CAR_Public/110421.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 21, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 79

                             Headlines

ALANGE ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
ALLIED PROFESSIONALS: Massage Therapist Files Class Action
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Settles Securities Class Action for $7.5-Mil.
APPLIED MINERALS: Issued 427,713 Shares to Forbearing Shareholders
ARTIFICIAL LIFE: To Defend Against Class Action Claims

ASPENBIO PHARMA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Wolfe" Suit
BFC FINANCIAL: Settles Securities Class Action for $1.95 Million
CELERA CORP: Inks MOU to Settle Six Class Actions
CKE RESTAURANTS: All Merger-Related Suits Are Dismissed
COLE HAAN: Removes "Davis" Song-Beverly Complaint to N.D. Calif.

DAVEY TREE: Trial in "Ely" Suit Set for January 2012
DETROIT, MI: Fails to Defend Jail Class Action, Judge Says
EXCO RESOURCES: Accused in La. Suit of Contaminating Groundwater
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Foster Care System Released From Oversight
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Disabled Workers Compensation Benefits

GENTIVA HEALTH: Gets Conditional Class Action Certification
IMH FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Consolidated Suit Dismissal Plea
MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Automotive Leasing Files Class Action
MATCH.COM: To Begin Cross-Referencing Members After Class Action
NONGHYUP: Faces Threat of Class Actions Over Network Problems

OLAN MILLS: Removes "Fulcher" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Motions to Dismiss Fraud Suits
PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Tosses Medical Monitoring Class Action
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Law Firms File Class Action in Florida
RHODE ISLAND: Judge Rejects Class Action Over Turnpike Toll

UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
WASHINGTON, DC: Ex-Sutherland Partner Mulls Class Action




                             *********

ALANGE ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on behalf of all investors who acquired shares of Alange
Energy Corp. during the period Aug. 30, 2010 to and including
Jan. 12, 2011.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged
in violations of Ontario's Securities Act and the common law.

The plaintiff has retained Sutts, Strosberg LLP to prosecute the
class action.

The plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented its daily production of oil that was
reported and disseminated to the public.

On Jan. 13, 2011, Alange disclosed that it overstated its daily
production of oil by as much as 39%.  After the disclosure,
Alange's share price declined by more than 37% on trading volume
of more than 100 million shares.

Jay Strosberg, a partner of Sutts, Strosberg LLP said, "The
question that is being asked is how could a company with
experienced management so significantly overstate the amount of
oil that it was producing?"

Sutts, Strosberg LLP pioneered securities class actions in
Ontario.  As a result of resolving class actions such as YBM
Magnex, Southwestern Resources, Atlas Cold Storage, CV
Technologies and NovaGold Resources; Sutts, Strosberg LLP has
recovered more than $150 million for its clients in securities
class action alone.  Please visit the Sutts, Strosberg LLP Web
site http://www.strosbergco.com/and
http://www.aleclassaction.com/ for more information about the
Alange class action.


ALLIED PROFESSIONALS: Massage Therapist Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Westlaw Journals reports that a Los Angeles massage therapist who
was accused by a patient of negligence and sexual misconduct has
filed a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that his insurance
company wrongfully denied coverage for the patient's claims.

The complaint, filed by Luiz Baek in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, accuses Allied Professionals Insurance Co. of
breach of contract, bad faith and fraud.

The action stems from a massage that Mr. Baek gave to a patient,
Jaime Weinberg, at the Heaven Massage & Wellness Center in Sherman
Oaks in January 2010.

Four months later Ms. Weinberg sued Mr. Baek for sexual
harassment, sexual battery, false imprisonment, negligence and
other claims, according to Mr. Baek's complaint.

Allied Professionals refused to defend or indemnify Mr. Baek in
the lawsuit, saying Ms. Weinberg's claims arose from alleged
sexual acts and thus did not fall within his policy's
"professional services" coverage, Mr. Baek's complaint says.

He alleges Allied improperly relied on Ms. Weinberg's "mere
allegations" of sexual misconduct as its purported basis for
denying coverage.

Mr. Baek accuses the insurer of breaching the policy and acting in
bad faith by allegedly failing to promptly investigate the claims
"to avoid unfairly denying" him benefits.

Mr. Baek filed the lawsuit as a class action, proposing to
represent massage therapists who were denied coverage by Allied
for claims against them of "negligence and/or mere allegations of
sexual misconduct allegedly made during the provision of lawful
massage services."

He asserts the class is "sufficiently large and diverse in
geographic location," and the damage to each member relatively
small, making it "impracticable" and "economically infeasible" to
proceed against the insurer other than by a class action.

The complaint also names as a defendant the American Massage
Council, which allegedly had referred Baek to Allied.

Mr. Baek says he purchased the Allied policy based on the
council's claims that "[w]ith more than 50 years of combined
experience in massage therapy defense, massage therapy practice
management, massage therapy ethics and risk management, we will be
there when you need us."

The council's representations were false and constituted fraud,
the complaint alleges.

Mr. Baek seeks reimbursement of economic losses, punitive damages,
attorney fees and other relief.

Baek v. Allied Professionals Insurance Co. et al., No. BC457910,
complaint filed (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. County Mar. 22, 2011).


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Settles Securities Class Action for $7.5-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Spokesman-Review reports that Spokane-based Ambassadors Group
will pay a group of investors roughly $7.5 million to settle a
class-action suit claiming the company engaged in securities
fraud.

The suit was originally filed in 2009 in Spokane's federal
district court, with a New Jersey electrical workers pension fund
as the lead plaintiff.  A year later the suit was amended, with
the national Plumbers Union Local No. 12 pension fund becoming the
lead plaintiff in a class action suit.

After going through federal mediation, the parties signed the
settlement last week, said Ambassadors Group CEO and President
Jeff Thomas.

The suit alleged that some Ambassadors executives intentionally
misled investors about the company's weak finances during 2007,
when the stock price fell by 40%.  Company executives also sold
stock worth more than $7 million during that period, the suit
alleged.

In announcing the settlement, Ambassadors made no admission of
wrongdoing.

The money for the settlement will be paid by Ambassador Group's
insurance companies, said Tony Dombrowik, the company's CFO.

Ambassadors arranges and sponsors travel-education trips for
students and other professional groups.  It has Spokane offices
near the Spokane airport.

The next step will be finding out how many investors will share in
the settlement.  That number has yet to be calculated, said
Karl Barth, a Seattle attorney representing the plumbers' union
fund.

Mr. Barth also noted attorneys representing the class of
shareholders will also seek a portion of the $7.5 million, plus
legal fees.  The amount attorneys will request has not been set
and will eventually have to be approved by a judge as "fair and
reasonable," said Mr. Barth.


APPLIED MINERALS: Issued 427,713 Shares to Forbearing Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Minerals, Inc., issued shares of the Company in accordance
with the terms of a forbearance agreement that was created to
facilitate the settlement of a class action captioned In Re Atlas
Mining Company Securities Litigation, according to the Company's
April 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company and certain of its former officers were defendants in
a class action, In Re Atlas Mining Company Securities Litigation,
whose settlement has been approved by the court.  As an
accommodation to facilitate the settlement of the Class Action,
these persons entered into a Forbearance Agreement whereby they
agreed not to submit claims for damages relating to shares that
they own or control and that would otherwise eligible to
participate in the settlement:

   * David Taft;
   * The IBS Turnaround (QP) Fund;
   * The IBS Turnaround Fund;
   * The IBS Opportunity Fund (BVI), Ltd.;
   * Andre Zeitoun, the Company's CEO;
   * Chris Carney, the Company's Interim CFO; and
   * Eric Basroon, an employee of Material Advisors LLC.

