CAR_Public/110419.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 19, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 77

                             Headlines

ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Appeal of "Angevine" Suit Dismissal Pending
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Awaits Ruling on "Adams" Suit Dismissal Plea
BROADCOM CORP: Appeals Court Reinstates Investor Class Action
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Over VAT Charges Dismissed
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: 5 Lawsuits Filed in Texas Over Recall

EXTENDED STAY: Wexler Wallace Files Class Action in California
FORD MOTOR: Expands Vehicle Recall Over Air Bag Failure
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Actions in Four States Over Yo-Plus
LONDON, UK: Kettling of G20 Protester Illegal, Court Rules
LOS ANGELES: Syphillis Treatment Disclosure Order Overturned

MATCH.COM: Exposes Women to Sexual Predators, Calif. Suit Claims
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Suit Over Excessive Late Fees Remains Pending
TEVA PHARMA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Laquinimod Results
URBAN ACTIVE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Conduct

USA FAR OCEAN: Faces Class Action Over "U-Prosta" False Claims
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Wolumla Residents Mull Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: Overtime Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
WASHINGTON, DC: MWAA Faces Class Action in Virginia Over Tolls




                             *********

ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Appeal of "Angevine" Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit
filed by Richard F. Angevine remains pending, according to
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV's April 13, 2011, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On December 1, 2009, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, Anheuser-Busch
Companies, Inc. and the Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan were
sued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri in a lawsuit styled Richard F. Angevine v. Anheuser-
Busch InBev SA/NV, et al.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of certain employees of Busch Entertainment Corporation,
which was divested on December 1, 2009, and the four Metal
Container Corporation plants which were divested on October 1,
2009.  He also seeks to certify a class action and represent
certain employees of any other Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
subsidiary that has been divested or may be divested during the
three-year period from the date of the Anheuser-Busch acquisition,
November 18, 2008, through November 17, 2011.

The lawsuit contains claims that the class, if certified, is
entitled to enhanced retirement benefits under the Anheuser-Busch
Companies' Salaried Employees' Pension Plan.  Specifically, the
plaintiff alleges that the divestitures resulted in his
"involuntarily termination," as defined in the Pension Plan, from
"Anheuser-Busch Companies and its operating division and
subsidiaries" within three years of the November 18, 2008
Anheuser-Busch acquisition, which allegedly triggers the enhanced
benefits under the Pension Plan.  The plaintiff claims that by
failing to provide him and the other class members, if certified,
with these enhanced benefits, the Company breached its fiduciary
duties under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.  The claim for plaintiffs' benefits alone totals $385,000.
He also seeks punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  On July 16,
2010, the court dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit.  The court
ruled that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and punitive
damages were not proper.  The court also found that the plaintiff
did not exhaust all of his administrative remedies, which he must
first do before filing a lawsuit.  On August 9, 2010, the
plaintiff has filed an appeal of this decision to the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which is currently pending.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Awaits Ruling on "Adams" Suit Dismissal Plea
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV is awaiting a decision on its motion to
dismiss a lawsuit filed by Rusby Adams, et al., in Ohio, according
to the Company's April 13, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On September 15, 2010, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV and several of
its related companies were sued in Federal Court for the Southern
District of Ohio in a lawsuit entitled Rusby Adams et al. v. AB
InBev, et al.  This lawsuit was filed by four employees of Metal
Container Corporation's facilities in Columbus, Ohio, Gainesville,
Florida, and Ft. Atkinson, Wisconsin that were divested on
October 1, 2009.  Similar to the lawsuit filed by Richard F.
Angevine, these plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
participants of the Anheuser-Busch Companies' Inc. Salaried
Employees' Pension Plan who had been employed by Anheuser-Busch
Companies, Inc. subsidiaries that had been or may be divested
during the period November 18, 2008, through November 17, 2011.
The plaintiffs also allege claims similar to the Angevine lawsuit,
namely, that by failing to provide plaintiffs with these enhanced
benefits, the Company breached its fiduciary duties under the U.S.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The Company has
filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is currently pending.


