CAR_Public/110428.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 28, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 83

                             Headlines

ADVANCED DISTRIBUTOR: Recalls 400 Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
ALCOA INC: ERISA-Violation Suit Remains Pending in Tennessee
APPLE INC: ATTM Antitrust Litigation Remains Stayed
ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Ark. Supreme Court Issues Class Action Ruling
BAFFINLAND IRON: ArcelorMittal to Defend Against Class Action

BEST BUY: Removes "Wood" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif.
CAMP USA: Recalls 15.5T Carabiners & Quickdraws Due to Injury Risk
CHINA INTEGRATED: Rosen Law Firm Provides Update on Class Action
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Antoninetti" Class Action Suit Pending
DATSEPLOTS INC: Recalls 16,600 Lithium-Ion Batteries

DEAN FOODS: Some Daily Farmers Challenge Class Action Settlement
FEDERAL HOME: Sued in Mass. Over Non-Payment of Title Insurance
FIRST RESOLUTION: Sued for Collecting Debt Without License
GLOBE FIRE: June Deadline Set for End to Model J Sprinkler Recall
GREAT SOUTHERN: Investors' Bid to Access Documents Approved

GROUPON INC: Sued for Selling Gift Certificates with Expiry Dates
HONEYWELL INT'L: Mediation in "Allen" Suit Set for May
HONEYWELL INT'L: Illinois MDL Stayed Due to Witness Probe
JP MORGAN: Settles Military Foreclosure Class Action for $27MM
KIDDIELAND TOYS: Recalls 9.7T Disney Princess Plastic Trikes

KIDDIELAND TOYS: Recalls 16T Children's Scooters Due Injury Hazard
LENNOX INDUSTRIES: Recalls 440 Garage Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
LOUISIANA: Sued for Failure to Offer Voter Registration Services
MIDLAND FUNDING: Sued for Collecting Debt Without License
NETFLIX INC: Accused of Antitrust Violations

NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Home Care Medicaid Cuts
PACIFIC TRADE: Recalls 615T Candle Sets Due to Fire Hazard
QUICKEN LOANS: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Clock Fixing Class Suit
SOFRITO: Failure to Pay Proper Wages Prompts Class Action
SPOT LLC: Recalls 15,400 Satellite Communicators

SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Remains Stayed Pending Probe
SUPERVALU INC: FTC Ends Probe on SUPERVALU-C&S Business Practices
SYNGENTA CROP: Responds to Requests for Sanctions in Atrazine Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal
TOYOTA MOTOR: Dismissed From "Sudden Acceleration" Class Suits

TRAVELERS COS: Appeals in Asbestos-Related Suits Pending
TRAVELERS COS: Settles New Jersey Suit for $6.75 Million
TRULY NOLEN: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Overtime
UNITED PET: Recalls 1.2-Mil. Aquarium Heaters Due to Fire Hazards
WAL-MART STORES: Removes "Main" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif.

WASHINGTON: Juvenile Center Suit Gets Class Action Status




                             *********

ADVANCED DISTRIBUTOR: Recalls 400 Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Advanced Distributor Products (ADP) LLC, of Grenada, Miss.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 400 ADP FOA series unit
heaters.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Some heaters were manufactured without a required flame rollout
switch, which is a back-up device that shuts down the heater in
the event of a heater failure. This poses a fire hazard.  No
incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves ADP FOA series unit heaters with heating
capacity, model and serial numbers listed below.  These unit
heaters are separated combustion and gas-fired. The brand name
"ADP", the model number and the serial number can be found on the
nameplate located inside the control cabinet.

     Heating Capacity     Model Number    Serial Number Range
     ----------------     ------------    -------------------
     60,000 BTUH          FOAN-60-1-1-1   5609K#### to 5610M#####
     100,000 BTUH         FOAN-100-1-1-1  6003J#### to 6010L#####
                                          5603J#### to 5610L#####
     100,000 BTUH         FOAP-100-1-1-1  6003J#### to 6010L#####
                                          5603J#### to 5610L#####
     125,000 BTUH         FOAN-125-1-1-1  6003J#### to 6010L#####
                                          5603J#### to 5610L#####
     125,000 BTUH         FOAP-125-1-1-1  6003J#### to 6010L#####
                                          5603J#### to 5610L#####

The heaters are manufactured by Lennox Industries Inc., of
Richardson, Texas, or Advanced Distributor Products (ADP) LLC, of
Grenada, Miss., and sold at ADP dealers and distributors
nationwide from September 2003 through April 2011 for between
$2,700 and $4,200.

Pictures of the recalled garage heater are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11198.html

Consumers should stop using these recalled heaters immediately.
Consumers should contact ADP to schedule an inspection and, if
necessary, repair of the heater.  For additional information,
contact ADP toll-free at (866) 303-8634 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.adpnow.com/


ALCOA INC: ERISA-Violation Suit Remains Pending in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2006, a class action captioned Curtis v. Alcoa Inc.,
Civil Action No. 3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependants of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by
requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health
insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for
certain medical procedures and prescription drugs.  Plaintiffs
alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated
their rights to vested health care benefits.  Plaintiffs
additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.  Plaintiffs sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys'
fees.  Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.  During the fourth quarter of 2007, following
briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial,
certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs'
breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury
demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a
trial date of September 17, 2008.  In August 2008, the court set a
new trial date of March 24, 2009, and, subsequently, the trial
date was moved to September 22, 2009.

In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an
advisory jury at trial.  Trial in the matter was held over eight
days commencing September 22, 2009, and ending on October 1, 2009,
in federal court in Knoxville, TN, before the Honorable Thomas
Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge.  At the conclusion of
evidence, the court set a post-hearing briefing schedule for
submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by
the parties and for replies to the same.  Post trial briefing was
submitted on December 4, 2009.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 21, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


APPLE INC: ATTM Antitrust Litigation Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Apple, Inc., and
AT&T Mobile remains stayed while the Supreme Court has yet to rule
on the enforceability of an arbitration clause in the AT&T
Mobility v. Conception case, according to the Company's April 21,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 26, 2011.

The lawsuit is a purported class action filed against the Company
and AT&T Mobility in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The Consolidated Complaint
alleges that the Company and AT&T Mobility violated the federal
antitrust laws by monopolizing and/or attempting to monopolize the
"aftermarket for voice and data services" for the iPhone and that
the Company monopolized and/or attempted to monopolize the
"aftermarket for software applications for iPhones."  Plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the
class, treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys fees.  On
July 8, 2010 the Court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The case is currently stayed until the
Supreme Court rules on the enforceability of the AT&T Mobility
arbitration clause in the AT&T Mobility v. Conception case.


ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Ark. Supreme Court Issues Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Arkansas Supreme Court, in a ruling favored a group of plaintiffs
who allege car dealers were charging them an illegal fee for
preparing certain documents.

In the class action suit, Otis Campbell appealed several orders of
the Pulaski County Circuit Court against Asbury Automotive Group
Inc., Asbury Automotive Arkansas LLC, North Point Auto Group,
North Point Ford Inc., NP FLM LLC, Prestige Toy LLC, Prestige Bay
LLC, Premier NSN LLC, NP VKW LLC, Premier PON LLC, and NP MZD LLC.
The defendants are referred to collectively as "Asbury" in court
documents.

On Dec. 31, 2002, Charles and Carol Palasack filed a class action
complaint against Asbury, alleging they were charged an illegal
fee for the preparation of a vehicle installment contract.

Mr. Campbell was later added as a class representative in an
amended complaint filed July 22, 2003.

On appeal, Mr. Campbell asserts that the circuit court erred in
granting summary judgment to Asbury on the class' documentary-fee
claim based on the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, or
ADTPA; that it erred in denying the class' motion to amend his
complaint and motion for class certification to add a breach-of-
fiduciary-duty claim relating to the documentary fee; it erred in
denying class certification relating to the class' financing-fee
claim against Asbury; and that the court erred in dismissing the
class' unjust-enrichment claim relating to the documentary fee.

Asbury cross-appealed, contending that the circuit court erred in
granting summary judgment to Mr. Campbell on the class' claim that
the assessment of a documentary fee constituted the unauthorized
practice of law; that it erred in ruling that Asbury had a
fiduciary relationship with its customers; and that the court
erred in ruling that it was not entitled to the defense of good-
faith reliance.

The Court, in its ruling filed April 14, affirmed in part and
reversed and remanded in part on direct appeal, and affirmed on
cross-appeal.  Justice Paul E. Danielson wrote the Court's 36-page
majority opinion.

The Court reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment
to Asbury on the class' documentary-fee claim, and remanded the
case.

However, the justices said they would not reverse the court's
decision denying the class' motion to amend its complaint.

"Circuit courts are given broad discretion in matters regarding
class certification, and this Court will not reverse a circuit
court's decision to grant or deny class certification absent an
abuse of discretion," the Court wrote.

As to Mr. Campbell's financing-fee claim, the Court found that the
circuit court "abused its discretion" and erred in denying class
certification.

The justices said to find unjust enrichment, a party must have
received something of value, to which he or she is not entitled
and which he or she must restore.  There must also be some
operative act, intent or situation to make the enrichment unjust
and compensable.

