CAR_Public/111110.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 10, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 223

                             Headlines

24 HOUR FITNESS: App. Ct. Reverses Order on Arbitration Issue
AKEENA SOLAR: Dec. 12 Final Fairness Hearing on Hodges Accord
AMERICAN HOME: 11th Cir. Vacates 2nd Injunction Vs. Edlesons
ANSURE MORTUARIES: Ind. App. Ct. Goldberg Cannot Challenge Accord
BANK OF AMERICA: Overdraft Class Action Settlement Gets Final OK

BLUE RHINO: Settles Class Action Over Propane Tank Marketing
BP: Faces 77 More Oil-Spill Claims in Alabama
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Midyear Fee Increases
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CA: Dec. 19 Hearing Set for Law Library Suit
CNA FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion for Final Settlement Okay

DIAMOND FOODS: Made False and Misleading Statements, Suit Says
DIEBOLD INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Ohio
DIET DRUGS: 3rd Cir. Tosses Matrix Compensation Benefit Claim
DOMUS HOLDINGS: Trial Set for April 16 in Frank K. Cooper Suit
DOMUS HOLDINGS: Trial in Larsen Suit Set for August 2012

DOW CHEMICAL: Approval of Rohm and Haas Suit Settlement Affirmed
EM JOHANSING: App. Ct. Flips Ruling in Park Residents' Suit
ESURANCE INSURANCE: 7th Circuit Remands "Keeling" Fraud Suit
FS HOTELS: App. Ct. Upholds Denial of Certification in Acuna Suit
GASPARI NUTRITION: Settles Class Action Over Novedex XT

GENERAL MILLS: 7th Cir. Junks "Chewy Bars" Suit on Different Basis
HARTE-HANKS INC: Unit Ended Payment of Class Settlement in August
HOMELAND INSURANCE: 5th Cir. Upholds Remand of PPO Discount Suit
HORIZON GROUP: Accused of Violating Landlord & Tenant Ordinance
HOUSEHOLD FINANCE: Trial Court Compels Arbitration in Bailey Suit

JPMORGAN CHASE: Former Madoff Customers File $19BB Class Action
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Trial Court Tosses Portions of Fosbre Suit
MF GLOBAL: Brower Priven Files Securities Fraud Class Action
N.C. BAPTIST: Web Site for Class Action Participants Created
OCLARO INC: Johnson & Weaver Named Lead Counsel in Class Suit

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Loss of Apple Contract
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Has to Meet At Least $9.6MM Injunction Costs
ST. JOE COMPANY: District Court Dismisses Fla. Securities Suit
SUNSET AUTO: Settles Class Action Over Processing Fee
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: District Court Trims Stovall Suit

UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over "Cat's Paw" Program
VERISK ANALYTICS: Reached Settlement in "Hensley" Suit in August
VERISK ANALYTICS: "Mornay" Suit Still Pending in Louisiana
VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
VICTORIA VERSICHERUNG: 9th Cir. to Rehear Genocide Class Action

WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Says Settlement Payments "Earnable"
WASHINGTON DC: Dickerson Plaintiffs Can File 2nd Amended Suit
WATERMAN STEAMSHIP: Court Calls for Discovery in Seaman's Suit
WOODLANDS, CANADA: Judge Grants Class-Action Extension

* Cincinnati Residents Set to Vote on Ticket Tax Measure




                          *********

24 HOUR FITNESS: App. Ct. Reverses Order on Arbitration Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, reversed
a district court order refusing to enforce the class action waiver
provision in arbitration agreements in a lawsuit filed against 24
Hour Fitness USA, Inc., over overtime pay.

Defendant 24 Hour Fitness sought to compel arbitration after
plaintiffs and the proposed class representatives, Kevin Lewis,
Amanda Nguyen, Shane Nicol and Fareh Zoberi, brought a class
action seeking recovery of unpaid overtime compensation.

The case is KEVIN LEWIS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v. 24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC., Defendant and Appellan, Case No.
B227869 (Calif. App. Ct.).

A copy of the appeals court's Nov. 3 decision is available at
http://is.gd/jCAOKKfrom Leagle.com.

Keith A. Jacoby, Esq. -- kjacoby@littler.com -- Brandie N.
Charles, Esq. -- bcharles@littler.com -- and Judy M. Iriye, Esq.
-- jiriye@littler.com -- at LITTLER MENDELSON, represent the
Defendant/Appellant.

Stephen Glick, Esq. -- sglick@glicklegal.com -- and Anthony
Jenkins, Esq., represent the Plaintiffs/Respondents.


AKEENA SOLAR: Dec. 12 Final Fairness Hearing on Hodges Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the lawsuit captioned Sharon Hodges v. Akeena Solar,
Inc., et al., Case No. C 09-02147 JW (N.D. Calif.), were directed
by Judge James Ware to file a revised proposed order for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement, which will
include a date of Dec. 12, 2011, for the final fairness hearing,
and whose other proposed dates will allow sufficient time for
class members to exclude themselves from the settlement class or
object to the settlement and any proposed attorney fees.

The lawsuit is a putative securities fraud class action brought on
behalf of investors who acquired Akeena Solar securities between
Dec. 26, 2007 and March 13, 2008, against Akeena and certain of
the company's officers and directors.

A copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2011 directive is available at
http://is.gd/ZLAkQ8from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN HOME: 11th Cir. Vacates 2nd Injunction Vs. Edlesons
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard an appeal
involving a fundamental misunderstanding about the enforcement of
an injunction.  The district court approved a settlement between
American Home Shield Corporation and a national class represented
by Laura and Stephen Faught and, as part of its judgment, enjoined
permanently "anyone claiming . . . for the benefit of" members of
the class from prosecuting released claims.  Karon and Chip
Edleson opted out of the settlement of that class action, but
continued to prosecute a putative class action against American
Home Shield in a California court.  Instead of moving the district
court to enforce its extant injunction, American Home Shield then
moved the district court to enter another injunction to bar the
Edlesons from prosecuting their putative class action in the
California court, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2283.
The district court granted that motion and entered a second
injunction, which the Edlesons now challenge on appeal.  Because
the district court failed to comply with "equity's time-honored
procedures" to enforce an injunction, Wyatt v. Rogers, 92 F.3d
1074, 1078 (11th Cir. 1996), the Eleventh Circuit vacated the
second injunction against the Edlesons and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

The class action is captioned, Laura Faught, Steven Faught, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
American Home Shield Corporation.

The case before the Appeals Court is Karon Edleson, L.B. Chip
Edleson, movants-appellants v. American Home Shield Corporation,
defendant-appellee, Case No. 11-10459 (11th Cir.).

A copy of the Appellate Court's Oct. 21, 2011 order is available
at http://is.gd/UYNgCAfrom Leagle.com.


ANSURE MORTUARIES: Ind. App. Ct. Goldberg Cannot Challenge Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled that Matthew Goldberg has no
standing to challenge a settlement agreement in a class action
complaint filed against Ansure Mortuaries of Indiana, LLC, et al.
because he has not suffered plain legal prejudice.

Appellants Matthew Goldberg and his closely held company, Indiana
Investment Corporation, LLC, were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by appellee Angela K. Farno
against Ansure Mortuaries of Indiana, LLC, and others regarding
the alleged looting of cemetery trust funds.  Ms. Farno filed a
motion for certification of a litigation class of plaintiffs who
all share claims based on the alleged looting of cemetery trusts
that had been funded with proceeds from their purchases of pre-
need burial services and merchandise pursuant to Indiana law.  The
trial court denied Ms. Farno's motion, concluding that a class
action was "not superior to other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of the issues in controversy," as would
be required for class certification under Indiana Trial Rule 23.
Ms. Farno requested and received a stay of the proceedings pending
an interlocutory appeal from that ruling, which was taken pursuant
to Indiana Appellate Rule 14.  Ms. Farno then asked the trial
court to lift the stay so that she could seek preliminary approval
of a class action settlement agreement that she had reached with
various defendants, including appellee Forest Lawn Memory Gardens,
Inc. She also asked the trial court to grant preliminary approval
of the settlement agreement and to certify the plaintiff class for
settlement purposes, stating that the settling defendants had
stipulated for settlement purposes that the "superiority"
requirement of Trial Rule 23 was met.  Over Mr. Goldberg's
objection, the trial court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement and certifying the plaintiff
class for settlement purposes.

The appeals court affirmed the trial court's decision.

The case is Matthew Goldberg, et al., Appellants-Defendants,
v. Angela K. Farno, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Appellees-Plaintiffs; Matthew Goldberg, et al,
Appellants-Defendants v. Fred Meyer, Jr., et al., Appellees-
Plaintiffs, Case No. 41A01-1007-MF-348 (Ind. App. Ct.)

A copy of the appeals court's Sept. 26, 2011 order is available at
http://is.gd/Xk4bkVfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas W. Farlow, Esq. -- tfarlow@fbtlaw.com -- Darren A. Craig,
Esq. -- dcraig@fbtlaw.com -- Michele Lorbieski Anderson, Esq. --
janderson@fbtlaw.com -- at FROST BROWN TODD LLC, serve as
attorneys to Appellants Matthew Goldberg And Indiana Investment
Corporation, LLC.

Irwin B. Levin, Esq. -- ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- Richard E.
Shevitz, Esq. -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- Vess A. Miller,
Lynn A. Toops -- vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- at COHEN & MALAD,
LLP, represents Appellee Angela Farno.

Fred R. Biesecker, Esq. -- fred.biesecker@icemiller.com -- Donald
M. Snemis, Esq. -- donald.snemis@icemiller.com -- Brian J. Paul,
Esq. -- brian.paul@icemiller.com -- at ICE MILLER LLP serve as
attorneys for Appellee Forest Lawn Memory Gardens, Inc.


BANK OF AMERICA: Overdraft Class Action Settlement Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge on Nov. 7 gave
final approval to a $410 million settlement in a class-action
lawsuit affecting more than 13 million Bank of America customers
who had debit card overdrafts during the past decade.

Senior U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King said the agreement
was fair and reasonable, even though it drew criticism from some
customers because they would only receive a fraction of what they
paid in overdraft fees.  The fees were usually $35 per occurrence.

"It's really undisputed that this is one of the largest
settlements ever in a consumer case," said Aaron Podhurst, a lead
attorney for the customer class.

The settlement became final a week after Charlotte, N.C.-based
Bank of America backed off a plan to charge a $5 monthly fee for
debit-card purchases.  The outcry prompted other major banks,
including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co., to cancel
trial tests of their own debit card fees.

