CAR_Public/111018.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 206

                             Headlines

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Settles Class Action Over AMAG Pharma Merger
AMARANTH ADVISORS: Settles Natural Gas Class Action
COUNTRYWIDE BANK: Kentucky Judge Tosses Home Loan Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Tracking Users' Internet Browsing History
GOV'T. OF AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over 2009 Toodyay Fire

IKON OFFICE: Did Not Pay Work-Related Expenses, Suit Claims
MERSCORP INC: Sued Over Failure to Record Mortgage Assignments
MIDDLETON JAIL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Jail Fees
PPD INC: Faces Class Action in North Carolina Over Buyout
SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY, PA: Judge Certifies Delousing Class Action

TAYLORVILLE CHIROPRACTIC: Class Action Notice to Be Sent by Fax
TOYOTA: July 2013 Trial Set for Economic Claims in Class Action
UC-BERKELEY: Police Sued for Jailing Non-Violent Protestors
UNITED STATES: DoD Faces Class Action Over TRICARE Data Theft
VISA INC: Faces Class Action in D.C. Over ATM Fee Price-Fixing




                          *********

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Settles Class Action Over AMAG Pharma Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allos Therapeutics, Inc. on Oct. 13 disclosed that Allos and other
named defendants have entered into a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) with plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the putative
class action lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in
connection with its proposed merger with AMAG Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.

As previously announced, on July 19, 2011, Allos entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the Merger
Agreement) with AMAG and its wholly owned subsidiary, Alamo
Acquisition Sub, Inc.  Under the terms of the MOU, Allos will file
a Current Report on Form 8-K amending and supplementing certain
disclosure in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Allos
in connection with the merger.  The MOU reflects the parties'
agreement to resolve the allegations by the settling plaintiffs
against Allos and other defendants in connection with the Merger
Agreement and provides a release and settlement by the purported
class of Allos' stockholders of all claims against Allos and other
defendants and their affiliates and agents in connection with the
Merger Agreement.  The MOU and settlement are contingent upon,
among other things, approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery,
the closing of the merger and further definitive documentation.

Allos and the other named defendants continue to believe that each
of the lawsuits filed in connection with its proposed merger with
AMAG are without merit and that they have valid defenses to all
claims made by the applicable plaintiffs.

                     About Allos Therapeutics

Allos Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.allos.comis a
biopharmaceutical company committed to the development and
commercialization of innovative anti-cancer therapeutics.  Allos
is currently focused on the development and commercialization of
FOLOTYN(R) (pralatrexate injection), a folate analogue metabolic
inhibitor.  FOLOTYN is approved in the U.S. for the treatment of
patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma.


AMARANTH ADVISORS: Settles Natural Gas Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Asjylyn Loder, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Amaranth
Advisors LLC, the hedge fund that collapsed in 2006 after losing
$6.6 billion on natural gas trades, tentatively settled a class-
action lawsuit in which it was accused of market manipulation,
according to a filing in Manhattan federal court.

U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin said in an order Oct. 5
that the parties in the case had reached an agreement.  In
August 2009, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced
that Greenwich, Connecticut-based Amaranth paid $7.5 million to
settle allegations that the hedge fund tried to manipulate natural
gas futures three years earlier.

In April, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a $30
million civil penalty against Amaranth trader Brian Hunter, who
was accused of manipulating the natural gas market in 2006.

Mr. Hunter's attorney, Michael Kim, didn't return calls seeking
comment.  Chris Lovell, an attorney for the plaintiffs at Lovell
Stewart Halebian LLP in New York, and Stephen Senderowitz, a
lawyer for Amaranth at Winston & Strawn LLP in Chicago, declined
to comment.  A hearing in the case is scheduled for Nov. 30.

The case is In Re Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litigation, 07-
06377, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
(Manhattan.)


COUNTRYWIDE BANK: Kentucky Judge Tosses Home Loan Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Barrouquere, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a federal judge in Kentucky has rejected class-action status in a
lawsuit accusing Countrywide Bank of charging African-American and
Hispanic borrowers more for home loans than Caucasian borrowers.

U.S. District Judge John Heyburn II on Oct. 12 ruled that
Countrywide's policy put a great deal of discretion in the hands
of individual loan officers, leaving too many variables at play
for the plaintiffs to prove a collective action by the company.

A dozen people sued Countrywide, which is now owned by Bank of
America, in 2008, claiming they and others were treated
differently than other customers looking for a home loan between
2005 and 2007.