BROADCOM CORP: Appeals Court Reinstates Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carol J. Williams, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a
federal appeals court on April 14 reinstated a class-action
lawsuit filed by Broadcom Corp. investors against Ernst & Young,
saying the auditors should have known about an option-backdating
scheme at the Irvine tech company.

A lower-court judge had dismissed the case against Ernst & Young
after concluding the plaintiffs hadn't shown that the auditors
knew that the value of Broadcom's stock was probably inflated by
the company's manipulation of its financial statements.

The April 14 ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in
San Francisco reversed that dismissal and scolded Ernst & Young
for not acting to stop the $2.2-billion backdating scheme.

Ernst & Young "apparently accepted management at its word, never
received requested documentation and issued an unqualified opinion
on the accuracy of Broadcom's financial statements," the 9th
Circuit panel ruled in overturning the lawsuit's dismissal by U.S.
District Judge Manuel L. Real in Los Angeles.

Ernst & Young's audit "amounted to no audit at all," the appeals
court said.

A spokesman for Ernst & Young declined to comment on the ruling,
saying the firm was still reviewing it.

The appeals court action sends the case back to Real for trial,
barring other successful legal challenges by the defendants.

Broadcom's $2.2-billion restatement of financial results in early
2007 was the largest resulting from a wave of stock-option
scandals at about 200 U.S. companies.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Over VAT Charges Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
StreetInsider.com reports that Cellcom Israel Ltd. said that a
purported class action filed against the Company in September
2000, in connection with VAT charges in respect of insurance
premiums and the provision of insurance services that were
allegedly provided not in accordance with the law, was dismissed
with prejudice.

Had the lawsuit been certified as a class action, the amount
claimed was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately
NIS402 million.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: 5 Lawsuits Filed in Texas Over Recall
---------------------------------------------------------
Five cases were filed April 14 on behalf of plaintiffs whose DePuy
ASR XL Acetabular Hip Replacement Systems have failed.  The cases
were filed on behalf of Juan and Helen Campo, Elizabeth and
Charles Gorbett, Richard Boyd, Thomas and Melanie Neal and
Patricia Johnson Taylor against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy
Inc., DePuy International, Ltd., Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Johnson
& Johnson Services, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson International, Inc.
John David Hart is the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the
individual lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., a division of Johnson and Johnson, Inc.,
recalled its ASR XL Acetabular Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacement
System on August 24, 2010.  This recall came after data from a
recent study indicated that the five year failure rate of this
product is approximately 13%, or more than 1 out of every 8
patients.  DePuy identified reasons for the failure of the hip
replacement system as component loosening, component malalignment,
infection, fracture of the bone, dislocation, metal sensitivity
and pain. Additional complications from the DePuy ASR XL
Acetabular Hip Replacement System may include increased metal ion
levels in the blood, bone staining, necrosis, swelling, nerve
damage, tissue damage and/or muscle damage.  This device was
marketed by DePuy Orthopaedics as a high performance hip
replacement system.  However, recent information published by the
British Orthopaedic Association indicates that failure rates at
six years may be as high as 49%.

"The number of people injured and harmed by this defective device
is staggering and continues to grow," said attorney John David
Hart.  "Many are suffering from severe pain on a daily basis.
There are also serious concerns about the long-term effects of
increased metal ion levels in the blood stream.  Of the lawsuits
filed today, each of the individuals with the recalled device has
either already required revision surgery to remove the defective
device or is facing the potential for revision surgery in the
future."

John David Hart and the Law Offices of John David Hart represent
many individuals in the United States who have been injured as a
result of this defective hip replacement system.  The Law Offices
of John David Hart is a group of experienced and dedicated legal
professionals working to protect the rights of people wronged by
the acts of others.  Across the country, the firm represents
individuals in cases of catastrophic personal injury, wrongful
death, dangerous drugs and medical products, automobile and truck
accidents and oil and gas litigation.  For more information,
please contact John David Hart at 800.961.4278 or
johnhart@hartlaw.com or http://www.hiprecallinfo.com/


EXTENDED STAY: Wexler Wallace Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wexler Wallace LLP recently filed a class action
lawsuit against HVM L.L.C. d/b/a Extended Stay Hotels, alleging
that Extended Stay seeks to avoid landlord-tenant laws by
requiring its long-term residents to enter into a "Long-Term
Lodging Agreement" every 29 days and 20 hours.  The Plaintiff
alleges that, by doing this, Extended Stay Hotels intends to
prevent its long-term residents from obtaining tenant rights under
California law, which vest after 30 days of continuous occupancy.