"Here, the circuit court based its grant of summary judgment
solely on the fact that a contract existed between the parties,"
the Court wrote.

"Because the mere existence of a contract does not always
foreclose a claim of unjust enrichment, we hold that the circuit
court erred in granting summary judgment and reverse and remand."

The Court, ruling on Asbury's first cross-appeal, said it is
"abundantly clear" that Asbury engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law.

It also found that the circuit court did not err in ruling that
Asbury had a fiduciary relationship with its customers.  By virtue
of its unauthorized practice of law, "it was held to the same
standard of care as a licensed attorney," the Court wrote.

As to Asbury's final cross-appeal, the Court affirmed the circuit
court's ruling that Asbury was not entitled to rely on the defense
of good-faith reliance.

"A defendant is not entitled to rely in good faith on a
legislative act for protection from liability, where it was
incumbent upon that defendant to know and abide by the clear
public policy of the state," the Court wrote.

Asbury claimed that "there was no expression of public policy" on
the matter.  However, at the time it was charging its documentary
fee, Arkansas Code prohibited corporations from practicing law,
the Court noted.

A copy of the Supreme Court's April 14, 2011 decision is available
at http://is.gd/REzprqfrom Leagle.com.


BAFFINLAND IRON: ArcelorMittal to Defend Against Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Hill, writing for Mining Weekly, reports that steel giant
ArcelorMittal on April 21 said it will "vigorously defend" itself
against an C$800-million class action suit relating to its
takeover of Baffinland Iron Mines earlier this year.

London, Ontario-based law firm Siskinds on April 19 filed a notice
of action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice alleging
documents relating to the C$590-million buyout contained
misrepresentations that caused investors that sold their shares
into the offer to suffer damage.

The document, a copy of which Mining Weekly Online has obtained,
names various Baffinland directors current and former directors as
defendants, as well as the world's fifth-richest man, Lakshmi
Mittal, who heads the biggest steelmaker globally.

After a prolonged bidding war that started in September last year,
Nunavut Iron Ore and ArcelorMittal teamed up to make a joint bid
for Baffinland, to get access to its prized high-grade Mary River
project on Baffin Island.

Approached for a response to the class action, an ArcelorMittal
spokesperson said the company would fight the case.

"We do not comment.  In order to proceed as a class action the
plaintiff must still obtain an order from the court certifying the
action as a class proceeding.  ArcelorMittal intends to vigorously
defend the action," the spokesperson said in reply to emailed
questions.

Bruce Walter, chairperson of Nunavut Iron and named as a
defendant, said the claims were baseless.

"Nunavut believes the class action suit in which it has been named
among several defendants is entirely without merit.  The company
will defend itself vigorously, as necessary," he said in an email.

Baffinland, as well as other individuals and companies named as
defendants in the class action, did not respond to requests for
comment from Mining Weekly Online.

These include Baffinland CEO Phil du Toit, director Daniella
Dimitrov, Jowdat Waheed as well as chairperson Aditya Mittal
(Lakshmi's son), Houston-based Energy & Minerals Group (EMG) owner
John Raymond, and the firm's managing partner John Calvert.

The notice of action also names Richard McCloskey, who quit as a
Baffinland director in January, as a defendant.

EMG backed Nunavut Iron's bid, which Waheed and Walter led.

Peter Rooney, an Uxbridge, Ontario resident, is the lead plaintiff
named in the notice of action.

Anyone who tendered shares into offers from Nunavut Iron,
ArcelorMittal, or the joint offer between September 22 and
February 17 are eligible to join the class, according to the court
document (case number 3957 CP-11).

INSIDER TRADING CLAIMS

Siskinds claimed in the papers that various takeover circulars
that ArcelorMittal, Nunavut Iron, and Baffinland contained
misrepresentations and that the target company withheld
information from shareholders that its predators had access to.

The documents claim that Waheed had gained inside information
while working as a consultant to Baffinland early last year, which
he used to make Nunavut Iron's offer.

He has previously refuted such allegations.

Siskinds said that ArcelorMittal and Nunavut Iron had knowledge of
material facts that Baffinland hadn't released publicly, which
they used to buy shares in the company.

"The plaintiff and the class members, as holders of Baffinland
securities, were entitled to full, true and plain disclosure about
the business affairs of BIM in order that the might make informed
decisions as to whether to tender their securities to the joint
bid.  They did not get it," the notice of action said.

Siskinds also took issue with the fact that Baffinland had said in
January a new much smaller truck-haulage study superseded the
previous study on an 18-million ton/year iron ore mine and rail
operation.

In related news, Nunavut's Nunatsiaq reported on April 21 that
Baffinland was scrapping the road haulage plan in favor of
building the bigger rail operation, citing vice president of
corporate affairs Greg Missal.

Siskinds earlier launched a C$50-million class action against
Canada Lithium Corp and certain of its directors after the company
was forced to announce in February that it had miscalculated the
resources at its Quebec project, which will likely be "materially"
smaller when it announces a reviewed resource statement next
month.


BEST BUY: Removes "Wood" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Jared Wood, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 11-00402 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Contra Costa Cty.), was filed on February 16, 2011.  The plaintiff
accuses the retail store chain of requesting and recording his
personal identification information as part of a credit card
transaction, in violation of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card
Act, California Civil Code Section 1747.08.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Best Buy Co., Inc., on
April 19, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-10877 to the
proceeding.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael A. Geibelson, Esq.
          Stephanie C. Santoro, Esq.
          ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
          2049 Century Park East Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
          Telephone: (310) 552-0130
          E-mail: MAGeibelson@rkmc.com
                  SCSantoro@rkmc.com


CAMP USA: Recalls 15.5T Carabiners & Quickdraws Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
CAMP USA Inc., of Broomfield, Colo., announced a voluntary recall
of about 15,500 Photon carabiners, Photon and Mach Express
quickdraws.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The carabiner gate may open under a heavy load, posing a risk of
serious injury or death if the climber falls.  No injuries have
been reported.

The Photon model carabiners are used by climbers as connectors and
are sold individually or as components of the Photon Express and
Mach Express quickdraw used as extenders to anchor a climber.  The
carabiners were sold in a variety of colors including green,
yellow, silver and brown. The quickdraws use a white or black
fabric strap with green, yellow or gray stitching and Photon
carabiners attached at each end.

The carabiners were manufactured in China and sold at outdoor
retail stores nationwide from February 2011 through March 2011 for
between $8 and $12.

Pictures of the recalled carabiners are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11201.html

Consumers should stop using the recalled carabiners and quickdraws
sold with carabiners immediately and contact CAMP USA to return
the recalled products for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact CAMP USA Inc. toll-free at (877) 421-2267
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. MT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.camp-usa.com/


CHINA INTEGRATED: Rosen Law Firm Provides Update on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on April 21 provided an update to the
class action lawsuit the firm filed on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of China Integrated Energy, Inc. from March 31, 2010
through March 16, 2011.

To join the China Integrated class action, visit the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.

On April 20, 2011 the NASDAQ issued an announcement stating that
trading in China Integrated Stock had been halted for "additional
information requested from the Company."  The last trade price was
$1.84/share.  According to the announcement, trading will be
halted until China Integrated "has fully satisfied NASDAQ's
request for additional information."

"Investors who purchased their shares during the Class Period and
continue to hold those shares following the halt, are still
eligible to participate in the class action," said Rosen attorney
Phillip Kim.  "While we cannot predict when the NASDAQ will lift
the trading halt, we do not believe that the halt will impede the
progress of the class action," Kim added.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 24, 2011.  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:

          Phil Kim, Esq.
          Jonathan Horne, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone:  (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  jhorne@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/

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


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Antoninetti" Class Action Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Maurizio Antoninetti alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act is pending,
according to Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.'s April 21, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed suit against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
primarily claiming that the height of the serving line wall in the
Company's restaurants violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act, or ADA, as well as California disability laws.  On
December 6, 2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an additional lawsuit in
the same court making the same allegations on a class action
basis, on behalf of himself and a purported class of disabled
individuals, and a similar class action was filed by James Perkins
in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 7, 2008.

In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a
ruling in which it found that although the Company's counter
height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with
an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney's fees and
minimal damages to the plaintiff which the Company has accrued.
The Company and the plaintiff appealed the district court's ruling
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on
July 26, 2010, the appeals court entered a ruling finding that the
Company violated the ADA and did not provide the plaintiff with an
equivalent facilitation, and remanded the case to the district
court.  The district court will now determine the damages and
injunctive relief and final award of attorney's fees to which
Mr. Antoninetti is entitled to based on the court of appeals
ruling.

The Company says it lowered the height of its serving line walls
throughout California some time ago, which makes injunctive relief
in both the individual and class actions moot, and have lowered
the serving lines in a significant majority of its restaurants
outside of California as well.  The Company says that it will
vigorously defend the class action cases, including by contesting
certification of a plaintiff class.  The Company adds that it is
not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of,
or any additional potential liability from, these cases.


