CAR_Public/110726.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 26, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 146

                             Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Turner" lawsuit Remains Pending in California
ANTERO RESOURCES: Sued Over Gas Drilling Activities
APPLE INC: Awaits Ruling on Decertification Bid in ATTM Litigation
AT&T: Judge Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration for iPad Claims

AUDIO 1 MARKETING: Sued Over Unsolicited Text Advertisements
AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Cattle Export Ban
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Defective Potenza Run Flat Tires
BP: Gets Favorable Rulings in Oil Spill Multidistrict Litigation
CARGILL MEAT: Settles Nebraska Plant Workers' Wage Class Action

CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Settlement Payment Under "Goodman" Pact Paid
DIXIE GARDEN: Accused of Violating Landlord & Tenant Rights Act
FULL TILT: Phil Gordon Obtains Class Action RICO Suit Dismissal
HOMELITE CONSUMER: Recalls 41,200 Surface Cleaner Attachments
IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Violation Suits

IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Face Merger-Related Class Action Suits
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Hearing in "Perlmutter" Case Set for August 11
KOSHER BAGEL: N.J. Court Pulls Plug on Fax Ad Class Actions
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Judge Resets Case Management Conference
MAGNUM D'OR RESOURCES: Vianale & Vianale Files Class Action

MATTEL INC: Continues to Defend Bratz-Related Suits
SAXON MORTGAGE: Pennsylvania Homeowners File Class Action
TENET HEALTHCARE: Class Action Settlement Gets Temporary Okay
TOYOTA AUTO: Appeal From "Harel Pia" Suit Dismissal Still Pending
UVEX SPORTS: Recalls 800 Ski Helmets Due to Head Injury Hazard

VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles Choice II Calling Plan Class Action

* EU Committee Wants Limit Set for Collective Redress System




                             *********

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

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 20, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Turner" lawsuit Remains Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Turner v. American
Airlines Inc., et al., remains pending in California, according to
the Company's July 20, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

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


ANTERO RESOURCES: Sued Over Gas Drilling Activities
---------------------------------------------------
John Colson, writing for Post Independent, reports that a class
action lawsuit was filed on July 20 against Antero Resources,
alleging that the company's gas drilling activities in Battlement
Mesa threaten the health and well being of residents, according to
an attorney involved in the suit.

The suit was filed in Denver District Court on behalf of all 5,000
residents of the unincorporated community, which is located next
to Parachute in western Garfield County.

The suit specifically names a half dozen residents who agreed to
be representative plaintiffs.

The named plaintiffs are Gary and Bettie Evenson, Garland and
Leola White, Joanne Mayo and Sally Bedford, all of whom live in
the community.

Corey Zurbuch, an attorney for the law firm of Thomas Genshaft in
Aspen, said the suit argues that "Antero has begun drilling wells,
and has plans to drill many, many more."

Drilling, he said, "exposes the people of Battlement Mesa to
hazardous pollution."

Antero representatives, along with others in the industry, have
long argued that their activities are not hazardous to the
residents of Garfield County.

No one from Antero could be reached on July 20 for comment on the
lawsuit.

The 19-page lawsuit joins another suit, filed in March by Thomas
Genshaft and its New York partner firm, Napoli Bern Ripka and
Associates, on behalf of a Silt Mesa family.  The family claims
they were driven from their home by either water-borne
contaminants or fumes associated with nearby Antero gas drilling
activities.

The Battlement Mesa class action suit asks the court to force
Antero to establish a medical monitoring fund to cover research
and treatment of any illnesses that can be linked to drilling
activities.  It calls for Antero to use state-of-the-art safety
measures to safeguard the health of those living near the drilling
rigs.

It also asks for compensation to homeowners for lost property
values related to the presence of drilling rigs in the
neighborhood, Mr. Zurbuch said.

The suit asks for a trial by jury.


APPLE INC: Awaits Ruling on Decertification Bid in ATTM Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motions to compel
arbitration and to decertify the class in the lawsuit captioned In
re Apple & ATTM Antitrust Litigation, according to the Company's
July 20, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 25, 2011.

The purported class action, captioned In re Apple & ATTM Antitrust
Litigation (brought on behalf of named plaintiffs Kliegerman,
Holman, Rivello, Smith, Lee, Macasaddu, Morikawa, Scotti and
Sesso), was 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.  Following a favorable Supreme Court ruling for
AT&T Mobility in its case against Conception, defendants have
filed Motions to Compel Arbitration and to Decertify the Class.

The Company says unfavorable results of legal proceedings could
materially adversely affect the Company.


AT&T: Judge Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration for iPad Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a class that
claims Apple and AT&T ran "a classic 'bait and switch' fraud
scheme" in service plans for the 3G iPad must arbitrate their
claims -- except for a plaintiff who did not accept the agreement
to arbitrate, a federal judge ruled.  The ruling came a day after
the same judge refused to dismiss the case.

Apple launched the 3G-enabled iPad on April 30, 2010, with AT&T
Mobility as exclusive provider of 3G data service.  One month
later, they refused to let customers switch in and out of an
unlimited data plan, which they pushed in an advertising campaign.
That led to a class action lawsuit on seven claims, including
fraud, false advertising and consumer law violations.

Lead plaintiff Adam Weisblatt claimed that if the class had known
Apple and AT&T would not allow them to switch in and out of the
unlimited plan, they would not have bought the 3G-enabled iPads,
which cost $130 more than iPads without 3G.

AT&T sought to compel arbitration, which U.S. District Judge
Ronald Whyte partly granted for all but one plaintiff.

"Unlike the other plaintiffs, plaintiff [Joe] Hanna never accepted
the iPad Agreement," Jude Whyte ruled.

Mr. Hanna agreed to AT&T's arbitration agreement when he bought an
iPhone, but not an iPad.

"While the iPhone arbitration agreement does explicitly require
arbitration of all disputes and all claims between the parties, it
does not specifically provide for the arbitration of any
differences in interpretation arising with respect to the scope of
the arbitration clause itself," Judge Whyte wrote.

The judge denied AT&T's motion to compel arbitration for
Mr. Hanna.

"Certainly a reasonable consumer would not contemplate that an
arbitration agreement regarding the iPhone would bind him to
arbitrate a dispute with respect to a future, unreleased device,"
Judge Whyte wrote.

Judge Whyte stayed the plaintiffs' claims against AT&T pending
arbitration.

A copy of the Order Granting AT&T Mobility's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Stay Claims Except as to Plaintiff Hanna,
Case No. 10-cv-02553 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/21/AppleArbitrate.pdf


AUDIO 1 MARKETING: Sued Over Unsolicited Text Advertisements
------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Yuncker, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Audio 1 Marketing, Inc., also known as Audio 1
Events.com, Leoncio Deniz, and Luis Ramirez, Case No. 2011-CH-
25361 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 20, 2011) is brought to
secure redress for the Defendants' actions in sending or causing
to send unsolicited text messages to cell phones of consumers in
Illinois -- in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff argues that text messaging advertising is an
especially insidious form of marketing, because it shifts the cost
of the marketing promotion from the marketer -- the sender of the
text -- to the unwilling recipient, who has to pay his service
provider for having received the text, even though it was
unsolicited and unwanted.