The suit also seeks relief on behalf of a proposed class of long-
term residents who were allegedly subjected to repeated and
unlawful lockouts by Extended Stay after failing to pay rent or
re-register under the residential agreement.  The complaint states
that long-term residents were locked out of their rooms with their
possessions inside, without written notice or access to the
unlawful detainer process.  The Plaintiff has lived at Extended
Stay for over 5 years and was reportedly subjected to dozens of
lockouts without being offered tenant protections afforded under
California law.  The case, entitled Soroka v. HVM L.L.C. d/b/a
Extended Stay Hotels, Case No. 2:10-cv-02883-WBS-CMK (TEMP) is
currently pending in the Eastern District of California.

According to Ian J. Barlow at Wexler Wallace LLP, "Extended Stay's
residential agreements are carefully designed to prevent long-term
residents from becoming tenants.  Unlike typical hotels, many of
these residents are not short-term guests, vacationers or business
travelers -- Extended Stay is their primary residence.  Extended
Stay is their home.  Many long-term residents live at Extended
Stay with their spouses, significant others and with their
children.  However, Extended Stay seeks to bypass the unlawful
detainer process, lock them out of their rooms without notice and
a hearing, and forego its responsibility to treat these residents
as tenants."

Extended Stay filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
Class Action Complaint on Dec. 20, 2010.  The United States
District Court denied Extended Stay's request in full on
Feb. 8, 2011.

Wexler Wallace LLP -- http://www.wexlerwallace.com/-- prosecutes
class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of individual
and business clients in state and federal courts throughout the
United States.  The firm is based in Chicago, Illinois, and
maintains its west coast office in Sacramento, California.


FORD MOTOR: Expands Vehicle Recall Over Air Bag Failure
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bennett, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Ford Motor Co. is expanding a vehicle recall to include 1.2
million F-150 pickup trucks and Lincoln Mark LT vehicles amid
safety concerns over unintended air bag deployments.

The auto maker is recalling certain 2004 through 2006 model year
F-150s and 2006 model year Lincoln Mark LTs.  The company said
there is a possibility that a wire could short-circuit and trigger
the airbags to deploy, resulting in injuries.

The recall includes about 16,000 Lincoln Mark LTs; the company no
longer produces the vehicle.

The voluntary move dramatically expands Ford's original F-150
announcement in February when the company notified NHTSA it needed
to recall 144,000 pickups.

Ford originally argued with NHTSA saying the 144,000 recall would
be enough to cover the affected vehicles. But it recently agreed
to the NHTSA's request.

"We understand the government's desire to reach a broad group of
potentially affected consumers and will recall the remaining
population of trucks for our customers' peace of mind," Ford
spokesman Wes Sherwood said in a statement.

Owners will be notified and told where to take their vehicles for
repair.

This is now the fourth recall Ford has made in the past three
months.  Ford recalled about 35,000 vehicles, such as Rangers, in
the U.S. and Canada over possible electrical shorts and fuel leaks
that could cause fires in March.  It also recalled 280,000 F-150
pickups to repair faulty door handles in February.


GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Actions in Four States Over Yo-Plus
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Loth, writing for Twin Cities Business, reports that the
company is being sued in four states -- California, Ohio, Florida,
and New Jersey -- over the marketing and advertising of its
Yoplait Yo-Plus Yogurt, which claims to have digestive health
benefits.

Claims made by Golden Valley-based General Mills about how its
Yoplait Yo-Plus Yogurt naturally regulates digestive health have
landed the company in court in four states.