Boston-based attorney Gary Klein said the plaintiffs are
evaluating the decision.  A Bank of America spokesman didn't
immediately return a message on Oct. 13.


IKON OFFICE: Did Not Pay Work-Related Expenses, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tammi Pelton Cluck, Cedrick Heffner, Alan Kabakoff, and Brian
Swanson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, Case
No. 3:11-cv-05027 (N.D. Calif., October 12, 2011) seeks
reimbursement for business expenses on behalf of the Plaintiffs
and all other individuals, who are or have been employed by the
Defendant as "General Line Sales Representatives."

The Plaintiffs allege that Ikon Office has willfully failed and
refused to reimburse them and the Class members fully, or at all,
for business expenses they incurred in the regular course of their
duties as the Defendant's employees.

The Plaintiffs are residents of California and were previously
employed by the Defendant.

Ikon Office is an Ohio corporation and maintains offices in
California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, PC
          1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 601
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: Hammond.julian@gmail.com


FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Tracking Users' Internet Browsing History
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Facebook sold its users' Internet browsing history for targeted
ads after collecting the information "even when the users were not
logged in to Facebook."

A copy of the Complaint in Rutledge v. Facebook Inc., Case No. 11-
cv-00133 (N.D. Miss.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/13/Facebook.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David W. Shelton, Esq.
          DAVID SHELTON PLLC
          1223 Jackson Avenue East, Ste. 202
          P.O. Box 2541
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 281-1212
          E-mail: david@davidsheltonpllc.com


GOV'T. OF AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over 2009 Toodyay Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Kelly, writing for Avon Valley Gazette, reports that with
mediation talks between Western Power and Toodyay's bushfire
victims stalled, a separate legal action will be launched to seek
additional compensation from the State Government for some of
those who lost almost everything in the 2009 fire.

Toodyay resident Laurie Biggs is planning a new class action with
other residents that he says would introduce important new
evidence about the fires.

Although the State Government has already compensated 38 Toodyay
fire victims to the tune of almost AUD2 million, Mr. Biggs
believes the Government must assume full responsibility for the
fire and the "third-rate" investigation that "failed to interview
important witnesses".

"A lot of the residents, including me, are not involved in the
current legal action against Western Power because it was just too
soon to start listing every single item that was lost and
uncompensated for (in the fire)," he said.

"It's very painful for people to put together a list for a
solicitor, which is why not everyone has come forward to join in
the case.

"No-one wants to make money out of this; we just want to return to
some sort of normality."

Mr. Biggs said the stress of the bushfire aftermath had
contributed to relationship break-ups and poor health in the
regional community.

He said the new civil action would be stronger and take into
consideration any alleged shortfalls by government departments.

Western Power said the latest mediation talks in August remained
unresolved and no further mediation had been planned.

The discussions between the parties followed an investigative
report by Energy Safe WA that formed an opinion that Western Power
infrastructure was the likely source of the Toodyay fire, although
crucial evidence had been destroyed in the blaze.


MERSCORP INC: Sued Over Failure to Record Mortgage Assignments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, with David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney
for Geauga County, Ohio, on Oct. 13 disclosed that a lawsuit has
been filed in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas by Plaintiff
Geauga County, on behalf of itself and all other Ohio counties,
against MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration System,
Inc., and MERS's members.

In the class action complaint, Plaintiff Geauga County, on behalf
of itself and all other Ohio counties, alleges violations of Ohio
state law arising from Defendants' failure to record intermediate
mortgage assignments in, and pay the attendant county recording
fees to, Ohio county recording offices.  In failing to record,
Defendants systematically broke chains of title throughout Ohio
counties' public land records by creating "gaps" due to missing
mortgage assignments they failed to record, or by recording
patently false and/or misleading mortgage assignments.
Defendants' purposeful failure to record has eviscerated the
accuracy of Ohio counties' public land records, rendering them
unreliable and unverifiable -- damage to public land records that
may never be entirely remedied.

As a result, the Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as
well as damages, to remedy Defendants' persistent, and purposeful,
failure to comply with Ohio's legal requirement to record mortgage
assignments in the proper county recording office.  In doing so,
Defendants avoided paying the attendant county recording fees as
required by Ohio state law.  Ohio's recording laws have been in
place for nearly 200 years.

