/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110425.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 25, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 80


ALANGE ENERGY: Awaits Service of Proposed Class Action in Ontario
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Settles Plumbers Union Suit for $7.5 Million
ANZ BANK: Court Rejects Attempt to Delay Class Action
APPLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of iTunes Antitrust Class Action
BANK OF HAWAII: Continues to Defend "Taulava" Suit in Hawaii

BIG LOTS: 2nd Circuit Affirms Class Action Decertification
BRUNEL ENERGY: Two Law Firms File Class Action Over Health Plan
CELERA CORP: Enters MOU to Settle Delaware-Alameda Class Actions
CELL PHONE FIRMS: 3rd Cir. Affirms 16% Allocation of Counsel Fees
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Faces Amended Merger-Related Suits in California

LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: Investors Mull Class Action Over Writedowns
MEHMOOD PATEL: La. App. Ct. Rules in Legal Malpractice Suit
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Recapitalization
NEW ZEALAND: May Face Class Action Over Foster Care Abuses
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Settles Class Action Over Jail "Booking Fee"

SERVICE CORP: 7th Cir. Says Dist. Ct. Should Hear Employee Suit
SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Class Action Over Extra Data Usage Charges
TACO BELL: Law Firm Withdraw Class Action Over Seasoned Beef
URBAN ACTIVE: Faces Second Class Action Over Billing Errors
VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Class Certification Hearing Set for July 7

* Securities Class Action Filings to Hit Record High in 2011


ALANGE ENERGY: Awaits Service of Proposed Class Action in Ontario
Alange Energy Corp. disclosed that it is aware of a press release
by an Ontario class action law firm announcing that a proposed
class action lawsuit has been commenced against the Company, Luis
E. Giusti, former Chief Executive Officer and director; Michael
Davies, Chief Financial Officer; and Horacio Santos, a former
director of the Company.  The Company has not been served with any
such lawsuit.  As such, the Company is not in a position to
comment on these developments.

                    About Alange Energy Corp.

Alange Energy -- http://www.alangeenergy.com/-- is a Canadian-
based oil and gas exploration and production company, with working
interests in 12 properties in four basins in Colombia.

AMBASSADORS GROUP: Settles Plumbers Union Suit for $7.5 Million
Ambassadors Group, Inc. settled a class action lawsuit filed by
Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund for $7.5 million,
according to the Company's April 18, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 14, 2011, an agreement was reached to settle the pending
class action lawsuit filed by Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension
Fund as to Ambassadors Group, Inc. and all parties, following
participation in mediation before a retired federal judge.  Under
the terms of the agreement, the Company's insurance carriers have
agreed to pay the settlement amount of $7.5 million, in complete
settlement of all claims, subject to a mutual reservation of
rights.  The settlement is entered into without any admission of
wrongdoing or liability by the Company or any party in the action.
Throughout the litigation, the Company and its individuals have
denied, and continue to deny, the allegations made against them.
The Company agreed with the insurance carriers to settle the
action on these terms, because it was in the best interests of the
Company to avoid the burdens, risk, uncertainties and expense that
would be inherent in continued litigation.  The settlement is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition or results of operation.

The formal settlement agreement, which will include releases for
all defendants and other provisions common in such agreements,
will now be negotiated and submitted to the Court for preliminary
approval and notice to class members.  It will then be subject to
final court approval.

ANZ BANK: Court Rejects Attempt to Delay Class Action
Chris Zappone, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
ANZ suffered a setback in its defense of a class action lawsuit
over bank fees when a federal judge on April 19 ruled the case
cannot be delayed by the bank's lengthy internal investigation
into the costs.

Justice Michelle Gordon said the ANZ Bank's legal claim that it
would need 15 months to prepare its defense against a $50 million
class action over fees it charges customers was "an abuse of

"I do not accept that a Court should wait and conduct a trial of
all issues in two or three years' time," said Judge Gordon in a
Melbourne court.  "It is simply an inappropriate way in which to
conduct this piece of litigation."

"It is an abuse of process because the allegations are made . . .
without any foundation," she said.

"This is still very much still in the procedural stages of the
trial and as we understand it simply means her honor has decided
to split the case into separate parts," said an ANZ spokesman.

"There remain complex issues to be tested in court and ANZ will of
course continue to vigorously defend IMF's claims."

Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson applauded the decision.