The Forbearance Agreement provided that:

Prior to the time that the Forbearing Shareholders entered into
the Forbearance Agreement, certain members of the Board of
Directors, without taking formal action as a Board, acknowledged
that the Forbearing Shareholders were accommodating the Company in
a manner not required and should be compensated "as if" they had
submitted claims as class members in the Settlement and this
acknowledgment was communicated to the Forbearing Shareholders.

The Board subsequently appointed a committee of disinterested
directors to determine whether compensation should be paid, the
amount of any such compensation, and whether to pay compensation
in cash or Common Stock.  The committee consists of John Levy,
Morris Weiss, and Evan Stone.

On March 29, 2010, the committee adopted resolutions designed to
treat the Forbearing Shareholders as if they had participated in
the settlement.

To achieve this goal, damages of each Forbearing Shareholder were
computed using the formula for determining damages in the Class
Action.  Damages per share are lesser of $0.84 or the difference
between the purchase price and $0.80.  The damages for each
Forbearing Shareholders are approximately as follows:  Taft - $0;
IBS - $3,564,657; Zeitoun - $479,411; Carney - $231,735; and
Basroon - $89,250.  The aggregate damages for all of the
Forbearing Shareholders are approximately $4,365,053.

The amount payable as compensation to the Forbearing Shareholders
in the aggregate will be an amount equal to the Net Settlement
Fund in the Class Action (approximately $800,000) multiplied by
the fraction in which the numerator is the aggregate damages of
the Forbearing Shareholders and the denominator is the sum of (i)
the aggregate damages of the Forbearing Shareholders and (ii) the
dollar amount of claims actually submitted by shareholders against
the Net Settlement Fund in the Class Action (this amount is
different form the total damages of all shareholders other than
the Forbearing Shareholders).

The deadline for submitting claims in the Class Action was May 6,
2010.  The plaintiff's counsel is currently evaluating all claims.
The amount payable to the Forbearing Shareholders varies depending
on the dollar amount of claims actually submitted in the Class
Action, the higher the dollar amount of claims submitted in the
Class Action, the lower the amount payable to the Forbearing
Shareholders.  By way of example, if no claims at all were
submitted by shareholders in the Class Action, the amount payable
to all of the Forbearing Shareholders would be $800,000; if
$3,000,000 in claims are submitted in the Class Action, the amount
payable to the Forbearing Shareholders would be $474,136.

The committee of disinterested directors has determined that
compensation to the Forbearing Shareholders will be paid in Common
Stock of the Company.  The shares will be valued at the market
price of the Company's Common Stock as of the closing price on the
first date on which the distribution agent in the Class Action
sends or delivers distributions from the Net Settlement Fund to
shareholders who have submitted claims.

If the Forbearing Shareholders had not entered into the
Forbearance Agreement, they believe that the Company may not have
been able to settle the Class Action on the favorable terms that
it did.  The damages suffered by the Forbearing Shareholders,
based on an estimate of total damages provided by counsel to the
plaintiffs in the Class Action, represented a majority of the
total damages of the class.  The plaintiff's counsel required a
representation by the Company that any damages paid by the Company
to the Forbearing Shareholders not exceed amounts granted to the
class.  The Forbearing Agreement had the effect of making the
entire Net Settlement Fund available to other shareholders.  The
Forbearing Shareholders believe that if they did not enter into
the Forbearance Agreement, plaintiffs would have insisted on a
significantly higher settlement amount and this in all likelihood
would have forced the Company to raise additional capital by
selling stock at, what they believed to be, unfavorable terms at
the time.

On November 22, 2010, the Company issued to Messrs. Taft, Zeitoun,
Carney and Basroon, 349,286 shares, 46,975 shares, 22,707 shares
and 8,745 shares, respectively as determined by the terms of the
Forbearance Agreement.


ARTIFICIAL LIFE: To Defend Against Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Artificial Life, Inc. disclosed that it has learned that a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed on April 15,
2011 against the Company and its CEO.

The Company (ALIF) assumes that the allegations are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself.  The Company is currently
preparing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in due course.

The management of the Company does not assume that these legal
proceedings will distract it from its usual course of business.

"We will defend the Company against any false claims and
accusations and will use all available means to do so," said
Eberhard Schoeneburg, CEO of Artificial Life, Inc.

                   About Artificial Life, Inc.

Artificial Life, Inc. is a provider of mobile technology and
applications.  It is a public US corporation (OTC BB: ALIF) with
listing on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (Frankfurt: AIF.F; Xetra:
AIF.DE) and headquarters and production center in Hong Kong.  It
has additional offices in Berlin, Germany (EMEA headquarters) and
Tokyo, Japan and Santa Monica, USA.  Currently its main business
areas are: high quality (3D) interactive (massive multiplayer)
mobile games, mobile participation television, mobile business
applications, our powerful mobile commerce technology platform
OPUS-M(TM) and our green IT solutions provided by Green Cortex,
Inc. We have won many industry awards for our outstanding
technology and products.


ASPENBIO PHARMA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Wolfe" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AspenBio Pharma, Inc. is awaiting a decision on its motion to
dismiss a federal securities purported class action lawsuit
commenced by John Wolfe, according to the Company's April 15,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 1, 2010, the Company received a complaint, captioned
John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. et al., Case No. CV10 7365.
This federal securities purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court in the Central District of California
on behalf of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased
common stock of AspenBio Pharma, Inc. during the period between
February 22, 2007 and July 19, 2010, inclusive.  The complaint
names as defendants certain officers and directors of the Company
during such period.  The complaint includes allegations of
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5
against all defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the individual defendants, all related to the Company's
blood-based acute appendicitis test in development known as
AppyScore.

The Company and the individual defendants are evaluating the
complaint, believe that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against these
claims.  Although the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, no lead plaintiff has yet been appointed as is required
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act for this action
to proceed.  This action was also transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado by order dated January 21,
2011.  The action has been assigned a District of Colorado Civil
Case No. 11-cv-00165-REB-KMT.


BFC FINANCIAL: Settles Securities Class Action for $1.95 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that faced with the prospect of sitting through another class
action securities fraud trial, BFC Financial Corp. Chairman and
CEO Alan Levan decided to settle a case brought against him and
subsidiary Woodbridge Holdings Corp.

Fort Lauderdale-based BFC Financial said it would settle the
securities class action for $1.95 million without admitting any
responsibility.  The agreement is preliminary and subject to
federal court approval.

That stops the case, which was gearing up for an August trial, in
the middle of the discovery phase.

In November, Mr. Levan and his BankAtlantic Bancorp lost a jury
verdict in a separate class action securities trial.  The bank
asked the judge to throw out that verdict, and it has refused to
pay the plaintiffs a dime.

BankAtlantic Bancorp lost its insurance coverage for that case.

BFC Financial holds a controlling stake in BankAtlantic Bancorp
and has helped it raise capital in the past.

In the case of the class action lawsuit against Woodbridge and Mr.
Levan, led by New York-based law firm Kirby McInerney, the company
decided to settle with the encouragement of its insurers.

