CAR_Public/101101.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 1, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 215

                             Headlines

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: D&Os Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
AMGEN INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Off-Label Marketing Suit
BARNWELL NURSING: Award of Objectant's Counsel Fees Not Permitted
BIOPLAY LLC: 5th Circuit Reverses Order to Re-Certify Gene Suit
BIOTAB NUTRACEUTICALS: Reaches Extenze Class Action Settlement

CABLEVISION INC: Faces $450 Million Class Action Lawsuit
CAPITOL GOLD: D&Os Sued Over Sale to Gammon Gold
CELL PHONE COMPANIES: Class Action Over Alleged Radiation Junked
CHINA NATIONAL: Bill Wheeler Balks at Class Action Settlement
DOMINICK'S FINER: Sued for Deceptive and Unfair Business Practices

EBAY INC: Judge Certifies Class in Breach of Contract Suit
ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls 122,000 Slide-in Ranges
ESURANCE SERVICES: Class Action Lawsuit Removed to Federal Court
FREEPORT INDUSTRIAL: Local Gov't. Looks Into Class Action Claims
GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Judge's Order in Class Action Sparks Debate

GMAC MORTGAGE: Faces Predatory Lending Class Action in Calif.
GUARANTEED RATE: Sued for Improper Deductions from Staff's Wages
JAKARTA: Pledges to Respond to Class Action Over Oct. 25 Flood
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit Over DePuy in United Kingdom
LOUISIANA: Education Dept. Faces Civil Rights Class Action Suit

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Suit Over Athletic Scholarships
NSTAR: Being Sold to Northeastern for Too Little, Suit Claims
NVIDIA CORP: KSF Continues to Investigate Fraud Class Claims
WAL-MART STORES: Lawyer Says Discrimination Suit "Adventuresome"
NEW ORLEANS: May Face Class Action Over Traffic-Camera Tickets

PENTHOUSE CLUB: Suit Over Dancers' Tips Gets Class Status
UNION CARBIDE: Judgments Slashed in Paint Thinner Test Cases
UNITED STATES: Valley Stream Residents Mulls Suit Over Flood Map

* Hank Adorno Faces Disbarment for Accepting Class Action Fee


                             *********

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: D&Os Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kiley Hill, derivatively and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2010-CH-46380 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 25, 2010), is
a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of nominal
defendant Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against the members of the
Company's Board of directors and certain of its executive officers
seeking to remedy defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and
other violations of the law that occurred from at least
February 21, 2006, through April 22, 2010.  The suit alleges that
defendants misrepresented the Company's clinical trial results on
Acurox, its leading product candidate, to obtain FDA approval.
After the FDA rejected the Company's new drug application for
Acurox in April 2010, the Company's stock price plummeted and
nearly 50% of the Company's market capitalization evaporated.

Acura, a specialty pharmaceutical company, and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Acura Pharmaceutical Technologies, Inc., engage in the
research, development, and manufacture of pharmaceutical products
designed to discourage drug misuse and abuse.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Ex Kano s. Sams II, Esqw.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847


AMGEN INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Off-Label Marketing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for The American Lawyer, reports the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week affirmed the dismissal
of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act class
action accusing Amgen of falsely marketing its anemia medicines
Epogen and Aranesp for off-label purposes such as heart failure
and cancer.  The case was tossed last year by Los Angeles federal
district court Judge Philip Gutierrez.

The 9th Circuit concluded that none of the Amgen statements cited
in the plaintiffs' complaint were actually false or misleading
when they were made.  The panel also found that the class, led by
the Sheet Metal Workers National Health Fund, failed to link the
statements to any alleged injury to the class.

A spokesperson for Amgen told Law360, which first reported the
decision, that it was "extremely pleased that the Ninth Circuit
has affirmed Judge [Philip] Gutierrez's thoughtful decision in the
lower federal court to dismiss plaintiff's meritless claims
against the company."

Amgen is represented by:

        Mark Cheffo, Esq.
        SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
        Four Times Square
        New York, NY  10036
        Telephone: 212-735-2183
        Facsimile: 917-777-2183
        E-mail: mark.cheffo@skadden.com

and lawyers at Dechert LLP.

The American Lawyer's efforts to reach:

        Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
        WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS
        1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
        New York, NY 10036
        Telephone: 212-447-7070
        Facsimile: 212-447-7077
        E-mail: jwhatley@wdklaw.com

an attorney for the plaintiffs, were not successful.


BARNWELL NURSING: Award of Objectant's Counsel Fees Not Permitted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York was asked to consider whether New
York law permits an award of counsel fees and expenses to an
objectant in a class action.  "We hold that it does not," Judge
Eugene F. Pigott, Jr., wrote in an October 21, 2010, opinion
concurred by Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Victoria A.
Graffeo, Susan Phillips Read and Theodore T. Jones.  Judge Robert
S. Smith dissented in an opinion in which Chief Judge Jonathan
Lippman concurred.

A copy of the court's decision is available at http://is.gd/gjHHK
from Leagle.com.

The class action lawsuit, FLEMMING v. BARNWELL NURSING HOME &
HEALTH FACILITIES, INC., No. 149, was brought on behalf of 242
individuals, who were residents at defendant Barnwell Nursing Home
and Health Facilities, Inc., at any time from January 1, 1999,
through January 31, 2000.  The class claim, brought pursuant to
New York's Public Health Law Section 2801-d, alleged that the
nursing home failed to comply with state-imposed standards of
patient care.

After nearly six years of litigation, the parties reached a
compromise, and a motion for approval pursuant to CPLR Rule 908
was made to the Supreme Court.  Caroline Ahlfors Mouris, on behalf
of her mother's estate, filed objections to the proposed award of
fees to class counsel, the compensation established for the
settlement administrator, and the incentive award to the class
representative.  She did not object to the overall settlement
amount.  Ms. Mouris also cross-moved for an award of counsel fees
she incurred in preparing and presenting her objections.


BIOPLAY LLC: 5th Circuit Reverses Order to Re-Certify Gene Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed
a district court's decision to re-certify the class in GENE &
GENE, L.L.C. v. BIOPAY, L.L.C., No. 09-31191, and remanded the
case to the district court for a determination and disposition of
Gene's individual claim against BioPay.

A copy of the Court's opinion is available at http://is.gd/gnNpb
from Leagle.com.

Circuit Judge Edith Brown Clement wrote that in its second
interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, BioPay, L.L.C., challenged the district
court's grant of Gene & Gene, L.L.C.'s motion to re-certify a
class.  "As in the first interlocutory appeal, Gene & Gene LLC v.
BioPay LLC, 541 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2008), we REVERSE and REMAND."

Between 2001 and 2005, BioPay used a third-party contractor to
send over 4000 fax messages advertising its services to potential
clients in Louisiana.  Gene is the owner of Marcello's Wine
Market, a business that allegedly received a single, unsolicited
fax from BioPay.  Gene filed this class-action suit against BioPay
alleging that BioPay violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 by sending unsolicited faxes to Gene and an
unidentified number of class members.

Judge Clement opines that BioPay I is the law of the case.
"Accordingly, we hold that the district court misinterpreted the
mandate and abused its discretion in reopening discovery as to
class certification on remand."  Judge Clement wrote that BioPay I
foreclosed the re-litigation of the class certification and the
district court erred in considering the "new" evidence disclosed
during the reopened discovery.

The Fifth Circuit holds that the evidence disclosed on remand was
not "substantially different" from the evidence disclosed before
BioPay I and that the "substantially different evidence" exception
to the law of the case doctrine does not apply.


BIOTAB NUTRACEUTICALS: Reaches Extenze Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Milstein, Adelman &
Kreger, LLP and Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP
regarding the ExtenZe class action settlement.

A proposed class action settlement has been reached involving the
manufacturer of a male enhancement product called ExtenZe.  The
case is known as Williams, et al. v. Biotab Nutraceuticals, Inc.,
et al., Case No. BC414808 (consolidated with BC415918) ("the
Action") Los Angeles County Superior Court.  The lawsuit alleges
that Biotab Nutraceuticals, Inc. ("Biotab"), the manufacturer of
ExtenZe, and certain individuals made false claims in certain
marketing, promotional and advertising materials saying that
ExtenZe would increase penis size.  Biotab and the other
defendants deny they did anything wrong.

