/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120102.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 2, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 1


AMERICAN INT'L: Judge Approves $450-Mil. Class Action Settlement
APPLE INC: Accused of Joining Conspiracy to Raise eBook Prices
CARMAX: Fails to Abide by Class Action Settlement, Filing Says
CARRIER IQ: Accused of Invading Privacy and Wiretapping in Calif.
DAVID PESSO: Sued Over Alleged Physical Abuse of Hummus Owner

DELPHI FINANCIAL: Being Sold to Tokio Marine for Too Little
H & M HENNES: Requires Employees to Work Off-the-Clock, Suit Says
HOLLISTER CO: Sued Over "No Expiration Date" Gift Cards
HONDA: Small Claims May Sink Class Action Settlements
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in N.Y.

JAGUARS: Accused of Compelling Dancers Not to Join Legal Action
LAYTON ENERGY: Investors Sue Owners Over Oil Well Fund Fraud
MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: Faces Class Action Over New Benefit Plan
MONSANTO: Jury Selection Set to Begin This Week
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Illinois

NAVIEN AMERICA: Recalls 13,000 Tankless Water Heaters
POTTERY BARN: Recalls 7,930 Units of Madeline Bed Canopy
WELLPOINT: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
WEST VIRGINIA: Sued Over High Premiums on Workers Comp. Policies


AMERICAN INT'L: Judge Approves $450-Mil. Class Action Settlement
Meg Green, writing for BestWeek, reports that despite Liberty
Mutual Group's opposition, a federal judge has approved a $450
million class-action settlement with American International Group
and a group of workers' compensation writers to resolve litigation
involving AIG under-reporting workers' comp premiums.

"We are pleased with the court's decision and to have put this
matter behind us," said Mark Herr, a spokesman for AIG, in an

"Liberty Mutual is disappointed -- but not surprised -- with the
judge's order approving the settlement.  Liberty Mutual will
review the judge's final written order, and anticipates an
appeal," said Richard Angevine, a spokesman for Liberty Mutual, in
an e-mail.

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman issued a three-page order
approving the settlement.  "Finding that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, the court grants final approval of the
settlement," the judge said in the order.

AIG and seven insurers supported the settlement.  Those insurers
are Ace Ina Holdings Inc., Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Companion
Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Firstcomp Insurance Co.,
Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., Technology Insurance Co.
and Travelers Indemnity Co.

Liberty Mutual Group's two subsidiaries, Ohio Casualty and Safeco,
had opposed the settlement.

The legal dispute centers on allegations that AIG intentionally
underestimated its workers' comp premiums to avoid premium taxes
and substantial residual market charges before 1996.  In some
states, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, the residual market
losses were greater than the residual market and voluntary market
premium combined, so the more voluntary premium a company wrote,
the more it had to pay out to cover its share of the residual
market losses.  That gave companies an incentive to under-report
workers' comp claims, according to court papers (Best's News
Service, Aug. 23, 2011).

The settlement is based on the assumption that AIG under-reported
its workers' comp premiums before 1996 by $2.1 billion, the same
amount that state regulators used to calculate a settlement in
2010.  Liberty Mutual has maintained that $2.1 billion estimate is
too low.

In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
denied Liberty Mutual's request to appeal the proposed $450
million settlement while the case is still ongoing.  Liberty
Mutual could still file an appeal down the road, and can still
drop out of the settlement class to pursue a case against AIG on
its own (Best's News Service, Aug. 23, 2011).

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois Eastern Division.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Cos. and members of AIG (NYSE: AIG)
currently have a Best's Financial Strength Rating of A

APPLE INC: Accused of Joining Conspiracy to Raise eBook Prices
Amy D. Nolan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc.; Hachette Book Group, Inc.; HarperCollins
Publishers, Inc.; Macmillan Publishers, Inc.; Penguin Group (USA),
Inc.; and Simon & Schuster, Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-06647 (N.D.
Calif., December 27, 2011) alleges that the Publisher Defendants
worked together to force eBook sales model to be entirely
restructured, the purpose of which was to halt the discounting of
eBook prices and uniformly raise prices on all first release
fiction and nonfiction published by the Publisher Defendants.

The Plaintiff argues that the Publisher Defendants' unlawful
combination and pricing agreement would not have succeeded without
the active participation of Apple, which conspired with the
Publisher Defendants and facilitated the changing of the eBook
pricing model.  Ms. Nolan points out that the Defendants'
conspiracy worked as intended because they increased eBook pricing
and forced Amazon to stop discounting eBook prices.

Ms. Nolan is a resident of Louisiana.  She purchased several
eBooks from the Publisher Defendants at a price above $9.99 for
use on her Amazon Kindle.