The case is captioned State of Ohio, ex rel. David P. Joyce
Prosecuting Attorney of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., et
al., No. 11-M-001087.  For more information, please contact:

         Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
         Christian Siebott, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 779-1414
         E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com
                 siebott@bernlieb.com
         Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com


MIDDLETON JAIL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Jail Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie Manganis, writing for Eagle Tribune, reports that a class
action suit has been filed in Salem Superior Court on behalf of
Middleton Jail inmates who are charged a $30 medical processing
fee and a $5 co-pay for infirmary visits.

The suit, filed on Oct. 11 by the nonprofit Prisoners' Legal
Services and the Massachusetts Lawyers Guild, cites a decision by
the Supreme Judicial Court last year that county sheriffs have no
statutory authority to impose fees on inmates.

That case was brought against Bristol County Sheriff Thomas
Hodgson over a far broader range of fees, including a $5 daily
"cost of care" fee as well as medical charges.  The Supreme
Judicial Court ruled not only that Mr. Hodgson couldn't collect
the fees but that he had to refund all of the money paid by
inmates, plus interest, since the fees were implemented.

Mr. Hodgson and sheriffs in several other counties have been
lobbying since then for legislation that would allow such fees.

The suit against Essex County Sheriff Frank Cousins argues that
the medical processing fee and co-pays violate the law, not only
because Mr. Cousins has no legal authority to impose them but
because they sometimes lead to inmates being unable to pay court
fees and assessments that are specified by the law.

The suit also alleges that the fees are a violation of inmates'
due process rights and that they essentially amount to
"conversion" -- a civil form of theft.

The suit also charges that Mr. Cousins is violating another
statute that requires jails to determine whether an inmate has
medical insurance and to then bill insurance companies for the
cost of care.

Lawyers for the inmates are asking a judge to issue an injunction
barring the collection of fees and to order the sheriff to
reimburse inmates who have paid the fees.

"It's illegal without statutory authority," said Leslie Walker,
director of Prisoners' Legal Services.

Aside from that, "this was coming out of poor people's pockets,"
and not necessarily those of the inmates, most of whom are legally
indigent, a recent report concluded.

Instead, the money is coming from family members, who are often
receiving some form of assistance themselves, Ms. Walker said.

Ms. Walker rejects any argument that the fees teach inmates
responsibility.

"It's not like in the real world," Ms. Walker said.  "You don't
earn any money."

Mr. Cousins said on Oct. 12 that "we will, as always, deal with it
in the appropriate forum."  Mr. Cousins said he had not yet seen
the suit and declined to comment on specific allegations.

He stands by the fees, however, calling them the "right thing to
do" to recoup some of the cost of incarceration to taxpayers, as
well as to offset a 13% budget cut over the past three years.

But Mr. Cousins bristled at comparisons to Mr. Hodgson.

"I don't like to compare myself to him," he said.  "We run a
totally different operation."

And he's not in support of the legislation currently being debated
that would authorize a daily fee, something being pushed by
Mr. Hodgson.

Mr. Cousins said he tries to focus on providing opportunities to
rehabilitate inmates, such as through a barber training program
that is supported, in part, by fees inmates pay for haircuts.

"We try to strike a balance between fairness and sound
correctional policies," Mr. Cousins said.

The Essex County fees were implemented in 2001 and were projected
to raise about $300,000 a year at the time.

The sheriff and his spokesman, Paul Fleming, said attorneys have
been asked to look at the Bristol County decision but have not yet
provided an opinion to Mr. Cousins as to how it might affect the
Essex County fees.

Lawyers James Pingeon, who handled the Bristol case as well;
David Kelston and Jeffrey Thorn, have also asked that a judge
certify the case as a class action.

Four current or former inmates have agreed to sign on as named
plaintiffs in the case, including Michael Bryson, a Beverly man
awaiting trial on charges that he helped murder a homeless man in
Beverly last year; Lance Bentley, a Saugus man who was recently
released after serving a sentence; and John Harkins and
Raymond Monan, two inmates currently serving jail terms.

However, if the case were certified as a class action, any
decision would affect all inmates who have paid the fees during
the past decade.


PPD INC: Faces Class Action in North Carolina Over Buyout
------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Faulkner, writing for StarNewsOnline.com, reports that a
California man has filed a class-action suit seeking to block the
buyout of PPD Inc. by two private equity firms.

Such suits, arising from mergers or buyouts, are not uncommon, and
it's too early to know what effect, if any, this one will have on
the deal between the Wilmington-based company and the Carlyle
Group and Hellman & Friedman LLC.