Who is a Class Member?  The Class consists of all persons who
purchased ExtenZe in the United States between May 29, 2005 and
October 25, 2010.

What is this case about? If the settlement is approved, Defendants
will be enjoined from making certain representations about their
product, including being prevented from claiming that it will make
the penis larger absent independent scientific substantiation.
Further, a cash fund of $6,000,000 will be set up along with an
additional $6,000,000 in retail value of ExtenZe NASCAR
merchandise.  A full description of the benefits can be found on
http://www.extenzesettlement.com/

Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form may choose a refund on
the previously purchased product or choose up to $176.94 worth of
ExtenZe NASCAR racing apparel.  Full details of all the benefits
are found on http://www.extenzesettlement.com/

What are my options?  You have decisions to make and you must make
them now.  Stay in the class.  In order to receive a cash
reimbursement or racing apparel, you must obtain and submit a
valid Claim Form.  Claim Forms can be obtained by calling the 800
number or visiting http://www.extenzesettlement.com/

The deadline to file your claim is April 15, 2011.  If you stay in
the class, you give up any rights to sue Defendants about the same
legal claims in this lawsuit and you will be bound by the Court's
decisions.  The Claim Form will include instructions for the
submission process.  Settlement Class Members may submit Claim
Forms online, or by mail to the Settlement Administrator at the
address below.

Get out of the lawsuit.  If you ask to be excluded, you will NOT
receive money or benefits if the Settlement is approved, but you
keep any rights to sue Defendants separately about the same legal
claims in this lawsuit.  If you intend to bring your own lawsuit
against Defendants, you should exclude yourself from the Class.
If you want to exclude yourself from the class action, you must
formally request to exclude yourself by sending a letter to:
Williams, et al. v. Biotab Nutraceuticals, Inc. EXCLUSIONS: c/o
The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9478, Dublin, OH 43017-4578.
You must sign and date the letter, which must be postmarked on or
before January 11, 2011.

Who represents you?  As a member of the Class, you will be
represented by Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP, 5567
Rededa Blvd., Ste. 330, Tarzana CA 91357-7033; Milstein Adelman &
Kreger, LLP, 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North, Santa Monica, CA
90405; the Law Office of Bruce B. Whitman; Statman, Harris &
Eyrich, LLC; and the Newport Trial Group, LLC.  You will not be
charged a fee for their services in this case.  However, if you
want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at
your own expense.

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on March 30, 2011 in
Department 28 of Los Angeles County Superior Court to consider the
Settlement and Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, plus
expenses.  You don't have to attend the Hearing.

For more information.  This notice is only a summary.  For more
detailed information, please call 800-961-6428, visit
http://www.extenzesettlement.com/or write to Williams, et al. v.
Biotab Nutraceuticals, Inc: c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. P.O.
Box 9478 Dublin, OH 43017-4578.


CABLEVISION INC: Faces $450 Million Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kingsbury, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports a
lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed against
Cablevision Inc. to get rebates for customers as a result of
various News Corp. channels being off the air as the two companies
battle over a new carriage agreement.

Television-service providers have typically reimbursed their
customers in the past following similar battles for not having
access for everything they generally have access to, generally a
few dollars a month.

"If you call to complain and you ask for a rebate, the current
answer is no," said attorney Todd Krouner of Chappaqua, N.Y., who
filed the lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in New York on behalf
of three named plaintiffs.  "They invite the lawsuit and customers
to leave."

Instead of what has typically been the rebate following cable
channel/operator fights, the suit seeks damages equal to one
month's billings, or about $450 million in total based on a $150
average per customer.

Cablevision said, "News Corp. is the company that deserves a
lawsuit, for blacking out the World Series in three million New
York-area homes. The [Federal Communications Commission] has all
the facts and our customers are demanding that the FCC act to end
the FOX blackout."

The fight between Cablevision and News Corp. is focused on News
Corp.'s local channels in New York and Philadelphia, but several
of its cable networks also have been off the air. News Corp. owns
Dow Jones & Co., publisher of this newswire.


CAPITOL GOLD: D&Os Sued Over Sale to Gammon Gold
------------------------------------------------
Albert Stanford, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Stephen M. Cooper, et al., Case No. 651827/2010 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., New York Cty. October 22, 2010), accuses certain of the
directors and officers of Capital Gold Corporation of breaching
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition
of the Company by Gammon Gold, Inc., and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Capital Gold Acquire Co., Inc., in a stock and cash
transaction valued at approximately $288 million, or $4.57 per
share (based on Gammon Gold's closing price on September 24, 2010,
on the NYSE).  Mr. Stanford says the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duty by agreeing to sell the Company for
inadequate consideration, and by "engineering the proposed
acquisition to benefit themselves and Gammon Gold without regard
to the Company's public shareholders."  In the suit, Mr. Stanford
says Capital Gold and Gammon Gold knowingly aided and abetted the
individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, without which
the proposed acquisition would not have occurred.

On October 1, 2010, a definitive agreement was unanimously
approved by the respective boards of directors of Gammon Gold and
Capital Gold.  Gammon Gold's offer is a combination of cash and
stock equal to $0.79 in cash and 0.5209 validly issued, fully paid
and non-assessable common shares, no par value, of Gammon Gold for
each Capital Gold share Capital Gold shareholders own.

The suit alleges that the proposed transaction is unfair and
undervalued because:

  -- The consideration payable to Capital Gold shareholders is not
     insulated from fluctuations in Gammon Gold's stock price.
     Since the announcement of the merger, shares of Gammon Gold
     have fluctuated from a low of $6.99 per share to a high of
     $7.40 per share.  Capital Gold shareholders will receive
     0.5209 shares of Gammon Gold common stock for each of
     their shares, regardless of Gammon Gold's stock price at the
     close of the transaction.

  -- Days before the Board of Directors of Capital Gold accepted
     the Gammon Gold offer, the board rejected an offer from
     Timmons Gold Corp. of 2.27 Timmins Gold shares for each
     Capital Gold share.

  -- Analyst coverage of Capital Gold further illustrates the
     upside expectations for the Company.  Specifically, one
     analyst values the Company's stock at $8.74 per share and the
     average mean target price is $6.06 per share, both of which
     are well in excess of the announced $4.57 transaction price
     without consideration of the fact that the transaction price
     has declined to $4.33 since the announcement of the Proposed
     Acquisition.

Capital Gold, a New York corporation, owns 100% of the El Chanate
gold mine located near the town of Caborca in Sonora, Mexico.
It's common stock is traded on the AMEX under the symbol "CGC."

Gammon Gold is a Canadian company which owns and operates the
Ocampo mine in Chihuahua State, and the El Cubo mine in Guanajuato
State, as well as the Guadalupe y Calvo advanced exploration
property in Chihuahua State, Mexico.  Gammon Gold also leases the
Las Torres gold-silver mine in Guanajuato, Mexico.  Its common
stock is traded on NYSE under the symbol "GRS."

The individual defendants include:

     -- Stephen M. Cooper, Chairman of the Board

     -- Colin P. Sutherland, President and Director

     -- Scott Hazlitt, Chief Operating Officer and Director

     -- John Cutler, Director

     -- Gary Huber, Independent Director

As proof of the Board's questionable motivations in selling the
Company to Gammon Gold, the Complaint says the Board failed to
negotiate in good faith with Timmins Gold.  In a press release
dated September 27, 2010, Timmins Gold had indicated that 17% of
Capital Gold holders had signed support agreements on the proposed
deal, but the Company rejected their offer outright, and refused
to negotiate further.  Moreover, individual defendant Sutherland
will receive $900,000 related to a change of control for selling
the Company to Gammon Gold, which is also his former employer,
having served as director and CFO of Gammon Gold between 2004 and
2007.  Finally, each officer and director of the Company has
entered into a voting and support agreement, dated as of
September 30, 2010, pursuant to which they have agreed, among
other things, to vote all of the Company Common Stock beneficially
owned by him or her in favor of the Merger.