DATSEPLOTS INC: Recalls 16,600 Lithium-Ion Batteries
----------------------------------------------------
Datseplots Inc., dba GeoManGear, of Denver, Colo., conducted a
voluntary recall of about 16,600 Lithium-Ion batteries used with
Magicshine bicycle lights in the United States and 1,500 in
Canada, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission and Health Canada.  Consumers should stop using the
product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The lithium-ion batteries can overheat, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.  The company has received three reports of batteries
overheating and causing minor fires and property damage.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Magicshine Series I and Series II lithium-ion
batteries. The batteries were sold with bicycle light sets with
the following models: Magicshine 900 Lumen (MJ-808), 1400 Lumen
(MJ-816) and Tail light (MJ818).  The batteries were also sold
separately.  The Series I battery comes in a nylon pack enclosure
and the Series II in an aluminum pack enclosure inserted into a
fabric sleeve.  The model number is found on the product
packaging.  The Magicshine logo is found on the sleeve covering of
the Series II battery.

The lithium-ion batteries were manufacturer by Shenzhen Minjun
Electronic Co. Ltd., dba Magicshine, of Guangdong, China, and sold
at GeoManGear's Web site from June 2009 through November 2010 for
between $40 and $130.

Pictures of the recalled lithium-ion batteries are:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11734.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled batteries.
The company is notifying all known consumers.  Consumers who have
purchased the recalled batteries from GeoManGear and have not been
contacted should visit http://www.MagicshineBatteryRecall.com/to
register to receive a free replacement battery.  For additional
information, visit GeoManGear's website at
http://www.geomangear.com/or send an e-mail to
recall@geomangear.com


DEAN FOODS: Some Daily Farmers Challenge Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that some dairy farmers aren't sweet
on part of a proposed $30 million settlement with a giant dairy
processor that they say could hurt their income.

The proposal would settle a class-action antitrust lawsuit filed
in 2009 by five Northeastern dairy farms, who accused Dallas-based
Dean Foods Co., Kansas City, Mo.-based cooperative Dairy Farmers
of America and its marketing affiliate Dairy Marketing Services of
working together to dominate the milk-buying market and hold down
prices paid to farmers.

Among the critics of the proposed $30 million deal: Howard
Howrigan, a dairyman from Fairfield, who fears the move could
lower prices paid to farmers if Dean starts shopping elsewhere.

"When farmers work together, we all do better," said Mr. Howrigan,
a member of St. Albans Cooperative Creamery, which has 450 members
and is part of DFA.  "That's marketing our milk collectively.
That's why co-ops were established, that's why co-ops are still
strong, still market the bulk of the milk in the U.S.

"And so it goes against that premise," he said of the proposed
settlement.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants coerced farmers into
joining Dairy Farmers of America to get access to bottling plants
owned by Dean Foods and that they conspired to artificially lower
the price of milk paid to farmers, Vermont assistant attorney
general Sarah London said in 2009.

To settle the suit, Dean would pay $30 million that could be
divided among 5,000 to 10,000 farmers as well as the attorneys in
the case, the plaintiffs' lawyers say. A federal judge in
Burlington is reviewing the settlement.  It covers Delaware,
Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and the
District of Columbia.

The proposal also includes a deal that would require Dean get 10
to 20% of the raw milk it buys for three Northeastern plants from
sources other than DMS for 30 months.  The plaintiffs say the
provision would jumpstart competition, but DFA and DMS object.

"It's the old strategy where you divide and conquer.  What they
want to do break up this DMS system where we go to the customers
as one unified voice.  Anytime you have farmers working together
it's dangerous for them," said Mark Magnan, a Fairfield dairy
farmer who is on the board of the St. Albans Coop and a DMS
director.

They are not opposed to Dean settling but say the provision takes
business from their farmers and gives it to someone else, said
Steven Kuney, a Washington-based lawyer for DFA and DMS.

U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss appears to be lukewarm
on the provision. She said she is likely to sever it from the
settlement or said the two parties could.

"I'm optimistic," Mr. Howrigan said.

Kit Pierson, a Washington-based attorney for the plaintiffs, said
he doesn't mind if the judge severs the provision since Dean says
it has started to get milk from some independent farmers.

"If Dean is moving in that direction anyway . . .," he said.

Dean also says it intends to honor any supply agreements with DFA
and DMS under the provision.

But Mr. Howrigan worries that such competition could lead to lower
prices paid to farmers.

"They could come back and say we're getting X amount of pounds at
this price, why do we have to pay you more?" he said of the St.
Albans Cooperative.

Dean could also decide to look elsewhere for milk if it's
disgruntled by the lawsuit, he said.

"How long are they going to have a sour taste in their mouth after
shelling out $30 million? They're going to look to recoup that
from the market or in the process of selling milk," said
Mr. Howrigan, who thinks he may be eligible for monetary part of
the settlement.

Some other farmers, who are not connected to DFA or DMS and do not
sell to Dean, say they don't have enough information to decide
what they think of the settlement.

Beth Kennett of Liberty Hill Farm in Rochester says she's all for
exposing that Dean Foods is a monolith in the dairy industry but
she worries that part of the settlement will erode cooperatives
like the one she is a proud member of, Agri-Mark.

"I'm afraid that this settlement telling Dean Foods that they have
to restructure how they buy milk will indeed encourage large
farmers to not be part of the co-op and that will have a really
detrimental impact on the co-ops," which she believes was not the
lawsuit's intention, she said.

The Vermont attorney general's office, too, is investigating
whether the deal is good for farmers, providing court papers on
its website for potential class members to peruse.

"At the end of the day, we have to sell our milk to Dean Foods,"
Mr. Howrigan said.  "They control a big share of the market.  We
have to work with them, so building those relationships takes
years and ruining them won't take very long sometimes."


FEDERAL HOME: Sued in Mass. Over Non-Payment of Title Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corp. promises at foreclosure sales that it will pay for
the buyer's title insurance if the buyer uses Freddie Mac's agent
-- but it "universally" refuses to do it, a class action claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Urban v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, Case No. 11-0686 (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/21/FreddieMac.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas M. Dillon, Esq.
          Carl F. Schmitt, Esq.
          SCHMITT & DILLON
          233 Main Street
          Lancaster, MA 01523
          Telephone: 978-368-7500
          E-mail: tdillon@sdslawyers.com
                  cschmitt@sdslawyers.com


FIRST RESOLUTION: Sued for Collecting Debt Without License
----------------------------------------------------------
Leggitt Nailor, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. First Resolution Investment Corporation, Case No.
2011-CH-14879 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. April 20, 2011), accuses
the "collection agency" of operating without a license, as
required under the Illinois Collection Agency Act.

Defendant First Resoultion, as alleged in the Complaint, became
regulated by the ICAA since January 1, 2008, but did not obtain a
license until October 22, 2008.

According to the lawsuit, on May 1, 2008, while unlicensed,
defendant filed a lawsuit against plaintiff, who resides in Cook
County, Illinois, in the Circuit Court of Cook County to collect
an alleged debt incurred for personal, family or household
purposes, Case No. 2008-M1-135939.  On July 10, 2008, while still
unlicensed, defendant obtained a judgment against Mr. Nailor, as a
result of which Mr. Nailor suffered damage to credit and non-
monetary loss.

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


GLOBE FIRE: June Deadline Set for End to Model J Sprinkler Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Globe Fire
Sprinkler Corp. are urging residential and commercial property
owners who have model J dry-type series fire sprinklers covered
under the previously announced recall and have not yet filed a
claim to replace them, to contact Globe Fire Sprinkler
immediately.  Home and commercial property owners should
immediately submit their claim, as the program for receiving
replacement heads will end on June 1, 2011.

The voluntary replacement program, which was first announced in
June 2007, included about 300,000 model J series dry fire
sprinklers manufactured by Globe Fire Sprinkler due to a concern
that these sprinklers can deteriorate over time and can fail to
operate in a fire situation.

To participate in the replacement sprinkler program, property
owners must submit "Proof of Claim" and "Waiver and Release of
Claims" forms to Globe Fire Sprinkler Corporation postmarked by
June 1, 2011.  Valid claims received prior to the deadline will
qualify for replacement sprinkler heads.

Consumers can obtain the claim forms, additional information on
identifying the sprinklers covered by this recall and instructions
on filing a claim by visiting http://www.globesprinkler.com/or by
calling Globe Fire Sprinkler Corporation at (800) 248-0278 between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.

This deadline relates only to the Globe model J dry type
sprinklers recalled on June 12, 2007. It does not involve
additional models of sprinklers other than those named in the June
2007 recall announcement. Building owners need not take any
further action if they have: (1) had replacement sprinklers
installed by Globe Fire Sprinkler; (2) submitted a claim to Globe
Fire Sprinkler that has been deemed complete and installation of
the replacement heads is pending; or (3) confirmed that their
sprinkler heads are not covered by the Globe Fire Sprinkler model
J dry type recall. Building owners who have previously submitted
an incomplete claim will be sent a reminder notice reminding them
to send in any missing information or materials by the June 1,
2011 deadline or else their claim will be void.

Globe Fire Sprinkler Corp. urges all other building owners to
consult with their fire sprinkler installer and/or check their
system records as soon as possible to determine whether their
sprinkler heads are covered by this program.

Pictures of the recalled Dry Fire Sprinkler are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11203.html


GREAT SOUTHERN: Investors' Bid to Access Documents Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elise Burgess, writing for Financial Standard, reports that
investors in a class action against failed agribusiness firm
Great Southern live to fight another day after access to new
documents has been approved.

