CAR_Public/110427.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 27, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 82

                             Headlines

1ST CENTENNIAL: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
ABBOTT LABS: Sued Over Alleged Depakote-Caused Birth Defects
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still Pending
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Turner" Suit Pending in Calif. Court
BAFFINLAND IRON: Siskinds File Class Action Over Takeover Offer

BP PLC: School Board Members Join Class Action Over Oil Spill
COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Mails Litigation Settlement Notice
CREDIT LINE: Sued for Operating Collection Agency Sans License
GLOBAL HORIZONS: Faces Class Action for Human Trafficking
ITRON INC: Investors Need to Consider Class Action Legal Options

LEXISNEXIS SCREENING: Sued Over Igloo Products Consumer Reports
MGIC INVESTMENT: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss RESPA Case
MGIC INVESTMENT: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending
MCDONALD'S CORP: Wants Class Action Over Happy Meals Dismissed
NEVADA CANCER INSTITUTE: Faces Class Action Over Mass Layoff

PALISADES ACQUISITION: Sued for Violation of Ill. Coll. Agency Act
PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Denies Class Certification to Smokers' Suit
SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
TARGET CORP: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Methods
WALT DISNEY: Sued Over Social Security Numbers in ID Cards

WASHINGTON HARBOUR: Mason LLP Files Class Action Over Flooding




                             *********

1ST CENTENNIAL: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda LLP disclosed that the firm commenced a class action
lawsuit on April 20, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Eastern Division, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the common stock 1st Centennial
Bancorp between April 13, 2006 and Jan. 23, 2009 against certain
of 1st Centennial's former officers and directors for violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Umeda LLP.

1st Centennial is a bank holding company incorporated and
headquartered in California. 1st Centennial Bank is a state-
chartered nonmember bank that was wholly-owned by 1st Centennial.
The Bank operated six branches and three loan production offices
in California which provided commercial and consumer banking
services.

The complaint alleges that certain of 1st Centennial's former
officers and directors made materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period in press releases and filings
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding 1st
Centennial's financial health and business prospects.  In
particular, they made material false and misleading statements ad
omissions concerning: (i) the Bank's exposure to the risky
commercial real estate and the acquisition, development, and
construction loan market; and (ii) the Bank's loan underwriting
and credit administration practices including its compliance with
prudent banking standards and lending policy.  Further, the Bank
approved loans based on outdated appraisal information and
borrower financial statements and issued loans to borrowers with
suspect credit and inadequate collateral.

If you purchased 1st Centennial stock during the Class Period and
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than 60 days from April 20, 2011.  To discuss your shareholder
rights, please contact attorney Gregory E. Del Gaizo at 800-350-
6003 or via the shareholder information form.

Robbins Umeda LLP represents individual and institutional
shareholders in derivative, direct, and class action lawsuits.
The firm's skilled litigation teams include former federal
prosecutors, former defense counsel from top multinational
corporate law firms, and career shareholder rights attorneys.  For
more information, please go to http://www.robbinsumeda.com/


ABBOTT LABS: Sued Over Alleged Depakote-Caused Birth Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Dearden, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a Fairview Heights man filed a class action lawsuit against
the makers of a seizure medication for allegedly causing severe
birth defects in dozens of children.

Myles Brumfield filed the lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories Inc.
March 22 in St. Clair County Circuit Court.  The class represents
dozens of other patients who claim their children were seriously
affected by the drug Depakote.

According to the complaint, Mr. Brumfield and the several other
plaintiffs were prescribed the seizure medication Depakote despite
the risks it allegedly posed to them and their unborn children.
The plaintiffs contend the main ingredient of Depakote -- valproic
acid -- is known to cause severe birth defects if taken during the
first trimester of pregnancy.

Mr. Brumfield and the others allege Abbott Laboratories has misled
doctors who prescribe the drug about the dangers of its ingestion.

The class accuses Abbott Laboratories of negligence for
manufacturing and marketing a defective drug.  They ask for an
undetermined amount of money in damages for medical expenses, loss
of income and court costs.

Attorneys Christopher Cueto and Lloyd M. Cueto, both of
Belleville, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Ralph D. McBride, Douglas A.
Daniels, Blair R. Loocke and Tommy Fibich, all of Houston, along
with Robert L. Salim, of Louisiana, and William M Audet of San
Francisco represent the class.

