CAR_Public/110622.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 22, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 122

                             Headlines

AARON'S: Plaintiffs in Class Action Seek Software Shutdown
ADAMS GOLF: Court Grants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Klayman & Toskes Files Class Action
ARMTEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
BEST BUY: Accused in Minn. Suit of Misleading Shareholders

BP: Judge Dismisses Environmental Claims in D1 Oil Spill MDL
CARMAX INC: Calif. App. Ct. Affirms Ruling in Sales Agent's Suit
CEMEX SAB: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Suits in Florida
CHICAGO, IL: Education Board Sued Over Teacher Layoffs
DAS ACQUISITION: Law Firm Accused of Sending Phony Class Action

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
FLORIDA FARMS: 11th Cir. Affirms Injunction in 2 Shareholder Suits
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Tailgate Defects
GULFSTREAM PARK: Faces Class Action in Fla. Over Unpaid Overtime
HERALD NATIONAL: Sued Over Proposed Merger With BankUnited

HERALD NATIONAL: Faces 2nd Suit Over BankUnited Proposed Merger
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: N.Y. District Court Dismisses Fraud Claims
NESS TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Proposed Merger With Jersey Holding
OKLAHOMA: DHS Faces Class Action for Overcharging Child Support
SALEM-KEIZER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Sued Over Teacher Layoffs

SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Discovery to Start in Cross-Claim Suit
SONY COMPUTER: Accused of Violating Consumer Rights of Privacy
SULLIVAN MOTOR: Insufficient Evidence in Employees' Suit Affirmed
T-MOBILE CENTRAL: 8th Cir. Upholds Remand of 10 Consumer Lawsuits
UNITED RENTALS: Calif. Appeals Court Remands Credit Card Info Suit

VITACOST.COM INC: Bid to Dismiss "Miyahira" Suit Pending




                             *********

AARON'S: Plaintiffs in Class Action Seek Software Shutdown
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Thompson, writing for Erie Times-News, reports that
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed in Erie charged that
computer-tracking software installed on computers sold by some
Aaron's rental store franchises should be shut down immediately
because it could violate the privacy of dozens of unwitting
customers.

A federal judge in Erie, however, has found that ordering the
shutdown of the software, P.C. Rental Agent, before the lawsuit
proceeds through court would be premature.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter has filed a report and
recommendation in response to plaintiffs Crystal and Brian Byrd's
request for a preliminary injunction ordering the shutdown of the
so-called "detective" mode of PC Rental Agent, which is sold by a
North East company, DesignerWare LLC.

Judge Baxter recalled testimony that indicated only 11 computers
were transmitting information via the detective mode to Aaron's
franchisees at the time the lawsuit was filed.  The software is
meant to help the store recover stolen equipment.

"It is purely conjecture that the other members of the putative
class will be subjected to remote access of personal information,"
Judge Baxter wrote.

The ruling is a victory for DesignerWare, which argued in a
hearing held May 25 and 26 that requiring the company to disable
the detective mode of its software would damage customers'
confidence in the software and cause the company to lose business.

The software in question performs many tasks.  In detective mode,
it first retrieves a user's keystroke and screen shots every two
minutes for an hour, and then e-mails that information to the
rental store that leased or sold the computer.

At the next level, it continues that kind of monitoring for as
long as the store personnel want.  At the third level, it snaps a
webcam photo of the person as he or she signs on to prompting
messages that request personal information.

Witnesses at a hearing on the motion for the preliminary
injunction testified that PC Rental Agent software captured the
keystrokes and screen image of the online poker game that Brian
Byrd played on his laptop computer as he sat on his living-room
couch in Casper, Wyo.

It even used his webcam to photograph him secretly.

In stores in the Spokane, Wash., area, a witness testified, PC
Rental Agent's "detective mode" secretly captured screen shots of
Aaron's franchisee rental-store customers checking their bank and
Macy's accounts, and a photo of a woman smoking marijuana.

The parties will have the chance to respond to Baxter's
recommendation.  Ultimately, U.S. Judge Sean J. McLaughlin will
decide whether to adopt Baxter's recommendation and issue an
order.

The Byrds filed a class-action lawsuit on May 3 against Aspen Way
Enterprises Inc., the Aaron's franchisee who, they said, spied on
Brian Byrd; Aaron's Inc., and DesignerWare, which sells and
enables through its server, PC Rental Agent.

The lawsuit ultimately seeks damages and a permanent end to this
monitoring.

DesignerWare maintains that grabbing static images of data on a
computer and e-mailing them to a store does not violate federal
wiretap laws.


ADAMS GOLF: Court Grants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
On June 13, 2011, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
among other things: (i) granted a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment filed by Adams Golf, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
against its former insurance carrier, Zurich American Insurance
Company, finding that Zurich had breached its contract with Adams
Golf; (ii) denied Zurich's motion for summary judgment on Adams
Golf's claim for violations of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims
statute; and (iii) dismissed Adams Golf's claims for
misrepresentation and unfair claims settlement practices under
Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code.  These rulings are
interlocutory, which means the State Court is free to alter or
vacate the rulings.  If the rulings stand, Adams Golf would be
entitled to recover from Zurich the sum of: (i) $5 million, (ii)
18% interest on that amount from the date of loss through the
entry of final judgment and (iii) reasonable attorneys' fees.
Adams Golf is also seeking consequential damages.  The amount of
consequential damages, if any, and attorneys' fees remain to be
resolved at the time of trial.  Given the preliminary nature of
the State Court's rulings, the amount, if any, that Adams Golf
actually recovers from Zurich or its former insurance broker,
Thilman & Filipini, LLC, may vary materially from the amounts
described above.  Any final judgment would also be subject to an
appeal, and any ultimate recovery in the case would be subject to
payment of the first $1.25 million of any sums collected, net of
fees and costs of suit, to the class action plaintiffs.  The case
is currently set for trial in August 2011.  At this point in the
legal proceedings, Adams Golf cannot predict the outcome of the
matter with any certainty.

Adams Golf's pursuit of Zurich in the State Court is a result of a
consolidated securities class action filed in June 1999 in the
United States District Court of the District of Delaware.  In the
Federal Court action, the Federal Court approved a final class
action settlement and entered an order dismissing with prejudice
all claims against all defendants in the litigation.  The
settlement provided for a total payment to the class of $16.5
million in cash and a payment of the first $1.25 million, after
attorneys fees and costs, actually received (if any) by Adams Golf
in connection with its litigation against T&F and Zurich.  Of the
$16.5 million cash settlement amount, $5.0 million was paid by
Adams Golf, which it accrued as a liability during the quarter
ended September 30, 2009 and paid to the settlement fund in March
2010.  As part of the settlement, the underwriters for the IPO
released Adams Golf from any indemnification obligation.
On July 19, 2010, the appeals period for the final order of
dismissal expired and the litigation was fully and finally
resolved.