The Merger Agreement also contains preclusive deal protection
mechanisms that effectively discourage or inhibit alternative
offers, including: i) a "no shop" provision, ii) a matching rights
provision, iii) a $10.3 million termination fee payable to Gammon
Gold if the Merger Agreement is terminated under certain
circumstances.

The Plaintiff asks the Court, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with the proposed acquisition, and to
rescind, to the extent already implemented, the Merger Agreement
or any of its terms.

The Plaintiff demand a trial by jury and is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977


CELL PHONE COMPANIES: Class Action Over Alleged Radiation Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that the cell
phone industry scored a victory after the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit tossed a class action over alleged
radiation from cell phones, saying it was up to the Federal
Communications Commission to decide if cell phones are safe.

Upholding dismissal of the class action, the federal appeals court
in Philadelphia said juries in cell phone liability cases should
not be allowed to "second guess" the FCC.

"Regulatory assessments and rulemaking call upon a myriad of
empirical and scientific data and medical and scientific opinion,
especially in a case, such as radio frequency radiation, where the
science remains inconclusive," Judge Anthony Scirica wrote for the
three-judge panel.

The judge added that the FCC was committed to addressing safety
concerns associated with wireless devices, including the
possibility that they cause brain cancer.

Lead plaintiff Francis Farina tried to convince the court that
radiation levels from cell phones harm consumers, even if the
phones comply with FCC standards.

Mr. Farina wanted a court order forcing cell phone manufacturers
like Nokia, Motorola, Sprint and Samsung to package their products
with headsets to reduce the risks of illness or injury.

But the 3rd Circuit ruled that allowing states to monitor the cell
phone industry would "impair the efficiency of the wireless
market."

"As an agency engaged in rulemaking, the FCC is well positioned to
solicit expert opinions and marshal the scientific data to ensure
its standards both protect the public and provide for an efficient
wireless network," Judge Scirica wrote.

"Subjecting the wireless network to a patchwork of state standards
would disrupt that uniformity and place additional burdens on
industry and the network itself," he said, adding that lawmakers
gave the FCC an exclusive mandate to regulate the industry to
avoid that very issue.

The circuit court said Mr. Farina's focus on headsets was
"misplaced" and would likely "conflict with federal law."

"The nature of jury decisions is not to prescribe a specific
prospective remedy," Judge Scirica wrote.  "It is merely to say
that defendants' conduct does not abide by the operative legal
standard -- in this case, that defendants' cell phones are unsafe
-- and to provide relief for the specific case or cases before the
court."

Nokia, Ericsson Wireless Communications, Motorola, Sprint PSC and
AT&T Wireless Services were all named as defendants, in addition
to other cell phone makers and wireless providers.

A copy of the Opinion of the Court in Farina v. Nokia Inc., et
al., No. 08-4034 (3rd Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084034p.pdf


CHINA NATIONAL: Bill Wheeler Balks at Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Middlemiss, writing for Financial Post, reports when Bill
Wheeler read the Alberta Securities Commission settlement into
insider trading allegations involving the 2005 sale of
PetroKazakhstan Inc. to a Chinese-owned company, he said it
"really annoyed me."

An Alberta numbered company set up by CNPC International (Canada)
Ltd. -- part of the China National Petroleum Corp. empire --
agreed to a $7.5-million fine in 2006 for buying shares with
"indirect knowledge" of CNPCI's pending takeover announcement and
then later selling them for a $5-million profit.

Mr. Wheeler, a long-time backer of PetroKazakhstan Inc. --
formerly Hurricane Hydrocarbons Ltd. -- said the problem with the
commission's settlement was that "it didn't do the two things I
felt a settlement should do: one is to compensate the victims and
the other is to act as a deterrent to that kind of activity in the
future."

In fact, the co-founder of Wheeler Investment Counsel Ltd., which
offers a range of no-load mutual funds, was so angry that in 2007,
he decided to take matters into his own hands and sue the China
National Petroleum Corp. and four related entities over the
PetroKazakhstan takeover, alleging a breach of the insider trading
laws.

Now, former PetroKazakhstan investors stand to gain from his
efforts with a $9.9-million settlement on the table.  An Ontario
court judge has approved the settlement and an Alberta court was
expected to do the same on Thursday, Oct. 28.  It's believed to be
the first insider-trading class suit brought in Canada and the
only one so far to reach a settlement.

The settlement denies any liability or fault on the part of the
defendants, which have denied the allegations of insider trading.

Mr. Wheeler contacted his Alberta lawyer Robert Abells, who worked
to bring the suit with the securities class-action team at
Siskinds law firm in Ontario.

Dimitri Lascaris, the Siskinds lawyer who brought the action, said
it's tough to sue for insider trading.  Usually, the plaintiff has
to prove who was on the other side of the trade, which is
difficult to do.  However, he said the PetroKazakhstan settlement,
if approved, will apply to anyone who traded shares between
June 17th and Aug. 12, 2005.

Mr. Wheeler said it took five years to get the case to the point
where investors will be remunerated.  "It took a lot of litigation
to get there" and it "took a lot longer than I thought."  He said
his legal team "really worked for their money and they took a
risk.  The outcome wasn't obvious.  They had to fight every step
of the way."

Mr. Wheeler said if it wasn't for the class-action regime, which
allows law firms to be paid a percentage of the award for taking
on the risk of the case, in this case a maximum of 25%, there is
"no way an individual" could afford to litigate such a claim.

"They [the law firms] definitely took a risk in this thing and it
worked out for them."

He thinks the lawsuit sends a message to companies and individuals
who trade stocks -- a message the regulator failed to send in its
settlement over the allegations.  "It's a deterrent," he said.

The defendant companies are represented by Tristram Mallett and
Chris Naudie of Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt, Professor Ed Morgan
from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, and Lillian Pan
from Carscallen Leitch.

'DIRTY LITTLE SECRET'

Canadians appear to be leaving millions of dollars on the table
when it comes to participating in class actions.

That's because the take-up rate -- the number of people who file
claims in a class suit -- is staggeringly low.

"The take-up rates are the dirty little secret in class actions in
Canada," said Ward Branch, a Vancouver lawyer at Branch MacMaster,
whose firm defends and prosecutes such suits.

In the 108 cases he has tracked, Mr. Branch said the take-up rate
varies between 2% and 40%.

"I think class actions are losing respect because the numbers are
so low," he said.

So what's the problem? Are the claims overblown? "I don't think we
are overestimating the size of claims," said Mr. Branch.  Rather,
he blames bad communication and a convoluted claims process for
the low take-up rates.

"I don't think we are making it easy enough for people to file."

Part of the problem, he said, is that the required legal notices
announcing claims and settlements are laden with legalese, as
opposed to plain language.  "The language is so dense, we have got
to learn from that."

He once tried to write a notice in easy-to-read language, but
opposing counsel added back all the legalese.

Moreover, he said, some claims forms are too long.  "No one is
going to fill out a 20-page form."

Tim Buckley, head of the class actions group at Borden Ladner
Gervais, which defends corporations in litigation, said the
problem is that companies need to ensure they are precluding
future claims, so the language must be encompassing.

"When the take-up is not large, you get a sense of whether there
is a demand for justice," he observed.

He is also concerned about windfalls for litigants and that can
add to the legal burden in validating claims.  If the size of the
class doesn't measure up to the plaintiff's estimates, companies
should not be penalized for it, but should only pay for valid
claims, he said.

Mr. Branch has been experimenting with his claims notices and
found that the simpler the document, the greater the take up.  In
one case, the lawyers involved agreed to reduce the claim to one
page from 12 and the take-up rate hit 40%.

Law firms are also experimenting with how they issue notices.
Traditionally, it's through local advertising in publications.
Now they're trying things like the Internet and even broadcasting.

Jonathane Ricci, a former plaintiff class-action lawyer who now
runs the web service searchclassactions.com, said "judges are now
starting to look more closely at these materials."  They want to
know the litigation plan and how lawyers intend to notify parties
who will make up the class.  His firm is building a clearing house
for class action information and he is working with law firms on
how to reach people.  "The claims rate is not very high.  What
we're trying to do is inform people and educate people.  Maybe,
because of that, those claims rates will go up."

NEXT WAVE

If you're wondering where the next wave of class actions will come
from, look no further than Bill C-36, the proposed Canada Consumer
Product Safety Act, said Peter Pliszka, a litigator at Fasken
Martineau DuMoulin.