"It is imprudent to continue to defend these claims, particularly
when considering the substantial cost of defense in a long and
protracted trial," Mr. Levan said in a news release.

The lawsuit against Woodbridge, filed in 2007, claimed that
misstatements by the company and Mr. Levan in public filings
caused investors to overpay for its stock.  The company did not
take asset impairments on its land holdings on a timely basis,
even though executives knew the values had deteriorated, according
to the July 2010 amended complaint.

The company, formerly known as Levitt Corp., dismantled its
homebuilding subsidiary Levitt and Sons in bankruptcy court that
year.  BFC Financial acquired full control of Woodbridge in 2009.

In its defense, Woodbridge responded that it provided fair
warnings in public filings about how a meltdown of the Florida
real estate market would hurt its company.

Mr. Levan said the $1.95 million settlement would not impact the
operating results of BFC Financial or Woodbridge.  He did not
immediately respond to a request for comment on why the settlement
would cost the company money.  Yet, the announcement made it clear
the company had insurance.

BFC Financial lost $103.8 million in 2010 and has largely divested
most of its real estate operations.

BFC Financial shares were down a penny to 38 cents in afternoon
trading.  The 52-week high was 99 cents on April 26.  The 52-week
low was 20 cents on Dec. 13.


CELERA CORP: Inks MOU to Settle Six Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------
Celera Corporation and other named defendants have entered into a
memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs' counsel in connection
with the previously consolidated putative class action lawsuits
filed in Delaware and California state court in connection with
the proposed acquisition of Celera by Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated.

As previously announced, on March 17, 2011, Celera entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Quest Diagnostics and its wholly
owned subsidiary Spark Acquisition Corporation.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, on March 28, 2011, Quest Diagnostics and Spark
Acquisition Corporation commenced a tender offer to acquire all of
the issued and outstanding shares of Celera for $8.00 per share.
On April 18, 2011, in connection with the MOU, Celera, Quest
Diagnostics and Spark Acquisition Corporation entered into an
amendment to the Merger Agreement that (i) reduces the fee payable
by Celera in the event of its termination of the Merger Agreement
from $23.45 million to $15.6 million, (ii) amends the standstill
provision of the Merger Agreement to permit Celera to release
third parties currently subject to confidentiality agreements with
Celera from any standstill restrictions contained in such
agreements and (iii) extends the initial expiration date of the
tender offer from April 25, 2011 to May 2, 2011.

Also under the terms of the MOU, Celera will (i) provide
additional disclosures in an amendment to be filed on April 18
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to its
solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9 with
respect to certain of the analyses undertaken by its financial
advisor in connection with such financial advisor's assessment of
the fairness to Celera's stockholders, from a financial point of
view, of the $8.00 net per share tender offer price, (ii) release
third parties currently subject to confidentiality agreements with
Celera from any standstill restrictions contained in such
agreements and (iii) file a Current Report on Form 8-K with the
SEC with respect to such additional disclosures, the MOU and the
Merger Agreement amendment.  The MOU reflects the parties'
agreement in principle to resolve the allegations by the settling
plaintiffs against Celera and other defendants in connection with
the tender offer and the Merger Agreement and provides a release
and settlement by the purported class of Celera's stockholders of
all claims against Celera and other defendants and their
affiliates and agents in connection with the tender offer and the
Merger Agreement.  The MOU and settlement are contingent upon,
among other things, approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery,
further definitive documentation and consummation of the tender
offer and subsequent merger as set forth in the Merger Agreement.
In the event that the MOU is not approved and such conditions are
not satisfied, Celera will continue to vigorously defend these
actions.

Celera and the other named defendants continue to believe that
each of the aforementioned lawsuits is without merit and that they
have valid defenses to all claims made by the applicable
plaintiffs.  The six putative class action lawsuits referred to
above that are being settled pursuant to the MOU are the three
consolidated actions pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery
under the caption In re Celera Corp. Shareholder Litigation, and
the three consolidated actions pending in the Alameda County
Superior Court under the caption Lauver v. Ordonez, et al.

Three additional actions in connection with the tender offer and
the Merger Agreement remain outstanding and are not subject to the
MOU: the Alameda County action, Korngold v. Ayers, et al. and two
cases pending in the Northern District of California, McCreary v.
Celera Corp., et al. and Andal v. Celera Corp. et al., which the
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend.  In the event
the settlement contemplated by the MOU becomes final, Celera
believes that these actions will be dismissed as a result of the
release of claims resulting from the final order approving the
settlement of the consolidated Delaware and California litigation.

                           About Celera

Celera -- http://www.celera.com/-- is a healthcare business
delivering personalized disease management through a combination
of products and services incorporating proprietary discoveries.
Berkeley HeartLab, Inc., a subsidiary of Celera, offers services
to predict cardiovascular disease risk and improve patient
management.  Celera also commercializes a wide range of molecular
diagnostic products through Abbott Molecular Inc. and Abbott
Laboratories and has licensed other relevant diagnostic
technologies developed to provide personalized disease management
in cancer and liver diseases.


CKE RESTAURANTS: All Merger-Related Suits Are Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
All merger-related class action lawsuits filed in Delaware and
California are now settled and dismissed, according to CKE
Restaurants, Inc.'s April 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 31,
2011.

Between March 1, 2010 and March 26, 2010, seven putative
stockholder class actions were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and the Superior Court of California for the County of
Santa Barbara against CKE, each of its directors, Thomas H. Lee
Partners, LP and its affiliates alleging the directors breached
their fiduciary duties regarding a prior merger agreement with an
affiliate of THL and that THL and its affiliates aided and abetted
those breaches.  On March 26, 2010, the Superior Court of
California for the County of Santa Barbara consolidated the four
cases filed in that court as In re CKE Restaurants, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1342245.  On March 29, 2010,
the Delaware Court consolidated the three cases filed in that
court as In re CKE Restaurants, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 5290-VCP.

On May 12, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed an
amended consolidated complaint against CKE, its directors, Apollo
Management and its affiliates, Parent and Merger Sub, that dropped
the challenge to the Prior Merger Agreement and instead alleged
the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Merger, including that the directors had breached their duty
of disclosure in the preliminary proxy statement, and that Apollo
and its affiliates aided and abetted those breaches.

On November 18, 2010, the Delaware Court held a hearing to
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement proposed in a Stipulation of Settlement.  The Court
issued an Order and Final Judgment finally approving the
settlement, and resolving and releasing all claims in all actions
that were or could have been brought by shareholders challenging
any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure
made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal
under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law),
pursuant to terms that were disclosed in a Notice of Pendency of
Class Action, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement
Hearing and Right to Appear mailed to stockholders prior to final
approval of the settlement.  The Delaware Court's Order and Final
Judgment is final and is no longer subject to appeal.  In
connection with the settlement, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion
in the Delaware Court for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, which the Delaware Court granted.  The attorneys' fees
and expenses the Delaware Court awarded were paid by the Company's
insurer.

In addition, on November 30, 2010, the plaintiffs in the
California Action filed a voluntary request for dismissal of their
claims with prejudice, which the Court has entered.  The
settlements and dismissals of the Delaware Action and the
California Action are now complete and all actions have been
dismissed.


COLE HAAN: Removes "Davis" Song-Beverly Complaint to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tammie Davis, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Cole Haan, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-11-509230
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on March 16,
2011.  The Complaint alleges four causes of action: (1) alleged
violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, codified
at California Civil Code section 1747.08; (2) common law
negligence; (3) invasion of privacy; and (4) unlawful intrusion.