Adams Golf maintains directors' and officers' and corporate
liability insurance to cover certain risks associated with these
securities claims filed against Adams Golf or its directors and
officers.  During the period covering the class action lawsuit,
Adams Golf maintained insurance from multiple carriers, each
insuring a different layer of exposure, up to a total of $50
million.  In addition, Adams Golf met the financial deductible of
its directors' and officers' insurance policy for the period
covering the time the class action lawsuit was filed.  On
March 30, 2006, Zurich, which provided insurance coverage totaling
$5.0 million for the layer of exposure between $15 million and
$20 million, notified Adams Golf that it was denying coverage due
to the fact that it was allegedly not timely notified of the class
action lawsuit.  On October 11, 2007, Adams Golf filed a suit in
the State Court against T&F, asserting various causes of action
arising out of T&F's alleged failure to notify Zurich of the class
action lawsuit.  T&F moved to dismiss Adams Golf's lawsuit on the
basis that the suit was premature in that Adams Golf had not been
damaged because it had not paid any sums in satisfaction of a
judgment or settlement of the class action securities litigation.
That motion was denied pursuant to a Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated September 26, 2008.  On November 16, 2009, Adams Golf filed
a Second Amended Complaint reasserting its causes of action
against T&F and adding Zurich as a defendant to the lawsuit,
asserting various causes of action against it arising out of its
denial of coverage for the class action lawsuit.  Zurich has
answered and filed a counterclaim against Adams Golf seeking a
declaration that Adams Golf is not entitled to coverage for the
class action lawsuit.


AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Klayman & Toskes Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. on
June 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit, Case No. 11-CV-
10582, has been filed against American Superconductor Corp. on
behalf of investors who purchased American Superconductor stock
during the class period of November 2, 2010, through April 5,
2011.  Potential class members who purchased American
Superconductor stock should consider whether they should file an
individual securities arbitration claim in addition to
participating in the class action.  Investors who held American
Superconductor stock at a full service brokerage firm and
sustained substantial losses may be able to recover their losses
through the arbitration forum established by the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority.  FINRA's Arbitration Department is
where investors, both retail and institutional, go to seek redress
as a result of sales practice violations committed by their
brokerage firm, including claims of over-concentration,
misrepresentation and omission, unsuitable recommendations and
failure to supervise.

According to the class action Complaint, the Defendants "made
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the
Company was providing Sinovel with contracted shipments in excess
of its needs; (2) that Sinovel was not paying AMSC for certain
contracted shipments; (3) that the Company was continuing to
provide Sinovel with contracted shipments even though Sinovel was
not paying for certain prior shipments; (4) that, as a result, the
Company was improperly recognizing revenue on certain contracted
shipments provided to Sinovel; (5) that, as a result, the
Company's revenues were overstated; [and] (6) that the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls."

Investors who held American Superconductor stock with a full
service brokerage firm and sustained significant losses can
contact K&T to explore their legal rights and options.  The
attorneys at K&T are dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf of
investors who have suffered investment losses.  K&T, an
experienced, qualified and nationally recognized securities
litigation law firm, practices exclusively in the field of
securities arbitration and litigation.  It continues its
representation of investors throughout the world in securities
arbitration and litigation matters against major Wall Street
brokerage firms.

If you wish to discuss this announcement or sustained investment
losses of $200,000 or more in American Superconductor Corp. stock,
please contact:

          Steven D. Toskes, Esq.
          Jahan K. Manasseh, Esq.
          Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
          Telephone: 888-997-9956
          Web site: http://www.nasd-law.com


ARMTEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on behalf of all investors who acquired shares of Armtec
Infrastructure Inc. during the period March 30, 2011, to and
including June 8, 2011.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants
engaged in violations of Ontario's Securities Act and the common
law.

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

The plaintiff alleges that at the time Armtec raised capital in
the public market, the defendants knew or ought to have known that
Armtec had not achieved the level of earnings required in order to
pay dividends.

On June 8, 2011, Armtec disclosed that it has suffered a net loss
of $13 million during the first quarter of fiscal 2011 and that it
suspended payment of its quarterly dividend.  After the
disclosure, Armtec's share price declined by more than 50% on
trading volume of more than four million shares.

Jay Strosberg, Esq., a partner of Sutts, Strosberg LLP said,
"Through this class action, we hope to determine precisely what
the defendants knew about Armtec's financial results when Armtec
raised more than $50 million from investors."

More information about the Armtec class action can be found at
http://www.arfclassaction.com

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

Contact: Jay Strosberg, Esq.
         Sutts, Strosberg LLP
         Telephone: (519) 561-6285
                    1-800-229-5323, ext. 8285
         E-mail: jay@strosbergco.com


BEST BUY: Accused in Minn. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a shareholder class action
claims Best Buy's directors inflated its share price through false
and misleading statements, subjecting the company to liability for
securities fraud, and that the share price dropped by 15% when the
truth came out.

A copy of the Complaint in Talluto v. Schulze, et al., Case No.
11-cv-01578 (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/17/BestBuy.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Henry M. Helgen, III, Esq.
          Amanda R. Cefalu, Esq.
          ANDERSON, HELGEN, DAVIS & NISSEN, PA
          150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 435-6363
          E-mail: hmh@andersonhelgen.com
                  arc@andersonhelgen.com

               - and -

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY WILLIAMS BATES BOZEMAN & PULLIAM, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Dr., Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500


BP: Judge Dismisses Environmental Claims in D1 Oil Spill MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that ruling in
favor of Transocean and BP, a federal judge on June 16 dismissed
third-party environmental claims in a giant pleading bundle in the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill litigation, saying the fact that the
oil flow has stopped makes those lawsuits irrelevant.

"The injunction at this stage would be useless, as not only is
there no ongoing release from the well, but there is also no
viable offshore facility from which any release could possibly
occur," U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier wrote.  "The Macondo well
is dead, and what remains of the Deepwater Horizon vessel is on
the ocean floor, where it capsized and sank in 5,000 feet of
water.

"Moreover, BP and the agencies comprising the Unified Area Command
have been and are cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico.  An injury is
not redressable by a citizen suit when the injury is already being
addressed."

Judge Barbier is overseeing the massive, consolidated oil spill
litigation, which has been divided into "bundles," based upon the
nature of the claims.

In instances where claims in the D1 bundle pertain to how the oil
is being cleaned up, Judge Barbier ruled that even if he allowed
those claims to go forward, the claimants are not directly
involved in the cleanup, so a ruling in their favor would not
affect how the cleanup is progressing.