In a hearing held April 4, former Great Southern directors, Peter
Patrikeos and Jeffrey Mews were asked by law firm MacPherson +
Kelley Lawyers (M+K), representing the class action, to provide
documents including internal Great Southern communications.

In particular, any documents mentioning poor yields from early
tree projects and any communication within the firm in the lead up
to the eventual 'topping up' of the returns to investors in these
earlier schemes.

Founder and former managing director of Great Southern,
John Young, reportedly raised objections to the request which were
rejected on April 20 by the Associate Justice who upheld M+K's
request who are now able to view any such documents that are not
subject to 'privilege'.

Defenses by Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (BABL), Javelin and
other directors are due by May 4 with the case to reappear in
court at the end of May.

"This is just the start of what will be a very interesting process
of investors finally being told the full story on what was going
on inside Great Southern," said a spokesperson for M+K.

In October last year, around 2,000 Great Southern investors
launched a class action to recover losses from bankers, including
BABL, which lent them money to invest in the schemes.

BABL responded at the time by stating that the case had "fallen
over" when M+K were forced to finalize its second class action
claim to gather extra information.

Investors have asked the Supreme Court of Victoria to set aside
loans they took out with the banks for Great Southern investments
and be reimbursed for all costs.


GROUPON INC: Sued for Selling Gift Certificates with Expiry Dates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Mehel, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Groupon Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01893 (N.D. Calif. April 19,
2011), asserts claims, on behalf of consumers nationwide who
purchased gift certificates for products and services from
Groupon, Inc., for: 1) violations of the Credit Card
Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act and the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act; 2) violation of the unfair
competition law, California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 et seq.; 3) violations of the False Advertising Law,
California Business and Professions Code Section 17500 et seq.;
and 4) unjust enrichment.

Groupon is an Internet-based company that purports to offer
discounted deals on a wide variety of products and services,
including travel, excursions, restaurants and bars,
salons and spas, clothing and other retail items, and dance
classes and other instructional lessons, among other things.

According to the Complaint, defendant sells and issues "groupon"
gift certificates with short expiration dates, knowing that
many consumers will not use the gift certificates prior to the
expiration date.  However, the Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility and Disclosure Act -- CARD Act -- and the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act -- EFTA -- specifically prohibit the
sale and issuance of gift certificates, such as "groupons," with
expiration dates.

Groupon and its retail partners thus reap a substantial windfall
from the sale of gift certificates that are not redeemed before
expiration.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julio J. Ramos, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES Of JULIO J. RAMOS
          35 Grove Street, Suite 107
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 948-3015
          E-mail: ramosfortrustee@yahoo.com


HONEYWELL INT'L: Mediation in "Allen" Suit Set for May
------------------------------------------------------
A mediation session has been scheduled for May 2011 to discuss
resolution of the remaining claims in the class action lawsuit
captioned Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan,
according to Honeywell International Inc.'s April 21, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims alleged
by plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Allen, et al.
v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan were dismissed with
prejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million and the
maximum aggregate liability for the remaining three claims
(alleging that Honeywell impermissibly reduced the pension
benefits of certain employees of a predecessor entity when the
plan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate benefits in
accordance with the terms of the plan) was capped at $500 million.
Any amounts payable, including the settlement amount, have or will
be paid from the Company's pension plan.  In October 2009, the
Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Honeywell
Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to the claim regarding the
calculation of benefits.

A mediation session has been scheduled for May 2011 to discuss
resolution of the remaining claims.  If the parties are unable to
resolve this matter, the Company says it continues to expect to
prevail on the remaining claims in light of applicable law and the
Company's substantial affirmative defenses, which have not yet
been considered fully by the Court.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Illinois MDL Stayed Due to Witness Probe
---------------------------------------------------------
The multidistrict litigation in Illinois against filter
manufacturers, including Honeywell International Inc., has been
stayed pending an investigation on plaintiff's principal witness
for possible violations of federal law, according to the Company's
April 21, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including Honeywell,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket automotive filters.  This suit is a
purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters
from the defendants.  Parallel purported class actions, including
on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by
other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada.  The U.S. cases have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the
claims raised in these actions.  In April 2011, the multi-district
litigation was stayed pending an investigation by the U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to
plaintiff's principal witness for possible violations of federal
law.  The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice notified
Honeywell on January 21, 2010, that it has officially closed its
investigation into possible collusion in the replacement auto
filters industry.


JP MORGAN: Settles Military Foreclosure Class Action for $27MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Kell, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co. agreed to a $27 million settlement to resolve a
class action lawsuit that said the bank overcharged thousands of
active-duty military members and wrongly foreclosed on a handful
of members.

Under the terms of the settlement, J.P. Morgan said it will pay
$12 million to the class action suit and set aside $15 million for
additional damages on a case-by-case basis.  Any unused funds will
be used to benefit a charity selected by the U.S. military.

Additionally, the company has issued $6 million to date in
payments to borrowers who were overcharged.  J.P. Morgan will also
provide an estimated $6.4 million in additional benefits to
borrowers who may have been subjected to wrongful foreclosure
practices.

"We hold ourselves accountable and responsible for these mistakes,
and fixing them is just the beginning of a new way forward with
the military and veteran community," said Frank Bisignano, chief
administrative officer of J.P. Morgan.

In February, a J.P. Morgan executive apologized at a U.S. House
hearing for wrongly foreclosing on military families and
overcharging thousands for mortgages.  The company responded by
announcing a series of programs to help active members and
veterans, including saying it won't foreclose on any currently
deployed military personnel.


KIDDIELAND TOYS: Recalls 9.7T Disney Princess Plastic Trikes
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Kiddieland Toys Limited, of Scituate, Mass.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 9,000 Disney Princess
Plastic Racing Trikes in the U.S. and 700 in Canada.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The plastic castle display and the princess figures protruding
from the top of the handle bar pose a laceration hazard if a child
falls on it.  CPSC and Kiddieland have received three reports of
children suffering facial lacerations.

The recall involves the Disney Princess Plastic Racing Trikes.
The trikes are pink and fuchsia with a purple seat and wheels.  On
top of the handlebar, there is a rotating castle display
surrounded by three princess figures. "Disney Princess" is printed
on the label in front of the trike just below the handlebar.

The trikes were manufactured in China and sold at Target,
JCPenney, Meijer and H.E.B. stores nationwide and on the Web at
http://www.target.com/from January 2009 through April 2011 for
about $50.

Pictures of the recalled Disney Racing Trike are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11205.html

Consumers should immediately take the trikes away from children
and contact Kiddieland for a free replacement handlebar with an
enclosed rotating display.  For additional information, contact
Kiddieland at (800) 430-5307 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.kiddieland.com.hk


KIDDIELAND TOYS: Recalls 16T Children's Scooters Due Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Kiddieland Toys Limited, of Scituate, Mass.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 16,000 Lights and Sounds
Children's Scooters in the United States and 700 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

A child's finger can get caught in the hinge mechanism between the
steering column and the platform, posing a laceration hazard.
CPSC and Kiddieland have received two reports of children whose
fingers got caught in the hinge mechanism and required stitches.

The recall involves three models of Kiddieland "Lights and Sounds"
three-wheeled scooters including a red Spiderman, a blue Thomas &
Friends(TM) and a pink girl's scooter. The scooters have buttons
on the handle that play music and sounds. "Kiddieland" is molded
on the back of the steering mechanism. Spiderman or Thomas &
Friends(TM) are found on the steering mechanism and platform. The
girl's model has butterflies on the platform.

The scooters were manufactured in China and sold at Toys R Us and
JCPenney from January 2009 through February 2011 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled scooters away from
children and contact Kiddieland for a free repair kit.  For
additional information, contact Kiddieland toll-free at (800) 430-
5307 or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.kiddieland.com.hk

A picture of the recalled Children's Scooters is available at:

       http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11206.html


LENNOX INDUSTRIES: Recalls 440 Garage Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lennox Industries Inc., of Richardson, Texas, announced a
voluntary recall of about 440 garage heaters.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Some heaters were manufactured without a required flame rollout
switch, which is a back-up device that shuts down the heater in
the event of a heater failure.  This poses a fire hazard.  No
incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Lennox garage heaters with heating capacity,
model number, and serial number listed below.  The brand name
"Lennox", the model number and the serial number can be found on
the nameplate located inside the control cabinet.

     Heating Capacity     Model Number    Serial Number Range
     ----------------     ------------    -------------------
     60,000 BTUH          TUA060SNAF1     5609H#### to 5610M#####
     100,000 BTUH         TUA100SNAF1     6004G#### to 6010L#####
                                          5604G#### to 5610L#####
     100,000 BTUH          TUA100SNSF1    6004G#### to 6010L#####
                                          5604G#### to 5610L#####
     125,000 BTUH          TUA125SNAF1    6004G#### to 6010L#####
                                          5604G#### to 5610L#####
     125,000 BTUH          TUA125SNSF1    6004G#### to 6010L#####
                                          5604G#### to 5610L#####

The garage heaters are manufactured by Lennox Industries Inc., of
Richardson, Texas, or Advanced Distributor Products LLC, of
Grenada, Miss., and sold at Lennox Industries dealers and
distributors nationwide from July 2004 through April 2011 for
between $2,700 and $4,200.

