CAR_Public/111222.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, December 22, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 253

                             Headlines

ALBERTA HEALTH: Fee Hike Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL: May Face Class Action Over Patient Neglect
AMLI MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Unpaid Security Deposit Interest
BANK OF AMERICA: Jump Legal Group Files Foreclosure Class Action
BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in "Lina" Class Suit Remains Pending

BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on IPO Securities Suit Appeal
BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend Remaining Claims in "Caron" Suit
BIG LOTS: Limited Discovery in "Gromek" Suit Still Ongoing
BIG LOTS: Parties in "Martinez" Class Suit Engaged in Discovery
BIG LOTS: Remaining Claims in "Avitia" Suit Dismissed in October

BIG LOTS: "Seals" Suit Remains Pending in California
BIG LOTS: Still Defends "Sample" Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Plavix Suits Will Not Proceed as Class Suits
BUDGETEXT CORP: Faces Suit for Not Paying Termination Pay
CARRIER IQ: Sued For Unauthorized Tracking of Users' Info

CHINA MEDICAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files Class Action in New York
CHRYSLER LLC: Brake Defect Suit Moved to Bankruptcy Court
DE BEERS: Appeals Court Upholds $295M Settlement in Antitrust Suit
DONALDSON CO: Still Awaits Approval of Settlement in Filter MDL
E&B GIFTWARE: Agrees to $550T Fine Over Defective Fitness Balls

FOOT LOCKER: Still in Mediation with "Pereira" Suit Parties
GRUNENTHAL: Thalidomide Class Action to Be Heard in Australia
HAIN CELESTIAL: Sued for Using Synthetic Ingredients in Products
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
LEAR CORP: Says Ch. 11 Case Should Block Class Action Suits

LOUIS VUITTON: Judge Reverses Customer Info Class Action Ruling
MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Defend "INFUSE" Suit in Minnesota
MEDTRONIC INC: Fully Paid Plaintiffs of Fidelis-Related Claims
METRO TRANSIT: Accused of Tolerating Racial Discrimination
NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Limits Class in Labor Law-Violations Suit

OHIO VALLEY: Doctors' Class Suit vs. Health Plan Still Tied Up
PHARMAVITE LLC: Sued Over False Claims on Vitamin E Product
PROVIDA LIFE: Sued Over Body Makeover Money-Back Guarantee
ROSS STORES: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in Calif.
STUBHUB INC: Sells "Already Sold" Tickets, Calif. Suit Claims

TINSLEY ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
WARRIOR GOLF: Sued Over False Advertising on "Free" Golf Club




                          *********

ALBERTA HEALTH: Fee Hike Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Edmonton Journal reports that a class-action lawsuit, which
disputes dramatic fee hikes at nursing homes in 2003, can proceed
once again after the Court of Queen's Bench threw out a November
challenge by Alberta Health Services.

Justice Sheila Greckol, in a decision filed Dec. 19, directed the
health authority to pay the costs of the non-profit Elder Advocate
of Alberta Society and the other plaintiffs.

In May 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled their class-action
suit could proceed after it heard arguments that substantial fee
hikes at nursing homes in August 2003 were used to subsidize basic
health-care costs that should have been covered by the government.
At the time, the province increased fees for a semi-private bed to
C$42 a day from C$12, while the cost of a private bed rose to C$48
from C$15.

In November, Alberta Health Services fought those claims of
negligence.

Justice Greckol's decision on Dec. 19 throws out those claims.


ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL: May Face Class Action Over Patient Neglect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Donnelly, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a hospital
has been accused of leaving dying patients to starve in a
catalogue of cases of alleged neglect.

Lawyers are planning a "class action" on behalf of 23 families who
contacted them with "shocking" claims of indignities and the most
basic failings in care.

They believe the families who have contacted them so far about
care at Alexandra Hospital, in Redditch, West Midlands, may
represent "the tip of the iceberg".

The number of potential claims make it the biggest group action of
its type since hundreds died in appalling conditions at Stafford
Hospital, leading to a public inquiry which is expected to
criticize the wider failings of the NHS and of regulators'
failures to protect patients, when it reports next year.

The cases against Alexandra Hospital include:

   * A 35-year-old father-of-four who his family say wasted away
because staff did not know how to fit a feeding tube

   * A retired NHS worker who died after allegedly being left
without food or crucial heart medication

   * A man who fell into a coma after contracting E.coli,
apparently from a filthy catheter

   * The claims include allegations that vulnerable patients were
left to starve when trays were left out of reach, while others
left in soaking bedsheets

Official statistics show death rates at Worcestershire Acute
Hospitals trust, which runs the hospital, were 10% higher than the
national average in 2010/11 -- meaning there were 239 deaths more
than would be expected.

The legal action comes amid increasing concern about the standards
of care for hospital patients and failures to protect the
vulnerable.

Earlier this year, a report by the Health Service Ombudsman
condemned the service for its inhumane treatment of the elderly.

The investigation found hospitals were failing to meet their most
basic needs, with many left hungry, unwashed or given the wrong
drugs because of the "casual indifference of staff".

Legal firm Leigh Day & Co, which previously won the largest-ever
group claim against a single NHS hospital for 119 victims of the
Stafford hospital scandal, said they believed that the families
who had contacted them so far about the Alexandra Hospital may
represent "the tip of the iceberg".

The legal action facing the trust comes after the Care Quality
Commission (CQC) published the findings of spot check visits to
100 hospitals to inspect care of the elderly in October.

Half were found to be failing basic standards.

"Major concerns" were found at two -- including Alexandra
Hospital, where failings were so fundamental that it was warned in
May that it was breaking the law.

So many patients on its wards were left at risk of dehydration
that doctors were forced to prescribe water for them.

Since then, almost two dozen families have contacted lawyers about
cases.  While some have been fighting almost ten years for an
explanation from the hospital, other cases in the group occurred
as recently as July.

Emma Jones, a human rights lawyer for Leigh Day & Co, said many
had given up hope of getting answers until they saw the CQC report
into Alexandra Hospital.

Lawyers will say that the treatment of many patients was so
degrading, and so compromised their privacy, that it constituted
an abuse of the Human Rights Act.

The firm has been instructed by 17 families, and is considering
six further cases.

Miss Jones said: "The common themes we have encountered include
patients being left dehydrated and starved -- feeding tubes not
given to patients who could not swallow normally, food being
plonked out of reach of patients, and others left to eat with
their fingers because they weren't given cutlery.

"Buzzers went unanswered, several patients were left sitting in
soaking bedclothes for hours, or in their own faeces."

Chris Grande, a father of four, was just 35 when he died, four
days after being admitted to the hospital last Christmas with
breathing problems.

His widow Sonya says her husband, who suffered from spinal
muscular atrophy, was left to starve because hospital staff did
not know how to fit a feeding tube for him after he was admitted
on Boxing Day.