"The D1 defendants do not unilaterally direct the cleanup
activities in the Gulf; such activities have been under the
control of the National Incident Commander, Federal on-Scene
Coordinator, Unified Area Command, and the Coast Guard in
cooperation with other federal agencies.  Thus, plaintiffs cannot
show that an order from this court would actually resolve any
potential deficiency in the ongoing cleanup," Judge Barbier wrote.

"In order to prevail on their claims for injunctive relief,
plaintiffs must demonstrate an ongoing violation of various
statutes on which plaintiffs' claims for relief is based.  Because
the Macondo well is dead and is no longer discharging oil,
plaintiffs' only claims are confined to seeking environmental
citizen suit injunctive relief of a prospective nature to stop
noncompliance in the form of a continued release of oil.  Thus,
the citizen suit claims brought by the plaintiffs are moot,
because no future-orientated injunction can provide any meaningful
relief for plaintiffs in terms of stopping discharges that already
concluded in mid-July 2010."

Transocean's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, operated by BP,
exploded and burned 50 miles off the Louisiana coast on April 20,
2010, killing 11 and setting off the worst oil spill in history.
Millions of gallons of oil were spilled in the next 87 days.

More than 100,000 people have filed lawsuits seeking damages from
the spill.

The lawsuits dismissed on June 16 belonged to the D1 pleading
bundle.

D1 bundle claims were filed by third-party organizations that
alleged environmental damages under the Clean Water Act; the
Endangered Species Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-To-Know Act.

This was the first ruling arising from issues addressed during a
May 26 hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss particular
bundles.

Claims with varying types of damages were included in more than
one bundle, depending on type of claim.

In dismissing the D1 claims, Judge Barbier said the claims could
still be heard if they seek damages for violations other than
environmental claims.

"To the extent that plaintiffs assert claims under general
maritime law and/or state law, the court will consider those
claims separately when it addresses the pending motions to dismiss
the B1 bundle master complaint," Judge Barbier wrote.

During the May 26 hearing, Judge Barbier indicated that he might
find the claims asserted in the D1 bundle were moot.

"The fundamental argument is that this is all moot because the
well is sealed," Judge Barbier said.

During the hearing, Ervin Gonzales of the plaintiff steering
committee said the cleanup has not been adequate and "the
environment is suffering."

Greg Buppert, an attorney for Defenders of Wildlife, told
Judge Barbier at the hearing that "the Endangered Species Act is
not linked to the well spill; it is linked to the take of
species."

In response, Judge Barbier cited the federal government's
investigation of the spill.  Federal attorneys have said that
criminal charges will be filed if the investigation turns up
evidence of willful negligence by the defendants.

Because of the continuing investigation, the government has tried
to keep certain issues undercover.  For instance, autopsy results
of the hundreds of dead baby dolphins that have washed up along
the Gulf Coast have been kept private, and independent scientists
have not been allowed to conduct their own autopsies.

"Isn't that what the federal government is doing?" Judge Barbier
asked on May 26.  "It sounds like you think they may not do it
right."

Later that day, Judge Barbier told Mr. Buppert: "It's speculative
right now. You're surmising that somebody is going to do something
that you don't like."

Attorneys did not immediately return calls for comment.

A copy of the Order and Reasons as to D1 Master Complaint in In
re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of
Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/17/Dismissed.pdf


CARMAX INC: Calif. App. Ct. Affirms Ruling in Sales Agent's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California for the Second District
affirmed a trial court's grant of summary adjudication in favour
of CarMax Inc. in a class action lawsuit alleging labor law
violations.

A class action complaint was filed by Leena Areso in July 2008
against CarMax, alleging that CarMax violated certain provisions
of the Labor Law, including a failure to pay compensation for
overtime.  Ms. Areso worked as a sales consultant for CarMax.

On CarMax's summary adjudication motion, the trial court held that
there is no material issue of fact under two pay plans the company
implemented that CarMax paid sales consultants either exactly 4150
per vehicle sold (under the National Pay Plan) or approximately
$150 per vehicle sold (under the California Pay Plan).  Ms. Areso
appealed the trial court order.

Ms. Areso urged the Appellate Court to consider the purpose of the
overtime laws.  But the Appeals Court noted that, "[Ms.] Areso
does not explain, however, how the purpose of the overtime laws
would be better served by limiting 'commission wages' to
compensation based on a percentage of the price of vehicles sold,
rather than including in 'commission wages' a uniform payment for
every vehicle sold."

Rather than providing an incentive to its sales consultants to
sell a higher priced vehicle, CarMax has chosen a compensation
system that provides the same reward for selling a vehicle,
regardless of price.  "We do not see how that threatens public
policy, and [Ms.] Areso offers no reason why CarMax's system of a
uniform payment for each vehicle sold would lead to more
'overwork' than a compensation system in which a commission is
based on a percentage of price," the Appellate Court said.

The Appellate Court further disagreed with Ms. Areso that calling
a uniform payment per vehicle sold a commission reads the word
'proportionately' out of the statutory definition of commission
wages as 'based proportionately upon the amount or value thereof.'
"Paying salespeople a uniform fee for each vehicle is
proportionate -- a one to one proportion," the Appellate Court
said.

The Appellate Court also held that "CarMax's uniform payment for
each vehicle sold constitutes commission compensation under
section 204.1 [of the Labor Code]."

The Appellate Court amended the trial court order to dismiss Ms.
Areso's third cause of action with prejudice.  The third cause of
action alleges a failure to reimburse Ms. Areso for the purchase
of required uniforms.  The Appellate Court affirmed the trial
court order in all other respects.

The appellate panel consists of Jeffrey W. Johnson, Robert M.
Mallano, and Victoria Gerrard Chaney.

A copy of the Appellate Court's May 20, 2011 decision is available
at http://is.gd/iWMOsmfrom Leagle.com.


CEMEX SAB: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Suits in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
CEMEX S.A.B. de C.V. continues to defend two consolidated price-
fixing lawsuits in Florida, according to the Company's June 16,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In October 2009, CEMEX Corp. and other cement and concrete
suppliers were named as defendants in several purported class
action lawsuits alleging price-fixing in Florida.  The purported
class action lawsuits are of two distinct types: The first type
was filed by entities purporting to have purchased cement or
ready-mix concrete directly from one or more of the defendants.
The second group of plaintiffs consists of entities purporting to
have purchased cement or ready-mix concrete indirectly from one or
more of the defendants.  Underlying all proposed suits is the
allegation that the defendants conspired to raise the price of
cement and concrete and hinder competition in Florida.  On January
7, 2010, both groups of plaintiffs independently filed
consolidated amended complaints substituting CEMEX, Inc. and some
of its subsidiaries for the original defendant, CEMEX Corp.  CEMEX
and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaints.  On October 12, 2010, the court granted in part the
defendants' motion, dismissing from the case all claims relating
to cement and reducing the applicable time period of the
plaintiffs' claims.  On October 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
further amended complaints pursuant to the court's decision.  On
December 2, 2010, CEMEX moved to dismiss the amended complaint
filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs based on lack of
standing.  CEMEX also answered the complaint filed by the direct
purchaser plaintiffs.

