CAR_Public/101221.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 21, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 251

                             Headlines

ALON HOLDINGS: Sued for Misrepresenting Dairy Products
ANZ BANK: Opposes Appointment of Independent Expert in Class Suit
ARIBA INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Approval Still Pending
AT&T INC: More Plaintiffs Join Class Action Over Back Wages
CHINA ORGANIC: Enters Into Settlement of 2008 Lawsuit

COVIDIEN PLC: To Pay $33 Million in "Stumpf" Suit Settlement
DENVER, CO: Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Nuisance Law
DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Defends Multiple Lawsuits in Various States
DOWNERS GROVE: Court Revives Suit Over Groundwater Pollution
FAGOR AMERICA: Recalls 1,400 Fagor Refrigerators

IMH FINANCIAL: Four Delaware Securities Actions Consolidated
MARVELL TECH: Appeals in IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Over Happy Meals
MISSION CITY: May Face Class Action Over PSIT Program
NEW LEAF: Trial Date for California Lawsuit Still to be Set

OPPENHEIMER & CO: Losses Auction-Rate Securities Class Action
OTIX GLOBAL: Awaits Court Approval of "Goltz" Suit Settlement
RED HAT: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $20 Million
SCORES HOLDING: Continues to Defend "Siri Diaz" Suit in New York
SOCAL GAS: Sued for Not Paying Overtime to Workers

STATION CASINOS: Boys & Girls Clubs to Get Cash-Out Payment
STERNO GROUP: Recalls 37,500 Sterno Portable Butane Stoves
STIHL INCORPORATED: Recalls 1,000 Handle Trimmer/Brushcutter
TOA ELECTRONICS: Recalls 2,600 Paging Horn Loudspeakers
TROPICANA PRODUCTS: Accused in Florida Suit of False Advertising

TYSON FOODS: Court Still to Set Trial Date for Water Suit
UNCLE BUCK'S BAR: Discrimination Class Action Settled
WAL-MART STORES: Recalls 2.2MM Comfort Essentials Heaters
WELLS FARGO: Sued for Failure to Comply with ECOA Notice Provision
VF CONTEMPORARY: Recalls 900 Girls' Hooded Zip Jackets & Vest Sets



                             *********

ALON HOLDINGS: Sued for Misrepresenting Dairy Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square-Israel Ltd. announced that it was served
with a claim and a request for approval as a class action, in
which Alon Holdings is sued regarding the sale of various cheese
and dairy products in its supermarket chains operated by its
subsidiary (100%), Mega retail Ltd.

The plaintiff claims that the company sells in its supermarket
various cheese and butter substitute products while presenting
them as cheese products and butter and that the customers are
mislead by the company's alleged representations regarding such
products.  The plaintiff filed a request that the claim will be
approved as a class action representing all customers who bought
such products in the seven years prior to the filing of the claim.

The plaintiff's personal claim is estimated by him at approx.
NIS700, and if the Claim is approved as a class action, the
approximate claim is estimated by the plaintiff at approx. NIS456
million.

Alon Holdings is currently reviewing the Claim and denying all
allegations, however, at this preliminary stage of the
proceedings, it is unable to evaluate its likelihood of success in
the proceedings, including the likelihood that the Claim will be
certified as a class action.

Alon Holdings Blue Square-Israel Ltd. ((NYSE: BSI) operates in
three reporting segments: In its supermarket segment, Alon
Holdings is the second largest food retailer in the State of
Israel.  As pioneer of modern food retailing in the region, Alon
Holdings, through its 100% subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., currently
operates 207 supermarkets under different formats, each offering a
wide range of food products, "Near Food" products and "Non-Food"
products at varying levels of service and pricing.  In its "Non-
Food" segment, Alon Holdings, through its 100% subsidiary Bee
Group Retail Ltd., operates specialist outlets in self operation
and franchises and offers a wide range of "Non-Food" products as
retailer and wholesaler.  In addition, Alon Holdings holds
approximately 78.38% of Dor Alon, a subsidiary listed on the Tel
Aviv stock exchange, one of the four largest petrol companies and
a leader in the field of convenience stores.  Dor Alon operates a
chain of 186 petrol stations and 175 convenience stores in
different formats in Israel.  In its Real Estate segment, Alon
Holdings, through its TASE traded 78.39% subsidiary Blue Square
Real Estate Ltd., owns, leases and develops yield generating
commercial properties.


ANZ BANK: Opposes Appointment of Independent Expert in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AAP reports the ANZ bank, facing a massive class action over
alleged fee gouging, has rejected the need for an independent
court-appointed expert to look at the operational costs behind its
fees and charges.

In the first of a series of class actions planned against
Australian banks, law firm Maurice Blackburn alleges ANZ has
charged its customers excessive fees since 2006.

The parties assembled for a preliminary hearing in the Federal
Court in Melbourne on Wednesday to discuss how Australia's largest
ever class action, involving almost 30,000 people taking on the
bank over fee gouging, should go ahead.

Legal counsel for Maurice Blackburn suggested to Justice Ray
Finkelstein that having an independent court-appointed expert
investigate aspects of the case is the best way for it to move
forward.

Counsel Michael Lee said having an independent expert look into
the operational costs associated with the bank's fees and charges
would be far quicker, more efficient and cheaper than each side
having its own expert.

But counsel for ANZ disagreed, saying the bank was intent on an
"early resolution" and the appointment of a court-appointed expert
would not speed up the case.

Maurice Blackburn is claiming around $50 million for fees the
banks charged, including dishonor fees on bank accounts, as well
as over limit fees and late payment fees on credit cards.

Another 11 banks, including the Commonwealth, Westpac and National
Australia Bank, are expected to face similar actions against them
by Maurice Blackburn.


ARIBA INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Approval Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from an order approving the settlement Ariba, Inc.,
entered into to resolve a lawsuit related to its initial public
offering remain pending, according to its Nov. 23, 2010 Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2010.

In 2001, a number of purported shareholder class action complaints
related to the Company's and FreeMarkets' initial public offerings
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and FreeMarkets, which
the Company acquired in 2004, certain of the two companies' former
officers and directors, and the underwriters who handled the IPOs.
The consolidated complaints were then further consolidated, along
with similar complaints filed against over 300 other issuers in
connection with their initial public offerings, before a single
judge for case management purposes.

After many years of litigation and appeals related to the
sufficiency of the pleadings and class certification, the parties
have agreed to a settlement of the entire litigation, which was
approved by the Court on October 5, 2009.

Under the settlement, neither the Company nor FreeMarkets will be
required to make any payment.  Notices of appeal have been filed
by various objectors of the Court's order.

As of September 30, 2010, no amount is accrued as a loss is not
considered probable or estimable.


AT&T INC: More Plaintiffs Join Class Action Over Back Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Emspak, writing for International Business Times, reports a
class action suit against AT&T for back wages and damages, filed
on behalf of some of its information technology workers, has
picked up more plaintiffs.

The suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California in February.  It was brought by
Matthew Buccellato, a technical support worker in California.  He
contends that AT&T misclassified him as a salaried, rather than
hourly, employee.  As a result, he was denied overtime that he
otherwise deserved.  AT&T denies this and says that it classified
the technical support workers properly.

The other plaintiffs are Rick Cortes of Colorado, Richard
Malcontento of New Jersey, Kenneth Carlton of New York, Lowell
Hill of North Carolina.

The suit could cost AT&T millions of dollars if the class of
people the court deems covered is large, as plaintiffs are seeking
years' worth of back pay and 401(k) contributions.

In such suits other members of the class are brought in as
plaintiffs because local state laws can sometimes be more
protective of employees than their federal counterparts.

Employees are routinely classified as either salaried or hourly.
But the presumption is that one is an hourly employee unless
specifically stated otherwise.  Anyone who is classes a salaried
worker has to be doing something considered "professional," which
means making some kind of creative decisions.

Administrative workers often fall in this category, and
historically many workers in information technology have as well.
Under the law, job titles don't matter; it's what the person
working is actually doing that decides the issue.


CHINA ORGANIC: Enters Into Settlement of 2008 Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
China Organic Culture, Inc., is preparing to pay cash and give
shares of stock in settlement of a lawsuit filed in 2008,
according to the Company's Nov. 22, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2008.

On June 14, 2010, the Company reached a settlement and entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement for the class
action lawsuit filed on December 18, 2008.  Under the terms of the
settlement, eligible class members would receive a total of
$300,000 in cash together with shares of the Company's common
stock having a value of $300,000 in exchange for a release of
claims which class members have or may have against the Company,
its directors, officers, affiliates, shareholders and agents,
except claims arising out of or related to the settlement.


COVIDIEN PLC: To Pay $33 Million in "Stumpf" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Public Limited Company disclosed it is no longer facing
significant litigation matters related to Tyco International and
Tyco Electronics, according to the company's Nov. 22, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended September 24, 2010.

Pursuant to a Separation and Distribution Agreement, Covidien
assumed a portion of Tyco International's contingent and other
corporate liabilities, including potential liabilities relating to
certain of Tyco International's outstanding litigation matters.

Prior to the separation, Tyco International and certain of its
former directors and officers were named as defendants in a number
of class actions alleging violations of the disclosure provisions
of the federal securities laws. As previously disclosed, Tyco
International settled the purported securities class action
lawsuits in which Tyco International and certain of its former
directors and officers were named as defendants. A number of class
members opted out of the settlement and brought separate actions
that have subsequently been settled, two of which are discussed
below. As of September 24, 2010, there were no remaining
significant litigation matters for which Covidien, Tyco
International and Tyco Electronics are jointly and severally
liable.

Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd., et al., is a class action
lawsuit in which the plaintiffs allege that Tyco International,
among others things, violated the disclosure provisions of the
federal securities laws. The matter arises from Tyco
International's July 2000 initial public offering of common stock
of TyCom Ltd., and alleges that the TyCom registration statement
and prospectus relating to the sale of common stock were
inaccurate, misleading and failed to disclose facts necessary to
make the registration statement and prospectus not misleading. The
complaint further alleges the defendants violated securities laws
by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning, among other things, executive compensation, TyCom's
business prospects and Tyco International's and TyCom's finances.
On August 25, 2010, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey approved the settlement of the Stumpf
matter for $79 million, and on September 24, 2010, the appeals
period expired. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution
Agreement, Covidien's share of this amount was $33 million.

Hall v. Kozlowski, et al., an action relating to plaintiff's
employment, 401(k) and pension plans and ownership of Tyco
International stock, was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation. On September 9, 2010, the district court
granted summary judgment dismissing all claims against Tyco
International.


DENVER, CO: Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Nuisance Law
-------------------------------------------------------
Julie Hayden, writing for KDVR-TV, reports a local lawyer is
planning a class action lawsuit against the city of Denver,
Colorado, over its nuisance ordinance.

He says it's extortion and allows the city to hold innocent
people's vehicles for ransom.  The nuisance law says Denver can
take a person's car if they're stopped for certain minor offenses.

Lawyers say the problem is, the law also allows Denver to keep the
vehicle and charge the person thousands of dollars in fees, even
if they're found not guilty.

"The system as it's written says 'we're right, we're always right
and you're always wrong and in the end you get to pay whatever we
tell you needs to be paid,' Attorney Derek Cole said."  So how is
that fair?"

Mr. Cole says the city preys on people like Robin McAnally.  A
jury found him not guilty of the misdemeanor charge.  But Denver
won't give him his work truck back unless he pays the city more
than $5,000 in fees.

He says he doesn't have the money, and losing his truck is costing
him his livelihood.  "The mayor knows about this, the city council
knows about this.  It's not right and needs to change," Mr. Cole
said.

The City Attorney's office explains the ordinance allows the city
to handle cases this way.


DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Defends Multiple Lawsuits in Various States
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., is defending itself from lawsuits in
various states alleging unpaid wages, according to the Company's
Nov. 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 30, 2010.

State wage and hour class action complaints were filed against the
Company in Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri,
Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nebraska, New
Jersey, South Carolina, Maryland, Vermont, North Carolina, Maine,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Colorado, Florida and Massachusetts.
In the actions, plaintiffs assert claims similar to those in the
Barrus case, which makes claims concerning alleged failures to pay
wages and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York law -- Tamara Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods,
Inc. and Galyan's Trading Company, Inc.  Plaintiffs are seeking
remedies that include injunctive relief, unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, expenses, expert fees and an award of
interest.

The Company currently believe that none of these cases should be
permitted to proceed as a class action, and the Company is
vigorously defending them.


DOWNERS GROVE: Court Revives Suit Over Groundwater Pollution
------------------------------------------------------------
Sonya Angelica Diehn at Courthouse News Service reports that Gear
and tool manufacturers that were found liable for groundwater
contamination can sue other companies that polluted the same site
over their shares of a $16 million settlement to a class action,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled.

Arrow Gear and Precision Brand Products were two of several
businesses investigated by the Environmental Protection Agency
regarding groundwater pollution by industrial solvents at the
Ellsworth Industrial Park in Downers Grove, Ill., a Superfund
site.

Residents of the area filed a class action in 2004, which was
settled in 2006 for $16 million.

In a series of agreements, the polluting companies split the
expenses among each other and released themselves from further
contribution claims.

As part of the settlement process, the class action was dismissed
with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs could not refile.

The Chicago-based 7th Circuit consolidated Arrow's and Precision's
separate lawsuits against other polluters, but only discussed
Arrow's claim since the issues were identical.

Arrow Gear sued Downers Grove Sanitary District in 2008 to recover
costs for pollution under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act.

The trial court agreed with Downers Grove to dismiss the action,
since the issue had already been decided when the suit was
dismissed.  Downers Grove argued that this would constitute
piecemeal appealing, something the legal system discourages.