The suit by Mark Hendriks, filed on Oct. 11 in U.S. District Court
for Eastern North Carolina, alleges that the price to be paid to
shareholders is "woefully" inadequate and that officers and
directors of PPD breached their fiduciary duties in several ways.

Carlyle and Hellman are offering $33.25 a share for the clinical
research company.  The deal was announced Oct. 3.

PPD said, through spokesman Ned Glascock, that it is not its
policy to comment on pending litigation.

"It's not uncommon to find even in a good deal that there will be
a disgruntled shareholder," said Professor Tom Hazen of the
University of North Carolina School of Law.  "These things do
happen with a fair degree of frequency.

"The normal process (of the buyout) is likely to proceed,"
Mr. Hazen continued, "and if the shareholders approve, there is a
very high threshold for a court to stop the transaction."

Mr. Hazen said, however, that shareholders will have to be told
about the lawsuit.

"There often is litigation that arises out of mergers and that is
often resolved way after the deal is completed," he said.

Mr. Hazen said there are law firms that specialize in shareholder
litigation, and they are on the lookout for potential clients.


SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY, PA: Judge Certifies Delousing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge certified a class claiming that a jail's blanket policy of
submitting new inmates to a delousing regime unconstitutionally
violates their 14th Amendment right to refuse medical treatment.

"It cannot be said that these detainees were deloused pursuant to
any sort of individualized [medical] determination," U.S. District
Judge Richard Caputo wrote, adding that a class is best suited for
a case like this that pertains to uniform policy.  Roneld Logory
filed the federal class action against Susquehanna County
Correctional Facility (SCCF) in July 2009.  He said he was
"humiliated and degraded" at his treatment in lockup for the
misdemeanor offense of driving under the influence.  After a strip
search in which jail officials inspected the inside of his
buttocks and around his testicles, "a correctional officer sprayed
plaintiff with a delousing agent on his genitals" and then forced
him to take a supervised shower, according to the complaint.

"Susquehanna County has instituted a blanket policy of delousing,
showering and strip-searching all individuals who enter the
custody of the [SCCF] regardless of the nature of their charged
crime and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe
that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband,"
Mr. Logory added.

The case hit a bump in September 2010 when the 3rd Circuit upheld
blanket search policies of arrestees as consistent with the Fourth
Amendment in Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington.

Mr. Logory countered by proposing two new classes for
certification: "The Fourth Amendment Class -- All persons who have
been placed into custody of the Susquehanna County Jail as pre-
trial detainees who were deloused upon their entry into the
Susquehanna County Jail" and "The Fourteenth Amendment Class --
All persons who have been placed into custody of the Susquehanna
County Jail after being sentenced or as pre-trial detainees who
were deloused upon their entry into the Susquehanna County Jail."

Judge Caputo ruled that Mr. Logory satisfied the numerosity
requirement for certification since the prison admitted that all
of its "detainees who were strip searched were subjected to
delousing procedures," that the "delousing procedure is, in fact,
part of its strip search process," and that it subjected more than
170 pretrial detainees charged with summary offenses and
misdemeanors to strip searches between June 2007 to March 25,
2010.

The judge disagreed, however, with Mr. Logory's claim that his
Fourth Amendment Class differed from the claims dismissed by the
3rd Circuit.  Mr. Logory had claimed that "delousing was
unreasonable in that a determination of whether a strip search
should be conducted on a pre-trial detainee has no bearing on
whether a particular individual is a carrier of lice," according
to the court.  He also tried "to play up the differences between
the two procedures, that Florence utilized a self-applied shampoo
followed by a supervised shower while the instant case concerns a
delousing spray followed by an unsupervised shower."

But Mr. Logory failed to show how delousing further aggravated the
strip-search deemed acceptable in Florence, Caputo ruled.  "The
delousing procedure itself does not inherently increase the
exposure or duration of a strip search, and while [Logory] never
specifies, the court is hard-pressed to determine exactly how
delousing functionally exaggerates the scope of the approved strip
search," he wrote.  "While perhaps a medical treatment, to
characterize delousing as an extension of the strip search appears
redundant."

Judge Caputo certified the 14th Amendment Class that "a common, if
not identical, set of facts [applied] to each member of this
class, comprised of detainees who were automatically subjected to
a delousing 'regardless of whether there is reason to believe that
detainees have a medical condition that would benefit from this
medical treatment and without advising detainees of the scope of
the medical procedure or providing them with the opportunity to
decline to undergo the procedure.'"