The Plaintiff's complaint arises from a purported purchase
transaction at a Cole Haan store located in San Francisco,
California, in which the defendant's cashiers both requested and
recorded personal identification information, in the form of zip
codes and personal email addresses, along with credit card numbers
from customers using credit cards at the point-of-sale in
defendant's retail establishments, which practice is prohibited
under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971.

The Defendant operates retail stores under the name Cole Haan
throughout the United States, including California.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction under Sections 1332, 1441,
and 1453 of title 28 of the United States Code, Cole Hann, on
April 14, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-01826 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michelle C. Doolin, Esq.
          Jennifer M. French, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          E-mail: doolinmc@cooley.com
                  jfrench@cooley.com

               - and -

          Beatriz Mejia, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          E-mail: mejia@cooley.com


DAVEY TREE: Trial in "Ely" Suit Set for January 2012
----------------------------------------------------
A trial with respect a purported class action lawsuit filed
against a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert Company alleging
violations of California labor laws has been scheduled for
January 30, 2012, according to the Company's April 15, 2011, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Davey Tree Surgery Company, a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert
Company, has been named in a purported class-action lawsuit in the
State of California filed on July 15, 2008, in the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda.  The
action is entitled Ely v. Davey Tree Surgery Company.  The
Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and a putative class
that Davey Tree Surgery Company has failed to comply with
California law concerning off-duty meal periods and the required
content of paycheck stubs.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and the putative "meal periods"
class have not been provided with uninterrupted, duty-free 30-
minute meal periods.  In addition, Plaintiffs allege that because
they were supposedly made to work during their meal breaks, Davey
Tree Surgery Company violated California's minimum wage law
because they and the putative class members were not paid minimum
wage for their alleged work during meal breaks.  Plaintiffs also
contend Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California law by not
including the time they and the putative "wage statement" class
members worked during their meal periods, their hourly rates of
pay and number of hours worked at each hourly rate on their
paycheck stubs.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certified both the meal periods class and the wage statements
class; some individuals are members of both classes, while others
are members of only one class.  A trial is scheduled for
January 30, 2012.

The Company says at this time, it is not reasonably possible to
evaluate the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome to
this matter or to estimate the amount or range of potential loss,
if any.  However, any potential losses from claims of this nature
would not be insured, and therefore, an adverse result could have
a negative effect on Davey's business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows which could be material.  The
Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against this
lawsuit, and it believes that its defenses against these claims
are meritorious.


DETROIT, MI: Fails to Defend Jail Class Action, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------
The Detroit News reports that a federal judge on April 18 faulted
the city's law department for failing to defend against a class-
action civil rights lawsuit over its jail and will soon decide how
much the city must pay in damages.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington issued a default against the
city and granted a request for damages.  The only question
remaining is how much the city will pay in a case that could
involve thousands of other victims.

The judge's order means Detroit, which already has spent millions
trying to comply with court-ordered police reforms, will spend
even more money over allegations people were mistreated while
detained in the city's jail.

Gratiot County resident Johnathan Aaron Brown sued the city in
June, claiming he was detained three years earlier in a cold,
isolated holding cell without proper food, blankets or a pillow
for 55 hours.  Mr. Brown claims Detroit Police have deprived at
least 65,000 other people of their constitutional rights.

Detroit's law department repeatedly missed court deadlines and
ignored orders, Judge Ludington wrote in an order filed on
April 18 in U.S. District Court in Detroit.

"At this point, defendant apparently refuses to even speak with
plaintiff's attorneys or respond to their written inquiries,"
Judge Ludington wrote.

Krystal Crittendon, head of the city's Law Department, could not
be reached immediately for comment.  There was no immediate
comment from Mr. Brown's lawyer, either.

According to court records, the city lawyer assigned to the case
left on a six-week medical break.

Due to numerous delays, Mr. Brown's lawyers asked for sanctions
against Detroit.  The judge set an April 7 hearing and warned city
lawyers that "nonresponsiveness would not be tolerated."

Detroit never responded and did not show up for the hearing,
according to the judge's order.

Judge Ludington on April 18 granted the request for sanctions and
set a hearing for May 31 to consider how much Detroit must pay.

The case was slowed by discovery problems, according to court
records.

Mr. Brown wanted the names and contact information of every person
arrested by Detroit Police between 2002 and 2010.  Another
complication was the city's failure to produce the information or
raise an objection to the request, the judge wrote.

The judge's order is the latest fallout from a prolonged and
costly effort by the city to comply with court-ordered reforms.

Earlier this month, the city asked a federal judge for more time
to comply with reform efforts focused on use of force, arrests and
jail conditions.

The city also wants to shorten from two years to one the period in
which it must be in substantial compliance with the use-of-force
judgment.

On April 18, the U.S. Attorney's Office asked a judge to grant
two-year extensions.  Prosecutors want the city to submit a
schedule for compliance and stick to it or face a contempt
hearing.

The federally mandated reform efforts have dragged on for eight
years and fallen short of targets.

The reforms included making the department's jail cells safe,
installing working video cameras in squad cars and improving
policies on issues such as how to conduct arrests and the use of
batons and other nonlethal force.

The court order on use of force was supposed to take five years to
comply with, the order on jail cells two years.

A copy of the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions
Entering a Default, and Setting Hearing  in Brown v. City of
Detroit, Case No. 10-cv-12162 (E.D. Mich.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/19/detroit%20jails.pdf


EXCO RESOURCES: Accused in La. Suit of Contaminating Groundwater
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Exco Resources contaminates groundwater by hydraulic fracturing,
or fracking -- injecting water and toxic chemicals into the ground
to extract natural gas, which blew out a well.

A copy of the Complaint in Andre v. Exco Resources, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00610 (W.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/18/Frack.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          T. Taylor Townsend, Esq.
          KELLY & TOWNSEND, LLC
          137 Saint Denis Street
          P.O. Box 756
          Natchitoches, LA 71458-0756
          Telephone: (318) 352-2353
          E-mail: ttownsend@cp-tel.net

               - and -

          Alexander J. Mijalis, Esq.
          LUNN, IRION, SALLEY, CARLISLE & GARDNER
          330 Marshall Street, Suite 500
          Shreveport, LA 71101
          Telephone: (318) 222-0665
          E-mail: ajm@lunnirion.com

               - and -

          J. Chris Guillet, Esq.
          CORKEN, CREWS & GUILLET, LLC
          616 Front Street
          Natchitoches, LA 71457
          Telephone: (318) 352-2302
          E-mail: cguillet@corkenscrews.net

               - and -

          N. Frank Elliot III, Esq.
          N. FRANK ELLIOT III, LLC
          P.O. Box 3065
          Lake Charles, LA 70601
          Telephone: (337) 309-6999
          E-mail: frank@nfelaw.com


FULTON COUNTY, GA: Foster Care System Released From Oversight
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has released
Fulton County's foster care system from federal oversight it had
agreed to after a consent decree resolved a landmark class-action
case.

U.S. District Judge Marvin Shoob said in his order on April 14
that the county has "vastly improved the quality of representation
provided to Fulton County's foster children."

The federal oversight came after the class-action lawsuit against
Georgia was settled in 2005.