Bank attorney Laurence Hutt said 13.2 million Bank of America
customers who had debit cards between January 2001 and May 2011
would get some payment.  Those who still have accounts would get
an automatic credit and the others would get a check mailed to
them.  No one would have to take any action or fill out any
paperwork.

Barry Himmelstein, an attorney for customers who objected to the
deal, said he calculated that the bank actually raked in $4.5
billion through the overdraft fees and was repaying less than 10
percent.  He said the average customer in the case had $300 in
overdraft fees, making them eligible for a $27 award -- less than
one overdraft charge -- from the lawsuit.

"It's $4.5 billion that's gone missing from people's accounts,"
Mr. Himmelstein said.

Mr. Hutt said only 46 customers filed formal objections to the
settlement and 350 decided to opt out, meaning they could take
separate legal action on their own.

"It's very easy for people to say on the sidelines, 'I could do
better,'" Mr. Hutt said.  "Never is a settlement at 100% of what
somebody thinks they can receive at trial.  It's always a
compromise."

Customers will receive a minimum of 9% of the fees they paid
through the settlement, Mr. Hutt added.  The bank has already paid
the money into an escrow account.

The lawsuit claimed that Bank of America processed its debit card
transactions in the order of highest to lowest dollar amount so it
could maximize the overdraft fees customers paid.  An overdraft
occurs when the account doesn't have enough money in it to cover a
debit card transaction.  Similar lawsuits have been filed against
more than 30 other banks.

Despite the settlement, Bank of America insists there was nothing
improper about the processing sequence.  New regulations enacted
following the recent financial crisis prohibit banks from charging
overdraft fees on debit cards without first getting customer
permission.

Many of the objections concerned the fees for the team of class-
action attorneys, which would amount to about $123 million.

Lawyers for people opposed to the settlement said that amount
should be cut down by at least $50 million, with the money going
back to the wronged customers.

"The best use is to provide compensation to the class members,"
said Elliott Kula, who represents some of the objectors.

But Judge King sided with the plaintiffs' attorneys, noting that
they spent thousands of hours on the case and achieved "a superb
result" for the customers.

"I don't see anything about this case that's simple or garden
variety," the judge said.

Another complaint concerned missing records for customers from
2001 through 2003, which has made them impossible to identify.
The settlement will take about 14 percent of the total --
representing an estimate for the fees paid by those customers --
and put the money into nonprofit financial literacy programs.

In addition, the 32 original named plaintiffs who represented the
larger class will get bonuses of up to $5,000 each, $2,500 each if
both plaintiffs are a married couple.

Settlement Web site: http://www.bofaoverdraftsettlement.com


BLUE RHINO: Settles Class Action Over Propane Tank Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP on Nov. 7 issued a statement regarding
the In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2086.

If you purchased or exchanged one or more pre-filled Blue Rhino
propane gas cylinders in the U.S. between June 15, 2005 and
October 11, 2011 and did not resell the cylinder(s), a class
action lawsuit may affect your rights.

What is the Case About?

A class action lawsuit called In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2086, is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
The lawsuit claims that Blue Rhino, together with certain
competitors, reduced the amount of propane gas in the cylinders it
sold to its customers without disclosing the reduced fill to its
customers and by misrepresenting or failing to disclose the actual
fill of the cylinders to its customers.  The lawsuit seeks to
recover the money that Plaintiffs allege customers were
overcharged due to Blue Rhino's conduct.  Blue Rhino denies any
wrongdoing and, if the Settlement is not approved by the Court,
will argue, among other things, that the case should not be a
class action.  The Court has not decided that Defendants did
anything wrong.

Named Plaintiffs settled with Blue Rhino on behalf of all Blue
Rhino tank exchange customers.  Blue Rhino has made a commitment
regarding its sales and marketing practices, and agreed to pay
Class Members who make valid and timely claims according to a
formula described in the Settlement Agreement.  You are a Class
Member if you purchased or exchanged one or more pre-filled Blue
Rhino propane gas cylinders in the U.S. between June 15, 2005 and
October 11, 2011 and did not resell the cylinder.

What Are Your Options?

To participate in the proposed Settlement Fund, you must submit a
timely, completed and sworn Claim Form to the Claims Administrator
at the address or e-mail listed below.  Claim Forms must be
postmarked or sent by e-mail NO LATER THAN May 23, 2012.  If you
stay in the class, you may object or comment on the Settlement.

To be excluded from the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
written request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator
postmarked NO LATER THAN January 9, 2012.

To object, you must file your objection NO LATER THAN January 10,
2012 with the Court and serve on Counsel your intention to do so.
Further details can be obtained from the Claims Administrator via
the contact information below.

If you do nothing, you will be considered a participant in the
proposed Settlement but you will not receive money, be bound by
the terms of the Settlement and lose your right to sue regarding
the settled claims.

Who Represents You?

The Court appointed the law firms Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Girard Gibbs LLP, and Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP to represent you as "Class Counsel."  You don't have to
pay Class Counsel or anyone else to participate.

Do I Need To Appear At the Settlement Hearing?

The Court has scheduled a Settlement Hearing to consider the
proposed Settlement on February 24, 2012, 9:00 a.m. at the U.S.
District Court, Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse, 400 East 9th
Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.  The Court will determine
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate and whether the proposed Class should be
certified.  Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys' fees,
and other costs, as well as service awards for the Class
Representatives, which will be paid by Blue Rhino or out of the
Settlement Fund as detailed in the Settlement Agreement.  The
motion(s) by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and costs and
incentive awards for the Class Representatives will be available
for viewing on the settlement Web site after they are filed.  You
may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don't have to.  If you
wish to appear you must file a notice of intention to appear at
the Settlement Hearing.

How Can I Get More Information?

This notice is only a summary.  For more information about this
case, your rights, all documents, and forms, visit
http://www.propanesettlement.comcall 1-888-313-1919, e-mail
PropaneSettlement@GardenCityGroup.com or write to: Blue Rhino Pre-
Filled Propane Tank Litigation, c/o GCG, Inc., P.O. Box 9772,
Dublin, OH, 43017-5672.


BP: Faces 77 More Oil-Spill Claims in Alabama
---------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that seventy-
one boat owners have joined the thousands of Gulf Coast residents
who've sued BP, claiming it owes them money for chartering their
boats in its Vessels of Opportunity clean-up.  And six Florida
police officers filed complaints against BP and Halliburton,
saying they lost their jobs because their salaries were funded by
tourism, which was devastated by the oil spill.

The 71 Gulf Coast boat owners who let BP hire their ships for its
Vessels of Opportunity program called the program a corrupt
conspiracy that left "thousands of participants . . . holding the
bag for millions of dollars of unpaid services, equipment,
materials, repairs and decontaminations."  And they say BP
intended it that way.

The plaintiffs say BP touted its Vessels of Opportunity (VoO)
program as a public relations gimmick, but it "was marred by
mismanagement, corruption and broken promises," and that BP and
its co-conspirators "intended to underpay VoO participants."

Steve Olen, a partner with the Mobile firm Cunningham Bounds,
which filed the lawsuit in Mobile County Court, Ala., told
Courthouse News that the law firm has filed three previous
lawsuits, each with nearly 100 plaintiffs.  Altogether, the firm
represents about 350 Vessels of Opportunity plaintiffs.

Mr. Olen said all the complaints allege not only breach of
contract, but also misrepresentation.

"BP told thousands of people: 'You're on standby. Wait for our
call,'" Mr. Olen said.

Then BP never called.

Most plaintiffs were put on standby in early to mid July 2010,
before the well was even capped, Mr. Olen said.

In addition to failing to pay wages, the defendants reneged on
promises to repair damage to the plaintiffs' boats and failed to
pay for decontamination after the boats were used for cleanup, he
said.

"We've seen an awful lot of folks whose boats were damaged by the
VoO program, and BP hasn't paid," Mr. Olen said.

The new complaint states: "BP, Parsons Corporation, Danos & Curole
[Staffing] and the individual defendants have engaged in an
illegal and unlawful conspiracy to defraud plaintiffs and to
underpay plaintiffs for services, equipment, materials, repairs
and decontaminations related to the VoO program and the oil spill
response. . . .

"Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP established the VoO
program as part of BP's response to the oil spill.  Publicly, BP
claimed that the VoO program would help clean up the Gulf Coast
and would provide money to people affected by the oil spill.  Once
implemented, the VoO program was marred by mismanagement,
corruption and broken promises.  As a result, when the VoO program
was concluded, thousands of participants, including plaintiffs,
were left holding the bag for millions of dollars for unpaid
services, equipment, materials, repairs and decontaminations."

It adds: "In order to effectively implement the VoO program, BP
and the other defendants had to convince vessel owners, captains
and crew members that they would receive more money through the
VoO program than if they sat idle at the dock or pursued other
employment or income opportunities."

But that didn't happen, the boat owners say.

Their lead counsel is George Finkbohner III with Cunningham
Bounds.

In the six complaints against BP and Halliburton in Leon County
Court, Tallahassee, former Panama City Beach police Officer
Clayton Jordan and five others say they lost their jobs because of
the 290 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.

The officers say their employer, "the City of Panama Beach, is
highly dependent on revenues generated, both directly and
indirectly, from the provision of goods and services to tourists
and out-of-town visitors to fund its municipal operations,
including the City Police department.  The 'tourist trade,' in
turn, is wholly dependent on the lure of Panama City Beach's white
sugar sand beaches and emerald Gulf waters and opportunities for
recreation and relaxation which are the amenities of the Gulf of
Mexico's marine and coastal environments."

The laid-off police officers say not just the actual pollution
from the oil spill, but even "perceived" pollution, killed their
employment.

"Panama City Beach has no natural attributes which would attract
industry, commerce or tourists except its white sand beaches and
Gulf waters.  In addition, Panama City Beach has no ad valorem
tax, and, therefore, city funding and operations are almost
entirely dependent on revenues derived from tourist related
sources. . . .

"As a foreseeable consequence and proximate cause of the spill,
the coastal waters, beaches, estuaries, tidal flats and lands
adjoining the seacoast of Panama City Beach were contaminated by
pollutants and were perceived by tourists and out-of-town visitors
as contaminated by pollutants," the officers say.

They seek punitive damages for negligence, strict liability for
ultra-hazardous activity and violations of the Florida Pollutant
Discharge Prevention and Control Act.