Mr. Logory's claim is "highly typical of those of the class" and
there "is no evidence that he, or any detainee entering the
facility, was deloused based on any particularized determination
of necessity," according to the 23-page decision.

"From the factual record, it is evident that each detainee who was
strip searched was wholesale deloused, including those who
evidently did not require the procedure," Judge Caputo added,
while discussing satisfaction of the predominance requirement.

The court also agreed with Mr. Logory that "the class is likely to
'contain poor and marginalized class members who are unlikely to
be able to litigate these cases individually, especially when the
prosecution of delousing cases generally requires expensive
testimony from medical doctors."

"To allow this to proceed as a class action would not be removing
claims from the hands of the class members, but would instead
afford them an opportunity to pursue them," Judge Caputo wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Oct. 12 on
Florence, after agreeing to take up the case in April.

A copy of the Memorandum in Logory v. The County of Susquehanna,
Case No. 09-cv-01448 (M.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/13/Delouse.pdf

Mr. Logory is represented by:

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUENO GILBERT & LADUCA
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960

The class is represented by:

          Beverly Steinberg-Sporn, Esq.
          Daniel Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (877) 882-1011
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com


TAYLORVILLE CHIROPRACTIC: Class Action Notice to Be Sent by Fax
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that St. Clair County Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto on
Sept. 28 approved class action plaintiff Mixon Insurance Agency's
request that an exhibit be approved in its case against
Taylorville Chiropractic Clinic and its director, Philip S. Dudak.

Judge Cueto also approved that Mixon send a class notice by fax
and set appropriate dates for any class member desiring to opt out
of the certified class.

By sending unsolicited fax messages to Mixon Insurance Agency and
at least 39 other businesses, Taylorville Chiropractic Clinic and
Mr. Dudak forced the companies to pay the clinic's advertising
campaign, according to a putative class action lawsuit.

Mixon filed the case in 2009 against the clinic and its director,
saying the defendants violated the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending unsolicited fax advertisements.

Because they received the faxes unwillingly, Mixon and the other
companies lost the use of their fax machine momentarily and used
ink toner and paper, the complaint says.  In addition, employees
wasted time to get the fax when they could have been doing
something else, the suit said.

In Mixon's case, it received the unsolicited faxed advertisement
on Sept. 25, 2006, according to the complaint.

Mixon would like to include in the class any company or person who
received an unsolicited faxed advertisement from Taylorville
within the past four years.

Robert J. Sprague of Sprague and Urban in Belleville, Brian J.
Wanca of Anderston - Wanca in Rolling Meadows and Phillip A. Bock
of Bock and Hatch in Chicago represent the plaintiffs.

St. Clair County Circuit Court Case number: 09-L-509.


TOYOTA: July 2013 Trial Set for Economic Claims in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a proposed class action alleging economic losses on behalf of
consumers in California and a few other states, caused by alleged
sudden, unintended acceleration by Toyota vehicles, will begin in
July 2013, the federal judge overseeing the multidistrict
litigation said on Oct. 11.

U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif., told the
parties that a class action would be the second case to go to
trial, following a personal injury and wrongful death action that
he previously had scheduled for Feb. 19, 2013.

In setting what he called an "ambitious" target date, Judge Selna
rejected Toyota Motor Corp.'s argument that its lawyers needed
time to file additional motions regarding claims originating in
the other states to adequately prepare for the bellwether class
action trial.  They argued that 75% of such claims had been filed
outside California.

Judge Selna also rejected a suggestion by plaintiffs' lawyers that
the case -- filed on behalf of consumers in California, New York
and Florida -- should assert claims under California state laws.
He said he was "highly unlikely" to certify a class of consumers
in New York and Florida under California law.

"I don't think you're going to convince me," he told Steve Berman,
managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro, co-
lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the economic loss cases.
Mr. Berman filed the proposed bellwether class action on Sept. 20.

More than 200 class actions and economic loss cases were
coordinated in the multidistrict litigation against Toyota.  An
additional 100 cases allege personal injury and wrongful death.

The courts use bellwether cases to decide legal and evidentiary
issues for all of the related litigation and -- potentially --
move the parties closer to settlement.

Judge Selna said he was not averse to hearing a class action
bellwether trial involving more than one state.  But he emphasized
that consumers in those states must assert claims under the laws
of their own states, not California's.  California law tends to be
more consumer-friendly than those of other states, many of which
require plaintiffs to prove a manifestation of a defect to qualify
for economic damages.

