CAR_Public/100916.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 16, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 183

                             Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Hashimoto Plaintiffs Seek Decertification
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: September 24 Settlement Hearing Set
ALTMAN NATURAL: Tel Aviv Court Approves Megagluflex Class Action
AMERICAN GENERAL: Sued in Calif. Over Predatory Interest Rates
BANK OF AMERICA: Court to Consider Consolidation on Sept. 30

BIG LOTS: Continues to Face Claims by "Caron" Plaintiff
BIG LOTS: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Certification Denial Pending
BIG LOTS: "Avitia" Action in Preliminary Discovery
BIG LOTS: Discovery in New York FLSA Violations Suit Ongoing
BIG LOTS: $4-Mil. Settlement Conditionally Approved in June

BIG LOTS: "Gromek" Civil Action in Discovery
BIG LOTS: Faces "Sample" Representative Enforcement Action
BLUE SHIELD: Blue Ribbon Recognition Program Unfair, Suit Claims
BOB EVANS: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
BOB EVANS: Mimi's Cafe Defends Diaz et al. Suit in California

CALIFORNIA: No System of Free Public Education, Suit Claims
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Hearing on $14MM Settlement Set for December
FEISAL ABDUL RAUF: Sued for Inflicting "Emotional Distress"
FORUM HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Patients' Billing
GODFATHERS: Accused in California Suit of Cheating Dancers

HUFFLE MASTER: Court Enters Final Order Closing Securities Suit
MDL 1888: Pirelli Agrees to Marine Hose Antitrust Settlement
MDL 2002: Four Defendants Agree to Egg Antitrust Settlements
OMNI ENERGY: Wants Merger-Related Suits Consolidated
ROSS STORES: Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuit in California

SILICON GRAPHICS: Investors Face Dismissal of Securities Suit
ST. ELIZABETH: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Patients' Billing
VIRGIN MOBILE: Court to Hold Dec. 8 Hearing on $19.5MM Settlement
ZYMOGENETICS INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Wash. Suit Claims



                             *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Hashimoto Plaintiffs Seek Decertification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter Lisa Hashimoto, et al. v. Abercrombie &
Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., seek to decertify
the putative class, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter period ended July 31, 2010.

On June 23, 2006, Lisa Hashimoto, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.

In that action, plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of a putative class
of California store managers employed in Hollister and abercrombie
kids stores, that they were entitled to receive overtime pay as
"non-exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants answered the complaint
on Aug. 21, 2006, denying liability.

On June 23, 2008, the defendants settled all claims of Hollister
and abercrombie kids store managers who served in stores from June
23, 2002 through April 30, 2004, but continued to oppose the
plaintiffs' remaining claims.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the Court certified a class consisting of all
store managers who served at Hollister and abercrombie kids stores
in California from May 1, 2004 through the future date upon which
the action concludes. The parties then continued to litigate the
claims of that putative class.

On May 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice that they did not
intend to continue to pursue their claim that members of the class
did not exercise independent managerial judgment and discretion.
They also asked the Court to vacate the Aug. 9, 2010 trial date
previously set by the Court.  On July 20, 2010, the trial court
vacated the trial date and defendants then moved to decertify the
putative class.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a  
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: September 24 Settlement Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 24, 2010 hearing is set for the settlement agreement
resolving a class action against Abercrombie & Fitch Co.,
according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period
ended July 31, 2010

On Sept. 2, 2005, a purported class action, styled Robert Ross v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Company, et al., was filed against A&F and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a purported class of
all persons who purchased or acquired shares of A&F's Common Stock
between June 2, 2005 and August 16, 2005.

In September and October 2005, five other purported class actions
were subsequently filed against A&F and other defendants in the
same Court.

All six securities cases allege claims under the federal
securities laws related to sales of Common Stock by certain
defendants and to a decline in the price of A&F's Common Stock
during the summer of 2005, allegedly as a result of misstatements
attributable to A&F.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages.

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all of these purported
class actions into the first-filed case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  A&F joined in that motion.

On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and
these actions -- together with the federal court derivative cases
described in the following paragraph -- were consolidated for
purposes of motion practice, discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was filed
on Aug. 14, 2006. On Oct. 13, 2006, all defendants moved to
dismiss that Complaint.  On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the
motions to dismiss.  On Sept. 14, 2007, defendants filed answers
denying the material allegations of the Complaint and asserting
affirmative defenses.  On Oct. 26, 2007, plaintiffs moved to
certify their purported class. After briefing and argument, the
motion was submitted on March 24, 2009, and granted on May 21,
2009.  On June 5, 2009, defendants petitioned the Sixth Circuit
for permission to appeal the class certification order and on
Aug. 24, 2009, the Sixth Circuit granted leave to appeal.

On May 26, 2010, after mediation which commenced on May 17, 2010,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
consolidated cases as a class action, subject to Court approval.
Under the agreement in principal, the entire settlement payment of
$12 million will be paid by A&F's insurers.

A hearing will be held on Sept. 24, 2010 to enable the District
Court to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate and should be approved and effected and
whether the class action should therefore be dismissed.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a  
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.


ALTMAN NATURAL: Tel Aviv Court Approves Megagluflex Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich at The Jerusalem Post reports the Altman
Natural Pharmaceutical company in Holon is facing a multimillion-
shekel class-action lawsuit by customers who purchased its
Megagluflex tablets, which it advertised for many years as
"rebuilding joint cartilage" in people suffering from
osteoarthritis.

Tel Aviv District Court judge Altuvia Magen last week recognized
such status for the lawsuit by Ilan Jann and lawyer Yitzhak Hoshen
who claimed they used the product and were "misled" into believing
that it would repair painful degenerated cartilage in the joints.

The company, which was established in 1993 to sell vitamins and
other food additives and has been marketing Megagluflex, imported
from the US, since 1998, denied the charges -- even though in
recent years it has put stress mainly on the claimed ability of
the active ingredients -- glucosamine and chondroitin -- to
minimize pain resulting from the degenerative orthopedic disease,
as well as pain suffered by sportsmen.

The applicants for class-action status maintained that claiming
that the food additive "builds cartilage" in humans has gone
unproven in clinical studies. Each package of 210 tablets of
Megagluflex, whose recommended dosage is three per day, costs NIS
210. The applicants argued that they could have taken much cheaper
painkillers for the same effect.

While radio and other media ads by Altman for years maintained
that the product restores cartilage, the company has recently
toned down its claims, and its Web site does not list Megagluflex
among its catalog of products; only a search calls up information
about the product, which is based on chicken cartilage.

The site today stresses the "pain-reduction" aspect of Megagluflex
and not the "cartilage-building" claims, but the Web site does
state that its product is the "only one that has been tested in
Israel and proven effective" and that it "protects cartilage."

Originally, glucosamine and chrondroitin were derived from shark
cartilage. Today, as sharks have become rare, the compounds are
made around the world from pigs or chickens. Batya Farhi, the
company's deputy manager for development, and scientific director
Sigal Band told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday that the Israeli
product is based on chicken cartilage, is kosher and carefully
tested on a batch-by-batch basis. Sales of the product currently
total about NIS 10 million a year, they said.

The company representatives said "blood tests of users show
reduction in the loss of cartilage" and that glucosamine and
chrondroitin are "the two building blocks of cartilage.

They have been shown to have biological activity in people. They
reach the cartilage.

"When the case comes up for discussion, we will bring our own
experts who say that the product is based on scientific research.
We are not worried," they said, even though Messrs. Hoshen and
Jann claimed nearly a billion shekels were at stake.

The Health Ministry said Sunday that would not comment, but there
have been no ministry warnings about possible false claims by
Altman about this product.

The ministry spokeswoman added that "as a result of the ministry's
opinion, Altman years ago changed its advertising."

Yet Ms. Farhi and Ms. Band denied this, saying the ministry did
not require Altman to change its advertising or induce it to
revise its message or claims in recent years.

"We changed our advertising because we often change our messages
and use different marketing strategies," the two women said.

The Altman officials maintained that major scientific
organizations, including the Osteoarthritis Research Society
International (OARSI) and the European League Against Rheumatism
(EULAR) have recommended glucosamine and chondroitin for fighting
the degeneration of human cartilage and not only for reducing
pain.

They said that the district court judge would not allow people who
bought Megagluflex only to relieve pain or increase the amount of
joint movement to join the suit.

Asked to comment on the case, Shaare Zedek Medical Center
director-general Prof. Jonathan Halevy, who five years ago wrote a
systematic book on the effects (or lack of them) of a wide variety
of complementary medicine products, told the Post that there have
been no MRI scans done in clinical studies to show that
glucosamine and chondroitin rebuild human cartilage.