Pictures of the recalled garage heater is available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11197.html

Consumers should stop using these recalled heaters immediately.
Consumers should contact Lennox to schedule an inspection and, if
necessary, repair of the garage heater.  For additional
information, contact Lennox at (888) 584-2353 between 8 a.m. and 5
p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web site
http://www.lennox.com/


LOUISIANA: Sued for Failure to Offer Voter Registration Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in violation of state law,
Louisiana consistently fails to offer voter registration
information to people who apply for public assistance, the NACCP
says in a class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Ferrand, et al. v. Schedler, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00926 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/21/Voter.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald L. Wilson, Esq.
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 4100
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 525-4361
          E-mail: cabral2@aol.com

               - and -

          John Payton, Esq.
          Debo P. Adegbile, Esq.
          Kristen Clarke, Esq.
          Ryan P. Haygood, Esq.
          Dale Ho, Esq.
          Natasha Korgaonkar, Esq.
          NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
          99 Hudson St., Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 965-2252
          E-mail: dho@NAACPLDF.ORG
                  kclarke@NAACPLDF.ORG

               - and -

          Nicole K. Zeitler, Esq.
          Niyati Shah, Esq.
          PROJECT VOTE
          737 1/2 8th Street SE
          Washington, DC 20003
          Telephone: (202) 546-4173 Ext. 303
          E-mail: nzeitler@projectvote.org
                  nshah@projectvote.org


MIDLAND FUNDING: Sued for Collecting Debt Without License
---------------------------------------------------------
Walter Sikora, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Midland Funding LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-14878 (Ill Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty. April 20, 2011), seeks redress for the conduct of
the defendant in taking collection actions prohibited by the
Illinois Collection Agency Act, 225 ILCS 425/1 et seq.

Specifically, Mr. Sikora accuses the "collection agency" of
engaging in debt collection without a license.  According to the
Complaint, Midland Funding became regulated by the ICAA since
January 1, 2008, but did not obtain a license until November 25,
2008.

Plaintill Walter Sikora, a resident of Cook County, Illinois, says
that on January 8, 2008, while unlicensed, Midland Funding filed a
lawsuit against him in the Circuit Court of Cook County to collect
an alleged debt incurred for personal, family or household
purposes, Case No. 2008-MI1-101257.  The case was eventually
nonsuited on December 23, 2008.  As a result of the filing,
plaintiff says he suffered damage.

The plaintiff is represented by:

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


NETFLIX INC: Accused of Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------
Scott Caldwell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Netflix, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Wal-Mart.com USA LLC,
Case No. 11-cv-01928 (N.D. Calif. April 20, 2011), is filed on
behalf of all persons and entities that paid a subscription fee to
defendant Netflix to rent DVDs between May 19, 2005, and the date
of class certification.

As alleged, on or before May 19, 2005, defendants completed and
entered into an illegal anti-competitive agreement -- Market
Allocation Agreement -- to divide the markets for sales and online
rentals of DVDs in the United States, with the purpose and effect
of monopolizing and unreasonably restraining trade, in at least
the market for online DVD rentals.  The mechanics of the Market
Allocation Agreement allowed defendant Netflix to charge
supracompetitive prices to plaintiff and other Class members.

Scott Caldwell resides in San Francisco, California.  During the
Class Period, Mr. Caldwell says directly subscribed to Netflix for
his personal, non-commercial use and paid Netflix subscription
fees that were greater than he would have paid, in the absence of
the antitrust violations alleged herein.

Defendant Netflix, through its Web site, www.netflix.com, rents
DVDs directly to consumers nationwide by charging monthly
subscription fees, which entitle customers to rent DVDs pursuant
to various subscription plans.

Defendant Wal-Mart Stores is the largest retailer in the United
States.  Through its retail stores and its Web site,
www.walmart.com, Wal-Mart Stores sells new DVDs directly to
consumers nationwide.  Prior to the Market Allocation Agreement,
Wal-Mart Stores' wholly-owned subsidiary Walmart.com competed with
Netflix in the Online DVD Rental Market through the "Wal-Mart DVD
Rentals" service, which was available on www.walmart.com

Defendant Walmart.com is the online component of Wal-Mart Stores'
retail empire that is the leading seller of new DVDs in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig C. Corbitt, Esq.
          Michael S. Christian(212716)
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          E-mail: ccorbitt@zelle.com
                  mchristian@zelle.com


NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Home Care Medicaid Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that this month's
massive cuts to Medicaid may put hundreds of elderly New Yorkers
"in grave danger of being institutionalized against their will,"
the old people say in a federal class action.  The cuts came in
New York's new budget, which took effect April 1.

The New York State Budget Bill imposed "ceiling limitations" that
prevent home care agencies from being fully reimbursed for high-
hour cases, the complaint states.

Lead plaintiff Cecilia Johnson, filing on behalf of her 85-year-
old mother, Ena Johnson, says the change has caused home care
agencies to reduce services without adequate notice or a hearing.
Some providers now refuse to comply with Aid Continuing orders,
Ms. Johnson says.

She says her mother, who has received 24-hour care for several
years, had her services cut three days after the bill took effect.

"Ms. Johnson has had many strokes during the past 10 years. As a
result, she is now bed-bound, non-verbal and suffers from numerous
severe ailments including severe muscle weakness, incontinence,
bed sores, and dementia . . .

"For the past several years, Ms. Johnson has received CHHA
[Certified Home Health Agencies] services 24 hours per day, in
split-shift care, 7 days per week, provided by Personal-Touch,"
the complaint states.

Before the new budget was implemented, she received home care
twice, after two hospitalizations, but that changed almost
immediately when the new budget took effect.

"On April 4, 2011, Ms. Johnson was admitted to Long Island College
Hospital for the third time, and it was expected that she would be
ready for discharge in 2 to 3 days.

"On April 8, 2011, Ms. Johnson was ready for discharge and needed
Personal-Touch to reinstate her split-shift care so that she could
return home.  Ms. Johnson's hospital social worker contacted
Personal-Touch and requested that her split-shift care be
reinstated.  The social worker and Ms. Johnson's daughter,
Cecelia, were informed by Personal-Touch that they planned to
reduce Ms. Johnson's care to 12 hours per day, 7 days per week.

"Ms. Johnson received no prior notice of the threatened reduction
of her split-shift care CHHA services.  She was not informed of
her right to a Fair Hearing," the complaint states.

A health complication forced Ena Johnson to stay in the hospital
until April 14, but she was not discharged as scheduled because
Personal-Touch had reduced her services.

"To date, Ms. Johnson has not received Aid Continuing benefits,"
the complaint states.

Ms. Johnson says this may force her into a nursing home.

"Ms. Johnson does not need to go to a nursing facility, nor she
want to be placed in a nursing facility, because she can and is
entitled to live safely at home, in an integrated setting, with
the assistance of split-shift care CHHA care," the complaint
states.

The Johnsons say that Nirav R. Shah, the Commissioner of the New
York State Department of Health, recognizes that the denial of
care is illegal, and has not done enough to correct it.

"Defendant Shah is clearly aware of this problem, and on April 8,
2011 issued a 'Dear Administrator' letter to CHHAs reminding them
of their responsibility to comply with federal and state laws.

"Because the April 8, 2011 letter did not eliminate the practices
described herein, Defendant Shah issued a second 'Dear
Administrator' letter on April 15, 2011, stating in even stronger
terms the obligations of CHHAs to comply with procedural
requirements of the law.

"These 'Dear Administrator' letters have not ended the pattern and
practice of erroneous and illegal reductions or terminations," the
complaint states.

Also sued are Elizabeth R. Berlin, executive deputy commissioner
of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance; Robert Doar, commissioner of the New York City Human
Resources Administration; and Personal-Touch Home Care.

The Johnsons seek declaration that Ena's due-process rights have
been infringed and an injunction preventing the state from
reducing home care for patients whose needs have not changed.

This is far from the first class action against a state that tried
to address its budget problems in this manner.  Most such
complaints say the cuts are not only cruel but counterproductive,
as institutionalized care will end up costing the state more money
than in-home care.

A copy of the Complaint in Johnson v. Shah, et al., Case No.
11-cv-01956 (E.D.N.Y.) (Matsumoto, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/25/NYDisabled.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yisroel Schulman, Esq.
          Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq.
          Susan Greene, Esq.
          Jennifer Magida, Esq.
          Sabrina Tavi, Esq.
          Benjamin Taylor, Esq.
          NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
          450 West 33rd St., 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: 212-613-5000


PACIFIC TRADE: Recalls 615T Candle Sets Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pacific Trade International Inc. of Rockville, Md., announced a
voluntary recall of about 615,195 sets of Tea Lights (about 7.48
million candles).  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The candles have a clear, plastic cup that can melt or ignite,
posing a fire and burn hazard to consumers.  Pacific Trade has
received one report of the plastic cup melting while in use.  No
injuries or property damage have been reported.

The recall involves tea lights sold under the brand names
Chesapeake Bay Candle and Modern Light. The candles are various
colors. They were sold in sets or with tea light containers. Tea
lights from the below sets are involved with this recall. Only tea
lights that do not have any lettering imprinted on the bottom of
the tea light cup are included in this recall.