The three-judge appellate panel disagreed, with Judge Richard
Posner writing, "This is a 'start over' case."

Although the settlements included such broad language as barring
claims against co-polluters "from the beginning of time,"
Judge Posner wrote this was clearly qualified and the scope
narrowly defined.

Since the EPA's investigation is ongoing, the agency can still
file claims against the companies, the court pointed out.

The 7th Circuit reinstated the lawsuits, finding that other
polluters cannot rely on res judicata -- the legal doctrine that
prevents litigants from retrying matters that have already been
judged -- or the claim that the cases were already decided.

In a separate agreement, the polluting companies agreed to provide
an alternative water source to communities affected by the
pollution, at a cost of more than $4 million.


FAGOR AMERICA: Recalls 1,400 Fagor Refrigerators
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fagor America Inc., of Lyndhurst, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,400 Fagor Refrigerators.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The refrigerator's control board can overheat, posing a fire
hazard to consumers.

Fagor America has received 19 reports of incidents, including two
reports of fires resulting in damage to the refrigerator and
surrounding property.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Fagor 24-inch wide refrigerators sold in
stainless steel and black.  "Fagor" is printed on the
refrigerator's front door.  Model and serial numbers are located
inside the refrigerator door, on the left hand side near the food
storage drawers.

  Models       Serial Numbers Within the Range of
  ------       ----------------------------------
T/3FCA-68NFX   Serial numbers starting with 0609xxxxx through
                0727xxxxx

3FCA-68NFX     Serial numbers starting with 0746xxxxx through
                1017xxxxx

FCA-86ART      Serial numbers starting with 0839xxxxx through
                0915xxxxx

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11072.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Spain and sold through
Specialty Home Appliance Stores nationwide between July 2006 and
May 2010 for between $2,000 and $2,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the refrigerator, unplug
it and contact the Fagor repair hotline to schedule a free
inspection and repair.  For additional information, contact Fagor
America at (888) 354-4411 between 8:30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.fagoramerica.com/


IMH FINANCIAL: Four Delaware Securities Actions Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Four lawsuits filed against IMH Financial Corporation were
consolidated and lead plaintiffs were appointed, according to the
Company's Nov. 22, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Three proposed class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery (May 26, 2010, June 14, 2010 and June 17, 2010)
against the Company and its affiliated named individuals and
entities.  The May 26 and June 14, 2010 lawsuits contain similar
allegations, claiming that fiduciary duties owed to Fund members
and to the Fund were breached because the Conversion Transactions
were unfair to Fund members, constitute self-dealing and because
the Form S-4 and/or information provided about the Form S-4 or
Conversion Transactions are false and misleading.  The June 17,
2010 lawsuit focuses on whether the Conversion Transactions
constitute a "roll up" transaction under the Fund's operating
agreement, and seeks damages for breach of the operating
agreement.

An action was filed on June 14, 2010 by Fund members Ronald Tucek
and Cliff Ratliff, as well as LGM Capital Partners LLC in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against the company and affiliated
named individuals and entities.  The June 14, 2010 lawsuit claims
that that fiduciary duties and the duty of disclosure owed to Fund
members and to the Fund were breached because the Conversion
Transactions were unfair to Fund members, constitute self-dealing
and because the Form S-4 and/or information provided about the
Form S-4 or Conversion Transactions are false and misleading.
Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Conversion Transactions, have an
independent advisor appointed on behalf of Fund members, remove
the Manager and obtain access to contact information for Fund
members and certain broker-dealers.  The company and its
affiliated named individuals and entities dispute these claims and
will defend vigorously against this action.

In July 2010, the parties in the four actions filed various
motions and/or briefs seeking competing forms of consolidation
and/or coordination of the four actions.

During a hearing on these motions on October 14, 2010, the parties
in the respective actions agreed to consolidate the four actions
for all purposes, subject to certain provisions with "respect to
the unique individual count brought" by the Tucek plaintiffs.

On October 25, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
respective parties' proposed "Order of Consolidation and
Appointment of Co-lead Plaintiffs: Counsel and Co-Liaison
Counsel," which, among other things, consolidated the four
actions, ordered that a consolidated Amended complaint will be
filed within 45 days of October 25, 2010, followed by consolidated
discovery, and designated the plaintiffs' counsel from the May 25,
2010, and June 17, 2010, lawsuits as co-lead counsel.


MARVELL TECH: Appeals in IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. disclosed in its Nov. 23, 2010, Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 30, 2010, appeals from an order granting
final approval of the settlement it entered with plaintiffs of a
New York lawsuit remain pending.

In 2001, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
concerning certain alleged underwriting practices related to the
Company's initial public offering on June 29, 2000.  The actions
were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was filed, naming
as defendants certain investment banks that participated in the
IPO, the Company, and two of its officers, one of whom is also a
director.  Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated certain
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by allegedly failing
to disclose that the underwriters received "excessive" and
undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful "tie-in"
agreements with certain of their clients.  The consolidated
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest and fees.  In
addition, the case has been coordinated with hundreds of other
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against underwriters and issuers for
approximately 300 other IPOs.

Defendants in the coordinated proceedings moved to dismiss the
actions.  In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in
part and denied them in part, allowing certain claims to proceed.
The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated
litigation.  Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the
Company will bear no financial liability.  The Company and other
defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case.

On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an order of final approval of
the settlement.  Certain objectors have filed appeals.  If for any
reason the settlement does not become effective, the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims against it and
intends to defend the action vigorously.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Over Happy Meals
----------------------------------------------------
Ben Rooney, writing for CNNMoney.com, reports McDonald's is being
sued by a group of consumers and nutrition advocates who want to
force the fast food chain to stop using toys to entice children to
buy meals they say are unhealthy.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, which filed the
class action suit in a California court Wednesday, claims that
McDonald's violates the state's consumer protection laws by using
toys to market Happy Meals to young children.

The suit was brought on behalf of Monet Parham, a mother of two in
Sacramento, and other plaintiffs, the CSPI said.  "I object to the
fact that McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my
permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat,"
Ms. Parham said in a statement.

CSPI threatened to sue McDonald's in June, but the company refused
to discuss ways to avoid a law suit, the group said.

McDonald's (MCD, Fortune 500) pledged to fight the suit in a
statement.

"We are proud of our Happy Meals and intend to vigorously defend
our brand, our reputation and our food," said company spokesperson
Bridget Coffing.  "We are confident that parents understand and
appreciate that Happy Meals are a fun treat, with quality, right-
sized food choices for their children that can fit into a balanced
diet."

The lawsuit charges that using toys to market Happy Meals to young
children is illegal because it "is inherently deceptive and
unfair."  McDonald's advertising is also unfair to its
competitors, who do not choose to attract very young children with
the lure of a toy, according to the complaint.

"Every time McDonald's markets a Happy Meal directly to a young
child, it exploits a child's developmental vulnerability and
violates several states' consumer protection laws, including the
California Unfair Competition Law," Steve Gardner, CSPI litigation
director, said in a statement.