His body was pumped with fluid, to address dehydration, but nurses
failed to heed her warning that her husband's condition meant he
would quickly weaken without food, she said.

Mrs. Grande, 42, said her husband was stripped of his basic
dignity.  Nurses left him to lie in his own faeces for more than
three hours, ignoring her pleas for help to turn him, to clean him
up, she said.

When an elderly man fell from the next bed staff were slow to help
him up, and no one checked for any head injury, she said.

Two hours later, a nurse returned and found him dead, only to
laugh, said Mrs. Grande, and comment that the dead body was not
what she had come looking for.

The former personal assistant said she felt "haunted" by her
husband's screams, as his condition worsened.

She said: "He said it felt like his body was burning, he was
screaming out, it was unbearable.  He could barely speak for the
pain."

The widow believes that errors meant fluid was being pumped into
his skin tissue, instead of into his vein, causing the agony.
A do not resuscitate decision was taken by the medical team --
against the couple's wishes.

Mrs. Grande said: "They starved my husband to death.  Chris spent
his last few days in agony, and terrified of the people who were
supposed to be helping him."

Frank Bushell, 63, was admitted to the hospital in May, for a hip
operation.  Within a week the retired publican was lying in a
coma, and suffering multiple organ failure, triggered by an
infection of E.coli -- caught from a dirty catheter.

After 10 days unconscious, and several weeks in hospital, he was
finally discharged in a wheelchair.  Nurses stood chatting as his
wife Patricia, who is just 4 foot 8 inches tall, tried to help the
6 foot man into a taxi, she claims.

Mrs. Bushell said: "After all we had been through, the nurses did
not lift a finger.  We were desperate to get him out of that
hospital, it was not a safe place.

"It seems incredible that a man can go into hospital for a hip
operation, and be left battling for his life."

Reginald Iliffe was admitted to the hospital aged 85 with problems
swallowing, three days after being diagnosed with cancer, when
doctors said they expected him to live for 18 months.  The
pensioner, who had worked for the NHS all his life, was left
unwashed, and often lying in soaked sheets, his daughters say.

For the last seven days of his life Mr. Ileffe was given neither
food nor the crucial heart medication he had been taking for 20
years, they say -- a criticism which was confirmed by an
independent investigation by the Health Service Ombudsman.

Nine days after being admitted to hospital, the former dental
technician died of a heart attack.

For more than six years, his bereaved daughters say they have been
fighting for an explanation from the hospital.

They say that although hospital doctors had prescribed the heart
medication for Mr. Iliffe, as well as nutrition supplements,
nurses gave him neither, on the grounds he was nil by mouth, when
they should have arranged for an intravenous drip.

Joan Checkley, now 61, said she and her sister had been fearful
about the care he was getting and checked his medical chart every
day -- but did not know until after his death that codes indicated
medication was not being administered.

Mrs. Checkley, who works as an NHS receptionist, said they were
horrified by the "degrading" way her father was treated.

"In nine days they never washed him, and they wouldn't even give
him a bottle -- they would just tell him to go in the sheets," she
said.

"Dad had every faith in the health service.  He worked for the NHS
all his life and he loved it, working in dental hospitals in
Liverpool and Birmingham.

"He would have never have believed they would let them down the
way they did."

In November, the CQC published a further report, which said return
visits found the hospital to be meeting the basic standards on
dignity and nutrition it had failed in May.

Helen Blanchard, the trust's Director of Nursing and Midwifery,
said: "We actively encourage patient and family feedback and where
there is any indication that standards of care fall short of the
high standards we expect all staff to deliver we will always
address it."


AMLI MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Unpaid Security Deposit Interest
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janee Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. AMLI Management Company, Case No. 2011-CH-43084 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., December 15, 2011) accused the Defendant of
violating the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance.

As a tenant of an AMLI Management dwelling unit in Chicago,
Illinois, Ms. Johnson says she gave a $704 security deposit for
the Unit in June 2009.  In violation of the RLTO, she argues, the
Defendant paid her no interest on her security deposit either by
cash or by credit against rent after she moved out in 2011.

Ms. Johnson used to rent a dwelling unit from the Defendant in
Chicago.

AMLI Management is the lessor of the Plaintiff's unit and over 200
other rental units in Chicago known as the AMLI 900.

The Plaintiff is 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


BANK OF AMERICA: Jump Legal Group Files Foreclosure Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorneys John Sherrod and W. Mark Jump, of Jump Legal Group,
have filed a class action lawsuit against Bank of America on
behalf of Ohio homeowners who have been wrongfully foreclosed on
by Bank of America despite never missing a single payment.  The
suit alleges Bank of American improperly diverted homeowners'
trial loan modification payments.

The initiation of the class action lawsuit came after Bank of
American foreclosed on a Canal Winchester, Ohio, couple who were
shocked when a process server appeared at their door with
foreclosure papers.  Attorney John Sherrod relays, "the Woodruffs
are responsible homeowners, who like many people, were hurt by the
bad economy.  They contacted Bank of America and entered into a
loan modification agreement.  They made every payment on time and
then Bank of America foreclosed on them anyway. Joe and Jennifer
have two young children and they worry what this stress is doing
to them."

There are potentially hundreds of other homeowners in Ohio who are
living through this same nightmare.  "At this point we have
handled countless loan modifications where the loan application
and agreements have been mishandled by the banks.  This is
probably one of the more egregious scenarios emerging in the
marketplace," W. Mark Jump said.

What should you do if you have had an experience similar to the
Woodruff's?  Attorneys John Sherrod and Mark Jump urge homeowners
to contact them at 614-454-4307 or to visit Jump Legal's Web site
and fill out a brief questionnaire about your experience.

Jump Legal Group -- http://www.legaldebtsolutions.com-- is a
Columbus, Ohio law firm dedicated to helping people keep their
homes and get a fresh start using the protection of Foreclosure
Defense, Loan Modifications, Debt Settlement, and Bankruptcy.  For
more than a decade, Jump Legal Group has helped thousands of
people in Ohio.


BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in "Lina" Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s appeal from an order remanding a class
action lawsuit to a state court remains pending, according to its
December 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint captioned
Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
et al., was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of
California making the following allegations against defendants
with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores
located in the State of California from the period of August 5,
2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2)
failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting
time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to
provide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to
provide itemized wage statements.  The claims are generally
derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were
improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour
laws.  The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number
of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on
behalf the purported class.  The Company was served with the
complaint on August 11, 2011.  On August 30, 2011, the Company
filed an answer in state court, and on August 31, 2011, it removed
the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).  On October 28, 2011, the
district court granted plaintiff's motion to remand the action
back to state court, over the Company's opposition.  The Company
believes that the district court remanded the action in error.  On
November 7, 2011, Barnes & Noble petitioned the Ninth Circuit for
an appeal of the district court's remand order.  The case is
currently in state court, pending the Ninth Circuit's decision
regarding the Company's petition for permission to review the
remand order.


BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on IPO Securities Suit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs'
motion to dismiss an appeal in the consolidated lawsuit arising
from the Company's initial public offering, according to the
Company's December 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 29, 2011.

The class action lawsuit known as In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation filed in April 2002 (the Action), named over
one thousand individuals and 300 corporations, including
Fatbrain.com, LLC (Fatbrain), a former subsidiary of Barnes &
Noble.com, and its former officers and directors.  The amended
complaints in the Action all allege that the initial public
offering registration statements filed by the defendant issuers
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the one
filed by Fatbrain, were false and misleading because they failed
to disclose that the defendant underwriters were receiving excess
compensation in the form of profit sharing with certain of its
customers, and that some of those customers agreed to buy
additional shares of the defendant issuers' common stock in the
aftermarket at increasing prices. The  amended complaints also
allege that the foregoing constitutes violations of: (i) Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "1933 Act") by
the defendant issuers, the directors and officers signing the
related registration statements, and the related underwriters;
(ii) Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "1934 Act") by the same parties; and (iii) the control
person provisions of the 1933 and 1934 Acts by certain directors
and officers of the defendant issuers.  A motion to dismiss by the
defendant issuers, including Fatbrain, was denied.

After extensive negotiations among representatives of plaintiffs
and defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU), outlining a proposed settlement resolving the
claims in the Action between plaintiffs and the defendant issuers.
Subsequently, a Settlement Agreement was executed between the
defendants and plaintiffs in the Action, the terms of which are
consistent with the MOU.  The Settlement Agreement was submitted
to the court for approval, and on February 15, 2005, the judge
granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the Federal Appeals Court for the Second
Circuit (the Second Circuit) issued a decision reversing the
District Court's class certification decision in six focus cases.
In light of that decision, the District Court stayed all
proceedings, including consideration of the settlement. In January
2007, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc before the
Second Circuit, which was denied in April 2007.  On May 30, 2007,
plaintiffs moved, before the District Court, to certify a new
class.  On June 25, 2007, the District Court entered an order
terminating the Settlement Agreement.  On October 2, 2008,
plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the class certification motion.  On
October 10, 2008, the District Court signed an order granting the
request.

A Settlement Agreement in principle, subject to court approval,
was negotiated among counsel for all of the issuers, plaintiffs,
insurers and underwriters, and executed by the Company.
Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the court on
June 10, 2009, and final court approval of the settlement was
granted on October 5, 2009.  Pursuant to the settlement, no
settlement payment will be made by the Company.  Since that time,
various notices of appeal have been filed by certain objectors on
an interlocutory basis.  On August 25, 2011, the District Court
ruled that the last remaining appellant of the decision granting
final approval of the settlement has no standing to object to the
settlement.  This last remaining appellant has appealed the
district court's decision, and plaintiffs have moved to dismiss
the appeal.


BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend Remaining Claims in "Caron" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed
against Big Lots, Inc. by a California resident (the "Caron
matters").  The first was filed in the Superior Court of
California, Orange County.  This action is similar in nature to
the "Seals" matter, which enabled the Company to successfully
coordinate this matter with the Seals matter in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County.  The second and third matters,
filed in the United States District Court, Central District of
California, and the Superior Court of California, Riverside
County, respectively, allege that the Company violated certain
California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and
other wage and hour claims.  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on
their own behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class
consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated,
damages resulting from improper wage statements, missed rest
breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment of wages at termination,
reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company believed these two matters
overlapped and the Company successfully consolidated the two cases
before the United States District Court, Central District of
California.  The Company believes the remaining allegations also
overlap some portion of the claims released through the class
action settlement in the Espinosa matter, which was settled in
2008.  On August 25, 2009, the Court denied, without prejudice,
the plaintiffs' class certification motion.  On April 21, 2010,
the Court granted, with prejudice, the Company's motion to deny
class certification.  Accordingly, the claims of one plaintiff
remain before the Court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Caron matters
or the estimated range of possible loss, if any.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied
in these lawsuits; however, the ultimate resolution of these
matters could have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations, and liquidity.


BIG LOTS: Limited Discovery in "Gromek" Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
In June 2010, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against Big Lots, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the Company violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store
managers as exempt employees ("Gromek matter").  The plaintiffs
seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals
who were similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation,
as well as liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Company answered the plaintiffs' complaint on August
12, 2010.  On October 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting that the Court 1) conditionally certify a class of
then-current and former assistant store managers employed during
the prior three years, excluding those employed in California or
New York, and 2) authorize the plaintiffs to send a notice of this
lawsuit to those putative class members to allow them to join this
lawsuit.  On December 17, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion.

On February 11, 2011, the Company filed a motion to sever the
plaintiffs' claims and transfer those claims to various venues
around the country.  On February 22, 2011, the Court denied the
Company's motion without prejudice and granted limited discovery.
The Company is currently engaged in the limited discovery granted
by the Court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Gromek matter
or the estimated range of possible loss, if any.  The Company says
it intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations
levied in this lawsuit; however, the Company currently believes
that the Gromek matter will be resolved without a material adverse
effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or
liquidity.


BIG LOTS: Parties in "Martinez" Class Suit Engaged in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit, known as the "Martinez"
matter, are engaged in discovery, according to Big Lots, Inc.'s
December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

In February 2011, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and
hour laws ("Martinez matter").  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on
behalf of the named plaintiff and a California statewide class
consisting of all other similarly situated current and former
warehouse employees, damages for alleged missed meal periods,
unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid overtime, unpaid vested
vacation, unpaid wages at termination, untimely payment of wages,
noncompliant wage statements, failure to keep accurate payroll
records, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company answered the
plaintiff's complaint on March 25, 2011.  The parties are engaged
in discovery.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Martinez
matter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate
resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.


BIG LOTS: Remaining Claims in "Avitia" Suit Dismissed in October
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, dismissed
the claims of the remaining plaintiffs in the "Avitia" class
action lawsuit on October 4, 2011, according to Big Lots, Inc.'s
December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and
hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt
employees ("Avitia matter").  The plaintiffs seek to recover
damages for alleged unpaid wages and overtime, untimely paid wages
at separation, improper wage statements, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  In August 2010, the five plaintiffs named in the original
complaint, which sought to recover damages on their own behalf and
on behalf of all other individuals who were similarly situated,
filed an amended complaint that removed the class and
representative allegations and asserted only individual actions.
On July 14, 2011, the Company entered into a confidential
settlement agreement with one of the plaintiffs and the court
dismissed that plaintiff's claims on July 29, 2011.

In September 2011, the Company entered into confidential
settlement agreements with the four remaining plaintiffs and the
court dismissed those plaintiffs' claims on October 4, 2011.