"Defendants BP and Halliburton engaged in conduct so reckless,
willful, wanton and in such utter and flagrant disregard for the
safety and health of the public and the environment in their
activities leading up to and/or during the blowout, explosions,
fire and spill, as alleged herein, that an award of punitive
damages against them at the highest possible level is warranted
and necessary to impose effective and optimal punishment and
deterrence.  Plaintiff, society and the environment cannot afford
and should never be exposed to the risks of another disaster of
the magnitude caused by defendants' misconduct herein.

"BP focused primarily on profit while disregarding public and
environmental health and safety while undertaking its ultra-
hazardous activities on the Deepwater Horizon by performing a
critical well pressure test with untrained and unqualified
personnel and by callously ignoring and/or misrepresenting 'red
flag' pressure test results."

The plaintiffs are Clayton Jordan, Nicholas Tomlinson, Michael
Melton, Jeffrey Heath, Emily Melton and Wayne Maddox.

The complaints were filed by Douglas Lyons with Lyons and Farrar
in Tallahassee.

A copy of the Complaint in Eastbridge, et al. v. BP America
Production Company, et al., Case No. CV11-1102 (Ala. Cir. Ct.,
Mobile Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/07/Vessels.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George W. Finkbohner, III, Esq.
          William E. Bonner, Esq.
          CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC
          1601 Dauphin Street
          Mobile, AL 36604
          Telephone: (251) 471-6191
          E-mail: gwf@cunninghambounds.com
                  web@cunninghambounds.com

               - and -

          David A. Bagwell, Esq.
          Post Office Box 2126
          Fairhope, AL 36533
          Telephone: (251) 928-2970
          E-mail: david@bagwellesq.com

               - and -

          Samuel N. Crosby, Esq.
          STONE, GRANADE & CROSBY, P.C.
          7133 Stone Drive
          Daphne, AL 36526
          Telephone: (251) 626-6696
          E-mail: snc@sgclaw.com


CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Midyear Fee Increases
------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Tenney, writing for Sonoma State Star, reports that a student
filed class action lawsuit over fee increases has come before the
Superior Court of California in the County of San Francisco, which
recently released court documents on the case.

Earlier this year, California State University students Honora
Keller, Samantha Adame, Caitlin Seandel, Vivian Kwak and Xuelian
Xie filed a class action suit both individually and on the behalf
of approximately 200,000 affected students.

This suit was in response to the CSU Board of Trustees increasing
fees and tuition for fall 2009 in May and July of that year after
initially charging a smaller amount for state university fees and
non-resident tuition.

Danielle Leonard, a counsel for the plaintiff, explained the
position of the plaintiff and the reasoning for its actions in
further detail.

"We filed this lawsuit because the plaintiffs believe that the
university cannot bill its students a specific price for a
semester or quarter, and then later require them to pay additional
amount for that same term."

"No one else selling services would be allowed to do that under
the law, and neither should CSU," said Ms. Leonard.

The plaintiff alleges that because the CSU raised the fees after
some students had already paid the previous amount, the CSU
violated its contract with students about the required price, and
failed to deal with students fairly or in good faith.

The plaintiff's goal is to recover a refund for all students who
were affected.  The CSU denies there was anything illegal about
its action or that there was a contract, and alleges that students
were warned that fees and tuition could be raised and that some
students consented to the increase.

Ms. Leonard referred to a precedent-setting case involving a fee
increase in the University of California system regarding the
question of whether a contract exists between students and the UC.

"The California Court of Appeal held in 2007 that the same action
by the UC system, charging fee increases after billing students,
was a breach of contract," said Ms. Leonard.  "Students sued here
under exactly the same theory and believe they will prevail under
exactly the same theory."

"As much as the university does not like it, students have
contract rights that they can enforce," said Ms. Leonard.

"We aren't saying that the university can't ever raise fees, but
they must do it in the proper way with the proper notice.  CSU
knew it had failed to do that in fall 2009 and raised the fees
anyway," she added.

Ms. Leonard also referred to an e-mail sent out Oct. 24 of this
year to all students eligible for reimbursement that provided a
summary of the case.

"The court agreed that this case can go forward as a class action,
and that is why approximately 175,000 CSU students are receiving
the notice of the lawsuit now," said Ms. Leonard.

According to a press release from the Chancellor's Office from
July 21, 2009, the purpose of the fee increase was to cover a $584
million budget deficit and the state's decreasing financial
support.  The press release also stated that the first increase, a
10 percent increase from May 2009, consisted of an additional
$306.  The second increase was approved the same day the press
release came out, and raised the state university fee by 20
percent, adding on $672 to the first increase.  The second
increase also raised the non-resident tuition.

Stephanie Thara, a spokeswoman for the Chancellor's Office, went
into detail on the CSU's position and reasoning.

"The CSU-student relationship is statutory, not contractual. Since
the CSU does not have a contract with its students, there is no
contract that could be breached," said Ms. Thara.  "In August
2009, the CSU successfully defeated the plaintiff's request for
the preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order on
tuition fee increases.  Since then, the CSU has been actively
involved in the discovery process."

Ms. Thara additionally went in depth into what she saw as
potential negative ramifications if the lawsuit were successful.
"Potentially, 175,000 out of 430,000 students who matriculated in
fall 2009 may be eligible for a refund of the student fee increase
if the plaintiffs prevail in the lawsuit," said Ms. Thara.  "If
CSU ends up paying tens of millions of dollars to prior students
and their attorneys, that burden will necessarily have to be
shifted to current and future students, either through loss of
classes and services or higher tuition fees. There is no
additional CSU money to cover this hole."

Ms. Thara laid out some of the things that could be impacted, and
referred to an opt-out provision in the e-mail notice.

"There would be enormous financial consequences for not only the
CSU, but current and future students," said Ms. Thara.  "Tuition
level, class sizes, enrollment and services are among the things
that could be negatively affected.  Class members are currently
being notified, and will be have the opportunity to 'opt out' of
the class, if they so choose, thereby decreasing the impact of
this potential loss."


CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CA: Dec. 19 Hearing Set for Law Library Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that an Orange Superior Court
judge has scheduled a hearing on final approval of a class action
brought on behalf of users of the LA Law Library.

Judge Ronald Bauer, who is hearing the case on assignment to the
Los Angeles Superior Court, will hear arguments on Dec. 19 in
Santa Ana.  If the settlement is approved, local attorneys who
paid the $50 annual fee to borrow materials from the library
between Dec. 29, 2008 and Oct. 3 of this year may choose to
receive a refund or to donate the funds to the library and receive
a refund.

The plaintiff, Northridge attorney Mindi Grant, would receive a
$2,500 incentive award and her attorney, Neil B. Fineman of
Fineman & Associates in Anaheim Hills, will receive $30,000 in
costs and fees.

Ms. Grant's complaint alleges that the library violated Business
and Professions Code Sec. 6360, which provides that if a public
law library charges "individual members of the bar resident in the
county" for the removal of materials, "[t]hese fees shall not
exceed the cost of providing the service."

The library trustees denied violating the statute, but agreed to
the settlement after talks overseen by Orange Superior Court Judge
Francisco F. Firmat.  In addition to offering refunds to class
members and making payments to the plaintiff and counsel, the
trustees also agreed that State Bar members who live in Los
Angeles County will be allowed to borrow materials without paying
the $50 fee for at least one year from the approval of the
settlement.

Class members may file objections to the settlement up until
Nov. 28.  The case is Grant v. The Board of Trustees of the LA Law
Library, BC452165.


CNA FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion for Final Settlement Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation is still awaiting a ruling on its motion
for final approval of its settlement of a consolidated class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's November 1, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

In August 2005, CNA Financial Corporation and certain insurance
subsidiaries were joined as defendants, along with other insurers
and brokers, in multidistrict litigation pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Civil No. 04-5184 (GEB).
The plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint alleged bid
rigging and improprieties in the payment of contingent commissions
in connection with the sale of insurance. After various motions
and preliminary court rulings providing for further proceedings,
all parties executed final settlement documents and the plaintiffs
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in May
2011. In June 2011, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. A fairness hearing was held in September
2011 to determine final approval of the settlement. The Court took
the matter under advisement and will issue a ruling in due course.
As currently structured, the settlement will not have a material
impact on the Company's results of operations. In addition, the
Company does not believe it has any material ongoing exposure
relating to this matter.


DIAMOND FOODS: Made False and Misleading Statements, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Salhuana, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Diamond Foods, Inc., Michael J. Mendes, and Steven M.
Neil, Case No. 3:11-cv-05386 (N.D. Calif., November 7, 2011) is
brought on behalf of purchasers of Diamond Foods' securities
between April 5, 2011, and November 1, 2011, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Plaintiff
alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Specifically, Mr. Salhuana contends that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements; failed to disclose that the Company was
underestimating the ultimate price to be paid to walnut growers;
and was improperly accounting for its cost of sales.  As a result,
the Company's financial results were overstated.  The Company also
failed to disclose that it lacked adequate internal and financial
controls.  As a result of its failures, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times; and the Company's positive statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, as well as those regarding the
timetable for the proposed acquisition of Pringles snack business
from The Procter & Gamble Company, lacked a reasonable basis.

Mr. Salhuana is a holder of Diamond Foods securities during the
Class Period.

Diamond Foods was incorporated in Delaware in 2005 as the
successor to Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc., a member-owned
California agricultural cooperative association.  In July 2005,
Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. merged with and into Diamond Foods,
Inc., converted from a cooperative association to a Delaware
corporation and completed an initial public offering of Diamond
Foods' common stock.  Diamond Foods processes, markets and
distributes snack products.  Mr. Mendes is the Chairman of the
Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Diamond Foods.
Mr. Neil is the Chief Financial Officer of Diamond Foods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


DIEBOLD INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold, Incorporated, continues to defend itself against a
shareholder class action lawsuit in Ohio, according to the
Company's November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against the Company, certain current and former officers,
and the Company's independent auditors (Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No. 10-CV-
1461). The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock
between June 30, 2005 and January 15, 2008 and fees and expenses
related to the lawsuit. The complaint generally relates to the
matters set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC in June
2010 finalizing the settlement of civil charges stemming from the
investigation of the Company conducted by the Division of
Enforcement of the SEC (SEC Settlement).


DIET DRUGS: 3rd Cir. Tosses Matrix Compensation Benefit Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a lower
court order denying Donna J. Pickering's claims for Matrix
Compensation Benefits under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action
Settlement Agreement in In re Diet Drugs Product Liability
Litigation.  A copy of the Third Circuit's Sept. 20, 2011 decision
is available at http://is.gd/MuTliRfrom Leagle.com.