St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No. 11-L-143


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc., continues to face a consolidated class
action lawsuit in New York alleging violations of U.S. antitrust
laws, according to the Company's April 20, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

Forty-five purported class action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. against the Company and certain foreign and domestic air
carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws
by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges on cargo
shipments.  These cases, along with other purported class action
lawsuits in which the Company was not named, were consolidated in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York as In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation,
06-MD-1775 on June 20, 2006.  Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money
damages and injunctive relief.  To facilitate a settlement on a
class basis, the Company agreed to be named in a separate class
action complaint, which was filed on July 26, 2010.  The
settlement of that complaint, in which the Company does not admit
and denies liability, was approved by the court and final judgment
was entered on April 6, 2011.  Approximately 40 members of the
class have elected to opt out, thereby preserving their rights to
sue the Company separately.  Any adverse judgment could have a
material adverse impact on the Company.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Turner" Suit Pending in Calif. Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned Turner v. American Airlines, et
al., Civ. No. 08-1444 (N.D. Cal.) remains pending in California,
according to American Airlines, Inc.'s April 20, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Approximately 52 purported class action lawsuits have been filed
in the U.S. against the Company and certain foreign and domestic
air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for
passenger transportation.  On October 25, 2006, these cases, along
with other purported class action lawsuits in which the Company
was not named, were consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California as In re
International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation,
Civ. No. 06-1793 (the Passenger MDL).  On July 9, 2007, the
Company was named as a defendant in the Passenger MDL.  On
August 25, 2008, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the
Company in this action.  On March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008, an
additional purported class action complaint, Turner v. American
Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-1444 (N.D. Cal.), was filed against
the Company, alleging that the Company violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for
passenger transportation in Japan and certain European countries,
respectively.  The Turner plaintiffs have failed to perfect
service against the Company, and it is unclear whether they intend
to pursue their claims.  In the event that the Turner plaintiffs
pursue their claims, the Company will vigorously defend these
lawsuits, but any adverse judgment in these actions could have a
material adverse impact on the Company.


BAFFINLAND IRON: Siskinds File Class Action Over Takeover Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mining Weekly reports that London, Ontario-based law firm Siskinds
on April 19 launched a class action suit claiming C$800-million
from Baffinland Iron Mines and certain directors, forming part of
a bidding war for the company, alleging takeover bid documents
omitted or misstated information.

The action is on behalf of people who sold shares into
ArcelorMittal and Nunavut Iron Ore's joint bid, which was
successful in February.

Siskinds said the action seeks damages or a recission of the
C$590-million deal, and partner Michael Robb told Mining Weekly
Online the notice of action was filed on April 19 in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice's London branch.

He said ArcelorMittal and Nunavut Iron Ore are also named in the
document.

"The document seeks general and special damages of C$800-million,"
Mr. Robb said in a telephone interview.

The world's biggest steelmaker and Nunavut Iron Ore teamed up to
make a joint offer for Baffinland early this year after battling
each other in a bidding war that started in August.  The target's
board recommended the offer to shareholders.

Baffinland owns the high-grade Mary River project on Baffin Island
in Nunavut.

Siskinds earlier launched a class action suit against TSX-listed
Canada Lithium Corp, claiming the company had negligently
misinformed shareholders after it was forced to review the
resources at its Quebec project.

DISSENTERS

Mr. Robb said that the class action process was separate to the
dissenting motion that certain shareholders started earlier this
year, claiming the C$1,50 a share offer ArcelorMittal and Nunavut
made undervalued Baffinland.

The group held a meeting in Toronto in February, but could not be
immediately reached for comment.

Baffinland did not respond to voicemail messages on Wednesday.

Nunavut Iron, led by Bruce Walter, made up 30% of the joint bid
for Baffinland, and ArcelorMittal 70%.


BP PLC: School Board Members Join Class Action Over Oil Spill
-------------------------------------------------------------
TCPalm reports that School Board members agreed on April 20 to
join in a class-action suit against BP Oil for lost revenues from
last year's oil spill.

The suit seeks recovery of lost revenue from sales tax and tourism
money because of the oil spill.

School districts throughout the state, including Miami-Dade, Palm
Beach, Jefferson, Polk and Monroe counties, have joined the class-
action suit, said Board Attorney Doug Griffin.

Griffin told the board participating in the suit would not cost
the district anything.  Legal services are handled by Morgan &
Morgan of Orlando, which would take 20 percent of any money
recovered from the suit.