Apple is a California corporation and is a manufacturer of mobile
devices designed to distribute, store, and display digital media.
Hachette Book is a U.S. trade publisher, and its imprints include
Little, Brown & Co. and Grand Central Publishing.  HarperCollins
is a U.S. trade publisher and its imprints include Ecco, Harper,
Harper Perennial and William Morrow.  Macmillan is a group of
publishing companies and its U.S. publishers include Farrar Straus
and Giroux, Henry Holt & Company, Picador, and St. Martin's Press.
Penguin Group (USA) is the U.S. affiliate of Penguin Group, one of
the largest English-language trade book publishers in the world.
Penguin's imprints include Viking, Riverhead Books, Dutton and
Penguin Books.  Simon & Schuster is a U.S. trade publisher, and is
part of CBS Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mario N. Alioto, Esq.
          Lauren C. Russell, Esq.
          2280 Union Street
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 563-7200
          Facsimile: (415) 346-0679
          E-mail: malioto@tatp.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Patane, Esq.
          2280 Union Street
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 563-7200
          Facsimile: (415) 346-0679
          E-mail: jpatane@tatp.com

               - and -

          Sherman Kassof, Esq.
          954 Risa Road, Suite B
          Lafayette, CA 94549
          Telephone: (510) 652-2554
          Facsimile: (510) 652-9308
          E-mail: hccvay@att.net

CARMAX: Fails to Abide by Class Action Settlement, Filing Says
Christopher Jensen, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
Maryland judge is being asked to find CarMax, the automotive
retailer, in contempt of court for failing to abide by a 2008
class-action settlement.  That settlement required that consumers
be given a clear warning when a used vehicle offered for sale was
once in a rental fleet.

"CarMax still does not disclose its vehicles' prior use as short-
term rental vehicles," according to a filing made in December in
the Baltimore County Circuit Court by lawyers for the plaintiffs
in the class-action suit.

In an e-mail statement, a spokeswoman for CarMax, Trina Lee,
wrote: "CarMax provides information about vehicle history,
including prior rental history, to its customers nationwide.
CarMax is in compliance with Maryland law."

That Maryland law requires "vehicles formerly used for a purpose
other than a consumer good shall be clearly and conspicuously
identified as to their former use."  That includes rental

Ms. Lee said the company's numerous disclosures included a note on
the window sticker of prior use "which includes the word rental
where applicable."

CarMax will file a motion asking the court to dismiss the
petition, she wrote.

Rental vehicles are worth less than other used vehicles because
their maintenance and driving history is unknown, Clarence Ditlow,
executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, wrote in an e-
mail.  "States like California and Maryland require disclosure of
prior daily rental to avoid consumers paying too much."

The class-action settlement covers only Maryland.  As part of that
settlement, lawyers for the plaintiffs promised not to talk to
reporters or issue a news release about the deal.

The new request to the judge claims the settlement has been
violated because disclosures about a rental history are
"camouflaged and deceptive" and are found on the buyer's order
"but not on the legally binding financing agreement."

The filing also says CarMax uses "gratuitous and ambiguous terms"
to distract buyers like "loaner, rental, executive vehicle" or
"fleet, rental, business use, executive vehicle."

The judge has been asked to require CarMax to immediately comply
with the 2008 settlement; to appoint an official to monitor CarMax
compliance for five years; and to order compensation for consumers
who bought vehicles without being given the proper disclosure.

CARRIER IQ: Accused of Invading Privacy and Wiretapping in Calif.
Matthew Hiles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc., a Delaware corporation; LG
Electronics, Inc., a South Korea corporation; LG Electronics USA,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
5:11-cv-06641 (N.D. Calif., December 23, 2011) accuses the
Defendants of invading privacy, and violating the Federal Wiretap
Act and the California Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Carrier IQ and LG, without the
knowledge or consent of the customers, have designed and installed
software called IQ Agent on millions of cell phones and other
mobile devices, which software records and transmits data relating
to customers' cell phone use.  The Plaintiff contends that the
Defendants' use of IQ Agent to obtain information from customers
violates the Wiretap Act, and constitutes an invasion of privacy.

Mr. Hiles is a resident of Davenport, Iowa.  He owns an LG Marquee
Smartphone that uses the Google Android operating system and on
which the IQ Agent software is installed.

Carrier IQ creates and operates the software known as IQ Agent.
Carrier IQ sells its IQ Agent software to cellular carriers and
creates customized software packages for mobile device
manufacturers to install on their products.  LG designs and
manufactures mobile devices known as "Smartphones."  LG USA sells
and distributes Smartphones throughout the United States of
America.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Paul Gignac, Esq.
          Helen Kim, Esq.
          115 S. La Cumbre Lane, Suite 300
          Santa Barbara, CA 93105
          Telephone: (805) 683-7400
          Facsimile: (805) 683-7401
          E-mail: j.paul@aogllp.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Bezek, Esq.
          Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
          15 West Carrillo Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962-9495
          Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
          E-mail: pbezek@foleybezek.com

DAVID PESSO: Sued Over Alleged Physical Abuse of Hummus Owner
Michael Mule, individually and as a Member of The Hummus and Pita
Company, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, on behalf of
himself and all other Members of The Hummus and Pita Company, LLC
similarly situated and in the right of The Hummus and Pita
Company, LLC v. David Pesso and Janice Axelrod, Case No.
114493/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 27, 2011) alleges that
although Mr. Pesso holds no ownership interest in Hummus, he
mistreated and physically abused the Plaintiff, and ordered and
bullied the Plaintiff to initially make and continue to render
additional loans, which aggregate $249,900.  Mr. Mule and Ms.
Axelrod, Mr. Pesso's mother, own Hummus, a casual Mediterranean

Mr. Mule contends that Mr. Pesso's wrongful conduct was completely
unjustified and was intended solely to inflict substantial harm
against him.  Mr. Mule asserts that he suffers mental and
emotional distress, tension and anxiety because of Mr. Pesso's
actions.  Hence, Mr. Mule is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages in the amount to be determined at trial.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Richmond County, New York.