CSPI and other critics argue that McDonald's promotes unhealthy
eating habits among children by deliberately targeting them as
part of a strategy to maximize profits.

The group also blasted McDonald's for publicly touting more
healthy options, such as Apple Dippers and low-fat milk, while
routinely putting French fries in the majority of Happy Meals.

"McDonald's congratulates itself for meals that are hypothetically
possible, though it knows very well that it's mostly selling
burgers or chicken nuggets, fries, and sodas to very young
children," said CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson.

"In other words, McDonald's offerings consist mostly of fatty
meat, fatty cheese, French fries, white flour, and sugar -- a
narrow combination of foods that promotes weight gain, obesity,
diabetes, and heart disease -- and may lead to a lifetime of poor
diets," he said.

According to Dave Tartre at Courthouse News Service, Ms. Parham
says that TV ads, billboards and Web sites drive her 6-year-old
daughter to clamor for the toys, such as "Shrek movie character
figures," and that children view McDonald's marketing as good
nutritional advice.

She says she is frustrated that her daughter's "friends are
McDonald's viral marketers" helping "mobilize pester power in
order to sell unhealthful meals to kids."

She seeks an injunction and class damages for unfair and deceptive
trade, unfair competition and consumer law violations.

Happy Meals contain high levels of calories, saturated fat and
sodium, lack the fruits, vegetables or fiber children need, and
are contributing to a "super-sized health crisis in California,"
according to the complaint.

A copy of the Complaint in Parham v. McDonald's Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-506178 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/16/McDToys.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George Richard Baker, Esq.
          BAKER LAW, P.C.
          2229 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-241-9608
               - and -

          Stephen Gardner, Esq.
          Seema Rattan, Esq.
          CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
          5646 Milton Street, Suite 211
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: 214-827-2774


MISSION CITY: May Face Class Action Over PSIT Program
-----------------------------------------------------
Carol Aun, writing for Mission City Record, reports a group of
Mission residents are threatening a class action lawsuit against
the district after they received a $5,200 bill when their homes
were searched by the Public Safety Inspection Team.

BC Civil Liberties Association's Michael Vonn led the charge when
she appeared as a delegation to council on Dec. 13.

Mr. Vonn told council she was concerned about the "numerous and
credible" complaints her group has received and concluded
residents have "suffered a serious violation of rights."

This fee is more like a fine because it's only applied to houses
suspected of housing marijuana grow operations, she said, adding
the large sum is "unbelievable" and not in line with typical
inspection fees.

"These inspections are administrative procedures," she accused.
"What's happening is not fair . . . and it's putting innocent
people under horrible duress."

Mr. Vonn noted there's insufficient evidence in some cases, a lack
of procedural fairness and no effective review process.  "All
this, makes Mission ripe for a class action lawsuit."

Stacey Gowanlock, Trish Banfield, and Len Gratto -- who all had
their homes searched and were all at the meeting -- said they
wouldn't hesitate to join the lawsuit.

Ms. Gowanlock told The Record he was there when PSIT entered his
home.  The district inspectors went through his home in 10 minutes
and he said the only thing they found was incorrect hot tub
wiring.

He had the problem fixed and even paid the $5,200 fee, but he
wants it back.

The district put a Do Not Occupy order on Ms. Banfield's property,
but she is refusing to leave and says her house is safe to
inhabit.

Mr. Gratto is already working with a lawyer and his wife Leona
admitted if she knew then what she knows now about PSIT, she would
never have let them in her house.

"We were all naive until we started talking to other people about
it," she said.

"What gives them the right to give me a $5,200 inspection fee for
an hour's work?" asked Len Gratto.

The group had other questions they wanted to ask council, but
missed their opportunity during the public question period.

The crowd had been noisy throughout the meeting and Acting Mayor
Terry Gidda, who was filling in for the vacationing James Atebe,
had a hard time keeping order.

Mr. Vonn didn't realize the opportunity had passed until council
started the public hearing portion of the meeting.  She asked
council for an opportunity for others to inquire publicly about
her presentation, but was told question period had closed.

Outbursts from the gallery soon followed and Mr. Gidda had to ask
those people to leave and threatened to call police.

Outside council chambers, Mr. Vonn expressed disbelief that
council wouldn't let "a room full of people address their elected
representatives."

"This is the first time I've seen something like this," said
Mr. Vonn, who has made many presentations to different councils.
"Part of what I'm doing is informing council we know people are
considering lawsuits and it's not the way you want to deal with
it."

BCCLA has received 10 complaints about Mission's PSIT program, but
for everyone that has launched a complaint, there are many more
who haven't, she explained.

"This is something that has caused stress in the community and
it's best dealt with at a community level.  I would be sorry to
see the courts involved."

Mission's PSIT program is continuing to do its work, said Glen
Robertson, the district's chief administrative officer.  He
refused to comment on the legal threat, but noted council receives
delegations regularly and it is up to council to determine if they
want to address it or discuss it further.

In the meantime, the district is trying to provide answers
regarding its PSIT program.


NEW LEAF: Trial Date for California Lawsuit Still to be Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
New Leaf Brands, Inc., is awaiting trial of a lawsuit in
California, according to its Nov. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On January 29, 2009, the company was notified that it was named as
a defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in a class action
lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedly failing to
disclose the amount of lead in one of its products.  The company
has responded to discovery requests from the Attorney General of
California.

To date, no trial date has been set.  The Company is currently
investigating the merits of the allegation and is unable to
determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or a range of
possible loss.


OPPENHEIMER & CO: Losses Auction-Rate Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Trupp, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that after
beating back several class-action cases involving auction-rate
securities, an arbitration panel has ordered Oppenheimer & Co. to
repurchase $650,000 from a Connecticut couple.  The move is a win
for New York attorney Todd Higgins who has several more actions
pending against the recalcitrant firm.

"The company may rethink it's tactics after this," Mr. Higgins
suggested.  "The class-actions failed because of the 'scienter'
provision, which rules out nuances and makes the plaintiff
actually prove 'intentional fraud'," Mr. Higgins, a managing
partner in Crosby & Higgins, explained.

The ruling against Oppenheimer was ordered by a Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (FINRA) panel comprised of one industry
representative and two non-industry attorneys.

"Oppenheimer has to learn that they will come before similar
panels, and that they will be held liable," Mr. Higgins said.
"Sooner or later they (Oppenheimer) are going to have to think
about avoiding punitive damages.  These cases aren't going away."

Oppenheimer is one of the largest sellers of auction-rate
securities.  At one time, the company sold nearly $1 billion in
ARS before the Wall Street banks and broker-dealers pulled a
scripted shutdown of the market on February 13, 2008.