The lawsuit was brought in 2002 on behalf of about 2,000 children
by a New York-based advocacy group that claimed caseworkers were
overburdened and that children's shelters were dangerous.

The agreement led Georgia to hire 500 additional child welfare
workers, reduce worker case loads and improve investigations into
abuse.


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Disabled Workers Compensation Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
General Motors illegally reduced disabled workers' compensation
benefits "by purportedly coordinating those benefits with other
benefits."

A copy of the Complaint in Rynicki v. General Motors LLC, Case No.
11-cv-11605 (E.D. Mich.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/18/GM.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2424
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 868-3610
          E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com
                  joseph@sarrafgentile.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          William Bernarduci, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 215
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com
                  wbernarduci@izardnobel.com

               - and -

          Barry D. Adler, Esq.
          ADLER STILMAN PLLC
          30300 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 304
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 855-5090
          E-mail: badler@adlerfirm.com


GENTIVA HEALTH: Gets Conditional Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Martin & Jones, PLLC disclosed that a federal court
in Georgia has conditionally certified a nationwide collective
action lawsuit against Gentiva, the country's largest home health
care service provider.  Pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the lawsuit asserts
that Gentiva Health Services, Inc. violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The lawsuit, entitled Rindfleisch, et al. v. Gentiva Health
Services, Inc. (Case 1:10-cv-3288-SCJ), asserts that Gentiva,
treats registered nurses, physical therapists and occupational
therapists as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA
and refuses to pay these employees for all hours worked, including
time and one-half for hours over 40.  Gentiva pays these
clinicians on a "per visit" basis for some work and a "unit" rate
for other work, but plaintiffs allege the "visit" or "unit" rates
are based upon time estimates.  Specifically, plaintiffs claim
that because they are paid pursuant to time estimates or on an
hourly basis for some or all of their work, they are not subject
to the FLSA's exemption for professionals, and are therefore due
overtime.

The court held that preliminary certification and notice were
appropriate because the registered nurses, physical therapists,
and occupational therapists employed by Gentiva are similarly
situated to each other and to named plaintiffs with respect to
both their job requirements and the pay provisions that are at the
heart of this case.  Additionally, plaintiffs demonstrated that
other clinicians would wish to join this action based on their
showing that at least forty-three clinicians from twelve states
had already consented to join the lawsuit.

With collective action certification, current and certain former
Gentiva clinicians will receive written notification of their
right to join the lawsuit and assert a claim for unpaid wages.
The FLSA prevents employers from retaliating against any employee
who chooses to exercise his or her right and participate in this
action.  Any Gentiva registered nurse, physical therapist or
occupational therapist that was paid on a per visit basis at any
time after April 13, 2008, until the present is eligible to
participate in the action.

"We hope the court's ruling will empower clinicians to take a
stand against this challenged compensation scheme which will
hopefully have the effect of eradicating this practice within the
company as well as across the health care industry," said
Jill Hernandez, who worked for more than ten years as a Wage and
Hour Investigator with the U. S. Department of Labor prior to
joining Martin & Jones.  Ms. Hernandez utilizes her experience to
represent employees for violations under both federal and state
wage and hour law.

Christine Webber, a partner at Cohen Milstein who has represented
thousands of workers in wage and hour cases, noted, There are over
10,000 current or former nurses and other clinicians who will have
the opportunity to join this case as a result of the court's
ruling, and we are committed to ensuring that these dedicated
health care providers are paid for all their hard work."

Martin & Jones, PLLC has offices in North Carolina and Georgia,
and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has offices in Washington,
DC and New York.


IMH FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Consolidated Suit Dismissal Plea
----------------------------------------------------------------
IMH Financial Corporation is awaiting a decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Delaware,
according to the Company's April 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

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

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

In July 2010, the parties in the four actions filed various
motions and/or briefs seeking competing forms of consolidation
and/or coordination of the four actions.  During a hearing on
these motions on October 14, 2010, the parties in the respective
actions agreed to consolidate the four actions for all purposes,
subject to certain provisions with "respect to the unique
individual count brought" by the Tucek plaintiffs.  On October 25,
2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the respective
parties' proposed "Order of Consolidation and Appointment of Co-
lead Plaintiffs: Counsel and Co-Liaison Counsel," which, among
other things, consolidated the four actions, ordered that a
consolidated complaint will be filed within 45 days of October 25,
2010, followed by consolidated discovery, and designated the
plaintiffs' counsel from the May 25, 2010 and June 17, 2010
lawsuits as co-lead counsel.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed on December 17,
2010.  Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss on January 31, 2011.
A hearing date on the motion to dismiss has not yet been set.
The Company says the consolidated action is in its early stage and
it is not possible to estimate at this time the range of exposure,
if any, the consolidated action presents.  However, the Company
and its affiliated named individuals and entities dispute these
claims and will defend vigorously against these actions.


MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Automotive Leasing Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Patrick and Lisa Brown, writing for St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, report that a St. Louis area auto dealer has sued a
Georgia company and an Indian manufacturing conglomerate, alleging
that aspiring dealers of an Indian pickup truck were bilked out of
$60 million in franchise fees.

Jerry Ackerman and Automotive Leasing Corp., which Ackerman owns,
filed the suit on April 17 in U.S. District Court in St. Louis
against Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and Global Vehicles U.S.A.,
claiming that Ackerman paid $150,000 for one Mahindra franchise
and Automotive Leasing paid $300,000 for two more.

In August 2010, Mahindra canceled plans to introduce its pickup in
the United States.

The suit says that Ackerman and Automotive Leasing demanded
refunds but have not received any money.

The suit seeks class action status to represent all affected
dealers.

Representatives of Global Vehicles and Mahindra could not be
reached for comment.

Global Vehicles also sued Mahindra, but in February, Mahindra
announced that the dispute would be handled by arbitration in
London.

John Toma Jr., an attorney representing Ackerman, said his client
sought to file a class action suit because of the large number of
other U.S. dealers who are affected.

"Jerry agreed to be a class-action plaintiff because he believes
there are possibly as many as 300 in similar situations," Mr. Toma
said.  "We're very confident that our clients have viable claims
against Mahindra and Global Vehicles.  There's no issue over the
fact (Ackerman and Automotive Leasing) paid out $450,000, and
they've gotten nothing in return."

Lisa Brown of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.

A copy of the Complaint in Ackerman v. Global Vehicles U.S.A.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00687 (E.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/19/Mahindra.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:


          John E. Toma, Jr., Esq.
          JOHN E. TOMA, LLC
          Two North Meramec Avenue
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone:(314) 361-1600
          E-mail: jtoma@tomazensen.com

               - and -

          Melissa M. Zensen, Esq.
          ZENSEN LAW FIRM, LLC
          Two North Meramec Avenue
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone:(314) 266-7426
          E-mail: mzensen@zensenlaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
          KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF LLP
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 448-9800
          E-mail: stalley@kcrlegal.com


MATCH.COM: To Begin Cross-Referencing Members After Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNN reports that Match.com says it will begin cross-referencing
members against the National Sex Offender Registry after a lawsuit
filed last week in California, in which a woman claims she was
raped by a convicted offender she met on the dating Web site.

Mandy Ginsberg, president of Match.com, U.S., said in a statement
Sunday night that "improved technology and an improved database
now enables a sufficient degree of accuracy to move forward" with
an initiative it had previously discounted because of the
background checks' "historical unreliability."