DOMUS HOLDINGS: Trial Set for April 16 in Frank K. Cooper Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date of April 16, 2012, has been set in the class action
lawsuit involving Domus Holdings Corp.'s subsidiary, according to
the Company's November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. v. Cendant Corp. and Century
21 Real Estate Corporation (N.J. Super. Ct. L. Div., Morris
County, New Jersey). In 2002, Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc.
filed a putative class action against Cendant and Cendant's
subsidiary, Century 21 Real Estate Corporation ("Century 21"). One
of the Company's subsidiaries, Realogy Franchise Group or RFG,
franchises the Century 21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), ERA(R),
Sotheby's International Realty(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R)
and Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate brand names.  The
complaint alleges breach of certain provisions of the Real Estate
Franchise Agreement entered into between Century 21 and the
plaintiffs, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and breach
of certain express and implied fiduciary duties. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that Cendant diverted money and
resources from Century 21 franchisees and allotted them to NRT
owned brokerages and otherwise improperly charged expenses to
advertising funds. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief, interest, attorney's fees
and costs. The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, if applicable,
provides for treble damages, attorney's fees and costs as remedies
for violation of the Act. On August 17, 2010, the court granted
plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify a class. The certified class
includes Century 21 franchisees at any time between August 1, 1995
and April 17, 2002 whose franchise agreements contain New Jersey
choice of law and venue provisions and who have not executed
releases releasing the claim (unless the release was a provision
of a franchise renewal agreement).

A case management order entered on November 29, 2010 established,
among other things, a trial date of April 16, 2012. Pursuant to
the court order, the Notice Administrator has advised the Company
that the notice of pendency of the action was mailed to possible
class members on March 4, 2011, and a summary of that notice has
been published in various print and online media.

In August 2011, the court denied, without prejudice, plaintiffs'
motion seeking to invalidate two categories of claims releases.
Based on the rulings of the court to date, there are approximately
1,020 franchisees (former and current) who are members of the
class for all or a portion of the class period. Also, based upon
the rulings by the court, merits discovery is substantially
complete, but the exchange of expert reports and related discovery
has not yet occurred.

This class action involves substantial, complex litigation. Class
action litigation is inherently unpredictable and subject to
significant uncertainties. The resolution of the Cooper Litigation
could result in substantial losses and there can be no assurance
that such resolution will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's results of operations, financial condition or
liquidity.


DOMUS HOLDINGS: Trial in Larsen Suit Set for August 2012
--------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the lawsuit against some of Domus Holdings Corp.'s
subsidiaries is currently scheduled for August 2012, according to
the Company's November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

Larsen, et al. v. Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corporation, et al.
(case formerly known as Joint Equity Committee of Investors of
Real Estate Partners, Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corp.,
et al). The case, pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, arises from the relationship
of several of the Company's subsidiaries with a former Coldwell
Banker Commercial franchise, whose affiliated entity allegedly
utilized the Coldwell Banker Commercial name in the offer and sale
of securities during the period in which it was a franchisee and
for a period of time after the franchise agreement was terminated.
In a SEC civil proceeding asserting violations of various
securities laws, by stipulated judgment dated September 2, 2009, a
shareholder of the franchisee, Real Estate Partners, Inc. ("REP"),
and REP's affiliated entities were ordered to disgorge
approximately $53 million in funds raised from investors. REP
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2007. The bankruptcy
trustee is actively working on gathering assets to compensate
creditors, including the allegedly defrauded investors. In April
2010, the Joint Equity Committee of Investors of Real Estate
Partners, Inc. ("Joint Equity Committee") filed this action
against the Company's subsidiaries Coldwell Banker Real Estate
Corporation and Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC, alleging, among
other things, negligence and fraud. The plaintiff alleged that the
Coldwell Banker subsidiaries knew or should have known that REP
and the Coldwell Banker Commercial franchisee were using the marks
in connection with the promotion of securities but that the
Coldwell Banker subsidiaries failed to act to stop that use. After
the Coldwell Banker subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss
arguing, among other things, that the Joint Equity Committee
lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of the investors or
creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding, the initial complaint was
amended to substitute individual investors as plaintiffs and was
re-styled as a putative class action brought on behalf of REP
investors. The First Amended Complaint was dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 29, 2011, and the court
denied the Coldwell Banker subsidiaries' motion to dismiss on
September 8, 2011. On August 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed their
motion to certify a class, which has yet to be fully briefed by
both parties. Trial is currently scheduled for August 2012.


DOW CHEMICAL: Approval of Rohm and Haas Suit Settlement Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a class action lawsuit involving a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Company has been affirmed, according to the
Company's November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

In December 2005, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana (the "District Court") issued a
decision granting a class of participants in the Rohm and Haas
Pension Plan (the "Rohm and Haas Plan") who had retired from Rohm
and Haas, now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and who
elected to receive a lump sum benefit from the Rohm and Haas Plan,
the right to a cost-of-living adjustment ("COLA") as part of their
retirement benefit. In August 2007, the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals (the "Seventh Circuit") affirmed the District Court's
decision, and in March 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
Rohm and Haas Plan's petition to review the Seventh Circuit's
decision. The case was returned to the District Court for further
proceedings. In October 2008 and February 2009, the District Court
issued rulings that have the effect of including in the class all
Rohm and Haas retirees who received a lump sum distribution
without a COLA from the Rohm and Haas Plan since January 1976.
These rulings are subject to appeal, and the District Court has
not yet determined the amount of the COLA benefits that may be due
to the class participants. The Rohm and Haas Plan and the
plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement that, in addition
to settling the litigation with respect to the Rohm and Haas
retirees, provides for the amendment of the complaint and
amendment of the Rohm and Haas Plan to include active employees in
the settlement benefits. The District Court preliminarily approved
the settlement on November 24, 2009 and, following a hearing on
March 12, 2010, issued a final order approving the settlement on
April 12, 2010. A group of objectors to the settlement filed an
appeal from the final order. In November 2010, the District Court
issued an order approving class counsel's fee award petition in an
amount consistent with the terms of the settlement. The same
objectors also appealed this order. On September 2, 2011, the
Seventh Circuit affirmed the approval of the settlement and the
award of attorneys' fees. A lone objector filed a petition for
rehearing, which was denied on October 17, 2011.

A pension liability associated with this matter of $185 million
was recognized as part of the acquisition of Rohm and Haas on
April 1, 2009. The liability, which was determined in accordance
with the accounting guidance for contingencies, recognized the
estimated impact of the judicial decisions on the long-term Rohm
and Haas Plan obligations owed to the applicable Rohm and Haas
retirees and active employees. The Company had a liability
associated with this matter of $186 million at September 30, 2011
and $186 million at December 31, 2010.


EM JOHANSING: App. Ct. Flips Ruling in Park Residents' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, reversed a
trial court order denying class certification in the lawsuit,
Frank Marler, et al. v. E.M. Johansing, LLC, et al., Case No. 2d
Civil No. B229445.  The matter is remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings.  Costs on appeal are awarded in favor of
plaintiffs.

Frank Marler, Sandra Marler and the Hollywood Beach Acquisition
Association, Inc. filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Hollywood Beach Mobilehome Park residents against the park owners,
asserting breach of contract and fraud against defendants E.M.
Johansing LLC, J.D. McGrath Farms, Philip H. McGrath, Maureen
McGrath Aggeler, Terence McGrath Aggeler, Sheila Aggeler Barnes
and Anne Aggeler Will.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Park is a senior citizens
mobilehome park subject to rent control; that the Park owners
induced them to convert the Park to a condominium development
through false promises about the purchase price they would pay for
their lots; after the Park residents approved the conversion, the
Park owners raised the lots prices so high that the majority of
the Park residents could not afford them.

A copy of the Appeals Court's Oct. 19, 2011 order is available at
http://is.gd/MEk828from Leagle.com.


ESURANCE INSURANCE: 7th Circuit Remands "Keeling" Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted a
petition for leave to appeal and reversed the district court's
decision on the class action captioned, Lukus Keeling, on a behalf
of a class v. Esurance Insurance Company, Case No. 11-8018 (7th
Cir.).  The case is remanded for decision on the merits.

The class action was filed in an Illinois state court on behalf of
Esurance's policyholders contending that the company committed
fraud by charging for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage
that is worthless in light of the policy's restrictions.  Esurance
removed the suit to federal court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453,
part of the Class Action Fairness Act.  The proposed class has
more than 100 members, and minimal diversity of citizenship has
been established, but Lukus Keeling, the representative plaintiff,
argued that the amount in controversy is less than $5 million, the
statutory threshold.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit's Sept. 20, 2011 order is available
at http://is.gd/qtNKVpfrom Leagle.com.


FS HOTELS: App. Ct. Upholds Denial of Certification in Acuna Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, affirmed a
trial court order denying plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of non-exempt employees in the wage and hour action
captioned, Richard Acuna, et al. v. FS Hotels (LA), Inc., Case No.
B225931.

Plaintiffs and Appellants Ricardo Acuna, Luis Estrada, and Andres
Ayala were non-exempt employees of FS Hotel, who alleged they were
not allowed to take meal or rest breaks.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the Plaintiffs' contentions
that the trial court abused its discretion in denying class
certification.

The Court of Appeals stated that:

  -- It finds no misrepresentation and no prejudice in the
     testimony of Samantha Walder, the hotel's director of human
     resources.  "[Defendants'] counsel correctly stated that Ms.
     Walder testified that the Hotel ensured employees were
     provided breaks by making managers responsible and by
     reminders at department meeting.  There could be no prejudice
     because Walder's testimony was in evidence."

  -- On the merits, plaintiffs presented no evidence of their
     theory that the Hotel had a policy or practice of not paying
     premium pay for rest and meal break violations.

  -- At the hearing on the class certification motion, plaintiffs'
     counsel made no showing as to any department-based class, and
     thus it was no abuse of discretion to decline to certify a
     class of kitchen or other department-based employees.

The appellate panel is composed of Judges Sandy A. Kreigler,
Orville A. Armstrong, and Richard A. Mosk.

A copy of the Court of Appeals' Sept. 13, 2011, order is available
at http://is.gd/FbtXTkfrom Leagle.com.


GASPARI NUTRITION: Settles Class Action Over Novedex XT
-------------------------------------------------------
A notice program authorized by the United States District Court
for the Central District of California began on November 1, 2011,
to alert those who purchased Novedex XT from November 2, 2006,
through October 3, 2011, about a proposed settlement with Gaspari
Nutrition, Inc.  The notice is a result of the Court certifying,
on October 3, 2011, a plaintiff settlement class in a lawsuit
alleging that Defendant made misleading or false statements about
Novedex XT.  Gaspari denies that it made any false or misleading
statements.