The ARS scandal, at its height, totaled $336 billion dollars --
20% of what it takes to run the entire federal government for a
year.  Settlements by state attorneys general have reduced the
numbers of deceptively sold auction paper by $200 billion.  The
ARS market was sold to individuals and institutions as completely
liquid, Triple-A rated, and safe as Treasury bonds.  Clients were
unaware that the market was being artificially propped up by
industry auctions which gave ARS a phony appearance of liquidity.

Earlier this year, Oppenheimer signed a settlement with New York
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.  But the pay back schedule was
staggered in increments because the company cried poverty. It
still has nearly $600 million in ARS claims outstanding and many
claims against it.

The irony of the poverty plea came as Oppenheimer made expensive
new hires, expanded operations in the U.S., and Asia, and ran a
series of expensive television ads seeking new business.

Mr. Higgins said the buy back of securities from Jordan Moffett
and Margot Tremble, formerly of Los Angeles, was originally set at
$700,000 in damages, plus interest.  The case was originally filed
March 23, 2009.

Mr. Moffett and Ms. Tremble alleged a breach fiduciary duty,
fraud, negligence and breach of contract in Oppenheimer's sale of
ARS preferred securities.  In addition to the $650,000, the panel
ordered the company to pay $18,441 in expert witness fees, plus
reimbursement of the FINRA filing fee.

"ARS is a defective product," Mr. Higgins said. "The whole market
was, and is, artificial.  This was never a free-flowing market."

Approximately $130 billion is ARS remains under challenge.  Among
the firms still refusing to repurchase auction paper, which are
long-term bonds running 20-30 years, and others having no end-
date: the so-called "perpetual bonds," are Pimco, Charles Schwab,
E*Trade, and Raymond James, among others.

"Investors weren't ever given proper information about these
bonds," Mr. Higgins continued.  "Brokers were intervening in the
market, propping it up, and investors didn't know what was
happening.  The market was being manipulated."

Mr. Higgins is convinced that if the ARS sellers had been
transparent -- "they (investors) were never given prospectuses" --
people never would have bought in.  As for Oppenheimer, he said
the company handed out an "egregious sets of facts.  It doesn't
get any worse.  My experience with the company is that there is no
tool they won't use against clients."

He predicted the complaints against Oppenheimer won't stop.  He
also speculated that if the company remains intransigent, "it will
wind up costing them more than if they just did a straight, honest
buy back" of the bonds.


OTIX GLOBAL: Awaits Court Approval of "Goltz" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Otix Global, Inc., has entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the plaintiffs of a lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary
duties related with the Company's merger with William Demant
Holding A/S and OI Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
WDH, according to the Company's Nov. 22, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On September 16, 2010, plaintiff Albert Goltz filed a putative
class action lawsuit challenging the Merger Agreement.  The
allegations contained in this lawsuit fall within the Company's
directors and officers liability insurance policy and, therefore,
the Company informed its insurance carrier of the lawsuit.

The Company denies the allegations and maintains that it has
committed no violations of law or of the rules and regulations of
the SEC, nor has it breached any fiduciary duties whatsoever,
nevertheless, to avoid the inherent risks associated with
litigation, on November 17, 2010, the Company entered into a
memorandum of understanding with Goltz that sets forth the
principal terms of a settlement of the lawsuit.  The proposed
settlement is conditional upon, among other things, the execution
of an appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the
merger and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court.
As part of the proposed settlement, the Company made additional
disclosures to its shareholders pursuant to a Form 8-K dated
November 17, 2010.  In addition, the Company will be required to
pay a $150,000 deductible under its directors and officers
liability insurance policy, which was accrued at September 30,
2010.


RED HAT: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $20 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
David Ranii, writing for NewsObserver.com, reports software
company Red Hat has agreed to pay $20 million to settle a 6-year-
old class action suit that accused it of deceiving investors by
falsifying its finances.

The settlement, approved on Dec. 10 by U.S. District Judge W. Earl
Britt in Raleigh, brings to a close a shareholder lawsuit.  The
suit was triggered by the company's 2004 restatement of its
earnings for the prior three fiscal years and the subsequent
nosedive of its stock.

"We think it was a good settlement," said Raleigh lawyer Bruce
McDaniel, a member of the legal team that represented
shareholders.  "It was going to be a hard case to try. . . .  It
was a multimillion-dollar case, but those can go both ways.  I
think it is fair to the shareholders."

Raleigh-based Red Hat denied the allegations leveled by
shareholders in court filings.

Raleigh lawyer Pressly Millen, who represented Red Hat, referred
questions to the company.  Red Hat officials declined to comment.

The $20 million settlement will be distributed to shareholders who
purchased Red Hat stock between Dec. 17, 2002, and July 12, 2004 -
-- less $6 million in lawyers' fees and up to $350,000 in
expenses.

In July 2004, Red Hat announced that it was changing the way it
recognized revenue and would restate its financial results for the
fiscal years 2004, 2003 and 2002 because it hadn't been properly
booking revenue from software subscriptions.  The company's shares
plummeted 23 percent on the day of the announcement.

The company's CEO at the time, Matthew Szulik, called the
accounting switch a "technical correction" recommended by auditors
that had no effect on the company's overall revenue.

Red Hat's open-source Linux software is free, but the company
makes money by charging customers for maintenance and support.

Under the old accounting method, if a software subscription
started at the end of May, Red Hat would recognize a month's worth
of revenue.  The method it implemented in 2004 called for it not
to recognize revenue until the starting date of the subscription
contract.

Within days of the company's restatement announcement, a flurry of
lawsuits was filed on behalf of investors against Red Hat and its
top executives at the time, including Mr. Szulik.  Those lawsuits
were consolidated in a class action suit.

Mr. Szulik said Tuesday that he had done nothing wrong but, other
than that, had no comment about the settlement.

The class action suit contended that the company "knowingly and
systematically booked revenue before it was actually earned" in
violation of securities law and "secretly backdated Red Hat's
revenue, even though it was not earned until later, and then used
that backdated revenue to issue false financial reports to Red Hat
investors."

The lawsuit also alleged that the company "devised various
techniques to falsely recognize revenue in other ways."

In addition, the suit claimed, Mr. Szulik and four other top
executives took advantage of "the unsuspecting market" by reaping
more than $94 million from the sale of Red Hat stock "at
artificially inflated prices" during this period.

Red Hat shares fell 77 cents Tuesday to close at $47.68.  The
stock is up 63% in the past year.


SCORES HOLDING: Continues to Defend "Siri Diaz" Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit filed by Siri Diaz alleging violations of wage and hour
laws, according to the Company's Nov. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On October 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed a
purported class action and collective action on behalf of all
tipped employees against the Company and other defendants alleging
violations of federal and state wage/hour laws (Siri Diaz et al.
v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.; Go West Entertainment, Inc. a/k/a
Scores West Side; and Scores Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a Scores
East Side, Case No. 07 Civ. 8718 (Southern District of New York,
Judge Richard M. Berman).

On November 6, 2007, plaintiffs served an amended purported class
action and collective action complaint, naming dancers and servers
as additional plaintiffs and alleging the same violations of
federal and state wage/hour laws.