Mr. Pesso is a resident of County of Queens, New York.  Mr. Mule
accuses Mr. Pesso of belittling him, his family, as well as nearly
every other individuals involved with the Company.  Mr. Mule also
disclosed that Mr. Pesso was arrested and convicted in March 2005
of criminal acts involving major violations of the securities
statutes, which involved fraud, deceit, or manipulation, and
resulted in substantial pecuniary gain to Mr. Pesso and
substantial losses to investors.  Ms. Axelrod, Mr. Pesso's mother,
is a resident of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. Graffeo, Esq.
          KAPLAN LAW LLC
          161 Washington Valley Road, Suite 207
          Warren, NJ 07059
          Telephone: (908) 818-1422

DELPHI FINANCIAL: Being Sold to Tokio Marine for Too Little
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Delphi
Financial Group is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair
process to Tokio Marine Holdings, for $2.7 billion or $43.875 per
Class A share and $52.875 per Class B share, plus $1 per share
after closing.

H & M HENNES: Requires Employees to Work Off-the-Clock, Suit Says
Suzanne Tran, Individually and on behalf of all person similarly
situated v. H & M Hennes and Mauritz L.P., and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 1-11-CV-215599 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara
Cty., December 23, 2011) is brought to challenge the Defendants'
alleged lucrative, repressive and unlawful business practices of
requiring their non-exempt employees to work substantial amounts
of time "off-the-clock" and without pay, and failing to provide
their non-exempt employees with the meal and rest periods to which
they are entitled by law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the time that the Defendants require
their employees to work without compensation is substantial, and
aggregately deprives her and the Class of many hours' worth of
wages per week.  In addition, because Plaintiff and the Class are
required to perform numerous tasks both at the beginning and the
end of their meal and rest breaks, they are not provided with 30
minutes of off-duty time for meal breaks, though a full 30 minutes
is deducted from their pay, or 10 minutes of off-duty time in
which to rest, as required by California law.

Ms. Tran has been employed by H & M as a non-exempt hourly
employee within the statutory period in this case and performed
work for the Defendant in Santa Clara County.

H & M is a large retail chain, present in many shopping centers
around the world with numerous stores located in California,
including in Santa Clara County.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          John J. Glugoski, Esq.
          Michael C. Righetti, Esq.
          456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397 -9005

HOLLISTER CO: Sued Over "No Expiration Date" Gift Cards
Courthouse News Service reports that Hollister Co., clothiers,
promised a $25 gift card with no expiration for every $100
purchase, for a Christmas 2009 promotion, then canceled the cards
on Jan. 30, 2010, a class claims in DuPage County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Daniels v. Hollister Co., Case No.
2011L001485 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Du Page Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Abraham, Esq.
          Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq.
          17 W 220 22nd Street, Suite 200
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000

               - and -

          James Shedden, Esq.
          Matthew Burns, Esq.
          Tony Kim, Esq.
          332 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 939-6280

HONDA: Small Claims May Sink Class Action Settlements
An article posted on TheAutoChannel.com reports that Honda is on
the brink of settling five class action lawsuits alleging false
advertising of 50 MPG for its Civic Hybrids for pennies on the
dollar, but one small claims case gone viral could change all of
that and leave Honda facing liability of $2 billion instead and
defending itself in thousands of small claims courts across the

A front page article in the Los Angeles Times used the term "a
small-claims flash mob" to describe the filing of a single small
claims case against Honda in Torrance, California together with
the launch of Don't Settle with Honda and its associated Twitter
and YouTube sites that teach 200,000 other disgruntled Civic
Hybrid owners nationwide how to "just say no" to a $100-$200
proposed class action settlement (where lawyers get $8.474
million) and take Honda to small claims court instead, where at
least in California, lawyers are not allowed.

Heather Peters will have her day in small claims court on
January 3 and could win up to $10,000 (the new 2012 California
small claims limit) in damages including the "hybrid premium" she
paid over the sticker price, her increased costs of gas due to
getting just 30 MPG and the reduced resale value of her car.  It
may be the biggest little small claims case that Honda will ever
face evidenced by the fact that the Associated Press is sending
the same reporter who covered the trials of Conrad Murray, O.J.
Simpson and Rodney King.  Ms. Peters, a former corporate defense
attorney, says:

"Class actions are great for little cases, but not for cases like
this where Honda's false advertising is costing already cash-
strapped families more every day at the gas pump.  It's time for
Honda to go one on one with its customers where they can't hide
behind high priced lawyers.  I want people to know that small
claims court is not so scary, it's a lot like Judge Judy."