The manufacturing giant is facing class-action suits in
California, Ohio, Florida, and New Jersey.  The suits claim that
the company's marketing and advertising of its Yo-Plus Yogurt is "
"false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public."

The Yo-Plus yogurt hit the market in 2007 and, according to
marketing materials, is "the only yogurt on the market with
Optibalance, which helps put digestion back on track."

The plaintiffs -- who are being represented by Florida law firm
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP -- argue that the company has no
support for some of the claims it makes, including that that
Yo-Plus naturally regulates digestive health and provides
consumers with additional digestive health benefits that other
yogurt products do not.

"In fact, General Mills has never tested Yo-Plus for its ability
to deliver the unique health benefits claimed in its advertising
campaign," the Ohio suit said.  "Nonetheless, as a result of
General Mills' deceptive advertising campaign, General Mills
charges a premium for Yo-Plus."

Two of the four suits -- those filed in California and Florida --
have already been certified as class-action suits and the other
two -- filed in Ohio and New Jersey -- are in the process of
seeking certification.

The plaintiffs have requested a jury trial and are seeking
unspecified compensatory damages.

"We're happy to let a jury decide whether or not this advertising
campaign is unfair and deceptive to consumers," Cullin O'Brien,
Esq. -- cobrien@rgrdlaw.com -- an attorney with Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, LLP, told Twin Cities Business on April 14.

In an e-mailed statement, General Mills said that it has a
standing practice of not commenting on pending litigation.  But in
court documents, the company denies the allegations that its
advertising and marketing of Yo-Plus is deceptive.

General Mills isn't the first company to face class-action
litigation regarding claims made about the benefits of yogurt
products.  Last year, White Plains, New York-based Dannon
reportedly paid $45 million to settle a similar class-action suit
regarding its Activia and DanActive Yogurt Products.

General Mills is Minnesota's eighth-largest public company based
on revenue, which totaled $14.8 billion during its most recently
completed fiscal year.


LONDON, UK: Kettling of G20 Protester Illegal, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
Lesley Ciarula Taylor, writing for The Toronto Start, reports that
the kettling of G20 protesters in London was illegal, a British
High Court has ruled in a case with sweeping implications in
Toronto.

The decision on April 14 by the Queen's Bench justices said police
were working "in good faith" but still overreacted when they
corralled 4,500 people inside a Climate Camp in London for three
hours on April 1, 2009.

"The police may only take such preventive action as a last resort
catering for situations about to descend into violence," the
Queen's Bench justices.

"The test of necessity is met only in truly extreme and
exceptional cases."

"This is groundbreaking," lawyer John Halford, representing the
claimants Hannah McClure and Josh Moos, told the Toronto Star.
"Never has there been a judicial review challenging a mass use of
force by a lot of officers at once."

This was "the blunt instrument being used when a scalpel is
available," he said.

"It is not necessary to make thousands of others suffer because
police can't be bothered to arrest the ones who are responsible."

"This case is very important and will be used by us in the court,"
said Murray Klippenstein, who has filed a $45 million class action
lawsuit against the Toronto Police Services Board over the G20 in
Toronto last June.

Office administrator Sherry Good is representing everyone
wrongfully arrested, detained, imprisoned or held by police on
June 26 or 27.

Good had been among about 200 protesters and bystanders boxed in
by police for four hours on June 27 in a downpour at Queen St. and
Spadina Ave.

The British ruling "is not legally binding but would be
persuasive," said Mr. Klippenstein.  "The underlying principles
that balance freedom to speak publicly in the street go back a
long way in Canada and Britain.

"The words the court used are quite strong in defending freedoms
that should not be encroached upon just for the convenience of the
police," he said.  "There is a great deal of similarity between
the two cases.  We see precisely the principles of our Sherry Good
class action."

According to the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper, thousands of people
may now sue Scotland Yard for false imprisonment in relation to
the London kettling incident.

Toronto police spokesman Mark Pugash told the Star: "It's not
appropriate to comment" on a court decision in a "foreign
jurisdiction."

Toronto police said at the time they believed violent
demonstrators with the Black Bloc were inside the Queen and
Spadina crowd.  The day before, black-clad demonstrators had
smashed their way up Yonge St. during a demonstration against the
G20 economic summit.

