If you think the Settlement is unfair, you may
object to it by writing a memo stating the specific reasons for
your objection and filing it with the Court at 312 N. Spring
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 on or before JUNE 24, 2010 and
sending a copy to Class Counsel:

          Mike Harrison, Esq.
          25876 The Old Road, #304
          Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381

and to counsel for Pacific Community Federal Credit Union:

          Colleen A. Deziel, Esq.
          ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP
          444 South Flower Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

For more information, visit http://www.morecaseinfo.com/or  
contact Class Counsel Mike Harrison at (661) 257-2854.

            DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT FOR INFORMATION
             AS IT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ASSIST YOU


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Second Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., continues to defend a second
consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the
Exchange Act, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Par and certain of its former executive officers have been named
as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of purchasers of common stock of Par between July 23, 2001
and July 5, 2006.

The lawsuits followed Par's July 5, 2006 announcement regarding
the restatement of certain of its financial statements and allege
that Par and certain members of its then management engaged in
violations of the Exchange Act , by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning Par's financial condition and results of
operations.

The class actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

On June 24, 2008, the Court dismissed co-lead plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint without prejudice with leave to
re-file.

On July 24, 2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

Par and the individual defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

On Sept. 30, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss all
claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion as to the
company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff.

The company and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have answered the
Amended complaint.

Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. -- http://www.parpharm.com/--  
is a holding company that, principally through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., is in the business of
developing, manufacturing and distributing generic and branded
drugs in the United States.  The company is divided into two
business segments: generic pharmaceuticals and brand
pharmaceuticals.  The company is operating the brand
pharmaceutical segment under the name Strativa Pharmaceuticals.  
In the brand segment, Par Pharmaceutical markets brand products
under trademarked brand names designed to create an association
between the products and their intended uses.  In June 2008, the
company entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with
MonoSol Rx under which it acquired the commercialization rights
in the United States to MonoSol's thin film formulation of
ondansetron.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc. continues to defend suits
in relations to its merger agreement with CenturyTel, Inc.,
according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On April 21, 2010, the company entered into a merger agreement
whereby CenturyTel, Inc. (CenturyLink) will acquire the company
in a tax-free, stock-for-stock transaction.  Under the terms of
the agreement, the company's stockholders will receive 0.1664
shares of CenturyLink common stock for each share of the
company's common stock they own at closing.

From April 22 to May 3, 2010, thirteen individual or putative
class action lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts in
Colorado and in state court in Delaware relating to the company's
pending merger with CenturyLink.

The lawsuits were filed by purported Qwest stockholders and name
as defendants CenturyLink, the company, certain of the company's
officers and members of the company's Board of Directors.

The plaintiffs generally allege that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the merger and seek
to enjoin the merger and, in some cases, damages if the merger is
completed.

Qwest Communications International Inc. -- http://www.qwest.com/
-- offers residential customers a new generation of fiber-optic
Internet service, high-speed Internet solutions, as well as
digital home phone, wireless service available through Verizon
Wireless and DIRECTV services.  Qwest is also the choice of 95
percent of Fortune 500 companies, offering a full suite of
network, data and voice services for small businesses, large
businesses, government agencies and wholesale customers.  
Additionally, Qwest participates in Networx, the largest
communications services contract in the world, and is
recognized as a leader in the network services market by leading
technology industry analyst firms.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Right-of-Way Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc. continues to defend
several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way

The suits were filed against the company on behalf of landowners
on various dates and in various courts in California, Colorado,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

For the most part, the complaints challenge the company's right
to install its fiber-optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.
The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as
an easement that did not include the right to permit the company
to install its fiber-optic cable in the right-of-way without the
plaintiffs' consent.  Most of the actions purport to be brought
on behalf of state-wide classes in the named plaintiffs'
respective states, although two of the currently pending actions
purport to be brought on behalf of multi-state classes.

Specifically, the Illinois state court action purports to be on
behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin, and the Indiana state
court action purports to be on behalf of a national class of
landowners.

In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass
and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages.

On July 18, 2008, a federal district court in Massachusetts
entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement of all of
the actions, except the action pending in Tennessee.