Mr. Yuncker is resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Audio is an Illinois corporation.  Messrs. Deniz and Ramirez are
residents of Cook County, Illinois.  Mr. Yuncker asserts that
Messrs. Deniz and Ramirez were aware of, engaged in and sanctioned
the sending of text messages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Aleksandra M. S. Vold, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 588-1440
          Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com


AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Cattle Export Ban
-------------------------------------------------------
Larine Statham, writing for The Australian Associated Press,
reports that graziers, truckers and exporters are considering
legal action against the federal government, saying its handling
of the live cattle trade to Indonesia is sending them to the brink
of ruin.

Several Northern Territory business people damaged by the month-
long ban on exports to Indonesia was set to meet with lawyers from
Minter Ellison in Darwin on July 21 to discuss the possibility of
a class action.

Road Trains of Australia (RTA) operations manager Brooke Hartley
told AAP another six stakeholder groups in northwestern
Queensland, between Normanton and Richmond, were weighing their
options.

"They're great people up here, the people on the land, and they're
really up against it.  Geeze, they're doing it tough," he said.

The 63-year-old, who has been transporting stock in Australia
since 1971, said more than half of his business came from cattle
exports.

He said 80% of his cattle export income was linked to Indonesia.

"We've had to lay off a few blokes because we've just got nothing
for them to do," he explained, while supervising the loading of
cattle onto trucks at Noonamah stockyards, south of Darwin, for
export to Dubai.

"While these cattle cockies are making up their minds about where
they're going to send their cattle -- and they're holding off,
hoping something's going to happen to turn the corner -- we're
just sitting around."

Despite the lifting of the export ban earlier this month, there is
still no sign of when export and import permits will be granted by
the Australian or Indonesian governments.

Mr. Hartley said it would be at least another few months before
cattle exports to Indonesia could resume.

"Despite what some might think, trade definitely has not resumed,"
he said, adding that he didn't believe the federal government
wanted exports to Indonesia to resume.

Mr. Hartley said the onus was on individuals to obtain a copy of
the federal government's new draft regulations and abide by the 60
pages of domestic and international conditions in the report.

"There's three exporters here who are up in Indonesia at the
moment trying to get it sorted," he said.

National Agribusiness giant Elders, which owns a feedlot and an
abattoir in Indonesia and is waiting for its export certification
to be approved, is also considering taking legal action against
the federal government.

While any class action by stakeholders in the NT and Qld will in
all likelihood be general in scope, Elders is looking to recoup
the money it lost when two of its shipments were cancelled.

About 1,940 head of Elders cattle, which had already passed
veterinary and government requirements, were barred from being
loaded onto the transport ship Falconia at Port Hedland in Western
Australia on June 6.

Two days later, the federal government announced a total ban on
exports to Indonesia, preventing the departure of a further 4,700
head of Elders cattle aboard the Sawal out of Darwin.

Mr. Hartley said cattle still in northern Australia would weigh
more than 350kg by the time trade resumed, leaving graziers with
stock that could not be sold for export.

"Even though the Indonesians have said they want 180,000 head of
cattle in the next three months, I reckon we'd be lucky to get
25,000 in there.

"There's 300,000 head of cattle out here that have got to go
somewhere . . . people don't realize but this is probably going to
ruin the Northern Territory.

"Producers have to sell them anywhere they can . . . at a huge
loss of at least a couple of hundred dollars a head."


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Defective Potenza Run Flat Tires
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
BMW sells and leases cars with co-defendant Bridgestone Firestone
"Potenza Run Flat Tires" whose sidewalls bubble dangerously in an
"extremely short and unconscionable period of time."

A copy of the Complaint in Greene v. BMW of North America, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 3698 in Case No. 33-av-
00001 on July 20, 2011 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/21/FlatTires.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Klein, Esq.
          MARKS & KLEIN, LLP
          63 Riverside Avenue
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Tel: 732-747-7100
          Fax: 732-219-0625

               - and -

          Barry Eichen, Esq.
          Dary Zaslow, Esq.
          EICHEN, CRUTCHLOW, ZASLOW, & MCELROY, LLP
          40 Ethel Road
          Edison, NJ 08817
          Tel: (732) 777-0100
          Fax: (732) 248-8273
          E-mail: beichen@njadvocates.com
                  DZaslow@njadvocates.com


BP: Gets Favorable Rulings in Oil Spill Multidistrict Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that BP won
two rounds in its massive oil spill litigation when the federal
judge overseeing the cases ruled that lead plaintiffs in property
damage lawsuits cannot include racketeering claims, and that a
lawsuit from BP business partner Anadarko Petroleum must be
arbitrated.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier granted BP's motion to dismiss a
consolidated oil spill complaint brought under the RICO Act,
calling plaintiffs' inability to show a direct link between BP
business practices and the economic damages sought the "fatal flaw
in their RICO claims."

The plaintiffs claimed that damages to property and business
losses caused by the oil spill would not have happened if BP had
not "defrauded government regulators in connection with the safety
of its drilling operations, its ability to respond to any oil
spill, and its response to the spill at the Macondo well."

Judge Barbier ruled that a direct relationship between the alleged
fraud and the plaintiffs' injuries was required for a RICO
complaint to stand.

That ruling does not affect the hundreds of other lawsuits seeking
property damages, personal injury and other economic losses still
pending in Judge Barbier's court.

Judge Barbier agreed with BP's argument that a proximate
connection must exist between the alleged fraud and the
plaintiffs' claims.

"Plaintiffs allege that the oil spill, and their resulting
injuries, occurred because BP defrauded government regulators in
connection with the safety of its drilling operations, its ability
to respond to any oil spill, and its response to the spill at the
Macondo well.  BP challenges plaintiffs' RICO claim on the grounds
that plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged proximate causation.
After reviewing the parties' memoranda and applicable case law,
the court agrees with BP that plaintiffs have alleged a casual
connection between BP's alleged fraud and plaintiffs' injuries
that is too attenuated to state a RICO violation," Judge Barbier
wrote.

After the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded on April 20,
2010, killing 11 and setting off the worst oil spill in history,
BP was accused of being dishonest with the federal agency in
charge of overseeing drilling regulations, the Minerals Management
Service (MMS).

"BP points out that plaintiffs' theory of causation 'depends on a
series of speculative assumptions to link the alleged fraud with
the spill.' . . . Specifically, BP explains that plaintiffs'
theory depends on the following assumptions: If MMS had known the
truth about BP's safety practices and capacity to respond to a
spill, then MMS would have concluded that these were insufficient
to meet regulatory standards; if MMS had concluded that BP's
safety practices and capacity to respond to a spill were
insufficient to meet regulatory standards, then MMS would have
required BP to adopt alternative practices; if MMS had required BP
to adopt alternative practices, those practices would have
prevented the blowout or lessened the impact of the spill. . . .
The court agrees with BP.  In order for plaintiffs to prevail on
their theory of causation, they must rely on this particular
domino effect stemming from BP's alleged fraud. . ..