On January 4, 2011, both the direct and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed further amended complaints, which CEMEX answered
on January 18, 2011.  In March 2011, the direct and indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for certification under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), seeking the entry of final judgment
pursuant to the court's October 12, 2010 order so they may appeal
the dismissals to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  The
court denied those motions on April 15, 2011.  CEMEX continues to
believe that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend
them vigorously.


CHICAGO, IL: Education Board Sued Over Teacher Layoffs
------------------------------------------------------
Williette Price, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, Jean Claude
Brizard, Jesse Ruiz, Henry Bienen, Mahalia Hines, Penny Pritzker,
Rod Sierra and Andrea Zopp, Case No. 2011-L-006211 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty. June 14, 2011), seeks damages for the Plaintiff and
other teachers fired by the Board in violation of the specific
procedures and limited authority given to the Board for the
conduct of layoffs and recalls under 105 ILCS 5/34-18(31).

Ms. Price contends that in violation of Illinois Compiled Statutes
statute, the Board and Individual Defendants have failed to put in
place rules for recall with weighted criteria, which are a
condition for the conduct of layoffs.  She adds that the
Defendants have also violated her and other tenured teachers'
rights to protect their permanent appointments in a manner
consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
and the Illinois Constitution.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois, and a former
"city wide" coach and teacher in the Chicago Public Schools.

The Board is an educational employer within the meaning of Section
2(a) of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act, 115 ILCS
5/2(a) and is the entity charged by law with maintaining a free
school system within the city of Chicago.  The Individual
Defendants, except for Mr. Brizard, are members of the Board and
are sued only in their official capacities.  Mr. Brizard is the
chief executive officer of Chicago Public Schools and is sued in
his official capacity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Geoghegan, Esq.
          Michael P. Persoon, Esq.
          DESPRES, SCHWARTZ & GEOGHEGAN, LTD.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 711
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-2511
          E-mail: TGeoghegan@DSGChicago.com
                  MPersoon@DSGChicago.com

               - and -

          Robin Potter, Esq.
          ROBIN POTTER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          111 E. Wacker Drive #2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 861-1800
          E-mail: robin@robinpotter.org


DAS ACQUISITION: Law Firm Accused of Sending Phony Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
KMOV.com reports that a California law firm is being accused of
sending out phony class-action lawsuits against a St. Louis
company.

The lawsuits target DAS Acquisition Company, a Saint Louis
mortgage firm that does business as USA Mortgage in Creve Coeur.
Saint Louis mortgage attorney, Albert Watkins is advising Saint
Louis residents to simply ignore any correspondence related to
this lawsuit.

Mr. Watkins says, "There are some legitimate class action suits
against some mortgage companies but a California law firm is
sending out these notifications and is casting a giant net trying
to recruit people for a class-action suit that doesn't exist."
Mr. Watkins adds issuing false communications like this is a
violation of bar rules in several states which may include
Missouri and California.

The Missouri Attorney General and the California Bar have been
notified about this false class-action lawsuit.  Currently
Mr. Watkins says in California there is a, "commitment to shut it
down."


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that credit-
rating giant Equifax will revise the letters it sends to consumers
who dispute the accuracy of their credit reports, under a class-
action settlement approved by a federal judge.

The company must also provide the class, estimated to exceed
42,000 consumers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Virginia, with
complimentary credit-monitoring services for 18 months, worth
about $13 million, court records show.

Three suits filed between 2007 and 2010 accused the company of
misrepresenting the methods it uses to confirm the accuracy of
credit-report items disputed by consumers.

The suits, which included two class actions, were filed in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Virginia, and were consolidated in
Pennsylvania's Eastern District in October 2010.

The New Jersey class action claimed Equifax violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by sending letters that falsely told
consumers that it confirms the veracity of disputed public-record
information by contacting the source -- a county court, in this
instance -- directly.

In reality, however, Equifax never directly contacts the public-
information sources, and uses a third-party company to investigate
the disputed information, the suit claimed.

"In response to a consumer's dispute regarding the accuracy of a
public record, it [Equifax] never contacts the original source of
the information, but rather contacts the private independent
company that it never discloses to the consumer," according to the
suit.

Under a settlement agreement given final approval by U.S. District
Judge Anita Brody on June 15, "Equifax will not represent that the
government and/or any court or courthouse is a furnisher of
information in response to a consumer's dispute"; "will not
represent that the government and/or any court or courthouse was
contacted 'directly' by Equifax in connection with any consumer's
dispute"; and "will not represent that the government and/or any
court or courthouse actually investigated a consumer's dispute."

Lead class counsel will receive over $1 million, and the three
class representatives will receive $15,000 apiece, according to
the terms of the settlement.

A copy of the Opinion in Chakejian, et al v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, Case No. 07-cv-2211 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/UbDIww


FLORIDA FARMS: 11th Cir. Affirms Injunction in 2 Shareholder Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a
district court injunction ruling in two shareholder class actions
against Florida Farm Bureau Equities, Inc.

In 1984, a class of shareholders filed a securities class action
in Florida against Florida Farm, et al.  By 1987, the district
court approved a class settlement of the action, where the class
was entitled to receive the same benefits as if it owned outright
27.7% of the common stock of one of the defendants.  To accomplish
that, the order required one of the defendants to issue a
debenture to the class.  By 1998, the class set out to form the
Plaintiff's Shareholder Corporation to hold the debenture on their
behalf.  In 2004, one of the defendants purchased the debenture
from PSC.

Accordingly, in 2008, PSC shareholders filed two state court
actions in Florida -- one is a shareholder class action and the
other a derivative action on behalf of PSC -- both arising from
the sale of the debenture.  The lawsuits alleged that the
defendant purchased the debenture without fully informing the
plaintiffs about certain circumstances related to the value of the
debenture.  The lawsuits also alleged breaches of the 1987 class
settlement and breaches of fiduciary duty.

On April 9, 2010, the district court granted the defendants'
motion for an injunction of the pending state court actions,
finding that an injunction was necessary to aid its continuing
jurisdiction of the class settlement order.

Gene Badger, John Love, Marvin Evans, Sid Banack, and John Willis,
derivatively on behalf of PSC and on behalf of themselves and all
other PSC shareholders, appealed the injunction order.