   Retailer  Brand       Description   Dates Sold   Price  UPC
   --------  -----       -----------   ----------   -----  ---
   Fred      Chesapeake  36-piece      August 2009  About  754870634000,
   Meyer     Bay Candle  plastic       through      $12    754870687846
                         tea light     Feb. 2011
                         set

   Super     Modern      Halloween     August 2010  About  754870668128,
   Value     Light       votive        through      $1     754870668135,
                         holder        Nov. 2010           754870668142
                         with tea
                         light,
                         various
                         scents

   Target    Chesapeake  Home Scents   July 2009    About  754870479250,
             Bay Candle  12-count      through      $4     754870479328,
                         tea light     Feb. 2011           754870479397,
                         candles,                          754870479441,
                         various scents                    754870479496,
                                                           754870479540,
                                                           754870479649,
                                                           754870481147,
                                                           754870490583,
                                                           754870528262,
                                                           754870528347,
                                                           754870528361,
                                                           754870657689,
                                                           754870657726,
                                                           754870657764,
                                                           754870606458,
                                                           754870684333,
                                                           754870703386,
                                                           754870703423,
                                                           754870606359,
                                                           754870633416,
                                                           754870659072,
                                                           754870659119,
                                                           754870659157,
                                                           754870684296

   Target   Chesapeake   Sweet         Jan. 2010    About  754870658693,
            Bay Candle   Delights      through      $5     754870658709
                         12-count      Feb. 2011
                         tea light
                         candles,
                         various
                         scents

   Target    Chesapeake  Sentiments    Feb. 2010    About  754870658334,
             Bay Candle  12-count      through      $5     754870658341
                         tea light     June 2010
                         candles,
                         various scents  

   TJX/      Chesapeake  Boo Flicker   July 2010    About  754870700026
   Marshall's/  Bay                    through      $5
   Homegoods  Candle                   Nov. 2010

   Wegmans   Modern      Four-piece    Nov. 2010    About  754870686580
             Light       Treetop       through      $6
                         Tealights,    Dec. 2010
                         various scents
The tea lights were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at Fred
Meyer, Home Goods, Marshalls, Super Value, Target, TJ Maxx and
Wegmans stores nationwide between July 2009 and February 2011 for
between $1 and $12.

Pictures of the recalled tea light sets are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11200.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the candles and return
them to the store where purchased for a store merchandise card
equal to the purchase price.  For additional information, contact
the Pacific Trade International at (800) 331-8339 between 9 a.m.
and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.chesapeakebaycandle.com/


QUICKEN LOANS: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Clock Fixing Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that it
looks like more legal headaches involving overtime for Quicken
Loans.

A federal judge on April 21 denied Quicken Loans' request to
dismiss an overtime lawsuit filed by a former secretary who claims
the company engaged in clock fixing.

The order comes one month after Quicken Loans won a jury verdict
in another class action overtime lawsuit, in which nearly 400
former Quicken employees were seeking back overtime pay.  On
March 17, the jury found that the employees were not strictly
salespeople, but rather mortgage bankers with broader duties, and
therefore not entitled to overtime.

In this latest case, U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy ruled that
Tiyanna Knight could proceed with her case, in which she claims
that Quicken denied her overtime pay by requiring her and other
hourly employees to adjust their time clocks downwards at the end
of the week to make it look like they worked only 40 hours a week.
This, her lawsuit alleges, is a violation of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Jesse Young, who is representing Ms. Knight, hailed the ruling as
a significant victory for his client.

"You have Quicken Loans, which is a huge company, and you have
Miss Knight, who is just an hourly employee who just wants to get
paid a fair wage for a full days work," he said.

Ms. Knight, who started working for Quicken in 2007, was
terminated on Sept. 13, 2010, records show. She filed her overtime
lawsuit one month later.  While she worked for Quicken, she filed
for bankruptcy, records show.

Quicken moved to dismiss the case, alleging that since Ms. Knight
failed to disclose a potential overtime claim against Quicken when
she filed for bankruptcy, she had no legal grounds to bring her
overtime lawsuit.  Quicken held that Ms. Knight may have been
trying to hide potential assets from the bankruptcy court by not
disclosing her potential overtime claims.

Jones called that claim "ridiculous."

"The motion was just a smoke screen to try to get the case
dismissed."

Mr. Young said that his client's failure to notify the bankruptcy
court about her potential overtime lawsuit was "an honest mistake"

"She doesn't understand the law," he said.  "I think the judge saw
through (Quicken's) arguments."

Judge Murphy held that Ms. Knight "likely did not understand" that
clock fixing was illegal, and that she didn't learn that her
employer might be engaged in illegal behavior until she talked to
an attorney about it.

"It was Knight's termination and subsequent meeting with an
attorney that appear to have triggered this lawsuit, not an
unlawful scheme to shelter assets from the bankruptcy estate,"
Murphy wrote.  "Had she continued working at Quicken, the lawsuit
may never have been filed.  Finally, as soon as she was made aware
of the discrepancy in her bankruptcy filings, Knight reopened her
file and disclosed the potential claim."

In a statement on April 21, Quicken Loans disagreed with the
Court's decision to allow the case to proceed.

"We believe the law is clear: One cannot deny a claim in
bankruptcy and then turn around and sue to recover on claims that
one has denied exist," the statement read.

Quicken Loans also said that the court did not rule on the merits
of Ms. Knight's claim, only that it was too early to dismiss this
case without the benefit of more facts.

The company also defended its pay practices.

"Quicken Loans pays and always has paid its team members fairly
and in accordance with all laws," the statement read.
"Regrettably, Ms. Knight never brought to the attention of her
managers nor the company any claim that she was not being paid
properly while she was employed; it was only after she was
terminated that she made such assertions."

Quicken Loans also denied Knight's claims, and criticized the
plaintiffs lawyers for bringing the case, holding:

"Unfortunately, we fear that this case is another example of the
reckless permissiveness of our current day legal system . . . All
of this is consistent with the calculated blueprint of extracting
an unjust settlement from their victim who they hope will concede
and "cry uncle".  Once again, as we have demonstrated in past
attacks of this nature against our organization, we simply will
not pay off these firms to simply make these kinds of cases 'go
away.'"

Meanwhile, Mr. Young noted that Ms. Knight's overtime lawsuit,
which is seeking class certification, is different from the last
case, in which Quickens won at jury trial.  In that case, the
plaintiffs argued that they were misclassified as managerial
employees so that they wouldn't get paid overtime.

In the Knight case, Mr. Young said, there's no classification
dispute: the potential class members are secretarial and clerical
support service employees, who are all hourly workers.  Ms.
Knight's claim, he said, is that the company engaged in clock
fixing to avoid paying those hourly employees overtime.

"They would have their employees basically go back and fix their
time records," he said, adding that employees worked, but didn't
get paid for it.  "That's a violation of the FLSA."


SOFRITO: Failure to Pay Proper Wages Prompts Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Henely, writing for YourNabe.com, reports that a waiter
from Astoria and a Woodside bartender filed a class-action lawsuit
in Manhattan federal court against a restaurant co-owned by New
York Mets player Carlos Beltran, alleging the eatery underpaid
them while they worked there.

The 21-page suit is aimed at seeking restitution for present and
past workers at the Puerto Rican restaurant Sofrito and its sister
restaurant Sazon, both of which are in Manhattan and run by the
400 Restaurant Group Corp.  Sofrito, on East 57th Street, opened
in 2006 and Sazon, at 105 Reade St., followed three years later in
2009.

An employee at Sofrito said the restaurant had no comment at this
time.

Kevin Rivera of Astoria and Dayana Depena of Woodside allege in
the suit that while they worked with the restaurants they were not
paid proper wages.

Both Mr. Rivera, who worked at Sofrito as a waiter at various
times between 2007 and April 2011, and Depena, who worked as a
bartender at both Sofrito and Sazon from 2009 until February 2011,
claim they were paid $35 per shift no matter how long they worked,
had their tips and service charges redistributed to other
employees not entitled to tips and had money deducted from their
pay for mistakes or customer walkouts.

The suit also alleges the 400 Restaurant Group Corp., Sazon Inc.
and restaurant owners Genaro Morales and Benjamin Olan, who was
head of personnel, did not properly track their employees' wages.
It accuses the corporation and its representatives of doing so
willfully and intentionally.

"Defendants were aware or should have been aware that the
practices described in this class action complaint were unlawful,"
attorney Brian Schaffer said in court papers on behalf of Mr.
Rivera and Ms. Depena.  He is with the Manhattan firm of Fitapelli
& Schaffer LLP.

Sofrito is described as a "posh Latin hot spot" in the suit.

"Known for attracting A-list celebrities from all boroughs,
Sofrito is frequently touted on the New York Post's Page Six for
celebrity sightings, such as Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony,"
Schaffer said in court papers.

The Post reported Beltran got involved with the restaurant after
eating many meals there. He eventually ended up reaching out to
Morales and bought a share in the business, the newspaper said.

Mr. Rivera and Ms. Depena asked for an injunction requiring the
corporation to pay them and all employees as part of the class-
action suit their required wages, attorneys' fees and other
relief, court papers said.  The sum of this will be determined at
trial, but the company was supposed to pay $7.15 per hour for all
hours worked from Jan. 1, 2007, to July 24, 2009, and $7.25 per
hour for all hours worked between July 25, 2009, to the present
time, court papers said.