"We are very pleased that the Court has rejected ANZ's attempt to
delay the case and that this class action on behalf of ANZ
customers can now proceed in an efficient and cost effective
manner," said Mr. Watson.  "It's in the interests of all concerned
that we get to the heart of the case without any further delays."

A further directions hearing will be held on May 5 to determine
the timeline of the case, which is considered a test case of a
wider class action suit led by Maurice Blackburn against 11 of the
largest banks in Australia, including National Australia Bank,
Commonwealth Bank and Westpac.

The total class action, with more than 200,000 plaintiffs signed
up, is expected to seek $5 billion in fees paid by consumers over
the past six years.

The country's big four banks have been at the centre of
controversy since the end of last year when they opted to raise
interest rates by more than the Reserve Bank even as they rang up
profits for 2010 of at least $20 billion.

The ANZ case involves 27,199 customers claiming a collective $50
million over alleged fee gouging, including dishonor fees on bank
accounts, over limit and late payment fees.

APPLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of iTunes Antitrust Class Action
Josh Wong, writing for AppleInsider, reports that Apple has again
requested that a federal judge dismiss an antitrust lawsuit that
accuses the company of unfairly limiting consumer choice by
linking iPod music to its iTunes music store.

The class action lawsuit, which alleges that Apple violated
federal antitrust laws and California's unfair competition law,
was originally filed in January 2005.  Later that year, Apple
filed a motion to dismiss the case, but the request was denied.

In a recent development to the case, a judge approved last month
limited questioning of Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs regarding
a 2004 iTunes update from Apple that disabled a RealNetworks
technology, dubbed Harmony, which enabled music purchased from
Real's online music store to be transferred to an iPod.

At the time, Apple accused RealNetworks of resorting to "the
tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod."  Later
that year, Apple quietly released an iPod firmware update that
disabled the workaround.

Speaking on behalf of Apple, attorney Robert Mittelstaedt defended
on Monday the iPod maker's actions, asserting that the decision to
block RealNetworks was intended to improve downloading quality for
iTunes customers, Bloomberg reports.  Mr. Mittelstaedt asked the
judge to dismiss the suit, arguing against the claim that Apple's
actions were anticompetitive.

"Apple's view is that iPods work better when consumers use the
iTunes jukebox rather than third party software that can cause
corruption or other problems," Mr. Mittelstaedt said at a hearing.
According to the report, Apple cited 58 "consumer downloading
complaints" as the rationale behind the iPod firmware update that
'broke' Harmony.

U.S. District Judge Ware asked whether Apple had conducted
"scientific tests" to confirm that other companies' downloads were
indeed the cause of the complaints.  Mr. Mittelstaedt acknowledged
that Apple had not performed such tests.

"Bonny Sweeney, a lawyer representing iTunes customers who sued,
said the plaintiffs could not locate any legacy software that
would allow them to conduct accurate tests," the report read.
Judge Ware responded that, given the lack of tests, the trial may
come down to a "battle of experts."

Ms. Sweeney also revealed that Jobs had met with plaintiff
attorneys for questioning on April 12, but declined to provide
further details.

Judge Ware will decide by May whether to approve Apple's request
to dismiss the case.

Apple is also defending itself in other cases where it has been
accused of creating an unfair monopoly with the iPod and iTunes.
In 2008, another class action lawsuit was filed against Apple
accusing the company of leveraging its FairPlay digital rights
management (DRM) technology to lock out competitors.

In 2009, Apple removed DRM from iTunes music purchases, though
iTunes movie and television show purchases and rentals still use
FairPlay DRM.

BANK OF HAWAII: Continues to Defend "Taulava" Suit in Hawaii
Bank of Hawaii Corporation continues to defend itself from a
purported class action lawsuit filed by Lodley and Tehani Taulava
in Hawaii, according to the Company's April 18, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 15, 2011, the Bank was named a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs Lodley and
Tehani Taulava, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
similarly situated customers of the Bank, in the Circuit Court of
the First Circuit, State of Hawaii (Civil Case No. 11-1-0337-02).
The complaint asserts claims relating to overdraft fees collected
by the Bank.  The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, restitution
and declaratory relief from the Bank.

The Company says its management is evaluating the claims of the
lawsuit and is unable, at this time, to estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss that may result from this lawsuit.

No further updates were provided in the Company's latest SEC

BIG LOTS: 2nd Circuit Affirms Class Action Decertification
Central Valley Business Times reports that former store managers
have been rebuffed by the California Second District Court of
Appeal in their attempt to bring a class action against closeout
retailer Big Lots Stores Inc. over overtime issues.