In a class action lawsuit filed April 13 in Los Angeles County
Superior Court, the woman, identified as Jane Doe, claims she met
a man named Alan Wurtzel, who according to the lawsuit has a
record of "six separate convictions for sexual battery" in Los
Angeles County alone.

Because it has failed "to undertake a basic screening process
[emphasis provided] that disqualifies from membership anyone who
has a documented history of sexual assault," the lawsuit says,
"Match and sexual predators benefit, while female members . . .
are endangered."

The woman was quoted by ABC News as saying she was raped in 2010
during her second date with Mr. Wurtzel, whom she had met on the
website.  The woman, whom the network described as an "Ivy League
graduate who works in film and television," said the man followed
her into her residence and attacked her.

"Never in my wildest dreams did I think I was going out with a
criminal," said the woman, whose face and voice were disguised for
the broadcast interview.

ABC reported that charges are pending in the case, and it quoted
Mr. Wurtzel's attorney as saying that the incident was "a
consensual sexual encounter."

The class action names as plaintiffs, along with "Jane Doe," all
of Match.com's paying female members from August 2010 to the
present.

The Los Angeles Times reported that the plaintiff's attorney has
said he will ask a Los Angeles County judge to issue a temporary
injunction barring Match.com from signing up more members until
his client's demands for criminal screening are met.

The statement from Match.com's president cautioned that despite
the background checks, the Web site could not guarantee "the
actions of all its members."

"We want to stress that while these checks may help in certain
instances, they remain highly flawed, and it is critical that this
effort does not provide a false sense of security to our members,"
Ms. Ginsberg's statement said.

"Match.com is a fantastic service, having changed the lives of
millions of people through the relationships and marriages it has
given rise to, but people have to exercise common sense and
prudence with people they have just met, whether through an online
dating service or any other means," Ms. Ginsberg said.

In the terms of use in its online membership agreement, the
website says its members are "solely responsible" for their
interactions with people they meet on the site, and that the
website will not be held liable for "any damages whatsoever"
arising from meetings.  As of April 18, that section still said
Match.com "does not in any way screen its members, nor does
Match.com inquire into the backgrounds of its members or attempt
to verify the statements of its members."

Rival dating site eHarmony says it already cross-checks its users
with public sex offender lists, and that this policy "has allowed
us to keep many known registered sex offenders off of our
service."

The company, however, says these screenings may not enough on
their own.  It urges users to "exercise good judgment."

"Additionally, we use industry-leading technology and have staff
members dedicated to monitoring the quality and integrity of the
membership pool.  Our goal is to prevent people who seem intent on
harming others from joining the service," eHarmony said in a
statement e-mailed to CNN.

"As a matter of course, eHarmony does not conduct full criminal
background checks.  Registries can be incomplete or inaccurate,
assaults and other crimes often go unreported, and perpetrators of
crimes are not always convicted.  Relying solely on screening can
provide a false sense of security."


NONGHYUP: Faces Threat of Class Actions Over Network Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Tong-hyung, writing for The Korea Times, reports that
consumers are set to take legal action against Nonghyup and
Hyundai Capital, which are reeling in the aftermath of network-
related problems that eroded the public's confidence in financial
companies and the safety of their money.

Online transactions were shaky for the seventh straight day at NH
Bank, the financial services unit of Nonghyup, or the National
Agricultural Cooperative Federation, as the company showed
ineptitude in repairing its crashed computer network.

And a massive security breach at Hyundai Capital, the consumer
finance unit of automaker Hyundai-Kia Automotives, left more than
420,000 customers distressed after learning that their data had
been compromised by cyber criminals.

The companies could face a series of class-action lawsuits, driven
by consumer rights group such as the Korea Insurance Consumer
Federation (KICF) and Korea Civil Association for Consumer's
Rights (CAC), who are apparently gunning for extensive
compensation.

"Since last week, about 50 victims have applied for class action
lawsuits.  Most of them were claims against Nonghyup, as many of
the customers of Hyundai Capital were in a precarious financial
situation to begin with and are reluctant to take their cases to
court," said Cho Yeon-haeng, vice president of the KICF.

"We believe the number of complaints against Nonghyup will
increase and the amount of compensation we demand could end up
being significant.  Since nearly all of NH Bank's electronic
transactions were crippled, we are receiving all types of
complaints imaginable, from customers who moan about delayed
credit-card payments to those who claim they lost a building to a
bidder after the bank failed to wire the money in time.  We will
talk with Nonghyup first for a settlement, but eventually, a class
action lawsuit could be inevitable."

The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) and the Bank of Korea
(BOK) began assisting the prosecution in its investigation of how
Nonhyup's computer network was managed.

The crashing of Nonghyup's network prevented customers from
conducting online and automated teller machine (ATM) transactions
for four days and is still causing problems related to Internet
banking and credit-card information access.

The bank has been blaming IBM, which has been managing its
electronics network and services, for malfunctions and the slow
recovery of its electronics system.

Prosecutors say that Nonghyup's network crash was initiated by a
laptop computer used by IBM employees.  The device had accessed
the bank's server through a log-in account that had full control
over electronic transactions, or "super root" authority,
investigators said.  Their probe is aimed at determining whether
the system was disrupted deliberately or by accident.

IBM officials declined to comment on the accusations when reached.

"We are studying the log-in records provided by Nonghyup and
questioning related IBM employees who were in charge of security
and network management," said an official from the Seoul Central
District Prosecutors' Office.

Prosecutors are planning to question around 20 Nonghyup and IBM
employees by the end of the week, and also examine mobile-phone
and closed-circuit camera records to determine whether the
incident was a blunder or a crime.

Security experts question whether banks are as serious about
information security as they are about protecting their real-world
safes, as the recent incidents indicated that the companies
weren't fully aware of the risks when they decided to outsource
data management.

The lack of investment for in-house security personnel shows that
the managers of banks and other financial providers are reluctant
to deal with intangibles until they deliver a hammer blow.


OLAN MILLS: Removes "Fulcher" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel J. Fulcher, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Olan Mills, Inc., Case No. RG11562275 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Alameda Cty.), was filed on February 22, 2011.  The plaintiff
alleges that he was not paid for hours worked in excess of eight
in a workday and 40 in a workweek, that Olan Mills failed to
provide mandatory meal breaks, and that it systematically forced
employees to work off the clock.

On the basis that plaintiff and the putative Class are citizens of
a State different from any defendant, and the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, excluding interest and
costs, Olan Mills, on April 14, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the
Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No.
11-cv-01821 to the proceeding.