The British case was particularly unusual in that the justices
insisted on questioning Metropolitan Police Services Chief Supt.
Michael Johnson themselves even though he had already given a
statement.

Johnson told the justices police feared violent demonstrators at
London's Royal Exchange 500 meters away would infiltrate and
disrupt the peaceful Climate Camp.

At 7:07 p.m., police surrounded, or kettled, the camp.  Nobody
could leave.

Also at issue was the police "shield strikes," jabbing riot
shields at a crowd 15-deep to shove them back 30 meters.  That,
the justices declared, "was not necessary or proportionate."

The justices, who included president of the Queen's Bench division
Sir Anthony May, stopped short of declaring kettling itself
unlawful.

Still, London's Metropolitan Police Service said on April 14 it
will appeal.

"At the heart of this case lies a vital public order policing
tactic," the MPS said in a statement.

The Climate Camp kettling "prevented further scenes of violence
and criminal damage," the London police force said.

A cordon keeping violent protesters out might have been necessary,
the High Court ruled, but one keeping people in the Climate Camp
wasn't.

"There had been no disorder or violence at the Climate Camp, not
even when 200-300 so-called hardcore protesters joined at around
4:40 p.m.," The court declared.

"At 7:07 p.m., there was no breach of peace, imminent or
otherwise."

Mr. Halford said he's confident "we can hold the victory" under
appeal.

"The police didn't use kettling until recently," said Mr. Halford.
"Police have managed to police without resorting to this as long
as there have been large demonstrations in the capitals of cities.
It isn't necessary.

"It's used increasingly in more and more peaceful demonstrations
which are just inconvenient.

As in Toronto, the McClure-Moos case is a class action, said
Mr. Halford.

"There were 4,500 people within the kettle.  Each of them is
equally a victim."

The Toronto class action suit will likely reach the certification
stage in Spring 2012, Mr. Klippenstein said.

"It is clear that can only be a last resort when situations are
about to descend into violence," said Mr. Klippenstein.

"We continue to believe this was frankly illegal and does require
the court to say so."

Nearly 10 months later, he said, "Sherry Good is still nervous
walking in public down the street."


LOS ANGELES: Syphillis Treatment Disclosure Order Overturned
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that an order requiring the
Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center to disclose the names of
persons it treated for syphilis to the counsel for plaintiffs in a
class action over the treatment was overturned on April 13 by this
district's Court of Appeal.

Div. One, in an opinion by Justice Jeffrey Johnson, said the class
members, who were allegedly treated with a drug that is not
recommended for such treatment, have privacy rights and privileges
that must be taken into consideration.  The court did, however,
approve the trial court's order that all members of the certified
class be included in the action unless they affirmatively opt out.

Four named plaintiffs sued in 2005, alleging that between 1999 and
2004, the center treated approximately 663 patients with Bicillian
C-R, a mixture of short and long-acting penicillin, rather than
with Bicillin L-A, which is composed of wholly long-acting
penicillin and is the proper form of the drug for syphilis
treatment.

The center learned in March 2004 that it had used the wrong drug
and began a publicity campaign to advise the public of the error
and offer retesting and retreatment to those affected.  About two-
thirds of the patients availed themselves of the offer.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification of their action for
negligence and breach of warranty was denied by the trial court,
but the Court of Appeal reversed last year.

On remand, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Hess
established an opt-out procedure for class members who did not
want to participate in the litigation, rejecting a defense
objection that the procedure would invade the constitutional right
of privacy and the doctor-patient privilege.  The judge ordered
the center to provide the plaintiffs a master list of class
members with addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses, but
ordered that class members be referred to by an assigned number,
rather than by name, in any public filing.

The Court of Appeal on April 13 granted a writ of mandate
requiring that further measures be undertaken to protect patient
confidentiality, but denied relief with respect to the opt-out
procedure.