The bill, which he said has had a "Byzantine legislative life" and
is now in its third incarnation, will create a new consumer
product regulatory regime in Canada.

He said it was "borne out of the hysteria" of the recalls
involving pet food and children's toys from a few years' back.

He said if passed the legislation will "impose all kinds of new
obligations on manufacturers and importers and sellers of consumer
products in Canada.  "It contemplates a whole new set of reporting
obligations on manufacturers or sellers who become aware of
incidents involving [their products.]" That includes the power to
order product recalls.

He said the fines for breaching the act can be in the millions and
he expects it will generate a new wave of class action activity in
Canada.


DOMINICK'S FINER: Sued for Deceptive and Unfair Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Colen and Robert Colen, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. of
Illinois, Case No. 2010-CH-46443 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.
October 25, 2010), accuses the Illinois grocery store chain of
failing to honor its promise of an "automatic" deduction of "10%
OFF" grocery purchases made by "Fresh Values Card" holders at
Defendant's stores during July 2010, in violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  Defendant
represented to consumers that they need to only present their
Fresh Values Card at check-out, after which "savings are
automatically deducted and appear on your receipt."  Fresh Values
Card is a customer loyalty and discount membership club card that
offers "exclusive savings" and "special money-saving promotions"
to its members.  Contrary to its promise, however, defendant
failed to "automatically" deduct the 10% discount from eligible
purchases made by its consumers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500


EBAY INC: Judge Certifies Class in Breach of Contract Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports a federal judge
certified a class action accusing eBay of stiffing sellers on the
duration of their online auction time.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that Jeffrey Marks of The
Missing Link Inc. and Michael Ewert can proceed with their claim
that eBay misrepresented on its "Sell Your Item" form that their
items would go on sale immediately after sellers submitted the
form.  Instead, eBay allegedly delayed listing the items, and
sellers "did not receive the full duration requested for their
listings."

Messrs. Marks and Ewert say eBay also failed to inform them of the
delays and refused to compensate them by extending the listing
period.

Judge Fogel said the sellers "need not establish a lack of
knowledge by individual class members" regarding eBay's allegedly
fraudulent conduct to recover for false advertising and unfair
competition.

He also ruled that the sellers have shown sufficient data to
estimate damages on a class-wide basis without consulting every
individual seller.

A copy of the Order Granting Motions for Class Certification,
Denying Motion to Appoint Class Counsel, and Denying Motions To
Strike in Ewert v. eBay, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-02198 and in The
Missing Link, Inc., et al. v. eBay, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-04487
(N.D. Calif), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/27/eBay.pdf


ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls 122,000 Slide-in Ranges
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Electrolux Home Products Inc., of Charlotte, N.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 122,000 Frigidaire and Electrolux ICON
Smoothtop Electric Cooktops and Frigidaire Slide-in Ranges with
rotary knobs and digital displays.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Liquids can pool under the control knob and cause the surface
heating element to turn on unexpectedly, heat to temperatures
other than expected and then not turn off, posing a risk of fire
and burn hazards to consumers.

Electrolux has received 70 reports of incidents, including three
reports of fires that resulted in property damage.  Three minor
burn injuries were reported.

This recall involves Frigidaire and Electrolux ICON smoothtop
electric cooktops and Frigidaire slide-in ranges with rotary knobs
and digital displays.  Model and serial numbers for the slide-in
ranges can be found inside the oven door on the left side of the
unit or on the underside surface on cooktop models.  The following
model and serial numbers are included in this recall:

            Frigidaire Serial Number Range and Models
            -----------------------------------------

Serial Number Range: NF501XXXXX through NF952XXXXX

Model Number   GLEC30S9EB    GLEC36S9ES    GLES389FQ    PLEC30S9EC
               GLEC36S9EB    GLES389EB     GLES389FS    PLEC36S9EC
               GLEC30S9EQ    GLES389EQ     LEEC30S9FE   PLES389EC
               GLEC36S9EQ    GLES389ES     LEEC36S9FE   PLES399EC
               GLEC30S9ES    GLES389FB     LES389FE


             Electrolux ICON Serial Number Range and Models
            -----------------------------------------------

Serial Number Range: NF501XXXXX through NF045XXXXX

Model Numbers   E30EC65ESS    E36EC65ESS

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11016.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold through
mass merchandise and independent retail stores from January 2005
through August 2010 for between $500 and $2,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled
ranges or power off cooktops at the circuit breaker.  Contact
Electrolux for information on how to obtain a free repair kit.
For additional information, contact Electrolux at (888) 281-5310
between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Saturday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://ww.smoothtoprangerecall.com/(Frigidaire) or
http://www.cooktoprecall.com/(Electrolux).


ESURANCE SERVICES: Class Action Lawsuit Removed to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reports a
class action filed earlier this year against Esurance Services
Inc. has left Madison County for federal court.

The case filed by plaintiff Lukus Keeling was removed Oct. 22 to
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Mr. Keeling filed suit asking to lead a class of people who
purchased under-insured automobile insurance policies from the
company.

Mr. Keeling claims the coverage provided by the policies did not
meet the minimum limits set down under Illinois law and that the
coverage was no good as a result.

Mr. Keeling's proposed class action includes claims under the
state's consumer fraud laws, misrepresentation and fraud.

Esurance asked to remove the case to federal court under the 2005
Class Action Fairness Act.

The company claims there is a diversity of citizenship issue, the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and that the class would
include more than 100 people.

According to the removal filing, the class could include more than
52,000 insurance purchasers.

E. Ryan Bradley and James Rosemergy represent Keeling.

Clark Cole and Lisa Wood represent Esurance.

The case had been assigned to Madison County Circuit Judge David
Hylla.

The case is Madison case number 10-L-936.


FREEPORT INDUSTRIAL: Local Gov't. Looks Into Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
K. Nancoo-Rusell, writing for The Freeport News, reports that as
residents of Pinder's Point consider filing a class action law
suit concerning illnesses they claim they contracted because of
their proximity to the industrial park in that area, one prominent
attorney says he believes that there is a case to be made.

A national newspaper reported that persons living in the Pinder's
Point area were preparing to take legal action, and that Member of
Parliament for West End and Bimini Obediah Wilchcombe is
attempting to have a subcommittee formed to conduct hearings on
the issue.

According to that report, Wilchcombe has gotten the unofficial
approval of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham to pursue the matter,
and intends to put the proposal before the House of Assembly for
official ratification.

Attorney Simeon Brown said the issue is one he has discussed with
several attorneys, as well as with residents of that area and
other parts of the island.

"It's a legal dream, to tell you the truth.  It's a massive case,"
he said.

"I am concerned that something was discovered that was hazardous
to the health of the residents in that general area from way back
when they moved the schools out of that area," he said.

Brown said he believes that successive Governments have been
complicit in the matter by allowing the complaints to go on for so
many years without some action being taken.

"I think they were all negligent in the handling of it . . . the
Government should have ensured that they receive an up to date
unbiased report on the conditions down there.

"The Department of En-vironmental Health ought to have some
reports on this matter but I get the distinct impression that they
don't have any," he said.

The Government has recently conducted a survey of residents in the
Lewis Yard and Pinder's Point areas to determine whether
relocating them will be feasible.

"The Government relocating those residents is one thing, but if
you're talking about a class action suit and the people being
justly compensated for their illnesses, then you want to establish
liability.  They may have to create a whole subdivision for these
people and in addition compensate people who have lost loved ones,
and have suffered losses as a result of it."

Mr. Brown said a scientific analysis of the area surrounding the
industrial park must be conducted by an impartial third party such
as an environmental group or university.

"The question is really are we able to get some kind of scientific
report with respect to the chemical elements in the ground whether
they may have affected the water table.  All we would need to show
is that they may have affected the water table.  Once they could
have affected the water table that's sufficient (for a case)."

In the meantime, Mr. Brown said he would advise residents of the
area to maintain proper records of their doctor visits,
treatments, and medication purchases.

If such a suit is filed and the residents are successful, he said
it could mean a huge settlement.

"There's nothing that I am aware of in The Bahamas that would be
as big as this.  You're talking about hundreds of millions of
dollars."