The appellate court says it agrees with a trial court that refused
to certify some present and former Big Lots store managers as a
class, finding that the company does not operate its stores in a
standardized manner and has no systematic practice of
misclassification of managers.

"In light of the great latitude properly afforded the trial court
in granting or denying class certification, we affirm, finding no
abuse of discretion," says the decision.

The workers contended that Big Lots of Columbus, Ohio,
intentionally and improperly designated certain employees as store
managers to avoid paying them overtime wages and other benefits as
required under California law.

Nationwide, Big Lots has about 1,400 stores of which about 178 are
in California.

BRUNEL ENERGY: Two Law Firms File Class Action Over Health Plan
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Campbell Harrison & Dagley
LLP announced that they have filed a class action Complaint in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas on behalf
of a putative class of current and former participants in the
Brunel Energy Group Health Plan.  The Complaint was filed against
Brunel Energy, Inc. and the Brunel Energy Group Health Plan.

The Complaint alleges that Brunel failed to provide continuing
health care coverage (commonly called COBRA coverage) to employees
and their beneficiaries who were covered under the Plan through an
insurance policy with BUPA International.  Brunel, the Complaint
alleges, did not notify employees of their entitlement to COBRA
coverage or of their right to obtain coverage at a reduced rate as
authorized by Congress in its recent economic stimulus package.
According to the Complaint, when asked for a COBRA package by a
terminated employee, Brunel advised the former employee that COBRA
coverage was not available.  Even after being notified by the U.S.
Department of Labor that the former employee was entitled to elect
COBRA coverage at the statutorily reduced rate, the Complaint
alleges that Brunel did not offer the coverage.

The Complaint seeks an injunction requiring Brunel to bring its
health care plan into compliance with the law and an order
requiring Brunel to reimburse former employees and their
beneficiaries for certain health care costs they would not have
incurred had they been allowed to elect COBRA coverage.  In
addition, the Complaint seeks civil money penalties of up to $110
dollars a day for Brunel's failure to provide statutory notices
describing the Plan and apprising employees and their
beneficiaries of their COBRA rights as required by law.

If you are or were an employee of Brunel Energy and obtained your
health care coverage through BUPA International, you may contact
paralegal Peter Black or attorney Karen Handorf at 202-408-4600.

Contact: Peter Black, Paralegal
         Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
         Telephone: 888-240-0775
         E-mail: pblack@cohenmilstein.com
         Web site: http://www.cohenmilstein.com/

CELERA CORP: Enters MOU to Settle Delaware-Alameda Class Actions
Celera Corporation entered into a memorandum of understanding with
parties to class action lawsuits pending in Delaware and Alameda
County, according to the Company's April 18, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 17, 2011, Celera Corporation entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger with Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Spark Acquisition Corporation.  Pursuant
to the Merger Agreement and upon its terms and conditions, on
March 28, 2011, Spark commenced a tender offer to acquire all of
the issued and outstanding shares of the common stock of the
Company, par value $0.01 per share, for $8.00 per share, net to
the holder of the stock in cash, without interest and subject to
applicable withholding taxes.

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 the
agreements and (iii) extends the initial expiration date of the
tender offer from April 25, 2011, to May 2, 2011.

In March and April 2011, nine putative class action lawsuits were
filed in connection with the Offer and the Merger Agreement.
Three of these suits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
four were filed in the Alameda County Superior Court and two were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
purported holders of Shares and are purportedly acting on behalf
of a putative class of holders of Shares.  These suits name as
defendants the Company, the members of the Company's Board of
Directors, and in certain instances Quest Diagnostics and Spark