"I have been following the medical literature since my book was
published. It is still an open question if these compounds are
better than a harmless placebo in reducing the pain of
osteoarthritis. Maybe they do. But they have not been proven to
improve the condition of the cartilage."


AMERICAN GENERAL: Sued in Calif. Over Predatory Interest Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claims that door-to-door computer salesmen target Spanish-speakers
with predatory interest rates and financing.  American General
Finance, Hispanic Educational Inc. and Logic's Consulting offer
"spurious open-ended credit" without "statutorily mandated
cancellation notices and other disclosures," according to the
complaint.  The named plaintiff says she was charged 900 percent
more than the computer is worth.

Suing for the class in Alameda County Court, Lucresia Cisneros
claims the defendants preyed upon "unwary consumers," particularly
Spanish-speakers, with "undisclosed predatory interest rates and
payment terms, and . . . financing to consumers by means of form
contracts that fail to provide statutorily mandated cancellation
notices and other disclosures."

Ms. Cisneros says she has "limited ability to understand, speak,
or read English."  She says a Spanish-speaking sales rep told her
that he "was a professional educator," and that a computer was
"necessary" to her children's education.

"The sales agent subjected plaintiff to precisely the kind of
high-pressure and predatory sale tactics that California lawmakers
have sought to remedy," Ms. Cisneros says.

The salesman's name is Miguel Rodas, according to the complaint.

Ms. Cisneros says she tried to refuse his "psychological
intimidation," but that he stayed at her house while she picked up
her daughter from school: "he refused to leave, and persisted,
misrepresenting, among other things, that the computer system was
tax deductible and would end up being free after this deduction."

Mr. Rodas told her "she would need to pay $118 per month over 24
months to cover her purchase of the computer system and required
[her] to sign a document entitled 'Convenio,' (hereafter the 'Home
Solicitation Contract')," according to the complaint.

Ms. Cisneros says she also was told to sign an agreement in
English, which she could not understand, that "created a credit
account to finance payment of the purchase price through American
General Financial."

She says the account agreement changed the terms of the home
solicitation contract, "including the total price she would end up
paying for the computer."

Ms. Cisneros says she received a statement from American General
showing that she had financed $2,800 at 21 percent interest.

That is far more than the Spanish-language deal she made, and
would force her to pay $4,506 in 3 years -- "a value far in excess
(indeed more than 900 percent) of the original fair market value
of the computer system itself, which was approximately $500,"
according to the complaint.

Ms. Cisneros says she tried to cancel the deal, and offered to
return computer and forfeit the money that she had paid, but
American General refused to do it.

She claims the home solicitation contracts fail to inform
customers of their right to cancel, and fail to include "essential
finance terms, the monthly rate and the billing information, that
were amended and/or otherwise imposed by means of the account
agreement."

She wants the defendants' alleged scam declared "unlawful, unfair,
and fraudulent," and wants them enjoined from selling computer
systems through "home solicitation contracts without notice of
cancellation rights, [and] through use of spurious open-ended
financing with material undisclosed financial terms."

American General Financial Services dba American General Finance
is a Delaware corporation based in Indiana.

Hispanic Educational Inc., based in Los Angeles County, "is in the
business of retail sales of software and personal computers in
California and arranging credit financing in connection with such
sales."

Logic's Consulting, based in San Diego, is in the same business.
They all "engaged in a door-to-door sales scheme . . . financed
through credit accounts opened with American General Financial,"
according to the complaint.

A copy of the Complaint in Cisneros v. American General Financial
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 10535443 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/13/AmerGen.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
          William M. Krieg, Esq.
          Nancy Barron, Esq.
          KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP
          445 Bush St., 6th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: 415-632-1900


BANK OF AMERICA: Court to Consider Consolidation on Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Armour, writing for USA Today, relates Anthony and April
Soper's financial troubles were only starting last October when
they applied for a mortgage adjustment through the Obama
administration's Home Affordable Modification Program.

Bank of America, their mortgage servicer, put them on a HAMP trial
payment plan in December that cut their monthly payment by more
than half from almost $4,000 to about $1,826.

They say they made their reduced monthly payments early and did
everything else that was asked of them. But they didn't get a
permanent modification, and they say they don't know why.

Instead, according to a lawsuit they've brought against Bank of
America, they are now more than $8,000 behind on a mortgage that
had been current 12 months ago. Each of their credit scores has
dropped by nearly 100 points.  And, they allege, Bank of America
has threatened them with foreclosure.

"We jumped through all their hoops, and they did nothing but cause
us heartache," says April Soper, 41.

Whether the Lake Stevens, Wash., couple keep their home may hinge
on the outcome of a legal strategy that aims to join struggling
homeowners with similar experiences in the HAMP program in a
class-action lawsuit against the nation's largest bank. On
Sept. 30 in Nashville, a federal court hearing is scheduled to
consider consolidating the Sopers' case with more than a dozen
others against Bank of America.

Similar lawsuits, also seeking class-action status, are pending
against other major servicers such as JPMorgan Chase and Wells
Fargo. Taken together, the cases threaten to amplify a growing
public frustration with mortgage servicers' treatment of HAMP
borrowers and HAMP's modest results. Permanent modifications,
which lower mortgage payments to 31% of a borrower's pretax
monthly income for five years, have been given to only about a
third of the 1.3 million borrowers in trial plans since the
program's launch in April 2009.

Most of the lawsuits allege that the three- or four-month trial
payment plans are contracts, and that Bank of America and other
servicers broke them by not giving permanent modifications to
homeowners who made their trial payments on time and provided the
necessary documentation.

Servicers have asked courts to dismiss some of the cases, saying
the trial plans are not contracts. Bank of America, which says it
plans to seek dismissal of the Soper case, argues in a court
filing in a similar case that it must consider borrowers for a
HAMP modification, but that it has discretion in granting
permanent modifications.

The bank also argues that homeowners have no case because courts
have dismissed earlier HAMP-related lawsuits against mortgage
servicers. Those cases claimed that in denying some homeowners
modifications, the servicers had breached the contracts they made
with the Treasury Department when they agreed to participate in
HAMP. Courts said homeowners could not sue on those grounds
because they weren't parties to the contracts between the
government and the servicers.

Lawyers for homeowners say they are now making a different legal
argument: that Bank of America and others broke contracts made
directly with homeowners.

"Borrowers have said we should be able to enforce the contract
between Treasury and mortgage servicers, and many courts have
rejected that. Our cases are the first filed that touch on a
contract between servicers and borrowers," says Kevin Costello, a
lawyer with Roddy Klein & Ryan in Boston, which represents
homeowners in cases against Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and
Wells Fargo.

"This litigation is spreading all across the country. People have
been relying on a promise all along, and then they get a denial.
Then they find themselves in that much worse of a hole," he says.

Many homeowners could be affected: Nearly 620,000 trial
modifications since spring 2009 have been canceled, according to
an Aug. 20 Treasury report.

                       Chronicles of Delays

The lawsuits allege servicers are purposely denying permanent
modifications and keeping loans in default so lenders can profit
from heftier late fees and other charges. Court filings provide
detailed chronologies of borrowers who allege that over periods of
months, they repeatedly sent banks requested documents that the
banks said they didn't receive, made inquiries that went
unanswered, and received promises of help that were later
contradicted or denied by other representatives.

"Bank of America has serially strung out, delayed, and otherwise
hindered the modification processes that it contractually
undertook to facilitate when it accepted" billions of dollars in
government bailout funds in 2008, the Sopers' complaint alleges.

By failing to live up to its obligations, according to the court
filing, "Bank of America has left thousands of borrowers in a
state of limbo -- often worse off than they were before they
sought a modification from Bank of America."

The Sopers' complaint alleges that Bank of America customer
service representatives are instructed to mislead homeowners who
call to inquire about loan modifications they've applied for. The
complaint, citing information provided by unnamed former
employees, says "representatives regularly inform homeowners that
modification documents were not received on time or not received
at all when, in fact, all documents have been received."

When homeowners are denied permanent modifications, even those who
were current before going on reduced-payment trials are considered
in default, and servicers tell them they must immediately pay the
difference between their trial payments and their higher former
payments to avoid foreclosure, according to the Sopers' complaint
and others.

Borrowers' mortgage debt in default rises further the longer they
stay in trial plans.