On Sept. 10, 2009, the court denied final approval of the
settlement on grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

On Dec. 9, 2009, the court issued a revised ruling that, among
other things, denied a motion for approval as moot and dismissed
the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Qwest Communications International Inc. -- http://www.qwest.com/
-- offers residential customers a new generation of fiber-optic
Internet service, high-speed Internet solutions, as well as
digital home phone, wireless service available through Verizon
Wireless and DIRECTV services.  Qwest is also the choice of 95
percent of Fortune 500 companies, offering a full suite of
network, data and voice services for small businesses, large
businesses, government agencies and wholesale customers.  
Additionally, Qwest participates in Networx, the largest
communications services contract in the world, and is
recognized as a leader in the network services market by leading
technology industry analyst firms.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs' Reconsideration Motion Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in a putative class action
against Qwest Communications International Inc. remains pending.

A putative class action filed on behalf of certain of the
company's retirees was brought against the company, the Qwest
Group Life Insurance Plan and other related entities in federal
district court in Colorado in connection with the company's
decision to reduce the life insurance benefit for these retirees
to a $10,000 benefit.

The action was filed on March 30, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company and
other defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance
benefit at the levels in place before the company decided to
reduce them.  Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance
benefit to previous levels and certain equitable relief.

The district court ruled in the company's favor on the central
issue of whether the company properly reserved its right to
reduce the life insurance benefit under applicable law and plan
documents.  The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint
to assert additional claims.

The court has since dismissed or granted summary judgment to the
company on all of the plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is pending before the
court.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Qwest Communications International Inc. -- http://www.qwest.com/
-- offers residential customers a new generation of fiber-optic
Internet service, high-speed Internet solutions, as well as
digital home phone, wireless service available through Verizon
Wireless and DIRECTV services.  Qwest is also the choice of 95
percent of Fortune 500 companies, offering a full suite of
network, data and voice services for small businesses, large
businesses, government agencies and wholesale customers.  
Additionally, Qwest participates in Networx, the largest
communications services contract in the world, and is
recognized as a leader in the network services market by leading
technology industry analyst firms.


ST. JUDE: Makes $7.8 Million in Payments for Two Settlements
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., has made a total of $7.8 million in
payments as part of settlements resolving two class actions,
according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 3, 2010.  The company made a $2.1 million payment in March
2010 as part of the British Columbia class action settlement, and
a $5.7 million payment in April 2010 as part of the Quebec class
action settlement.

The company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in
March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product
with Silzone(R) coating, which the company stopped selling in
January 2000.  Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as
a result of an explant or other complications, which they
attribute to these products.  Others, who have not had their
Silzone-coated heart valve explanted, seek compensation for past
and future costs of special monitoring they allege they need over
and above the medical monitoring of all other replacement heart
valve patients receive.  Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of
monitoring have been initiated by patients who are asymptomatic
and who have no apparent clinical injury to date.

The company has been able to successfully resolve class action
matters in British Columbia and Quebec.

As part of the British Columbia class action settlement, the
company made a $2.1 million payment in March 2010.

As part of the Quebec class action settlement, the company made a
$5.7 million payment in April 2010.  The Quebec class action
settlement also resolved the claim raised by the Quebec
Provincial health insurer seeking to recover the cost of insured
services furnished or to be furnished to class members in the
Quebec class action.

St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain.
The company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems.  The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart valve
replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology introducers
and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and navigation systems
and ablation systems, and ANS-neurostimulation devices.


ST. JUDE: Trial in Ontario Silzone-Related Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
A trial in a class action case involving Silzone patients against
St. Jude Medical, Inc., is ongoing, according to the company's
May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010.

The company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in
March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product
with Silzone(R) coating, which the company stopped selling in
January 2000.  Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as
a result of an explant or other complications, which they
attribute to these products.  Others, who have not had their
Silzone-coated heart valve explanted, seek compensation for past
and future costs of special monitoring they allege they need over
and above the medical monitoring of all other replacement heart
valve patients receive.  Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of
monitoring have been initiated by patients who are asymptomatic
and who have no apparent clinical injury to date.