On or about February 21, 2008, plaintiffs served a second amended
complaint adding two additional party defendants, but limiting the
action to persons employed in the New York Scores' clubs.  The
amended complaint alleged that we and the other defendants are "an
integrated enterprise" and that we jointly employ the plaintiffs,
subjecting all of the defendants to liability for the alleged
wage/hour violations.

On behalf of the Company and the other defendants, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss that portion of the Complaint that
asserted State law class action allegations; the Company also
moved to dismiss the claims of two of the named plaintiffs for
failure to appear for depositions.  At the same time plaintiffs
moved for conditional certification under the federal law for a
class of the servers, bartenders and dancers; the Company opposed
that motion.  On May 9, 2008, the Court issued its decision,
denying the motion to dismiss and granting conditional
certification for a class of servers, cocktail waitresses,
bartenders and dancers who have worked at Scores East since
October 2004.

On May 29, 2008, the Company filed an answer to plaintiffs' second
amended complaint.

On or about September 5, 2009, plaintiffs served their third
amended complaint adding in two individual defendants who are
alleged to be employers under the state and federal wage claims.

The Company disputes that it is a proper defendant in the action
and it disputes that it violated the federal and state labor laws,
and further disputes that the dancers are "employees" subject to
the federal and state wage and hour laws.


SOCAL GAS: Sued for Not Paying Overtime to Workers
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Southern California Gas
Company/Sempra Energy stiff workers for overtime and for work done
off the clock, a class action claims in Superior Court.


STATION CASINOS: Boys & Girls Clubs to Get Cash-Out Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for Las Vegas Sun, reports The Boys and Girls
Clubs of Las Vegas may be receiving a $5,000 donation from an
unlikely source: the Station Casinos Inc. bankruptcy.

Station, as it prepares to exit bankruptcy, last week asked
Bankruptcy Judge Gregg Zive in Reno for permission to cash out
certain creditors that otherwise would receive warrants to buy an
ownership stake in the company emerging from bankruptcy.

Among these creditors are some 22,400 current and former Station
workers entitled to receive payments after Station settled a
class-action lawsuit charging the workers were shorted on pay
because a timeclock system had improperly rounded their hours
worked.

The settlement resulted in Station agreeing to fund $1.2 million
in payments to certain workers as well as the legal and
administrative costs of the case.  That's expected to yield
payments of $64 to $74.51 for Station workers employed from
Jan. 29, 2009, to July 16, 2010.

A second component of the settlement gave workers an unsecured
claim valued at $5 million in the bankruptcy case.  This claim is
for people employed by Station from Feb. 4, 2005, to Jan. 28,
2009.

In court papers last week, Station said that as part of the
process of resolving this claim, the workers would receive
warrants that turned out to be worth 12 cents in cash for each of
the 22,400 workers.

Since it would cost more than $60,000 to issue and send checks for
12 cents to each of the 22,400 workers totaling $2,850, attorneys
for Station this week proposed an alternative.

"The debtors seek authority to make the expected $2,850 aggregate
cash-out payment to the (class-action plaintiffs) to a charity in
the Las Vegas area that serves the needs of the members of such
class -- the Boys and Girls Clubs of Las Vegas -- under the
doctrine of 'cy pres,'" attorneys for Station said in a court
filing.

"Cy pres" is defined as carrying out the intention of one making a
payment when literal compliance is impossible.

"Whether distributing warrants or cashing them out, it is entirely
impractical to make any payment other than a lump sum payment to a
charity that would provide benefits to the debtors' employees,
like the Boys and Girls Clubs of Las Vegas," Station's brief said.
"The debtors seek an exemption from distributing warrants or cash
to the individual members of the (class action) and seek authority
to make a lump sum $5,000 charitable contribution to the Boys and
Girls Clubs of Las Vegas in lieu thereof."

Court records show several current and former Station employees
opted not to receive any payment from the settlement.  Most didn't
say why, but a few did.

"I have worked at Texas Station for five years.  I do not feel as
though Station Casinos has mistreated me in any way.  For this
reason I would like to be removed from the class action lawsuit,"
one worker wrote the lawsuit claims administrator.

"I have not had a problem with the issues in this case and do not
believe it is right to accept money for issues that did not affect
me," another employee wrote.


STERNO GROUP: Recalls 37,500 Sterno Portable Butane Stoves
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Sterno Group LLC, of Des Plaines, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 37,500 Sterno Portable Butane Stoves.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The stove's "on-off" valve can fail to close completely when
turned to the "off" position, causing butane to leak from the
stove.  This poses a fire and burn hazard to consumers.

Sterno has received one report of a stove failing to completely
shut off.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled portable butane stoves have model numbers STO6001 and
50006.  The single burner stoves are black and measure about 14
inches wide x 12 inches long x 4 inches high.  They use an eight-
ounce butane canister as the fuel source.  "Sterno" is printed on
the front of the stove.  The model number and UPC 0-27371-50006-9
or UPC 0-76642-06001-6 is printed on the stove's packaging.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11070.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
sporting goods stores and other retail stores nationwide,
including Puerto Rico, from September 2009 through September 2010,
and to restaurants and restaurant supply stores from August 2006
through September 2010 for between $20 and $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled portable
butane stoves and contact Sterno for instructions to return the
units to Sterno for a free replacement stove.  Do not return the
stoves to the place of purchase.  For additional information,
contact Sterno toll-free at (877) 478-3766 between 8:00 a.m. and
5:30 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.sterno.com/


STIHL INCORPORATED: Recalls 1,000 Handle Trimmer/Brushcutter
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
STIHL Incorporated, of Virginia Beach, Va., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,000 STIHL FS 310 Bike Handle
Trimmer/Brushcutter.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Vibration from the ignition module may cause the trimmer head to
loosen and detach from the mounting, posing an injury hazard.

The company received three reports of incidents and no reports of
injuries.

The recalled bike handle trimmer/brushcutter has "STIHL" printed
on the engine head.  The model number FS 310 is located in two
places, on the shaft and on the flywheel housing below the starter
grip.  This recall includes all units with serial numbers ranging
from 27961 1030 through 27961 1119 and 27984 3607 through 27984
4556, which can be found on an adhesive label affixed to the
bottom of the fuel tank and etched into the metal frame on the
bottom of the engine.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11711.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through authorized STIHL dealers nationwide from June 2009 to
April 2010 for about $550.

STIHL informed purchasers for whom they had addresses directly by
letter after April 15, 2010.  Consumers should stop using this
trimmer/brushcutter immediately and take it to an authorized STIHL
dealer for a new ignition module, which will be installed at no
cost to the consumer.  For more information, contact STIHL between
8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday at
(800) 610-6677 or visit STIHL's Web site at
http://www.stihlusa.com/


TOA ELECTRONICS: Recalls 2,600 Paging Horn Loudspeakers
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
TOA Electronics Inc., of Burlingame, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,600 Paging Horn Loudspeakers.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The speaker housing can crack at the mounting bracket, causing the
speakers to fall from their mounting.  This poses a risk of injury
from impact to consumers.  Higher failure rates have occurred in
high temperature and humidity environments.