The lawsuit, James Keller v. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc., Case No. CV
11-06158 GAF (SHx), claims that Gaspari made improper statements
in their labeling and advertising of Novedex XT marketed by
Gaspari as a dietary supplement, and that such statements violate
consumer protection laws and were fraudulent.  Gaspari denies that
it made any false or misleading statements, or that it did
anything wrong or illegal.  The court has not ruled on the merits
of the parties' respective claims and the settlement does not mean
that that Gaspari did anything wrong.

Each Settlement Class Member who provides a valid receipt or
credit card statement showing that they purchased Novedex XT
during the Class Period is eligible to receive a check in the
amount of $20.00 for each bottle of Novedex XT purchased for
personal consumption.  Each Settlement Class Member who does not
have a valid receipt or credit card statement showing that they
purchased Novedex XT during the Class Period, but who signs a
sworn affirmation under penalty of perjury saying that they
purchased Novedex XT, along with other requested information
relating to the purchase of the product, is eligible to receive a
check in the amount of $10.00 for each bottle of Novedex XT
purchased for personal consumption during the Class Period, up to
a maximum of four (4) bottles.  As an alternative to monetary
compensation, Settlement Class Members may elect to receive a
bottle of Gaspari's Viridex XT product.

Notices informing class members about their legal rights are
appearing in national magazines and on the internet leading up to
the final approval hearing on February 6, 2012.

In addition to submitting a claim form to ask for payment or
replacement product, Class members can ask to be excluded from, or
object to, the settlement. Claim forms must be postmarked or
submitted online no later than January 16, 2012.  The deadline for
exclusions and objections is January 16, 2012.

A toll-free number, 1-877-341-4585, has been established in this
case along with a Web site -- http://www.NovedexXTSettlement.com
-- where notices, claim forms, exclusion forms, the settlement
agreement, court documents, and the court's preliminary approval
order may be obtained.  Those affected also may write to: Novedex
XT Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 6389, Portland, OR 97228-
6389.


GENERAL MILLS: 7th Cir. Junks "Chewy Bars" Suit on Different Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed,
although for a different reason, a lower court's dismissal of a
lawsuit targeting "chewy bars" sold by General Mills Inc.  The
plaintiff alleges the products sold are mislabeled.  The appeals
court held that the plaintiff's suit fails to state a claim under
the principal Illinois law on which she pitches her case.  The
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act does
not apply to "actions or transactions specifically authorized by
laws administered by any regulatory body or officer acting under
statutory authority of this State or the United States." 815 ILCS
505/10b(1).  The representations on the packaging of the
defendants' chewy bars concerning dietary fiber are specifically
authorized by the federal statutes and regulations, the Appeals
Court said.

The case is Carolyn Turek, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. General Mills,
Inc., and Kellogg Co., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 10-3267 (7th
Cir.).  A copy of the Appellate Court's Oct. 17, 2011 order is
available at http://is.gd/AvUpPkfrom Leagle.com.


HARTE-HANKS INC: Unit Ended Payment of Class Settlement in August
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Harte-Hanks, Inc., concluded the payments under a
class settlement agreement from a class settlement fund in August
2011, according to the Company's November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On January 25, 2010, Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (Shoppers), a
California corporation and a subsidiary of Harte-Hanks, Inc.
(Harte-Hanks), reached an agreement in principle with Shoppers
employee Frank Gattuso and former employee Ernest Sigala,
individually and on behalf of a certified class, to settle and
resolve a class action lawsuit filed in 2001 (Frank Gattuso et al.
v. Harte-Hanks Inc. et al.). This agreement in principle was
reduced to a class settlement agreement executed by the parties,
and received final approval from the court on May 26, 2011.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Shoppers established a class
settlement fund of $7.0 million. In return, each member of the
class, including Gattuso and Sigala, have released all claims
against Shoppers and its affiliates that in any way arose from or
related to the matters which were the subject of, or could have
been the subject of, the claims alleged in the class action
lawsuit. Payments under the class settlement agreement from the
class settlement fund concluded in August 2011, and the unclaimed
portion reverted back to Shoppers in August of 2011.

On March 23, 2001, Shoppers employee Frank Gattuso and former
employee Ernest Sigala filed a class action against Shoppers in
Los Angeles County Superior Court, claiming, among other related
allegations, that Shoppers failed to comply with California Labor
Code Section 2802 ("CLC 2802"), which requires an employer to
indemnify employees for expenses incurred on behalf of the
employer. The plaintiffs alleged that Shoppers failed to reimburse
them for expenses of using their automobiles as outside sales
representatives, and failed to accurately itemize these expenses
on plaintiffs' wage statements. The class, as certified by the
trial court, was limited to California Harte-Hanks outside sales
representatives who were not separately reimbursed apart from
their base salary and commissions for the expenses they incurred
in using their own automobiles after early 1998. The plaintiffs
sought indemnification and compensatory damages, statutory
damages, exemplary damages, penalties, interest, costs of suit,
and attorneys' fees. Shoppers filed a cross-complaint seeking a
declaratory judgment that the plaintiffs were indemnified for
their automobile expenses by the higher salaries and commissions
paid to them as outside sales representatives. On January 30,
2002, the trial court ruled that CLC 2802 requires employers to
reimburse employees for mileage and other expenses incurred in the
course of employment, but that an employer is permitted to pay
increased wages or commissions instead of indemnifying actual
expenses. On May 28, 2003, the trial court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. On October 27, 2005, the
California Court of Appeal issued a unanimous opinion affirming
the trial court's rulings, including the interpretation of CLC
2802 and denial of class certification. On November 23, 2005, the
Court of Appeal denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. On
November 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's ruling that CLC 2802 permits lump sum reimbursement and
that an employer may satisfy its obligations to indemnify
employees for reasonable and necessary business expenses under CLC
2802 by paying enhanced taxable compensation. The Supreme Court
remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
proceedings related to class certification and directed the trial
court to consider whether the following issues could properly be
resolved on a class-wide basis: (1) did Shoppers adopt a practice
or policy of reimbursing outside sales representatives for
automobile expenses by paying them higher commission rates and
base salaries than it paid to inside sales representatives, (2)
did Shoppers establish a method to apportion the enhanced
compensation payments between compensation for labor performed and
expense reimbursement and (3) was the amount paid for expense
reimbursement sufficient to fully reimburse the employees for the
automobile expenses they reasonably and necessarily incurred. On
May 19, 2009, the trial court issued a partial class certification
order certifying a class action with respect to the first two
questions and denying class certification on the question.

During the fourth quarter of 2009 the Company accrued the full
$7.0 million associated with this agreement. In June of 2011 the
Company paid $7.0 million to establish the class settlement fund.
Based upon the claims received from the class members, the Company
reduced the accrual by $1.3 million in the first half of 2011. In
August of 2011 the Company received unclaimed funds of $1.3
million from the settlement fund.


HOMELAND INSURANCE: 5th Cir. Upholds Remand of PPO Discount Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a
district court's order remanding to a Louisiana state court the
class action commenced by George Raymond Williams against Homeland
Insurance Company of New York, et al.

George Raymond Williams brought a class action in Louisiana state
court on behalf of a class of Louisiana medical providers against
Med-Comp USA, Risk Management Services, SIF Consultants of
Louisiana, Homeland Insurance and Corvel Corp.  Med-Comp operates
a preferred provider organization network, contracting with the
plaintiff class of medical providers for discounted rates.  RMS
and SIF Consultants apply the Med-Comp PPO discount when
administering workers' compensation claims for Louisiana
employers.  Mr. Williams alleged that the defendants failed to
comply with the PPO notice provisions of Louisiana law.

The case is George Raymond Williams, Medical Doctor, Orthopaedic
Surgery, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Homeland Insurance Company of New
York, Defendant-Appellant, Corvel Corporation, Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 11-30646 (5th Cir).

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's Sept. 19, 2011 order is available at
http://is.gd/usG6Idfrom Leagle.com.


HORIZON GROUP: Accused of Violating Landlord & Tenant Ordinance
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Walker & Christina Cruz, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Horizon Group XVII LLC, Case No.
2011-CH-38489 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., November 7, 2011) relates
that in February 2011, the Plaintiffs and Horizon entered into a
written rental agreement for a dwelling in a property in Chicago,
Illinois, which is a multi-unit residential apartment building
with more than 70 apartments in a complex of two similar sized
buildings.

The Cruzes allege that Horizon did not disclose code violations
affecting their Unit and common areas from the 12 months before
the Lease was entered into, in violation of the Chicago
Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance.  They add that Horizon
further violated the RLTO by making entries and requests to enter
units at the Apartment Buildings to show to prospective tenants
before the final 60 days of the rental agreements.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Silverman, Esq.
          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washington, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775-1015
          Facsimile: (312) 256-2055
          E-mail: mark@depositlaw.com


HOUSEHOLD FINANCE: Trial Court Compels Arbitration in Bailey Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit Debra Ann Bailey, et al. vs. Household Finance
Corporation of California, HSBC Card Services, Inc., HSBC Bank
Nevada, N.A., Case No. 10cv857 (S.D. Calif.), Judge William Q.
Hayes granted Household Finance's motion to compel arbitration.

The Plaintiff's claims against Household Finance are dismissed
without prejudice and the parties are ordered to proceed to
arbitration in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Judge
Hayes ordered.

On April 23, 2010, Defendant Household Finance removed the class
action complaint from the Superior Court of California for the
County of San Diego.  On June 7, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiff alleges that in 2007, she
received a loan from Household Finance.  The Plaintiff alleges
that she made payments on the loan until July 2009.  The Plaintiff
alleges that she also received a credit card from HSBC Finance
Corp, HSBC Card Services, Inc., and HSBC Nevada, N.A.  The
Plaintiff alleges that she made payments on the credit card until
July 2009.  The Plaintiff alleges that "beginning in July 2009,
Defendants persisted in a course of action in making hundreds of
telephone calls to Plaintiff, mainly on her cellular telephone but
also to her land line home phone, in an attempt to coerce her to
make payments on her loans."  The Plaintiff has asserted the
following claims against all Defendants: (1) violation of the
California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (2)
violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act; (3) violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act; and (4)
violation of California Business and Professions Code section
17200 et seq.