The board voted unanimously to participate.

Because there is no cost to the board, "I see no problem in
joining in it," said board member Maura Barry-Sorenson.


COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Mails Litigation Settlement Notice
---------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. on April 22 mailed notice regarding the
proposed settlement of a series of class action lawsuits related
to the transactions announced on Feb. 25, 2010 between CCE and The
Coca-Cola Company to the class members.

The class consists of all record and beneficial holders of legacy
CCE common stock who held the stock at any time between Feb. 25,
2010 and Oct. 2, 2010, excluding Defendants and any entity
controlled by a Defendant.  As set forth in the notice, the final
settlement hearing will be held on June 8, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.
E.T. in the Fulton County Superior Court, 136 Pryor Street, S.W.,
Suite C-956, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.  The notice contains further
details about this litigation and the proposed settlement,
including procedures for objecting to the terms of the proposed
settlement.

Any member of the class who has not received a notice may obtain a
copy by contacting CCE Securities Litigation, P.O. Box 3518,
Portland, Oregon 97208-3518 or by visiting the Web site
http://www.CCEShareholderSettlement.com/

Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.cokecce.com/-- is the
leading Western European marketer, distributor, and producer of
bottle and can liquid nonalcoholic refreshment and the world's
third-largest independent Coca-Cola bottler.  CCE is the sole
licensed bottler for products of The Coca-Cola Company in Belgium,
continental France, Great Britain, Luxembourg, Monaco, the
Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.


CREDIT LINE: Sued for Operating Collection Agency Sans License
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Brown, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Credit Line Recovery, Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-14710
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. April 19, 2011), alleges violation of
the Illinois Collection Agency Act, 225 ILCS 425/1 et seq, and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et
seq.

Specifically plaintiff Brown accuses Credit Line Recovery of
operating a collection agency without a license, as required under
the ICAA.

Mr. Brown says defendant did not obtain a license until April 23,
2009.

Defendant is engaged in the business of purchasing or claiming to
purchase charge-off consumer debts and enforcing the debts against
the consumers by filing collection lawsuits.

Plaintiff relates that on March 4, 2008, while unlicensed, Credit
Line Recovery filed a lawsuit against plaintiff in the Circuit
Court of Cook County to collect an alleged debt incurred for
personal, family or household purposes.  On January 21, 2009,
while still unlicensed, the defendant obtained a judgment against
Mr. Brown, who alleges to have made payment on the judgment, as a
result of which Mr. Brown suffered damage and monetary loss.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLOBAL HORIZONS: Faces Class Action for Human Trafficking
---------------------------------------------------------
Marie Cunningham, writing for BeverlyHillsPatch, reports that
Beverly Hills-based farm labor recruiter Global Horizons Inc. is
being sued by the federal government for allegedly forcing
hundreds of Thai workers to harvest pineapples and coffee beans
while living in rat-infested conditions on farms in Hawaii and
Washington.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges in class-
action complaints filed on April 19 in federal courts in
Washington and Hawaii that Global Horizons Inc. used national
origin and race discrimination, harassment and retaliation in
supplying about 260 Thai men to work on the farms.

"Once they arrived here in the United States, the story of abuse
started," EEOC attorney Anna Y. Park said at a downtown Los
Angeles news conference.

The Thai workers harvested crops at six farms in Hawaii and two in
Washington.  The EEOC contends that at some of the farms, the
workers were housed in rat- and insect-infested quarters, some of
which had no beds.  The agency also asserts that supervisors not
only ignored abuses of the Thai workers, but participated in their
mistreatment, intimidation, harassment and unequal pay.

The Thai workers were allegedly not allowed to leave the property,
screamed at, threatened and beaten, and were kept away from non-
Thai employees who appeared to be working under more tolerable
conditions.

An email seeking comment from Global Horizons President Mordechai
"Motty" Orian was not immediately returned, and the firm's
telephones seemed not to be functioning.  Mr. Orian was indicted
in September in federal court in Honolulu on criminal charges
related to a human trafficking conspiracy and is under electronic
monitoring, according to officials.

The Thai Community Development Center in Los Angeles brought
victims to the EEOC to file the lawsuit, Park said.  The EEOC
seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the
victims, as well as injunctive relief to prevent similar abuses.