While the Company and the other defendants believe that each of
the lawsuits is without merit and that they have valid defenses to
all claims, in an effort to minimize the cost and expense of any
litigation relating to the lawsuits, on April 18, 2011, the
Company and other defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the parties to the actions pending in the
Delaware Court of Chancery and the three cases pending in the
Alameda County Superior Court consolidated as Lauver v. Ordonez,
et al., pursuant to which the Company and the parties agreed in
principle, and subject to certain conditions, to settle those
stockholder lawsuits.  The Company will continue to vigorously
defend the remaining Alameda County action, Korngold v. Ayers, et
al., and the two cases pending in the Northern District of
California, McCreary v. Celera Corp., et al. and Andal v. Celera
Corp. et al., including by asserting that the release contained in
the MOU encompasses all claims asserted in those actions.  Subject
to approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery and further
definitive documentation, the MOU establishes a framework to
resolve the allegations by the settling plaintiffs against the
Company and other defendants in connection with the Offer and the
Merger Agreement and contemplates a release and settlement by the
Company's stockholders of all claims against the Company and other
defendants and their affiliates and agents in connection with the
Offer and the Merger Agreement (including release of those claims
brought in the non-settling actions).  In exchange for the release
and settlement, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the parties
agreed, after arm's-length discussions, that (i) the Company would
provide additional disclosures in an amendment 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 the Company's stockholders, from a financial point
of view, of the Offer Price, (ii) the Company, Quest Diagnostics
and Spark Acquisition would modify the Merger Agreement to reflect
the Amendment, (iii) the Company would release third parties
currently subject to confidentiality agreements with the Company
from any standstill restrictions contained in the agreements, and
(iv) the Company would file a Current Report on Form 8-K and
related press release.  The settlement is also contingent upon,
among other things, consummation of the Offer and the Merger, as
defined in the Merger Agreement.  In the event that the MOU is not
approved and the conditions are not satisfied, the Company will
continue to vigorously defend these actions.

CELL PHONE FIRMS: 3rd Cir. Affirms 16% Allocation of Counsel Fees
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a district
court order on the distribution of $4.5 million in attorney's fees
awarded in several consolidated class action cases in California
against cell phone providers, including T-Mobile USA, Inc., AT&T,
Verizon, and Sprint.

The district court concluded that Class Counsel were entitled to
the majority of the fees because they successfully settled the
case, thereby achieving favorable results for the class.  The
district court gave a group of law firms a 16% cut from the $4.5
million.  That group, however, argued that their achievements in
the California action were so significant that they, as opposed to
the Class Counsel, deserved 80% of the fees.  The group made the

The appellant law firms are: The Law Office of Scott A. Bursor;
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP; Gilman & Pastor, LLP; Mager & Goldstein,
LLP; Gary Hellman; Tamara Ruiz; Margaret Gripaldi; Margaret
Schwarz; Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser; Franklin &
Franklin; Law Offices of Anthony A. Ferrigno; Reich, Radcliffe &
Kuttler; Law Offices of Carl Hilliard; Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca;
and Law Offices of Joshua Davis.

However, the 3rd Circuit held that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in the fees award, as it (i) applied the
proper legal standard, (ii) explained its reasoning in allocating
fees, and (iii) arrived at a supportable decision.

A copy of the 3rd Circuit's April 14, 2011, opinion, as concurred
by Judges D. Michael Fisher, Kent A. Jordan, and Robert E. Cowen,
is available at http://is.gd/RlOoGtat Leagle.com.

The class actions challenged the telecom companies' imposition of
early-termination fees in cell phone contracts, claiming that the
fees violate state consumer protection laws.

CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Faces Amended Merger-Related Suits in California
Conexant Systems, Inc., is facing amended class action lawsuits in
California over its previously announced proposed merger with
Standard Microsystems Corporation, according to the Company's
April 18, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 1, 2011.

On February 23, 2011, the Company terminated its previously
announced Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated January 9, 2011 (the
SMSC Agreement), with Standard Microsystems Corporation and Comet
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of SMSC.  Pursuant to
the terms of the SMSC Agreement, the Company paid a termination
fee of $7.7 million to SMSC.  On February 23, 2011, substantially
concurrently with the termination of the SMSC Agreement, the
Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Gold
Merger Agreement), dated as of February 20, 2011, with Gold
Holdings, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Gold Acquisition

Between January 10, 2011, and February 11, 2011, Conexant, the
members of its board of directors and, in certain of the lawsuits,
its president and chief operating officer, its chief financial
officer, Standard Microsystems Corporation and/or Comet
Acquisition Corp. were named as defendants in 12 purported class
action lawsuits in connection with the transactions previously
contemplated by the SMSC Agreement filed by stockholders in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange; in an
additional 5 such lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware; and one such lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court, Central District of California.  On February 9,
2011, the first four Delaware actions were consolidated under the
caption In re Conexant Systems, Inc. Shareholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 6136-VCP.  On March 3, 2011, a number of the
California state plaintiffs filed a stipulation and proposed order
to consolidate the California actions and appoint interim co-lead
class counsel.  To date, this stipulation has not yet been entered
as an order of the court.  Additionally, two of the California
state actions have been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice,
on February 22, 2011, and February 28, 2011, respectively, and
five of the California state actions were voluntarily dismissed,
with prejudice, on March 22, 2011.