Mr. Berman acknowledged an alternative proposal more in line with
Judge Selna's remarks would be to include subclasses of consumers
in New York and Florida brought under New York and Florida laws.

Toyota's lawyer, Cari Dawson, a partner at Atlanta's Alston &
Bird, immediately countered that the proposed states were of the
plaintiffs' choosing, not Toyota's.  She suggested including
claims on behalf of consumers in additional three states -- Ohio,
Illinois and Georgia.

"I doubt I would add another state to any class action,"
Judge Selna responded.  But he said that New York or Florida
didn't have to be the states.  He suggested the parties work out a
compromise on the states to be included in the proposed
bellwether.

Ms. Dawson also attacked the proposed bellwether as the
"procedural maneuvering" of plaintiffs' lawyers designed to "game
the system."  The case was brought on behalf of 23 class
representatives and implicates 40 million vehicles over 13 years
-- not an adequate bellwether that could "facilitate resolution"
of the litigation, she said.

"The key question is whether Plaintiffs' proposed economic loss
classes consisting of significantly different consumers with more
than 30 vehicle models spanning 13 model years, the vast majority
of whom do not claim an unintended acceleration event, should be
certified at all," Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore said in a
prepared statement following the hearing.  "Backed by strongly
supportive case law, we are confident that no common class of
litigants exists and that plaintiffs are not entitled to
individual or class-wide relief."

Judge Selna's proposal launched an argument over discovery.
Mr. Berman said plaintiffs' lawyers already had provided Toyota
with depositions of 10 class members who, with 32 named plaintiffs
in the proposed class action, would be enough for Toyota to mount
an adequate defense.  He added that the plaintiffs had provided
Toyota with 80 fact sheets.

Ms. Dawson said Toyota still needed to conduct discovery in
actions originating outside California.  Not doing so would
violate Toyota's due process right to assert defenses under other
state laws, she said.

Judge Selna said he was not prepared to allow that expansion of
discovery -- if for no other reason because of the enormous
resources entailed that would steer the litigation away from its
trial dates.

In addition to the class action, Judge Selna suggested that
another personal injury or wrongful death bellwether case -- this
time, of Toyota's choosing -- should go to trial in late 2013.
The first case, selected by the plaintiffs, involves a Utah
resident named Paul Van Alfen who lost control of his allegedly
accelerating 2008 Camry while on an exit ramp off Interstate 80.
The crash killed Mr. Van Alfen and another passenger and injured
two other passengers in the car.

Judge Selna dismissed that case on federal jurisdictional ground
on Sept. 29, but plaintiffs' lawyers filed an amended complaint,
dropping as a defendant Utah dealership that serviced the vehicle.
During the hearing, Judge Selna approved the revised complaint as
the first bellwether.

The next hearing in the multidistrict litigation proceeding is
Dec. 9.


UC-BERKELEY: Police Sued for Jailing Non-Violent Protestors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal
class action, six students say UC-Berkeley police needlessly, and
punitively, handcuffed and jailed them for participating in a
teach-in to protest education cuts and tuition hikes.

Lead plaintiff Callie Maidhof and her co-plaintiffs participated
in a week-long teach-in called "Open University" in December 2009.
They sued two university officials, the campus police chief and an
officer on behalf of the 66 students who were arrested.

Open University was called for the week before final exams, and
university officials decided not to prevent students from setting
up the event in Wheeler Hall.

Wheeler Hall was a center of the Free Speech Movement in 1964, and
has frequently been occupied by student activists ever since.

"The students planned to discuss the ongoing university budget
cuts, tuition increases, and the impact of lack of funding on the
state and education in general," according to the 12-page civil
rights complaint.

"The Open University was intended to highlight the skewed
priorities of the University of California system."

Students began occupying Wheeler Hall on Monday, Dec. 7, and
police officers agreed to let them stay in the building overnight
if they kept the area clean, let janitors enter the building, and
did not disrupt study sessions.

The university agreed to let students occupy the building until
Saturday, but upon learning of a concert scheduled for Wheeler
Hall, officials held a meeting to discuss their options.

"During this meeting, university officials decided to ignore their
previous agreement with the students and have all the participants
in the Open University arrested," the complaint states.

On Saturday night, an officer read a dispersal order to the
students, telling them to leave the building.

"This was the same dispersal order that had been read on other
nights, however, the police indicated that it was a formality and
that the students' activities were sanctioned by the
administration," the complaint states.