In the past, residents have complained about various health
concerns they have, which they believe may be linked to the
operation of the industrial park.

Their list of medical complaints include rashes, nausea, shortness
of breath and a loss of vocal ability.


GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Judge's Order in Class Action Sparks Debate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that after
16 years of observing scores of litigation teams from his seat on
the Southern District bench, Judge Harold Baer Jr. has strong
views about what is lacking in many law firms: diversity.

A stir recently erupted in the securities class action bar after
Judge Baer issued an order in a case against Gildan Activewear
Inc., directing two of the largest firms in the field, Labaton
Sucharow and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, to "make every effort"
to put at least one woman and one minority lawyer on the case.
The ensuing press about the order caused Edward Labaton, a senior
partner at his firm, to make a rare court appearance earlier this
month to publicly state that his firm was committed to equal
opportunity.

In a follow up order on October 22 in In re Gildan Activewear Inc.
Securities Litigation, 08-cv-5048, Judge Baer said his initial
order "was not intended to be critical in any way" of how the two
firms promote diversity or prosecute and staff a case.  But he
said the diversity considerations "were goals I would urge be met
in similar cases that come before me."

Plaintiffs lawyers interviewed said they had not heard of other
judges making similar orders.  Judge Baer has at least once
before cited diversity as a criteria in approving of counsel.  But
the order in Gildan came two years after the firms had already
been approved as lead counsel and after Gildan agreed to a
$22.5 million settlement in that case and two related ones in
Canada.

Judge Baer in an interview said he has become concerned by the
lack of minority and female lawyers at law firms generally and saw
the counsel approval process as a tool at his disposal to address
a persistent problem at firms.

"They are behind where they should be," he said.

Lawyers at both Labaton and Robbins Geller say they already take
diversity into account.  "Our firm has great respect for diversity
and we do everything we can to promote equality within our firm,"
said David Rosenfeld, a partner at Robbins Geller who is involved
in Gildan.

Lawyers at other plaintiffs firms, such as Milberg and Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, likewise said they try to recruit and
promote men and women of various ethnic backgrounds.  They
acknowledge, however, that as with the rest of the profession,
they face challenges.

"Diversity is an issue in the legal profession in general, and I
don't think there are any issues unique to the plaintiffs bar"
that are not also faced by the defense bar in New York, said Max
W. Berger, a partner at Bernstein Litowitz.

Reliable statistics on the demographics of the securities class
action bar are hard to come by.  By contrast, the make-up of
defense firms are tracked and scrutinized by an array of groups
and publications.  Women made up 32.4% of all lawyers nationally
in 2009, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Another
11.6% were black, Asian or Hispanic, bureau statistics show.

Many of the more prominent plaintiffs firms have initiatives aimed
at boosting minority and women lawyers, like diversity committees
and flextime policies.  For example, Ariana Tadler, a partner at
Milberg on its executive committee, said her use of Milberg's
flextime policy to start a family never impacted her advancement.

"I had the ability to juggle what a full-time mother needs to
have," she said.  "I never felt limited in what I could do here
because I had a family."

PRESSURE FROM CLIENTS

Also not unique has been pressure from firm clients, Mr. Berger
said. Public pension funds, which are typically represented by
class action firms, have for some time asked for information on
the diversity of legal teams.

"It's not just the diverse backgrounds of the lawyers and staff in
the office but also who services the cases," Mr. Berger said.

Last November, for example, Robbins Geller, under its then-name
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, included diversity
information in its submission to the Florida State Board of
Administration in response to a question by the agency reviewing
firms as counsel on securities litigation.

Robbins Geller noted that women comprised 38.4% of its 190 lawyers
and 20.8% of its 72 partners.  The firm, which was the largest to
submit to the scrutiny, also said 14.2% of its attorneys were
minorities as well as 9.7% of its partners.

At Labaton, 15 of the firm's 80 lawyers are minorities, or 18.75%,
a spokeswoman said.  Another 26, or 32.5%, are women, the
spokeswoman said.

Judge Baer, 77, in an interview said that in addition to fewer
women and minorities in the ranks of firm partnerships, he is also
concerned by statistics that show a lack of minority students in
law school.  Research by Columbia University School of Law
professor Conrad Johnson has found that from 1993 to 2008, the
number of black students entering law school fell 7.5%.

By encouraging the firms to diversify their legal teams, Baer said
he hoped it would lead to more women and minorities getting
exposure in court.  In his view, "there is a lack of successful
mentoring" by law firms, which may explain the lack of diversity
in partnership ranks.

Judge Baer's order in Gildan cited one from a class action against
JPMorgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation,
06-cv-732, appointing Schiffrin & Barroway; Kirby, McInerney &
Squire; and Keller Rohrback as lead counsel.  In his 2007 J.P.
Morgan ruling, Baer said the class included "thousands" of
participants in a bank's retirement plan who were "both male and
female, arguably from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds."

"Therefore, I believe it is important to all concerned that there
is evidence of diversity, in terms of race and gender, of any
class counsel I appoint," Judge Baer wrote.

Based on the biographies of the three firms, he said, "it appears
that gender and racial diversity exists, to a limited extent, with
respect to the principal attorneys involved in the case."  As a
result, Baer said they met his "diversity requirement" that "at
least one minority lawyer and one woman lawyer with requisite
experience at the firm be assigned to this matter."

PUBLIC REACTION

Of concern to Mr. Labaton was the way in which Judge Baer's order
in Gildan was reported, resulting in Judge Baer's clarifying
order.   Mr. Labaton, 78, who told Judge Baer at an Oct. 7 hearing
that he rarely makes court appearances anymore, expressed concern
that some members of the press interpreted the order targeting the
two firms, "as a criticism in suggesting that we were somehow lax
in practices of equal opportunity and seeking to establish equal
opportunity," according to a transcript.

"Since my name is on the firm and since I think I had something to
do with establishing the culture of the firm which embodies at
least that principle, I would hope that your Honor could write
something that would clarify that," Mr. Labaton said.

Some class action attorneys said that while diversity is a noble
goal, Judge Baer is going too far in directing firms to take
gender and race into account when staffing a case.  Stuart Grant,
founder of class action firm Grant & Eisenhofer, said Congress did
not intend for judges to use their counsel approval powers to
focus on law firm diversity when it passed the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act in 1995.

"I think the judge's heart is in the right spot, but I don't think
he has the authority and I don't think he's going to accomplish
the goal he's trying to achieve," said Mr. Grant, who is based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

But Judge Baer said he has wide authority to decide what factors
are important in appointing class counsel . In the J.P. Morgan
opinion, Judge Baer wrote that in addition to knowledge,
expertise, resources and experience, judges "may consider many
other factors relevant to counsel's ability to represent the
interests of the class."

In the interview, Judge Baer said he saw no reason why diversity
could not be taken into account.

"This never seemed so outlandish to me," he said.


GMAC MORTGAGE: Faces Predatory Lending Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that GMAC Mortgage runs up the
principal on its Option ARM home loans by putting payments into
escrow instead of to pay off interest, as specified by contract,
according to a predatory lending class action in Solano County
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Dunn, et al. v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et
al., Case No. 636774 (Calif. Super. Ct., Solano Cty.)
(Garrett, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/27/MortgageCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Evan M. Zucker, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          E-mail: rlk@kbklawyers.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
          Stefanie M. Ramirez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 West
          Washington DC 20005-3964
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Richard B. Wentz, Esq.
          Jean M. Wentz, Esq.
          THE WENTZ LAW FIRM
          2955 East Hillcrest Drive, Suite 123
          Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
          Telephone: (805)374-0060
          E-mail: rick.wentz@gmail.com


GUARANTEED RATE: Sued for Improper Deductions from Staff's Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Strange, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-46445
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 25, 2010), accuses the
nationwide mortgage lender of making improper deductions from its
employees' wages, in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

Mr. Strange was employed by Guaranteed from October 2006 to
June 2007 as an underwriter and from June 2007 to June 2008 as a
loan officer.  Mr. Strange relates that from December 2007 until
June 2008, his earnings were entirely based on commissions from
sales.  During the time that his earnings were entirely based on
commissions, he was required to pay "marketing costs," including
fees for sales leads, to Defendant.  Mr. Strange narrates that he
did not give express written consent for these deductions at the
time the deductions were made.  On July 3, 2008, following his
dismissal from Guaranteed, Mr. Strange received a letter informing
him that he owed his former employer $1,328.15, and that he had 30
days from the date of the letter to settle or the information will
be turned over to a collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          J. Mark Moore, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SPIRO MOSS LLP
          11377 West Olympic Boulevard, Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 235-2468


JAKARTA: Pledges to Respond to Class Action Over Oct. 25 Flood
--------------------------------------------------------------
BeritaJakarta.com reports the Jakarta capital city government
pledges to respond to class action filed by a number of people in
connection with the flood and traffic congestion due to extreme
weather on Monday, October 25.  "I think it is part of the
people's rights and we will respond to it," said Jakarta Capital
City Governor Fauzi Bowo, Wednesday, October 27.  However, the
governor warned, the class action could not be done at will since
it has its own classification and criteria that must be met.