The plaintiff, a California resident, is a non-exempt, hourly paid
employee who worked for Olan Mills in California during the 4
years prior to the filing of this Complaint.  Defendant,
headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee, provides portrait
photography and church directories through its two main corporate
divisions: Olan Mills Portrait Studios and Olan Mills Church
Division.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer B. Robinson, Esq.
          Tara L. Presnell, Esq.
          MILLER & MARTIN PLLC
          1200 One Nashville Place
          150 Fourth Avenue North
          Nashville, TN 37219-2433
          Telephone: (615) 244-9270
          E-mail: jrobinson@millermartin.com
                  tlpresnell@millermartin.com


PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Motions to Dismiss Fraud Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific WebWorks, Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its motions to
dismiss various lawsuits alleging consumer law violations,
according to the Company's April 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

During November 2009, three lawsuits were filed against Pacific
WebWorks in various jurisdictions.  The legal actions allege
similar claims related to procedures the Company uses to sell its
products in its ordinary course of business.  On November 9, 2009,
Barbara Ford filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division.  A second action was filed on
November 12, 2009, by Deanna Pelletier in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Solano.  A third action was
filed by Lisa Rasmussen on November 20, 2009, in the Superior
Court of Washington, Snohomish County.  On December 18, 2009, the
Barbara Ford matter was removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  On December 18,
2009, the Deanna Pelletier matter was removed to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California.  On
December 23, 2009, the Lisa Rasmussen matter was removed to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

On July 9, 2010 and July 10, 2010, two additional suits brought by
the same law firm as the three cases were filed in Missouri and
Florida.  On July 9, 2010, Randy Guffey filed an action in the
Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County,
Florida, which action was removed to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division.  On
July 10, 2010, Thomas Aikens filed an action in the Circuit Court
of Jackson County, Missouri, which matter was removed to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

All plaintiffs in these cases are being represented by the same
legal firm and each complaint seeks class action certification.
The complaints allege that Pacific WebWorks violated consumer
protection laws, committed fraud and used deceptive trade
practices in relation to the manner in which Pacific WebWorks
charged for purchases of its products.  Each action seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, plus reasonable costs and
attorney fees.  In response to these actions, Pacific WebWorks
retained the law firm of Snell & Wilmer as legal counsel to
vigorously defend the Company in these lawsuits.  Discovery began
on the class certification phase in the Illinois, Washington and
California lawsuits.  The Company's legal counsel intends to
oppose class certification and filed motions to dismiss all claims
in the Illinois and Washington actions, which motions were granted
in part and denied in part.  Pacific WebWorks has renewed its
motion to dismiss in the Illinois action, which motion has not yet
been ruled upon.  In addition, Pacific Webworks has brought
motions to dismiss the Pelletier, Guffey and Aikens actions, which
motions have not yet been ruled upon.


PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Tosses Medical Monitoring Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA said a federal judge on April 18 rejected a
request by a group of California plaintiffs seeking class
certification in a medical monitoring lawsuit saying that there
was no reliable way to identify the class members.

"This decision is absolutely consistent with existing law and the
overwhelming majority of previous decisions denying class
certification of smokers' medical monitoring claims," said Murray
Garnick, Altria Client Services senior vice president and
associate general counsel, speaking on behalf of PM USA.

In its decision, the Court said the ruling was based on an
inability to identify class members.  Said the Court, "The
question thus would come down to the state of mind of the putative
class member, and it would be easy to fade in or out of the class
depending on the outcome.  The state of affairs is problematic for
class certification, and none of the plaintiffs' arguments to the
contrary are persuasive."

Mr. Garnick noted that a federal judge in the United States
District Court Eastern District of New York dismissed a similar
medical monitoring claim in New York (Caronia) in January and that
these decisions should have significant influence on two other
cases in which plaintiffs are seeking medical monitoring.

The case is Xavier v. Philip Morris USA.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Law Firms File Class Action in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Turner Law Offices, LLC and Arcadier &
Associates, P.A. have filed a Class Action lawsuit against
defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all
persons in the State of Florida who, since Feb. 18, 2011, received
a non-emergency telephone call from PRA to a cellular telephone
through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice and who did not provide prior
express consent for such calls during the transaction that
resulted in the debt owed.  The action is captioned Karen Harvey
et al. v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, and is numbered
6:11-CV-00582.

According to the Complaint, PRA violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by using automatic dialing systems and/or an
artificial or prerecorded voice to contact cell phone users about
purported debts without their prior consent.  As described in the
Complaint, Ms. Harvey, the named plaintiff in the action, was
repeatedly contacted since Feb. 18, 2011 on her cell phone about a
purported credit card debt.  The plaintiff never consented to
those calls, nor did she provide PRA with her telephone number.

Under the TCPA, PRA could be ordered to pay attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and costs of the lawsuit, and statutory
damages of $500 for each negligent violation, and/or $1,500 for
each knowing and/or willing violation.  According to the
Complaint, the potential Class Members are estimated to number in
the tens of thousands.  Additionally, the complaint alleges
collective damages exceeding five million dollars ($5,000,000).

The Attorneys who have filed the lawsuit have significant
experience litigating high profile and collective action cases on
behalf of consumers and plaintiffs.  Henry A. Turner, Esq., MBA
from Turner Law Offices, LLC concentrating in consumer rights
litigation, is a trial attorney with twenty years of experience
and has been successful in recovering millions of dollars for
consumers including a $2,950,000 Class Action Settlement with
Pitney Bowes, Inc. in a case involving the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, Martin K. O'Toole et al. v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.;
United State District Court for the Northern District of Georgia;
Case No. 1:08-CV-1645.

Maurice Arcadier, Esq., MBA from Arcadier and Associates, P.A. is
also an experienced trial attorney with 14 years of experience and
board certified by the Florida Bar.  Mr. Arcadier likewise brings
class action experience and is currently co-counsel in a high
profile collective action case against Florida Power and Light,
Romero v. Florida Power and Light Company, Case No.: 6:09-cv-1401,
in the Middle District of Florida.

Indeed, with the combined experience, background and resources of
the Turner Law Office and Arcadier and Associates, many consumers
in Georgia and Florida may receive protection from the unsolicited
calls as well as $1,500.00 for each call they received.

If there are any consumers who likewise have received unsolicited
calls, they may contact any of the attorneys below.  While the
cases only address claims in Georgia and Florida at this time, the
alleged violations may be occurring nationwide and any consumer
who is experiencing the type of calls described above from
Portfolio Recovery or other debt collectors are encouraged to
contact the law offices below or an attorney of your choosing.

For further information please contact:

          Henry A. Turner, Esq., MBA
          TURNER LAW OFFICES, LLC
          403 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 261-7787
          E-mail: hturner@tloffices.com
          Web site: http://www.tloffices.com/

               - or -

          Maurice Arcadier, Esq., MBA
          ARCADIER AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          2815 W. New Haven, #304
          Melbourne, FL 32904
          Telephone: (321) 953-5998
          E-mail: arcadier@wamalaw.com
          Web site: http://www.wamalaw.com/


RHODE ISLAND: Judge Rejects Class Action Over Turnpike Toll
-----------------------------------------------------------
Debra Friedman, writing for GreenwichTime, reports that a federal
judge has rejected an Old Greenwich woman's claim that charging
out-of-state-residents nearly four times what Rhode Islanders pay
to cross the Claiborne Pell Newport Bridge is unconstitutional.
In a decision rendered earlier this month, U.S. District Judge
William E. Smith found in favor of the Rhode Island Turnpike and
Bridge Authority, ruling the bridge's toll structure did not
violate any federal laws.

The decision comes nearly two years after Isabel S. Cohen filed
the class action lawsuit against the Rhode Island bridge
authority.  Ms. Cohen took issue with the tolls because she
frequently traveled to Rhode Island for leisure, according to the
complaint.

Ms. Cohen's lawyers argued non-Rhode Island residents such as
Ms. Cohen should not have to pay $4 to cross the bridge when
residents are only charged 83 cents, saying the fee is an
"excessive rate" that violates a federal commerce clause.  The
suit sought monetary reimbursements for everyone who paid the
higher rates, according to court records.