It is clear that the disposition of the claims alleged in the
state court lawsuits would require the Florida state court to
interpret and enforce the 1987 district court order and the
settlement documents the order incorporated, the 11th Circuit
held.  The district court, however, concluded in its 1995 order,
which the plaintiffs agreed to, that its jurisdiction over the
disposition of such claims was exclusive, the 11th Circuit added.

Because state court judgments on the claims could have res
judicata effect, allowing the state court actions to proceed
threatened the federal court's exclusive jurisdiction over them,
the 11th Circuit noted.

The injunction clearly was in aid of the district court's
jurisdiction, and thus, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that it had exclusive jurisdiction over
the claims, the 11th Circuit held.

A copy of the 11th Circuit's May 27, 2011 decision is available at
http://is.gd/P19ZOQfrom Leagle.com.

The appellate panel consists of Circuit Judges J.L. Edmondson,
Edward Earl Carnes, and William H. Pryor, Jr.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Tailgate Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
tailgate panels crack on 2002-2005 Ford Explorers and Mercury
Mountaineers, and on 2003-2005 Lincoln Aviators, and that Ford
knew it and concealed it.

A copy of the Complaint in Nettleton, et al. v. Ford Motor
Company, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02953 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/17/Ford.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Benjamin D. Bianco, Esq.
          Katherine E. Smith, Esq.
          MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818
          E-mail: lalbert@murrayfrank.com
                  bbianco@murrayfrank.com
                  ksmith@murrayfrank.com

               - and -

          G. Scott Emblidge, Esq.
          Sylvia Sokol, Esq.
          MOSCONE EMBLIDGE & SATER LLP
          220 Montgomery Street, Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 362-3599
          E-mail: emblidge@mesllp.com
                  sokol@mesllp.com


GULFSTREAM PARK: Faces Class Action in Fla. Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse New Service reports that a federal class action claims
the Gulfstream Park Racing Association stiffs workers for
overtime.

A copy of the Complaint in Reich v. Gulfstream Park Racing
Association, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-61363 (S.D. Fla.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/17/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad E. Levy, Esq.
          LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-5722
          E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
          WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 463-2001
          E-mail: cjwhitelock@bellsouth.net


HERALD NATIONAL: Sued Over Proposed Merger With BankUnited
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Stein, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Herald National Bank, Raymond A. Nielsen, Michael S.
Carleton, Matt Seiden, Charles Aswad, Barry Leistner, Michael A.
Maidman, Justin Green, Norman Schulman, Scott Arnold, and
BankUnited, Inc., Case No.651629/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York
Cty. June 13, 2011), is a shareholder class action lawsuit brought
on behalf of holders of the common stock of Herald to enjoin the
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Herald common stock by
BankUnited.

Mr. Stein contends that in facilitating the acquisition of Herald
by BankUnited for grossly inadequate consideration and through a
flawed process, each of the Defendants breached and aided the
other Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiff is a resident of New York, and was a continuous
stockholder of Herald.

Herald is a nationally chartered bank with its headquarters
located at 623 Fifth Avenue, in New York, NY 10022.  BankUnited is
a bank holding company that provides various banking products and
services to consumers and commercial and middle-market businesses.
The Individual Defendants are officers or directors of Herald.

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          David A.P. Brower, Esq.
          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN
          488 Madison Avenue, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          E-mail: brower@browerpiven.com
                  kerr@browerpiven.com


HERALD NATIONAL: Faces 2nd Suit Over BankUnited Proposed Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Wynne, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Raymond A. Nielsen, Michael S. Carleton, Dr., Charles Aswad,
Barry Leistner, Michael A. Maidman, Justin Green, Norman Schulman,
Scott Arnold, Herald National Bank, and BankUnited, Inc., Case
No.651645/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. June 14, 2011), is a
shareholder class action lawsuit brought on behalf of holders of
the common stock of Herald to enjoin the proposed acquisition of
the publicly owned shares of Herald common stock by BankUnited in
a stock and cash transaction valued at approximately $71.4
million, or approximately $4.13 per share, which substantially
undervalues shares of Herald stock.

The Plaintiff alleges that in approving the Proposed Transaction,
however, the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure to Herald
shareholders by, inter alia, (i) by agreeing to sell Herald
without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class
members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration
under the circumstances, and (ii) engineering the Proposed
Transaction to benefit themselves and BankUnited without regard to
the Company's public shareholders.

Mr. Wynne presently owns shares of common stock of Herald.

Herald is a full-service independent commercial bank.  BankUnited
is the parent company of Bank United, one of the most well-
capitalized banks in the country and the second largest depository
institution in Florida based on assets.  The Individual Defendants
are officers or directors of Herald.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977
          Facsimile: (516) 741-0626
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


MANULIFE FINANCIAL: N.Y. District Court Dismisses Fraud Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John F. Keenan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed the amended securities fraud class
action complaint in In re Manulife Financial Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 09 Civ 6185 (S.D.N.Y).

Lead Plaintffs are Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union
of Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement
Trust, Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust, and
California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust.

Defendants are Manulife Financial Corporation, former Manulife
President and former Manulife President and Chief Executive
Officer Dominic D'Alessandro, and former Manulife Senior Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Peter Rubenovitch.

Manulife is a publicly traded financial services company
headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, and incorporated under the laws
of Canada.  Through its subsidiaries in North America and Asia,
Manulife provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, and
mutual fund investment products to its customers as well as
investment management and reinsurance services.

Under the Amended Complaint, Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of a
putative class including investors who purchased or acquired
Manulife common stock between March 28, 2008 and March 3, 2009,
brought claims against the Defendants alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Lead Plaintiffs also brought
claims against the Individual Defendants as "controlling
person[s]" derivatively liable for Manulife's alleged violations
of the federal securities laws during the Class Period.

Defendants sought dismissal of the Amended Complaint.

Judge Keenan held that the Leaf Plaintiffs have failed adequately
to state its claims for securities fraud and its control-persons
claims under the Securities Exchange Act.  Thus, Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted, Judge Kennan
ruled.

Lead Lead Plaintiffs are granted 60 days from the entry of the
Court's Opinion and Order to file a second amended complaint.
Defendants are given 45 days within service to answer or otherwise
respond to the second amended complaint, if filed.

A copy of the District Court's May 23, 2011, decision is available
at http://is.gd/D3kS0Jfrom Leagle.com.