ITRON INC: Investors Need to Consider Class Action Legal Options
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP on April 20 encouraged investors who purchased
or acquired Itron, Inc. securities between April 28, 2010 and
February 16, 2011, inclusive to consider their legal options in
connection with the securities class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

What actions may I take at this time? Class Period purchasers may,
among other things: (i) seek to be appointed by the court as the
"lead plaintiff" in the class action (on or before April 25,
2011); (ii) affirmatively opt-out of the class action and pursue
individual claims; or (iii) do nothing at this time and remain in
the class action as "absent class members."  Factors relevant to
investors' decisions may include the size of their losses, the
timing of their purchases and/or the amount of effort they are
willing to expend to attempt to recover their losses.

For a free consultation regarding your legal options, please
contact Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq., at (888) 300-3362 x302 or via
e-mail at jeff@dyerberens.com

What are the allegations in the complaint? The complaint charges
Itron and certain of its executive officers with violations of the
federal securities laws.  According to the complaint, defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (a) the company
improperly recognized revenue on a significant customer contract;
(b) the company's financial results were overstated during the
Class Period and were not prepared in accordance with GAAP; and
(c) the company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

                     About Dyer & Berens LLP

Dyer & Berens LLP -- http://www.DyerBerens.com/-- has significant
expertise in prosecuting both class and individual investor
actions. The firm's extensive experience in securities litigation,
particularly in cases brought under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the recovery of hundreds
of millions of dollars for aggrieved investors.

CONTACT: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
         Dyer & Berens LLP
         303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
         Denver, CO  80203
         Telephone: (888) 300-3362 x302
         E-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com


LEXISNEXIS SCREENING: Sued Over Igloo Products Consumer Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
LexisNexis Screening Solutions sold Igloo Products consumer
reports that illegally include "criminal history that predates the
report by more than seven years," which Igloo sells to employers,
who then refuse to hire class members.

A copy of the Complaint in Teagle v. LexisNexis Screening
Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01280 (N.D. Ga.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/22/LexNex.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mara McRae, Esq.
          MCRAE BROOKS WARNER LLC
          1720 Peachtree St., Suite 430
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 681-0700
          E-mail: mmcrae@mbwattorneus.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN, P.C.
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston TX 77010-3027
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400


MGIC INVESTMENT: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss RESPA Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act has been voluntarily dismissed,
according to MGIC Investment Corporation's April 20, 2011, Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home
mortgage lenders and settlement service providers.  Mortgage
insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation
alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as
RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
which is commonly known as FCRA.  MGIC settled class action
litigation against it under RESPA in October 2003.  MGIC settled
the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA
in December 2004, following denial of class certification in
June 2004.  Since December 2006, class action litigation has been
brought against a number of large lenders alleging that their
captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA.  On
November 29, 2010, six mortgage insurers (including MGIC) and a
large mortgage lender (which was the named plaintiffs' lender)
were named as defendants in a complaint, alleged to be a class
action, filed in Federal District Court for the District of
Columbia.  The complaint alleges various causes of action related
to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of this mortgage
lender, including that the defendants violated RESPA by paying the
lender's captive reinsurer excessive premiums in relation to the
risk assumed by that captive.  The named plaintiffs' loan was not
insured by MGIC and it is the Company's understanding that it was
not reinsured by this mortgage lender's captive reinsurance
affiliates.

In March 2011, the complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiffs as to MGIC and all of the other mortgage insurers.  The
Company says there can be no assurance that it will not be subject
to future litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of
any litigation would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court's decision dismissing a class action
complaint against MGIC Investment Corporation remains pending in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, according to
the Company's April 20, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County.  Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 22,
2009.  Due in part to its length and structure, it is difficult to
summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint but it appears
the allegations are that the Company and its officers named in the
Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting
or failing to disclose material information about (i) loss
development in the Company's insurance in force, and (ii) C-BASS,
including its liquidity.  The Company's motion to dismiss the
Complaint was granted on February 18, 2010.  On March 18, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Attached to this motion was a proposed Amended Complaint.  The
Amended Complaint alleged that the Company and two of its officers
named in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities
laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing
to properly account for the Company's investment in C-BASS.  The
Amended Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect
to the Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS.  The
purported class period covered by the Amended Complaint began on
February 6, 2007, and ended on August 13, 2007.  The Amended
Complaint sought damages based on purchases of the Company's stock
during this time period at prices that were allegedly inflated as
a result of the purported violations of federal securities laws.
On December 8, 2010, the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended
complaint was denied and the Complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.  On January 6, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed the
February 18, 2010 and December 8, 2010 decisions to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of these
consolidated cases or estimate its associated expenses or possible
losses.  Other lawsuits alleging violations of the securities laws
could be brought against the Company.