TOA has received 18 reports of speakers falling in Japan.  No
incidents or injuries have been reported in the United States.

This recall involves TOA paging horn speakers in the SC series.
The speakers have "Paging Horn Speaker," the TOA logo and model
and production information printed on the back.  Models included
in the recall are:

             Model Number     Manufacture Dates
             ------------     -----------------

               SC-610T         08F through 08K
               SC-615          08B through 08K
               SC-630          08I through 08K
               SC-630T         08F through 08K

Date Code:

   Year          Month         Manufacture Date
   ----          -----         ----------------

   2008          June              08F

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11073.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold
through audio retailers nationwide from March 2008 through
December 2009 for between $70 and $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using and take down any mounted
speakers.  Consumers can contact TOA directly or their local TOA
dealer for instructions on receiving a free replacement product.

For additional information, contact TOA at (800) 733-4750 between
8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.toaelectronics.com/
Consumers can also email the firm at marketing@toaelectronics.com


TROPICANA PRODUCTS: Accused in Florida Suit of False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims that though the main ingredients of Trop50
Pomegranate Blueberry Juice are "a mixture of cheap apple juice
and grape juice concentrates," Tropicana falsely advertises it as
made of "two of nature's most potent antioxidants, pomegranates
and blueberries, [combined] into a single juice product."

"Even though the Trop50 Pomegranate Blueberry Juice beverage
contains very little pomegranate or blueberry juice, Tropicana
made a tactical marketing and/or advertising decision to create a
deceptive and misleading label," named plaintiff Nicole Cruz
claims in Miami-Dade County Court.  She also sued Publix Super
Markets.

"Tropicana's Trop50 Pomegranate Blueberry Juice beverage purports
to combine two of nature's most potent antioxidants, pomegranates
and blueberries, into a single juice product.  However," the
complaint states, "the truth is that the main ingredients in
Tropicana's Trop50 Pomegranate Blueberry Juice beverage are
neither purely pomegranate nor blueberry juice, but instead it is
a mixture of cheap apple juice and grape juice concentrates with
pomegranate juice and blueberry juice concentrates."

The complaint adds: "In fact, the product contains very little
pomegranate or blueberry juice, a fact which Tropicana knew and
purposely failed to disclose to its customers.  The product
consists primarily of cheap apple and other juices.  To date,
Tropicana has taken no meaningful steps to clear up consumers'
misconception regarding the product."

Pomegranate and blueberry juices have gotten great press lately,
as "high in powerful antioxidants," which supposedly have
beneficent health effects.

"With the nutritional and heath benefits of pomegranate and
blueberry juices becoming widely known, consumer demand for
pomegranate and blueberry juices has increased rapidly.  It was
this enormous new market that Tropicana hoped to tap with the sale
of its Trop50 Pomegranate Blueberry Juice beverage product,"
according to the complaint.

The class claims the product's name is deliberately misleading:
"Tropicana could have given the product many other names.  For
example, Tropicana could have named this product 'Apple Juice' as
apple juice is the primary juice in the product. . . .

"Purchasers, like [the] plaintiff, of Trop50 Pomegranate Blueberry
Juice beverage are likely to be misled and deceived by the
product's label and to reasonably expect that the juice product
actually consists primarily of pomegranate and blueberry juices."

Ms. Cruz seeks damages for unfair competition, breach of warranty
and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Cruz v. Tropicana Products, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-62926CA08 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/15/Tropicana.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marian S. Rosen, Esq.
          MARIAN S. ROSEN & ASSOCIATES
          5065 Westheimer, Suite 840
          Houston, TX 77056
          E-mail: marian@marianrosen.com

               - and -

          Howard M. Rubinstein, Esq.
          P.O. Box 4839
          Aspen, CO 81611
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          E-mail: (832) 715-2788


TYSON FOODS: Court Still to Set Trial Date for Water Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc., is still waiting for the court to set a date
for trial of a lawsuit in Oklahoma, according to the Company's
Nov. 22, 2010 Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended October 2, 2010.

On October 23, 2001, a putative class action lawsuit styled R.
Lynn Thompson, et al. vs. Tyson Foods, Inc. was filed in the
District Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma by three property owners
on behalf of all owners of lakefront property on Grand Lake O' the
Cherokees.  Simmons Foods, Inc., and Peterson Farms, Inc., also
are defendants.  The plaintiffs allege the defendants' operations
diminished the water quality in the lake thereby interfering with
the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their properties.  The
plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

While the District Court certified a class, on October 4, 2005,
the Court of Civil Appeals of the State of Oklahoma reversed,
holding the plaintiffs' claims were not suitable for disposition
as a class action.  This decision was upheld by the Oklahoma
Supreme Court and the case was remanded to the District Court with
instructions that the matter proceed only on behalf of the three
named plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, restitution and compensatory
and punitive damages in an unspecified amount in excess of
$10,000.  The Company and the other defendants have denied
liability and asserted various defenses.

The defendants have requested a trial date, but the court has not
yet scheduled the matter for trial.


UNCLE BUCK'S BAR: Discrimination Class Action Settled
-----------------------------------------------------
Grant Schulte, writing for DesMoinesRegister.com, reports two
black men who filed a class-action discrimination lawsuit against
a West Des Moines bar have settled their claim.

Bernard Dsani and Kwasi Dabo Atta-Krah will each receive $1,500 as
part of the agreement.  Their lawsuit in Polk County District
Court alleged that they were singled out at Uncle Buck's Bar, 1720
25th St., and told to leave because they were black.  The petition
named the nightclub and owner Thomas A. Baldwin Jr. as defendants.

Messrs. Dsani and Atta-Krah were "pleased with the terms," said
their lawyer, Thomas Duff of Des Moines.  "They're hopeful this
will send a message to the owners of Uncle Buck's and others that
corporations will be held accountable for violating civil rights."

A phone message left on Dec. 9 with Mr. Baldwin's lawyer, Joseph
G. Gamble, was not returned.

Mr. Baldwin also agreed to pay $5,000 to a mutually agreed-upon
charity in Messrs. Dsani and Atta-Krah's name, and to cover up to
$15,000 of their legal fees.  The charity has not yet been chosen.

People who can show they were denied entry or thrown out because
of their race since Aug. 8, 2008, will receive up to $350 per
violation.  Class members are required to submit a written sworn
statement that details what happened to them, plus a sworn
statement from a witness who saw the alleged discrimination.  The
amount paid to Messrs. Dsani and Atta-Krah includes the $350, plus
$1,150 for their time and services as representatives of the
class.  The settlement also includes patrons who faced similar
discrimination at Wellman's West, another pub, according to court
records.

A Polk County district judge will formally approve the settlement
with all class members on March 25, 2011.