Judge Smith dismissed nearly every argument brought up by
Ms. Cohen's lawyers and granted the bridge authority's motion for
summary judgment, which effectively ends the litigation.  Both
sides agreed ahead of the ruling that they would settle the case
and not pursue an appeal after a decision was rendered, officials
said.

"We wanted to get this issue resolved so we agreed we would pay a
portion of the amount owed to the potential class, as well as a
number of other items, including no appeal from either side," said
David Darlington, chairman of the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge
Authority board of directors.  "I am very happy the judge agreed
with our arguments."

The exact terms of the settlement were not released.

Ms. Cohen and her lawyer did not return calls for comment Monday.

In the ruling, Judge Smith said the tiered toll rates could not be
deemed excessive simply because nonresidents are forced to pay a
higher rate.

"Here, plaintiff has proffered no evidence of a 'clearly
excessive' burden, claiming instead that the toll discount must
'obviously' be excessive by mere dint of the fact that it is
higher for nonresidents," Judge Smith wrote in his decision.
"Therefore, the toll discount does not run afoul of the commerce
clause."

Judge Smith also noted that the toll rates changed based on
whether an EZ-Pass is used, and whether the person is a frequent
traveler, points which undercut Ms. Cohen's arguments.  All
drivers paying cash are charged $4 no matter where they live,
according to court records.  Those with an EZ-Pass issued by the
Rhode Island bridge authority can receive a frequent-traveler
discount.

"This is not a case where a state generally charges its residents
83 cents and its nonresidents $4 for a bridge toll," the decision
states.  "The toll schedule incorporates multiple factors besides
residency, including the type of responder used, whether payment
is by cash or EZ-Pass and the frequency of use.  Depending on all
these factors, the toll difference between similarly situated
residents and nonresidents can range from zero to $3.17."

The judge also shot down an argument that the toll pricing
infringed on Ms. Cohen's right to travel, as alleged in the
original complaint.

Currently, there are other pending lawsuits in Massachusetts and
New York that deal with states charging less for residents who
live in the immediate vicinity of a bridge, but the interstate
Newport Bridge is believed to be the only instance where an entire
state is granted a discount over nonresidents.

Mr. Darlington said the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority
instituted tiered pricing because in-state residents are more
likely to use the bridge frequently.

"Rhode Island residents are more impacted by the bridge,"
Mr. Darlington said.

Mr. Darlington said he felt this decision puts to rest the debate
on the issue, although the toll prices could be challenged if
lawyers find other legal arguments to pursue.

"These specific allegations made by this class and Mrs. Cohen have
been dismissed by the federal court," Mr. Darlington said.  "We
will not likely face another similar suit."


UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the securities
of Universal Travel Group, Inc. during the period from January 19,
2010 to April 12, 2011, and is seeking to recover investors'
damages from violations of federal securities laws.

To join the Universal Travel class action, visit the Rosen Law
Firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence
Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you
may also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.  The case is pending in the U.S.
District Court of New Jersey.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Universal Travel and its officers and directors for
issuing false and misleading information to investors about the
financial and business condition of the Company.  The Complaint
alleges that the Universal Travel misstated (a) the nature and
quality of the companies it acquired during the Class Period; and
(b) the adequacy of the Company's internal controls.  As a result,
the Complaint alleges that the Company's periodic reports filed
with the SEC and public statements were materially false and
misleading.

On March 8, 2011, a firm called Glaucus Research Group issued a
report setting forth numerous red flags of fraud, ranging from
alleged misstatements concerning the Company's online travel
business, cash balances, and the Company's purported relationship
with a large on-line travel company.  The Report also revealed
that the financial statements of the companies Universal Travel
acquired in 2010 that were filed with authorities in China showed
only a fraction of the revenue, asset value and income, contrary
to the statements Universal Travel made to investors about the
acquired companies.  On March 29, 2011 the Company announced that
it would postpone its earnings announcement for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On April 12, 2011, trading in the Company's stock was halted.  On
April 14, 2011, the Company filed an 8-K with the SEC announcing
that the Company's auditor had resigned.  According to the 8-K,
the auditors believed that the Company and/or its Audit Committee
was "being non-responsive, unwilling or reluctant to proceed in
good faith and imposing scope limitations on [the auditors'] audit
procedures."  The auditors also noted that they "had lost
confidence in the Board of Directors' and the Audit Committee
commitment to sound corporate governance and reliable financial
reporting."

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 15.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
          Toll-Free: 866-767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


WASHINGTON, DC: Ex-Sutherland Partner Mulls Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by The Blog of Legal Times by
Zoe Tillman, a former partner at Washington's Sutherland Asbill &
Brennan is seeking to expand his lawsuit against the city over a
procedure used to quickly close arrests for low-level offenses,
known as "post and forfeit," into a class action.

Hamilton Fox III, who was with Sutherland when he first filed suit
in December but has since retired, has accused the Metropolitan
Police Department of using "post and forfeit" to avoid scrutiny
into what Mr. Fox claims are retaliatory disorderly conducts
arrests.  Mr. Fox, who was arrested for disorderly conduct in
2008, claims the "post and forfeit" procedure is not only
improperly used by police, but also that it's unconstitutional.

Mr. Fox sued the city and several police officers in U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia in December.  On April 18, he
filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a class in the
case, aiming to expand the litigation to include anyone who was
arrested for disorderly conduct and released through "post and
forfeit" since late 2007.

Solo practitioners William Claiborne III of Washington and Sean
Day of College Park are representing Mr. Fox.  Mr. Day deferred
comment to Claiborne, who did not immediately return a request for
comment on April 18.  A police department spokeswoman also did not
immediately return a request for comment.  Ariel Waldman, senior
counsel to the city's attorney general, declined to comment on the
pending litigation.

Under the "post and forfeit" statute in the D.C. Code, a person
arrested for traffic and other low-level offenses can post
collateral and then choose to forfeit that collateral in exchange
for essentially closing the case against them.  The arrested
person waives their right to trial, but avoids a conviction their
record.

Mr. Fox was arrested in 2008 for disorderly conduct after
objecting to a police order to move his car.  In his complaint,
Mr. Fox admits to making a remark questioning one of the police
officer's "intelligence and competence."  Following his arrest,
Mr. Fox agreed to "post and forfeit" and was released after paying
$35, but claims in his complaint that police failed to explain how
the "post and forfeit" procedure worked and did not make him aware
of other options for release.

He alleges that the procedure gives police cover to make unlawful
disorderly conduct arrests of anyone who questions their
authority, and then avoid further scrutiny by coercing the
arrested individuals into agreeing to "post and forfeit."

"In these cases, the District uses the full force and might of its
criminal justice system to arrest persons then demands money from
them to release them and to make their cases go away," Mr. Fox
states in his complaint.

The city, in a pending motion to dismiss, argues that "post and
forfeit" is an entirely voluntary procedure, and also that the
statute allows individuals to file a motion within 90 days of
their arrest to "set aside the forfeiture and recommence the
criminal proceedings."

In the amended complaint filed on April 18, Mr. Fox's attorneys
cite a recent jury verdict in Washington federal court, in which a
local woman accused police of unlawfully arresting her on a
disorderly conduct charge after she publicly criticized them.  In
that case, the woman also agreed to "post and forfeit" and claimed
police failed to make her aware of other options for release; her
attorneys similarly argued that police have used "post and
forfeit" to escape scrutiny for unlawful arrests.  The jury
awarded her $97,500 in damages.


                            *********

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  * * *