The company has two outstanding class action cases in Ontario.

The first class action case involving Silzone patients has been
certified, and the trial began in February 2010.

A second case seeking class action status has been stayed pending
resolution of the ongoing Ontario class action.

The complaints in the Ontario cases request damages up to CDN2.0
billion (the equivalent of $2.0 billion at April 3, 2010).

St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain.
The company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems.  The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart valve
replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology introducers
and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and navigation systems
and ablation systems, and ANS-neurostimulation devices.


ST. JUDE: Faces Securities Suit in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., faces a securities class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, according
to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3,
2010.

The suit was filed on March 18, 2010, against the company and
certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical
common stock between April 22, 2009 and Oct. 6, 2009.

The lawsuit relates to the company's earnings announcements for
the first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a
preliminary earnings release dated Oct. 6, 2009.

The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and other relief
as well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the company failed to
disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown in demand for its
products and was not receiving anticipated orders for cardiac
rhythm management devices.  Class members allege that the
company's failure to disclose the above information resulted in
the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially
inflated price.

St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain.
The company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems.  The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart valve
replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology introducers
and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and navigation systems
and ablation systems, and ANS-neurostimulation devices.


TACO BELL: Accused of in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Taco Bell cheated workers of
overtime, regular time, and time worked through breaks and meal
periods, a class action claims in Stanislaus County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Hudson v. OCAT, INC., Case No. 653916
(Calif. Super. Ct., Stanislaus Cty.) (Johnson, J.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/28/TacoBell.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TENET HEALTHCARE: Appeal on Certification Denial Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the denial of class certification
in class action lawsuits against Tenet Healthcare Corporation
remains pending.

In September 2004, the court granted the company's petition to
coordinate two pending proposed class action lawsuits:

     (1) McDonough, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation; and

     (2) Tien, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, in Los
         Angeles Superior Court.

The McDonough case was originally filed in June 2003 in San Diego
Superior Court, and the Tien case was originally filed in May
2004 in Los Angeles Superior Court.  Plaintiffs in both cases
allege that the company's hospitals violated certain provisions
of the California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders with respect to meal breaks, rest
periods and the payment of one hour's compensation for meal
breaks or rest periods not taken.  The complaint in the Tien case
also alleges that we have improperly "rounded off" time entries
on timekeeping records and that our pay stubs do not include all
information required by California law.  Plaintiffs in both cases
are seeking back pay, statutory penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs in the McDonough and Tien cases filed motions,
which the company opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of
virtually all nonexempt employees of the company's California
subsidiaries, as separated into four classes (and one subclass)
based on the specific claims at issue.

The court issued an initial ruling on the plaintiffs' motions in
June 2008.

In that ruling, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
class certification on the claim that employees missed rest
periods.  However, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for
class certification on the claims that employees' pay stubs did
not contain all information required by California law and hourly
employees did not receive appropriate wages due at the time of
their termination.  The court also certified a subclass of 12-
hour shift employees who received missed meal penalties at a
reduced rate, but stated that this subclass should be handled in
connection with the Pagaduan v. Fountain Valley Regional Medical
Center action that was pending in the same court, which case the
company subsequently settled in May 2009.

Lastly, the court conditionally certified a class of all current
or former hourly employees who were allegedly not provided meal
periods, for the purpose of determining certain limited
preliminary factual issues.

The company filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
class certification ruling and, in November 2008, the court
issued a reconsidered ruling denying class certification with
respect to all of the plaintiffs' claims, except the subclass
involving 12-hour shift employees.  In December 2008, the
plaintiffs dismissed the claims of that subclass, which left only
the claims of the individual plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the
court's decision in February 2009.  The company continues to
believe the court's November 2008 ruling was correct and are
defending that ruling on appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is  
an investor-owned health care services company, which principally
operates general hospitals and related ancillary health care
businesses.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, Tenet's subsidiaries operated
50 general hospitals and a critical access hospital, with a
combined total of 13,601 beds, serving urban and rural
communities in 12 states.  Of those general hospitals, 45 were
owned by Tenet's subsidiaries and five were owned by third
parties and leased by Tenet's subsidiaries.  Its subsidiaries
also operated various related health care facilities, including a
long-term acute care hospital, outpatient surgery centers,
diagnostic imaging centers, occupational and rural health care
clinics, and a number of medical office buildings.  In January
2009, it closed Irvine Regional Hospital and Medical Center.  On
March 31, 2009, Tenet completed the sale of USC University
Hospital and USC Kenneth Norris Jr. Cancer Hospital.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation continues to defend class action
suits over alleged injuries in company-owned hospitals during and
after Hurricane Katrina.