Mr. Baldwin and his company, formally known as Yellow Rose LLC,
acknowledged in the agreement that a jury or judge could conclude
that discrimination against African-Americans had happened at the
bar.  Mr. Baldwin apologized in court papers and agreed not to
discriminate in the future.  The bar also promised to guarantee
that any dress code imposed is race-neutral.

Messrs. Dsani and Atta-Krah contended in the July lawsuit that the
club violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination
based on national origin, race and other factors.

They alleged discrimination took place on two Saturday nights in
2009, one week apart.

Mr. Dsani went to Uncle Buck's with a black friend on March 21,
2009, according to the lawsuit.  A white bouncer allegedly turned
Dsani's friend away, claiming his pants were too baggy.

Mr. Dsani said that the claim was false, and that other patrons
with baggy pants and shorts were allowed inside.

Messrs. Dsani and Atta-Krah, both 29, returned to Uncle Buck's the
following Saturday with a group of white friends, the lawsuit
states.

Messrs. Atta-Krah and Dsani stayed with their friends for about 20
minutes, then went to another part of the bar.  Mr. Baldwin walked
past and stared at them and, minutes later, a bouncer told
Messrs. Atta-Krah and Dsani that management wanted them to leave,
according to the lawsuit.

In an earlier interview, Messrs. Atta-Krah and Dsani said they
were surprised, and asked why.  The response, Mr. Dsani said, was:
"You just have to leave, no reason.  Management just wants you
guys out."

Mr. Atta-Krah said they hadn't had anything to drink and were
keeping to themselves.  They said they were dressed appropriately,
with Mr. Dsani in well-fitted jeans and a polo shirt.

They left without incident, Mr. Atta-Krah said.  Both men said
they filed the lawsuit only because the order to leave seemed
blatantly racist.

Both men immigrated to the United States from Ghana about a decade
ago, and graduated from Drake University.

Mr. Baldwin was one of four Des Moines-area bar owners who settled
a class-action discrimination lawsuit in 2002, amid complaints
that the owners' dress codes were biased against African-
Americans.

The owners agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to two black men who
challenged the dress code in court, and pledged to apologize and
treat patrons equally.

Mr. Duff said he did not know how many people could join his
class-action settlement, but he said he will post information on
his Web site -- http://www.tdufflaw.com/-- in the next few days.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls 2.2MM Comfort Essentials Heaters
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas, announced a
voluntary recall of about 2.2 million flow Pro, airtech, aloha
breeze & comfort essentials heaters.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The heaters can malfunction resulting in overheating, smoking,
burning, melting and fire.

Wal-Mart has received 21 reports of incidents, which included 11
reports of property damage beyond the heater.  Injuries were
reported in four incidents, three of which required medical
attention for minor burns and smoke inhalation.  The remaining
incidents included smoke irritation, sparking or property damage
beyond the heater.

This recall involves Flow Pro, Airtech, Aloha Breeze and Comfort
Essentials 1500 watt heaters.  The heaters are grey with a metal
handle on the top with vents and grey control knobs on the front.
The model number is 1013 and can be found on a label on the lower
left corner of the back panel of the heater.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11069.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Walmart stores nationwide from December 2001 through October 2009
for about $18.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled heater and
return the product to any Walmart store for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Wal-Mart toll-free at (800) 925-
6278 between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.walmart.com/


WELLS FARGO: Sued for Failure to Comply with ECOA Notice Provision
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Schlegel, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 10-cv-05679
(N.D. Calif. December 14, 2010), bring claims against Wells Fargo
for revoking final loan agreements that it entered into with its
mortgage customers without complying with the notice provisions of
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.  Plaintiffs also seek relief for
breach of agreement and unfair and deceptive practices.

Plaintiffs John and Carol Robin Schlegel own a home in Las Cruces,
New Mexico, that was mortgaged to Wells Fargo in 2009 -- Old
Mortgage.  The Plaintiffs relate that on June 29, 2010, they
receive a formal letter from Wells Fargo confirming formal
approval of a loan modification of their mortgage loan.  The
letter, and accompanying contract which the Schegels signed and
returned -- New Mortgage -- said that the modified maturity date
of their loan would be July 1, 2010, the new principal would be
July 1, 2050, the new principal and interest payments would be
$795.58 and the estimate escrow payment would be $256.99, making
the estimated new payment $1,052.57.

The Schegels say they made the required monthly payments on
August 1, 2010, on September 1, 2010, on October 1, 2010, and on
November 1, 2010.  Up until November of this year, the Complaint
says that Plaintiffs did not receive any notice from Wells Fargo
that there was any problem with it or that Wells Fargo considered
the Old Mortgage to be still in effect.  According to the
Complaint,, the Schlegels received a letter from a Wells Fargo
office in California, dated November 7, 2010, which stated that
they were in default of their mortgage, and demanding full payment
of delinquent payments and late charges not later than December 7,
2010, or their loan would be accelerated, and their property
foreclosed.

When they informed Wells Fargo about the Bank's error, as the New
Mortgage, not the Old Mortgage, was in effect, and that they were
not delinquent in the required monthly payments, Wells Fargo
denied that there was a New Mortgage in effect.  The Plaintiffs
relate that at some time before November 7, Wells Fargo must have
revoked, abrogated or otherwise taken some "adverse action" with
respect to the New Mortgage, without sending them a written
adverse action notice as required under the notice provisions of
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Under the ECOA, Wells Fargo is required to provide notice of any
adverse action within 30 days of taking that action, which the
Plaintiff allege was clearly taken at some time before November 7,
2010, but to date, Wells Fargo has still to send an adverse
notice.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          S. Chandler Visher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 901-0500
          E-mail: chandler@visherlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Harris, Esq.
          Anthony Valach, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL HARRIS
          150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 960-1801


VF CONTEMPORARY: Recalls 900 Girls' Hooded Zip Jackets & Vest Sets
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Splendid (a division of VF Contemporary Brands, Inc.), of Los
Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 900 Girls'
Hooded Zip Jackets and Vest Sets.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The hooded zip jackets and the vest sets have drawstrings through
the hoods which can pose a strangulation or entrapment hazard to
children.  In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help
prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck
and waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves girl's hooded zip jackets with style #
SJ6J7831 and long sleeve t-shirt with hooded vest sets with style
# SJYK7935.  The zip jackets were sold in camouflage, jasmine,
parfait and royal.  The vest sets were sold in black, caviar,
denim, electric pink, macadamia, peacock, quartz and sapphire.
The style number can be found on the care label located at the
inside left side seam.  "Splendid" can be found on the neck label.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11071.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through major department stores and children's boutiques
nationwide from August 2010 through November 2010 for between $80
and $90.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the hoods
of the zip jackets and vest sets to eliminate the hazard or
contact Splendid for instructions on how to return the items for a
full refund.  For additional information, contact Splendid toll-
free at (855) 640-2803 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.splendid.com/safetynews.html/


                             *********

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.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, 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  * * *