By making trial payments during and after the plan's scheduled
end, the Sopers' complaint alleges, they "forgo other remedies
that might be pursued to save their homes" such as restructuring
their debt by filing for bankruptcy, or pursuing other ways to
deal with their default, such as selling their homes.

Foreclosure proceedings have started against some borrowers while
they were on trial plans, violating a Treasury directive,
according to the lawsuits.  Homeowners' credit scores have also
been damaged when servicers cancel trial plans, then report the
amounts in default to credit bureaus.

Some court filings claim bank employees have demanded upfront fees
to start consideration of a modification -- in violation of HAMP
rules -- or told homeowners to stop paying mortgages in order to
start a trial modification. The Sopers' complaint alleges an
unnamed homeowner was illegally asked to pay $1,400 upfront to
Bank of America to be considered for a modification.

In another case, Alex Lam of New York alleges he was told he could
only be considered for a HAMP trial modification if he stopped
paying his mortgage for several months, according to a lawsuit
filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn against JPMorgan. He
skipped two months of payments in 2009 and says he was denied a
permanent modification. JPMorgan declined to comment.

Homeowners' lawyers say there is no effective way to appeal
mortgage servicers' decisions because Treasury has no ability to
overturn a decision.

                      Watchdogs' Criticisms

Government watchdogs, too, have raised similar criticisms about
the HAMP program, as well as about servicers' performance and
Treasury's oversight.

The Congressional Oversight Panel, which oversees the government
fund that pays for HAMP, said in an April report it "is deeply
concerned about the unacceptable quality of the denial and
cancellation reasons, and strongly urges Treasury to take swift
action."

A Government Accountability Office report in June found servicers
were erroneously denying permanent modifications to some
homeowners because servicers were inaccurately applying a formula
used to determine if the value of modifying the mortgage was
greater than the proceeds from foreclosing. The number of
homeowners who had been wrongly denied could "range from a handful
to thousands."

When errors have been found, Treasury says, it has made servicers
go back and fix problems, and re-do their work as a check on their
decision-making. It also says that 45% of those who started trials
but were ineligible for permanent adjustments received an
alternative modification through their servicer. Fewer than 2%
have gone to foreclosure sale, according to Treasury.

Some homeowners say they've already lost their homes to
foreclosure because a permanent HAMP modification was denied to
them.

Jennifer Voltaire, 33, of Medford, Mass., alleges Wells Fargo
approved her for a trial HAMP modification, which lowered her
payments starting in December 2009, according to court filings in
U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. Ms. Voltaire is a co-
plaintiff in the case.

But after making regular payments, Voltaire was told in May that
she was being taken out of the HAMP program and was $40,000 in
default, the lawsuit alleges. After she protested, Wells Fargo
agreed to reconsider her for a HAMP modification, according to the
complaint, but in July, the bank took possession of the home.

"I was literally crying my eyes out," Ms. Voltaire says. "I put
everything I have into this house, into getting my kids out of the
projects. That's the part that really hurts. My kids could look at
me like I failed."

Wells Fargo agreed not to sell her house pending further court
action. Voltaire is still staying there and making her trial plan
payments.

In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Ms. Voltaire and
others, Wells Fargo said the plaintiffs have not adequately shown
that their trial modifications were contracts to enter into
permanent modifications. It says homeowners benefited from being
able to make reduced monthly payments while staying in their
homes.

Treasury Department officials say homeowners in HAMP trial plans
are not promised permanent modifications.

But the Soper lawsuit and others quote language from some trial
plan agreements that states: "If I am in compliance with this
trial period plan and my representations . . . continue to be true
in all material respects, then the servicer will provide me with a
Home Affordable Modification Agreement . . . that would amend and
supplement the mortgage on the property, and the note secured by
the mortgage."

"They get a letter from the bank that says, 'If I comply, I'm
entitled to a HAMP modification.' That's a contract. The bank has
not performed under the contract," says Steve Berman, a lawyer
with Hagens Berman Sobol and Shapiro in Seattle, who represents
the Sopers and other homeowners in HAMP cases.

                          Evolving Rules

The Obama administration's rapid launch of HAMP and its changing
guidelines since then may have contributed to the program's
administrative confusion. When HAMP began in 2009, servicers
enrolled borrowers in trial modifications without verifying income
or financial hardship. That brought immediate financial relief to
more people, but ineligible homeowners were not weeded out until
they completed trial plans. In June, the government began
requiring participating servicers to verify applicants' income and
financial hardship before starting trials. Treasury says that has
improved the rate of conversions to permanent modifications.

"The HAMP program was an unprecedented response to an enormous
crisis in this country's housing market. The administration needed
to act quickly." says Phyllis Caldwell, Treasury's chief of the
homeownership preservation office.

Meanwhile, the number of homeowners claiming improper denials of
HAMP modifications is climbing.

One is Peter Salinas, 52, who struggled to pay his mortgage after
the economy collapsed and his wife developed cancer. He appealed
to his lender for help.

Mr. Salinas says he felt elated last year when he received a HAMP
trial modification slashing $500 off his monthly payments. But
later, he was told he made too much money to qualify for
permanently reduced payments, he says. Wells Fargo threatened
foreclosure if he didn't pay $9,000, the difference between his
original mortgage and what he paid during the trial.

His servicer, Wells Fargo, declined to comment on his situation.
Salinas is working with Gulfcoast Legal Services, a not-for-profit
civil legal aid office, that says it is preparing a lawsuit
against the lender.

"I was convinced I was doing everything right," says Mr. Salinas,
a reporter for an automotive trade publication who lives near
Bradenton, Fla. "I wasn't trying to walk away from this mortgage.
It's just infuriating."


BIG LOTS: Continues to Face Claims by "Caron" Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------
The claims of one plaintiff certification in a consolidated suit
against Big Lots, Inc., remain before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, according to the company's
Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed
against the company by a California resident.

The first was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange
County.  This action is similar in nature to the Seals matter,
which enabled the company to successfully coordinate this matter
with the Seals matter in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County.

The second and third matters, filed in the United States District
Court, Central District of California, and the Superior Court of
California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that the
company violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed
meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf
of a California statewide class consisting of all other
individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from
improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods,
non-payment of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses,
loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company believed these two matters overlapped and successfully
consolidated the two cases before the United States District
Court, Central District of California.

The company also believes the remaining allegations also overlap
some portion of the claims released through the class action
settlement in the Espinosa matter.

On Aug. 25, 2009, the Court denied, without prejudice, the
plaintiffs' class certification motion.

On April 21, 2010, the Court granted, with prejudice, the
company's motion to deny class certification.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Certification Denial Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal on the ruling of the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County denying class certification in a
lawsuit against Big Lots, Inc., remains pending, according to the
company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the
company alleging that the company violated certain California wage
and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as
exempt employees.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for
alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon
termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed
meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation
time, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Oct. 29, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs' class
certification motion, with prejudice.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, and the
parties will have an opportunity to brief their positions in the
coming months.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: "Avitia" Action in Preliminary Discovery
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint against Big Lots, Inc., alleging
violations of certain California wage and hour laws is in the
preliminary stages of discovery, according to the company's Sept.
8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging that the company violated certain California wage and
hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt
employees.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for
alleged unpaid wages and overtime, untimely paid wages at
separation, improper wage statements, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Avitia matter is related to and overlaps the Seals
matter.

In August 2010, the five plaintiffs named in the original
complaint filed an amended complaint that removed the class and
representative allegations and asserted only individual actions.  

The company has answered the amended complaint.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Discovery in New York FLSA Violations Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a civil collective action complaint against Big Lots,
Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, is
ongoing, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2010.

In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York, alleging that the company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees.

In addition, the plaintiff seeks class action treatment under New
York law relating to those assistant store managers working in the
State of New York.  The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of
himself and all other individuals who are similarly situated,
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On Jan. 21, 2010, a stipulation was filed and Order was rendered
limiting this action to current and former assistant store
managers working in the Company's New York stores.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: $4-Mil. Settlement Conditionally Approved in June
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on
June 29, 2010, conditionally approved the settlement agreement
resolving a complaint for $4 million, according to Big Lots,
Inc.'s Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

In November 2004, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company alleging that the company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees.  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of
themselves and all other individuals who are similarly situated,
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 5, 2005, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order
conditionally certifying a class of all then-current and former
assistant store managers who have worked for the company since
Nov. 23, 2001.

As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to
approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to the
Louisiana matter.  Approximately 1,100 individuals opted to join
the Louisiana matter.

The company filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion
was denied on Aug. 24, 2007.

The trial began on May 7, 2008, and concluded on May 15, 2008.