When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast region in August 2005,
the company-owned five hospitals and a number of imaging centers
in the New Orleans area.

Three lawsuits were filed as purported class actions in late 2005
by and on behalf of patients, their family members and others who
were present and allegedly injured at two of those hospitals -
Memorial Medical Center and Lindy Boggs Medical Center (each of
which the company has since divested) - during the storm and its
aftermath.

The plaintiffs allege that the hospitals were negligent in
failing to properly prepare for the storm, failing to evacuate
patients ahead of the storm, and failing to have a properly
configured emergency generator system, among other allegations of
general negligence.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages in
various and unspecified amounts for the alleged wrongful death of
some patients, aggravation of pre-existing illnesses or injuries
to patients who survived and were successfully evacuated, and the
inability of patients and others to evacuate the hospitals for
several days under conditions of extreme heat.

In September 2008, class certification was granted in two of the
suits:

     (1) Preston, et al. v. Tenet HealthSystem Memorial Medical
         Center, Inc., et al. and

     (2) Husband et al. v. Tenet HealthSystem Memorial Medical
         Center, Inc., et al.

In her order, the judge certified a class of all persons at
Memorial between Aug. 29 and Sept. 2, 2005, excluding employees,
who sustained injuries or died, as well as family members who
themselves sustained injury as a result of such injuries or
deaths to any person at Memorial, excluding employees, during
that time.

The company's appeals of the class certification ruling were
exhausted in December 2009 when the Supreme Court of Louisiana
denied the company's writ of certiorari.

The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans will
administer the class proceedings.  The class certification
hearing in the remaining case - Dunn, et al. v. Tenet Mid-City
Medical, L.L.C. (formerly d/b/a Lindy Boggs Medical Center), et
al., which was also filed in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans - has been scheduled for late October 2010.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is  
an investor-owned health care services company, which principally
operates general hospitals and related ancillary health care
businesses.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, Tenet's subsidiaries operated
50 general hospitals and a critical access hospital, with a
combined total of 13,601 beds, serving urban and rural
communities in 12 states.  Of those general hospitals, 45 were
owned by Tenet's subsidiaries and five were owned by third
parties and leased by Tenet's subsidiaries.  Its subsidiaries
also operated various related health care facilities, including a
long-term acute care hospital, outpatient surgery centers,
diagnostic imaging centers, occupational and rural health care
clinics, and a number of medical office buildings.  In January
2009, it closed Irvine Regional Hospital and Medical Center.  On
March 31, 2009, Tenet completed the sale of USC University
Hospital and USC Kenneth Norris Jr. Cancer Hospital.


TRAILER BRIDGE: Puerto Rico Court Dismisses Suit
------------------------------------------------
In a non-final order of the court, Trailer Bridge, Inc., has been
dismissed with prejudice against the named plaintiffs from a
lawsuit seeking class action status related to alleged anti-
competitive activity in the Puerto Rico marine trade, according
to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In an April 30, 2010 ruling by non-final order, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted Trailer Bridge's
motion to be dismissed with prejudice from the lawsuit.

William G. Gotimer, Jr., EVP & General Counsel, said, "We were
pleased that the District Court's reasoned order granted our
motion to be dismissed with prejudice from this class action
lawsuit.  We continue to seek ways to provide increased
efficiencies and value to our customers with our unique marine
transportation system."