Governor Fauzi admitted he was not annoyed with many complaints
conveyed through social networking websites, such as Twitter and
Facebook, following the Monday's traffic gridlock and flood.

Meanwhile, a Jakarta Regional Research Council member, Budi
Siswanto, said the lawsuit should be addressed to the central
government, not to the city government.  He assessed the central
government was very slow to respond Jakarta government's request
in terms of issuing regulations that become the legal umbrella for
flood mitigation and traffic jam handling in the capital.  "So, it
is not appropriate for nongovernmental organizations to file a
class action against Jakarta government.  Instead, it should be
addressed to the central government so that the lawsuit can push
the central government to move faster to help the city government
handle the issue," he explained.

Mr. Budi revealed, there are many programs that cannot be
immediately implemented by Jakarta government due to the absence
of authority on the issues; among others, the dredging project of
13 rivers funded with loans from the World Bank and the policy
restricting private motor vehicles through the application of
Electronic Road Pricing (ERP).  Both the programs are still
waiting for the issuance of the government regulations.

Meanwhile, Jakarta Legal Aid Institute Director Nurkholis Hidayat
said, since Tuesday morning, there have been many of the Monday's
incident-affected residents reporting their complaints. "As of
now, there has been no official action, just complaints," he
stated.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit Over DePuy in United Kingdom
----------------------------------------------------------------
AboutLawsuits.com reports a DePuy ASR class action lawsuit is
being pursued in the United Kingdom, alleging that the recalled
metal hip implants can flood a patient's body with toxic metal
debris, which could lead to tumors and cancer.

In August, DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson &
Johnson, recalled the ASR metal-on-metal hip replacement system,
acknowledging that about one out of every eight patients who
receives the hip implant may experience problems within five
years.  At the time of the recall, about 93,000 DePuy ASR hip
implants had been sold.

The recall affects more than 10,000 U.K. residents, who must have
their implants reviewed by doctors to see if they are potentially
defective.  According to a report by The Daily Mail, a complaint
will be brought on behalf of at least 78 patients who received a
defective DePuy ASR hip implant in the U.K., many of whom have had
to undergo revision surgery.

The DePuy metal hip replacement lawsuit will call for 3.5 million
($5.5 million) in compensation, however some estimates say that
price tag could grow as high as GBP350 million ($550 million) as
more recipients of the implants in the U.K. join the lawsuit.

According to allegations raised, design problems with the DePuy
metal-on-metal hip replacement system allow the release of
chromium and cobalt into the blood, which can be toxic.

Blood tests on some patients with the ASR hip implants have
revealed that levels of chromium and cobalt can be 100 times
higher than normal, and in some cases the patients have had tissue
inflammation and benign tumors develop.  Both chromium and cobalt
have been linked to cancer in certain conditions, although cobalt
is also used to fight cancer under certain applications.

In addition to the claim in the U.K., there have been a number of
individual and class action DePuy metal hip replacement lawsuits
in the United States as well.  On September 30, a DePuy class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio claiming that the company is misleading
people into thinking they will be reimbursed for defective DePuy
hip implants in order to try and get them to sign waivers that
would give the company both the implant and access to their
medical records.

Another DePuy ASR recall class action claim was filed September 24
by Katheryn Bendel, seeking to force the company to pay for a
uniform program to compensate for medical monitoring for all hip
replacement patients who received one of the defective metal
implants, regardless of their financial or health care situations.

In addition to the class actions, a growing number of DePuy ASR
injury lawsuits have been filed by individuals throughout the
United States who have experienced problems with a DePuy ASR
implant, many of which have required revision surgery to replace
the artificial hip.

All of the lawsuits over DePuy ASR hip implants involve similar
allegations of design defect, which caused the plaintiffs to incur
additional medical expenses, suffer pain and, in some cases,
require additional surgery to revise or replace the hip implant.
The complaints allege that DePuy failed to adequately test the
metal-on-metal hip system and failed to immediately issue a recall
when it became apparent that that the DePuy ASR was linked to a
high failure rate.

In September, a motion was filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate and centralize the DePuy
ASR recall litigation. The Panel is scheduled to hear arguments on
the motion next month.


LOUISIANA: Education Dept. Faces Civil Rights Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports
that four Louisiana law advocacy groups announced their civil
rights lawsuit against the Louisiana Department of Education on
behalf of special needs students in New Orleans.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law, the Community Justice section of the Loyola
Law Clinic and the Southern Disability Law Center filed the suit
Oct. 26 in U.S. Distric Court of the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

SPLC attorney Eden Heilman is the lead counsel in this case.
The 60-page class-action complaint names Louisiana State
Superintendent Paul Pastorek, the LDE and the Louisiana Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education as defendants.

In a press release, Ms. Heilman said that the LDE "recently
acknowledged the well-documented barriers facing students with
disabilities in New Orleans.  This acknowledgement is heartening
and gives us hope that we can collaborate to immediately address
the urgent crisis facing New Orleans students with disabilities."

The complaint states that its purpose is to "vindicate the rights
of all New Orleans students with disabilities filed pursuant to
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA]
of 2004."

The suit claims that the defendants have engaged in "disability
discrimination" because Orleans Public schools "have failed to
ensure that public schools offer disabled students the same
variety of educational programs and services as are available to
non-disabled children."

The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy alleged
violations of IDEA, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
and of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

There are 22 plaintiffs named in the suit, all of which are
disabled students and their parents who claim to have been
affected by lack of services for the disabled in New Orleans
schools.  The student disabilities range from Attention Deficit
Hyperactive Disorder and dyslexia to autism and blindness and all
attend public or charter schools located in Orleans Parish.

The suit also accuses the LDE of several "systemic violations"
including "discrimination on the basis of disability" and "failure
to protect students' procedural safeguards in the disciplinary
process."  It cites several instances where students were denied
admittance to public schools based on their disabilities.

The vast majority of New Orleans public schools were taken over by
the State's Recovery School District (RSD) from the Orleans Parish
School Board (OPSB) since hurricane Katrina.  Currently there is a
class action suit against the state in Orleans Parish Civil
District Court by former OPSB employees who were let go after the
RSD took over.

Federal Case 10-cv-04049


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Suit Over Athletic Scholarships
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Agnew, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 10-cv-04804
(N.D. Calif. October 25, 2010), accuses member institutions of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association of conspiring (in
restraint of trade) to maintain the price of bachelor's degrees
for NCAA student-athletes at artificially high levels by (i)
agreeing not to offer student-athletes multi-year discounts on the
price of a bachelor's degree, and (ii) artificially reducing the
total number of available athletics-based discounts by imposing
artificial caps on the number of athletics-based discounts that
its member institutions can offer, in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.  These athletics-based discounts are referred to
as "grants-in-aid" by the NCAA or "athletic scholarships."

Mr. Agnew says that he was heavily recruited by numerous Division
I colleges and universities, but selected Rice University because
of the sizable athletics-based discount promised to him.  Rice
University promised him a 100% discount on the price of one year's
tuition for a bachelor's degree.  Prior to his junior year, Mr.
Agnew was told that his scholarship would not be renewed and that
he would no longer have a spot on the roster.  He appealed the
non-renewal of the scholarship and won, receiving a full year's
tuition despite no longer being a member of the Rice football
team.  However, he did not receive tuition money for his senior
year of college and, as a result, he has paid tuition and room and
board out-of-pocket.  In a competitive market, Mr. Agnew says he
would not have incurred these tuition or room and board payments
because he would have received a multi-year athletic discount
sufficient to cover the entire cost of his bachelor's degree.