NESS TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Proposed Merger With Jersey Holding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjay Israni, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ness Technologies, Inc., Satyam C. Cherukuri, Sachi
Gerlitz, Morris Wolfson, Dan S. Suesskind, Howard Edelstein,
Gabriel Eichler, Ajit Bhushan, Jersey Holding Corporation, Jersey
Acquisition Corporation and Citi Venture Capital International,
Case No. 6569- (Del. Chancery Ct., June 15, 2011), is a verified
shareholder class action complaint on behalf of the holders of
Ness common stock against certain Ness officers and directors, and
other persons and entities involved in a proposed transaction
through which Ness will be acquired by Jersey Holding, through its
subsidiary, Jersey Acquisition, for inadequate consideration.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps
to consummate the Proposed Buyout or, in the event the Proposed
Buyout is consummated, recover damages resulting from the
Individual Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, good faith and due care.

Mr. Israni is a Ness shareholder.

The Individual Defendants are officers or directors of the
Company.  Ness, which is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Delaware, provides information
technology and business planning services in North America, Latin
America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.  Jersey Holding is a
Delaware corporation, while Jersey Acquisition is a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Jersey Holding.  Citi
Venture is a global private equity investment fund, has been a
shareholder of Ness for three years and currently holds 9.6% of
the Company's common stock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


OKLAHOMA: DHS Faces Class Action for Overcharging Child Support
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Stewart, writing for KFOR-TV, reports that a class action
lawsuit was filed on June 17 against the Oklahoma Department of
Human Services.  Attorney Bob Robinson filed the lawsuit alleging
DHS has been overcharging some dads for child support.

"I frankly believe that since nobody has challenged them for this
length of time, they thought they could get away with it. And I'm
not going to let them get away with it," Mr. Robinson said.

Mr. Robinson says the problem stems from interest charged on
paternity accrual payments.

When a mother brings a paternity suit against the father, she can
be awarded child support for up to five years before the judgment.

This is what's known as an accrual, which is different than unpaid
child support.

Mr. Robinson says a lawsuit from 1993, Department of Human
Services vs. Glasby, dictates that accruals be charged the
statutory interest rate, not the 10% that's charged on overdue
child support.

The statutory interest rate varies from year to year.

But this year, it was only 5.25%, quite a bit less than the 10% he
says DHS has been charging in error on every paternity case since
1993.

"When you take more than you're entitled to, in this case,
typically the fathers wind up getting screwed out of money that is
rightfully theirs," Mr. Robinson said.

Right now, there are only four plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

But Mr. Robinson expects that list to grow and says it could reach
up to hundreds of thousands of dads who possibly paid more than
they should have.

"They've taken money improperly.  That's where the state's at
fault there.  And we are asking for punitive damages against the
state because of that," Mr. Robinson said.

He says those punitive damages could come in cases where dads
might have lost their licenses or been jailed for falling behind
on those payments.

A spokesperson for DHS says because they have not yet seen the
lawsuit, they can't research a response.


SALEM-KEIZER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Sued Over Teacher Layoffs
-------------------------------------------------------
Saerom Yoo, writing for StatesmanJournal.com, reports that the
Salem-Keizer Education Association has filed a class action
grievance with the school district on behalf of 248 laid off
teachers.

Union president Jane Killefer said the grievance, filed on
June 16, will allow the group to review the teacher layoffs to
ensure the reduction in force process was fair and in accordance
with the collective bargaining agreement, district policy and law.

Ms. Killefer said the association has found "very few" mistakes in
the reduction in force process so far.

"The district has been very good about fixing them," she said.
"In something this size, there's a high likelihood some mistakes
would be made."

The Salem-Keizer School District now has five working days to
evaluate and respond to the grievance.

"That is what we're going to do," district spokesman Jay Remy
wrote in an e-mail.

If the association is dissatisfied with the response, it may
submit the grievance to arbitration, according to the collective
bargaining agreement.

The grievance was accompanied by a letter addressed to
Superintendent Sandy Husk.

"Again, we wish to emphasize that the filing of this grievance is
not necessarily a reflection of the quality or good faith of any
particular employee," Ms. Killefer wrote.

The grievance will allow the association to review the
circumstances of each layoff, Ms. Killefer said.

The school district considers factors including teachers' current
and previous assignments, seniority, licensures, endorsements,
available positions and recentcy when making layoff decisions.

Recentcy refers to a teacher's competence to teach a subject or
grade level based on experience within the last five years.

For example, a teacher with an ESOL endorsement but less seniority
could bump another with more experience if the position is to
teach an ESOL class.


SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Discovery to Start in Cross-Claim Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
El Defensor Chieftain reports that a district court judge gave the
green light to start discovery at the end of a 45-minute hearing
held telephonically on June 16.  He also addressed some of the
issues relating to a proposal that would turn the case into a
class-action lawsuit.

Attorneys on both sides agreed that discovery must come ahead of a
ruling from District Court Judge Albert J. Mitchell Jr. on the
class-action aspect of the case.

"I can't do a brief without doing discovery," Paul Kennedy, one of
the attorneys representing Socorro Electric, said in response to
the judge's question about whether lawyers were ready to prepare
good-faith defenses on the issue.

Bill Ikard, the lead attorney in the cross-claim lawsuit, agreed.
He also concurred with Mr. Kennedy that mediation was not an
option at this point.

"We can't very well prepare our arguments to present to a mediator
without having some sense if the class is going to be certified,"
he said.

The case came about a year ago when Socorro Electric filed a
lawsuit against all of its approximately 10,000 member-owners in
an effort to block three new bylaws calling for increased
transparency approved at the 2010 annual meeting.  The bylaws
require the co-op to abide by the Open Meetings and Inspection of
Public Records Acts.

The judge ruled against the co-op last month, saying the bylaws
were properly passed and are binding.  So the case has now moved
on to address the countersuits filed in response to the original
lawsuit.

Present at the hearing were co-op attorneys Kennedy, Darin Foster
and Dennis Francish.  Also on the line were Mr. Ikard and his
associate Jordan Haedicke from the Austin, Texas, law firm Ikard,
Wynne; Stephen Kortemeier of Deschamps & Kortemeier of Socorro,
which is working in concert with Mr. Ikard's firm on the cross
claim requesting class action certification; and Socorro attorneys
John Gerbracht, Thomas Fitch and Polly Tausch, who were
representing themselves pro se, as members of the co-op.

At What Cost?

Judge Mitchell expressed concern on more than one occasion during
the hearing over how much the litigation might end up costing the
co-op and its members.

"I look at the proposed scheduling order and I see a large number
of attorney fees incurred before we get to the class-action
certification," he said, adding that wasn't his only concern.
"I'm struggling greatly with the paragraph in the counter claim
that says there'll be no damages to the co-op."

Mr. Ikard explained that the counter claim was aimed not at the
private, nonprofit corporation, but its directors.

"The language is intended to indicate that this was not an attack
on employees or members of the co-op.  It was an application for
corrective behavior," he said.