Mr. Beltran, who has been playing for the Mets since 2005, became
co-owner of the restaurant in August 2010, the suit said.
Mr. Schaffer did not name Mr. Beltran as a defendant in the suit.


SPOT LLC: Recalls 15,400 Satellite Communicators
------------------------------------------------
Spot LLC, of Covington, La., conducted a voluntary recall of about
15,400 Spot Satellite Communicators, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Consumers should stop using
the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The internal voltage regulator can stop working, resulting in the
inability to transmit messages and tracking information in
emergency situations.  Spot LLC has received two reports of
product failure in temperatures below 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  No
injuries have been reported.

The satellite communicator tracks the user's location and sends
the user's GPS coordinates and a distress message in the case of
an emergency. The device is black with the SPOT logo and the word
DeLorme on the front. It measures 3 inches x 2.6 inches and is
bundled with the DeLorme Earthmate PN-60w GPS. The GPS is not
subject to this recall. Affected products have Electronic Serial
Numbers (ESN) from 0-2000000 to 0-2019999. The ESN is located on a
label under the battery.

The satellite communicators were made in China and sold at
Cabela's, Bass Pro Shops, REI, L.L. Bean and other retailers
nationwide from July 2010 through March 2011 for $549.

Pictures of the recalled satellite communicators are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11735.html

Consumers should stop using the product immediately and contact
Spot LLC for a free replacement.  For more information, contact
Spot LLC at (866) 727-7733 between 8 a.m. and midnight ET, Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.findmespot.com/replacement


SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Remains Stayed Pending Probe
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit commenced against SUPERVALU Inc. and others
remains stayed in Wisconsin pending the result of a criminal
prosecution of certain former officers of one of the defendants,
according to the Company's April 21, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
February 26, 2011.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
SUPERVALU Inc., as well as International Outsourcing Services,
LLC, Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc., Carolina
Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the United States
District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  The
plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit,
however all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the
result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of
IOS.  Although this lawsuit is subject to the uncertainties
inherent in the litigation process, based on the information
presently available to the Company, management does not expect
that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


SUPERVALU INC: FTC Ends Probe on SUPERVALU-C&S Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Federal Trade Commission has closed its
investigation into whether SUPERVALU Inc. and C&S Wholesale
Grocers, Inc., engaged in unfair methods of competition, according
to SUPERVALU's April 21, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended February 26,
2011.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against SUPERVALU Inc. alleging that a 2003 transaction between
the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. was a conspiracy to
restrain trade and allocate markets.  In the 2003 transaction, the
Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S, which were located in New
England.  Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed
similar complaints in other jurisdictions.  The cases have been
consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  The complaints allege that
the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-
compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of
the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased
from the other.  Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  The Company is vigorously
defending these lawsuits.  Separately from these civil lawsuits,
on September 14, 2009, the United States Federal Trade Commission
issued a subpoena to the Company requesting documents related to
the C&S transaction as part of the FTC's investigation into
whether the Company and C&S engaged in unfair methods of
competition.  The Company cooperated with the FTC.

On March 18, 2011, the FTC notified the Company that it has
determined that no additional action is warranted by the FTC and
that it has closed its investigation.


SYNGENTA CROP: Responds to Requests for Sanctions in Atrazine Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. has filed two responses to
sanction moves aimed at it by the lead plaintiff in a proposed
class action over alleged water contamination caused by the
company's weed killer, atrazine.

The responses and sanction moves filed by lead plaintiff Holiday
Shores Sanitary District are related to documents held by
Syngenta's Swiss parent-company, Syngenta AG, and market share
data.

The moves come as discovery disputes continue in the 2004 case,
one of six nearly identical proposed atrazine class actions
currently before Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge.

Holiday Shores and the other named lead plaintiffs in the suit
allege that atrazine runs off farm fields into their drinking
water supplies.

The plaintiffs then claim they must remediate the contamination.

Syngenta denies the allegations and has tried at points to have
the case dismissed or stayed pending the outcome of a 2010 federal
atrazine suit filed by Holiday Shores' attorneys -- Stephen
Tillery, Christine Moody and Christie Deaton among others -- in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The dispute is one of a series that have plagued the case since
discovery began in earnest in 2009.

The current matter, along with arguments related to when an expert
witness was retained by the defendant, will be before Judge Mudge
May 6 for hearing.

Both of the sanction responses were filed April 15.

In the response related to the documents allegedly held by
Syngenta in Switzerland, the defendant points to Swiss law as one
of the hold-ups it has been attempting to resolve.

"To date, Plaintiffs have flatly refused to even address, much
less argue any inapplicability of various Swiss laws to their
discovery requests in this litigation," the response reads.

Syngenta suggests that Swiss law, and not the company itself, is
slowing the documents Holiday Shores seeks and that the sanctions
move is premature.

"As [Syngenta] has pointed out on numerous occasions, Plaintiffs
could apply to this Madison County Circuit Court for an order
directed to the Swiss authorities to request international
judicial assistance from the competent Swiss authority to
authorize the release of the requested information and documents,"
the response reads.  "Plaintiffs continue to beat the sanctions
drum to no avail . . . [Syngenta] has also been continuously
candid and open with Plaintiffs and the Court not only about the
issues created by Swiss laws but also about its willingness to
facilitate the process through which such documents may be
produced."

The company asks Judge Mudge to deny the sanctions request as
"baseless."

Syngenta also addresses the market share data issue in its second
response.

It contends the plaintiff is misreading documents produced by a
non-party in the case, the University of Chicago.

It also alleges it has turned over documents related to Illinois
sales of atrazine but that it does not keep state by state market
share statistics.

Motions to compel and other matters are also pending in the case.

None of the 2004 atrazine cases or the 2010 federal class action
have been certified to date.

Kurtis Reeg represents Syngenta.

The Syngenta case is Madison case number 04-L-710.
The atrazine cases are Madison case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation is still awaiting a ruling on an
appeal from the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit
filed against the Company in California, according to the
Company's April 21, 2011, Form 10-D filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution
period from March 1 to March 31, 2011.

TMCC and certain affiliates had been named as defendants in a
putative bondholder class action, Harel Pia Mutual Fund v. Toyota
Motor Corp., et al., filed in the Central District of California
on April 8, 2010, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit on
July 20, 2010.

On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff refiled the case in
California state court on behalf of purchasers of TMCC bonds
traded on foreign exchanges (Harel Pia Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor
Corp., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles).  The complaint alleged violations of California
securities laws, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other state
law claims.  On September 15, 2010, the defendants removed the
state court action to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California pursuant to the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act and the Class Action Fairness
Act.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 15, 2010.
After a hearing on January 10, 2011, the court granted the
defendants motion to dismiss with prejudice on January 11, 2011.
The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 27, 2011.

TMCC believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and
intends to defend them vigorously.  At this time, TMCC believes
that these cases will not be material to holders of any notes of
Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust, Toyota Auto
Receivables 2010-B Owner Trust, Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-C
Owner Trust, and Toyota Auto Receivables 2011-A Owner Trust.

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


TOYOTA MOTOR: Dismissed From "Sudden Acceleration" Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation is still defending itself against
class action lawsuits related to sudden unintended acceleration of
Toyota vehicles, according to the Company's April 21, 2011, Form
10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the monthly distribution period from March 1 to March 31, 2011.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates were named
as defendants in the consolidated multidistrict litigation, In Re:
Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration, Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (United States
District Court, Central District of California) seeking damages
and injunctive relief as a result of alleged sudden unintended
acceleration in certain Toyota and Lexus vehicles.  On August 2,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in the
multidistrict litigation that does not name TMCC as a defendant.
On November 17, 2010, the court ordered that all omitted claims
and theories are deemed dismissed without prejudice.  In addition,
the court has permitted alleged classes of foreign plaintiffs to
file complaints naming TMCC and related entities as defendants.
On April 4, 2011, the court issued a tentative ruling dismissing
TMCC from the foreign plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.

A parallel action was filed against TMCC and certain affiliates on
March 12, 2010, by the Orange County District Attorney.  On
February 18, 2011, the Orange County District Attorney filed an
amended complaint in which TMCC was not named.  The parties
entered into a stipulation and tolling agreement under which
plaintiff may name TMCC within the next year if new facts are
discovered.


TRAVELERS COS: Appeals in Asbestos-Related Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., continues to defend itself against
numerous lawsuits relating to asbestos claims, according to the
Company's April 21, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and other insurers (not
including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court in
West Virginia.  These and other cases subsequently filed in West
Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.  The plaintiffs allege
that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in
violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and
settling asbestos claims.  The plaintiffs seek to reopen large
numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for
damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers.
Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of
asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state
courts.  These suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory
and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages.  Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC.  The claims asserted in
these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy
of TPC's former policyholder, Johns-Manville Corporation, issued a
temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory
Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an
additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and
Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further
lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations.
Notwithstanding the injunction, additional common law claims were
filed against TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.  This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies.  In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC.  This settlement requires a payment
of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant
contingencies.  Among the contingencies for each of these
settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court clarifying
that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related
claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the
bankruptcy court (the 1986 Orders).