On April 17, 2008, the company received a subpoena from the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking
documents and information relating to a criminal grand jury
investigation of alleged anti-competitive conduct by Puerto Rico
ocean carriers.  Company representatives have met with United
States Justice Department attorneys and pledged the company's
full and complete cooperation with the DOJ investigation.  The
company has made document submissions to the DOJ in response to
the subpoena, and its attorneys are in the process of reviewing
documents for additional submissions.

Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, shippers in the Puerto Rico trade lane, and in
one case indirect consumer purchasers within Puerto Rico, have
filed at least 41 purported class actions against domestic ocean
carriers, including Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley and
the company.

The actions allege that the defendants inflated prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The actions, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, and the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated into a single multi-
district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in the District of
Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes.

On Oct. 21, 2009, in connection with this consolidated
proceeding, the Plaintiffs' lead counsel filed an amended class
action complaint under seal.

Trailer Bridge, Inc. -- http://www.trailerbridge.com/-- provides  
integrated trucking and marine freight service to and from all
points in the lower 48 states and Puerto Rico and Dominican
Republic, bringing efficiency, service, security and
environmental and safety benefits to domestic cargo in that
traffic lane.  This total transportation system utilizes its own
trucks, drivers, trailers, containers and U.S. flag vessels to
link the mainland with Puerto Rico via marine facilities in
Jacksonville, San Juan and Puerto Plata.


VIRGINIA: Suit Complains About Refusal to Enforce D.C. Judgments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that Virginia violates the Constitution by
refusing to enforce out-of-state judgments against Virginia auto
dealers.  Lead plaintiff Colin Andrew claims Virginia will not
enforce his claim filed in D.C. Superior Court against a Virginia
auto dealer on the grounds that it "is not bound to honor
judgments originating from the District of Columbia courts."

Andrew claims Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli and
the Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board are violating the
Constitution; he seeks an injunction and costs.

A copy of the Complaint in Andrew v. Cuccinelli, et al., Case NO.
10-cv-00353 (E.D. Va.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/28/VaCars.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason M. Krumbein, Esq.
          KRUMBEIN CONSUMER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
          15650 Willow Lawn Dr., Suite 300
          Richmond, VA 23230
          Telephone: 804-673-4358
          E-mail: jkrumbein@krumbeinlaw.com


WILLIAMS COS: Continues to Defend Colorado Royalties Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc., continues to defend a purported
class-action suit in Colorado over royalties.  

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in Colorado state court
alleging that the company improperly calculated oil and gas
royalty payments, failed to account for the proceeds that the
company received from the sale of gas and extracted products,
improperly charged certain expenses, and failed to refund amounts
withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.

The company reached a final partial settlement agreement for an
amount that was previously accrued.

The company received a favorable ruling on its motion for summary
judgment on one remaining claim, and the company anticipates
trial in 2010 on the other remaining issue related to royalty
payment calculation and obligations under specific lease
provisions.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The Williams Companies, Inc., is an energy company based in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Its core business is natural gas exploration,
production, processing, and transportation, with additional
petroleum and electricity generation assets.  A Fortune 200
company, its common stock is a component of the S&P 500 and the
Dow Jones Utility Average.


WILLIAMS COS: Two Midstream Subsidiaries Remain Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the denial of class
certification in a nationwide class action lawsuit where The
Williams Companies, Inc.'s two Midstream subsidiaries are
defendants, remain pending, according to the company's May 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In 2001, fourteen of the company's entities were named as
defendants in a nationwide class action lawsuit in Kansas state
court that had been pending against other defendants, generally
pipeline and gathering companies, since 2000.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties to
the class of producer plaintiffs and sought an unspecified amount
of damages.

The fourth amended petition, which was filed in 2003, deleted all
of the company's defendant entities except two Midstream
subsidiaries.  All remaining defendants opposed class
certification and on Sept. 18, 2009, the court denied plaintiffs'
most recent motion to certify the class.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the denial.

The Williams Companies, Inc., is an energy company based in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Its core business is natural gas exploration,
production, processing, and transportation, with additional
petroleum and electricity generation assets.  A Fortune 200
company, its common stock is a component of the S&P 500 and the
Dow Jones Utility Average.

                            *********

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  * * *