The countersuit alleges that current and former members of the
co-op's board of trustees committed fraud, negligence and breach
of fiduciary duty, taking advantage of their positions at the
expense of members.

The cost to members was also a concern of the judge's when it came
to discussion of the co-op's insurance coverage to defend
litigation.  Socorro Electric has produced a letter from its
insurance carrier, Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange,
stating that the co-op may not be covered under its current policy
to defend the counterclaim because it's a dispute between
trustees.

District 5 trustee Charlie Wagner, a leader in the movement to
reform the co-op, is named as the representative of the class in
the request for class action certification.  The countersuit names
all nine of the other trustees as cross-claim defendants.

Discussion ensued over whether indemnification would apply to the
trustees.  Mr. Ikard again said that discovery was necessary,
because one of the exceptions to coverage in the insurance policy
was whether board members were guilty of wrongdoing.

"I think whether you're going to certify the class is the first
order of business, and I'd like to get on with that," he told the
judge.  "Charlie Wagner is named as the individual and is not in
position to settle anything until the class is certified."

Claiming Rape

Mr. Fitch, a former district court judge himself, had some strong
words about the cross claim and proposal for class-action
certification.

"My concern is that it looks like it's going to become a rape of
Socorro Electric Cooperative," he said, adding the case has
already taken up a year and the judge has made a ruling.  "It
seems to me the court should strike the cross claim.  It's not
even a cross claim.  Mr. Wagner never answered the (original)
filing . . . As far as class action, in my book it's not."

Judge Mitchell wasn't so sure.

"Based on the pleadings I've read so far, I think this meets the
typical definition," he said, assuring each side that he wasn't
ready to make a ruling.  "The allegation is that the board wasted
money; that's what we're left with.  I don't think it can be
handled in any other way."

Mr. Ikard made the point that the co-op's financial statements
from 2009 indicate members were entitled to $16.8 million in
patronage capital, which translated to $1,715 per member.

"That's not an insignificant amount," he said.

But Mr. Kennedy wanted the judge to take a closer look at the
requisites for class-action status.

"It doesn't meet two of the four requirements under the rule.
Class certification will be heavily contested," he said.  "The
court is not analyzing it next to the rule."

The Next Step

To get to a ruling on class-action certification, more hearings
will be required and the judge paved the way for those to occur.
He said another status hearing that will address a proposed
scheduling order drafted by Mr. Ikard would be held within the
next 30 to 60 days.  That hearing will also be held
telephonically.

"I want to get to the scheduling order as soon as possible.  Then
we can start working on what the bigger problems are,"
Judge Mitchell said.

The judge closed the hearing complimenting all the attorneys for
their civility and decorum.  He said he's been impressed with
their handling of the case from the outset and that they've been a
pleasure to work with.

"I hope we can get to the same place with the scheduling order.
Let's get started on that process," he said.

A Clear Order

The hearing began with the judge and attorneys tweaking language
in the proposed order from the merits hearing of the original
case.

The judge suggested some additional language to make it clear the
new bylaws were binding and approved by court order.

He also wanted to clear up any ambiguity regarding the co-op's
obligation to follow the Open Meetings Act.

"I want the language to state clearly, 'Socorro Electric shall'
(abide by OMA). I think that's what this is about," he said.

The judge also asked that wording be changed to read that at each
meeting "members shall be allowed to address the board without
prior approval."

Judge Mitchell also wanted to make sure the co-op understood that
it must follow all of the requirements of OMA as it pertains to
notice of meetings.  Though the new bylaw states that notice of
meetings are to be included in billing statements and published in
local newspapers, that's not enough, he said.

"They have to comply with the act," which has additional
requirements, he said.  "If they have an emergency meeting, they
have to comply.  If they go to Santa Fe for training, they have to
comply.  I don't want them to think that's all they have to do to
comply, because that's not what the act says."

As for the part of the order that addresses damages,
Judge Mitchell wanted to make sure court costs would be included
along with attorneys fees.  He made it clear, however, that he had
not yet decided whether to award any damages.


SONY COMPUTER: Accused of Violating Consumer Rights of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Roland Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC and
Sony Network Entertainment International LLC, Case No. 3:11-cv-
02900-MEJ (N.D. Calif. June 13, 2011), arises from Sony's lack of
adequate computer data security measures to protect consumer
personal and financial data, and is brought to redress Sony's
breach of warranty, negligent data security, violations of
consumers' rights of privacy, failure to protect those rights, and
failure and ongoing refusal to timely inform consumers of
unauthorized third party access to their credit card account and
other nonpublic and private financial information.

Mr. Martinez is a citizen of the state of Texas and the United
States of America, who maintains a residence in San Antonio,
Texas.

Sony Computer Entertainment is a Delaware limited liability
company with its executive offices and principal place of business
and corporate headquarters in Foster City, California.  Sony
Network Entertainment is a Delaware limited company with its
executive office and principal place of business and corporate
headquarters in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Tamez, Esq.
          GNAU AND TAMEZ LAW GROUP LLP
          1010 2nd Avenue, Site 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 446-6736
          Facsimile: (619) 793-5215
          E-mail: danieltamez@sdinjuryattorney.com

               - and -

          Nabil Majed Nachawati , II, Esq.
          FEARS NACHAWATI LAW FIRM
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 715
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 890-0711
          Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
          E-mail: mn@fnlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq.
          Kenneth P. Trosclair, Esq.
          WILSON TROSCLAIR & LOVINS, P.L.L.C.
          302 N. Market St., Suite 501
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 484-1930
          Facsimile: (214) 276-1475
          E-mail: jeremy@wtlfirm.com


SULLIVAN MOTOR: Insufficient Evidence in Employees' Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California for the Second District,
Division Seven, affirmed a summary judgment order entered by a
trial court against Joseph Hill and putative class members and in
favor of defendants Sullivan Motor Cars LLC and Leprechaun LLC in
an employees class action complaint.

Mr. Hill, a former salesperson at Sullivan Motor, filed a class
action complaint against his former employers in September 2007,
among other things, asserting that the employers' wage statements
did not comply with the content requirements of Labor Code section
226(a) -- the 7th cause of action -- and accordingly, were in
violation of the prohibition against unlawful business practices
under the Unfair Competition Law -- the 8th cause of action.  The
trial court granted Mr. Hill's class certification motion, but
only as to the two claims based on the alleged non-compliant wage
statements.  Mr. Hill was named class representative.

In May 2010, the trial court further granted summary judgment in
favor of the Defendants as to the class allegations on the ground
that the class plaintiffs cannot establish the essential element
of injury for purposes of section 226(a) and as a result, their
Business and Professions Code section 17299 claim fails as well.
. . ."  The Defendants asserted that Mr. Hill never provided a
declaration or other evidence that he was not paid any amount due
him and, thus, had failed to show he suffered injury.