On June 20, 2008, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order
decertifying the action and dismissed, without prejudice, the
claims of the opt-in plaintiffs.

After this ruling, four plaintiffs remained before the District
Court in Louisiana.

On Jan. 26, 2009, three of the plaintiffs presented their
respective cases before the District Court in Louisiana.

Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January
2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate in
the January 2009 action) were dismissed with prejudice.

On April 2, 2009, the District Court in Louisiana awarded the two
remaining plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately $100,000
plus attorneys' fees and costs, which, on June 25, 2009, were
determined to be $400,000.  The company appealed both of these
decisions.

Subsequent to the District Court in Louisiana's April 2, 2009
decision, approximately 172 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed
individual actions in the District Court in Louisiana.

On Aug. 13, 2009, the company filed a writ of mandamus challenging
the District Court in Louisiana's jurisdiction to hear these
cases.  This writ was denied on Oct. 20, 2009.

Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January
2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate

On Jan. 12, 2010, the Louisiana matter was settled for
$4.0 million.

On June 29, 2010, the District Court in Louisiana conditionally
approved the settlement.  Following additional administrative
processing, all settled cases will be dismissed with prejudice.  

As of Aug. 24, 2010, the company had received executed releases
from all but one of the 172 plaintiffs.  Unless and until an
executed release is received, that plaintiff's case will not be
dismissed and the company will not pay a settlement amount to that
plaintiff.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: "Gromek" Civil Action in Discovery
--------------------------------------------
A civil collective action complaint against Big Lots, Inc. is in
the preliminary stages of discovery, according to the company's
Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

In June 2010, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging that it violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees.  

The plaintiffs sought to recover, on behalf of themselves and all
other individuals who were similarly situated, alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.  

The company answered the plaintiffs' complaint in August 2010.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Faces "Sample" Representative Enforcement Action
----------------------------------------------------------
A representative enforcement action against Big Lots, Inc. is in
the preliminary stages of discovery, according to the company's
Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

In June 2010, a representative enforcement action was filed
against the company in the Superior Court of California, Alameda
County, alleging that it violated certain California wage and hour
laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour
claims.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her behalf and on behalf of a
California statewide class consisting of all other individuals who
are similarly situated, damages resulting from allegedly unpaid
overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period
premiums, unpaid business expenses, non-payment of wages at
termination, untimely payment of wages, noncompliant wage
statements, failure to providing seating, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  

In July 2010, the company answered the plaintiff's complaint and
filed a notice of removal to federal court.  

The Sample matter is similar in nature to the actions comprising
the Caron matters.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BLUE SHIELD: Blue Ribbon Recognition Program Unfair, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that the
California Medical Association has filed a 7-count class action
against Blue Shield of California.  The CMA claims the insurer's
"Blue Ribbon Recognition Program," which "rates" doctors is an
"economic profiling scheme that inaccurately and unfairly 'rates'
the physician plaintiffs and members of the physician class
through the use of an inherently flawed methodology."

The CMA claims the insurer's rating system cannot possibly measure
physicians' quality of care because Blue Shield does not review
medical charts to determine if proper care was given, does not
evaluate patient outcomes, makes no allowance when a patient has
more that one doctor, uses only 1 year of claims data, and limits
its date to patients eligible for only 16 procedures.

The CMA adds that its member doctors are given "woefully
inadequate" opportunities to review and correct the "error-
fraught" data.

The CMA claims Blue Shield worked up its Blue Ribbon Recognition
Program with two other big insurance companies in a cooperative
effort called the California Physician Performance Initiative.

"In addition to portraying its network physicians in an unfair and
inaccurate manner, the Blue Ribbon Recognition Program also fails
to provide adequate explanations and disclosures regarding the
basis for its 'ratings' and the fact that not all physicians are
even eligible to receive a blue ribbon," according to the
complaint.

The class claim the Blue Ribbon Recognition Program is a scheme
designed "to inject HMOs or insurers squarely into the physician-
patient relationship."

"Economic profiling schemes, at bottom, are intended to cause a
physician who is more expensive for an HMO or insurer to pay to
receive less patient traffic than physicians who provide patient
care at a lower cost to HMOs or insurers," the complaint states.

The CMA claims that "numerous physician groups" throughout
California have complained about errors in the program, but
"rather than drop the program or start over after correcting the
fundamental flaws in its program, however, CPPI tried to shift the
burden of identifying and correcting errors to individual
physicians through a multi-step, time-consuming process that was
poorly explained and communicated to physicians."

The CMA and lead plaintiffs Drs. Lisa Asta and Richard Stern want
Blue Shield ordered to stop the program and inform the public
about the "wrongfulness or inherent limitations" of the ratings.

The class also seeks damages for violations of California Business
and Professions Code and breach of contract.  

A copy of the Complaint in California Medical ASsociation, et al.
v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Co., et al.,
Case No. 10535619 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/13/BlueCross.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
          Helen E. Zukin, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON, LLP
          8648 Wilshire Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310-854-4444

               - and -

          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-447-7070

               - and -

          Adam P. Plant, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-328-9576

               - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          9466 Black Mountain Rd., Suite 225
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: 619-308-5034

               - and -

          Michael C. Eyerly, Esq.
          DEBLASE BROWN EYERLY LLP
          10990 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1060
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 424-901-0350


BOB EVANS: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange County California Superior gave its final approval to
the settlement resolving the matter Leonard Flores, et al. v. SWH
Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe, according to Evans Farms, Inc.'s
Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter period ended June 30, 2010

The class action complaint was filed on Oct. 28, 2008, against
Mimi's Cafe. Mimi's Cafe is a registered trademark of Bob Evans
Farms.

Mr. Flores was employed as an assistant manager of Mimi's Cafe
until September 2006 and purports to represent a class of
assistant managers who are allegedly similarly situated.  Mimi's
Cafe classified its assistant managers as exempt employees until
October 2009.

The case involves claims that current and former assistant
managers working in California from October 2004 to October 2009
were misclassified by Mimi's Cafe as exempt employees.  As a
result, the complaint alleged that these assistant managers were
deprived of overtime pay, rest breaks and meal periods as required
for nonexempt employees under California wage and hour laws.

The complaint sought injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Although the company believes Mimi's Cafe properly classified its
assistant managers as exempt employees under California law the
company elected to resolve the Flores lawsuit through voluntary
mediation.

The Orange County California Superior Court granted final approval
of a settlement on June 10, 2010, and the company funded the
settlement of $1,108,722 on July 14, 2010.  Payment to class
members was to be mailed no later than August 18, 2010.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/-- owns and  
operates full-service restaurants under the Bob Evans and Mimi's
Cafe brand names.  At the end of the first fiscal quarter (July
30, 2010), Bob Evans owned and operated 569 family restaurants in
18 states, primarily in the Midwest, mid-Atlantic and Southeast
regions of the United States, while Mimi's Caf‚ owned and operated
145 casual restaurants located in 24 states, primarily in
California and other western states.  Bob Evans Farms, Inc. is
also a leading producer and distributor of pork sausage and a
variety of complementary homestyle convenience food items under
the Bob Evans and Owens brand names.


BOB EVANS: Mimi's Cafe Defends Diaz et al. Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action complaint entitled Edder Diaz and Rosolyn Gray,
et al. vs. SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe, remains pending in
Alameda County California Superior Court, according to Evans
Farms, Inc.'s Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended June 30, 2010

The class action complaint was filed on Sept. 8, 2010, against
Mimi's Cafe. Mimi's Cafe is a registered trademark of Bob Evans
Farms.

In a March 2010 amended complaint, Mr. Diaz and Ms. Gray purport
to represent a class of bartenders and servers, who are allegedly
similarly situated.  The case involves claims that current and
former nonexempt employees working in these positions in
California from July 26, 2006, to the present (1) were not
reimbursed for certain expenses incurred in connection with the
discharge of their duties and (2) were denied rest breaks and meal
periods as required for nonexempt employees under California wage
and hour laws.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/-- owns and  
operates full-service restaurants under the Bob Evans and Mimi's
Cafe brand names.  At the end of the first fiscal quarter (July
30, 2010), Bob Evans owned and operated 569 family restaurants in
18 states, primarily in the Midwest, mid-Atlantic and Southeast
regions of the United States, while Mimi's Caf‚ owned and operated
145 casual restaurants located in 24 states, primarily in
California and other western states.  Bob Evans Farms, Inc. is
also a leading producer and distributor of pork sausage and a
variety of complementary homestyle convenience food items under
the Bob Evans and Owens brand names.