It remains to be seen if the San Diego judge presiding over the
five class action lawsuits against Honda for false advertising
will approve the proposed settlement on March 16, 2012.  A prior
proposed settlement was rejected by the court when the Attorney
Generals from twenty six states, including California, objected to
it as unfair to consumers, and they may object again.  Civic
Hybrid owners have until February 11 to opt-out, or they can
remain in the class and still object to the settlement.

Honda has attempted four different legal maneuvers to postpone the
trial of Ms. Peters' small claims case until after the deadline
had passed for Hybrid owners to opt-out of the class action, but
the small claims judge said "no" all four times and the trial will
proceed as originally scheduled on January 3 at 1:30 p.m. in
Torrance Small Claims Court, Dept. 8, at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance,

INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in N.Y.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Dec. 28 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of IntraLinks
Holdings, Inc., between February 17, 2011 and November 10, 2011,
inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The case is entitled Thaler v. IntraLinks Holdings, Inc.,
C.A. No. 11-CV-9528 (S.D.N.Y.).  The Complaint names IntraLinks
and certain of its officers and directors as defendants.

If you wish to view a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R.
Wortman, Case Development Director of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919
North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com  or at:

IntraLinks, together with its subsidiaries, provides software-as-
a-service (SaaS) solutions for securely managing content,
exchanging critical business information, and collaborating within
and among organizations worldwide.

The Complaint asserts that during the Class Period, defendants
knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the positive statements
concerning the Company's business prospects, as well as the full
year guidance provided by Defendants on February 17, 2011, were
materially false and misleading because by end of the first
quarter of 2011 a large Enterprise customer informed the Company
that it was dramatically reducing its use of IntraLinks' products
going forward and that the Company would have to reducing its
earnings expectations as a result.  Despite their knowledge of the
foregoing, however, defendants failed to disclose that their
positive statements about the Company's business prospects, or the
financial guidance issued in February 2011, were no longer
accurate in light of the reduced use of the Company's products by
the large Enterprise customer.

In addition, IntraLinks' April 7, 2010 Prospectus for its
Secondary Offering was materially false and misleading because
defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, and failed to disclose
that IntraLinks' business was being adversely affected by the
large Enterprise customer's decision to reduce use of the
Company's products.

On May 11, 2011, IntraLinks issued a press release announcing
financial results for the first quarter of 2011.  The press
release also contained an updated business outlook, reducing the
Company's Full Year 2011 income projection to $17 to $19 million,
from $21 to $23 million as previously reported in February 2011.

On that same day, the Company held an analysts' conference call.
On that call, Defendants revealed that a large Enterprise customer
was dramatically reducing its use of IntraLinks' products, causing
the Company to reduce its earnings guidance.  Moreover, Defendant
Andrew Damico, the Company's President and Chief Executive
Officer, admitted that Defendants were aware of the foregoing by
the end of the first quarter.  Mr. Damico stated that the Company
had met with the Enterprise customer at that time and was informed
that the customer would be reducing usage for the remainder of the

The price of IntraLinks' common stock declined sharply, from a
close of $29.99 per share on May 10, 2011 (the day before the
disclosures), to a close of $20.22 per share on May 11, 2011 (the
day of the disclosures), on extremely heavy trading volume.

On August 10, 2011, IntraLinks issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the period ending June 30, 2011.  In
that release, the Company reported second quarter 2011 revenues
and earnings in line with its guidance, but reduced guidance for
the third quarter of 2011.  On that same date, IntraLinks held an
analysts' conference call.  During the call, Defendants revealed
that the Company had received a subpoena from the SEC seeking
documents from January 1, 2011 to the present.

As a consequence of these additional disclosures, the price of
IntraLinks' common stock declined from a close of $12.16 per share
on August 9, 2011 (the day before the disclosures), to a close of
$6.64 per share on August 10, 2011 (the day of the disclosures),
on extremely heavy trading volume.

On November 8, 2011, IntraLinks issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the period ending September 30, 2011.
For the third quarter 2011, the Company reported total revenue of
$54.8 million.  The Company also reported continuing problems in
its Enterprise business segment.

In response to this announcement, the price of IntraLinks common
stock declined from a close $8.79 per share on November 8, 2011
(the day of the announcement), to a close of $4.80 per share on
November 10, 2011 (two days after the announcement).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 4, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class
may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class,
derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and
corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United

JAGUARS: Accused of Compelling Dancers Not to Join Legal Action
Anna Merlan, writing for Dallas Observer, reports that a Dallas-
based strip-club chain facing a class-action lawsuit tried to
compel its dancers not to join that legal action and even fired a
woman who wouldn't comply, or so the strippers claim.  In a motion
filed earlier in December, the dancers also claim that the clubs
foisted the agreements on the dancers late at night and when many
of the strippers were drunk.

