CAR_Public/110111.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, January 11, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 7

                             Headlines

AMERICAN INT'L: Settles Compensation Suit for $450-Mil.
ANCHORAGE, AK: Violates Homeless People's Rights
BEST BUY: "Holloway" Suit Remains Stayed Pending High Court Ruling
BOEING CO: To Defend Plane Crash Class Actions in State Court
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Cancer-Causing Fumigant

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces New Class Action Over Network Malfunction
CIR LAW: Sued for Mailing Collection Letters in Violation of FDCPA
COSCO BUSAN: Fishermen to Get $6MM in Damages in Oil Spill Suit
CVS CAREMARK: Sued for Selling Private Patient Information
DENNY'S CORP: Sued in Calif. for Not Paying Overtime to Workers

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Lawyers to Review Implant Claims
FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend "McCauley" Suit in Kentucky
FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend "Scott" Suit in North Carolina
FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend Suits Filed by Store Managers
GOOGLE INC: Faces 8th Class Action Over Street View

ITT WATER: Recalls 21,000 Sump Pumps and Effluent Pumps
JEAN BOURGET: Recalls 16 Children's Hooded Cardigans
KAHALA HOTEL: Gets $800,000 Civil Judgment in Service Fee Suit
KIDDIE KOLLEGE: Judge to Rule on Day-Care Class Action Today
NANTUCKET DISTRIBUTING: Recalls 430 Oven Rack Guard

NEW YORK: Settlement in Children and Family Services Lawsuit
NURSING HOME BONDS: Suit to Proceed After Judge Reduces Claims
PAYDAY LOAN LITIGATION: "Baillie" Suit Goes to N.D. Calif.
PHUSION PROJECTS: Sued in Fla. Over Four Loko Caffeinated Booze
PORSCHE AG: Sued Over Inferior Cayenne Plastic Coolant Tubes

QUOIZEL INC: Recalls 150 Outdoor Hanging Lantern
ST. LOUIS, MO: Law Firm Seeks to Double Fees in Sewer Dist. Case
ST. PAUL FIRE: Retiring Judge Limits Class Participants
SANFORD BROWN: Retiring Judge Names Class Counsel & Reps
STARWOOD VACATION: Sued for Cheating Filipino Immigrant Workers

SURGERY GROUP: Sued for Adding Unlawful $25 Late Fees in Statement
SYNGENTA CROP: Opposes Order to Unseal Motions in Atrazine Suit
THREE GENERATIONS: Sued for Violations of New York Labor Law
UNITED STATES: Stanford Investors' Class Suit v. SEC Mulled
WESTWOOD COLLEGE: Tuition Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action


                             *********

AMERICAN INT'L: Settles Compensation Suit for $450-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that in a
major development involving long-running workers compensation
litigation, American International Group Inc. has reached a
$450 million settlement with seven of the insurers involved.

However, the settlement does not include units of Boston-based
Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, which has sought class action
status and plans to continue pursuing the litigation.

The legal fight began in 2007, when the National Workers
Compensation Reinsurance Pool operated by Boca Raton, Fla.-based
NCCI Holdings Inc. first sued New York-based AIG.

The pool had argued it was excluded from a 2006 settlement with
then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in which AIG agreed
to pay states more than $343 million to settle allegations that it
underreported workers comp premiums over several decades to avoid
paying its full share of residual market assessments to the
states.

Since then, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Gettleman, who has
been presiding over the case, dismissed the pool as plaintiff
based on AIG's objection, but the litigation continued.  AIG also
sued competitors, arguing they underreported workers comp
premiums.

Under the proposed settlement dated Jan. 5, AIG will pay $450
million, but that would be decreased by the amount put in escrow
under the Spitzer settlement plus any interest earned in the
meantime.

The proposed settlement stipulates that the agreement would not be
affected even if Liberty Mutual units Safeco Insurance Co. of
America and Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. opt out.

Court papers state that "it has become clear" that Safeco and Ohio
Casualty "cannot adequately represent the absent class members in
settling this matter with AIG on fair and reasonable terms at this
time due to very different business judgments about the wisdom of
continued litigation as opposed to settlement."

The insurers "therefore respectfully request that they be
permitted to intervene . . . in order to represent their own
interests and to serve as settlement class representatives, in
order to effectuate a global settlement of these claims with AIG,"
according to court documents.

The attorney for Safeco and Ohio Casualty, Gary Elden of Chicago-
based Grippo & Elden L.L.C., said in a statement that the
settlement agreement is an "act of self-interest" by AIG and the
settling insurers "and is detrimental to the 600-member class
because it fails to consider previously undisclosed documented
evidence of underreporting that extends the scope and duration of
the classes' claim.

"The current discovery process, which will be completed in stages
within the next 60 and 150 days, should be allowed to proceed
uninterrupted so AIG's held to account for the true extent of its
underreporting," Mr. Elden said in the statement.

"Ohio Casualty and Safeco, class representatives, stepped forward
20 months ago to make certain that AIG adequately addresses the
systemic practice of underreporting of workers compensation
premium when no one else would, and they remain in the best
position to adequately represent the class and prosecute" the
litigation, he said.

The seven insurers who agreed to the settlement are ACE INA
Holdings Inc., Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Companion Property &
Casualty Insurance Co., Firstcomp Insurance Co, Hartford Financial
Services Group Inc., Technology Insurance Co and Travelers
Indemnity Co.  The insurers' attorney declined comment.

An AIG spokesman said the insurer "is pleased by this
development."

In a separate but related development, AIG in December reached a
$100 million settlement with state insurance regulators on the
same issue.


ANCHORAGE, AK: Violates Homeless People's Rights
------------------------------------------------
Stories In The News (Alaska) reports that the Superior Court
granted Summary Judgment on Jan. 4 in favor of Plaintiffs Dale
Engle and homeless persons, finding that the Anchorage
Municipality's Ordinance allowing for destruction of the homeless
persons' personal property is facially unconstitutional.  The
Anchorage Municipality passed an amended ordinance last June
giving the homeless five days' notice to leave their camps.  After
five days, the property in the homeless camps was to be seized and
destroyed.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska argued in this class
action lawsuit that homeless people have the same rights as
everyone else and the raids violated their property rights.
Superior Court Judge Mark Rindner issued his ruling on Jan. 4 in a
lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska.

The Associate Press reported that Mr. Engle, 53, said he has had
his tent and sleeping bag confiscated in raids, as well as a dozen
Army medals and ribbons that he kept in a suitcase.  He got back
six medals, but a purple heart and two silver clusters were
incinerated, he said.

The plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit disputed the
constitutionality of an Anchorage ordinance governing the
abatement of illegal homeless camps (Anchorage Municipal Code
15.20.020).  The Plaintiffs asserted violations of due process and
equal protection and also raised the issue of unreasonable search
and seizure.  Their central contention in this class action
lawsuit was that the Anchorage ordinance's notice period and the
time it provided for appeal were insufficient, especially given
the ordinance's failure to provide for the storage and recovery of
property after it was seized.

Tom Stenson, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of
Alaska, stated: "We are extremely pleased that the Court found
that the initial 5-day notice period is inadequate and violates
due process.  The Court also held that the provision allowing for
destruction of property 2-days after a decision by a municipal
hearing officer -- which effectively denies homeless persons
access to the courts -- is unconstitutional.  This opinion
recognizes the principal that all persons -- even the homeless --
have important and fundamental property rights under the US and
Alaska Constitutions."

"We hope the Municipality [of Anchorage] will now accept our
continuing offer to work jointly on an ordinance that meets the
needs of Anchorage residents and also protects all our
constitutional rights," said Jeffrey Mittman, executive director
of the ACLU.  "We believe this litigation could have been avoided.
Since July 2009 we have advised the Municipality of the legal
inadequacies with the various ordinances introduced."  Mr. Mittman
added, "We also want to recognize Mr. Dale Engle for stepping
forward to protect the rights of all homeless persons, which -- in
the end -- ensures the civil liberties of all persons."

The Anchorage ordinance was passed in 2009 and was later revised,
extending the notice from 12 hours to five days along with other
changes, but the raids were only stopped by court order in the
summer 2010.

Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Alaska, said the ACLU maintains 15 days' notice
would be better.  If the period is shorter, then the ordinance
must provide for storage of personal belongings.

A copy of the Opinion in Engle v. Municipality of Anchorage, et
al., Case No. 10-7047 (Alaska Super. Ct., Anchorage County), is
available at http://is.gd/kgZNZ


BEST BUY: "Holloway" Suit Remains Stayed Pending High Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
A pending gender discrimination lawsuit against Best Buy Co.,
Inc., remains stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision of
another gender discrimination case against Wal-Mart, according to
Best Buy's Jan. 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 27, 2010.