CALIFORNIA: No System of Free Public Education, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that California denies children a
free public education by charging for textbooks, workbooks and
other course materials, charging for advanced-placement exams -- a
required part of AP classes, and piling on "fees" for lockers,
uniforms, lab manuals and sports, a class action claims in
Superior Court.  "There is no system of free public education in
California," the class claims, "public school throughout the state
unabashedly trample upon this constitutional right by requiring
students to pay fees and purchase assigned materials for courses
for academic credit."

Named student-plaintiffs Jane Doe and Jason Roe sued for the
class.  They claim, "The California Constitution, like the
constitutions of every other state in the Union . . . entitles the
children of this state to a free and equal education.  But there
is no system of free public education in California . . .  Despite
its clear constitutional duty to provide free and equal education,
the state has stood idly by in the face of this rampant and
blatant charging of illegal fees.  The state instead operates by
winks and nods, failing completely to monitor and ensure its
public school districts compliance with the free education
guarantee."

California has used the word "fee" for years to duck its own laws
and regulations about taxes and university tuition.  Under the
Legislature's expedient logic, "fees" are not subject to legal
restrictions imposed upon taxes or tuition.

Jane Doe's public high school charges her and other student to buy
"textbooks, workbooks and assigned novels for credit courses.  Her
school also charges students to take an Advanced Placement ('AP')
exam, even though completing the exam is a course requirement and
affect's the student's grade.  Likewise, plaintiff Jason Roe's
public high school requires students to purchase workbooks, lab
manuals, and physical education uniforms for credit courses and
also requires students to purchase locks and student agendas as a
general requirement for enrollment at the school.

"Students who are unable to pay the fees or purchase the materials
are disadvantaged academically and overtly humiliated by teachers
and school officials," according to the complaint.

"For example, Jane's Spanish teacher wrote her name on the class
whiteboard because she could not pay for assigned workbooks.  Her
English teacher instructed her not to highlight or take notes in
borrowed books that Jane could not afford to purchase.  And in the
middle of taking her AP United States History exam, the proctor
approached Jane, identified her by name and asked if she had a
check for the exam fee, stating that the person at the school
charged with collecting money wanted to see her immediately after
the exam."

Mr. Role says he had to buy an English workbook, a chemistry lab
manual, a Spanish workbook and a student agenda.  A school
official told his mother that if he could not buy the English
workbook, he would have to do his homework in the school library
after school.  "Because Jason's family could afford to pay only a
portion of the fees for these required materials, Jason was
compelled to start school without his chemistry manual and Spanish
workbook."

The class claims this discrimination against poor kids "is
systemic and widespread throughout California."  It cites 32
school districts that post the charges they impose for courses
students take for credit.

Both named plaintiffs live in Orange County.

The class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for violations
of the California Constitution, wealth discrimination, violations
of the Education Code, and violations of the state regulatory
code, Title 5 Section 350 of which states that "[a] pupil enrolled
in a school shall not be required to pay any fee, deposit, or
other charge not specifically authorized by law."

(California faces a $19 billion budget deficit -- precisely the
amount that led to the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis, which
resulted in the election of defendant Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The students' class action illustrates the length to which
California's citizens and lawmakers have permitted themselves to
tap dance around the state's annual budget disaster, without
addressing it.)

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Rosenbaum, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West Eighth St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-0977-9500

               - and -

          Dan Marmalefsky, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER
          555 West Fifth St., Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024
          Telephone: 213-892-5809


ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Hearing on $14MM Settlement Set for December
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Montgomery at The Kansas City Star relates the head-
protecting side airbags on Connie Wittkopp's Chevrolet Impala are
missing.  

Her husband refuses to drive it. When the company responsible
tries to make amends, she laughs.  

"A $100 coupon doesn't do it for me," said the Kansas City, Kan.,
woman.

Across the nation, more than 100,000 owners of certain Chevy and
Buick models have received settlement proposals in the mail from
St. Louis area-based Enterprise Holdings Inc. The car-rental
company for three years had ordered new vehicles, mostly Impalas,
without side curtain airbags that otherwise came standard, saving
roughly $175 per car.

Those so-called program vehicles have now left Enterprise Rent-A-
Car's hands, and the company is offering everyone who owns one a
$100 voucher that can be used for renting or buying something else
from Enterprise.

As part of a $14 million class-action settlement, the company also
proposes mailing out yellow stickers that warn "NO SIDE CURTAIN
AIRBAGS," which owners can affix to cars when selling them.

"We typically do not comment on litigation," said Enterprise
spokeswoman Laura Bryant. "However, the parties have negotiated a
settlement and are proceeding in good faith."

A year ago last month, The Kansas City Star revealed that General
Motors allowed Enterprise and other large fleet buyers to "delete"
side airbags on the factory floor.  Enterprise acknowledged taking
advantage of the $175 discount on more than 60,000 Impalas over a
three-year period, but not on all Impalas it ordered.

Still, the affected cars -- model years 2006-08 Impalas and some
Chevrolet Cobalts, HHRs and Buick LaCrosses once belonging to
Enterprise's fleet -- are revving up confusion in the used-car
marketplace: What's supposed to be "standard," after all, really
isn't.

Ms. Wittkopp's cherry-red Impala, for example, was advertised last
summer on Enterprise's Web site as having side front and rear
airbags -- a misrepresentation the company blamed on an online
software glitch and corrected.

Many dealers, however, are continuing to make the same mistake in
online ads for the used vehicles, acquired in auctions or as
trade-ins, because many of their ads automatically list standard
features.

In a recent spot check of used cars advertised by local dealers,
The Star found seven Impalas up for sale that lacked the side
airbag protection. Four of those were improperly listed online as
having "side head air bag" or "5 Star Driver Side Crash Rating"
when they don't.

The erroneous information appears on dealers' Web sites and
spiders its way into places such as AutoTrader.com and Cars.com.

GM has since stopped the practice that enabled Enterprise -- the
nation's largest buyer of new cars -- to save millions of dollars
and still provide rental cars that complied with federal safety
mandates.

Though standard on Impalas, side airbags were optional on other
vehicles at the time. GM spokesman Tom Henderson said the discount
for fleet customers helped Chevrolet compete for their business.

In the wake of The Star's report, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration revised the information on its consumer
website regarding 2006-08 Impalas and 2008-09 Cobalts and LaCrosse
models. The five-star crash rating for Impalas in side-impact
wrecks was given only to those vehicles equipped with the airbags,
which the federal website safercar.gov now lists as "optional."

Sean Kane of the auto-safety watchdog Safety Research and
Strategies asked NHTSA to make the changes in the cars' crash
ratings.

"The agency is sending a clear signal that it won't be party to
the obfuscation of what is really 'standard,'" Mr. Kane said.

A class-action lawsuit filed in December resulted in the
settlement agreement scheduled to be approved at a St. Louis
County court hearing in November.

Fernando Bermudez, one of the attorneys representing the class of
affected car buyers, said about 130,000 people are eligible to
receive the $100 vouchers and yellow stickers -- whether they
bought directly from Enterprise or from a dealer who acquired the
cars at auction.

Safety advocate Kane said the stickers were necessary to "brand"
the affected cars as those lacking a standard safety feature, even
though nothing on the cars suggests they have the airbags.

"Is it ideal? Probably not," he said. "One of our concerns was
that these cars would continue to be sold years down the road to
people who assume they have side airbags. Labeling the vehicle in
some way at least gets us closer to advancing the ball."

But that's not good enough for Ms. Wittkopp. When she bought her
Impala, "safety was one of the main issues," she said.

She and her husband, Rodney, had been broadsided in their Grand
Marquis just weeks before purchasing the Impala as a replacement.
Rodney was nursing six broken ribs when a salesman at a local
Enterprise lot pitched the Impala for $13,669.

"I don't know how the people at Enterprise can live with
themselves," Connie Wittkopp said. "My husband rides as a
passenger with his eyes closed."

After The Star reported that many Enterprise cars were improperly
advertised on its website, Enterprise Holdings -- which also owns
National Car Rental and Alamo Rent A Car -- sent letters to 745
buyers that said, "We are extremely sorry for the mistake."

To those direct buyers, the company offered to take back the cars
at $750 above Kelley Blue Book trade-in value or "we will give you
$200 for your inconvenience."

Nearly 90 percent of the buyers agreed to one offer or the other,
said Enterprise's Mr. Bryant.

Mr. Wittkopp, however, was not among them.

"We put $3,000 down on the car and their offer wouldn't pay off
that and what we had to borrow," she said. "I think Enterprise
should just install the airbags the car's supposed to have."