"Here, plaintiffs' harm is 'purely contingent' on MMS potentially
requiring BP to conduct different practices and those practices
preventing or lessening the effects of the spill. . ..  The cause
of plaintiffs' harm rests on inactions (MMS's failure to demand
that BP comply with regulations and BP's subsequent alleged
failure to maintain better safety practices) that are 'entirely
distinct from the alleged RICO violation' (defrauding government
regulators)."

Judge Barbier added: "As BP correctly points out, the United
States has already filed suit against BP in this MDL and is
capable of redressing any alleged fraud committed upon its
regulators."

The RICO claims are included in pleading bundle B2 of the
litigation.

In a separate ruling, Judge Barbier stayed proceedings between BP
and Anadarko.

Anadarko owns 25% of the failed Macondo well.  BP asked Anadarko
to help pay cleanup costs, but Anadarko refused.

Anadarko sued BP in April, disclaiming fault for the explosion and
spill.

During a hearing on the matter in May, Anadarko attorneys told the
court that no one from Anadarko was on the rig when it exploded,
and no officials from Anadarko were involved with any of the
decision-making that led up to the explosion and catastrophic
spill.

There are an estimated 130,000 plaintiffs in the several hundred
oil spill lawsuits pending before Judge Barbier.

The first trial is slated for February 2012.

A copy of the Order and Reasons in In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010,
Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/20/BPRico.pdf


CARGILL MEAT: Settles Nebraska Plant Workers' Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timberly Ross, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. has settled a class-action lawsuit
brought by workers seeking back pay for unpaid time they spent
preparing for and cleaning up after their shifts at its Schuyler
meatpacking plant, according to new court documents.

Wichita, Kan.-based Cargill Meat Solutions had been headed to
trial over the federal lawsuit, but under the settlement approved
on July 19 in U.S. District Court in Omaha, it agreed to pay
eligible current and former workers $4 to $6 for each week they
were denied the extra pay since April 2006.  The company also
agreed to pay $2,000 each to two former workers who filed lawsuits
in the case that were later joined, and nearly $822,000 to the
workers' attorneys.

The court filing did not specify the full amount of the settlement
and attorneys involved in the case did not immediately respond to
phone messages on July 20 seeking further details and comment
about the settlement.

Those who were in jobs that required the most equipment, such as
mesh work clothes, could get $6 a week, while those who donned the
minimum equipment could get $4, according to the settlement.
Those who didn't need extra equipment to perform their jobs won't
get a payment.

Former Cargill workers sued last year, saying hourly employees
spend a substantial amount of time each day on work duties without
getting paid.  Those duties include dressing in protective gear,
sanitizing tools, and walking to and from work stations.

The plaintiffs said in their filings that the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act requires the company to pay for preparation and
cleanup time.

Cargill Meat Solutions, a subsidiary of Minneapolis-based Cargill,
had denied any wrongdoing in court filings and said the union
contract specifically excluded that time from paid time.

In May, Tyson Foods Inc. won a similar court battle over wages at
its meatpacking plant in Lexington.  A federal judge ruled Tyson
hadn't been underpaying workers.  Two other wage lawsuits are
pending against Tyson over its plants in Dakota City and Madison.
Trials are set for January.

A March trial has been scheduled in a class-action lawsuit over
wages at a Farmland Foods plant in Crete.


CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Settlement Payment Under "Goodman" Pact Paid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp.'s insurance carrier paid the
entire amount owed to settling stockholders under a settlement
agreement resolving a class action styled Goodman v. Watson, et
al., according to the Company's July 20, 2011, Form 8-K/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 9, 2009, a second amended class action complaint,
styled Goodman v. Watson, et al., was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of the directors
of Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp., as well as certain of the
former directors of Triplecrown Acquisition Corp., the entity with
which the Company completed its business combination in October
2009.  The putative class is made up of holders of Triplecrown's
common stock as of September 30, 2009, the record date for the
stockholders' meeting held to approve the Company's merger with
Triplecrown.  The complaint alleged that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and their duty of disclosure in connection
with the business combination.  The plaintiff was seeking, as
alternative remedies, damages in the amount of approximately $9.74
per share, to have Triplecrown's trust account restored and
distributed pro rata to members of the putative class, a quasi-
appraisal remedy for members of the putative class, and an
opportunity for members of the putative class to exercise
conversion rights in connection with the business combination.

On January 18, 2011, the Company and the defendants entered into a
stipulation of settlement with the plaintiff.  Pursuant to the
Stipulation, the class action was to be resolved, and all claims
would be dropped, in exchange for an aggregate payment to the
class of up to $1.4 million, of which the first $850,000 was to be
paid by the Company's insurance carrier, with the balance of up to
$550,000 being paid by the Company.

Following notice, on April 5, 2011, the Court of Chancery held a
hearing at which it, among other things, certified the proposed
class and approved the Stipulation.  Members of the putative class
had until June 30, 2011, to participate in the settlement.  As of
June 30, 2011, holders (or former holders) of approximately 93,000
shares properly sought to participate in the settlement.  The
Company's insurance carrier paid the entire amount owed to these
holders, resulting in no out of pocket liability to the Company
for the settlement.

The Company had accrued a loss of $550,000 at March 31, 2011, and
December 31, 2010, which represented management's estimate of the
Company's exposure in connection with the litigation.  As a
result, the Company will reverse this accrual in its next
quarterly report.


DIXIE GARDEN: Accused of Violating Landlord & Tenant Rights Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fannie M. Riley on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Dixie Garden Homes, Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-25427 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 20, 2011) alleges that the Defendant
violated numerous sections of the Illinois Mobile Home Landlord
and Tenant Rights Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant refused to pay interest
on her security deposit.  She adds that the Defendant asked her
for more than one month's worth of rent as security deposit, in
violation of the MHLTRA.

Ms. Riley was a tenant that resided in the mobile home park
located at 15000 Dixie Highway, in Harvey, Illinois, known as the
Dixie Gardens Mobile Home Park.  She resided in a mobile home
owned by her mother on a lot, which she rented from the Defendant.

The Defendant is an Illinois Corporation, owns the Lot and manages
the Dixie Gardens Mobile Home Park.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Berton N. Ring, Esq.
          BERTON N. RING, P.C.
          123 W. Madison, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 781-0290
          Facsimile: (312) 781-0390
          E-mail: bring@bnrpc.com


FULL TILT: Phil Gordon Obtains Class Action RICO Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Gordon announced on July 21 that he has succeeded in
obtaining a dismissal from the class action RICO lawsuit filed
against Full Tilt and individuals associated with Full Tilt.

The dismissal with prejudice was entered on July 20, 2011.
Mr. Gordon is the first and only party that has been dismissed
from the case.  The plaintiffs in the RICO case allege broad
claims of conspiracy among Full Tilt and related entities and
individuals to deprive players of money that they deposited with
the Full Tilt poker site.