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (the Clarifying Order).
The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct action claims
that may be filed in the future.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.  On February 29, 2008, TPC and certain other
parties to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or
rehearing en banc, requesting reinstatement of the district
court's judgment, which were denied.  TPC and certain other
parties filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
decision, and on December 12, 2008, the Petitions were granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008 decision,
finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are final and
generally bar the Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims against TPC.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court
ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the
Clarifying Order.  However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled
on certain additional issues, principally related to procedural
matters and the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties,
the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for
further proceedings on those specific issues.  On October 21,
2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order
requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the
order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC.  On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit,
requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was
denied on May 25, 2010.  On August 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking
review of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion, and a
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking an order from the Supreme
Court requiring the Second Circuit to comply with the Supreme
Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in TPC's favor.  The Supreme Court
denied the Petitions on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy
court on September 2, 2010, and September 3, 2010, respectively,
arguing that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been
met and seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts.  On
September 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs'
Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to
the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution
claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second
Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion.  On December 16, 2010, the
bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that
TPC was required to fund the settlements.

On January 20, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in
accordance with its December 16, 2010 ruling and ordered TPC to
pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest.  On
January 21, 2011, TPC filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York from the bankruptcy court's
January 20, 2011 judgment.  On January 24, 2011, certain of the
plaintiffs in the Common Law Claims actions appealed that portion
of the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 judgment that denied
their request for an order of contempt and for sanctions.  The
appeals are pending.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action cases in
Texas state court asserting common law claims.  All such cases
that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are
currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court.  If any of
those cases becomes active, SPC intends to litigate those cases
vigorously.  SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct
actions in Ohio state court.  Those actions have all been
dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate
courts.  From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries have been
named in individual direct actions in other jurisdictions.

The Company says it is not possible to predict legal outcomes and
their impact on the future development of claims and litigation
relating to asbestos and environmental claims.  Any such
development will be affected by future court decisions and
interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation.
Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise
for amounts in excess of the current related reserves.  In
addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim
adjustment expenses may change.  These additional liabilities or
increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be
reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges
that could be material to the Company's results of operations in
future periods.


TRAVELERS COS: Settles New Jersey Suit for $6.75 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., and certain other defendants
entered into an agreement to settle a New Jersey lawsuit for $6.75
million, according to the Company's April 21, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought against
a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including the Company,
by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased insurance products through
one or more of the defendant brokers.  The plaintiffs alleged that
various insurance brokers conspired with each other and with
various insurers, including the Company, to artificially inflate
premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance
products offered to those customers.  To the extent they were not
originally filed there, the federal class actions were transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other class actions
under the caption In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.
On August 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named
plaintiffs in the class actions, filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint naming various brokers and insurers,
including the Company, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.  The complaint included causes of action under the
Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), state common law and the laws of the various states
prohibiting antitrust violations.  The complaint sought monetary
damages, including punitive damages and trebled damages, permanent
injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.  All defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to replead, the
court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on August 31, 2007, and the
RICO claims on September 28, 2007, both with prejudice, and
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decisions to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On August 16,
2010, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
all Sherman Act and RICO claims against certain defendants,
including the Company, except for Sherman Act and RICO claims
involving the sale of excess casualty insurance through one
defendant broker, as well as all state law claims, which they
remanded to the district court for further proceedings.  On
October 1, 2010, defendants, including the Company, filed renewed
motions to dismiss the remanded claims.  On March 18, 2011, the
Company and certain other defendants entered into an agreement
with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit.  The settlement, under
which the Company has agreed to pay $6.75 million, is subject to
court approval.

Additional individual actions have been brought in state and
federal courts against the Company involving allegations similar
to those in In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, and
further actions may be brought.  The Company believes that all of
these lawsuits have no merit and intends to defend vigorously.


TRULY NOLEN: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Truly Nolen of America stiffs workers for overtime.

A copy of the Complaint in Saincome v. Truly Nolen of America,
Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00825 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/21/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com

               - and -

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


UNITED PET: Recalls 1.2-Mil. Aquarium Heaters Due to Fire Hazards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
United Pet Group, of Cincinnati, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1.2 million Marineland Stealth and Stealth Pro
Aquarium Heaters.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A wiring problem can cause the aquarium heaters to overheat or
break during normal use, damaging the aquarium and posing fire and
laceration hazards to consumers. Overheating can cause the heater
to shatter or the aquarium glass to break.  United Pet Group has
received 38 reports of fires resulting in property damage and 45
reports of broken aquarium glass. United Pet Group has received
one report of a consumer who suffered an eye injury when the
aquarium heater forcefully broke while he held it.

The recall involves the following Marineland Stealth and Stealth
Pro aquarium heaters.  The heaters are black plastic tubes and
have a temperature adjustment knob at the top. The model name
"Stealth" (in white letters) or "Stealth Pro" (in red letters) is
printed on the side of the heater. The model number and the
wattage rating are printed below the model name. Stealth Pro
heaters were also sold as part of aquarium starter kits.

   Marineland Stealth Models    Marineland Stealth Pro Models
   Wattage        Model #       Wattage           Model #

     25W           ETP25          25W           ML90447-00
     50W           ETP50          50W           ML90448-00
     75W           ETP75          75W           ML90449-00
     100W         ETP100          100W          ML90450-00
     150W         ETP150          150W          ML90451-00
     200W         ETP200          200W          ML90452-00
     250W         ETP250          250W          ML90453-00
                                  300W          ML90454-00
The heaters were manufactured in China and Italy and sold at pet
stores nationwide and on various Web sites from January 2004
through February 2011 for between $20 and $300.

Pictures of the recalled aquarium heaters are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11202.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled aquarium
heaters and contact United Pet Group for a free replacement
aquarium heater or a full refund.  For additional information,
contact United Pet Group at (800) 338-4896 between 7:30 a.m. and
5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.marineland.com/


WAL-MART STORES: Removes "Main" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberley Main, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-11-509011 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on March 9, 2011.  The
plaintiff brings claims for violations of the Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act of 1971, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1747.08 and alleged
claims of common law negligence, invasion of privacy, and unlawful
intrusion.  Allegedly, Wal-Mart Stores requested and recorded
plaintiff's personal identification information in conjunction
with a credit card transaction in California (within the last 12
months prior to the filing of the Complaint), which act is
prohibited under the aforementioned Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
of 1971.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., on
April 20, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-01919 to the
proceeding.

Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation, operates
retail stores under the name Wal-Mart throughout California,
including stores in San Francisco County.

Kimberley Main is a resident of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Douglas C. Emhoff, Esq.
          Tamany Vinson Bentz, Esq.
          Jennifer Levin, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-9900
          E-mail: demhoff@venable.com
                  tjbentz@venable.com
                  jlevin@venable.com


WASHINGTON: Juvenile Center Suit Gets Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------
Brad Bauer, writing for The Marietta Times, reports that a federal
court recently agreed to allow a class of plaintiffs to be created
in a lawsuit against the Washington County Juvenile Center
alleging a system-wide failure to meet constitutional standards of
confinement.

According to an opinion and order filed March 3 by U.S. District
Court Magistrate Judge Terence Kemp, the county's attorney and
attorneys representing Washington County Juvenile Judge Timothy
Williams agreed not to oppose the motion to allow the creation of
a class-action suit, which could mean as many as 300 children
could join in the suit.

"The motion as class certification is viewed by all parties as an
aid to their efforts to resolve the matter," Judge Kemp wrote.

Also, a settlement conference hearing on the case was scheduled.
That hearing is set for 9:00 a.m. on May 18 in U.S. District Court
in Columbus.  The meeting is not open to the public, but should
the case be resolved those details will be a matter of public
record.

Al Gerhardstein, the Cincinnati attorney who brought the suit in
December, said the parties have been meeting to determine if the
matter can be resolved without going to trial.

The suit alleges children endured "abusive, inhumane and illegal
conditions" while confined at the center, including being locked
in cells for 23 hours a day, being forced to work at for-profit
businesses and being denied necessary physical and mental health
care.

Also, the suit claims at least one child was subjected to an
illegal strip search and excessive force was used in other
searches.

Cheri Hass, a Columbus attorney representing the county, said the
class certification is subject to change but she confirmed the
groups are working toward resolving the case.

"The class certification is provisional.  We've agreed to it
because we think it is in everyone's best interest, but should
that change it is still something we can address," she said.  "As
to the settlement discussion, everyone agreed early on that we
would try to work this out amicably and we're still on that road.

"When you've got a case this size it just takes a while.  We've
had one meeting, we've got another set, but frankly, I don't think
we'll get all the details worked out by the next meeting," Ms.
Hass said.

Ms. Hass declined to talk about the specific allegations included
in the suit.

"We're hoping to resolve this and I don't think either side wants
to address anything of substance," she said.

Mr. Gerhardstein previously stated that if the class was granted
he estimated up to 300 children who were held at the local center
would be eligible to join the suit.

Court documents indicate the suit can include anyone who had been
detained at the center who was 22 years old or less as of Dec. 6,
2010, the date the case was filed.

Mr. Williams did not return a message seeking comment.  Court
officials have declined to specifically address the matter in the
past but issued a release saying the facility has been in full
compliance with the law in annual audits by the Ohio Department of
Youth Services.


                            *********

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  * * *