Steve Eisen, a retired journalist and Impala owner in the
Washington, D.C. area, agreed: He wants those airbags. Last summer
he bought what he thought was a "fully loaded" 2008 model for
$24,000 from a dealer in Wheaton, Md.

Mr. Eisen said a vendor at the lot sweetened the deal with $600
worth of gasoline vouchers that wound up being bogus. And months
later, he found an invoice in the glove compartment that tipped
him off that the vehicle had been a rental car.

Nobody had told him that, he said: "Now if my car doesn't have
side airbags, I've been duped all the way around, back and forth
and sideways."

Local dealers last week insisted they aren't intending to mislead
anyone by posting online ads listing the side air bags among
features of the one-time Enterprise vehicles. Dealers typically
subscribe to an online service that automatically uploads a
template of standard and optional features based on vehicle
identification numbers, or VINs.

For each sale car, a push-button process called a "VIN explosion"
spreads the vehicle information across the Internet.

The VINs on Impalas without the standard side airbags have a tell-
tale marker -- the sixth and seventh characters are "55" -- but
some software apparently can't catch the fact that tens of
thousands of them were manufactured for fleet buyers, said a
spokesman for the National Automobile Dealers Association.

"Obviously, we want to be transparent," said Marty Dahmer, general
manager for Cable Dahmer Chevrolet in Independence, upon learning
that one trade-in Impala on his lot lacked the air bags touted
online. "We actually over-communicate to make sure there's no
question about what we're selling."

At Dahmer's dealership, any buyer of that used Impala would
receive more than a dozen pages of information about the
vehicle -- including the factory "build sheet," which indicates
the side airbags had been deleted as an option.

At Jay Wolfe Auto Outlet in Blue Springs, sales manager Josh Pop
spent much of a day at his computer terminal correcting online ads
for a 2006 Impala after The Star pointed out it had no "overhead
airbag." He was only partially successful in erasing all
references.

"It's not as easy as one might think," Mr. Pop said.

Earlier this summer, Enterprise's image suffered another setback
when a California jury awarded $15 million to the mother of two
sisters -- Raechel and Jacqueline Houck -- killed in the crash of
a rented PT Cruiser. Enterprise provided them the vehicle, even
though it had been recalled for a power steering hose defect,
which had not been repaired.

Two safety advocacy groups last month petitioned the Federal Trade
Commission to take action that would prevent Enterprise and other
companies from renting out recalled vehicles before they're fixed.

"Going forward, we can only try to do better and learn from the
past," said Greg Stubblefield, Enterprise executive vice president
and chief strategy officer, in a written statement. "Given all we
have learned, today we would not rent the vehicle the Houck
sisters were driving until it was repaired."

Still, he noted, automakers issue hundreds of recall notices
yearly and rarely suggest that owners immediately stop driving
their cars.

In the event the government recommends a recalled vehicle be
"grounded," Enterprise would do so, Stubblefield said. No such
recommendation came with the PT Crusier recall.

The sisters' mother, Carol Houck, vowed to keep the pressure on
Enterprise.

"This company makes billions of dollars a year," she said in a
telephone interview. "It doesn't need to cut corners this way
. . . not when it comes to safety."


FEISAL ABDUL RAUF: Sued for Inflicting "Emotional Distress"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Forras, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Feisal Abdul Rauf and Cordoba House, et al., Case No.
111970/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., September 9, 2010),
brings claims against the defendants on behalf of all persons who
are residents, renters, do business and frequent or visit the area
in and around Ground Zero, and on behalf of all persons who are
primarily "first responders" who helped save lives during the
September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.  Mr. Forras
says that since learning that there will be a mosque erected in
the vicinity of Ground Zero, Plaintiff and other members of the
class have been severely distressed by anxiety and fear of
additional terrorist attacks.  Mr. Forras alleges that not only is
defendants' project a nuisance, a terror risk and a conscious and
negligent desire to inflict additional psychological terrorism and
emotional distress, it will also significantly increase costs of
security for the neighborhood and the city of New York and will
significantly reduce Plaintiff and other members' property values,
enjoyment and use of business premises and the use and enjoyment
of their property and the public areas in and around Ground Zero.

Mr. Forras claims that the defendants Mr. Feisal and Cordoba House
are front persons and in charge of operations for interests tied
to terrorism, which interests own, occupy and control, in whole or
in part, the subject premises of defendants.  In addition, Mr.
Forras says upon information and belief, defendants Mr. Feisal and
Cordoba House are believers in radical Islam and its jihad against
America and American interests.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin defendants from continuing
their nuisance of the Plaintiff and other class members, as well
as continuing to mete out emotional distress by the building and
construction of the Ground Zero Mosque.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry Klayman, Esq.
          General Counsel
          FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 345
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (310) 595-0800
          E-mail: leklayman@yahoo.com


FORUM HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Patients' Billing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter H. Milliken, writing for The Vindicator, reports Akron-based
lawyers have filed class-action lawsuits against St. Elizabeth
Boardman Health Center and Forum Health Northside Medical Center,
alleging both hospitals improperly billed Medicaid patients for
Medicaid-covered services.

The civil suits were filed in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court
on Sept. 2 against St. Elizabeth and on Sept. 7 against Northside.
Both suits allege breach of contract and negligence, and both
demand jury trials. The suits were filed by Attys. Albert R.
Nestico and Todd O. Rosenberg.

The suit against St. Elizabeth is assigned to Judge R. Scott
Krichbaum, and the suit against Northside is assigned to Judge
Maureen A. Sweeney.

The complaint against St. Elizabeth was filed on behalf of Denise
Cuscino, of Struthers Road, New Middletown.

The complaint against Northside was filed on behalf of Ann Boylen,
mother of a minor named Vivian Boylen, of Edgar Avenue,
Youngstown.

Spokeswomen for Forum Health and St. Elizabeth declined to comment
because the complaints are matters of pending litigation.

The plaintiff's lawyers seek to include within the class all Ohio
Medicaid patients each institution billed for Medicaid-covered
services during the past 15 years. Each suit seeks more than
$25,000 in damages for each plaintiff and each class.


GODFATHERS: Accused in California Suit of Cheating Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Godfathers cheats its nude and seminude dancers by taking up to
60% of their tips and fining them if they don't sell enough
drinks, among other things, in Los Angeles Superior Court.


HUFFLE MASTER: Court Enters Final Order Closing Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada entered an
order and final judgment concluding the amended class action
complaint against Shuffle Master, Inc., according to the company's
Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

On June 1, 2007, a putative class action complaint for violation
of the federal securities laws against the company and its Chief
Executive Officer, Mark L. Yoseloff and former Chief Financial
Officer, Richard L. Baldwin, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada on behalf of persons who purportedly
purchased the company's stock between Dec. 22, 2006 and March 12,
2007.

The case is entitled Joseph Stocke vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark
L. Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin.  The complaint asserts claims
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  These claims
allegedly relate to the company's March 12, 2007, announcement
that it would restate its fiscal fourth quarter and full year
financial results.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unstated amount.  On or about Aug. 4, 2007, four plaintiffs moved
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

On June 12, 2007, a second putative class action complaint for
violation of the federal securities laws against the company and
Dr. Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.  The case is entitled Robert
Armistead, Jr. vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and
Richard L. Baldwin.  This lawsuit effectively mirrors the
allegations in the Stocke lawsuit filed against these same
defendants on June 1, 2007, except that the Armistead complaint
was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the company's stock
between March 20, 2006 and March 12, 2007.

On June 25, 2007, a third putative class action complaint for
violation of the federal securities laws against the company, Dr.
Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada.  The case is entitled Andrew J. Tempel vs.
Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin.  
This lawsuit is a "copycat" lawsuit of the Stocke lawsuit filed
against these same defendants on June 1, 2007.

On June 22, 2007, a Joint Stipulation was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada providing that all
presently filed and any subsequently filed related class actions
shall be consolidated and captioned In Re Shuffle Master, Inc.
Securities Litigation.  the company was not required to answer,
move against or otherwise respond to any class action complaints
until a consolidated complaint was filed.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the Court appointed the "Shuffle Master
Institutional Investor Group," consisting of the Tulsa Municipal
Employees' Retirement Plan and the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
and Retirement System, as lead plaintiffs.  Grant & Eisenhofer is
the lead plaintiffs' counsel.