The chain, Jaguars, denies the allegations.  But a judge ruled on
Dec. 28 that the clubs have to post a notice reminding dancers
that they're free to join the class action and that retaliation
for their doing so is illegal.

The dancers' claims come in the midst of an ongoing lawsuit over
whether strippers should be classified as employees or independent
contractors, the subject of our cover story several weeks ago.
Lawsuits are being filed against strip clubs across the country,
and one of the latest is against both Jaguars Gold and its owner,
Bryan Scott "Niko" Foster.  The nine plaintiffs in the suit are
from the Abilene, El Paso, Odessa, Fort Worth and Lubbock branches
of the club. Foster calls the suit and ones like it the work of
"ambulance chasers," but the legal system often disagrees.

In a motion for emergency injunctive relief filed earlier in
December, the strippers claim that upon learning about the
lawsuit, the defendants "swiftly hatched an illegal plan to
discourage other potential class members from joining this
lawsuit."  They allege that on the night of December 2 and very
early into the morning of December 3, the dancers were asked to
line up and shown a "screen shot" of a legal document, then "asked
on the spot" to decide whether they wanted to be employees or
independent contractors.  At that time, the dancers claim, most of
the women were in the middle of their shifts and that "many of
them were intoxicated."

The motion claims that one El Paso dancer, Claudia Rede, got to
work on the night of December 2 and did "several shots" in the
dressing room with a few of her friends.  Around 10:15, she headed
out onto the floor but was stopped by the club's general manager,
Fernando Robles, and asked to grab her I.D. and go to vice
president Gary Garcia's office.  When she got there, the motion
claims, she saw a line of dancers waiting outside.

The dancers allege that Garcia told her she had to sign the
document before she could go to work.  In addition to choosing
between "employee" and "independent contractor," the document
contained language that would prevent the dancers from taking part
in any lawsuits against the club, the dancers claim.  They say
that after Ms. Rede selected the "independent contractor" option
and put her signature on Garcia's iPhone she wasn't provided a
copy of what she'd just signed.

"After working a few hours," the motion reads, "Rede became
alarmed when talking to other entertainers because she did not
know what she had just signed."  When she went back around 2:30 to
talk to Garcia, he told her not worry about it and asked "why it
was such a big deal."  The motion claims that she was told she
could "cancel" her contract, but that she'd no longer be able to
work at the club and have to leave immediately.  She did cancel
the contract, the motion says, and hasn't been allowed back at
Jaguars since.

The dancers argue that contract they signed attempts to not-so-
gently nudge them towards contractor status by misstating the law.
The document, they claim, told them that "employees" will be paid
minimum wage, forced to share their tips (without making it clear
that it's illegal to be forced to share tips with non-tipped
employees), that they'll have to turn over all their dance fees to
management, that they can be forced to perform for club patrons
and staff "FREE," and that they'll be asked to fill in for anyone
who doesn't show up for work, including the waitresses, door
people, and janitors.  They argue that the documents clearly
represent retaliation for the lawsuit, which is illegal.

Jaguars disputes the dancers' version of events -- and the whole
concept of stripper misclassification lawsuits, for that matter.
In their response to the motion, attorneys Roger Albright and Luke
Lirot write that "from the outset, it is clear that Plaintiffs'
counsel are hopping on the 'band-wagon' of the numerous 'dancer
classification' cases in the effort to 'cash in' on alleged
infirmities of an allegedly 'industry standard' business model,
and exploit what has been a long and mutually beneficial, albeit
'informal,' relationship, wherein performers are given a generous
opportunity to share in the prosperity generated by the popularity
of upscale gentlemen's clubs.'"

Furthermore, they say, to suggest that the dancers didn't receive
minimum wage "is not only inaccurate, it borders on fraud."

Jaguars' lawyers deny the allegation that the dancers were
illegally forced to sign new agreements to prevent them from
joining the lawsuit.  They say the paperwork was meant to "provide
an accurate description and memorialize the 'meeting of the minds'
that every performer has had with the Club, since day one.  No
performer has acted as an 'employee,' and no performer has desired
to be classified as an 'employee.'"

Messrs. Lirot and Albright call the misclassification lawsuits the
result of "unbridled avarice" on the part of greedy lawyers, and
that Jaguars management began reviewing their legal agreements
with their dancers after hearing about other suits.  They add that
Rede is still "welcome to return" to the club, either as an
employee or as an "independent space lessee and licensee," which,
they say, is how she has "earned her living, handsomely, for the
last several years."

They also call the retaliation claim "bogus."  Affidavits from
Gary Garcia, the El Paso vice president, and Kevin Richardson, the
president of operations for the entire Jaguars chain, claim that
Rede was given ample time to look over the papers before she
signed them, and that she was never told her job hinged on
signing.  Mr. Richardson also calls the misclassification lawsuits
as a whole "bold and amazingly ingracious efforts" to "exploit the
very Clubs that provided them with such an excellent opportunity
to make far in excess of 'minimum wage.'"

LAYTON ENERGY: Investors Sue Owners Over Oil Well Fund Fraud
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that fifteen
people claim in a class action that energy company owners took
$13.5 million for oil and gas investments, then hid the money
through a "game of fund money hot potato," and used some of it to
drill a well for one of their "drinking buddies."