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


MCDONALD'S CORP: Wants Class Action Over Happy Meals Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Petersen, writing for Huntsville Healthy Living Examiner,
reports that McDonald's wants a California court to dismiss a
possible class-action lawsuit seeking to stop the company from
offering toys with its popular Happy Meals, claiming parents can
ultimately choose whether or not they buy the products.

That is in response to Monet Parham, who filed the lawsuit last
December.  Ms. Parham, a mother of two, is represented by the
nutrition advocacy group Center for Science in the Public
Interest.  She alleges the company's advertising bypasses parents
to reach children and violates California consumer laws.

As part of the April 18 public filing, the Illinois-based company
said, "In short, advertising to children any product that a child
asks for but the parent does not want to buy would constitute an
unfair trade practice" and added, "She [Perham] was not misled by
any advertising, nor did she rely on any information from
McDonald's."

McDonald's, which according to business reports outperformed its
competitors over the past few years, has come under fire as
America's childhood obesity rates continue to climb.  In response,
McDonald's has offered healthier options, including apple slices
with its Happy Meals, and also posts nutrition information at its
stores and on its Web site.

But in the end, the argument remains: Who is at fault? Companies
who provide the high-fat foods or the parents who buy them?

McDonald's has locations across the globe, including dozens in
Huntsville and surrounding communities.  Want to learn more about
the lawsuit? The proposed class action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, is called Parham v.
McDonald's Corporation et al., 11-511.


NEVADA CANCER INSTITUTE: Faces Class Action Over Mass Layoff
------------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Silva, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Nevada Cancer Institute is being sued by a former employee after
the research center dismissed dozens of workers earlier this month
without warning.

The lawsuit filed on April 19 in federal court in Las Vegas claims
former clinical research coordinator Shamine Poynor is owed 60
days of wages and benefits because she was fired without warning
or cause.  The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, contends
that her former co-workers deserve the same pay.

The U.S. Department of Labor requires employers to provide a 60-
day notice prior to a mass layoff under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988.  Companies who do not follow
the law could be ordered to pay the former employees back pay and
benefits for up to 60 days.

Ms. Poynor was hired by the cancer center in April 2006.  She said
she was not informed that the center could no longer afford to
retain her in advance of her dismissal this month, according to
the lawsuit.

Ms. Poynor's lawyer, Larry Semenza of Las Vegas, said he suspects
center leaders knew they were going to fire employees long before
they issued the immediate termination notices, but chose not to
warn staff members.  Either way, the center must give its
employees a 60-day warning, he said.

The cancer institute announced it was immediately dismissing
roughly 150 employees on April 8.  Officials also said they would
limit projects not funded by research grants to save money and to
keep its doors open.

Institute spokeswoman Hilarie Grey said she could not comment on a
pending lawsuit.

Ms. Grey had previously said the center was considering filing for
bankruptcy to reorganize its finances.  She said a decision had
not been made as of Wednesday.

The Las Vegas-based institute was co-founded by husband and wife
Jim and Heather Murren.  Jim Murren is chief executive of MGM
Resorts International.


PALISADES ACQUISITION: Sued for Violation of Ill. Coll. Agency Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
Josephine Merritt, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-14691
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. April 19, 2011), alleges violation of
the Illinois Collection Agency Act, 225 ILCS 425/1 et seq., and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et
seq.  Specifically, Ms. Merritt accuses Palisades Acquisition of
operating a collection agency without a license, as required under
the ICAA.

Ms. Merritt says Palisades, which claims to acquire defaulted
debts originally owed to others, became regulated by the ICAA
since January 1, 2008, and that it did not obtain a license until
January 14, 2011.

Plaintiff avers that on July 18, 2008, Palisades Acquisition,
while unlicensed, filed a lawsuit against her in the Circuit Court
of Cook County to collect an alleged debt incurred for personal,
family or houselhold purposes, and for which a default judgment
was entered on January 16, 2009.  As a result, plaintiff has been
damaged.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200


PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Denies Class Certification to Smokers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that two former Marlboro smokers
can sue Philip Morris for product liability in a bid to get the
company to fund a medical-monitoring program, but they cannot do
so as a class, a federal judge ruled.