Mr. Gordon, who is a professional poker player, never participated
in any management decisions or operational roles at Full Tilt.
The dismissal occurred just prior to a preliminary injunction
hearing in which the plaintiffs moved to impose a constructive
trust on Full Tilt, as well as for other relief.  A constructive
trust, if imposed, could mean that Full Tilt's funds could be held
under court supervision during the pendency of the case.  None of
the other defendants' motions for dismissal were granted.

STATEMENT BY PHIL GORDON

"I have always held myself to the highest standards of conduct.
As part of that, I have repeatedly emphasized that Full Tilt
should repay the U.S. players as quickly as possible."

STATEMENT BY PHIL GORDON'S LAWYER, MAURICE SUH OF GIBSON, DUNN &
CRUTCHER LLP

"No money changed hands as part of this dismissal.  The
allegations about Mr. Gordon in the lawsuit were completely wrong,
and I am glad that the plaintiffs agreed with us on that score
early in the lawsuit.  Mr. Gordon believes that Full Tilt's top
priority should be the repayment of all players."


HOMELITE CONSUMER: Recalls 41,200 Surface Cleaner Attachments
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Homelite Consumer Products Inc., of Anderson,
South Carolina, announced a voluntary recall of about 40,000
Homelite surface cleaner attachments in the United States of
America, and 1,200 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 surface cleaner attachment's nozzle and spray bar can break
and detach, striking and/or breaking the unit's plastic housing.
The broken nozzle, spray bar and/or plastic housing can strike
consumers, posing a laceration hazard.

The firm has received nine reports of incidents involving the
recalled surface cleaner attachments, including one laceration
injury and three reports of minor property damage.

This recall involves drum-shaped surface cleaner attachments for
pressure washers.  The pressure washer attachments were sold in
orange or red colors and have hexagonal brass-colored nozzles
inside a 15-inch plastic drum holding the spray bar.  They were
sold with Homelite pressure washer models HL80833 and HL80835.
They were sold separately as Powercare model AP31022A and EZ Clean
model AEZ231022.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11281.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Home Depot stores nationwide from February 2010
through June 2011 for about $70 when sold as an attachment and
about $450 when sold with a pressure washer.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled surface
cleaner attachments, and contact Homelite to receive a free
replacement surface cleaner attachment.  For additional
information, contact Homelite toll-free at (800) 867-9624 between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.homelite.com/


IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Violation Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc., continues to defend consolidated lawsuits for
alleged violations of the Sherman Act, according to the Company's
July 20, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended May 31, 2011.

Beginning in May 2009, a series of class action lawsuits has been
filed against the Company, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and
Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. alleging that the
defendants conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are
sold, asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, costs,
and attorneys' fees.  All of these complaints make substantially
the same allegations.  The cases have been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  In August 2010, the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied, in part, Motions
to Dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and a Motion to
Stay Discovery filed by the Company and co-defendant Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.  The defendants filed a Motion for
Reconsideration or for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal with
respect to the Court's order on defendants' motion to dismiss, and
that motion was denied in December 2010.  Discovery has now
commenced in this litigation.  No determination has been made
whether any of the plaintiffs' claims have merit or should be
allowed to proceed as a class action.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against these
cases.  At this time the Company cannot reasonably assess the
timing or outcome of this litigation or its effect, if any, on its
business.


IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Face Merger-Related Class Action Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc., continues to face putative class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed merger with TPG Capital LP affiliates,
according to the Company's July 20, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
May 31, 2011.

On July 12, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton
County, Georgia, captioned as Hillary Kramer v. Immucor, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 2011CV203124.  The action was brought on
behalf of public shareholders of the Company and names as
defendants Immucor, the individual directors of the Company, and
TPG Capital LP and certain of its affiliates.  The action asserts
claims for breaches of fiduciary duties against the Company's
board of directors in connection with the proposed previously-
announced merger transaction with TPG, and for aiding and abetting
the purported breaches of fiduciary duties by the TPG defendants.
The plaintiff seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent
relief, including injunctive relief enjoining the consummation of
the proposed transaction, rescission of the proposed transaction
to the extent it is consummated prior to the entry of a final
judgment, and costs, expenses and disbursements of the action.  At
this time, the Company cannot reasonably assess the timing or
outcome of this litigation or its effect, if any, on its business.

On July 15, 2011, a second putative class action challenging the
proposed transaction was filed by a purported shareholder of
Immucor.  This action was filed in the Superior Court of Gwinnett
County for the State of Georgia, and is captioned as Babette C.
Schorsch v. Immucor, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 11A0776-1.
The action is brought on behalf of public shareholders of Immucor
and names as defendants Immucor, the individual directors of
Immucor, two Immucor executive officers, and TPG Capital and its
affiliates.  The action asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary
duties against the Immucor board of directors in connection with
the proposed transaction, and for aiding and abetting the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties by the TPG defendants.  The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining
the consummation of the proposed transaction, rescission of the
proposed transaction to the extent it is consummated prior to the
entry of a final judgment, and costs, expenses and disbursements
of the action.  At this time, Immucor cannot reasonably assess the
timing or outcome of this litigation or its effect, if any, on its
business.

On July 18, 2011, a third putative class action challenging the
proposed transaction was filed by a purported shareholder of
Immucor.  This is the second case filed in the Superior Court of
Fulton County for the State of Georgia, and is captioned as Allan
Pillay v. Immucor, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2011CV203339.
The action is brought on behalf of public shareholders of Immucor
and names as defendants Immucor, the individual directors of
Immucor, and TPG Capital and its affiliates.  The action asserts
claims for breaches of fiduciary duties against the Immucor board
of directors in connection with the proposed transaction,
including that the Immucor's Schedule 14D-9 is misleading or
incomplete, and a claim for aiding and abetting the purported
breaches of fiduciary duties by the TPG defendants.  The plaintiff
seeks, among other things, a declaration that the action is
maintainable as a class action, preliminary and permanent relief,
including injunctive relief enjoining the consummation of the
proposed transaction and rescission of the proposed transaction to
the extent it is consummated prior to the entry of a final
judgment, and costs, expenses and disbursements of the action.

On July 19, 2011, another complaint filed by shareholders alleges
that Immucor is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair
process to TPG Holdings, for $2 billion or $27 a share, according
to Courthouse News Service.  A copy of the Complaint in Macintyre
v. Immucor, Inc., et al., Case No. 2011CV2033 (Ga. Super. Ct.,
Fulton Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/21/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq.
          Christi A. Cannon, Esq.
          Molly A. Havig, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          2300 Promenade II
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-3900
          E-mail: mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com
                  ccannon@chitwoodlaw.com
                  mhavig@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  gfbruckner@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN
          60 East 42nd Street - Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165-0006
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484

At this time, Immucor says it cannot reasonably assess the timing
or outcome of this litigation or its effect, if any, on its
business.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Hearing in "Perlmutter" Case Set for August 11
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint
in the "Perlmutter" lawsuit is scheduled to be heard on August 11,
2011, according to the Company's July 20, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed
against the Company and seven of its current and former officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 1, 2008, and
January 7, 2009.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and
misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the
Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  On
February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis was
appointed Lead Plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  An amended complaint
was filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations substantially
similar to the allegations of the original complaint.  On May 23,
2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint;
that motion is scheduled to be heard on August 11, 2011.