A copy of the District Court's Oct. 28, 2011 order is available at
http://is.gd/9t6LKbfrom Leagle.com.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Former Madoff Customers File $19BB Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ax, writing for Reuters reports that former customers of
Bernard Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme filed a class action lawsuit
on Nov. 7 seeking to recover $19 billion from JPMorgan Chase & Co,
claiming the bank willfully ignored signs of fraud.

JPMorgan was Mr. Madoff's bank for two decades.  The lawsuit,
filed in federal court in Manhattan, claims the bank was
"thoroughly complicit" in concealing Mr. Madoff's fraud.

The lawsuit comes less than a week after a federal judge threw out
a similar suit from Irving Picard, the trustee seeking money for
Mr. Madoff's victims, ruling that he did not have standing to seek
money from the bank.  Instead, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen
McMahon ruled, only victims of the scheme can pursue such claims,
leading to the Nov. 7 lawsuit.

The class action lawsuit asserts that even a cursory examination
of the finances of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
would have revealed that the money was not used to follow an
investment strategy but simply flowed between Madoff and his
customers.

"JPMC chose to enable Madoff's fraud, not just through the various
ways it participated in his activity, but by helping to cover
Madoff's naked theft with the imprimatur of a globally recognized
financial institution" the lawsuit reads.

Calls to the bank and to a lawyer representing it in the Madoff
lawsuits were not immediately returned on Nov. 7.

In its response to Mr. Picard's lawsuit, the bank argued that he
failed to show that anyone at the bank knew of Mr. Madoff's scheme
or deliberately worked with him in order to earn more fees.

Judge McMahon's ruling that Mr. Picard had no power to pursue
common law claims against JPMorgan and UBS AG followed a similar
ruling in July by her colleague, Jed Rakoff, who tossed out $8.6
billion in claims against HSBC Holdings Plc and other defendants.

Mr. Picard plans to appeal the ruling, according to a spokeswoman.

He has filed more than 1,000 lawsuits on behalf of former Madoff
clients since the firm collapsed in December 2008.  Most of those
are "clawback" lawsuits against former Madoff customers who Picard
believes withdrew too much money from the firm before it failed.

The lawsuits against the banks and "feeder firms" that steered
client money to Mr. Madoff accused them of turning a blind eye to
Mr. Madoff's fraud to secure more fees and commissions.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Trial Court Tosses Portions of Fosbre Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kent J. Dawson granted in part and denied in part a motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended class action styled as Frank
J. Fosbre, Jr., Plaintiff v. Las Vegas Sands Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:10-CV-00765 (D. Nev.).

The class action was brought on behalf of purchasers of LVS common
stock between August 2, 2007 and November 6, 2008.  LVS operates
resorts and gaming properties in Las Vegas, Macao, and Singapore.
Plaintiffs claim that during the Class Period, Defendants
knowingly or recklessly made misrepresentations and omissions
about LVS, its development plans, and its financial condition.
Plaintiffs assert violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and assert a claim against each of the
individual Defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

A copy of the Court's Aug. 24, 2011 is available at
http://is.gd/dX8qZLfrom Leagle.com.


MF GLOBAL: Brower Priven Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven on Nov. 7 disclosed that it has filed
a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of MF Global
Holdings Ltd.; formerly between May 20, 2011 through October 28,
2011, inclusive.  The case captioned DeAngelis v. Corzine, et al.
is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Case No. 11 CV 7866, against Defendants
Jon S. Corzine, Henri J. Steenkamp, Bradley I. Abelow and Michael
G. Stockman.

If you have suffered a net loss for all transactions in MF Global
common stock during the Class Period, you may obtain additional
information about this lawsuit and your ability to become a lead
plaintiff by contacting Brower Piven at:

          Brower Piven
          1925 Old Valley Road
          Stevenson, MD 21153
          Telephone: 410/415-6616
          E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com

Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating
securities and class action cases of over 60 years.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Members of
the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  If you wish to choose counsel to
represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead
plaintiff no later than January 2, 2012 and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement and how much of a settlement to accept for the Class in
the action.  The lead plaintiff will be selected from among
applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the
Company during the Class Period.  You are not required to have
sold your shares to seek damages or to serve as a Lead Plaintiff.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure
to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was suffering
from serious liquidity pressures based on its exposure to the
European debt crisis, that the Company's internal controls were
highly deficient such that it was unable to clearly segregate
clients' funds, and that its true risk profile would inevitably
lead to a credit rating downgrade.  According to the complaint,
after, on October 24, 2011, Moody's cut the Company's rating to
near junk status, and after, on October 27, 2011, Moody's and
Fitch cut MF Global's credit rating to junk status followed by the
threat of similar action by S&P, the value of MF Global shares
declined significantly.  As indicated in the complaint, attempts
to spin off the Company's futures trading business failed and, on
October 31, 2011, MF Global filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection in United States Bankruptcy Court in New York, causing
the New York Stock Exchange to suspend trading in the Company's
stock and to de-list its shares.

If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven
without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain
other counsel of your choice.  You need take no action at this
time to be a member of the class.


N.C. BAPTIST: Web Site for Class Action Participants Created
------------------------------------------------------------
Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center has created a Web site to help
more than 14,000 participants in a class-action federal lawsuit
involving N.C. Baptist Hospital learn how much settlement money
they may be eligible to receive.

The Web site -- http://www.wakehealth.edu/erisa-- requires
participants' first and last name and the last four digits of
their Social Security number.  The agreement represents a
potential conclusion of a lawsuit filed in January 2009 involving
MedCost, which Baptist co-owns with Carolinas HealthCare System.

The lawsuit involves current and former employees and their
families.  Those eligible for the settlement participated in the
plan from March 6, 2002, to May 7, 2009.  Participants made
contributions of $9 million to $13 million a year beginning in
March 2002, the lawsuit said.

On Sept. 30, Judge James Beaty Jr. approved a preliminary
settlement of $5.38 million and a timeline toward a final fairness
hearing on 10:00 a.m. Feb. 24.  The hearing gives plaintiffs an
opportunity to object to the terms of the second phase of the
settlement.  Objections must be filed by Jan. 16.

About $4.14 million is expected to be left in the settlement fund
once all attorney fees are paid.  The five primary plaintiffs will
each receive $4,000 in compensation.

The individual settlement estimates could be subject to revision
based on whether there are any objections that require a change in
allocations, any errors in data or other factors.

The settlement notice said the payment "represents taxable wages
to you and applicable withholding rules apply.  You also will
receive a W-2 form regarding any payment."  The notice said
payments are expected to be distributed within 60 days of the
case's conclusion.

Baptist and certain affiliates' group health plans have been
accused of requiring employees to pay more in fees for health
benefits than other corporate clients pay.

The lawsuit said Baptist "violated the duties, responsibilities
and obligations imposed upon them as a fiduciary" under the
federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  ERISA prohibits
most employers from using companies they own to provide health
benefits for employees unless they can show they are putting
workers' interests first.

How much compensation class members could receive is based on
several factors: the amount of time they were enrolled in the
plan; which year or years they were enrolled; which benefits
package they chose (prime or select); whether they had an employee
or family plan; the amount of the settlement allocated to the
applicable year or years; and the premium amount they paid into
the plan each year.

For instance, settlement amounts for 2007 and 2008 make up
slightly less than 50 percent of the total settlement.

Baptist has denied any wrongdoing.  It said the selection of
MedCost was a plan-sponsor function, not a fiduciary function, and
therefore its actions were not governed by ERISA.

"NCBH alleges that cost is only one factor in a prudence analysis,
and that MedCost provided superior service or capabilities in
other areas that justified any increase in cost," Baptist said in
June 2009.

However, according to the agreement, the plaintiffs' attorneys
"obtained reliable documentary evidence to suggest that NCBH had a
history of 'self-dealing' with its subsidiary provider network.
Indeed, that evidence indicated NCBH was even offering better
pricing to outside health plans that used the MedCost network than
it was offering its own plan and own employees."

In the first settlement phase, reached in October 2009, Baptist
agreed to raise its plan discount and lower the co-payment for
inpatient and outpatient services for 2009 and 2010.  The
percentage participants pay in total premiums cannot be increased
through 2014.

Kenneth Johnson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the value of
the Phase I settlement is about $600,000 a year through 2014.


OCLARO INC: Johnson & Weaver Named Lead Counsel in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen denied consolidation of the "Aguilar" case in
a consolidated securities fraud class action captioned In re
OClaro, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. C-11-3176 EMC,
C-11-3668 EMC (N.D. Calif.).  Judge Chen also approved the
appointment of Johnson & Weaver as lead counsel, and denied the
appointment of Levi & Korsinsky and Finkelstein Thomas as lead
counsel.

A copy of the District Court's Sept. 14, 2011 order is available
at http://is.gd/3wFY0Qfrom Leagle.com.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Loss of Apple Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc.,
Shaw Hong, Anson Chan, and Ray Cisneros, Case No. 3:11-cv-05372-
JSW (N.D. Calif., November 4, 2011) is brought on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased OmniVision securities between
August 27, 2010, and October 13, 2011.  The complaint asserts
violations of the federal securities laws.

The Plaintiff alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
OmniVision and certain of its officers and directors failed to
disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and overall financial condition and well-being.  The
Defendants also failed to disclose that OmniVision had lost its
contract as the exclusive supplier of camera sensors for Apple's
iPhone3GS and iPhone 4 models, as well as Apple's iPad and iPod
Touch products, the complaint notes.  The Company's contract with
Apple was one of its most important and high-profile business
components, and the loss of this contract represented a material
blow to the Company's business prospects and future growth
potential, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff is a holder of OmniVision's publicly traded
securities.