In December 2005, a purported class action lawsuit captioned,
Jasmen Holloway, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  This federal court action alleges that the Company
discriminate against women and minority individuals on the basis
of gender, race, color or national origin in the Company's stores
with respect to its employment policies and practices.  The action
seeks an end to alleged discriminatory policies and practices, an
award of back and front pay, punitive damages and injunctive
relief, including rightful place relief for all class members.
The Plaintiffs have filed a class certification motion which the
Company has opposed.

All proceedings have been stayed pending a decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Dukes, et al., v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a gender
discrimination class action lawsuit.

With operations in the United States, Canada, Europe, China,
Mexico and Turkey, Best Buy Co., Inc. -- http://www.bby.com/-- is
a multinational retailer of technology and entertainment products
and services with a commitment to growth and innovation.  The Best
Buy family of brands and partnerships collectively generates more
than $49 billion in annual revenue and includes brands such as
Best Buy, Best Buy Mobile, Audiovisions, The Carphone Warehouse,
Five Star, Future Shop, Geek Squad, Magnolia Audio Video, Napster,
Pacific Sales and The Phone House.  Approximately 180,000
employees apply their talents to help bring the benefits of these
brands to life for customers through retail locations, multiple
call centers and Web sites, in-home solutions, product delivery
and activities in the communities.  Community partnership is
central to the way we do business at Best Buy.  In fiscal 2010,
the company donated a combined $25.2 million to improve the
vitality of the communities where its employees and customers live
and work.


BOEING CO: To Defend Plane Crash Class Actions in State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that Boeing will
have to defend itself against 29 class action lawsuits in the
state court, rather than in federal court, the United States Court
of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit ruled.

A total of 117 plaintiffs filed 29 separate actions against Boeing
over the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 in 2009.

The suits were brought in Illinois, where Boeing is headquartered,
though only one plaintiff has residency in the state.  The
remaining plaintiffs -- who are victims, or representatives of
victims, injured or killed in the crash -- are foreigners.

The Boeing 737-800 crashed into a field less than a mile from the
runway as it was landing, killing nine of the 135 on board.

Boeing claimed that the evidence relating to the design and
construction of the potentially faulty airliner was located in the
state of Washington, where the plane was manufactured.  Boeing
requested a dismissal in Illinois, claiming its employees would be
considerably inconvenienced by having to travel repeatedly from
Washington to Illinois to testify.

The plaintiffs countered that after liability is determined in one
case, the decision would determine liability for the remaining
cases.

Boeing jumped on that statement, which it claimed constituted a
proposal from the plaintiffs to conduct a joint trial.  The
aerospace company then tried to transfer the cases to federal
court, citing the Class Action Fairness Act.  The judges did not
agree -- seven of the cases have already been remanded back to the
state courts.

The 7th Circuit upheld the decisions, writing that "the
plaintiff's statement falls just short of a proposal, as it is
rather a prediction of what might happen if the judge decided to
hold a mass trial."

"Boeing's removal of these cases was premature," Judge Richard
Posner wrote for the court.  "The proposal cannot be made by a
defendant so Boeing's desire for a joint trial (a desire based we
assume on its preference for defending these suits in federal
rather than state court) cannot support removal."

Judge Posner also clarified the circuit's class action rules,
writing that the state court could not enable removal by deciding
on its own initiative to conduct a joint trial.

"That would not be a proposal; and anyway the aim of the removal
provision is to prevent plaintiffs from trying to circumvent the
Class Action Fairness Act by bringing a class action as a mass
action," the ruling states.

A copy of the decision in Koral, et al. v. Boeing Company, Case
Nos. Nos. 10-8035, 10-8036, 10-8039 and 10-8040 (7th Cir.), is
available at:

     http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/4B1AKBKJ.pdf


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Cancer-Causing Fumigant
-----------------------------------------------------------
Viji Sundaram, writing for New America Media, reports sheer
desperation forced Jose Hidalgo to join a class-action lawsuit
filed in Alameda County Superior Court, challenging California's
approval of the cancer-causing strawberry fumigant, methyl iodide.

"I like my job, but I am afraid of what it is doing to my health,"
the 35-year-old Mexican immigrant said in Spanish in a telephone
interview translated by his Salinas-based attorney, Michael Marsh.

On Dec. 29, over the strident opposition of environmental and farm
worker groups, the state Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)
approved the pesticide for use by fruit and vegetable growers.

Earthjustice and California Rural Legal Assistance filed the suit
on behalf of labor and environmental groups, including United Farm
Workers.

The suit claims, among other things, that the DPR approved methyl
iodide Dec. 20 in violation of state laws that protect groundwater
against pesticide pollution.  Methyl iodide is on the state's list
of cancer-causing agents, according to the suit.

In an e-mail sent to New America Media, the DPR defended its
approval.

"Methyl iodide is the most evaluated pesticide in the DPR's
history.  DPR's evaluation determined methyl iodide can be used
safely under its toughest-in-the-nation health protective
measures, including stricter buffer zones, more groundwater
protections, reduced application rates and stronger protections
for workers."

Methyl iodide will replace another pesticide, methyl bromide,
which is being phased out by a 2005 international treaty because
it depletes the earth's protective ozone layer.

Even though methyl iodide is also registered for use on tomatoes,
peppers and nurseries, the bulk of its use will be in strawberry
fields.

The fumigant has been found to cause late term miscarriages and
contaminate groundwater, said Tracey Brieger, co-director of
Californians for Pesticide Reform, during a media teleconference
Jan. 3.

Because of the volume that would need to be applied to fields, and
its tendency to drift offsite through the air, the fumigant poses
the greatest risk to farm workers and neighboring communities,
environmentalists say.

And because of its volatility, the fumigant "won't settle on
strawberries, so consumers are not" at as great a risk as are farm
workers, observed Susan Kegley, a consulting scientist with
Pesticide Action Network North America.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the use of
methyl iodide as a safe replacement in 2007.  Even though most
states do not have a separate approval process and generally go
along with the EPA decision, "only 11 or 12 states are currently
using it," noted Ms. Kegley.  Europe does not allow its use, she
pointed out.

Arysta Lifescience North America, methyl iodide's distributor, is
also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.  Arysta, the largest
privately held pesticide company in the world, reportedly
fast-tracked the registration process by declaring an "emergency."
DPR's only stated explanation for the "emergency" was that it
wanted to register methyl iodide on Dec. 20.

"DPR created a political 'emergency' by insisting on locking-in
its decision before a new administration takes office -- an
administration that would follow the science, instead of catering
to the largest private agrochemical corporation in the world,"
observed Michael Meuter, who is an attorney with California Rural
Legal Assistance.  "Political convenience does not constitute an
emergency."

At press time, Arysta had not responded to an e-mail requesting
comment on the lawsuit, but DPR maintained that the registration
was not fast-tracked,

"DPR received the application to register methyl iodide in 2001
and did not make a decision until 2010," the DPR's e-mail said.
"DPR's extensive review began in 2007 after receiving all the
necessary information.

"The public comment period was 60 days, twice what is legally
required."

Environmentalists are hoping that newly installed Gov. Jerry Brown
will act quickly to prevent the use of the fumigant in
California's fields.

They also want his administration to look into what alternatives
might work.

Although California is the only state that has a coordinated
centralized reporting system, few farm workers file complaints
about their working conditions, said Ms. Brieger.

"There are so many barriers to reporting, including immigration
status, language barriers and fear of losing one's job," she said.

Mr. Hidalgo, who has been working California's strawberry fields
for five years, works the strawberry route in Ventura County in
spring, and Monterey and Santa Cruz counties in summer.  He makes
around $200 a week, a portion of which he sends home to his family
in Mexico.

He is among close to one million farm workers in the state, 90
percent of whom are from Mexico, said Mr. Meuter.

Mr. Hidalgo said that even though he does "stoop labor" with his
face close to the soil, he is not given any protective gear.

"On several occasions I have smelled pesticide," he said. "I have
suffered from headaches, sore throat and dizziness."

Has he ever complained?

"I have never complained; few of us do," he said.  "We just keep
working.

"Those who have complained are told by their foreman: 'If you
don't like it here, go find work somewhere else.'"


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces New Class Action Over Network Malfunction
---------------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews reports Cellcom Israel Ltd. on Jan. 6 said that it
received additional purported class action lawsuit filed against
it in the District Court of Jerusalem in December 2010, by a
plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber of the company, in
connection with allegations that Cellcom Israel failed to provide
service to its subscribers during the network malfunction.  The
total amount claimed, if the lawsuit is certified as a class
action, is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS990 million.

The announcement follows the company's previous reports dated
December 2, 2010 regarding a major network malfunction and
December 7, 9 and 20, 2010 regarding purported class action
lawsuits filed against Cellcom Israel in that regard.