Due to the uncertainty surrounding the litigation process, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome of
the above cases at this time, and therefore, no amounts have been
accrued related to the outcome of the case.  Based on currently
available information, the Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to the above actions and that the resolution
of these cases is not likely to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, financial position or future results of
operations.


KOSHER BAGEL: N.J. Court Pulls Plug on Fax Ad Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that a New Jersey appeals court has pulled the plug on class
actions against junk faxers.

The minimum $500 damages recoverable under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the ease of litigating them in small claims
court, means plaintiffs cannot make the required showing that a
class action is superior to an individual claim, the court ruled
on July 19.

The ruling, in Local Baking Products Inc. v. Kosher Bagel Munch
Inc., A-3923-09, aligns New Jersey with a minority of states that
have nixed class actions under the TCPA.

The statute, passed in 1991, makes it illegal to fax unsolicited
advertising unless the parties have a prior business relationship,
the recipient voluntarily makes its fax number available for
"public distribution" or the fax contains notice of how to prevent
unwanted faxes.

The law can be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission
or through civil suits by state attorneys general or private
persons or entities.  Damages, which are set at $500 per violation
or the actual loss, whichever is greater, can be trebled for
willful and knowing violations.

Local Baking Products Inc., a Newark cookie company that does
business as Joey's Fine Foods, was one of nearly 5,000 recipients
of a one-page "blast fax" advertising Kosher Bagel Munch, a
Passaic restaurant, on May 19, 2006.

Business to Business Solutions, the Brooklyn company hired by
Kosher Bagel to send the faxes, had actually targeted 6,637
telephone numbers but only 4,649 faxes went through.  On March 9,
2007, the FCC cited Business to Business for sending unwanted
faxes and warned that a repeat could cost it up to $11,000 for
each violation or each day of a continuing violation.

Local Baking sued Kosher Bagel in Essex County Superior Court on
behalf of a class of all those who had received unsolicited faxes
from Kosher Bagel in the previous four years.

Judge Francine Schott held that the class claim could not go
forward.  That left only Local Baking's individual claim, which
she sent to Special Civil Part, where Local Baking was awarded
$500 in damages.

Appellate Division Judge Philip Carchman, joined by Ronald Graves
and Carmen Messano, affirmed.  They found that the suit did not
meet the superiority and predominance criteria for a class action
and they had doubts about whether it could meet the other two
requirements, commonality and typicality.

The opinion focused on the superiority requirement.  Would-be
class plaintiffs must show that "a class action is superior to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
the controversy," under Rule 4:32-1.

"We conclude that a class action suit is not a superior means of
adjudicating a TCPA suit," wrote Judge Carchman.

Class actions are meant for claims too small to merit suing on an
individual basis, he noted, but here, "by imposing a statutory
award of $500, a sum considerably in excess of any real or
sustained damages, Congress has presented an aggrieved party with
an incentive to act in his or her own interest without the
necessity of class action relief."

It costs "significantly less" than $500 to litigate TCPA claims in
New Jersey small claims court, Judge Carchman noted.

In addition, parties do not need lawyers and do not face long
waits for their cases to be heard.

"The combination of the TCPA's design and New Jersey's procedures
suggests that the benefit of a class action has been conferred on
a litigant by the very nature of the procedures employed and
relief obtained," Judge Carchman said.

He did not explain why predominance -- that common questions
predominate over those affecting individuals -- was lacking, but
other TCPA courts have focused on possible differences concerning
recipients' consent to faxing.

Judge Carchman identified states with published opinions allowing
TCPA class actions as Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana,
Missouri, North Carolina and Oklahoma.  Six more, Alabama, Kansas,
Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington and West Virginia, had
permitted them in unreported cases.

On the other hand, six states have denied class certification:
Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Ohio and Texas, all but
Maryland in reported rulings.  Ohio also said no in an opinion
whose published status was unclear.

Federal courts, too, have gone both ways.  For example, the Fifth
Circuit held the consent question barred class certification,
while the Western District of Washington certified a class.

On April 3, the Third Circuit held in a precedential opinion that
federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over TCPA claims in
Landsman & Funk v. Skinder-Strauss Associates, No. 09-3105, which
consolidated appeals from three TCPA class actions that originated
in the District of New Jersey.  The circuit agreed on May 17 to
rehear the case en banc.

Kosher Bagel's attorney, Louis Bove of Bove, Grace & Van Horn in
Philadelphia, declines to comment.

His adversary, Phillip Bock of Bock & Hatch in Chicago, did not
return a call, nor did local counsel, Christopher Karounos of
Archer & Greiner in Hackensack.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Judge Resets Case Management Conference
-------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Madison County Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth has reset a case
management conference in a 2004 class action filed against Liberty
Mutual Insurance and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance.

The judge moved the July 15 case management hearing to Sept. 28 at
9:00 a.m.

Meanwhile, dueling summary judgment moves that Judge Ruth heard
arguments on in February remain pending in the case filed by
chiropractor Frank Kaltenbronn over Preferred Provider
Organization (PPO) discounts that he alleges the defendants took
from him and other healthcare providers when the insurers weren't
entitled to them.

The Liberty Mutual class action is nearly identical to a number of
PPO class actions filed in Madison and St. Clair counties in the
early part of the last decade.

The suits were filed by the then-partnership of the Wood River
Lakin Law Firm and Freed & Weiss firm of Chicago.

That partnership dissolved in 2007.

Judge Ruth heard arguments on both Mr. Kaltenbronn's move for
summary judgment and Liberty Mutual's in a hearing that lasted
more than five hours.

To date, no order deciding the moves has been entered in the case
file.

Robert Schmieder II, Esq., represents the plaintiff class.

Thomas Keefe Jr., Esq., and others represent Liberty Mutual.

The case is Madison case number 04-L-1416.


MAGNUM D'OR RESOURCES: Vianale & Vianale Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Florida firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP filed a securities fraud
class action lawsuit on July 18, 2011 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
federal court against Magnum d'Or Resources, Inc. on behalf of
purchasers of Magnum stock between July 2, 2008, and April 13,
2010, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges Magnum, a tire-recycling company, cashed in
on an illicit round-tripping scheme using its own stock.
According to the Complaint, Magnum issued millions of shares of
its stock as compensation to several so-called "consultants," who
then sold the shares in foreign brokerage accounts, kept some of
the cash proceeds for themselves, and funneled the rest -- some $7
million -- back to Magnum, under sham "loan" agreements.  Magnum
artificially juiced the scheme by falsely touting $130 million in
contracts for its products and $15 million in financing --
falsehoods that pumped up Magnum's stock price during the Class
Period.  Eventually the SEC began investigating Magnum's
fraudulent round-tripping scheme, a fact Magnum hid from its
outside auditors and the public for six months.  In April 2010,
when Magnum finally told its auditor, Weinberg & Company, P.A.,
about the SEC's formal investigation, the auditor withdrew its
prior audit opinions for 2008 and 2009.  Magnum's stock price
plunged on the news.  The SEC formally charged Magnum and its
former CEO Joseph Glusic.  Mr. Glusic resigned from Magnum and has
settled with the SEC.