OmniVision, a Delaware corporation, designs, develops, and markets
semiconductor image-sensor devices worldwide.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Azra Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM
          One Market
          Spear Tower, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039
          Facsimile: (415) 293-8001

               - and -

          Joseph E. White III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3082
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Has to Meet At Least $9.6MM Injunction Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the September 2010 settlement of certain class
action litigation (the "Humboldt County Action") against Skilled
Healthcare Group, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries, including
twenty-two California nursing facilities operated by Skilled's
subsidiaries, Skilled and its defendant subsidiaries entered into
settlement agreements with the applicable plaintiffs and agreed to
an injunction. The settlement was approved by the Superior Court
of California, Humboldt County on November 30, 2010. Under the
terms of the settlement agreements, the defendant entities
deposited a total of $50.0 million into escrow accounts to cover
settlement payments to class members, notice and claims
administration costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
certain other payments. The court subsequently approved payments
from the escrow of up to approximately $24.8 million for
attorneys' fees and costs and $10,000 to each of the three named
plaintiffs.  In addition, approximately $9.3 million of settlement
proceeds have been distributed to approximately 3,900 of an
estimated 43,000 class members. Pursuant to the injunction, the
twenty-two defendants that operate California nursing facilities
must provide specified nurse staffing levels, comply with
specified state and federal laws governing staffing levels and
posting requirements, and provide reports and information to an
auditor. The injunction will remain in effect for a period of
twenty-four months unless extended for additional three-month
periods as to those defendants that may be found in violation.
Defendants demonstrating compliance for an eighteen-month period
may petition for early termination of the injunction. The Company
is required to demonstrate over the term of the injunction that
the costs of the injunction meet a minimum threshold level
pursuant to the settlement agreement, which level, initially $9.6
million, is reduced by the portion attributable to any defendant
in the case that no longer operates a skilled nursing facility
during the injunction period. The injunction costs include, among
other things, costs attributable to (i) enhanced reporting
requirements; (ii) implementing advanced staffing tracking
systems; (iii) fees and expenses paid to an auditor and special
master; (iv) increased labor and labor related expenses; and (v)
lost revenues attributable to admission decisions based on
compliance with the terms and conditions of the injunction. To the
extent the costs of complying with the injunction are less than
the agreed upon threshold amount, the defendants will be required
to remit any shortfall to the settlement fund.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 1,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.


ST. JOE COMPANY: District Court Dismisses Fla. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Smoak Jr. dismissed, without prejudice, the class
action Robert Meyer, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. The St. Joe Company, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:11-cv-27/RS-EMT (N.D. Fl.)

The lawsuit is a purported class action securities fraud case
against the St. Joe Company, a timber and paper company, its
former chief executive officer and president William Greene, its
former chief financial officer and executive vice president
William McCalmont, its former chairman of the board and chief
executive officer Peter Rummel, and its present chief financial
officer and senior vice president Janna Connolly.  Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants intentionally deceived investors about
the value of certain properties located throughout the Florida
panhandle in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A copy of the Court's Aug. 24, 2011 is available at
http://is.gd/KgmaAJfrom Leagle.com.


SUNSET AUTO: Settles Class Action Over Processing Fee
-----------------------------------------------------
Kelly Wiese, writing for Missouri Lawyers, reports that a class
action suit alleging a car dealer's processing fee violated state
law has been settled in St. Louis County.  Timothy Clover sued
Sunset Auto Co. in 2008.  His basic argument was that the $122.50
processing fee the dealer charged him amounted to unauthorized
practice of law and a violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act.


SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: District Court Trims Stovall Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit, Valarie Stovall v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.,
Civil Action No. RDB-10-2836 (D. Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.  Specifically, it is granted with respect to Counts One,
Two, Four, and Five, and denied with respect to Counts Three and
Six.  Moreover, the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Offer of Judgment
is denied, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplement
is granted.

Ms. Stovall filed the putative class action against SunTrust on
September 3, 2010, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland.  SunTrust removed the case to the district court on
September 13, 2010, based on diversity jurisdiction.  Ms. Stovall
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on January 19, 2011.  In
Counts One through Four, Ms. Stovall alleges that SunTrust (1)
violated Maryland's Consumer Debt Collection Act by engaging in
unfair and deceptive trade practices, making misrepresentations,
and failing to disclose material facts relating to Plaintiff's
U.S. Department of the Treasury's Home Affordable Modification
Program's application; (2) violated Maryland's Consumer Debt
Collection Act by filing debt collection foreclosure proceedings
without complying with the prerequisites of the Fannie Mae HAMP
program and in relying on bogus and insufficient documents
submitted by substitute trustees Howard Bierman, Jacob Geesing,
and Carrie Ward; (3) violated Maryland's Mortgage Fraud Protection
Act by making misstatements, misrepresentations, and omissions
during the mortgage lending process; (4) breached the Trial Period
Plan or TPP Agreement by instituting foreclosure proceedings
against borrowers under consideration for TPP loan modifications
and by authorizing foreclosure sales prior to sending written
denials of loan modification.  As an alternative to her breach of
contract claim, in Count Five, Ms. Stovall alleges a promissory
estoppel claim as an alternative theory of recovery.  In Count
Six, Ms. Stovall seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

A copy of the District Court's Sept. 20, 2011 order is available
at http://is.gd/gmAvxwfrom Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over "Cat's Paw" Program
----------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Department of Homeland Security has a "Cat's Paw" program "in
which actions are taken against whistleblowers, but are never
traceable directly to the hands of the supervisor who influences
the retaliations," a former Customs officer says in a federal
class action.

In a pro se complaint on behalf of DHS employees since 2007,
Kenneth D. Humphrey seeks damages for conspiracy to obstruct
justice, whistleblower violations, and damages under the False
Claims Act.

"What's called 'Cat's Paw' is a common practice by supervision in
CBP [Customs and Border Protection] and other federal agencies in
which actions are taken against whistleblowers, but are never
traceable directly to the hands of the supervisor who influences
the retaliations," the complaint states.

Mr. Humphrey claims he "witness[ed] repeatedly DHS/CBP's
leadership in acts of pushing fluffed meaningless statistics,
retaliations, sexual favors advancements, derelict of duties,
favoritism placements and assignments, abuse of personnel,
misappropriate usage of government items, etc.  Plaintiffs have no
trust in whistle blowing because contrary to stated congressional
activity, like the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act,
plaintiffs believe corruption runs all the way to the top of
grievances review offices/agencies/attorney examiners.  When the
'Cat's Paw' practices are appeal - The Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals has ruled in favor of only three whistleblowers out of
hundreds of cases."

Mr. Humphrey claims that in employee surveys "only just over four
out of every 10 respondents of CBP stated that senior leaders
promote honest, open, and trusted two-way sharing of communication
and knowledge."

He claims, "Only a little over three out of every 10 CBP
responding officers think that promotions, awards or other
recognitions are based on merit, or meaningful work settings
functioning."

Mr. Humphrey seeks an injunction and damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Humphrey, et al. v. Napolitano, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-23977 (D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/07/DHS.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth D. Humphrey, Esq.
          P.O. Box 42-1502
          Miami, FL 33242-1502
          Telephone: (305) 682-8854


VERISK ANALYTICS: Reached Settlement in "Hensley" Suit in August
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc., reached an agreement in August in the
class action lawsuit captioned Hensley, et al. v. Computer
Sciences Corporation et al., according to the Company's
November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corporation et al. was a
putative nationwide class action complaint, filed in February
2005, in Miller County, Arkansas state court. Defendants included
numerous insurance companies and providers of software products
used by insurers in paying claims. The Company was among the named
defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that certain software products,
including the Company's Claims Outcome Advisor product and a
competing software product sold by Computer Sciences Corporation,
improperly estimated the amount to be paid by insurers to their
policyholders in connection with claims for bodily injuries.

The Company entered into settlement agreements with plaintiffs
asserting claims relating to the use of Claims Outcome Advisor by
defendants Hanover Insurance Group, Progressive Car Insurance and
Liberty Mutual Insurance Group. Each of these settlements was
granted final approval by the court and together the settlements
resolve the claims asserted in this case against the Company with
respect to the insurance companies, who settled the claims against
them as well. A provision was made in 2006 for this proceeding and
the total amount the Company paid in 2008 with respect to these
settlements was less than $2,000. A fourth defendant, The
Automobile Club of California, which is alleged to have used
Claims Outcome Advisor, was dismissed from the action. On
August 18, 2008, pursuant to the agreement of the parties the
Court ordered that the claims against the Company be dismissed
with prejudice.

Subsequently, Hanover Insurance Group made a demand for
reimbursement, pursuant to an indemnification provision contained
in a December 30, 2004 License Agreement between Hanover and the
Company, of its settlement and defense costs in the Hensley class
action. Specifically, Hanover demanded $2,536 including $600 in
attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company disputed that Hanover is
entitled to any reimbursement pursuant to the License Agreement.
In July 2010, after the Company and Hanover were unable to resolve
the dispute in mediation, Hanover served a summons and complaint
seeking indemnity and contribution from the Company. The parties
resolved this matter with no material adverse consequences to
the Company in a Settlement Agreement and Release executed on
August 25, 2011.


VERISK ANALYTICS: "Mornay" Suit Still Pending in Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------
Mornay v. Travelers Ins. Co. , et al., a class action lawsuit
involving Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s Xactware subsidiary is still
pending, according to the Company's November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

Two lawsuits were filed by or on behalf of groups of Louisiana
insurance policyholders who claim, among other things, that
certain insurers who used products and price information supplied
by the Company's Xactware subsidiary (and those of another
provider) did not fully compensate policyholders for property
damage covered under their insurance policies. The plaintiffs seek
to recover compensation for their damages in an amount equal to
the difference between the amount paid by the defendants and the
fair market repair/restoration costs of their damaged property.

Schafer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et al., was a putative
class action pending against the Company and State Farm Fire &
Casualty Company filed in March 2007 in the Eastern District of
Louisiana. The complaint alleged antitrust violations, breach of
contract, negligence, bad faith, and fraud. The court dismissed
the antitrust claim as to both defendants and dismissed all claims
against the Company other than fraud. Judge Duval denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class with respect to the fraud
and breach of contract claims on August 3, 2009. After the single
action was reassigned to Judge Africk plaintiffs agreed to settle
the matter with the Company and State Farm and a Settlement
Agreement and Release was executed by all parties in June 2010.
The settlement agreement was not considered material to the
Company.