A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on
Feb. 5, 2008.  The Consolidated Complaint asserts the same causes
of action for violation of federal securities law as the initial
lawsuits and applies to a class period of Feb. 1, 2006 to March
12, 2007.  The Consolidated Complaint contains essentially the
same material allegations as in the initial lawsuits and also
contains allegations arising out of the company's acquisition of
Stargames and disclosures concerning the company's internal
controls.  The Consolidated Complaint supersedes all previously
filed lawsuits covering this class period.

On March 25, 2008, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.  On March
23, 2009, the Court denied the company's Motion to Dismiss.  The
defendants answered on April 29, 2009.  The case is presently
pending.

On Feb. 2, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement.  The Motion was granted on
Feb. 4, 2010, and the Court set a hearing in May 2010,
subsequently rescheduled to June 8, 2010, where the Court will
decide whether to give final approval for the settlement.

At the June 8, 2010 hearing, the Court gave its final approval to
this settlement.  On June 9, 2010, the Court entered an order and
final judgment concluding the matter.  No appeal has been filed
from the order and final judgment.

Shuffle Master, Inc. -- http://www.shufflemaster.com/-- is a  
gaming supply company specializing in providing its casino
customers with improved profitability, productivity and security,
as well as popular and cutting-edge gaming entertainment content,
through value-add products in four distinct categories: Utility
products which include automatic card shuffler, roulette chip
sorters and intelligent table system modules, Proprietary Table
Games which include live table game tournaments, Electronic Table
Systems which include various e-Table game platforms and
Electronic Gaming Machines which include traditional video slot
machines for select markets.


MDL 1888: Pirelli Agrees to Marine Hose Antitrust Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in In re Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1888; Master Docket No. 08-MDL-1888 (S.D. Fla.), have entered into
settlement agreements with Pirelli & C, S.p.A., and Pirelli Itala
S.p.A., to resolve price-fixing allegations.  The Plaintiff Class
consists of all direct purchasers of marine hose in the United
States from 15 named-defendants from Jan, 1, 1985, through
Mar. 24, 2008.

Under the proposed settlement, Pirelli will pay $2,950,000, and
will cooperate with the Plaintiffs in their prosecution of claims
against:

    -- Bridgestone Corporation
    -- Bridgestone Industrial Products America, Inc.
    -- Trelleborg Industrie S.A.
    -- Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd.
    -- Parker ITR S.r.l.
    -- Parker-Hannifin Corporation
    -- Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A.
    -- Manueli Oil & Marine (U.S.A.) Inc.
    -- The Yokahama Rubber Co., Ltd.
    -- Pirelli Treg, S.p.A.
    -- Cuki, S.p.A., fka ITR, S.p.A.
    -- SAIAG, S.p.A.
    -- Comital SAIAG, S.p.A. and
    -- Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Inc.

The Court will convene a Fairness Hearing to consider this
settlement on Nov. 9, 2010.

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

         Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
         PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
         One City Center
         P.O. Box 9546
         Portland, ME 04112

             - and -

         Ephriam R. Gerstein, Esq.
         GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER, LLP
         1501 Broadway, Suite 1416
         New York, NY 10036

             - and -

         Hollis L. Salzman, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005

Pirelli is represented by:

         Steven A. Reiss, Esq.
         WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
         767 Fifth Ave.
         New York, NY 10153


MDL 2002: Four Defendants Agree to Egg Antitrust Settlements
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in In re Processed Egg Products Litigation, MDL No.
2002; Master Docket No. 08-md-02002 (E.D. Pa.), have entered into
settlement agreements with Sparboe Farms, Inc., Moark, LLC, Norco
Ranch, Inc., and Land O' Lakes, Inc., to resolve price-fixing
allegations.  The Plaintiff Class includes all persons and
entities in the United States who purchases eggs, including shell
eggs and egg products, produced from caged birds in the U.S.
directly from any U.S. producer from Jan. 1, 2000, through
July 15, 2010.  Additional information about the settlement pacts
is available from Garden City Group at:

    http://www.eggproductssettlement.com/

Under the proposed settlements, Sparboe will receive a full
release of all potential liability in exchange for providing
information the Plaintiffs' lawyers believe will aid them in the
prosecution of claims against the non-settling defendants.  Moark,
Norco and Land O' Lakes agree to pay $25 million and provide
additional information in exchange for a complete release.  The
named non-settling defendants are United Egg Producers, Inc.;
United Egg Association; United States Egg Marketers, Inc.; Michael
Foods, Inc.; Rose Acre Farms, Inc.; National Food Corporation;
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.; Hillandale Farms of PA, Inc.; Hillandale-
Gettysburg, L.P.; Hillandale Farms East, Inc.; Hillandale Farms,
Inc.; Ohio Fresh Eggs, LLC; Daybreak Foods, Inc.; Midwest Poultry
Services, L.P.; NuCal Foods, Inc.; and R.W. Sauder, Inc.  The
Plaintiffs' attorneys believe that there are more individuals and
entities that conspired to raise the price of eggs.

The Honorable Gene E. K. Pratter will convene a Fairness Hearing
to consider these settlements on Jan. 13, 2011.

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

         Steven A. Asher, Esq.
         WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19103

             - and -

         Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
         HAUSFELD LLP
         1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
         Washington, DC 20006

             - and -

         Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
         10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10016

             - and -

         Stephen D. Susman, Esq.
         SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
         654 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
         New York, NY 10065

Sparboe is represented by:

         Troy J. Hutchinson, Esq.
         STOEL RIVES LLP
         33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
         Minneapolis, MN 55402

Moark, Norco and Land O' Lakes are represented by:

         Nathan P. Eimer, Esq.
         EIMER STAHL KLEVORN & SOLBERG LLP
         224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60604


OMNI ENERGY: Wants Merger-Related Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------
OMNI Energy Services Corp. has filed motions to consolidate
lawsuits arising out of its planned merger with Wellspring Capital
Management LLC, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter period ended June 30, 2010

On June 3, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Wellspring OMNI Holdings Corporation, and Wellspring
OMNI Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent,
providing for the Merger of Acquisition with and into the company,
with the company surviving the merger as a subsidiary of Parent.

Six purported class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Merger in state courts in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana,
and two purported class actions were filed in connection with the
Merger in the federal district court for the Western District of
Louisiana.

Each court action named the company and its directors as
defendants, and the state court actions also named Wellspring,
Parent and Acquisition.  One of the federal actions filed named
Parent and Acquisition as defendants.

The state court complaints allege, among other things, that the
director defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders of the Company by entering into the Merger Agreement,
failing to disclose certain information with respect to the
Company and failing to maximize shareholder value.

The Wellspring entities are claimed to have aided and abetted the
alleged fiduciary duty breaches by the directors of the Company.

The federal court complaints make substantially the same claims as
the state court complaints, but also allege violations of federal
law relating to the company's proxy statement disclosures.

One or more of the complaints seek injunctions against the Merger,
rescission of the Merger if it is consummated, imposition of a
constructive trust, damages, attorneys' fees, expenses and other
relief.  The complaints request class action certification and
rulings that the named complainants are representatives of the
class.

No class has been certified at present.

Plaintiffs in certain of the state actions and both federal
actions have moved for expedited discovery.  The defendants have
filed the appropriate motions in the state proceedings to
consolidate them into a single proceeding and further to stay such
state actions pending the federal court's consideration of the
federal suit.

A hearing is set for Aug. 30, 2010, as to the motions filed in
state court.  Moreover, the defendants are contesting discovery
requests made by some of the state plaintiffs.

The defendants have also filed a motion in the federal court
requesting consolidation of the federal actions, a state of all
proceedings until lead plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel are
appointed and defendants' motion to dismiss is resolved, and
requesting that outstanding discovery requests be quashed.  No
hearing date has yet been set regarding this motion.

Headquartered in Carencro, LA, OMNI Energy Services Corp. offers a
broad range of integrated services to geophysical companies
engaged in the acquisition of on-shore seismic data and to oil and
gas companies operating primarily in the Gulf of Mexico.  OMNI
provides its services through three business segments: Seismic
Services (including drilling, survey and permitting services),
Environmental and Other Services, and Equipment Leasing.  OMNI's
services play a significant role with geophysical companies who
have operations in marsh, swamp, shallow water and the U.S. Gulf
Coast also called transition zones and contiguous dry land areas
also called highland zones.


ROSS STORES: Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit
regarding wage and hour claims.

Like many California retailers, the company has been named in
class action lawsuits regarding wage and hour claims.  A class
action litigation involving allegations that hourly associates
have missed meal and/or rest break periods, as well as allegations
of unpaid overtime wages to store managers and assistant store
managers at company stores under state law, remains pending as of
May 1, 2010.