The suits allege, among other things, that the Company's directors
and, in one case, certain of its executive officers breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and entering into
the SMSC Agreement and by agreeing to sell the Company at an
unfair price, pursuant to an unfair process and/or pursuant to
unreasonable terms, and that the Company and, in certain of the
lawsuits, SMSC and Comet, aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.  The suits seek, among other things, to
enjoin consummation of the previously contemplated merger with
SMSC.  The lawsuit filed on February 11, 2011, after announcement
of the acquisition proposal by Golden Gate Private Equity, Inc.,
also sought to direct the individual defendants to designate the
proposal by Golden Gate Private Equity, Inc. as a "superior
proposal," as such term was defined in the SMSC Agreement.

On April 14, 2011, three of the original California state court
plaintiffs filed amended complaints in Orange County Superior
Court naming as defendants Conexant and the members of the
Company's board of directors.  These purported class actions
allege, among other things, that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs and the other class members by
approving the SMSC Agreement and that the Company aided and
abetted these alleged breaches.  These suits seek recovery of the
termination fee paid to SMSC and other unspecified damages,
declaratory and equitable relief.

LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: Investors Mull Class Action Over Writedowns
Tracy Lee, writing for The Australian, reports that troubled
construction group Leighton Holdings may have another headache on
its hands as shareholders begin inquiries into a possible class
action against the company.

Perth-based litigation funder IMF is examining a shareholder suit
against Leighton on the issue of its disclosure of writedowns in
the past six months which culminated in almost $1 billion in
impairments, a $427 million loss for the financial year and a
$757m raising.

"We've been asked to look at it," IMF managing director Hugh
McLernon told The Australian on April 19.

It is understood groups such as IMF and plaintiff law firms that
specialize in class actions have been assessing the potential for
action against Leighton after the company gave guidance on
February 24 that it would deliver full-year net profit of $480
million but told the market just six weeks later that it would in
fact record a loss of $427 million after booking significant

Cost overruns at major construction projects such as Airport Link
and the Victorian desalination plant as well as slow payments to
its Al Habtoor Middle East joint venture have been the main cause
of Leighton's poor performance this financial year.

While it is not certain if IMF or any law firm will formally
launch a class action, it is thought that the investigations have
looked at what Leighton's parent company Hochtief knew of the most
recent writedowns and profit downgrade.

Hochtief holds a 54% interest in Leighton and some of the German
construction company's directors also hold seats on the Australian
group's board.

Hochtief issued a profit downgrade in Germany on April 7 as
Leighton fell into a trading halt but before the Australian market
was told of the capital raising or the writedowns.

Leighton announced its third profit downgrade and outlined its
plans to raise $757m in a one-for-nine entitlement offer on
April 11.

The funds were raised at $22.50 apiece, a significant discount to
the company's last traded price of $28.94.

Leighton's shares closed 2.56% lower at $24 on April 19 but have
not traded below the rights-issue price.

The performance of the company's share price can be a factor in
whether an action is brought, as it is used to determine the
materiality of a shareholder's loss.

Most class actions center on the issue of disclosure and the
Australian Securities Exchange has made enquiries of Leighton to
determine when it became aware it would be reporting a significant
loss rather than a profit.

Leighton said on April 18 that it had called the trading halt on
April 7 because it had received information from an internal
review that identified underperformance at key projects.

"It was not until the conclusion of the review process on the
morning of April 11 that there was sufficient certainty regarding
the facts and circumstances surrounding the earnings downgrade,"
the company said.

Analysts have expressed concern over Leighton's revised profit
forecast for the next financial year and doubt if the $727 million
capital raising will be enough.

MEHMOOD PATEL: La. App. Ct. Rules in Legal Malpractice Suit
Judges Sylvia R. Cooks, Jimmie C. Peters and Marc T. Amy of the
Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit, affirmed a trial
court judgment in a legal malpractice suit that stemmed from a
medical malpractice class action.  The case before the appellate
court is Jonathan Stelly v. Morrow, Morrow, Ryan & Basset, et al.,
Case No. 10-1353 (La. App. Ct.).