Mornay v. Travelers Ins. Co. , et al. is a putative class action
pending against the Company and Travelers Insurance Company filed
in November 2007 in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The
complaint alleged antitrust violations, breach of contract,
negligence, bad faith, and fraud. As in Schafer, the court
dismissed the antitrust claim as to both defendants and dismissed
all claims against the Company other than fraud. Judge Duval
stayed all proceedings in the case pending an appraisal of the
lead plaintiff's insurance claim. The matter was re-assigned to
Judge Barbier, who on September 11, 2009, issued an order
administratively closing the matter pending completion of the
appraisal process. The appraisal process has been completed, the
stay has been lifted and defendants have filed a motion to strike
the class allegations and dismiss the fraud claim. At this time,
it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of or
estimate the liability related to this matter.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit involving
Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s subsidiary remains pending before the
Eighth Circuit, according to the Company's November 1, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

In April 2010, the Company's subsidiary, Insurance Information
Exchange or iiX, as well as other information providers in the
State of Missouri were served with a summons and class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri alleging violations of the Driver
Privacy Protection Act, or the DPPA, entitled Janice Cook, et al.
v. ACS State & Local Solutions, et al. Plaintiffs brought the
action on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals whose personal information is contained in any motor
vehicle record maintained by the State of Missouri and who have
not provided express consent to the State of Missouri for the
distribution of their personal information for purposes not
enumerated by the DPPA and whose personal information has been
knowingly obtained and used by the defendants. The class complaint
alleges that the defendants knowingly obtained personal
information for a purpose not authorized by the DPPA and seeks
liquidated damages in the amount of two thousand five hundred
dollars for each instance of a violation of the DPPA, punitive
damages and the destruction of any illegally obtained personal
information. The court granted iiX's motion to dismiss the
complaint based on a failure to state a claim on November 19,
2010. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 17, 2010 and
oral argument was heard by the Eighth Circuit on September 18,
2011. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of or estimate the liability related to this matter.


VICTORIA VERSICHERUNG: 9th Cir. to Rehear Genocide Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed on Nov. 7 to take a
rare third look at a class action for insurance benefits filed in
California by survivors of the Armenian genocide.

A full panel of 9th Circuit judges will reconsider a three-judge
panel's reversal late last year of its own 2009 ruling in the
case.

That December 2010 decision found no federal policy forbidding
California from recognizing the World War I-era killing of more
than 500,000 Armenians as a genocide.

Vazken Movsesian and other Californians of Armenian descent sought
damages for bad faith, breach of contract and constructive trust
in 2003 from two German insurers owned by Munich Re.  The suit
claimed that California law gave victims until the end of 2010 to
file insurance claims related to the mass extermination of
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923.

The District Court found that the foreign affairs doctrine did not
pre-empt the state law, but the original appellate panel dismissed
the claims as pre-empted by federal foreign policy.

On rehearing, however, the panel found "no express federal policy
forbidding states to use the term 'Armenian genocide,' and
reversed.

A majority of nonrecused active judges voted to rehear the issue
en banc, triggering the formation of a new, 11-judge panel.

A copy of the Order in Movsesian, et al. v. Victoria Versicherung
AG, et al., No. 07-56722 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/nQTeNB


WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Says Settlement Payments "Earnable"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed a trial
court decision in the lawsuit, William Serres, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Washington Department of
Retirement Systems and King County, Case No. 64362-I, consolidated
with Case No. 64563-3-I, stating that settlement payments made to
class members qualify as "compensation earnable" within the
meaning of RCW 41.40.010(8).

The core issue litigated in the case is whether settlement
payments made in a class action should be included in the
calculation of the retirement allowance for certain class members.

On appeal, the Defendants contended that the settlement payments
do not meet the statutory definition of the term "compensation
earnable" because the County did not pay them as salary or wages.
DRS also claimed that the trial court erred by refusing to join
all members of the settlement class as necessary parties in the
class action lawsuit.

Judge A.C.J. Leach of the Washington Court of Appeals, who penned
the appellate court's decision, held that because the settlement
payments compensated employees for individualized wage loss
claims, they are "compensation earnable" under RCW 41.40.010(8).

Furthermore, RCW 41.50.130(1) does not authorize the DRS to
collect plan contributions now from those members of the
settlement class whose retirement allowances were not affected by
the settlement payments, Judge Leach stated.  The trial court,
therefore, appropriately declined to join the unaffected
settlement class members as parties, the judge said.

Finally, because the DRS is not an aggrieved party with respect to
the attorney fee award, it cannot seek appellate review of the
award, Judge Leach added.

The other members of the appellate panel are Judges Ann Schindler
and Mary Kay Becker.

A copy of the Washington Court of Appeals' Sept. 12, 2011 order is
available at http://is.gd/ZLAkQ8from Leagle.com.

Counsel for the Defendants are:

          Sarah Elizabeth Blocki, Esq.
          7141 Cleanwater Dr Sw,
          Po Box 40108
          Olympia, WA 98504-0108

               - and -

          Karen Astrid Pool Norby, Esq.
          500 4th Ave Ste 900,th
          Seattle, WA 98104-2316

               - and -

          Susan Nathalie Slonecker, Esq.
          Admin Bldg, 500 4th Ave Ste 900
          Seattle, WA 98104-2316.

Counsel for William Serres is:

          James D. Oswald, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES D. OSWALD
          401 2nd Ave S Ste 700,
          Seattle, WA 98104-2850


WASHINGTON DC: Dickerson Plaintiffs Can File 2nd Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a race and age discrimination lawsuit against the
District of Columbia, et al., have been granted leave to file a
second amended complaint.  The defendants' motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint is denied without prejudice as moot.

The class action is filed by Plaintiffs Kenneth Dickerson and 14
other principals and assistant principals from the District of
Columbia Public Schools in the D.C. Superior Court against the
District of Columbia, its Mayor, and the Chancellor of the DCPS,
seeking damages in an amended complaint for race and age
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. and the District of Columbia
Human Rights Act, D.C. Code Ann. Sec. 2-1401.01 et seq., wrongful
discharge, defamation, civil conspiracy, and violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, based upon the
termination of their employment in June 2008.  The defendants
removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.  The plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended
complaint that would add four new plaintiffs, add new factual
allegations, expand the civil conspiracy count, and add new claims
of violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 and breach of employment
contract.  The proposed second amended complaint alleges that
before the termination of their employment, the plaintiffs were
third party beneficiaries of the Union's collective bargaining
agreement with the District, and that the defendants discriminated
against the plaintiffs based on race and age by repeatedly failing
to follow the procedures and policies set forth in the CBA and
preventing the plaintiffs from enforcing their contractual rights.

Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the
District of California also granted the plaintiffs an extension of
time to file a motion for class certification.  The plaintiffs'
motion should be filed 90 days after the defendants file an
answer.

A copy of the District Court's Aug. 24, 2011 is available at
http://is.gd/PwMyqJfrom Leagle.com.


WATERMAN STEAMSHIP: Court Calls for Discovery in Seaman's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan held in abeyance the motion to
certify class in the action captioned, Jared Smith v. Waterman
Steamship Corporation, Case No. 10-12759-BC (E.D. Mich.)

In the lawsuit filed in July 2010, Mr. Smith alleges he is
entitled to sue as a representative party on behalf of crew
members who suffered illness or injury in the service of the
Defendant's vessels and were thereafter paid unearned wages
without payment of overtime.  However, Judge Ludington said it has
not been established that there is, in fact, a custom or practice
on the vessels at issue to pay seaman overtime in excess of
amounts paid as base wages.  Provisions of the collective
bargaining agreements at issue have also not been disclosed, the
judge noted.

"It is thus appropriate to defer determination of Plaintiff's
motion for class certification until these issues are given
additional attention and scrutiny through limited discovery
related to the circumstances of the putative class members, the
collective bargaining agreements that would apply, whether there
is a custom or practice on the vessels at issue to pay seaman
overtime in excess of amounts paid as base wages, and any
applicable Sixth Circuit authority addressing the custom or
practice of including overtime wages in unearned wages," Judge
Ludington said.

Counsel may engage in limited discovery regarding the putative
class members, the collective bargaining agreements would apply,
and whether there is a custom or practice on the vessels at issue
to pay seaman overtime in excess of amounts paid as base wages,
the Court ordered.  The discovery period is scheduled to close on
Nov. 14, 2011.  Plaintiff is further directed to file supplemental
briefing addressing the issues presented by Nov. 14, 2011.

A copy of the District Court's Sept. 14, 2011 order is available
at http://is.gd/66Jj56from Leagle.com.


WOODLANDS, CANADA: Judge Grants Class-Action Extension
------------------------------------------------------
CKNW report that former residents of Woodlands have been granted
an extension, to get in on a class action lawsuit.

The original deadline to enter the settlement for anyone who was
at Woodlands on or after August first 1974 was September 19.

But BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman has granted a
year-long extension.

Residents wanted an indefinite extension, citing their
vulnerability, saying many of them cannot read or write, others
are non-verbal and become visibly upset whenever the name
"Woodlands" was mentioned.

So far, 715 people have signed onto the suit, but none of the
cases have been settled.

Woodlands school confined and segregated people with disabilities
until 1996, many suffering abuse and neglect.


* Cincinnati Residents Set to Vote on Ticket Tax Measure
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul McKibben, writing for Cincinnati.com, reports that supporters
of a ballot measure to charge a tax on Reds and Bengals tickets
gathered on Nov. 6 to round up volunteers to collect signatures on
Election Day.

The Cincinnati chapter of Class Action USA (Citizens' League
Against Subsidized Sports) is aiming to have the initiative on the
March 2012 primary ballot.  Supporters need to collect 7,468
signatures from registered Cincinnati voters.

The deadline is the first week in January, according to Hamilton
County Commissioner Todd Portune, who earlier this year proposed
the tax.

Only city residents could vote on the measure, because it requires
amending Cincinnati's charter.  Supporters were set to visit 41
polling locations in the city on Nov. 8.

"Since we can only get Cincinnati registered-voter signatures ...
what better place to be to make sure that you're getting
registered Cincinnati voters than at Cincinnati polling places on
Election Day as people have voted," Mr. Portune said outside at
City Cellars, where supporters were gathered.  "So we're pretty
much guaranteed that every signature we get is going to be a good
signature."

Mr. Portune said a couple thousand more signatures are needed.

A recent Enquirer/Survey USA poll of 1,200 Hamilton County
residents showed 63% supported taxing tickets to Reds and Bengals
games.

In the city, 60% of residents surveyed said that they supported
the tax.  The poll was conducted last month.

Mr. Portune said "the poll put a lot of energy into our efforts to
make sure that we follow through to see this to the end."

Hamilton County voters approved a half-cent sales tax in 1996 to
build Great American Ball Park for the Reds and Paul Brown Stadium
for the Bengals.  But the tax hasn't produced enough revenue for
the county's stadium fund.  The fund could have a $14 million
shortfall by the end of 2012.  The shortfall is expected to grow
every year without fixes to the fund.

Hamilton County Commissioner Greg Hartmann has said a user tax is
the best option, but the county's lease with the teams doesn't
allow for it.

Mr. Portune said the leases prohibit the county from putting on a
ticket tax, and the county isn't doing that.  He said it's a
citizens' initiative arising in the city that city voters would
adopt.



                           *********

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  * * *