Apparently not.  Police sealed off Wheeler Hall sometime between
4 and 5 a.m. and began handcuffing students as they slept,
arresting 66 people.

"All 66 students were herded into the basement, processed,
interrogated, and, after several hours, transported to the Alameda
County Jail instead of being issued citations and released," the
complaint states.

The students say, "The policy of jailing nonviolent protesters is
punitive and a violation of the protesters' rights to freedom of
speech and assembly."

They seek punitive damages for constitutional violations and
"damage to reputation, humiliation, mental anguish and emotional
distress."

Named as defendants are UC-Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau,
Vice-Chancellor Harry Le Grande, Police Chief Mitchell Celaya, and
Officer Marc Decoulode.

A copy of the Complaint in Maidhof, et al. v. Celaya, et al., Case
No. 11-cv-04971 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/13/BerkeleyProtests.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dan Siegel, Esq.
          Vylma Ortiz, Esq.
          Kevin Brunner, Esq.
          SIEGEL & YEE
          499 14th Street, Suite 220
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 839-1200
          E-mail: DanSiegel@siegelyee.com


UNITED STATES: DoD Faces Class Action Over TRICARE Data Theft
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Brewin, writing for Nextgov, reports that an Air Force veteran
of the first Iraq war and a military spouse and her two children
have hit the Defense Department with a class action lawsuit
seeking $4.9 billion in damages from the theft of a computer tape
containing personal and sensitive health information from the car
of an employee of Science Applications International Corp., a
contractor with the TRICARE Health Management Activity.  The
company was not named as a defendant in the action.

The suit, filed on Oct. 10 by the law firm Shulman, Rogers,
Gandal, Pordy & Ecker of Potomac, Md., seeks $1,000 in damages for
all 4.9 million TRICARE beneficiaries whose records were on the
computer tape stolen Sept. 13 from the SAIC employee's car in
San Antonio.  TRICARE and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are named
as defendants.

Plaintiffs in the case are Virginia Gaffney of Hampton, Va., a
TRICARE beneficiary described as the spouse of a decorated war
veteran, along with her two dependent children, and Adrienne
Taylor of Glendale, Ariz., an Air Force Operation Desert Storm
veteran who also is a military spouse and TRICARE beneficiary.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, charges that TRICARE "flagrantly disregarded" the
privacy rights of TRICARE beneficiaries by failing to take the
necessary precautions to protect their identity.  The complaint
said data on the stolen computer tape was "unprotected, easily
copied . . . [and TRICARE] inexplicably failed to encrypt the
information."

TRICARE "compounded its dereliction of duty by authorizing an
untrained or improperly trained individual to take the highly
confidential information off of government premises and to leave
unencrypted information in an unguarded car in a public location,
from which it was stolen by an unknown party or parties," the suit
alleged.

The "intentional, willful and reckless disregard of plaintiffs'
privacy rights caused one of the largest unauthorized disclosures
of Social Security numbers, medical records and other private
information in recent history," the complaint charged.

TRICARE has acknowledged that the stolen computer tape contained a
wealth of patient information including clinical notes, laboratory
tests, prescriptions, diagnoses, treatment information, and
provider names and locations.

But, when it announced the theft -- which it called a "data
breach" -- on Sept. 30, TRICARE downplayed the ability of anyone
to access the information on the tape.  "The risk of harm to
patients is judged to be low despite the data elements involved
since retrieving the data on the tapes would require knowledge of
and access to specific hardware and software and knowledge of the
system and data structure," the military health program said.

The class action lawsuit disputed this assertion, alleging that
"personal information on the computer tape could be retrieved by
the name of an individual or by an identifying number, symbol or
other identifying data assigned to an individual."

The theft of the computer tape, the complaint charged, has exposed
the medical and personal information of all four plaintiffs to the
possibility of identity fraud and resulted in "emotional upset"
due to the invasion of privacy.

TRICARE declined to provide credit monitoring services in the wake
of the tape theft, and, as a result, the complaint said, both
Ms. Gaffney and Ms. Taylor purchased such services on their own to
protect against identity theft, incurring an ongoing economic
cost.

The lawsuit asked the court to direct TRICARE to provide free
credit monitoring services to all 4.9 million beneficiaries whose
personal information was on the stolen tape and to reimburse those
who had already purchased such services on their own.