Burt Xavier and James Franklin filed suit against the Virginia-
based tobacco company in May 2010, purporting to represent a class
of asymptomatic smokers and recent quitters older than 50 who
smoked a pack or two a day, amounting to about 146,000 cigarettes.

"This action differs from the typical tobacco action because
plaintiffs do not seek compensatory or punitive damages for
personal injury or wrongful death," U.S. District Judge William
Aslup wrote.  "Instead, the action seeks medical monitoring for
healthy smokers in the form of low-dose CT scanning of the chest.
According to plaintiffs, this scan is a new, largely unavailable
technology that is safer than x-rays and far better at detecting
lung cancer in its early stages.  Early diagnosis dramatically
improves survival odds."

Though Judge Aslup previously dismissed "medical monitoring" as a
stand-alone claim, it is still a possible remedy for their other
allegations.  The plaintiffs want Philip Morris to supply chest
scans by creating a court-supervised screening program.

Their lawsuit claims that Philip Morris USA, a subsidiary of the
Altria Group, acted wrongfully because it consciously used
excessive amounts of carcinogens, as part of a "gentlemen's
agreement" to increase profits among cigarette manufacturers, in
its Marlboro cigarettes.

The lawyers representing Messrs. Xavier and Franklin also filed
similar lawsuits in New York, Massachusetts and Florida.  The New
York case was dismissed; the Massachusetts case has been certified
as a class action and is heading to trial; and the Florida action
is in its infancy.

In the California lawsuit at hand, Judge Aslup agreed on April 18
to halve the claims against Philip Morris.  In addition to ruling
that the plaintiffs cannot sue for state-law violations of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and breach of implied warranty, he
also refused to certify the case as a class action.

Messrs. Xavier and Franklin can proceed with two claims for strict
liability design defect and negligent design and testing.  These
counts survived the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings
and a separate motion for summary judgment.

"Without commenting on the difficulties plaintiffs might face in
proving the causation element of their design-defect claims, this
order finds that they have adequately pled it," Judge Aslup wrote.

The judge bristled at Philip Morris' attempt to undermine the
plaintiffs' design-defect claims.

"Philip Morris argues that plaintiffs cannot meet this standard
'[b]ecause both Plaintiffs admitted that they did not and would
not have smoked the alternatively designed cigarettes they propose
-- and that they have not and would not smoke them even today,
though such cigarettes are available and have been for some time,'
according to the 21-page ruling.  "Such an admission would indeed
be catastrophic for plaintiffs' case, but they have made no such
admission.  The deposition testimony Philip Morris relies on to
support this statement does not go nearly so far."

"Philip Morris failed to deliver on its bold promise that
plaintiffs admitted categorically that they would not have smoked
the safer cigarette proposed in the complaint," Judge Aslup found.

Though Mr. Xavier had said he would not smoke the low-tar
cigarettes currently on the market, because of their allegedly
inferior taste, he can still prove that he would have smoked the
better-tasting alternative cigarettes proposed in the complaint,
Aslup ruled.

Mr. Franklin likewise said he did not pay attention to tar options
for cigarettes currently on the market.  "This testimony might
make Franklin a tougher sell to a jury, but it is not inconsistent
with the theory that he would have smoked the safer cigarettes
proposed in the complaint if Philip Morris had manufactured them
and informed its customers of their attributes," the judge wrote.

Judge Aslup also rejected an attempt to throw the case out under
the statute of limitations.

"Philip Morris asserts that California's two-year limitations
period for personal injuries applies to all of plaintiffs'
remaining claims for relief," according to the ruling.

"Plaintiffs do not dispute that the two-year period applies.
Philip Morris, however, cites no evidence at all showing that
plaintiffs' claims accrued at any time before the complaint in
this action was filed."

A copy of the Order Denying Judgment on the Pleadings, Partially
Granting Summary Judgment, and Denying Class Certification in
Xavier, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., Case No. 10-cv-02067
(N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/22/310-cv-02067.pdf


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Rosen Law 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 SkyPeople
Fruit Juice, Inc. securities during the period from March 31, 2010
to April 4, 2011.