The entire action was dismissed on June 3, 2010, at Mr. Hill's
request.  Then, on June 18, Mr. Hill filed a notice of appeal.

Upon review, the California Court of Appeals concluded that the
absence of a grand total of hours worked on Mr. Hill's wage
statement "is not a cognizable injury" entitling Mr. Hill to
damages or penalty payments, costs or reasonable attorney fees
under section 226(e) of the Labor Code.  Without the ability to
prove cognizable injury, Mr. Hill cannot establish an essential
element necessary to prevail on his 7th and 8th causes of action
for violation of section 226 (a), and, as a result, for any
associated liability for unfair business practices under Business
and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., the Appellate Court
holds.  "This is a sufficient basis for granting defendants'
motion for summary judgment," the California Court of Appeals
ruled.

The California Court of Appeals awarded the Defendants their costs
on appeal.

The appellate court panel consists of Judges Frank Jackson, Dennis
Perluss, and Laurie Zelon.

A copy of the appellate court's May 18, 2011 order is available at
http://is.gd/7Ix45Nfrom Leagle.com.


T-MOBILE CENTRAL: 8th Cir. Upholds Remand of 10 Consumer Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Eighth
Circuit upheld a Missouri district court's remand order of 10
class actions against T-Mobile Central LLC to the state court from
which they were removed.  The panel is composed of Circuit Judges
Roger Leland Wollman, Pasco Bowman II, and Bobby E. Shepherd.

Susan Marple and Stephanie Worrell sued T-Mobile in state court
for passing contested tax charges onto consumers and sought to
recover any money that Missouri municipalities refunded to
T-Mobile.  Ms. Marple brought 10 separate class actions, with each
class action identifying and seeking the same damages sought in
one of the 10 lawsuits filed by T-Mobile against Missouri
municipalities for refund certain tax payments.  After T-Mobile
removed the class actions to federal court, the district court
granted Ms. Marple's motion to remand.

T-Mobile appealed the remand order, arguing that the district
court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act because
the aggregated amounts in controversy of the 10 lawsuits exceed
the $5 million CAFA threshold.

Upon review, the 8th Circuit held that the structure of Ms.
Marple's class actions exactly mirror the underlying 10 lawsuits
brought by T-Mobile and are driven by T-Mobile's own litigation
decisions.  Moreover, there is no indication that Ms. Marple
artificially divided the lawsuit to avoid the CAFA, the Appellate
Court notes.  Although the functional effect of Ms. Marple's 10
separate lawsuits is avoidance of the CAFA, she did not structure
her lawsuit to circumnavigate it, the Appellate Court said.

A copy of the 8th Circuit's May 19, 2011, decision is available at
http://is.gd/XvsVfyfrom Leagle.com.


UNITED RENTALS: Calif. Appeals Court Remands Credit Card Info Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California for the Second District
reversed a trial court order in a lawsuit alleging claims related
to credit card personal information asserted against United
Rentals, Inc. and United Rentals Northwest, Inc.  The panel
consists of Robert M. Mallano, Frances Rothschild, and Jeffrey W.
Johnson.

A putative class action was filed in 2003 against United Rentals
by certain consumers, complaining that the company solicited
personal identification information as a condition to accepting
credit card as payment in full or in part of goods or services.
Plaintiffs sought (i) on behalf of the class and themselves as
individuals, monetary recovery under the Song-Beverly Credit Card
Act of 1971 and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and (ii) on
behalf of the class, injunctive relief under the Unfair
Competition Law.

The trial court certified a class on the UCL claim, but denied the
motion to certify the class on the SBCCA and CLRA claims.

Upon review, the Appellate Court held that Plaintiffs have no
standing to prosecute the UCL class claim.  Plaintiffs essentially
claim that the unfair business practice is the unlawful collection
and recordation of their personal identification information, an
invasion of their right to privacy, yet they have failed to
demonstrate how such privacy violation translates into a loss of
money or property, the Appellate Court pointed out.

The CLRA claim is simply an alternative legal theory based on the
same alleged SBCCA allegations, the Appellate Court noted.

As to the SBCCA claim, the Appellate Court concluded that the
privacy protection under SBCCA (i) does not apply to credit cards
issued for business purposes, but (ii) applies to personal credit
cards, regardless of the actual purpose of which the card is used.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the class certification
order and remanded for the trial court to conduct further
proceedings to determine whether a class of personal credit card
holders could be ascertained without regard to the purpose for
which the personal credit card was used in a particular
transaction.

In all other respects, the trial court judgment is affirmed.

A copy of the Appellate Court's May 19, 2011, decision is
available at http://is.gd/Qck03Ffrom Leagle.com.


VITACOST.COM INC: Bid to Dismiss "Miyahira" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a putative securities class action lawsuit
against Vitacost.com, Inc. is pending in Florida, according to the
Company's June 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On May 24, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors by a stockholder on behalf of herself and
other stockholders who purchased Vitacost common stock between
September 24, 2009, and April 20, 2010, captioned Miyahira v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart
Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran
Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR.  The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges that defendants
violated the federal securities laws during the period by, among
other things, disseminating false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material facts concerning the Company's current and
prospective business and financial results.  The complaint also
alleges that as a result of these actions the Company's stock
price was artificially inflated during the class period.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and
expenses.

On October 19, 2010 the Southern District of Florida appointed a
lead plaintiff to represent the purported class of shareholders.
Lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on February 15,
2011.  The amended complaint additionally named as defendants the
Company's underwriters for its initial public offering and the
Company's former registered independent public accounting firm,
added additional claims of alleged false and misleading statements
and/or omissions under both the Securities Act and the Exchange
Act, and expanded the class period to extend as late as
December 7, 2010.  On April 28, 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a
notice of dismissal without prejudice of the accountant
defendants, and on May 4, 2011, the court dismissed the former
registered independent public accounting firm without prejudice.
The remaining defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 28, 2011.  Lead plaintiffs' opposition to the
motion to dismiss was due on June 13, 2011, and defendants' reply
is due on July 12, 2011.

The Company says it records provisions in its consolidated
financial statements for pending litigation when it determines
that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can
be reasonably estimated.  As of December 31, 2010, the Company has
concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred
and is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable verdict.  Therefore, the Company
has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial
statements for an unfavorable outcome.  The Company believes, and
has been so advised by counsel, that it has meritorious defenses
to the complaint pending against it and will vigorously defend
against it.  It is possible that the Company's consolidated
balance sheets, statements of operations, or cash flows could be
materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome.



                             *********

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, Julie Anne Lopez, 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  * * *