The class action Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b)
and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5.  The
case number of the class action is 11-CV-61591-DLG (S.D. Fla.).

If you purchased shares of Magnum common stock during the Class
Period, you have until September 16, 2011, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff, a representative of the proposed
class.  If you want to discuss your legal rights, at no cost and
without obligation, please contact:

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
          VIANALE & VIANALE LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: 561-392-4750
          E-mail: kvianale@vianalelaw.com
          Web site: http://www.vianalelaw.com

Vianale & Vianale LLP has extensive experience litigating
shareholder class actions of this type, and has recovered millions
in damages for shareholders.


MATTEL INC: Continues to Defend Bratz-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Mattel Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits that arose
from or in connection with "Bratz" properties, according to the
Company's July 20, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In April 2004, Mattel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Carter Bryant, a former Mattel design
employee.  The lawsuit alleges that Bryant aided and assisted a
Mattel competitor, MGA Entertainment, Inc., during the time he was
employed by Mattel, in violation of his contractual and other
duties to Mattel.  In September 2004, Bryant asserted
counterclaims against Mattel, including counterclaims in which
Bryant sought, as a putative class action representative, to
invalidate Mattel's Confidential Information and Proprietary
Inventions Agreements with its employees.  Bryant also removed
Mattel's lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  In December 2004, MGA intervened
as a party-defendant in Mattel's action against Bryant, asserting
that its rights to Bratz properties are at stake in the
litigation.

Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against
Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The action sought a judicial declaration
that Bryant's purported conveyance of rights in Bratz was proper
and that he did not misappropriate Mattel property in creating
Bratz.

In April 2005, MGA filed lawsuit against Mattel in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
MGA's action alleges claims of trade dress infringement, trade
dress dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition,
and unjust enrichment.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things,
that certain products, themes, packaging, and/or television
commercials in various Mattel product lines have infringed upon
products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials for
various MGA product lines, including Bratz.  The complaint also
asserts that various alleged Mattel acts with respect to
unidentified retailers, distributors, and licensees have damaged
MGA and that various alleged acts by industry organizations,
purportedly induced by Mattel, have damaged MGA.  MGA's lawsuit
alleges that MGA has been damaged in an amount "believed to reach
or exceed tens of millions of dollars" and further seeks punitive
damages, disgorgement of Mattel's profits and injunctive relief.

In June 2006, the three cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  On
July 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims
that Bryant had asserted against Mattel, including Bryant's
purported counterclaims to invalidate Mattel's Confidential
Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its
employees, and Bryant's claims for declaratory relief.

In November 2006, Mattel asked the Court for leave to file an
Amended Complaint that included not only additional claims against
Bryant, but also included claims for copyright infringement, RICO
violations, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional
interference with contract, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty, and unfair
competition, among others, against MGA, its CEO Isaac Larian,
certain MGA affiliates and an MGA employee.  The RICO claim
alleged that MGA stole Bratz and then, by recruiting and hiring
key Mattel employees and directing them to bring with them Mattel
confidential and proprietary information, unfairly competed
against Mattel using Mattel's trade secrets, confidential
information, and key employees to build their business.  On
January 12, 2007, the Court granted Mattel leave to file these
claims as counterclaims in the consolidated cases, which Mattel
did that same day.

Mattel sought to try all of its claims in a single trial, but in
February 2007, the Court decided that the consolidated cases would
be tried in two phases, with the first trial to determine claims
and defenses related to Mattel's ownership of Bratz works and
whether MGA infringed those works.  On May 19, 2008, Bryant
reached a settlement agreement with Mattel and is no longer a
defendant in the litigation.  In the public stipulation entered by
Mattel and Bryant in connection with the resolution, Bryant agreed
that he was and would continue to be bound by all prior and future
Court Orders relating to Bratz ownership and infringement,
including the Court's summary judgment rulings.

The first phase of the first trial, which began on May 27, 2008,
resulted in a unanimous jury verdict on July 17, 2008, in favor of
Mattel.  The jury found that almost all of the Bratz design
drawings and other works in question were created by Bryant while
he was employed at Mattel; that MGA and Isaac Larian intentionally
interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel,
aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of his duty of loyalty to
Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of the fiduciary
duties he owed to Mattel, and converted Mattel property for their
own use.  The same jury determined that defendants MGA, Larian,
and MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited infringed Mattel's copyrights
in the Bratz design drawings and other Bratz works, and awarded
Mattel total damages of approximately $100 million against the
defendants.  On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a series of
orders rejecting MGA's equitable defenses and granting Mattel's
motions for equitable relief, including an order enjoining the MGA
party defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling certain
Bratz fashion dolls or from using the "Bratz" name.  The Court
stayed the effect of the December 3, 2008, injunctive orders until
further order of the Court and entered a further specified stay of
the injunctive orders on January 7, 2009.

The parties filed and argued additional motions for post-trial
relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter
of law on Mattel's claims in MGA's favor and to reduce the jury's
damages award to Mattel.  Mattel additionally moved for the
appointment of a receiver.  On April 27, 2009, the Court entered
an order confirming that Bratz works found by the jury to have
been created by Bryant during his Mattel employment were Mattel's
property and that hundreds of Bratz female fashion dolls infringe
Mattel's copyrights.  The Court also upheld the jury's award of
damages in the amount of $100 million and ordered an accounting of
post-trial Bratz sales.  The Court further vacated the stay of the
December 3, 2008 orders, except to the extent specified by the
Court's January 7, 2009 modification.

MGA appealed the Court's equitable orders to the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral argument on MGA's appeal and issued an order staying
the District Court's equitable orders pending a further order to
be issued by the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit opinion
vacating the relief ordered by the District Court was issued on
July 22, 2010.  The Ninth Circuit stated that, because of several
jury instruction errors it identified, a significant portion -- if
not all -- of the jury verdict and damage award should be vacated.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court
erred in concluding that Mattel's Invention agreement
unambiguously applied to "ideas;" that it should have considered
extrinsic evidence in determining the application of the
agreement; and if the conclusion turns on conflicting evidence, it
should have been up to the jury to decide.  The Ninth Circuit also
concluded that the District Judge erred in transferring the entire
brand to Mattel based on misappropriated names and that the Court
should have submitted to the jury, rather than deciding itself,
whether Bryant's agreement assigned works created outside the
scope of his employment and whether Bryant's creation of the Bratz
designs and sculpt was outside of his employment.  The Court then
went on to address copyright issues which would be raised after a
retrial, since Mattel "might well convince a properly instructed
jury" that it owns Bryant's designs and sculpt.  The Ninth Circuit
stated that the sculpt itself was entitled only to "thin"
copyright protection against virtually identical works, while the
Bratz sketches were entitled to "broad" protection against
substantially similar works; in applying the broad protection,
however, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court had erred in
failing to filter out all of the unprotectable elements of
Bryant's sketches.  This mistake, the Court said, caused the lower
court to conclude that all Bratz dolls were substantially similar
to Bryant's original sketches.