Dr. Mehmood Patel installed a pacemaker on Mr. Stelly in 2003.
The Morrow Firm filed a class action on behalf of Mr. Stelly and
other plaintiff patients against Dr. Patel's medical practices.
Eventually, a settlement on the class action was approved by the
District Court of Lafayette.  Mr. Stelly complained that he was
placed in the lowest tier of plaintiffs under the class
settlement.  He reserved his right to move forward with the case
against his former attorneys, the Morrow Firm.

In June 2010, the trial court granted the Morrow Firm's motion for
summary judgment, finding that Mr. Stelly was in the same legal
position before and after his discharge of the Morrow Firm as
counsel and, therefore, there was no legal malpractice committed.
Mr. Stelly appealed the trial court ruling.

Judge Cook, who penned the appellate court decision, agrees with
the trial court's findings, holding that Mr. Stelly still
possessed all of his rights in the medical malpractice action and
his legal position was unchanged.

A copy of the Louisiana Appellate Court's April 13, 2011, decision
is available at http://is.gd/juXPWXat Leagle.com.

MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Recapitalization
Courthouse News Service reports that Moneygram International is
enriching its controlling stockholders "with a purported
recapitalization . . .  whereby the controlling stockholders . . .
will convert their preferred stock and receive $218.3 million in
cash and $109.2 million in additional stock in excess of their
contractual conversion preferences," shareholders say in a class

A copy of the Complaint in Pittman v. Clark, et al., Case No. 6387
(Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
          Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
          Marcus Montejo, Esq.
          1310 N. King Street
          P. O. Box 1328
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1328
          Telephone: (302) 888-6500
          E-mail: mhanrahan@prickett.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
          Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
          Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
          J. Daniel Albert, Esq.
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: mtopaz@btkmc.com

NEW ZEALAND: May Face Class Action Over Foster Care Abuses
Radio New Zealand reports that an elderly Hamilton woman sexually
abused as a foster child wants to help other state wards who were
maltreated to seek compensation in a class action.

Netta Christian, 73, was taken into foster care at six months old.

She says her foster mother was psychotic and she was abused by a
neighbor and a family member.

Mrs. Christian told Nine to Noon she received an out of court
settlement of $10,000 but it went on court costs.

She said helping other state wards has become her life mission and
a class action would mean they would end up with some money.

PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Settles Class Action Over Jail "Booking Fee"
Adam Lynn, writing for The News Tribune, reports that Pierce
County will spend $475,000 to settle a class action lawsuit
brought by thousands of former inmates who claimed they were
inappropriately charged a fee when booked into jail.

Plaintiffs Jeff Gunderson and Robert Bantolino, who each
represented a class of people charged the fee, will get $6,500 and
$4,000 respectively.  The attorneys who represented them will
split $158,333.

The rest of the money will go into a pool from which affected
former inmates can seek reimbursement, deputy prosecutor Grace
Kingman said on April 19.

At issue was a so-called $100 "booking fee" the county assessed
people booked into jail from 2003 to 2005.  In many cases, jailers
took the fee out of an inmate's wallet at the time of intake.

In 1999, the Legislature authorized counties to assess such fees
to help defray the costs of booking people into the jail.  Pierce
County officials estimate it costs about $180 per booking.

Pierce County stopped assessing the fee after a man sued
Spokane County, claiming a similar fee assessed there was

In October 2006, Mr. Gunderson challenged the assessment in Pierce
County, saying jailers violated his right to due process when they
confiscated $100 from his wallet in May 2005.

Mr. Gunderson was booked on suspicion of domestic violence but
never prosecuted.  He contended in court documents that jailers
never refunded his money even though state law made allowances for

Mr. Bantolino later was added as a plaintiff, representing people
who were booked into jail and later convicted.

In September 2009, King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick
agreed with Messrs. Gunderson and Bantolino that Pierce County's
procedures for collecting the fee were unconstitutional and set a
trial to determine how much the county should be assessed in

The plaintiffs' attorney, Patrick Palace of University Place,
estimated then that more than 15,000 people could be owed more
than $634,000.

Lawyers on both sides negotiated the settlement out of court.
Mr. Erlick signed off on it last month.

Mr. Palace said on April 18 that the settlement was a victory for
the constitutional rights of people who find themselves at the
mercy of the government.

"This case shows the government still has to be responsible, still
has to follow the constitution," he said.