The Company says the Avitia matter was resolved without a material
adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations,
or liquidity.


BIG LOTS: "Seals" Suit Remains Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------
In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against Big
Lots, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County, alleging that the Company violated certain California wage
and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as
exempt employees ("Seals matter").  The plaintiffs seek to
recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other
individuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination,
improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods,
reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  On October 29, 2009, the Court denied,
with prejudice, plaintiffs' class certification motion.  On
January 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.  On
April 18, 2011, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
Court's decision denying class certification.  A trial date for
the Seals matter has been set for April 23, 2012.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from this lawsuit or
the estimated range of possible loss, if any.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in this
lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations, and liquidity.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.


BIG LOTS: Still Defends "Sample" Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. continues to defend a wage and hour class action
lawsuit in California, according to the Company's December 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

In June 2010, a representative enforcement action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Alameda
County, alleging that the Company violated certain California wage
and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and
hour claims ("Sample matter").  The plaintiff seeks to recover, on
her behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class
consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated,
damages resulting from allegedly unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid business
expenses, non-payment of wages at termination, untimely payment of
wages, noncompliant wage statements, failure to providing seating,
and attorneys' fees and costs.  The Sample matter is similar in
nature to the actions comprising the Caron matters.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Sample matter
or the estimated range of possible loss, if any.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied
in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter
could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations, and liquidity.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Plavix Suits Will Not Proceed as Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog reports that Plavix lawsuits will
not become a class action lawsuit for discovery purposes because
there are not enough cases to justify an MDL, according to an MDL
panel of judges.

The court did not suggest that the Plavix cases were not viable
lawsuits.  The court also believed that the Plavix personal injury
or wrongful death cases, do involve the same important common
factual issues concerning the development, manufacture, regulatory
approval, labeling, and marketing of Plavix.  But the panel found
that centralizing the cases in a pseudo class action (which is
what an MDL is) would delay the progress of the long-pending
actions in the District of New Jersey where most of the cases have
been filed.  Moreover, the court indicated that the "limited
number of actions and relatively few involved counsel also weigh
against centralization."  In other words, the benefits of getting
all of the lawyers together and performing common discovery would
not be furthered significantly with an MDL.


BUDGETEXT CORP: Faces Suit for Not Paying Termination Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Donald Keys, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Budgetext Corporation, an Arkansas corporation, and
Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:11-cv-06384 (N.D. Calif.,
December 16, 2011) seeks payment, including wages and benefits, in
connection with the termination of the Plaintiff's and other class
members' employment following the closure of Budgetext's plant in
Fayetteville, Arkansas.

The Plaintiff asserts that offsite employees like him were
entitled to 60 days notice of termination, and to wages and
benefits for that period, which Budgetext did not pay.

Mr. Keys is a resident of Upland, California.  He worked as an
account representative at Budgetext from July 2007 until
October 24, 2011.

Budgetext is an Arkansas corporation and has done business in the
Northern District of California.  The Plaintiff does not know the
names and identities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harry Shulman, Esq.
          SHULMAN LAW
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (415) 901-0504
          E-mail: harry@shulmanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          S. Chandler Visher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 901-0500
          Facsimile: (415) 901-0504
          E-mail: chandler@visherlaw.com


CARRIER IQ: Sued For Unauthorized Tracking of Users' Info
---------------------------------------------------------
Laureen Briggs, as an Individual and on behalf of the Class v.
Carrier IQ, Inc.; HTC Corporation; HTC America, Inc.; Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 4:11-cv-06338 (N.D. Calif.,
December 15, 2011) asserts that at issue is whether Carrier IQ
violated certain laws applicable to members of the Class by
placing its patented Carrier IQ software on the wireless phone and
handsets of the members of the Class, including the Plaintiff, and
using that software to track the information that the users of the
phone and handset entered through their keystrokes -- all without
the consent or knowledge of the Plaintiff and members of the
Class.

The Plaintiff is a resident of San Francisco, California, and owns
an iPhone4, which is operating on AT&T's cellular network.

Carrier IQ, a Delaware corporation, is a software developer and
manufacturer.  HTC is a Taiwan corporation and cellular device
manufacturer located in Taoyuan, Taiwan.  HTC America, a
subsidiary of HTC, is a Washington corporation and sells its
products throughout the United States.  Samsung is a Korean
company and sells its products throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dale Bernardo Ratner, Esq.
          DALE BERNARDO RATNER
          1550 Hayes Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 817-1200
          E-mail: DaleRatner@gmai1.com

               - and -

          David S. Ratner, Esq.
          MORELLI RATNER PC
          950 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 751-9800
          Facsimile: (212) 751-0046
          E-mail: Ratner@Morellilaw.com


CHINA MEDICAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action (11 Civ 9297) in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased American Depository Shares of China Medical
Technologies, Inc., between November 26, 2007 and December 12,
2011, inclusive.  This class action is brought under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased China Medical securities
during the Class Period, you have until February 17, 2011 to ask
the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x350.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's acquisition of Beijing Bio-Ekon
Biotechnology Co. Ltd. was from a third party seller connected to
China Medical's Chairman, Wu Xiaodong; (2) the Company overpaid
approximately $20 million to acquire BBE; (3) the Company's
acquisition of BBE involved the use of fraudulent shell companies;
(4) BBE was suffering operating losses prior to the acquisition;
(5) the Company overstated accounts receivables in order to
inflate sales and net income; (6) the Company's reported profit
margins were inflated; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On December 6, 2011, Glaucus Research Group published an analyst
report revealing, in part, that China Medical's Chief Executive
Officer was embezzling money through sham acquisitions, the
Company's reported profits and net income were inflated as they
were inconsistent with comparable competitors, and the majority of
the Company's account receivables were in excess of 120 days,
indicating that its reported revenues were inflated.  On this
news, China Medical's shares declined $0.81 per share, or nearly
24%, to close on December 6, 2011 at $2.57 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

On December 13, 2011, China Medical disclosed that the Company
intends to implement a debt restructuring plan to improve its
balance sheet.  On this news, China Medical's shares declined
$0.43 per share, or nearly 13%, to close on December 13, 2011 at
$2.87 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  The firm has offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington, D.C.


CHRYSLER LLC: Brake Defect Suit Moved to Bankruptcy Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bransford at Bankruptcy Law360 reports that U.S. District
Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh granted a magistrate's recommendation on
Dec. 16 to move a class action claim against Chrysler Group LLC
alleging brake defects to New York bankruptcy court, saying that
court could best determine whether Chrysler was responsible for
warranties covering the vehicles.

Judge Cavanaugh overruled the objections of the vehicle owners,
agreeing with U.S. Magistrate Judge Cathy Waldor's Oct. 3
recommendation that a bankruptcy judge should determine whether
Chrysler took on the warranties of former company Chrysler LLC in
a sale, according to Law360.