Judge Stephen Larson, who presided over the first trial, retired
from the bench during the course of the appeal, and the case was
transferred to Judge David O. Carter.  After the transfer, Judge
Carter granted Mattel leave to file a Fourth Amended Answer and
Counterclaims which focused on RICO, trade secret and other
claims, and added additional parties, and subsequently granted in
part and denied in part a defense motion to dismiss those
counterclaims.  Later, on August 16, 2010, MGA asserted several
new claims against Mattel in response to Mattel's Fourth Amended
Answer and Counterclaims, including claims for alleged trade
secret misappropriation, an alleged violation of RICO, and
wrongful injunction.  Mattel moved to strike and/or dismiss these
claims, as well as certain MGA allegations regarding Mattel's
motives for filing lawsuit.  The Court granted that motion as to
the wrongful injunction claim, which it dismissed with prejudice,
and as to the allegations about Mattel's motives, which it struck.
The Court denied the motion as to MGA's trade secret
misappropriation claim and its claim for violations of RICO.

The Court resolved summary judgment motions in late 2010.  Among
other rulings, the Court dismissed both parties' RICO claims;
dismissed Mattel's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and portions
of other claims as "preempted" by the trade secrets act; dismissed
MGA's trade dress infringement claims; dismissed MGA's unjust
enrichment claim; dismissed MGA's common law unfair competition
claim; and dismissed portions of Mattel's copyright infringement
claim as to "later generation" Bratz dolls.

Trial of all remaining claims began in early January 2011.  During
the trial, and before the case was submitted to the jury, the
Court granted MGA's motions for judgment as to Mattel's claims for
aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and conversion.  The
Court also granted a defense motion for judgment on portions of
Mattel's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to
thefts by former Mattel employees located in Mexico.

The jury reached verdicts on the remaining claims in April 2011.
In those verdicts, the jury ruled against Mattel on its claims for
ownership of Bratz-related works, for copyright infringement, and
for misappropriation of trade secrets.  The jury ruled for MGA on
its claim of trade secret misappropriation as to 26 of its claimed
trade secrets and awarded $88.5 million in damages.  The jury
ruled against MGA as to 88 of its claimed trade secrets.  The jury
found that Mattel's misappropriation was willful and malicious.
The Court will determine whether an award of exemplary damages is
appropriate, which may not exceed twice the $88.5 million award of
compensatory damages.  Additionally, attorney's fees and costs may
be awarded.  MGA has sought approximately $172.8 million in
attorney's fees and costs; the amount, if any, that the Court will
award cannot be determined at this time.

Mattel does not believe that it is probable that any of the
damages awarded to MGA will be sustained based on the evidence
presented at trial and, accordingly, a liability has not been
accrued for this matter.  Judgment has not yet been entered, post-
trial motions have not yet been ruled upon, and appeals have not
yet been filed.  Mattel has filed a motion for judgment as a
matter of law on MGA's claim for misappropriation of trade
secrets, which is pending.

The Court will rule separately on the parties' claims for unfair
competition under California Business & Professions Code Section
17200.  In February 2011, MGA commenced litigation in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging that Mattel's conduct in response to MGA's sale of Bratz
violated both the federal antitrust statute and the California
Business & Professions Code, and constituted abuse of process
under California law.  Mattel believes these claims are without
merit.  Mattel has moved to dismiss these claims and intends to
vigorously defend against them.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Pennsylvania Homeowners File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Berger & Montague, P.C. and Ann Miller, LLC have
filed a Class Action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all
Pennsylvania homeowners whose mortgage loans have been serviced by
Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. and/or Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
and who, since April 13, 2009, (1) have entered into a Trial
Period Plan contract with Defendants and made all payments as
required by their TPP contract and complied with Defendants'
requests for documentation, and (2) have not received or have been
denied a permanent Home Affordable Modification Agreement in
accord with the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Home Affordable
Modification Program rules.

If you believe that you have been improperly denied a permanent
loan modification by Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. or Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC after April 13, 2009, please contact Plaintiffs'
counsel, Eric Lechtzin of Berger & Montague, P.C., at 888-891-2289
or 215-875-3000, or by e-mail at elechtzin@bm.net

A copy of the Complaint can be viewed on the firm's Web site at
http://www.bergermontague.comor may be requested from the Court.
The docket number is 2:11-cv-04586-JP.

The Complaint alleges that Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. and Ocwen
Loan Servicing, LLC agreed to participate in HAMP.  They are thus
obligated to modify mortgage loans they service for homeowners who
qualify under HAMP, a federal program designed to abate the
foreclosure crisis by providing mortgage loan modifications to
eligible homeowners.  The lawsuit alleges that Defendants
systematically slow or thwart homeowners' requests to modify
mortgages in order to collect higher fees and interest rates
associated with stressed home loans.

Members of the proposed Class applied for HAMP loan modifications
from Defendants, were prequalified for the program, and received
TPP contracts requiring them to make three modified loan payments
and, if they had not already done so, to submit certain financial
documentation.  Despite fulfilling these obligations under the TPP
contracts with Defendants, they did not receive permanent HAMP
modifications of their loans, nor did they receive timely written
notifications explaining the reasons for Defendants' denials.

For more information about this case, please contact:

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Walker, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 1910
          Telephone: 1-888-891-2289
                     215-875-3000

Founded in 1970, Berger & Montague --
http://www.bergermontague.com-- is a pioneer in Class Action
litigation.  The firm's 70 attorneys concentrate their practice on
complex litigation, including consumer protection, securities
fraud, whistleblower and false claims actions; antitrust; labor
and employment rights; and environmental violations and mass
torts.  The firm has recovered billions of dollars for consumers
and investors.

Ann Miller, LLC, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, specializes in
complex civil litigation, class actions and consumer protection
litigation.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Class Action Settlement Gets Temporary Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Fink, writing for ProPublica, reports that a New Orleans
judge gave preliminary approval on July 21 to a settlement
agreement that would end a class-action lawsuit against one of the
nation's largest publicly owned health care companies.  Under the
terms of the deal, Tenet Healthcare Corporation and a subsidiary
will pay $25 million to patients and visitors trapped at Memorial
Medical Center after Hurricane Katrina.

The settlement would release the company from any future liability
for claims by the class members.  The $25 million, minus legal
fees, will be divided by a court-appointed administrator according
to criteria that have not yet been established.  The number of
class members is unknown, but there were 187 patients and about
800 visitors in the hospital when the emergency took hold.  Tenet
reported revenues of more than $9 billion in 2010.

In her order, Orleans Parish civil district court Judge Rosemary
Ledet called the proposed settlement "fair, reasonable and
adequate."  The parties reached a tentative agreement in
March during jury selection for a trial, but the outlines of the
agreement were kept confidential until July 21.