SERVICE CORP: 7th Cir. Says Dist. Ct. Should Hear Employee Suit
A three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed the district court's decision in the case, Earl
Blomberg, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.,
Case No. 11-8009 (7th Cir).  The panel consists of Circuit Judges
Richard A. Posner, Diane P. Wood, and David F. Hamilton.

Plaintiffs are employees of SCI who brought a class action in
Illinois state court, alleging that SCI maintained practices that
fail to fairly compensate its employees.  SCI sought to remove the
case to federal court, but the district court concluded that SCI
failed to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds the
$5 million threshold as required to establish jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fair Act.  SCI appealed the district court's

However, the 7th Circuit held that SCI provided plausible, good
faith estimates demonstrating how the stakes exceed the $5 million
threshold.  Accordingly, the 7th Circuit remands the case with
instructions to resolve the dispute on the merits.

A copy of the 7th Circuit's April 14, 2011 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/UiFG0Hat Leagle.com.

SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Class Action Over Extra Data Usage Charges
Courthouse News Service reports that Sprint/Nextel charges an
extra $10 a month for "data usage" on its plan that claims to
provide unlimited data usage, according to a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Comstock v. Sprint Solutions, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-99999 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert D. Shoecraft, Esq.
          Devin T. Shoecraft, Esq.
          1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1140
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 794-2280
          E-mail: dshoecraft@sbcivillaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          Grant J. Keating, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN, CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

TACO BELL: Law Firm Withdraw Class Action Over Seasoned Beef
Taco Bell on April 19 said that Alabama-based Beasley Allen law
firm voluntarily withdrew the class action lawsuit against the
company.  As Taco Bell has stated before, the allegations in the
lawsuit and in public statements about Taco Bell's seasoned beef,
food quality and advertising were absolutely wrong.  After
reviewing the facts, the lawyers for the plaintiff withdrew the
lawsuit.  No money or other value was exchanged between the
parties, and Taco Bell is not making any changes to its products
or advertising.

"This sets the record straight about the high quality of our
seasoned beef and the integrity of our advertising," said Greg
Creed, Chief Executive Officer, Taco Bell.  "We are extremely
proud of our food quality.  We took great exception to the false
claims made about our seasoned beef and wish the attorneys had
contacted us before filing and publicizing a lawsuit that
disparaged our brand.  We hope the voluntary withdrawal of this
lawsuit receives as much public attention as when it was filed so
we may put the matter behind us and fully concentrate on serving
our customers."

                       About Taco Bell Corp.

Taco Bell Corp., a subsidiary of Yum! Brands, Inc., (NYSE: YUM), a
Mexican-style restaurant chain.  Taco Bell serves tacos, burritos,
signature quesadillas, Grilled Stuft Burritos, nachos, and other
specialty items such as Crunchwrap Supreme(R), in addition to the
Why Pay More!(R) Value Menu.  Taco Bell serves more than 36.8
million consumers each week in nearly 5,600 restaurants in the

URBAN ACTIVE: Faces Second Class Action Over Billing Errors
Dan Eaton, writing for Business First, reports that Urban Active
is facing another potential class-action lawsuit, this one
expanded beyond just customers who bought personal training

Columbus-based Isaac Brant Ledman & Teetor LLP sued the company in
U.S. District Court in Columbus on April 18 in a lawsuit open to
anyone "unlawfully or unconscionably billed" by Global Fitness
Holdings LLC since March 2000.

"Our initial investigation into this indicates that the billing
problems were widespread," said attorney Mark Landes.

The lawsuit, on behalf of Central Ohio customers Edward Lundberg
and Terry Troutman, does not put a dollar amount on the damages
being sought, but Mr. Landes said the firm estimates Urban Active
has made at least $5 million in billing errors since the
Lexington, Ky.-based company expanded into Ohio in 2000.  The
lawsuit alleges breach of contract and violations of Ohio's
Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Urban Active General Counsel John Gragg said he would not comment
on pending litigation, but that "We will vigorously defend our
good name."

Mr. Lundberg, according to the complaint, claims that he tried to
transfer his membership from the chain's New Albany fitness center
to one in Grandview Heights in March.  He allegedly was told his
New Albany membership would be canceled, but he was charged
membership to both facilities for two months and the issue has not
been resolved.  Mr. Troutman claims he has been charged multiple
$20 late fees despite being current in his membership payments,
all of which are automatically deducted from his account by Urban

Anyone interested in joining the lawsuit should contact Isaac
Brant attorney Mark Troutman at
urbanactiveclassaction@isaacbrant.com or 614-221-2121.