This could slam TRICARE with another hefty bill.  When the
Veterans Affairs Department discovers a loss, theft or exposure of
this kind, it routinely offers credit monitoring services and up
to $1 million annually in identity theft protection at a cost per
veteran of $29.95 a year.  At that rate, it would cost TRICARE
$146.8 million to provide credit monitoring services to 4.9
million people.

Shulman, Rogers also wants to use the lawsuit to reform what it
considers poor practices by Defense and TRICARE to maintain the
privacy of personal information.  Defense and TRICARE, the suit
said, "have repeatedly demonstrated an inability or unwillingness
to implement or [have a] callous disregard for fundamental
procedures to provide minimally acceptable safeguards to prevent
against the disclosure of personal and private information in
their possession."

The suit asks the court to bar TRICARE and Defense from
transferring a record or system of records covered by the Privacy
Act "until an independent panel of experts finds that adequate
information security has been established."

The court also should prohibit Defense and TRICARE from
transporting any records off government property unless they are
fully encrypted, and SAIC should not be allowed to transport any
records until an independent expert panel determines the company
has established adequate information procedures, the lawsuit said.

TRICARE and SAIC declined to comment on the lawsuit.


VISA INC: Faces Class Action in D.C. Over ATM Fee Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that Visa and
MasterCard are "ringleaders and enforcers" of a nationwide scheme
to fix the surcharges that consumers pay to use ATM machines --
and "every principal U.S. bank" is in on the deal, the National
ATM Council claims in an antitrust class action.

Joined by 13 other associations in Federal Court, The National ATM
Council claims that "the banks collectively have ceded power and
authority to Visa and MasterCard to design, implement, and enforce
a horizontal price-fixing restraint in which they are knowing
participants.  In short, the violation in this case is a
horizontal agreement among every bank that issues Visa- or
MasterCard-branded payment cards -- including every principal U.S.
bank -- organized and supervised by the defendants as ringleaders
and enforcers for the purpose of fixing the surcharge that
consumers pay for ATM services."

The plaintiffs say that to offer ATM services to Visa and
MasterCard holders, the credit-card giants force them to charge
the same transaction fee to consumers regardless of what card or
network the consumers use.

While operators may charge any surcharge they wish, the surcharge
must be the same for all customers, the class claims.  In other
words, a customer of a nonbank ATM who uses a Discover card or a
STAR network card -- which cost less to use -- must pay the same
surcharge as someone who uses a card with the Visa or MasterCard
logo.

The class defines itself as "approximately 350 nonbank,
independent sales organizations ('ISOs') that are sponsored by one
or more sponsoring financial institutions and are registered with
Visa and MasterCard as 'registered ATM ISOs,' together with an
even greater number of the ISOs' ATM-operating contractual
affiliates".

The plaintiffs say, "Independent ATM operators deploy slightly
more than half of the ATMs presently in service in the United
States, or approximately 200,000 terminals."

The class's lead counsel Jonathan Rubin told Courthouse News:
"Visa and MasterCard look like suppliers to the banks, but they're
really the banks' alter egos.  . . . The [individual] banks are
the co-conspirators, but it's not necessary to sue each of them
because Visa and MasterCard are the banks."

There should be "differential surcharging," Mr. Rubin said.
"Prices should reflect the cost to produce.  Without that give and
take we can't have a competitive marketplace."

Mr. Rubin added: "Most consumers have no idea what the costs are
-- there is no transparency" in the banking industry regarding ATM
network pricing.  "It's the cartel manager theory."

The 21-page complaint claims that the constraints upon ATM
operators "unreasonably restrain competition in the market for ATM
services in the United States" and "restrain trade and interstate
commerce" in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The plaintiffs seek an injunction against price fixing, which
would allow cardholders to choose their ATM network, and treble
damages.

A copy of the Complaint in The National ATM Council, Inc., et al.
v. Visa Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-_____ (D.D.C.), is available
at:

          Brooks E. Harlow, Esq.
          David A. LaFuria, Esq.
          LUKAS, NACE, GUTIERREZ & SACHS, LLP
          8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1200
          McLean, VA 22101
          Telephone: (703) 584-8678

               - and -

          Jonathan L. Rubin, Esq.
          RUBIN PLLC
          1250 24th Street, N.W., Ste. 300
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 776-7763
          E-mail: jr@rubinpllc.com

               - and -

          Don A. Reskinoff, ESq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          1050 30th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000
          E-mail: dresnikoff@finkelsteinthompson.com



                           *********

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  * * *