The bodies of 45 patients were found at Memorial Medical Center
after the August 2005 storm.  Some doctors subsequently
acknowledged that they had hastened the deaths of patients by
injecting them with drugs.  No criminal charges were ever brought
and the medical staff said they had done their best under
extraordinary conditions.  Survivors of some patients settled a
separate action against LifeCare, a long-term acute care hospital
that leased space at Memorial; one disclosed receiving a payment
of more than $200,000.

The lawsuit against the hospital and its parent company, Tenet
Healthcare Corporation, alleged that they failed to prepare for
and respond sufficiently to a foreseeable disaster.  Patients and
others who took shelter at Memorial were harmed, the plaintiffs
claimed, because emergency plans for evacuation and backup power
were inadequate.

The hospital was plunged into darkness after its backup generators
failed, and helicopters hired by the corporation did not arrive
until two days after the streets around Memorial flooded.
Maintenance staff at the hospital had warned prior to Katrina that
the hospital's electrical system was vulnerable to flooding, a
known hazard in the low-lying city.

In the settlement agreement, Tenet and the hospital, which has
since been sold, deny all of the allegations brought against them
in the case, as they have previously.  Records in the case show
that Tenet and hospital officials spent days frantically
soliciting assistance for the hospital from FEMA, the Coast Guard,
the National Guard, state officials and private ambulance
companies.  Attorneys for Tenet and Memorial had lined up experts
to testify that the city's failed levees, a chaotic government
response, and the hurricane itself are what created the deadly
environment.

A commentary on the case published last week in the Journal of the
American Medical Association said that health care entities may
increasingly face legal action for deficiencies in emergency
preparedness.  It called for clearer legal standards for hospitals
"so health care entities are not compelled to prepare endlessly
for every contingency."

Potential members of the class have until Sept. 27 to lodge
complaints or objections to the settlement.  Those will be
considered at a final courthouse hearing in New Orleans in
October.


TOYOTA AUTO: Appeal From "Harel Pia" Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harel Pia Mutual Fund's appeal from the dismissal of its lawsuit
against Toyota Motor Credit Corporation remains pending, according
to Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust's July 20, 2011,
Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the monthly distribution period June 1 to June 30, 2011.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates were 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 in the federal bondholder
action 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.

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


UVEX SPORTS: Recalls 800 Ski Helmets Due to Head Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Uvex Sports, of Cranston, Rhode Island, and Swix Sport USA, of
Haverhill, Massachusetts, announced a voluntary recall of about
800 Uvex Funride ski helmets.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The helmet provides insufficient shock absorption and resistance
to penetration, posing a head injury hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

Uvex Funride ski helmets come in two adult sizes XS-M, and L-XL.
Individual sizing is adjusted by a small dial located at the rear
of the helmet.  The helmets feature a chin strap, ear protection
and the word "Uvex" printed toward the back of the helmet.  The
interior label on affected helmets bears the code "S-58B" or "S-
58C".  The helmet comes in the following colors and designs:
solids in black, white, silver; carbon look matte in white or
black; golden flower decal in white or black.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11280.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
independent retail ski shops and ski rental stores nationwide from
January 2009 to April 2011 for $99.

Consumers should stop using the product immediately and return it
to the store where purchased for a full refund or store credit.
For additional information, contact Uvex at Swix Sport USA at
(800) 343-8335 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.uvex-
sports.de/en/recall/


VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles Choice II Calling Plan Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Popken, writing for The Consumerist, reports that a class
action suit that alleged Verizon Wireless charged customers on the
"America's Choice II Calling Plan" for roaming, even though the
plan is supposed to have no domestic roaming, has resulted in a
settlement.  If you were a subscriber to this plan at any point
after February 21, 2005, you're gonna get some free minutes.

You can either do nothing and automatically get 25 free minutes,
or you can submit a claim form and apply for a PIN that will give
you 40 "calling units."  These units can be used to make domestic
or international calls.

Submit your claims at cowitsettlement.com or by mail, or sit back
and wait for the minutes to roll in.


* EU Committee Wants Limit Set for Collective Redress System
------------------------------------------------------------
OUT-LAW News reports that an EU framework for allowing band
together to take action against organizations for unlawful
behavior would provide "uniform access to justice" for EU citizens
but should only apply in relation to some laws, a European
Parliament committee has said.

The Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee has published a draft
report into what EU law makers should do to develop a standardized
system of collective redress.

Collective redress refers to a scheme where many people in a
similar situation participate in a law suit against one company or
organization over an alleged breach of the law.

The European Commission is currently considering whether to press
for new legal principles to be established that would allow
victims of unlawful activity to seek collective redress when
organizations based abroad engage in an illegal practice.

It held a consultation with the public and businesses between
February and April this year looking at whether it was necessary
to expand on what member states were doing individually to
facilitate collective redress.

Some EU legal systems have compensatory relief in collective
redress cases, according to the Commission, while collections of
people can stop an organization behaving in a certain way by
obtaining injunctive redress in disputes relating to consumer and
environmental law.

A new collective redress system should set out a standardized
format for cross-border disputes, the European Parliament's Legal
Affairs Committee said

"In the event that it is decided after due consideration that a
Union scheme of collective redress is needed and desirable . . .
any proposal in the field of collective redress should take the
form of a horizontal instrument providing uniform access to
justice within the EU," the committee said in a report on
collective redress.

Collective action should not be allowed to take place for a
general breach of EU law, the committee said.  Only specifically
identified areas of EU law should be the target of collective
redress cases, it said.

"Legal certainty will be increased by identifying the exact pieces
of EU legislation where problems regarding the enforcement of
rights of victims exist," the Legal Affairs Committee's report
said.  "Once this identification has taken place, the horizontal
instrument should apply to damages actions in case of breach of
the relevant legislation indicated as well as of EU antitrust
rules."

Rules on how collective redress can be achieved should apply
broadly to all areas of EU law selected for inclusion in the new
framework, the committee said.

"Identical strong safeguards, relating to aspects such as the
standing of a representative entity and the criteria for
authorization, access to evidence or the application of the loser
pays principle, are needed irrespective of the sector concerned,"
the committee said.  "A horizontal instrument is the best way
forward in order not to introduce different sectoral legislation
resulting in fragmented national procedural laws."

Only limited sector-specific rules should be included, it said.

The committee proposed that only "a representative body" that EU
member states nominate should be allowed to bring a lawsuit for
collective action under any new framework.  Only individual
compensation claims up to the value of EUR2,000 should be included
in collective suits under any new system, the committee said.

Attempts should be made to settle collective redress disputes
before they reach court and collective action court cases should
be held in the countries where the defendant company is based, the
committee said.

The European Commission recently outlined three possible courses
of action over its collective redress plans.

Viviane Reding, the EU's Justice Commissioner, said that the
Commission could drop plans to develop a pan-EU collective redress
framework, provide only recommendations on how EU countries could
improve collective redress measures or write new laws creating a
new collective redress framework member states would have to
adopt.

The Legal Affairs Committee said in its report that the Commission
had yet to prove there was enough evidence that a cross border
system was needed.

The Commission is currently examining more than 20,000 responses
to its consultation and is expected to set out its intentions by
the end of the year.

                            *********

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, Joy A. Agravante, 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  * * *