The justice explained: "We recognize the benefits of a class
action do not as readily accrue where members must affirmatively
join the class.  Here, the putative class members are those
seeking free medical advice, and only approximately two-thirds of
them responded to the Center's explanation of the error in
medication and sought free retreatment.  It is less likely that
such members would affirmatively seek to join a class.  Without
the mandatory joinder effect of an opt-out class action, the
Center will not obtain res judicata effect of a judgment; small
individual class plaintiffs will not obtain the benefit of a
settlement; and the cost of administering many small actions will
not be avoided."

He continued: "Nonetheless, the Center points out that it has been
more than six years since the error in medication, and if small
class plaintiffs had wanted to come forward and file individual
suits, they would have.  This fact only underscores the point that
the class plaintiffs in this action are likely of limited means
and have limited access with which to pursue their claims
judicially.  A class action in which they automatically become
participants benefits them."

With respect to privacy and privileged communications, however,
Johnson said the names of class members should not be disclosed to
the plaintiffs, and that doctor-patient communications could not
be disclosed absent a waiver.  The proper procedure, he said, is
that the patient information should be disclosed only to a court-
appointed administrator for the purpose of sending notice.

The case is Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian v. Superior Court
(Bomersheim), B228853.


MATCH.COM: Exposes Women to Sexual Predators, Calif. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Match.com's dating Web site
provides sexual predators access to more victims, a woman who says
she was raped by a man with six sex convictions, whom she met
through the site, claims in a Los Angeles Superior Court class
action.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
five retired NFL players say the NFL Players Association breached
its fiduciary duty by failing to pursue licensing agreements for
retirees and failing to pay them a percentage of revenue.

Lead plaintiff Bob Grant says the class action is filed on behalf
of retired NFL players who were not members of the class in a
similar 2007 complaint, Adderley et al. v. NFLPA.

"In the Adderley action, plaintiffs alleged, and the jury found,
that the NFLPA breached a fiduciary duty to the Adderley class by
failing to pursue licensing opportunities on behalf of the retired
players, concentrating its efforts instead on current players,"
the complaint states.

Named plaintiffs Grant, Clinton Jones, Walter Roberts III, Marvin
Cobb and Bernard Parrish seek an accounting and damages for breach
of fiduciary duty.

A copy of the Complaint in Grant, et al. v. National Football
League Players Association, et al., Case No. 11-cv-03118 (C.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/14/NFLPA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
          Maryann R. Marzano, Esq.
          Howard K. Alperin, Esq.
          T. Giovanni "John" Arbucci, Esq.
          Alyson C. Decker, Esq.
          BLECHER & COLLINS, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334
          Telephone: (213) 622-4222
          E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com
                  mmarzano@blechercollins.com
                  halperin@blechercollins.com
                  jarbucci@blechercollins.com
                  adecker@blechercollins.com


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Suit Over Excessive Late Fees Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that there has been no action since January in a proposed class
action over the late fees charged by the owner of RedBox video
rental kiosks commonly found at grocery and other stores.

The last action in the suit led by lead plaintiff Laurie Piechur
came in late January when attorney Jeffrey Millar joined the
plaintiffs' team.

Ms. Piechur proposes to lead a class of Redbox customers who
allege the company violated the law in charging excessive late
fees.

The suit seeks damages in excess of $350,000 and other relief.

The case has not been certified to date.

Redbox Automated Retail LLC has been unsuccessful in its attempt
to have the case dismissed.

Redbox denies the suit's claims.

If certified, Ms. Piechur would lead a class with members in
Illinois, California, Wisconsin and other states.

Mr. Millar joins Thomas and Peter Maag and others in representing
Piechur.

Eric Brandfonbrener and Robert Sprague represent Redbox.

The case is St. Clair case number 09-L-562.


TEVA PHARMA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Laquinimod Results
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tzameret Pernat, writing for Globes, reports that a Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. shareholder on April 14 filed a
request for a NIS2 billion class-action lawsuit against the
company, claiming that it provided misleading information about
the publication of the results of the Phase III clinical trial of
its oral multiple sclerosis treatment, Laquinimod.