                           About Chrysler

Chrysler Group LLC, formed in 2009 from a global strategic
alliance with Fiat Group, produces Chrysler, Jeep(R), Dodge, Ram
Truck, Mopar(R) and Global Electric Motorcars (GEM) brand vehicles
and products.  Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan, Chrysler
Group LLC's product lineup features some of the world's most
recognizable vehicles, including the Chrysler 300, Jeep Wrangler
and Ram Truck.  Fiat will contribute world-class technology,
platforms and powertrains for small- and medium-sized cars,
allowing Chrysler Group to offer an expanded product line
including environmentally friendly vehicles.

Chrysler LLC and 24 affiliates on April 30, 2009, sought Chapter
11 protection from creditors (Bankr. S.D.N.Y (Mega-case), Lead
Case No. 09-50002).  Chrysler hired Jones Day, as lead counsel;
Togut Segal & Segal LLP, as conflicts counsel; Capstone Advisory
Group LLC, and Greenhill & Co. LLC, for financial advisory
services; and Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC, as its claims agent.
Chrysler has changed its corporate name to Old CarCo following its
sale to a Fiat-owned company.  As of December 31, 2008, Chrysler
had $39,336,000,000 in assets and $55,233,000,000 in debts.
Chrysler had $1.9 billion in cash at that time.

In connection with the bankruptcy filing, Chrysler reached an
agreement with Fiat SpA, the U.S. and Canadian governments and
other key constituents regarding a transaction under Section 363
of the Bankruptcy Code that would effect an alliance between
Chrysler and Italian automobile manufacturer Fiat.  Under the
terms approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the company formerly known
as Chrysler LLC on June 10, 2009, formally sold substantially all
of its assets, without certain debts and liabilities, to a new
company that will operate as Chrysler Group LLC.

Fiat has a 20% equity interest in Chrysler Group.

The U.S. and Canadian governments provided Chrysler with
$4.5 billion to finance its bankruptcy case.  Those loans are to
be repaid with the proceeds of the bankruptcy estate's
liquidation.

                           *     *     *

As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on June 6, 2011,
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its 'B+' corporate
credit rating to Chrysler Group LLC. The rating outlook is stable.
"At the same time, we assigned our issue-level rating to
Chrysler's $4.3 billion senior bank facilities ('BB') and $3.2
billion second-lien notes ('B'). The recovery ratings are '1' and
'5'. The company recently completed this financing," S&P stated.


DE BEERS: Appeals Court Upholds $295M Settlement in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph R. Saveri of the national plaintiff's law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, on December 20 announced that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion
today upholding the settlement in the class action litigation
against the South African company De Beers, the world's largest
diamond supplier, for allegedly conspiring to monopolize the sale
of rough diamonds.

The appellate court affirmed an order by U.S. District Judge
Stanley R. Chesler of the District of New Jersey that approved a
settlement under which De Beers agreed to pay $295 million to U.S.
jewelry makers, retailers, and consumers who purchased diamonds
and diamond jewelry beginning in 1994.  The settlement also
prevents De Beers from continuing its illegal business practices
and requires De Beers to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court
to enforce the settlement.

"T[he] decision reaffirms that class actions are an integral part
of our civil justice system and serve as an effective tool to
remedy injuries when corporations fix prices, restrict supply,
stifle innovation, and harm smaller companies, entrepreneurs,
governments, and consumers," stated Saveri, co-counsel for the
class of diamond purchasers.  "The Court held that small
procedural issues will not bar the prosecution or settlement of
claims on behalf of consumers found throughout the country who all
bought the same product that was sold at illegally set high
prices.  Global companies will continue to be held accountable in
the United States for their illegal conduct, and consumers can
continue to rely on our antitrust laws and Courts to fight back
and obtain justice."

The significance of the decision includes:

* The opinion clarifies the law with respect to class
certification standards generally and in antitrust cases in
particular. It similarly clarifies the law with respect to class
certification requirements in the settlement context.

* In the antitrust area, the opinion reiterates the propriety of
certification of proceeding on a class basis. Where the claim is
that there is a market wide restraint, like price-fixing or cartel
behavior, and persons buy the price-fixed product, either directly
or indirectly through middlemen, the predominance and other
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
are readily satisfied.  There is no requirement that plaintiffs
prove that every person is injured.  Issues regarding proof of
damages are no impediment to class certification in this context.

* Variances in state law are similarly no impediment because the
focus of answering the questions that state laws pose are common
because they focus on the conduct of defendants and the fact that
injured class members suffered injury when they purchased the
product.  There is no requirement that the injury be uniform.  The
opinion shows that this conclusion is entirely consistent with the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wal-mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes,
131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). With respect to settlement classes, the
result is even more clear because the manageability requirement
under Rule 23 is inapplicable in the settlement context.

* Circuit Judge Scirica provided an important concurring opinion
discussing the case in the wider context of evolving law on
settlement classes.  Justice Scirica specifically noted that in
antitrust cases "common issues tend to predominate because a major
focus is the allegedly anticompetitive conduct of the defendant
and its downstream effects on plaintiffs."

You can read a copy of the appellate court's opinion.  To learn
more about the De Beers Diamonds antitrust litigation please visit
https://diamondsclassaction.com/

                         About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a sixty-plus attorney
law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville.
Lieff Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice, which
includes representing companies, governments, and consumers harmed
by anticompetitive conduct.  Each year since 2003,The National Law
Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs'
law firms in the nation.


DONALDSON CO: Still Awaits Approval of Settlement in Filter MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donaldson Company, Inc. is still awaiting approval of a
preliminary agreement settling class action lawsuits filed in 2008
alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including the Company,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S.
Customers for aftermarket automotive filters, according to the
Company's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October
31, 2011.

The settlement will fully resolve all claims brought against the
Company in the lawsuits and the Company does not admit any
liability or wrongdoing.  The settlement, which has been accrued
for by the Company, is still subject to Court approval and will
not have a material impact on the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.

As previously reported, on March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a
filter distributor, filed a lawsuit alleging that 12 filter
manufacturers, including the Company, engaged in a conspiracy to
fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. Customers for aftermarket
automotive filters.  The U.S. cases have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois.  The Company denies any liability and has vigorously
defended the claims raised in these lawsuits.

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


E&B GIFTWARE: Agrees to $550T Fine Over Defective Fitness Balls
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that
it has reached a settlement with E&B Giftware LLC (E&B), of
Yonkers, N.Y., resolving CPSC staff allegations that E&B failed to
report a defect with its fitness balls.  In settling this matter,
E&B has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $550,000.
The settlement agreement
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12060.pdf]has been
provisionally accepted by the Commission.

CPSC staff alleged that E&B's subsidiary, EB Brands, LLC (EB
Brands), knew of 25 incidents related to the defective balls as
early as 2007, but failed to immediately inform the Commission as
required by federal law.  Some of these incidents led to consumers
being injured.  By October 2008, when EB Brands reported to the
Commission, EB Brands knew of at least 44 incidents involving the
fitness balls.

EB Brands sold three million of the fitness balls from May 2000
through February 2009.  They were recalled
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09196.html]in April
2009.  At that time, there were 47 reports of the fitness balls
unexpectedly bursting when overinflated by consumers, resulting in
injuries, including a fracture and bruises.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors and retailers to
report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining
information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product
contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard,
creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails
to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule,
regulation, standard or ban enforced by CPSC.

In agreeing to the settlement, E&B denies CPSC staff allegations
that it knowingly violated the law.


FOOT LOCKER: Still in Mediation with "Pereira" Suit Parties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc. is still engaged in mediation with the plaintiff
in the "Pereira" lawsuit, according to the Company's December 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are defendants in a number
of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various
class action allegations under federal or state wage and hour
laws, including allegations concerning unpaid overtime, meal and
rest breaks, and uniforms.

The Company is a defendant in one such case in which plaintiff
alleges that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws.
The case, Pereira v. Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007.  In his
complaint, in addition to unpaid wage and overtime allegations,
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  In September 2009, the
Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective action.
During the course of 2010, notices were sent to approximately
81,888 current and former employees of the Company offering them
the opportunity to participate in the class action, and 5,027 have
opted in.

The Company was a defendant in an additional seven purported wage
and hour class actions that assert claims similar to those
asserted in Pereira and seek similar remedies.  With the exception
of Hill v. Foot Locker filed in state court in Illinois, all of
these actions were either commenced in federal district court or
the Company has subsequently removed them to federal district
court.  On February 25, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the
"Panel") to consolidate those cases pending in federal court and
any similar case hereafter filed to a single case under the United
States district court and otherwise consolidating these actions
for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  On May 26, 2011, the Panel
granted the Company's motion to consolidate those cases with
Pereira.  During the first quarter, one of these cases was settled
for an amount that was not material to the Company and the
remaining cases are in discovery stages of proceedings.  In Hill
v. Foot Locker, in May 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion
for certification of an opt-out class covering certain Illinois
employees only.  The Company has filed a motion for leave to
appeal.

The Company is currently engaged in mediation with plaintiff in
Pereira and his counsel in an attempt to determine whether it will
be possible to resolve these cases.  Meanwhile, the Company is
vigorously defending them.  Due to the inherent uncertainties of
such matters, including the early stages of certain matters, the
Company is currently unable to make an estimate of the range of
loss.

Management does not believe that the outcome of any such legal
proceedings pending against the Company or its consolidated
subsidiaries, including Pereira and related cases would have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, liquidity, or results of operations, taken as a whole.


GRUNENTHAL: Thalidomide Class Action to Be Heard in Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peta Carlyon, writing for ABC News, reports that Australian
thalidomide victims have won the right to have a landmark class
action heard on home soil.

The pregnancy drug caused mass deaths and birth defects worldwide
in the 1950s and 1960s.

Melbourne woman Lynette Rowe, who was born without limbs, is
leading the Australian action.

The drug's manufacturer, Grunenthal, has been fighting to have the
case heard in Germany.

The company has never been successfully sued in its homeland.

But the Victorian Supreme Court dismissed Grunenthal's
application.

Ms. Rowe's family pleaded with the drug's maker to stop delaying
the class action.

Her lawyers have warned that the company plans to raise more
issues which could further delay proceedings.

They say it will not be an easy path ahead.

Her father, Ian Rowe, says it is urgent the case now proceed as
soon as possible.

"Let Lyn have her day in court. Please don't cause any more delay
just for delay's sake," he said.

"Time is not on our side.  Wendy and I are getting older now, I'm
almost 80.

"We really need to know how Lynette will be provided for when we
can no longer do it ourselves."

Ms. Rowe cried silently as her father spoke.

Her lawyer, Peter Gordon, said more than a hundred thalidomide
survivors are now involved in the class action, and more are
expected to come forward.

He described thalidomide as a "medical and pharmaceutical
disaster".

Mr. Gordon and a legal team have travelled to Germany in recent
weeks to gain access to large volumes of company documents.

He said what they have found could influence future cases
overseas.

"We do believe that a lot of the evidence and the disclosures
about what Grunenthal knew are probably matters which have never
come to light outside Germany, or in the English speaking world,
prior to now," he said.

"There may be some new facts that come to light that may be of
interest to all thalidomiders, not just in Australia, but in many
other countries where it was distributed."

Grunenthal has paid out many millions of dollars to thalidomide
victims in a number of countries, including in the United Kingdom.

But the company has never been successfully sued in Germany and
has settled court cases before they reached an adverse judgment.

The Australian class action is expected to be heard in Melbourne
next year.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Sued for Using Synthetic Ingredients in Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Littlehale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
and Jason Natural Products, Inc., a California Corporation, Case
No. 3:11-cv-06342 (N.D. Calif., December 15, 2011) is a class
action brought on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers, who
purchased Jason Natural brand personal care products containing
artificial or synthetic ingredients including, Alpha-isomethyl
Ionone, Amyl Cinnamal, Ascorbic Acid and Benzyl Alcohol, beginning
December 15, 2007, through the present.

Since at least 2007, the Defendants manufactured, packaged,
marketed and sold at least 200 Jason Natural brand Products as
being "All Natural" or "Pure Natural" despite the fact they
contain artificial or synthetic ingredients, Ms. Littlehale
alleges.  She contends that while the lawsuit is not a personal
injury case and no personal injury claim is being asserted, it is
noteworthy that Sodium Benzoate and other synthetic ingredients in
the Defendants' so-called "All Natural" or "Pure Natural" Products
are potentially harmful.

Ms. Littlehale is a resident of Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania.
Throughout the entire Class Period, she has been very concerned
about and tries to avoid using personal care products that are not
natural, such as skin creams and lotions that contain synthetic or
artificial chemical ingredients.  Hence, she is willing to and has
paid a premium for products that are all natural and has refrained
from buying their counterparts that were not all natural.

Hain Celestial is incorporated in Delaware, and manufactures and
sells natural health and beauty products under the Jason Natural
brand.  Jason Natural Products, Inc. is incorporated in
California, and manufactures and sells personal care products such
as soaps and body washes, hair care products, oral care,
toothpaste, deodorants, hand and body lotions, hand sanitizers,
sunscreens and lip balm throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          Facsimile: (310) 278-5938
          E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE LLC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com
                  wlison@stemberfeinstein.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
On December 5, 2011, IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
became aware of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its executive officers, the Company
disclosed in its December 7, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages for
the purported class of purchasers of Company common stock during
the period from February 17, 2011, through November 10, 2011.  The
Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend this lawsuit vigorously.