NCAA is an unincorporated association that acts as the governing
body of college sports.  The NCAA includes 1,055 active member
schools divided into three Divisions: Division 1 includes schools
with extensive athletic programs and Divisions II and III include
schools with relatively less extensive athletic programs.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable and
is represented by:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          1200 G. Street N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          E-mail: stuart@smplegal.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 650
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900
          E-mail: rcarey@hbsslaw.com
                  leonard@hbsslaw.com


NSTAR: Being Sold to Northeastern for Too Little, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that NStar is selling itself too
cheaply to Northeastern Utilities, for the equivalent of $9.5
billion, in a stock swap of 1.312 Northeastern shares for each
NStar share, NStar shareholders claim in Suffolk County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ferkauf v. NSTAR, et al., Case No.
10-4158 (Mass. Super Ct., Suffolk Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/27/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS, BARSAMIAN, MANDELCORN & ZEYTOONIAN, LLP
          110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: 781-431-2231
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Shane Rowley, Esq.
          David H. Leventhal, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-983-9330


NVIDIA CORP: KSF Continues to Investigate Fraud Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and KSF partner Former Attorney General of
Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr. Wednesday disclosed that the firm
continues to investigate fraud allegations in the firm's
securities fraud class action lawsuit against Nvidia Corporation
(Nasdaq: NVDA).  The lawsuit, In re Nvidia Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-CV-4260-RS, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the Company between
November 8, 2007 and July 2, 2008, inclusive.  No class has yet
been certified in this action.

                         What You May Do

If you have information that would assist KSF in its ongoing
investigation, or would like to discuss your legal rights, you
may, without obligation or cost to you, call or e-mail KSF
Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- toll
free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 200, after hours via cell phone 504-301-
7900.  KSF encourages anyone with information regarding NVIDIA'S
conduct during the period in question to contact the firm to
discuss the investigation, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.  KSF attorneys have
significant experience in representing both institutional and
individual shareholders in securities fraud litigation nationwide.

                       About the Lawsuit

The lawsuit alleges that beginning at least as early as August
2007, NVIDIA knew that its graphics chipsets were defective and
caused notebook computers to overheat.  Prior to the start of the
Class Period, NVIDIA was in active discussions with its main
customers, Hewlett-Packard and Dell Incorporated, about how to
cure problems with its chips on both a short and long term basis.
Nevertheless, NVIDIA failed to disclose to its shareholders and
the public that its products were defective.

By the close of the quarter ended October 28, 2007, NVIDIA's
knowledge of the problems associated with its malfunctioning
graphics chipsets required that a reserve be established for a
loss contingency under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
However, Defendants refused to establish this reserve. As a
result, Defendants artificially inflated NVIDIA's net income by
83% in the quarter ended October 28, 2007; 24.6% for the fiscal
year ended January 27, 2008; and 111% for the quarter ended April
27, 2008.

On July 2, 2008, the Company disclosed that flawed GPU and MCP
manufacturing processes and materials caused notebook computers
containing these products to fail at unusually high rates.
Defendants further disclosed the belated establishment of a $196
million dollar reserve for a loss contingency related to defects
in the Company's GPU and MCP products during the quarter ended on
October 28, 2007.

As a result of the Company's July 2, 2008 announcement, investors
learned Defendants' prior Class Period statements regarding
NVIDIA's financial condition, results, products, and business
prospects were materially false and misleading when made because
Defendants failed to timely disclose the defects in the Company's
GPUs and MCP products and their impact on the Company.  On this
revelation, NVIDIA's stock plummeted by 31% from an intraday high
of $18.78 per share on July 2, 2008 to an opening of $12.98 per
share on July 3, 2008 -- a decline that cut NVIDIA's market
capitalization by over $3 billion overnight, thereby damaging
Plaintiffs and the Class.  In the ninety days following this
belated revelation, NVIDIA's share price continued to decline
without recovering, averaging $11.82 per share.

                      About Kahn Swick & Foti

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com/-- whose
partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C.
Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities class action
litigation with offices in New York and Louisiana.  KSF's lawyers
have significant experience litigating complex securities class
actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and individual
shareholders.


WAL-MART STORES: Lawyer Says Discrimination Suit "Adventuresome"
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for LegalNewsline.com, reports the attorney
representing Wal-Mart in a class action lawsuit that alleges
discrimination against women on Wednesday called the suit
"extremely adventuresome."

Theodore Boutrous said the case, currently being appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court, should never have received class certification
under rule 23b(2).  That rule, he said, was drafted to certify
classes seeking injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is seeking
backpay, claiming they were never promoted because of their
gender.

Mr. Bourous said rule 23b(2) was used for segregation cases --
"You don't need a class to get the relief for everyone," he said.

He said federal rules of civil procedure rule 23b(3) allows class
certification in more "adventuresome" claims.  He then called the
Dukes case "extremely adventuresome."

The U.S. Supreme Court has not decided if it will accept Wal-
Mart's appeal.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted class certification in April with a 6-5 vote.

The plaintiffs argue it is established that the backpay remedy is
consistent with 23b(2).  They also argue that they are not asking
for compensatory damages and the "case does not currently present
the issue of whether punitive damages were properly certified
under Rule 23b(2)."

Several groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have filed
amicus briefs with the Supreme Court urging it to hear the case.
The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform owns Legal Newsline.

Mr. Boutrous was speaking at the ILR's Legal Reform Summit
Wednesday.

The plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition Thursday.
Mr. Boutrous said he would file his reply brief Friday.


NEW ORLEANS: May Face Class Action Over Traffic-Camera Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Vise, writing for WWL First News, reports now that the State
Supreme Court has shut down the red-light camera ticket-writing
system in New Orleans, the local attorney who brought the case
says he is considering a class-action suit on behalf of everyone
who has received a traffic ticket under the system.

Attorney Ed Washington tells WWL First News that the high court,
after considering legal arguments from both sides, sided with
lower-court judge Paulette Irons, who earlier ruled that the
camera-ticket system violates the city charter.

Mr. Washington said such a suit could involve "tens of thousands"
of plaintiffs who have received tickets under the traffic-camera
system since its inception.

According to Washington, the city of New Orleans is effectively
out of appeals.

The City of New Orleans released the following statement Wednesday
afternoon:

"We are obviously disappointed in Supreme Court's decision because
these cameras have proven to be an important deterrent to unlawful
traffic practices.

"Since their inception, red-light violations have decreased by 91%
at intersections where enforcement cameras are present.  The
statistics for speeding are even more compelling.  Speeding
violations where cameras are present have decreased 95%.

"It is our position that camera violations issued through
yesterday will still be valid.  You must continue to pay all
tickets issued until this point.

"We cannot overstate the importance these cameras have played in
reducing dangerous traffic practices.

"We are working diligently to find an alternative to the program
as it is administered today.  Without these cameras for the time
being, we are asking residents to be extra cautious on our
roadways."


PENTHOUSE CLUB: Suit Over Dancers' Tips Gets Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Shifrel, writing for New York Daily News, reports that nine
Penthouse club dancers are officially a class act now that a judge
has ruled their lawsuit can be expanded.

The women are suing the club in federal court, claiming they were
cheated out of tips and wages.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the suit can proceed as a
class action, meaning any dancer who worked at Penthouse in the
last three years can join it.

"It's a huge victory for the workers here," said lawyer Justin
Swartz, Esq., of Outten & Golden, which filed the suit on behalf
of the dancers.

"They filed this case for their co-workers to recover their lost
wages."

The suit was first filed by dancer Leslie Liwanag, who also
claimed that the Manhattan adult entertainment club made dancers
buy their own costumes, sliced tips, and cheated them out of
overtime.

In her ruling, Federal District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled
some of Penthouse's arguments against putting the suit into class
action status "borders on specious."