It's the second lawsuit seeking class-action status against Urban
Active, following one earlier filed by Vorys Sater Seymour and
Pease LLP in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

Mr. Landes said the company also is facing a proposed class-action
suit in federal court in Louisville, Ky., that was filed in

The lawsuits come on the heels of a rating downgrade from the
Better Business Bureau of Central Ohio.

Urban Active has 36 locations in seven states, including seven in
Central Ohio.

VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Class Certification Hearing Set for July 7
A hearing on a motion for class certification in a consolidated
lawsuit over Veolia Environnement's meter-reading practices in
Indiana was set for July 7, 2011, according to the Company's
April 18, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In April 2008, two subsidiaries of the Company, Veolia Water North
America Operating Services and Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC
(VWI), were named as defendants in two potential class actions
filed before the Indiana state courts, which have since been
consolidated.  The plaintiffs allege that the meter-reading
practices used by VWI for Indianapolis customers were inconsistent
with VWI's contract with the local water authority and with
Indiana consumer protection law.  The plaintiffs claim that VWI
billed customers on the basis of estimates of water usage, rather
than actual usage, more frequently than the contract permitted,
resulting in overcharges that, although later credited to the
customers, deprived the customers of their money for a period of
time.  The plaintiffs also contend that the methods used by VWI to
estimate water consumption were inappropriate and violated
applicable laws.  The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a
class of similarly situated residential water customers.  VWI
believes that its billing and meter reading practices complied
with its contract and with relevant laws and regulations, and that
the claims of the plaintiffs are without merit.  It intends to
defend its interests vigorously.

On January 13, 2009, the court granted a motion to dismiss filed
by Veolia Water North America Operating Services and VWI, but
granted the plaintiffs leave to refile their complaint.  On
January 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against Veolia Water North America Operating Services and VWI, and
also named the water authority of the City of Indianapolis as a
defendant.  Mediation was conducted on April 6, 2010, but was not
successful.  Motions for summary judgment by the City and the
Veolia entities thereafter were granted in part and denied in
part.  A motion for reconsideration by the Veolia entities was
granted, leaving only a breach of contract claim against the
Veolia entities and the City.  A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for
class certification has been set for July 7, 2011.

Although at this stage of the proceedings it is not possible to
estimate its potential financial consequences, the Company
believes that this lawsuit will not significantly affect its
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

* Securities Class Action Filings to Hit Record High in 2011
Insurance Journal reports that securities suit filings are on
track to set a new record in 2011 once again.

Following on the heels of the credit crisis, which sparked record-
setting litigation in 2008 and 2009, 2010 set yet a new record at
1,293 suits filed.  Based on the number of suits filed in the
first quarter, 2011 may surpass last year's all-time high,
according to Advisen Ltd.'s most recent quarterly report on
securities litigation, sponsored by ACE.

The 362 securities suits filed in Q1 2011 were up a bit from 342
filed in the previous quarter, and were 47% above Q1 2010.
Perhaps more significantly, the quarter's annualized rate of 1,448
new filings is 12% higher than total 2010 filings.  The totals
include shareholder derivative suits, breach of fiduciary duties
suits and securities fraud suits, a category comprised primarily
of actions brought by regulators and law enforcement agencies, as
well as securities class action suits.

"The credit crisis was a watershed event in securities
litigation," said John Molka III, the author of the report.  "The
easing of the credit crisis, however, has not resulted in fewer
securities suits being filed.  To the contrary, the number
continues to grow.  The elevated level of filings in 2010 and 2011
may represent a 'new normal.'"

"Security fraud suits comprised the largest portion of first
quarter filings, reflecting vigorous enforcement activities by
regulators, but the breach of fiduciary duties category has been
the real driver of growth, said Dave Bradford, Advisen executive
vice president.  He said many of these are so-called merger
objection suits, which typically are filed following the
announcement of a merger or acquisition.  Most of these suits are
filed in state courts.

Securities class action represented 18% of new filings.
Previously, securities class action suits had accounted for more
than one third of securities suits filed, but that percentage has
been decreasing as breach of fiduciary duties suits and other
types of suits have become more common.  Securities class action
suits continue to account for most of the largest settlements,
however.  In the first quarter, the average securities class
action settlement was $54.6 million, according to the report.


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  * * *