Fifteen named investors sued Layton Energy Texas, Platinum Energy
Solutions, Layton Corp., and company owners Daniel Layton and
Clark Legler, in Harris County Court.  Eleven of the class members
live in Wisconsin.

The class claims the defendants purchased several wells with $10
million they raised for their "Wharton Fund," and bought another
three wells with $3.5 million raised for their "Layton Energy Fund

But, the class says, "Since the existence of the funds, Layton has
allowed lease interests to expire, failed to acquire properties as
represented and engaged in self-dealing to the detriment of the

The investors claim that "Layton and Legler took monies from the
Wharton Fund and the Layton Energy Fund 2 to put in other projects
Layton and Leger were running."

They claim Layton has admitted to brokers who helped raise money
for the funds "that the properties acquired by the funds were not

The class claims that due to "personality differences" Layton had
with well operators, the defendants let the lease expire on one
well and used investors' money to get a new operator for another.

Defendants also used the funds' oil wells as collateral, the class
says, and let liens be placed against them.

"When the general counsel of Layton Energy was approached about
this, and how could that be done to the investors' wells, he just
shrugged his shoulders.  The bottom line is that he is now giving
the investors' wells away or letting the leases expire with no
concern towards investors," according to the complaint.

The class claims Messrs. Layton and Legler strung them along with
false promises that they would "make the investors in the funds
whole" by putting shares of their company Platinum Energy
Solutions into the funds.

On page 7 of the 13-page complaint, one paragraph states: "On
information and belief, the Saenz well was drilled for one of
Layton's 'drinking buddies.'  When the geologist was questioned on
this prospect, he commented that the well had not been reviewed or
approved for drilling.  It is believed the Wharton Fund monies
that were used to 'drill the Saenz well' were in actuality taken
by defendants for other non-Wharton Fund purposes.  Additionally,
the question remains: Where is the well?"

The class seeks recovery of the $13.5 million, and punitive
damages for fraud, conspiracy, and conversion.

A copy of the Complaint in Wesolek, et al. v. Layton, et al., Case
No. 2011-76468 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin L. Colbert, Esq.
          Vy-Vivian Nguyen, Esq.
          900 Town & Country Ln., Suite 205
          Houston, TX 77024
          Telephone: (713) 465-1630
          E-mail: kevin@kevincolbertlaw.com

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: Faces Class Action Over New Benefit Plan
Lisa Buchmeier at Courthouse News Service reports that an 85-year-
old cancer survivor with heart problems filed a class action
against Milwaukee County, which more than doubled the
contributions and co-pays retirees must make for health insurance,
though they were promised their retirement benefits would never be
"diminished or impaired by subsequent legislation or any other
means without consent."

Lead plaintiff Esther Hussey sued Milwaukee County in Superior

In its budget for 2012, Milwaukee County demands that retirees pay
28.3% of their health-care costs -- a 125% increase from 2011.
This includes co-payments to Medicare.

The 2012 budget was approved by County Executive Chris Abele --
the successor to now-Gov. Scott Walker.

In her class action, Ms. Hussey says the county benefit plan was
first issued in 1960 and provided "that each member and recipient
of retirement benefits shall have a vested right to all benefits
at the time of the person's employment and to all increases in

The complaint states that it is "well settled law in the State of
Wisconsin that pension rights of governmental employees cannot be
reduced from those that existed at the start of their employment
(nor can any enhancements granted during their employment be taken
away or reduced)."  This includes retiree benefits, including
health insurance.

These health insurance benefits included full payment of Medicare
Part B premiums, along with co-pays and co-insurance.  Beginning
in 2006, the county required employees to contribute to co-pays
and co-insurance, but this was an unlawful modification at that
time, too, Ms. Hussey says.

Ms. Hussey worked for the county for 30 years.  She lives on
Social Security in a one-bedroom subsidized apartment and must pay
caregivers to help her in daily tasks.  She uses a walker as a
result of severe arthritis.  She was diagnosed with breast cancer
in 2007 and suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
She says she was "promised health-care benefits for her entire
life" and she earned and is entitled to those benefits.  If the
promise is broken, she will be forced to make health-care
decisions based on affordability, not on necessity.

She claims the county's new budget violates retirees' civil
rights, Milwaukee County ordinances, Wisconsin case law, the
Wisconsin Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and the 14th

She estimates that more than 4,000 retired employees are affected
by the unlawful changes.

She seeks a temporary restraining order and injunction, and
punitive damages.

It's the latest in a string of lawsuits, including other class
actions, against Milwaukee County, on top of the slew of lawsuits
challenging Gov. Walker's anti-union law.

Just since November, a nurses union and AFSCME have filed class
actions against the county, the sheriff's deputies' union
challenged a mass layoff, and Health and Human Services workers
sued the county challenging transfer to the state.