LEAR CORP: Says Ch. 11 Case Should Block Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hilary Russ at Bankruptcy Law360 reports that Lear Corp. on
Dec. 16 defended its move to escape potentially massive antitrust
litigation, telling a New York bankruptcy judge that the
reorganized company's brief stint in Chapter 11 protection should
shield it from dozens of class actions.

Headquartered in Southfield, Michigan, Lear Corporation --
http://www.lear.com/-- is one of the world's leading suppliers
of automotive seating systems and electrical distribution and
power management systems. The Company's world-class products are
designed, engineered and manufactured by a diverse team of
approximately 75,000 employees at 205 facilities in 36 countries.
Lear's common shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange
under the symbol [LEA].

Lear Corp. and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 on July 7, 2009
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-14326).  Attorneys at Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, served as the Debtors' bankruptcy counsel.  In November
2009, Lear emerged from bankruptcy protection.


LOUIS VUITTON: Judge Reverses Customer Info Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
JD Journal reports that the Ninth Circuit on Dec. 15 decided to
reverse a court ruling from a lower level regarding a motion filed
by Louis Vuitton North America Inc.  The motion involved the
company asking to remove to federal court the class action lawsuit
claiming that it illegally recorded personal information when
accepting customers' payments via credit cards, according to
Law360.

In an unpublished opinion, a panel of three judges claimed that a
California federal court made a mistake when it was found that
Louis Vuitton had not been able to prove that it could be facing
$5 million in claims.  The complaint filed was for $1,000 for each
violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, which allows a
court to impose penalties of $250 for the initial violation and
then $1,000 for every violation thereafter.

"Because the amount in controversy could be as much as $1,000 for
each subsequent violation and it is undisputed that there were
substantially in excess of 5,000 credit card transactions, the
preponderance of evidence shows that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million," the panel said.

Louis Vuitton attempted to move the suit to California federal
court in July.  The case was remanded back to state court by U.S.
District Judge M. James Lorenz after claiming that the amount of
money involved in the lawsuit did not surpass the jurisdictional
threshold of $5 million.  Judge Lorenz also ruled that neither the
allegations nor the evidence offered by Louis Vuitton that any
class member was subject to more than one violation at a time.

The class in the lawsuit will include all customers from
California who had their personal information recorded if they
made a purchase during the previous year.  This purchasing period
included more than 5,000 transactions.  Louis Vuitton, in oral
arguments, told the court of appeals panel that if the company had
made over 5,001 credit card transactions, then they would face a
$1,000 fine per transaction.  This would then lead to damages
exceeding $5 million.

The Class Action Fairness Act requires that there be at least 100
members of the class in the lawsuit, which Louis Vuitton failed to
show, according to the plaintiffs.  The panel did say that the
company had over 5,000 transactions for the period in question,
which means there would be at least 100 separate credit card
customers during that time.

The panel for the Ninth Circuit includes Judges William A.
Fletcher, Barry G. Silverman and Kim McLane Wardlaw.

Deanna Morey is represented by Gene J. Stonebarger of Stonebarger
Law.  Louis Vuitton is represented by Nicolas Andreas Jampol and
Stephen R. Smerek of Winston & Strawn LLP.

The name of the case is Deanna Morey v. Louis Vuitton North
America, case number 11-56916, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.


MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Defend "INFUSE" Suit in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 10, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief
Association filed a putative class action complaint against
Medtronic, Inc. and certain current and former officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading public statements concerning
the INFUSE Bone Graft product which artificially inflated
Medtronic's stock price during the period.  On August 21, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class action complaint
expanding the class.  Medtronic's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was denied on February 3, 2010, and
pretrial proceedings are underway.

The Company says it has not recorded an expense related to damages
in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 28, 2011.


MEDTRONIC INC: Fully Paid Plaintiffs of Fidelis-Related Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. said in its December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 28, 2011, that it fully paid the plaintiffs of the
remaining claims arising from its Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads.

On October 15, 2007, the Company voluntarily suspended worldwide
distribution of its Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis) family of
defibrillation leads.  Approximately 4,000 lawsuits regarding the
Fidelis leads were filed against the Company, including
approximately 47 putative class action lawsuits reflecting a total
of approximately 9,000 individual personal injury cases.
Approximately 2,800 of the lawsuits were commenced in Minnesota
state court and approximately 1,200 were consolidated for pretrial
proceedings before a single federal judge in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to the Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) rules.  On January 5, 2009, the MDL court
dismissed with prejudice the master consolidated complaint for
individuals and the master consolidated complaint for third-party
payors on grounds of federal preemption.  The state court judge
dismissed the state court cases on similar grounds on October 22,
2009.  The federal opinion was affirmed on appeal and the state
appeal was dismissed.

The Company announced on October 14, 2010, that it had entered
into an agreement to settle the pending lawsuits as well as
certain unfiled claims subject to opt-out rights by both
plaintiffs and the Company, including the Company's right to
cancel the agreement.  The parties subsequently reached an
adjusted settlement agreement pursuant to which Medtronic waived
its right to cancel the agreement and agreed to pay a total of
$221 million to resolve over 14,000 filed and unfiled claims.
Accordingly, the Company recorded an expense of $221 million
related to probable and reasonably estimated damages under U.S.
GAAP in connection with these matters in fiscal year 2011.
Subsequent to October 28, 2011, the Company fully paid the
plaintiffs.

In addition, one putative class action has been filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada.  On October 20, 2009,
that court certified a class proceeding, but denied class
certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages.  Pretrial
proceedings are underway.  The Company has not recorded an expense
related to damages in connection with that matter because any
potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable
under U.S. GAAP.  Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter.


METRO TRANSIT: Accused of Tolerating Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that three bus drivers say in a
federal class action that the Metropolitan Council dba Metro
Transit tolerated and "even encourage(s)" racial discrimination
against black drivers.

A copy of the Complaint in Austin, et al. v. Metropolitan Council,
Case No. 11-cv-03621 (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/19/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kent M. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
          1632 Homestead Trail
          Long Lake, MN 55356
          Telephone: (763) 473-0314
          E-mail: williamslawmn@aol.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Limits Class in Labor Law-Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has determined that Plaintiff Bernadette
Tanguilig could not represent employees, who are subject to Neiman
Marcus, Inc.'s Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting
the putative class action to those associates who were employed
between December 2004 and July 15, 2007, according to the
Company's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 29, 2011.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, against the Company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG
Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus, LLC.  On July 12, 2010, all
defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.  This
complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally
filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the Company
has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code, including without limitation 1)
asking employees to work "off the clock," 2) failing to provide
meal and rest breaks to its employees, 3) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees, and 4) failing
to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during shifts.

On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel Ms. Monjazeb and a co-plaintiff to participate in the
Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing a class
action in that case.  The court then determined that Ms. Tanguilig
could not represent employees who are subject to the Company's
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative
class action to those associates who were employed between
December 2004 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of the
Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).