In the statement of claim, the claimant says that, on April 11,
Teva notified the TASE that it would present new information about
the results of a study on drugs and treatments for multiple
sclerosis and Parkinson's disease, among other things.  The
claimant says that the notice stated that the information would be
presented at the American Association of Neurology Annual Meeting
in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The statement of claims says that 30% of Teva's revenue comes from
its multiple sclerosis treatments, especially sales of Copaxone,
which totaled $3.3 billion in 2010.  The claimants says that since
the Copaxone market has been opened to competition, which will
severely affect Teva's sales, Teva began development of Laquinimod
to compensate for the drop in its profits and to keep its share of
the market for multiple sclerosis drugs.

The claimant says that Teva first presented to the 5,000
participants at the conference a synopsis of the results of the
clinical trials without notifying the public, and contravening its
notice to the TASE, which stated that the information would be
published at later dates.  He claims that, as a result,
participants at the conference obtained an unfair advantage over
all other Teva shareholders.  He also claims that, as a result,
rumors spread about the results of the trial, which caused Teva's
share price to fall 3.4%.

The claimant says that Teva lent its hand to a situation in which
crucial information about it, and which could substantially affect
the value of its shares, was liable to leak, as in fact happened,
and in a manner that would cause it to be abused, as in fact
happened.

The claimant says that Teva was negligent and that its fault
misled investors and that this is reason for the lawsuit.

Teva has not yet filed a statement of defense.

Teva said in response, "Teva acts, including in this case, in
accordance with the Securities Law and reporting requirements that
apply to it.  Teva has not received the statement of claim, and
when it arrives, Teva will study it.  On the face of it, however,
based on information published in the media on Thursday, it
appears that the lawsuit and request to recognize it as a class-
action suit, are baseless."

Teva's share price rose 0.8% on Nasdaq on April 13 to $49.67,
giving a market cap of $46.7 billion, and rose 1.3% by midday on
the TASE on April 14 to NIS170.70.


URBAN ACTIVE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Conduct
-------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Turner, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that a
lawsuit seeking class action status was filed last week against
Urban Active, alleging the chain of fitness clubs violated Ohio
consumer-protection laws.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Franklin County Common Pleas
Court, says that Urban Active engages in a pattern of unfair and
deceptive conduct in violation of Ohio consumer-protection laws.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease filed the action on behalf of
Amber Gascho, of Powell, who said in the lawsuit that she was told
she could cancel her personal training contract for a $10 fee, but
when she tried to end the contract, was told instead the charge
would be $250.

The suit also alleges that the company: failed to provide
consumers with a copy of personal-training contracts at they time
they signed them; failed to tell consumers of their rights to
cancel the contract within three days; failed to provide consumers
with notice of cancellation forms; misrepresented the terms of
contract cancellation; and didn't honor consumers' notices of
cancellation.

The suit wants the company to stop violating the law and to
provide compensation to affected consumers.

Those covered by the suit would include any Urban Active customer
who has purchased a personal training contract or services in Ohio
since Nov. 1, 2007.

A call to John Gragg, general counsel for Global Fitness Holdings
LLC, the Lexington, Ky., franchiser that operates the Urban
Fitness locations in Ohio and six other states, was not
immediately returned.

The legal action comes as the company, which has eight locations
in central Ohio, was given an "F" rating by the Better Business
Bureau of Central Ohio after more than 200 members filed
complaints in the past year.

Most of the complaints allege billing errors, with the majority
from consumers who said funds still were being withdrawn from
their credit-card or bank accounts after their contract had
expired or been canceled, said BBB spokeswoman Joan Coughlin.

She said that 77% of all the complaints it received in the past
year regarding the fitness-club industry were about Urban Active.


USA FAR OCEAN: Faces Class Action Over "U-Prosta" False Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court
class action claims USA Far Ocean Group, of Alhambra, continues to
sell "U-Prosta" with false claims, despite an FDA recall for its
undeclared terazosin hydrochloride, which has dangerous side
effects.


VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Wolumla Residents Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Strevens, writing for Bega District News, reports that legal
action is on the agenda of the Wolumla Residents Action Group with
the community investigating a class action through the law firm of
Slater and Gordon.