CIR LAW: Sued for Mailing Collection Letters in Violation of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben T. Delrosario Sr., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. CIR Law Office, LLP, et al., Case No.
11-cv-00029 (N.D. Calif. January 4, 2011), accuses CIR of causing
to be mailed collection notices to plaintiff and the proposed
class, in violation of particular provisions of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.
Specifically, Mr. Delrosario says that the initial collection
notice sent by CIR to the plaintiff on December 16, 2010, is
false, deceptive and misleading as it fails to disclose that the
account "placed for collection" continues to accrue interest and
may accrue late charges, in violation of Section 1692e of the
FDCPA; that the collection notice is a false representation as to
the character and legal status of the debt, in violation of
Section 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA; and that further, CIR falsely
represents that the collection notice is "from an attorney even
though no attorney was directly involved in reviewing Plaintiff's
account and sending the collection notice to plaintiff," in
violation of Section 1692e(3) of the FDCPA.

The initial collection notice was sent to collect on a consumer
debt allegedly owed by plaintiff to FIA Card Services, in the
amount of $4,666.70.  A footnote in the form letter states:
"Balance is current as of the date of this letter."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irving L. Berg., Esq.
          THE BERG LAW GROUP
          145 Town Center, PMB 493
          Corte Madera, CA 94925
          Telephone: (415) 924-0742
          E-mail: irvberg@comcast.net


COSCO BUSAN: Fishermen to Get $6MM in Damages in Oil Spill Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Examiner reports that more than three years
after the 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill fouled the waters of the San
Francisco Bay and beyond, local fishermen will receive a total of
$6 million in damages through a class action lawsuit.

The container ship spilled roughly 58,000 gallons of heavy bunker
fuel into the bay on Nov. 7, 2007, after it struck a fender around
one of the Bay Bridge's towers and cut a 212-foot gash in the
ship's hull.

Wildlife was severely impacted by the spill, with the oil reaching
shores as far north as Stinson Beach in Marin County and as far
south as Pacifica in San Mateo County.

Local fishermen filed a series of class action suits against the
owners and operators of the container ship in both federal court
in San Francisco and in San Francisco Superior Court.  Lawsuits
were brought against both Fleet Management and the ship's owner,
Regal Stone Ltd. of Hong Kong.

Both lawsuits claimed fishermen suffered "profound" economic
damage from the oil contamination and sought certification as
class actions on behalf of all commercial operations that catch
fish in and near San Francisco Bay.

A settlement was recently reached to pay Bay Area commercial
herring, halibut and other finfish fishermen $3.65 million for
long-term damages claims in addition to monies previously
recovered, according to an attorney for the fishermen.

About 120 commercial finfish fishermen will split the $3.65
million settlement, with preliminary approval of the settlement
scheduled for Jan. 25.

"If you come into the Bay and spill oil, the chief stewards of the
Bay -- local commercial fishermen -- will do everything in their
power to hold you accountable for it," Stuart Gross, an attorney
representing the fishermen, said in a statement issued on Jan. 5.


CVS CAREMARK: Sued for Selling Private Patient Information
----------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that CVS
Caremark, the nation's dominant pharmacy chain, uses and abuses
the patient information it gets from handling prescriptions from
competing pharmacies, by selling the information to drug companies
and using it to solicit rivals' medical customers, independent
pharmacies claim a federal class action.  They say Caremark also
violates state law by abusing its status as a pharmacy benefits
manager to deny non-CVS customers coverage or reimbursement unless
they get their refills at a CVS pharmacy.

"CVS Caremark is the largest provider of prescriptions in the
United States, and fills or manages nearly 1.3 billion
prescriptions annually," according to the complaint.  "CVS
Caremark ranks as the 18th largest company in the United States
(by sales), with nearly $100 billion in sales in 2009.  Nearly
every retail pharmacy in the country must do business with CVS
Caremark (as a pharmacy benefit manager), despite the fact that
CVS Caremark's retail stores (CVS pharmacies) are direct
competitors to non-CVS pharmacies, including the plaintiffs and
other retail pharmacies across the state of North Carolina."

CVS Caremark "manages the prescription drug benefits of
approximately 53 million consumers for at least 2,200 health care
plans."

CVS Caremark was formed in 2007 when the CVS pharmacy chain merged
with pharmacy benefits manager Caremark Rx.  The complaint refers
to pharmacy benefits managers as PBMs.

As a pharmacy benefits manager, "CVS Caremark obtains private
information about patients which is then compiled by CVS Caremark
to form a complete medical description and prescription history of
the patient," the complaint states.  "CVS Caremark then utilizes
this information for its own financial gain to market products and
services to (or 'to engage') the patients, and otherwise profits
on the information by selling it to third parties such as drug
companies.  Thus, CVS Caremark uses the patient information
obtained in the process of filling or managing prescriptions for
purposes beyond merely processing prescription claims.

"In its required notices of privacy practices under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ('HIPAA'), CVS
Caremark declares that it uses and discloses a person's private
health information across all of its affiliated businesses.  This
information is used, for example, to target and solicit non-CVS
patients to bring their prescription drug business to CVS-owned
retail stores, and to purchase general merchandise, including
lucrative CVS-branded over-the-counter products.  CVS Caremark
also accepts payments from drug companies for directly marketing
to those patients who are likely candidates for a drug because of
their prescription history.

"CVS Caremark also uses patient information for their own
financial gain by creating disincentives for a patient to access
the pharmacy of his or her own choice."

Among the information CVS collects as a pharmacy benefits manager,
"beyond merely processing prescription claims," are "the name,
address, date of birth, and gender of the patient, as well as the
identity of the prescribing physician, the specifics of the
prescription medication and dosage and the identity of the
dispensing pharmacy," the class claims.

CVS Caremark then markets its products and services to customers
of its competitors and profits unfairly again by selling the
information "to third parties such as drug companies," the class
claims.

After a customer of a competing pharmacy fills a prescription, CVS
Caremark sends the letter a letter and "timed communications,"
along with refill reminders and an additional letter if the
patient does not refill the prescription at a CVS pharmacy, the
class claims.

"CVS Caremark does not have a firewall between its PBM operations
and its retail pharmacy operations that would prevent the illicit
sharing of non-CVS customers' individually identifiable
information between CVS Caremark (as PBM) and CVS Caremark (as
retail pharmacy)," the class claims.

CVS Caremark also violates North Carolina's Pharmacy of Choice
statute, which was implemented to prevent just such an abuse, by
CVS programs "that require patients to fill their prescriptions
for maintenance medications only at CVS Caremark-owned retail and
mail pharmacies or be denied coverage and reimbursement," beyond
two or three refills, the class claims.

It continues: "This is in spite of public assurances by CVS
Caremark CEO Tom Ryan, prior to the merger, that 'We'll be
agnostic [about] where the consumer fills their prescription.'"

The Federal Trade Commission investigated CVS Caremark from 2007-
2009 for concerns that it did not properly protect patient
information, the class claims.  It adds: "In spite of the
assurances that patient privacy would be protected, as recently as
June 13, 2010, it was reported that private patient prescriptions
were found blowing in the street outside of a CVS pharmacy in New
York City."

Between 2004 and 2008, "28 different states investigated
allegations that Caremark hired itself out to drug companies to
target patients to switch to the pharmaceutical maker's drugs,"
the class claims.

The lead plaintiffs -- Burton's Health Mart Pharmacy, Pike's
Pharmacy and Dilworth Drugs -- say that CVS Caremark's unfair
practices "diminish competition, threaten independent pharmacies,
and ultimately result in higher costs to consumers of pharmacy
products and services."

They seek class certification, an injunction and damages for
deceptive and unfair trade and violations of North Carolina's
Pharmacy of Choice Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Burton's Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. CVS
Caremark Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00002 (M.D.N.C.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/06/CVS.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary Jackson, Esq.
          Sam McGee, Esq.
          JACKSON & MCGEE, LLP
          225 E. Worthington Avenue, Suite 200
          Charlotte, NC 28203
          Telephone: (704) 377-6680

               - and -

          Charles H. Rabon, Jr., Esq.
          WELLS DAISLEY RABON, P.A.
          1616 Cleveland Avenue
          Charlotte, NC 28203
          Telephone: (704) 315-2497

               - and -

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          James R. Noblin, Esq.
          GREEN WELLING, P.C.
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700


DENNY'S CORP: Sued in Calif. for Not Paying Overtime to Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Denny's stiffs workers for
overtime, according to a class action in San Mateo County Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Wong v. Denny's Corporation, et al.,
Case No. CIV501882 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/06/Dennys.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223

               - and -

          Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
          DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
          625 Broadway, Suite 600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 487-0777
          E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Lawyers to Review Implant Claims
----------------------------------------------------
The DePuy hip lawyers working with Class Action.org are available
to review claims from patients who have been implanted with one of
the hip replacements involved in the DePuy hip implant recall.
The DePuy ASR XL Acetabular Hip System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing
System were recalled in August 2010, and patients who have been
implanted with either system may have legal recourse.  If you or a
loved one has been the recipient of either recalled Depuy hip
replacement, visit http://www.classaction.org/depuy-asr-hip-
implant.html today and complete the free case evaluation form to
find out if you are entitled to financial compensation.

The DePuy hip recall was issued due to recent data which indicated
that more patients than expected who were implanted with the ASR
XL Acetabular Hip System or the ASR Hip Resurfacing System
experienced pain and other problems which led to a second hip
replacement surgery.  Specifically, the data revealed that within
five years, 12% of patients with the ASR resurfacing system and
13% implanted with the ASR total hip replacement required
corrective surgery.  Patients who experienced problems with the
recalled DePuy hip implants during the first five years and
required a second surgery reported a number of symptoms, including
swelling, pain and difficulty walking.  Although these symptoms
are expected following a hip replacement procedure, prolonged or
recurring issues may indicate hip implant loosening, fracture or
dislocation.

Patients who have not experienced symptoms of DePuy hip problems
may still be at risk for metallosis, an inflammatory reaction to
heavy metals in the body.  As metal components wear, they can
release particles into the tissue and blood stream, causing a
reaction in some patients.  The condition can cause severe tissue
damage around the hip joint and may necessitate corrective
surgery.  Symptoms associated with DePuy hip metal poisoning may
include vision loss, hearing loss and hip pain.

Patients who have been implanted with a system involved in the
DePuy hip replacement recall should not wait to experience pain or
other symptoms to learn their legal rights.  Visit Class
Action.org today for more information on the DePuy hip implant
recall.  You can also receive a free online legal consultation by
completing the case evaluation form, which can help determine your
eligibility for a DePuy hip lawsuit.  The DePuy hip litigation
attorneys working with Class Action.org are offering this case
review at no cost and remain dedicated to patients who have
experienced problems with either recalled DePuy hip replacement
device.

Class Action.org -- http://www.classaction.org/-- is dedicated to
protecting consumers and investors in class actions and complex
litigation throughout the United States.  Class Action.org keeps
consumers informed about product alerts, recalls, and emerging
litigation and helps them take action against the manufacturers of
defective products, drugs, and medical devices.  Information about
consumer fraud issues and environmental hazards is also available
on the site.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend "McCauley" Suit in Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., continues to defend the matter
McCauley, et al., v. Family Dollar, Inc., in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky, according to the
company's Jan. 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 27, 2010.

The McCauley Action is a putative state law class action filed on
behalf of store Team Members who are paid on an hourly basis.  The
suit was filed on April 27, 2010, in Circuit Court in Jefferson
County, Kentucky, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky.  The plaintiffs allege that they
and a putative class of similarly situated store Team Members
throughout Kentucky were required to work off the clock and
without breaks in violation of the Kentucky Wages and Hours Law.
The plaintiffs seek the value of their unpaid wages (off-the-clock
time and statutory breaks), liquidated damages in an equal amount,
attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

The company maintains strict policies prohibiting off-the-clock
work and requiring employees to take all breaks required by
applicable law, and intends to vigorously defend this action. The
company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that may result from this action.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  The company's merchandise
assortment includes consumables, home products, apparel and
accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The company's products
include apparel, food, cleaning and paper products, home decor,
beauty and health aids, toys, pet products, automotive products,
domestics, seasonal goods and electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend "Scott" Suit in North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., in its Jan. 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 27, 2010, relates that it is still defending itself
against 48 plaintiffs in the matter Scott, et al., v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc.

On Oct. 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al., v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., alleging discriminatory pay practices with respect
to the company's female store managers.  This case was pled as a
putative class action or collective action under applicable
statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female store managers.
The plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory and punitive money
damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable relief.  The
case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina.  Presently, there are 48 named
plaintiffs in the Scott case, with no additional opt-ins.

The Company is vigorously defending the allegations in the Scott
case. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss that may result from this action.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  The company's merchandise
assortment includes consumables, home products, apparel and
accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The company's products
include apparel, food, cleaning and paper products, home decor,
beauty and health aids, toys, pet products, automotive products,
domestics, seasonal goods and electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend Suits Filed by Store Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., continues to defend class action
lawsuits in which the sole or dispositive issue is the exempt
status of Store Managers under various state laws, according to
the company's Jan. 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 27,
2010.

Since 2004, individuals who have held the position of Store
Manager for the Company have filed lawsuits alleging that the
Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, or similar state
laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who are not
entitled to overtime compensation.  The majority of the complaints
in each action also request that the cases proceed as collective
actions under the FLSA or as class actions under state laws and
request recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and court costs.  The Company currently has 22
such cases pending against it.

Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc. are both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division.  In those
cases, the court has returned orders finding that the plaintiffs
were not similarly situated and, therefore, that neither
nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the FLSA is
appropriate. Hence, the Grace and Ward cases are proceeding as 43
individual plaintiff cases.

On July 9, 2009, the Court granted summary judgment against Irene
Grace on the merits of her misclassification claim under the FLSA.
The Company has filed summary judgment motions related to each of
the remaining 42 plaintiffs in the Grace and Ward cases.  The
plaintiffs appealed certain rulings of the N.C. Federal Court to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
including the court's summary judgment order against Irene Grace.

Including Grace and Ward, a total of 17 class or collective or
single plaintiff misclassification cases are now pending before
the N.C. Federal Court.  The N.C. Federal Court has stayed all
discovery in these cases pending the outcome of the Grace and Ward
appeals.  Presently, there are a total of 70 named plaintiffs or
opt-ins in these cases.

The Company has been sued in four additional class action lawsuits
alleging that Store Managers should be non-exempt employees under
various state laws.  The plaintiffs in these cases seek recovery
of overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and court
costs.  Twila Walters et. al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Missouri,
Inc., alleging violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, was
originally filed on January 26, 2010, and is pending in the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. Barker v. Family
Dollar, Inc., alleging violations of the Kentucky Wages and Hours
Law, was filed in Circuit Court in Jefferson County, Kentucky on
February 17, 2010, and removed to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky. Youngblood, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., Family Dollar, Inc., Family Dollar Stores of
New York, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on April 2, 2009.
Rancharan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Queens County on March 4, 2009,
was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on May 6, 2009, and was subsequently
transferred to the Southern District of New York and has been
consolidated with Youngblood.

In general, the Company continues to believe that its Store
Managers are "exempt" employees under the FLSA and have been and
are being properly compensated under both federal and state laws.
The Company further believes that these actions are not
appropriate for collective or class action treatment.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend the claims in these actions.  While
the N.C. Federal Court has previously found that the Grace and
Ward actions are not appropriate for collective action treatment,
at this time it is not possible to predict whether one or more of
the remaining cases may be permitted to proceed collectively on a
nationwide or other basis.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  The company's merchandise
assortment includes consumables, home products, apparel and
accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The company's products
include apparel, food, cleaning and paper products, home decor,
beauty and health aids, toys, pet products, automotive products,
domestics, seasonal goods and electronics.


GOOGLE INC: Faces 8th Class Action Over Street View
---------------------------------------------------
Westlaw Journals reports Google is facing yet another class-action
lawsuit after admitting that it collected sensitive information
from unsecured wireless networks while capturing images for its
Street View mapping service.

The latest case, the eighth lodged so far, was filed in September
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
suit Dec. 14 to join the others in the MDL over Street View in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

'WE FAILED BADLY'

Google's privacy imbroglio involves the admission that the camera-
equipped cars that take photographs for its Street View were also
mapping and scanning wireless computer networks along the way.

At first, the company claimed it only collected the wireless
network names and hardware addresses, known as Media Access
Control, or MAC, addresses.  Later, however, it admitted that it
also collected snippets of data traveling over the wireless
networks as its cars passed.

"[I]t's now clear that we have been mistakenly collecting samples
of . . . data from open (i.e., non-password-protected) WiFi
networks, even though we never used that data in any Google
products," the company said in a May 17 post to its official blog.
"Quite simply, it was a mistake."

According to a May 20 report in the New York Times, the data
collected by Google amounted to about 600 gigabytes of fragments
of e-mails and Web sites visited by users of the wireless
networks.

"[W]e are acutely aware that we failed badly here," Google's blog
post said.  "We are profoundly sorry for this error and are
determined to learn all the lessons we can from our mistake."

CLASS-ACTION SUITS

The eight class-action lawsuits accuse Google of violating the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511, and invasion of
privacy under state laws.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages of $10,000 per violation (the
maximum statutory damages available under the CFAA), punitive
damages, costs and attorney fees.

In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications
Litigation, MDL No. 2184; Myhre et al v. Google Inc., No.
10-CV-01444, case transferred (J.P.M.L. Dec. 14, 2010).


ITT WATER: Recalls 21,000 Sump Pumps and Effluent Pumps
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
ITT Water Technology, Inc., of Seneca Falls, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 21,000 Sump Pumps and Effluent Pumps.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

Sump pumps installed without ground fault circuit interrupter
(GFCI) protection can pose an electric shock or electrocution
hazard if touched by the consumer.  If you suspect that you have
one of the recalled pumps and it is plugged in, do not touch it,
the water around it or the surrounding floor area.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

The recall involves Goulds, Red Jacket and Bell & Gossett Pumps
used in residential applications to pump wastewater and sewage.
The pumps are sky blue or red and display the brand names Goulds,
Red Jacket or Bell & Gossett.  These pumps were installed in new
construction or as replacement pumps between December 2009 and
July 2010.  The models are:

     Goulds          ST, PE, PS, PV, GWP, SDSST
     Red Jacket      RSC, REP, RWW, RVW, RWP, RSDSST
     Bell & Gossett  SC, 1EC, 2WC and 2VW, MWP and MSDS

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11086.html

The recalled pump is manufactured in the United States and the
accompanying cord was manufactured in China and sold through
Goulds, Red Jacket and Bell & Gossett distributors nationwide from
December 2009 to July 2010 for between $280 to $700.

If you have purchased a sump pump between December 2009 and July
2010 and it is sky blue or red, you may have a recalled pump.  Do
not touch the Pump, the Water around the Pump or the floor
surrounding the pump.  To verify if your pump is one affected by
this recall, immediately contact ITT Water Technology on the toll-
free number below.  If your pump is affected, a technician will be
sent to your home to replace or repair the pump.  For additional
information, please contact ITT Water Technology toll-free at
(866) 325-4204, or visit the firm's Web site at

     http://www.goulds.com/
     http://www.redjacketwaterproducts.com/
     http://www.bellgossett.com/


JEAN BOURGET: Recalls 16 Children's Hooded Cardigans
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Jean Bourget Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 16 Children's hooded cardigans with drawstrings.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The cardigans have a drawstring through the hood, which can pose a
strangulation hazard to young children.  In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or
getting entangled at the neck and waist by drawstrings in upper
garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves hooded cardigans sold under the "Lili
Gaufrette" brand name, model number G617093 and named the LEPARIGO
cardigan.  The cardigans were sold in pink, brown and black, and
in children's sizes 4-14.  "LiLi Gaufrette MADE IN FRANCE" is
printed on the tag sewn inside the garment, and "LiLi" is printed
on the tag sewn onto the left front pocket.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11713.html

The recalled products were manufactured in France and sold through
Patty Cake in Nashville, TN, as part of a 3 piece set for about
$300.00, and Shaindy's Children's Wear in Monsey, N.Y. as a
cardigan for about $60.00 from September 2008 to February 2010.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
cardigans to eliminate the hazard or return the product to JB Inc.
for a full refund.  For more information, contact JB Inc. at 212-
279-7672 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.liligaufrette.com/


KAHALA HOTEL: Gets $800,000 Civil Judgment in Service Fee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports a state judge has handed down an
$800,000 civil judgment against the owner of the Kahala Hotel &
Resort in a class-action lawsuit over service fees charged for
food and beverages.

The class-action suit said service fees for food and drinks were
improperly charged.  A state judge has handed down an $800,000
civil judgment against the owner of the Kahala Hotel & Resort, in
a class-action lawsuit over service fees charged for food and
beverages.

A jury determined that the resort improperly charged customers
$269,114 in service fees over the past five years because it did
not disclose to them that the money is used to pay costs and
expenses rather than tips and wages for employees as required by
state law.

Circuit Judge Gary W.B. Chang awarded $807,344, or three times the
overcharge, because the resort violated the state antitrust law
designed to protect consumers.  Judge Chang can also award the
plaintiffs attorney fees and costs.

The judgment is for a lawsuit filed by Oahu resident Jason
Kawakami, who paid more than $4,800 in service fees when he held
his wedding reception at the Kahala Hotel in July 2007.  Other
consumers and food and beverage workers have filed similar class-
action lawsuits against other hotels and resorts on Oahu and the
neighbor islands.  Mr. Kawakami's was the first to go to trial.

The period of overcharge is from November 2005, when the current
owner took over operation of the hotel, to November 2010.  The
hotel provided a list of customers it charged food and beverage
service fees during that period. They will be contacted and asked
whether they want to make a claim.

Even after Mr. Kawakami filed his lawsuit in December 2008, and
Judge Chang found in September that the hotel was in violation of
the law, the operators continued to charge food and beverage
service fees without proper disclosure.


KIDDIE KOLLEGE: Judge to Rule on Day-Care Class Action Today
------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Hefler, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports court
filings reveal that a medical monitoring plan for the 130 children
who attended the toxic Kiddie Kollege day care in Gloucester
County would cost $2.7 million, less than the anticipated legal
fees of the attorneys involved in the four-year litigation.

Superior Court Judge James E. Rafferty has said he will rule
today, January 11, closing a negligence case that caught the
attention of a nation nervous about the safety of day-care
centers.

A team of class-action lawyers sued the state, county, Franklin
Township, the owners and operators of the day care, and others for
allowing it to open inside a former thermometer factory in
February 2004.  The children inhaled mercury vapors, which can
cause brain and kidney dysfunction.

During a six-week trial, the total cost of the long-term medical-
testing plan was never made clear.  Eight doctors and medical
experts battled in court over the need for such testing, the
duration, the type, and who would be eligible.

The defense lawyers argued that the testing was unnecessary and a
waste of money, saying that the children had not shown any
symptoms and that mercury exposure did not cause latent effects.

Under the medical monitoring proposal submitted late last month by
the class-action lawyers, the children would receive
neuropsychological and immunological testing until they were in
their mid-20s.

Neuropsychological tests would be annual until a child reached 12,
and every two years thereafter.  The test would include behavioral
and visual memory assessments.  Children also would have their
immune systems checked through blood tests each year for five
years.

The children have not developed any serious effects.  Some parents
have reported rashes, skin peeling, hyperactivity, and other
symptoms that may or may not be linked to mercury.  Several
parents testified that the proposed testing would give them "peace
of mind" and enable them to get early intervention if problems
were detected.

After the day care was closed in July 2006, inspectors found
vapors 27 times an acceptable limit.  The building was demolished
last year.

The class-action lawyers also are asking the judge to establish a
$3 million medical fund for the day-care staff and the children's
parents and guardians, who were exposed when they dropped their
children off and attended holiday parties.  That money would fund
two rounds of health tests for about 230 people.

That means the contentious litigation that was fueled by about 20
lawyers, beginning in August 2006, was over proposed funds
totaling about $5.7 million.  It is unclear what legal fees have
been racked up in the case, which generated more than 3,700
documents, numerous hearings on preliminary motions, several
appeals, and a hard-fought trial.

Among the attorneys were four firms that represented the children,
staff, and parents; three that represented the day-care owner, Jim
Sullivan 3d, and his family; a deputy attorney general who
defended the state; and outside counsel hired to defend the county
and town.

The legal fees of the plaintiffs will be decided by the judge
later.

None of the attorneys on either side would comment while the judge
weighed his decision. But the more than 400 pages they filed with
Rafferty last month clearly spell out what each side wants and
whom each believes the judge should blame.

Jim Pettit, Tom Booth, Stuart Lieberman, and Michael DeBenedictus,
the class-action lawyers, filed "findings of fact" that ask the
judge to find the township the most culpable for exposing the
children to the vapors.

The class-action lawyers say Franklin Township should pay 40% of
the fund while the state should pay 30%, the county 20%, and the
Sullivan family 10%.

The attorneys contend Franklin Township is most culpable because
many of its officials and employees knew of the contamination and
failed to take steps to prevent the day care from opening.  Town
officials and employees had received several letters warning about
the hazards in the building before they approved permits and
certificates of occupancy to allow the day care, the attorneys
argue.

The township and the other government entities are not immune from
liability, the lawyers say, because they failed to follow through
with "basic affirmative steps to protect human health," a part of
their "normal and ordinary responsibilities."

The government attorneys, however, say that if the entities were
held liable, they would not be able to function because they have
limited resources.

Soon after the trial started in October, the Sullivans and the
day-care operators settled with the plaintiffs for $1 million.  If
the judge finds them liable, this sum will go toward the fund, but
they will not have to pay anything additional.

M. James Maley Jr., who represents Franklin Township, argued that
the town is protected by governmental immunity and should not be
liable for any costs.  If blame is assessed, he says, the
Sullivans should pay more than 50% because they had obtained a
copy of an environmental report that noted the mercury
contamination but failed to address the problem.

Mr. Sullivan testified that he misread the report and did not
believe the building was badly contaminated when he rented it to a
day-care operator.

Mr. Maley's arguments also say that the state and county deserve
blame because they are charged with protecting human health from
environmental hazards and are not entitled to governmental
immunities.  If the town was found at fault, he urged that it be
found liable for only 5 percent of the cost.


NANTUCKET DISTRIBUTING: Recalls 430 Oven Rack Guard
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nantucket Distributing Co. Inc., of Union, N.J., announced a
voluntary recall of about 430 Oven Rack Guard.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The product cannot withstand the high temperatures stated on the
packaging and can overheat posing a fire hazard.

The firm has received nine reports of the product causing smoke or
catching fire.  Of those nine reports, three consumers reported
property damage and five reported injuries, such as headache, sore
throat, nausea and eye irritation from smoke.

The recalled Oven Rack Guard is intended to be placed on an oven
rack to prevent burns on the arms or wrist when placing items in
or removing them from an oven.  The Oven Rack Guard is off white
in color, 18 inches long and contains five metal snaps that secure
the Oven Rack Guard to the oven rack.  The SKU number is 66262 and
the UPC number is 15697769.  Both numbers are located on the
package.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11087.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Christmas Tree Shops primarily in the New England, Mid-Atlantic
and Midwest regions in October 2010 for about $3.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
return it to any Christmas Tree Shop location for a full refund.
For additional information, contact Christmas Tree Shops toll-free
at (888) 287-3232 with calls accepted 24 hours a day, 7 days per
week, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.christmastreeshops.com/


NEW YORK: Settlement in Children and Family Services Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
WITH THE NEW YORK STATEWIDE CENTRAL REGISTER OF
CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT (SCR).

ATTENTION: If you are the subject of an indicated report of child
abuse or maltreatment, and you timely requested a review or
hearing of that indicated report and that review has not yet been
completed, you are a "class member" in this lawsuit and this
settlement applies to you.

A settlement has been reached on class members' behalf in this
action, Finch v. Office of Children and Family Services, (04 CV
1668) an action brought in the U.S. Federal Court of the Southern
District of New York located in Manhattan, which will affect your
rights.

These are the terms of the settlement regarding Claims against the
Office of Children and Family Services:

    (1) If you are fired or suspended from a child care related
job because of an indicated child abuse or maltreatment report and
you ask the SCR to review that report, your review will be
completed within 120 days of the date SCR receives verification
from you of such firing or suspension.

    (2) If you have applied for a job, certification or license in
a child care related field requiring a database check, and you
have requested the SCR to review the indicated report before
responding to the database check, the SCR will conclude the review
and respond to the agency submitting the database check within 130
days of the date the SCR receives your request for review.

    (3) If you request review of an indicated report within ninety
days after the child abuse or maltreatment report is indicated,
the SCR will complete the review within 280 days of the date the
SCR receives your request for review.

For more information regarding your rights or how to object to the
proposed settlement you may visit the Web site at
http://www.registryclassaction.com/or contact the attorney
appointed by the court to represent the interest of the class
member:

          Thomas Hoffman, Esq.
          Law Offices of Thomas Hoffman, P.C.
          250 W. 57 St., Suite 1020
          New York, NY 10107
          Telephone: (212) 581-1180
          E-mail: thoffman@thoffmanlaw.com

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT DATES: Deadline to Object to
Settlement: January 28, 2011.  Settlement Fairness Hearing:
February 7, 2011.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR INFORMATION
REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT.


NURSING HOME BONDS: Suit to Proceed After Judge Reduces Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
former Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has appointed
Lucco, Brown, Threlkeld and Dawson of Edwardsville and Motley Rice
of Mount Pleasant, S.C., as class counsel on a claim that bankers,
lawyers and auditors failed to protect investors in nursing homes.

Judge Stack bequeathed the action to his successor, Circuit Judge
William Mudge, who recuse himself in the nursing home suit.

The nursing home suit started in 2001, with no connection at all
to Madison County.

Buyers of bonds for seven nursing homes in Michigan, Indiana and
Wisconsin filed it after developer Reynolds Banks of Chicago
defaulted.

The bond buyers sought damages from Mr. Banks and businesses he
controlled.

They sought further damages from Wells Fargo Bank as successor to
a bank that acted as indenture trustee in six bond issues.

They sued Fifth Third Bank as successor to the trustee in the
seventh bond issue.

They sued bond counsel Gilmore and Bell, and they sued auditor
Blue and Company.

Against all defendants they alleged Illinois Securities Act
violations, conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, and negligence or recklessness.

Mr. Banks and his businesses declared bankruptcy, escaping the
litigation.

Investors moved for class certification, and defendants moved for
summary judgment.

Judge Stack held a two-day hearing on the motions in 2008, plus a
third day in 2009.

On his final Monday at the courthouse, he ruled on both motions
and conceded they had remained under advisement for too long.

He granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo, Fifth Third, Gilmore
and Bell, and Blue and Company on all counts but negligence or
recklessness.

Judge Stack ruled that the Illinois Securities Act didn't apply
because defendants played no role in marketing, offering or
selling the bonds.

He wrote that plaintiffs didn't provide sufficient evidence of
conspiracy.

On fraudulent misrepresentation, he wrote that "aider and abettor
liability without sufficient evidence on causation has been
abolished."

"Plaintiffs conceded in their deposition testimony that they did
not read the bond prospectus before purchasing the bonds,"
Judge Stack wrote.

He wrote that defendants made no representations directly to
plaintiffs.

On fraudulent concealment, he wrote that the banks were under no
duty to disclose information unless it was expressly stated in the
indenture agreement.

"The indenture agreement does not state that Wells Fargo and Fifth
Third owe a duty to investigate or report to plaintiffs," he
wrote.

"Plaintiffs testified in their depositions that they were not
aware of Wells Fargo and Fifth Third's involvement in the bond
offering."

He found no fiduciary or confidential relationship between
plaintiffs and Gilmore and Bell or Blue and Company.

He denied summary judgment on negligence or recklessness, finding
that "at least some of the bond offerings might not have been
permitted had these defendants properly performed all of their
duties under the indentured trustee contract."

Then, in a separate order, he certified Al Kellerman, Lillard
Hedden and Frank Crabtree to represent hundreds of bond buyers in
a class action.

"This was a classic Ponzi scheme, whereby each new series of bonds
was used to make payments on the previous series, until all the
bonds finally defaulted," Judge Stack wrote.

He wrote that more than $40 million was dissipated and
untraceable.

He wrote that "the only rational way to proceed is to concentrate
the class claims in a single action, rather than have numerous
separate trials on the same issue based on the same evidence."


PAYDAY LOAN LITIGATION: "Baillie" Suit Goes to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Lynne Baillie, et al., filed a Third Amended Class Action
Complaint v. Account Receivable Management of Florida, Inc., et
al., Case No. 7327031 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), adding
as defendants, Thomas Assenzio and Jolene Hart Assenzio on
November 3, 2010.

The original complaint was filed May 22, 2007, against Dollar
Financial Corp., Dollar Financial Group, Inc., et al., seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief based upon the defendants
alleged usurious lending practices, violations of the Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code, and unjust enrichment relating to instant cash advance
loans made to the plaintiff.  On July 6, 2007, Ms. Baillie filed a
First Amended Complaint, adding United Legal Corporation, now
known as Accounts Receivable Management of Florida and
Instantcashloantillpayday.com, asserting similar causes of action.

On August 13, 2007, Ms. Bailie filed a Second Amended Complaint,
deleting DFC and DFG as defendants, and adding Processing
Solutions, Inc., Instant Cash USA, First East, Inc., Fast Funding
The Company, Inc., Rio Resources and MTE Financial Services, Inc.,
again asserting similar causes of action.

In the Third Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that on July 2,
2006, Ms. Baillie obtained a payday loan for $300 from USFastCash
with an annual percentage rate of 1,216.667%.  Plaintiffs further
allege that on June 19, 2006, Ms. Rosas obtained a similar loan
from Rio in the sum of $300 and on November 3, 2006, she obtained
a loan from Instant Cash in the sum of $300.  Plaintiffs claim
that the interest rates and service charges were usurious and
exceeded the permissible interest rate of 10% p.a. pursuant to
California law.  Plaintiffs assert that each of the corporate
defendants was an alter ego of Mr. Assenzio whom plaintiffs allege
owned, controlled, managed and directed the corporate defendants
for his own personal purposes and to shield himself from
individual liability.

On the basis that the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has original jurisdiction over this class
action, defendant Thomas Assenzio, on January 4, 2011, removed the
lawsuit to that Court, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-00021
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold M. Jaffe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD M. JAFFE
          3521 Grand Avenue
          Oakland, CA 94610
          Telephone: (510) 452-2610

               - and -

          Brian W. Newcomb, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN W. NEWCOMB
          770 Menlo Avenue, Suite 101
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 322-7780

The Defendant Thomas Assenzio is represented by:

          Joyce C. Wang, Esq.
          Nancy J. Strout, Esq.
          CARLSON, CALLADINE & PETERSON LLP
          353 Sacramento Street, 16th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-3911


PHUSION PROJECTS: Sued in Fla. Over Four Loko Caffeinated Booze
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Phusion Projects dba Drink Four Brewing Co.'s "Four Loko"
caffeinated booze -- aka "blackout in a can" -- can and has caused
"sickness and alcohol poisoning, and even death."