The Company says it intends to continue vigorously defending its
interests in these matters.  Currently, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising from these
matters.  The Company will continue to evaluate these matters
based on subsequent events, new information and future
circumstances.


OHIO VALLEY: Doctors' Class Suit vs. Health Plan Still Tied Up
--------------------------------------------------------------
J.W. Johnson Jr., writing for The Intelligencer, reports that
while a class action lawsuit involving nearly 200 doctors suing
The Health Plan of the Upper Ohio Valley remains tied up in
federal court, one doctor took matters into his own hands and was
successful in recouping money owed to him for services rendered.

Dr. Thomas Wack filed suit in Marshall County Circuit Court, where
a partial summary judgment was recently ordered.  The lawsuit came
about after Wheeling Hospital filed suit against Ohio Valley
Health Services & Education Corp., Ohio Valley Medical Center,
East Ohio Regional Hospital and The Health Plan for allegedly
neglecting to pay millions of dollars in health care claims.  The
initial claim stated $4.8 million was owed.

The amounts owed are for employees of OVHS&E, Ohio Valley Medical
Center and East Ohio Regional Hospital who received medical
services at other facilities.

The lawsuit alleges OV Health System Parties failed to adequately
fund the health system plan "because they are presently
experiencing severe financial difficulties."

The portion of the suit against OVHS&E was dismissed in December
2010 by U.S District Judge Frederick P. Stamp Jr., who ruled OVHS&
E and its affiliates have no contractual obligation to pay for
medical services rendered to its employees.  Additionally, Judge
Stamp said only The Health Plan was responsible for providing
health care for participants of the benefit plan, and thus the
lawsuit has continued against that company alone.

However, Dr. Wack and his attorney, Mark Colantonio, who is also
the plaintiffs' attorney in the class-action suit, filed their own
suit in Marshall County Circuit Court seeking repayment of money
owed to Dr. Wack.  Though Health Plan officials argued they were
unable to pay the bills because of a separate failure to pay by
OVHS&E, Mr. Colantonio said Circuit Court Judge Mark A. Karl
deemed The Health Plan responsible for paying Dr. Wack an amount
he estimated to be more than $3,000.

A ruling on liability and damages, as well as interest and
attorney fees, has yet to be determined, and no date has been set
to review that portion of the case.  However, Mr. Colantonio said
the message sent by the court is clear.

"The Health Plan sets up a network of physicians in this area, and
these physicians provide services," he said.  "When The Health
Plan does this, they must make sure the doctors are paid for their
services."

Additionally, Mr. Colantonio said while The Health Plan may have
been owed money by OVHS&E, that fact does not eliminate The Health
Plan's responsibility.

"Regardless of whether OV is paying them, they have to pay
physicians no matter what," he said.

In the meantime, Mr. Colantonio said the class action suit has
been held up in federal court by procedural motions and appeals.
He said there is no time table for a resolution.

OVMC said in a statement on Dec. 16 they have continued to improve
their operations and made every effort to significantly reduce
their liabilities to vendors and providers over the past year.
Calls to The Health Plan were not immediately returned on Dec. 16.


PHARMAVITE LLC: Sued Over False Claims on Vitamin E Product
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Pharmavite pushes vitamin E with false or unproven claims that it
"helps maintain a healthy heart."

A copy of the Complaint in Bohn v. Pharmavite, LLC, Case No.
11-cv-10430 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/19/DietSupp.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: tcarpenter@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart Weltman, Esq.
          FUTTERMAN HOWARD ASHLEY & WELTMAN, P.C.
          122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 427-3600
          E-mail: sweltman@futtermanhoward.com


PROVIDA LIFE: Sued Over Body Makeover Money-Back Guarantee
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court
class action claims that Provida Life Sciences reneges on its
money-back guarantee on a "6 Week Body Makeover," which costs
$120.


ROSS STORES: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Like many California retailers, Ross Stores, Inc. has been named
in class action lawsuits regarding wage and hour claims.  Class
action litigation involving allegations that hourly associates
have missed meal and/or rest break periods, as well as allegations
of unpaid overtime wages to store managers and assistant store
managers at Company stores under state law, remains pending as of
October 29, 2011.

In the opinion of management, the resolution of pending class
action litigation and other currently pending legal proceedings is
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.


STUBHUB INC: Sells "Already Sold" Tickets, Calif. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Fabozzi, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. StubHub, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-06387 (N.D. Calif.,
December 16, 2011) seeks relief for the Defendant's violation of
the California Business and Professions Code governing the resale
of tickets to sporting, musical, theatre and other entertainment
events.

The Plaintiff asserts that he paid a total of $49.95 for a ticket
to attend the Stone Temple Pilots' live performance at the Stone
Pony in Asbury Park, New Jersey, that was scheduled for July 26,
2011.  However, Mr. Fabozzi alleges that he was refused entry into
the concert because the Ticket had already been used by another
patron.  Subsequent to July 26, StubHub refunded the $49.95 that
he paid for the Ticket.

Mr. Fabozzi is a citizen of New Jersey.

StubHub is a Delaware corporation and its principal place of
business is in San Francisco, California.  StubHub operates an
online marketplace for the resale of tickets to sporting events,
concerts, and theater shows.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall S. Newman, Esq.
          RANDALL S. NEWMAN, P.C.
          37 Wall Street, Penthouse D
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 797-3737
          Facsimile: (212) 797-3172
          E-mail: rsn@randallnewman.net


TINSLEY ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that a Mesquite healthcare worker has filed a lawsuit against her
employer in an effort to obtain payment of overtime wages.

Claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Deborah
Buxton, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
filed suit against Tinsley Associates, doing business as
Exceptional Home Care.

In the suit filed on Dec. 13 in the Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division, Ms. Buxton states that the defendant did not pay
its healthcare workers any overtime wages at one and one-half
times their regular hourly rate.

She claims she has complained about the non-payment but alleges
the defendant has not taken any action to correct the FLSA
violation.

The defendant is also accused of retaliation against Buxton by
terminating her employment on Oct. 31.

The plaintiff is seeking damages for unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, court costs and attorneys' fees.

Ms. Buxton is represented by Casey S. Erick of Erick & Thomas in
Dallas.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the case.

Case No. 6:11-cv-00666


WARRIOR GOLF: Sued Over False Advertising on "Free" Golf Club
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Warrior
Golf Development offers a golf club "Absolutely free," then
charges an exorbitant $23.50 "shipping and processing fee."

A copy of the Complaint in Geisel v. Warrior Golf Development,
LLC, et al., Case No. 30-2011-00530063 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/19/Bogus.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Ryan M. Ferrell, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          895 Dove Street, Suite 425
          Newport Beach, CA 92600
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464



                           *********

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  * * *