"Slater and Gordon have recently had success against a council in
Victoria," WRAG spokesman Jeff Smith said.

"And they want to hear what we have to say so they can indicate
what services they can offer."

Mr. Smith said the main issue was land valuations.

"One property has been devalued by 20% and while not everyone will
be at that level, there will still be an effect on properties.

"The only way to test the waters is to have it looked at."

Mr. Smith said it was "early days yet, but we are keen to see
where it takes us".

He said the priorities for any lawsuit would be to have the
proposal stopped; the second is compensation for the loss of
property values while a third "down the track" would be
compensation for any health issues that might arise.

If it is true what people are saying and that others are
contemplating lawsuits of their own, Mr. Smith said it would be
the community who pays.

"The ratepayer will cop it to defend any action and if there's any
compensation if the council loses, then the ratepayers would have
to cop that as well."

A teleconference by Slater and Gordon with the community will be
held on April 20 at 4:00 p.m.

People wishing to register for the conference should call 1800 555
777 and choose option four.


WAL-MART STORES: Overtime Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that former
Wal-Mart employees suffered a setback in their attempt to sue the
company for misclassifying certain workers as exempt from
overtime.

The plaintiffs had claimed that asset protection coordinators
merit overtime pay since the position does not entail managerial
duties.  But Wal-Mart said the plaintiffs' work experiences did
not reflect those of most coordinators, and submitted declarations
by 23 coordinators to support its argument that the position has
managerial components.

Allowing plaintiffs to proceed with a collective action "would
require an individualized inquiry as to whether the tasks in fact
performed by each putative collective action member are or were
similar to the tasks that plaintiffs claim they performed,"
Judge Thomas O'Neill Jr. ruled in a 17-page opinion on April 12.

It would be intolerably onerous to determine whether potential
members of the class were misclassified as overtime-exempt on a
case-by-case basis, the judge found, rejecting the bid for
conditional collective certification.

Wal-Mart asset production coordinators generally handle programs
aimed at shrink reduction, compliance and safety.

A copy of the Order in Bramble, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 09-cv-04932 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/14/walmart.pdf


WASHINGTON, DC: MWAA Faces Class Action in Virginia Over Tolls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Hollingsworth, writing for Washington Examiner, reports
that a no-taxation-without-representation class action lawsuit was
filed in Alexandria's federal court on April 14 challenging the
authority of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority  to
collect tolls on the Dulles Toll Road in excess of what's needed
for road operation and maintenance.

Virginia attorneys Robert Cynkar, Christopher Kachouroff and
Patrick McSweeney sued MWAA on behalf of John Corr of Great Falls
and John Grigsby, of Hillsboro, Va., both longtime residents of
Virginia and toll road users.

Since the 13-member MWAA Board is made up of unelected political
appointees who are not accountable to voters, it does not have the
power to impose what amounts to a tax under either the Virginia or
U.S. Constitutions, the lawsuit claims.

"The voters sent a very clear signal that they did not want to be
taxed to fund the Metrorail Project," the lawsuit points out, "In
November 2002, a referendum to impose a sales and use tax in
Northern Virginia that would produce $350 million for the
Metrorail Project was voted down."

In 2005, the Commonwealth Transportation Board "began the practice
of converting what is supposed to be a legitimate user fee into a
tax," deliberately setting toll levels "far in excess of amounts
needed to pay for the operation and maintenance of the Dulles Toll
Road plus reasonable payments for the debt incurred to construct
or improve" it.  The toll road was later transferred to MWAA.

Taxing is a legislative function, and "the Virginia General
Assembly has never enacted legislation that delegates to MWAA the
power to set the tolls."  Even if lawmakers wanted to do so, the
lawsuit maintains, they "could not delegate a toll-setting power
to MWAA because MWAA is an entity completely outside of the
governments of the Commonwealth."

Plaintiffs are asking that any tolls collected after the 2005 toll
increase be returned to toll road users. The amounts are enormous,
estimated at $64 million in 2010 alone.


                            *********

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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, 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  * * *