Ms. Liwanag initially filed the suit in February.  Daily News'
Alison Gendar reported back then that Ms. Liwanag claims the club
takes a 20% slice out of dancers' tips, makes them buy their own
costumes, cheats them out of overtime and makes them pay a fee to
perform.

Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com


UNION CARBIDE: Judgments Slashed in Paint Thinner Test Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports Supreme
Court Justices slashed judgments by almost 90% in test cases for a
class action against Union Carbide over release of paint thinner.

Five Justices agreed that St. Charles Parish District Judge Kirk
Granier and Fifth Circuit appeals judges in Gretna compensated
victims too generously.

They cut five judgments from $3,500 to $500, one from $2,500 to
$250, two from $2,000 to $150, and four from $1,500 to $100.

"None of the claimants sought or required medical attention as a
result of the exposure," the majority wrote in an unsigned
opinion.

"They were not required to evacuate from the area as a result of
the chemical release, nor did they miss any work or school," they
wrote.

They compared symptoms to those from seasonal allergies, writing
that they might be characterized as mere annoyances.

Justices Greg Guidry, Marcus Clark, John Weimer and Jeffrey
Victory decided in favor of Union Carbide, as did temporary
Justice Philip Ciaccio.

Dissenting Justice Jeannette Knoll wrote that it isn't the
function of the Court to micromanage a district court's exercise
of discretion in awarding damages.

Dissenting Justice Bernette Johnson wrote that she found no
manifest error.

In 1998, at Union Carbide's plant in Taft, roof drains failed in a
storm.

Water collected, the roof collapsed, and the water fell into a vat
of paint thinner.

Almost five million pounds of thinner evaporated over 17 hours.

More than 2,000 individuals filed injury claims.

Justice Granier picked about 100 for a "bellwether trial" to set a
range of judgments for possible class settlement.

Thirty showed up for depositions, and most failed to state valid
claims.

Justice Granier granted summary judgment against 16, and held
trial for the other 14.

He awarded damages for headaches, runny noses, itchy eyes and mild
nausea.

He awarded $3,500 to those in the plant, $2,500 to those near the
plant, $2,000 to those in Montz and $1,500 to those in Killona.

Union Carbide moved for a new trial, and Justice Granier denied
it.

The company appealed to the Fifth Circuit, where judges affirmed
12 judgments and dismissed two due to contradictory testimony.

Union Carbide appealed to the Supreme Court.

David Bienvenu of Baton Rouge wrote, "All too often, class action
claimants submit false claims, assuming that their claims will
never be scrubbed for any elements of truth."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Chemistry Council,
Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, and Louisiana
Chemical Association submitted briefs on behalf of Union Carbide
as friends of the court.

Louisiana Association for Justice countered that plaintiffs
complied with discovery, subjected themselves to examination under
oath, and presented evidence to satisfy their burden of proof.

At oral arguments on Sept. 9, Mr. Bienvenu asked the Justices to
draw a line between compensation and economic opportunism.

He said if they affirmed the judgments, "class actions lines are
going to expand from here to the Superdome."

Class counsel Andrew Lemmon of Hanhville said the class stood at
about 1,100.

Justice Clark asked if claims came from persons outside the area
and persons who weren't born.

Mr. Lemmon said they did, and he said the trial court dismissed
them.

Justice Weimer said, "Why shouldn't those be dismissed in some
fashion prior?"

Mr. Lemmon said, "That's a good question and we struggled with it
as counsel in this case."

Justice Guidry said, "Four days of irritation, how is that worth
15 hundred?"

Mr. Lemmon said, "Fifteen hundred for four days of burning eyes?
You couldn't pay me 15 hundred to stick a chemical in my eyes for
four days."

Justice Weimer said, "It just doesn't make sense that someone
would be exposed and be in so much pain and not go to a doctor."

The majority shrank the overall verdict by 88.5%, from $30,000 to
$3,450.

Justice Jeffrey Victory concurred with the majority but objected
to the method of awarding damages by location.

"Damages should have been based upon testimony as to an
individual's actual damages, not on expert testimony that it was
reasonable to assume someone closer to the source would suffer
more damage than someone farther away," he wrote.


UNITED STATES: Valley Stream Residents Mulls Suit Over Flood Map
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Hackmack, writing for LIHerald.com, reports a small group
of Valley Stream residents met with Nassau County Legislator Fran
Becker the previous weekend, seeking his help for relief from high
flood insurance premiums.

Mr. Becker, who is running against incumbent Carolyn McCarthy for
the 4th Congressional District seat, has been outspoken against
the flood map changes put into effect last year by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.  Most of Valley Stream's Gibson
section, as well as the Mill Brook community, were included in the
new high-risk flood zone.  Homeowners with a mortgage are mandated
to buy flood insurance.

Joseph Barbaro, of Gibson, said more than a half-dozen residents
met with Mr. Becker at his office Saturday afternoon.

At a meeting with FEMA officials on Oct. 7, Mr. Becker blasted the
federal agency for the flood map changes.  He called the new maps
a "money grab" and said if elected to Congress, he would be FEMA's
worst nightmare.

Gibson resident Carol Crupi, who has been leading the fight
against the flood maps changes, said that she recently learned
that FEMA received much of its historical data from the Nassau
County Department of Information Technology.  FEMA officials say
they have used historic data in determining what areas should be
included in the high-risk zone.

Ms. Crupi said she would like to see what information was given by
the county to FEMA, but has been unsuccessful so far.  She said
she asked for Becker's help as a county legislator to try and
access that data.

She and Mr. Barbaro say there is also the possibility of a class
action lawsuit against FEMA.  The purpose of the suit, Ms. Crupi
said, would be to prove that the flood maps are inaccurate and to
get flood insurance premiums refunded.  "We're paying for
something we don't need," Ms. Crupi said, "and it's being forced
on us."

After two public forums with FEMA officials, Ms. Crupi said it has
become apparent that something else needs to be done.  She noted
that representatives from the agency continue to defend the new
flood maps.  "We can't get past FEMA," she said, "because they
keep insisting their science is 100% [correct]."

Ms. Crupi said although the idea of a class action lawsuit has not
yet been presented to residents of the community, she would expect
a large number of homeowners to sign on should it go forward.  She
also said she would consider the possibility of a national class
action suit because areas in other states have been affected by
the flood maps changes, too.

Mr. Barbaro said he, Ms. Crupi and a few other homeowners have
already begun searching for an attorney.  "We're looking to get
somebody to represent us," he said.


* Hank Adorno Faces Disbarment for Accepting Class Action Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for South Florida Business Journal,
reports Miami attorney Hank Adorno, name partner at one of South
Florida's largest law firms, is facing possible disbarment by the
Florida Supreme Court over his acceptance of a $2 million fee in a
class action case where the settlement didn't benefit the entire
class.

The court issued a ruling Wednesday that suspends him from
practicing law after a 30-day period to conclude or transfer
clients.  The court also ordered Mr. Adorno to show cause why he
should not be suspended for three years or disbarred.

Mr. Adorno is a founder and CEO at Adorno & Yoss, which has
offices across South Florida as well as in multiple states and
calls itself the largest certified minority-owned law firm in the
country.

Broward Circuit Judge Jack Tuter ruled Jan. 8 that Mr. Adorno
violated bar rules by accepting the settlement.  Mr. Adorno's fee
came from a $7 million settlement in a lawsuit, filed in 2004 for
seven Miami residents, over the city's fire service fees.

Beginning Sept. 14, 2000, the city had enacted a fire tax that it
contends is for fire services only.  Plaintiffs in the proposed
class action lawsuit had contended that the tax was illegal to the
extent that it also funded emergency medical services.  There was
never a ruling on the dispute, only settlements that denied
culpability by any party.  The settlement should have included all
who paid the fee.

The Florida Bar had been seeking a shorter suspension of
Mr. Adorno's license.

At the time of Judge Tuter's ruling, he had also noted that the
law regarding settlement of class action cases is unclear, and
even conflicting, as to what fiduciary duty is owed by an attorney
to an undetermined or potential class of plaintiffs.

But his ruling says "settling with seven individual plaintiff's to
the detriment of the undetermined/putative class -- under the
facts of this case was prejudicial, illogical, and unexplainable."

                             *********

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  * * *