No additional details were reported in the company's Sept. 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

Ross Stores, Inc. -- http://www.rossstores.com/-- is the nation's  
second largest off-price retailer with fiscal 2009 revenues of
$7.2 billion.  As of May 1, 2010 the company operated 967 Ross
Dress for Less(R) ("Ross") stores and 54 dd's DISCOUNTS(R)
locations, compared to 922 Ross and 52 dd's DISCOUNTS locations at
the end of the same period last year.  Ross offers first-quality,
in-season, name brand and designer apparel, accessories, footwear
and home fashions for the entire family at everyday savings of 20
to 60% off department and specialty store regular prices. dd's
DISCOUNTS features a more moderately-priced assortment of first-
quality, in-season, name brand apparel, accessories, footwear and
home fashions for the entire family at everyday savings of 20 to
70 percent off moderate department and discount store regular
prices.  The company is headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


SILICON GRAPHICS: Investors Face Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in suit against Silicon Graphics International Corp.
must file an amended complaint after a federal class action
against the company was dismissed, according to the company's
Sept. 8, 2010 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 25, 2010

In March 2009, the company and certain of its present and former
directors and officers were sued in the Superior Court of the
State of California for Alameda County, in a shareholder
derivative lawsuit captioned Milo v. Barton, et al., Case No.
R30944-0474.  The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in
various acts and omissions that resulted in the drops of our share
price in early 2007, and asserts claims for alleged breaches of
defendants' fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and
unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, unspecified equitable or injunctive relief,
disgorgement of unspecified compensation earned by the defendants,
and an award of an unspecified amount for plaintiff's costs and
attorneys fees. By stipulated order dated April 13, 2009, this
action was stayed pending resolution of the pleadings in the
federal class action.

Because the federal class action was dismissed with prejudice,
Plaintiff now has 60 days from the date of the dismissal to file
an amended complaint or notify defendants that Plaintiff will not
file an amended complaint.  Defendants will then be required to
move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the complaint or amended
complaint, as applicable, within 40 days after an amended
complaint is filed or notice is given that Plaintiff will not
amend.

Silicon Graphics International Corp., formerly Rackable Systems
Inc, -- http://www.sgi.com/-- incorporated in December 2002, is a  
provider of servers, storage, and data center solutions targeting
data center deployments. The Company's products are designed to
provide benefits in the areas of density, power efficiency,
thermal management, ease of serviceability, and remote management.
Rackable Systems also offers control in component selection to
match the specific environmental and application requirements of
its customers. The Company bases its products on x86 platform,
such as processors from Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Intel
Corporation (Intel), and operating systems, such as Linux and
Windows. On May 8, 2009, Rackable Systems completed the
acquisition of the operating assets of the former Silicon
Graphics, Inc. In February 2010, the Company acquired COPAN
Systems, Inc.


ST. ELIZABETH: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Patients' Billing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter H. Milliken, writing for The Vindicator, reports Akron-based
lawyers have filed class-action lawsuits against St. Elizabeth
Boardman Health Center and Forum Health Northside Medical Center,
alleging both hospitals improperly billed Medicaid patients for
Medicaid-covered services.

The civil suits were filed in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court
on Sept. 2 against St. Elizabeth and on Sept. 7 against Northside.
Both suits allege breach of contract and negligence, and both
demand jury trials. The suits were filed by Attys. Albert R.
Nestico and Todd O. Rosenberg.

The suit against St. Elizabeth is assigned to Judge R. Scott
Krichbaum, and the suit against Northside is assigned to Judge
Maureen A. Sweeney.

The complaint against St. Elizabeth was filed on behalf of Denise
Cuscino, of Struthers Road, New Middletown.

The complaint against Northside was filed on behalf of Ann Boylen,
mother of a minor named Vivian Boylen, of Edgar Avenue,
Youngstown.

Spokeswomen for Forum Health and St. Elizabeth declined to comment
because the complaints are matters of pending litigation.

The plaintiff's lawyers seek to include within the class all Ohio
Medicaid patients each institution billed for Medicaid-covered
services during the past 15 years. Each suit seeks more than
$25,000 in damages for each plaintiff and each class.


VIRGIN MOBILE: Court to Hold Dec. 8 Hearing on $19.5MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
regarding the In re Virgin Mobile USA IPO Litigation.

                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


                                  Civil Action No. 07- 5619 (SDW)

                                              SUMMARY NOTICE
    IN RE VIRGIN MOBILE USA IPO LITIGATION
    --------------------------------------

    TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES (INCLUDING THEIR BENEFICIARIES)
        WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY-TRADED
        COMMON STOCK OF VIRGIN MOBILE USA, INC. ("VIRGIN MOBILE")
        (TRADING SYMBOL NYSE: VM) BETWEEN OCTOBER 10, 2007, AND
        MARCH 12, 2008, INCLUSIVE, ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES
        (INCLUDING THEIR BENEFICIARIES) WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
        ACQUIRED CALL OPTIONS ON THE COMMON STOCK OF VIRGIN MOBILE
        BETWEEN OCTOBER 10, 2007, AND MARCH 12, 2008, INCLUSIVE,
        AND ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES (INCLUDING THEIR
        BENEFICIARIES) WHO SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF PUT
        OPTIONS ON THE COMMON STOCK OF VIRGIN MOBILE BETWEEN
        OCTOBER 10, 2007, AND MARCH 12, 2008, INCLUSIVE:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will
be held on December 8, 2010, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable
Susan D. Wigenton at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building
and United States Courthouse, 50 Walnut St., Courtroom 5C, Newark,
NJ 07101, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Class(fn 1) can be certified for settlement purposes only,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (2) whether the
proposed Settlement for the sum of $19,500,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (3)
whether, after the hearing, this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated as of July 23, 2010; (4) whether
the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable and adequate and should
be approved; (5) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred
in this Action should be approved; and (6) whether the application
of Lead Plaintiffs for the payment of reasonable time, costs, and
expenses should be approved.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired (including as a
beneficiary) the publicly-traded common stock of Virgin Mobile
(trading symbol NYSE: VM) between October 10, 2007, and March 12,
2008, inclusive, or purchased or otherwise acquired (including as
a beneficiary) call options on the common stock of Virgin Mobile
between October 10, 2007, and March 12, 2008, inclusive, or sold
or otherwise disposed of (including as a beneficiary) put options
on the common stock of Virgin Mobile between October 10, 2007, and
March 12, 2008, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the
Settlement of this Action. If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement with
All Defendants, Motion for Attorneys' Fees, and Settlement
Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release ("Claim Form"), you should obtain copies by writing to In
re Virgin Mobile USA IPO Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group,
Inc., PO Box 9661, Dublin, OH 43017-4961 or by visiting the
website of the Claims Administrator at www.gardencitygroup.com.
The Notice contains details about this Action and Settlement,
including what you must do to exclude yourself from the
Settlement, object to the terms of the Settlement, or file a Claim
Form. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form and Release postmarked no later than December 31, 2010,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
Request for Exclusion to be received by November 15, 2010, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above. All Class Members who have not timely and validly requested
exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in
the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Stipulation. Your objection(s) must be hand delivered or sent by
first class mail to be received on or before Monday, November 15,
2010, to: the Court; Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC on behalf of the Lead
Plaintiffs; and Counsel for the Defendants, at the following
addresses:

     COURT:

         Clerk of the Court
         Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building
         and United States Courthouse
         50 Walnut Street
         Newark, NJ 07101

     FOR LEAD PLAINTIFFS:

         Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
         KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
         206 Covington Street
         Madisonville, LA 70447

         Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class

     FOR DEFENDANTS:

         James Gamble, Esq.
         Linda H. Martin, Esq.
         SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
         425 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017

         Counsel for Defendants Virgin Mobile USA, Inc.,
         Daniel H. Schulman, John D. Feehan, Jr.,
         Frances Brandon-Farrow, Mark Poole,
         Robert Samuelson, and Corvina Holdings Limited

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class at the
address listed above.

    DATED: September 10, 2010        BY ORDER OF THE COURT
                                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                     DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


ZYMOGENETICS INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Wash. Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zymogenetics is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair
process to Bristol-Myers Squibb, for $885 million or $9.75 a
share, shareholders claim in King County Court, Seattle.

A copy of the Complaint in Krivan v. Zymogenetics, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-2-32389-9 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/13/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Karl P. Barth, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-623-7292

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          David A. Knotts, Esq.
          Eun Jin Lee, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: 484-588-5516

                             *********

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, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline
Abangan 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  * * *