To join the SkyPeople class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's Web
site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Jonathan Horne, Esq.,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail
jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.  The
case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

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 alleges that SkyPeople engaged in undisclosed
related party transactions in violation of the federal securities
laws.  On March 31, 2010, the Company issued its Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ending Dec. 31, 2009.  The Company stated
that there were no related party transactions that year.  On
April 1, 2011, the Company issued its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ending Dec. 31, 2010.  It stated that one of the
Company's major acquisitions in 2009, Yingkou Trusty Fruits Co.,
Ltd., had been 46% owned by a company which in turn was 80% owned
by SkyPeople's CEO and 20% owned by a director of SkyPeople.

On April 1, 2011, Roth Capital Partners cut their price target for
SkyPeople from $13 to $4.50, citing concerns about related party
transactions.  From March 31, 2011 to April 4, 2011 (two trading
days), SkyPeople stock price fell from $4.41 per share to $3.57
per share, damaging investors.

If you wish to join the class action as serve as lead plaintiff,
you must move the Court no later than June 20, 2011.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  For more information
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at jhorne@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/

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

Contacts: Jonathan Horne, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-686-1060
          Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  jhorne@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


TARGET CORP: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Methods
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a western Pennsylvania woman is
seeking a class-action lawsuit against officials at the Target
Corp. discount department store chain, claiming the company and
its law firm use a "false affidavit factory" to sue thousands of
customers for debts allegedly owed to a subsidiary bank which
issues the store's credit cards.

Officials with Minneapolis-based Target; Target National Bank of
Sioux Falls, S.D.; and the chain's law firm did not immediately
return calls from The Associated Press on the federal lawsuit
filed Wednesday in Pittsburgh.

The lawsuit claims the company uses affidavits that are not
reviewed by a company official -- but are notarized and claim to
have been reviewed -- to get customers pay debts and courts to
enforce those collections.


WALT DISNEY: Sued Over Social Security Numbers in ID Cards
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that despite the Walt Disney Co.'s
panoply of high-tech gadgets, the company can't or won't issue its
workers ID cards that prevent their Social Security numbers from
being stolen, workers say in a class action in Superior Court.

The workers say they are required to use Disney ID cards, which
contain their Social Security numbers, to gain entry to restricted
work areas, to clock in and out, and to use employee parking lots,
among other things.

They say the Social Security numbers are imbedded in the ID cards'
barcodes, and that the cards often are stacked on managers' desks,
where they can easily be stolen.

The cards can be interpreted by a bar code scanner and Disney has
failed to establish a system to ensure its workers' privacy,
according to the 13-page complaint.

Lead plaintiffs Kristi Richards and Jorge Iniestra seek class
damages for violations of California business and professional
codes, the California Constitution, and common-law privacy
invasion.

They are represented by:

          Randy Renick, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER KEENY RICHARDSON & RENICK
          128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 585-9600
          E-mail: rrr@hskrr.com

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is also named as a defendant.


WASHINGTON HARBOUR: Mason LLP Files Class Action Over Flooding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tierney Plumb, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports
that the first in what is likely to be a string of many lawsuits
relating to the Washington Harbour flooding was filed on April 20
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Mason LLP, a D.C.-based law firm that specializes in environmental
class-action lawsuits, filed a $5 million suit against Washington
Harbour owner and property manager D.C.-based MRP Realty on behalf
all employees, retailers, restaurants and businesses that have
lost or will lose income or revenue as a result of the destructive
flooding on April 18.

The dollar figure is based on a four-to-six week projection of how
long it might take until business resumes as normal.  The suit
does not cover property damage.

The plaintiff named in the class-action suit is Charles Holcomb, a
bartender who's worked at Farmers & Fishers on the waterfront
since last fall.  The restaurant said it's losing about $20,000 to
$40,000 in revenue per day as a result of the flood.

"The bartender is losing thousands of dollars, which is a
tremendous amount of money for him," said Gary Mason, founder of
the law firm.

Mr. Holcomb reached out to Mason, who has been receiving calls
from other tenants and employees who are interested in being
represented in the case.

The complaint alleges that flood warnings were issued with
sufficient time to raise the flood walls.

Mason also handled a class-action lawsuit for those affected by
the BP oil spill, which, ironically occurred one year ago on
April 20.

The Washington Harbour lawsuit could move along quickly in a
matter of weeks because, unlike the BP oil spill, the level of
disruption is well-defined.

Mason has not yet been in contact with MRP or its lawyer, which is
unknown.  MRP has declined to comment on the flood, saying its
main concern is getting the complex back open for tenants and
residents.


                            *********

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  * * *