A copy of the Complaint in Hussey v. Milwaukee County, Case No.
11CV018855 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Ganzer, Esq.
          HODAN, DOSTER & GANZER, S.C.
          5555 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 207
          Milwaukee, WI 53217
          Telephone: (414) 351-9150

MONSANTO: Jury Selection Set to Begin This Week
Kate White, writing for The Charleston Gazette, reports that jury
selection in the class-action lawsuit against Monsanto will begin
this week after no settlement was reached during about eight hours
of mediation on Dec. 27, the lead plaintiffs' attorney confirmed.

Residents allege in a class-action case, filed in 2004, that
Monsanto unsafely burned dioxin wastes and spread contaminated
soot and dust across Nitro, polluting homes with unsafe levels of
the chemical.

The lawsuit set to begin this week will seek medical monitoring
for at least 5,000 -- and perhaps as many as 80,000 -- current and
former Nitro residents.

Before Putnam Circuit Judge O.C. Spaulding recused himself from
hearing the case after being diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease,
he ruled that residents could not sue collectively to seek
remediation of homes they allege are contaminated with dioxin.

On Dec. 27, several hundred plaintiffs gathered at the Marriott
hotel in Charleston for a court-ordered mediation.  Circuit Judges
Booker Stephens of McDowell County and Alan D. Moats of Taylor
County attempted to resolve the case to avoid trial.

A mediation held in October also failed to produce a settlement.

Stuart Calwell, the lead plaintiffs' attorney, said he plans to
call 18 experts to testify during the trial.

"This is an extraordinarily important case," Mr. Calwell said.
"[Plaintiffs] want their town back.  What they're interested in is
having a safe home to live in -- I don't think that's too much to

Monsanto's lead attorney, Charles Love of Charleston, would not
comment on the upcoming trial.

For more than 50 years, the former Monsanto plant churned out
herbicides, rubber products and other chemicals.  The plant's
production of Agent Orange created dioxin as a toxic chemical

Mercer Circuit Judge Derek Swope was appointed by the Supreme
Court to preside over the trial, which is expected to last around
three months.

Putnam Circuit Clerk Ronnie Matthews said on Dec. 28 no scheduling
order for the trial had been filed.  He said he understood that
the trial would sometimes be held five days a week and sometimes
four, so Swope could continue to handle his abuse and neglect
caseload in Mercer County.

Mr. Matthews said when jury selection begins next week, 28
potential jurors will be chosen out of a pool of about 340 people.
To begin the case, Mr. Matthews said, six jurors and six
alternates are necessary.

MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Illinois
Raymond Lowell, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., Christopher J.
Artinian, John K. Castle, David B. Pittaway, Dianne H. Russell,
John J. Connolly, Alan A. Teran, Stephen E. Paul, Robert A.
Goldschmidt, Zane Tankel, William C. Anton, Fertitta Morton's
Restaurants, Inc., Fertitta Morton's Acquisition, Inc., Fertitta
Morton's Holdings, Inc., Fertitta Entertainment, Inc., and Claim
Jumper Acquisition Company, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-43977 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., December 23, 2011) is a stockholder class action
brought on behalf of holders of common stock of Morton's
Restaurant Group, Inc. and arising from the Individual Defendants'
agreement to sell MRGI to Fertitta in an all-cash tender offer.

In pursuing the unlawful plan to sell MRGI via an unfair process
and for unfair consideration, each of the Defendants violated
applicable law by directly breaching and aiding and abetting the
other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty,
due care, independence, good faith, and fair dealing, Mr. Lowell
argues.  He adds that the Individual Defendants further breached
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to preclusive deal protection
devices in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger the
Company, Fertitta, and CJAC entered into on December 15, 2011.

Mr. Lowell is a shareholder of MRGI.

MRGI is a Delaware corporation and the owner and operator of an
upscale steakhouse chain.  MRGI operates 77 steakhouses in 64
cities across 26 states and San Juan, Puerto Rico, as well as six
international locations in Toronto, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Macau,
Mexico City, and Singapore.  The Fertitta Entities, except for
FEI, were formed solely for the purpose of completing the Proposed
Acquisition.  Fertitta Holdings is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
FEI, a Texas corporation wholly-owned by Tilman J. Fertitta.  CJAC
is a Nevada limited liability company and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Fertitta Parent.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of MRGI.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh Lasky, Esq.
          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          351 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057
          Facsimile: (312) 634-0059
          E-mail: lasky@laskyrifkind.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
          Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsumeda.com

NAVIEN AMERICA: Recalls 13,000 Tankless Water Heaters
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Navien America Inc., of Irvine, California, and
manufacturer, Kyung Dong Navien Co. Ltd., South Korea, announced a
voluntary recall of about 13,000 units of Navien Instantaneous or
Tankless Water Heaters.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

An unstable connection can cause the water heater's vent collar to
separate or detach if pressure is applied.  A detached vent collar
poses a risk of carbon monoxide poisoning to the consumer.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

Navien tankless hot water heaters are white with "T-Creator" and
"NAVIEN" on the front.  Recalled model numbers are CR-180(A), CR-
210(A), CR-240(A), CC-180(A), CC-210(A) and CC-240(A) manufactured
in 2008.  A label on the side of the water heater lists the model
number along with the manufacturing year in YYYY format.  Picture
of the recalled products is available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in South Korea and sold
wholesale distributors to in-home installers nationwide from
February 2008 through March 2009 for between $1,500 and $2,100.