A copy of the Complaint in Thomas v. Phusion Projects, LLC, Case
No. 11-cv-20035 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/06/Booze&Caffeine.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Smith, Esq.
          SMITH, VANTURE & RIVERA, LLP
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4-C
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 684-6330
          E-mail: bws@smithvanture.com

               - and -

          Howard Rubinstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD RUBINSTEIN
          P.O. Box 4839
          Aspen, CO 81612
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070
          E-mail: jwhatley@wdklaw.com
                  psheehan@wdklaw.com


PORSCHE AG: Sued Over Inferior Cayenne Plastic Coolant Tubes
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action filed
in New York claims Porsche unjustly enriches itself by selling
Cayennes with inferior plastic coolant tubes that crack and leak,
forcing customers to buy an "update kit" to replace them with
aluminum.


QUOIZEL INC: Recalls 150 Outdoor Hanging Lantern
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Quoizel Inc. of Goose Creek, S.C., announced a voluntary recall of
about 150 outdoor hanging lantern.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The glass lantern can separate from the top support ring and fall,
injuring people who are nearby.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

The recall involves outdoor hanging lanterns labeled as
"Northridge" in the Quiozel 2009 Catalog with the model number
#AGNT1912K.  The lantern is made of black aluminum; yellow, orange
and white glass; and red, orange and beige agate stones. It is
19.5" tall and 12" diameter.  The model number is located on the
side of the lantern's box, on a tag attached to the lantern, on
the instruction sheet and on the lantern's ceiling mount.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11085.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
specialty lighting retail shops and online from June 2008 to
January 2010.

Consumers should immediately stop using the outdoor hanging
lantern and contact Quoizel Inc. for a free replacement.  For
additional information, call Quoizel Inc. toll-free at (877) 316-
2589 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.quoizel.com/


ST. LOUIS, MO: Law Firm Seeks to Double Fees in Sewer Dist. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Sutin, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports the law
firm that persuaded a judge to invalidate the Metropolitan
St. Louis Sewer District's new storm water service charge has
submitted a $2.14 million legal bill to the court, and wants the
judge to double it.

In all, the law firm of Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale of St. Louis
wants more than $4.3 million in fees and $458,523 in expenses from
MSD in the class action suit.

MSD called the request astounding and shocking.  It says the fees
should be about $1.15 million.

The Greensfelder firm last month asked the trial judge, Lincoln
County Circuit Judge Dan Dildine, to approve its fees and
expenses.  Judge Dildine will hold a hearing on the matter
Jan. 18.  MSD, and ultimately its ratepayers, will be responsible
for paying the bill.

The proposed doubling of the fees is a 'success factor," Richard
Hardcastle, the lead attorney in the case for Greensfelder, said
in an interview.

"We saved the ratepayers $300 million," Mr. Hardcastle said.

The $300 million is the amount the district would have received
between now and June 30, 2015.  That is the last year in the rate
schedule MSD had adopted.

The legal costs would be about 1.1 percent of what ratepayers will
save, Greensfelder said.

The accounting of fees it submitted to the court covered a period
from April 15, 2008, to Oct. 31, 2010.  It cited 8,381.5 hours at
hourly rates ranging from $120 for a paralegal to $435 for
Mr. Hardcastle.  He billed 1,058.7 hours, for a total of $460,534.
The highest total was for lawyer George Uhl.  He billed 1,724.3
hours at $345 an hour for a total of $594,883.

The firm also is seeking $54,772 in fees for work on the case
since Oct. 31.

MSD told the court the legal fees should be slightly more than
$1.15 million and expenses should be $24,418.

The district said it has paid its own attorneys in the case --
Kohn, Shands, Elbert, Gianoulakis & Giljum of Clayton -- $844,780
through Nov. 30.

'REASONABLE' FEES

Greensfelder represented three ratepayers who said in their suit
that the new MSD fees needed voter approval under the state's
Hancock Amendment.  It became a class action suit covering all
sewer district customers.

Judge Dildine in July invalidated the new storm water service
charge, which based fees on the area of a property that cannot
retain water.  But the judge declined to require the district to
refund the nearly $90.9 million it had collected since March 2008.

Both sides have appealed the Judge Dildine's rulings.  MSD stopped
collecting the charge, reverting to a previous system of property
taxes and a small charge.

The Hancock Amendment also says that a plaintiff who successfully
challenges a tax or fee shall receive from "the applicable unit of
government his costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees
incurred in maintaining such suit."

The plaintiffs' brief to Judge Dildine said Missouri judges should
follow rulings of the California and Florida supreme courts that
allow judges to multiply fees.

The action provides "financial incentives for attorneys enforcing
important constitutional rights," the California Supreme Court
said in a decision approving the multiplication of attorney's
fees.  The California court said such multiplication replicates
the contingency fees that attorneys often charge in civil cases.

Greensfelder said in its brief that it had to overcome the
district's resistance to providing evidence and hire outside
experts.  Mr. Hardcastle, in an interview, said there were
"discovery issues that drove the costs higher."

FOUR-DAY TRIAL

MSD said in its response to the court that Greensfelder's request
is "unreasonable especially for a trial that lasted only four
days, not weeks or months."  Some of the fees were excessive,
duplicative and unnecessary, the district said.

The district has a staff of four lawyers, a paralegal and an
administrative assistant, but MSD said it hired Kohn, Shands
because it needed lawyers who specialize in rates, said
Lance LeComb, a district spokesman.

Kohn, Shands provided a 20 percent discount on its rates, which
MSD said is commonly given to public agencies.

The plaintiffs' lawyers should do the same because "any fee award
will affect the level of services provided to the public," the
district said.

Mr. Hardcastle rejected that argument.  He noted that MSD's law
firm will be paid regardless of whether it won or lost.  "We took
this case realizing that payment of our fees would be contingent
upon prevailing in the lawsuit," Mr. Hardcastle said.

Two years ago, Metro lost a highly publicized three-year legal
battle over the Shrewsbury light rail line that cost Metro $27
million in legal fees and settlement costs.  Most of the legal
fees went to Metro's own law firms.


ST. PAUL FIRE: Retiring Judge Limits Class Participants
-------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
former Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack on Nov. 29,
appointed LakinChapman of Wood River as class counsel on a claim
that St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance and Met Life Auto and Home
improperly reduced payments on medical bills.

Judge Stack certified local chiropractor Lawrence Shipley as class
representative alleging breach of contract on hundreds of
thousands of payments in 15 states dating back to 1993.

Mr. Shipley contends that insurers must pay the billed amount in
the absence of evidence of fraud or bad faith.

"If the contract were construed as plaintiff proposes, that would
not only resolve a central issue, but would also establish a right
of recovery for the class," Judge Stack wrote.

"However, resolution of these issues is a merits issue which the
court should not prejudge at the class certification stage.

"Ultimately, plaintiffs proffer that the issue of damages should
be susceptible to a formulaic resolution based on actual billed
charges, or to expert damage calculation based on a statistical
analysis.

"In the unlikely event that these solutions prove unmanageable,
the court would also have the power to resolve the liability
issues and consider a claims process, or even decertification of
the class to permit class members to pursue their individual
damage claims in small claims court."

The class includes insured persons and medical providers in
Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio,
South Carolina, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

Judge Stack excluded from the class persons who settled claims
through similar litigation in King County, Wash.


SANFORD BROWN: Retiring Judge Names Class Counsel & Reps
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
former Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has appointed
Carey and Danis of Clayton, Mo., and Klamann Law Firm of Kansas
City as class counsel on a claim that Sanford Brown Colleges
misled students about the value of its courses.

Judge Stack certified Jenna Lilley and Jessica Lilley to represent
more than 2,000 students in the medical assistant program at
Collinsville.

Their lawyer, John Carey, said at a hearing that the school gave
his clients "a worthless piece of paper."

Judge Stack found common questions of fact and law under the
Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, but
dismissed fraud claims.


STARWOOD VACATION: Sued for Cheating Filipino Immigrant Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that two federal class actions
claim Florida hotels cheated hundreds of legal immigrant workers
from the Philippines of minimum wages.  Starwood Vacation
Ownership Management dba Sheraton Vistana Resort, and Rosen Hotel
& Resorts cheated more than 300 workers of minimum wages after
hiring them through labor contractors, according to the
complaints.

Workers in both cases seek back pay and damages for labor
violations and violations of the Florida Constitution.  Both
defendant hotels are in Orlando.

The 33 named plaintiffs in the Starwood-Sheraton case say more
than 200 workers were underpaid.  The 13 Rosen plaintiffs say
another 100 Filipino workers suffered the same things.

Both complaints say the hotels hired the Filipinos workers on H-2B
visas through labor contractors Northwest Placement and DHI LLC.
The labor contractors are not named as defendants.

Filipinos are favorite targets for unscrupulous labor contractors
and U.S. employers.  Filipino nurses, hotel workers and nursery
and agriculture workers have filed dozens of labor class actions
against U.S. employers and their agents.  Whether it's the
Philippines' famous hospitable culture, its long ties to the
United States through the Navy and Army, or other factors, aside
from nearby countries in Latin America, Filipinos probably are the
largest national class of plaintiffs who file such lawsuits in
U.S. courts.

A copy of the Complaint in Bandola, et al. v. Starwood Vacation
Ownership, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00003 (M.D. Fla.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/06/Starwood.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory S. Schell, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
          508 Lucerne Avenue
          Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819
          Telephone: (561) 582-3921
          E-mail: greg@floridalegal.org


SURGERY GROUP: Sued for Adding Unlawful $25 Late Fees in Statement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Patti Benner and Adam Brenner, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Surgery Group, S.C., Case No. 2011-CH-00082
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. January 3, 2011), seek redress from
unlawful collection practices engaged in by the defendant in
violation of Illinois Law.  The plaintiffs relate that on
November 24, 2009, Adam Benner was hospitalized with appendicitis
and a physician from Surgery Group, S.C., later performed an
emergency appendectomy on Adam Benner, which is covered under her
mother and co-plaintiff Patti Benner's Blue Cross/Blue Shield
health insurance plan.  On December 10, 2009, Patti Benner wrote a
$30 check to Surgery Group, S.C., as a co-pay on Adam Benner's
account, and on January 4, 2010, Adam Benner's account was
credited with a Blue Cross Blue Shield payment of $835 and a Blue
Cross Blued Shield adjustment of $2,261.  On January 4, 2010, the
defendant sent Adam Benner a Statement, in standard printed form,
demanding a balance due of $178.80.  On February 10, 2010,
plaintiff Patti Banner negotiated a payment plan, whereby Ms.
Benner would pay $35 per month until the amount owing of $178.80
was paid off.  On the same day, Patti Benner made a credit card
payment of $35, and on April 24, 2010, made a payment by check in
the amount of $143.80.

Yet, despite these payments, plaintiffs found out on June 24,
2010, that they still owed $125 to defendant, mainly due to late
charges added on to their statement of account.

Plaintiffs contend that the $25 charges added on as late charges
to their Statement are not part of their agreement, are grossly
unreasonable and therefore unlawful.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Catherine A. Ceko, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          E-mail: courtecl@redcombs.com


SYNGENTA CROP: Opposes Order to Unseal Motions in Atrazine Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
defendants in a proposed federal class action over alleged water
contamination are asking a federal judge to vacate an order
unsealing several motions and exhibits they claim would disclose
confidential information.

Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. and its parent company filed a
response to a Dec. 21 order to show cause entered by U.S. District
Judge Phil Gilbert.

The order mandates that lead plaintiff -- the city of Greenville
-- show cause as to why several motions and exhibits should not be
unsealed.

Greenville does not oppose unsealing the motions but argued in a
response filed last month that it was trying to comply with a
protective order entered in the suit.

The protective order, according to both the plaintiffs and
defendants, means that some of the information contained in the
motion exhibits was designated confidential by Syngenta.

Greenville proposes to lead a class of water providers and
municipalities in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and other states
against Syngenta Crop Protection and Syngenta AG, its Swiss parent
company.

Greenville alleges that atrazine made by the defendants runs off
farm fields and contaminates drinking water supplies.

Plaintiffs' attorney Stephen Tillery and his team filed six nearly
identical state class actions in 2004 in Madison County.

Led by the Holiday Shores Sanitary District, those suits have been
proceeding through the discovery process.

Only the Madison County case filed against Syngenta has been
progressing.

Currently, that suit is set for a hearing on a third party's
motion to quash a defense subpoena and a rule to show cause
motion.

Other third party discovery issues in the Holiday Shores' case are
before the Fifth District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon.

The motions at issue in the federal case include a motion to
strike and a substitute motion to strike.

Copies are currently unavailable.

In its Jan. 4 response, Syngenta points to a protective order
Gilbert entered last year that allowed it to designate information
as confidential.

Syngenta claims in the response that the plaintiffs were correct
in filing their motions under seal because they contain the
confidential information.

However, the defense argues that unsealing the motions would be
prejudicial.

"It would be fundamentally unfair to Defendants to unseal all of
those confidential documents merely because Plaintiffs cited them
in a dubious motion to strike," the response reads.

The defense claims that plaintiffs cited "dozens" of privileged
depositions and other confidential materials in the exhibits
attached to their strike motions.

Mark Pope, Kurtis Reeg and others represent Syngenta.

Reeg is lead defense counsel in the Madison County case.

Mr. Tillery and his team represent the plaintiffs in both cases.

Neither class has been certified.

Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge presides over the
Holiday Shores case.

The Madison County case number if 04-L-710.

The federal suit filed last year is case number 10-188-JPG.


THREE GENERATIONS: Sued for Violations of New York Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Stelko, et al., individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated carpenters, bricklayers, masons, and other
workers in the construction trades v. Three Generations
Contracting, Inc., et al., Case No. 100059/2011, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
New York Cty. January 3, 2011), seek to recover wages and benefits
which they were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive
for work they performed on various public works contracted with
the City and State of New York.

Three Generations is engaged in the construction business and has
since 2006, entered into construction contracts at Public Works
Project sites in the City and State of New York.

The Plaintiffs relate that New York State Labor Law Section 220
provides that the wages to be paid to laborers, workmen and
mechanics upon public work will not be less that the "prevailing
rate of wages."  New York State Labor Law also requires that these
laborers be provided with "supplemental benefits," which are all
forms of non-cash remuneration for employment such as health,
welfare and non-occupational disability insurance, at the
prevailing rate.  Plaintiffs believe a schedule of prevailing
rates of wages and supplemental benefits, was made a part of each
of the Three Generations Public Works Contracts.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached the Three Generations
Contracts by willfully failing to pay ensure payment to the
Plaintiffs of the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental
benefits due them for work done upon the Public Works Projects.
Plaintiffs assert that Three Generations also violated New York
Labor Law Section 65 when it failed to pay overtime compensation
for the time they worked in excess of 40 hours a week.

According to the Complaint, Carolina Casualty and Insurance
Company and RLI Insurance Company, by issuing the Labor and
Material Payment Bonds to Three Generations, assumed joint and
several liabilities with Three Generations to pay Plaintiffs all
wages and supplemental benefits due and owing to them which Three
Generations or its subcontractors failed to pay.  In view thereof,
they were included in the Complaint.

In addition, defendant Marie Fabrizio and defendant Robert
Fabrizio, in their capacities as officers, directors, president or
owners of Three Generations, are alleged to have made
unauthorized, illegal, unjustified and improper payments and
diversions of trust funds received pursuant to the Public Works
Contracts, in violation of Lien Law.  Plaintiffs, as statutory
beneficiaries of these trust funds, assert a claim for payment out
of said funds.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          111 Broadway, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080


UNITED STATES: Stanford Investors' Class Suit v. SEC Mulled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caribarena Antigua reports Stanford investors are preparing to
preserve their rights to sue the U.S. Government over the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission's failure to conduct
appropriate enforcement in the alleged international Ponzi scheme
perpetrated by Allen Stanford of Texas.

Investors are being represented by Dr. Gaytri Kachroo, the
attorney who filed the class action suit in the Madoff case in
November 2010.

Dr. Kachroo said if investors want to participate in an action
against the SEC, most likely a class action, they must file no
later than February 16 (on the safe side) by speaking with a
Kachroo Legal Services representative as soon as possible.

She strongly advised international investors to contact and file
all documentation with Kachroo Legal Services before January 15.
Those investors who have not contacted Dr. Kachroo may do so at
http://www.Kachroolegal.com/

Dr. Kachroo represents the Madoff whistle-blower, Harry
Markopolos, and continues to represent many Madoff investors.


WESTWOOD COLLEGE: Tuition Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
khou.com reports a judge has denied a Houston student's request
for a lawsuit against Westwood College to proceed as a class
action case.

Courtland Walker, who took an online graphic design course from
Westwood College in 2008, filed a class action suit in Travis
County in 2009, arguing the school had been charging tuition for
online courses in Texas for years without obtaining proper
authorization from the state.  Mr. Walker said the school was not
registered with the Texas Workforce Commission, which is required
under state law for all career schools or colleges within Texas.

"The court finds that the evidence presented . . . strongly
suggests that Walker had derived most, if not all, of his
knowledge and understandings of this case from his attorneys,"
said Judge Lee Yeakel.  "The court finds that Walker has not
demonstrated his adequacy as class representative."

Judge Yeakel said Mr. Walker could still proceed with an
individual lawsuit.


                             *********

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 2011.  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  * * *