Consumers should immediately stop using and check the model and
manufacture year information on their Navien water heater.
Consumers with recalled water heaters should immediately contact
Navien to schedule a free repair.  Navien will replace all Nylon
66 vent collar with PVC collars.  Consumers who continue use of
the water heaters while awaiting repair, should have a working
carbon monoxide alarm installed outside of sleeping areas in the
home.  For additional information, contact Navien at (800) 244-
8202 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at

The CPSC notes that regardless of the type of water heater that is
used, every home should have a CO alarm outside all sleeping areas
and consumers should ensure that their CO alarms have working

POTTERY BARN: Recalls 7,930 Units of Madeline Bed Canopy
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Pottery Barn Kids, a division of Williams-Sonoma
Inc., of San Francisco, California, announced a voluntary recall
of about 7,700 units of Madeline Bed Canopy in the United States
of America and 230 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer

The connections of the posts to the top rails of the canopy can
come apart, allowing components of the canopy to fall and posing
an impact hazard to consumers.

The firm is aware of 33 reports of components of the canopy
falling, including one report of a cut that required stitches and
nine other reports of minor cuts, bruises and/or bumps.

The canopy is part of the Madeline Bedroom Collection.  It is made
of wood and consists of four posts that connect to the headboard
and footboard of the bed and four rails that connect to the top
portion of each post.  It is available for twin-, full- and queen-
sized Madeline Beds and comes in white, antique white, blade
green, Sun Valley blade green, Sun Valley light green and Sun
Valley espresso.  Pottery Barn Kids previously sold the canopy
separately as an option for the Madeline Bed.  Picture of the
recalled products is available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Pottery Barn Kids stores nationwide, online at
http://potterybarnkids.com/and through Pottery Barn Kids catalogs
from December 2003 until August 2011.  When sold separately, the
canopy sold for $150 to $300.

Consumers should immediately remove the canopy from the bed and
contact Pottery Barn Kids to schedule a free repair.  For
additional information and to schedule a repair, contact Pottery
Barn Kids toll-free at (855) 662-4114 between 4:00 a.m. and 9:00
p.m. Pacific Time daily or visit the firm's Web site at

WELLPOINT: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
Kathleen McLaughlin, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal,
reports that a federal judge has dismissed a shareholder class-
action lawsuit against WellPoint stemming from the company's 2001
conversion from a mutual insurer to a publicly traded company.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt granted summary
judgment in favor of WellPoint on Dec. 23.  She sided with
attorneys for Indianapolis-based WellPoint who had argued that
plaintiff Jeffrey D. Jorling's claims should be barred by a
federal law, which is designed to prevent state-law claims in
cases involving securities transactions.

Mr. Jorling, who filed his case in 2009, alleged that
policyholders of the company, then known as Anthem, who received
stock in the restructuring weren't adequately compensated.

"We are pleased that the court has . . . found that the
plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law," WellPoint said in a
prepared statement.  "Anthem strongly believes that the
demutualization was conducted properly and in a manner that was
fair, reasonable, and equitable to Anthem's former members.  It
was one of the most closely reviewed transactions in Indiana
history and was approved by a special committee of Anthem's Board
of Directors, the Board itself, and by government regulators."

The Jorling case was an offshoot of a similar, class-action
lawsuit filed in 2005 by Mary D. Ormond, which is still pending
before Pratt.  The Ormond lawsuit covers Anthem policyholders who
opted for cash, rather than stock, in the conversion.

Because mutual insurers are owned by their policyholders, they
were due compensation when the company restructured and launched
its initial public offering in October 2001.  That conversion
resulted in Anthem's shelling out nearly $2.1 billion in cash to
more than 740,000 policyholders.

The court already sided with WellPoint on half the Ormond case.
Eric Zagrans, a Cleveland attorney representing Mr. Jorling and
Ormond, noted that the remaining claim in the Ormond case, which
represents hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, is
scheduled to be heard at trial in June.

WEST VIRGINIA: Sued Over High Premiums on Workers Comp. Policies
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims West
Virginia Employers' Mutual Insurance Co. dba Brickstreet Mutual
Insurance Co. charged and still charges illegally high premiums on
38,000 workers comp policies.

A copy of the Complaint in The Bunch Company v. West Virginia
Employers' Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 11-C-2275 (Va. Cir.
Ct., Kanawha Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul T. Farrell, Jr., Esq.
          419-11th Street/P.O. Box 2389
          Huntington, WV 25724-2389
          Telephone: (800) 479-0053
                     (304) 525-9115
          E-mail: paul@greeneketchum.com

               - and -

          Alex J. Shook, Esq.
          315 High Street
          Morgantown, WV 26505
          Telephone: (304) 296-3636
          E-mail: alex@wvalaw.com


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and
Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *