/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120103.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 3, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 2


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action for $27.1 Million
APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over iPhone Exclusivity Deal With ATTM
ASTELLAS PHARMA: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Prograf
B & V ENTERPRISES: Sued for Falsely Advertising Meat as Halal
BANK OF AMERICA: Robesonia to Join Class Action Settlement

CBS INTERACTIVE: Sued for Sharing Subscriber Information
CHUHAK AND TECSON: Accused of Misrepresentation & Negligence
FIRST AMERICAN: Sued for Duping Customers to Buy Precious Metals
FRED OLSEN: Faces Class Action Over Norovirus Outbreak
FRITO-LAY: Misleads Consumers With All Natural Label, Suit Says

MARRIOTT INT'L: Removes Labor Code-Violations Suit to N.D. Calif.
MENU FOODS: Pet Owner Questions Suit Settlement Share for Lawyers
NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Nursing Home Class Action Nears Trial
PALACE ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Customers' Class Action
PEAK CAMPUS: Violated Landlord & Tenant Ordinance, Ill. Suit Says

STATE OF IOWA: Class Action Lawyers Seek to Remove Lead Plaintiff
STATE OF OKLAHOMA: DHS Class Action Settlement Talks Stall
UMPQUA BANK: Sued Over Collection of Excessive Overdraft Fees
VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVE: Faces Class Action Over Booking Fees
WEST ELM: Recalls 840 Dover Dining Tables Due to Injury Hazard


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action for $27.1 Million
Linda Sandler, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Ambac
Financial Group Inc.'s $27.1 million settlement of a class-action
lawsuit was approved by a U.S. judge who said the deal was
reasonable and would allow the bankrupt company to complete its
Chapter 11 plan.

The Police and Fire Retirement System of Detroit had challenged
the bankruptcy judge's September approval of the deal, partly
because it stops other parties from suing Ambac, the bankrupt
holding company for a failed bond insurer.

In a memorandum and order filed in court on Dec. 29, U.S. District
Judge Naomi Buchwald said the bankruptcy judge was right to
approve the deal after determining the settlement fell "well above
the lowest point in the range of reasonableness," warranting its
approval by court measures.

"Settlements are strongly favored in the bankruptcy context, as
they help clear a path for the efficient administration of the
bankrupt estate," she wrote in the memorandum.

The shareholder suits against Ambac, which filed for bankruptcy in
2010, sought to recover losses suffered because of Ambac's
exposure to the credit crisis tied to subprime mortgages.  Ambac
will pay $2.5 million, and its insurers will pay the remaining
$24.6 million, according to Judge Buchwald.

Creditors' votes on Ambac's reorganization plan must be in by
Jan. 30, Ambac said in December.  The company listed liabilities
(ABK) of $1.68 billion in its initial Chapter 11 petition.

The holding company case is In re Ambac Financial Group Inc.
(ABK), 10-15973, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New
York (Manhattan).

APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over iPhone Exclusivity Deal With ATTM
Robert Pepper, Stephen H. Schwartz, Edward W. Hayter and Harry
Bass, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Apple Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-06714 (N.D. Calif., December 29,
2011) is an antitrust class action brought on behalf of those who
purchased an iPhone from Apple or non-party AT&T Mobility, LLC, or
elsewhere, and then, purchased wireless voice and data services or
applications for the iPhone.  Prior to the launch of iPhone, Apple
entered into a secret five-year contract with ATTM that
established ATTM as the exclusive provider of cell phone voice and
data services for iPhone customers through some time in 2012, the
lawsuit disclosed.

The Plaintiffs argue that they did not agree to use ATTM for five
years, however, Apple's undisclosed five-year Exclusivity
Agreement with ATTM effectively locked iPhone users into using
ATTM for five years, contrary to the users' knowledge, wishes and
expectations.  They contend that Apple has prevented iPhone
customers from exercising their legal right by locking the iPhones
and refusing to give customers the software codes needed to unlock

The Plaintiffs are residents of various states of the United
States of America.  Each of them purchased an iPhone and paid for
ATTM voice and data service for the iPhone.

Apple, a California corporation, manufactures, markets, and sells
the iPhone, among other electronic devices.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4677
          E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com

ASTELLAS PHARMA: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Prograf
Courthouse News Service reports that insurers claim in an
antitrust class action that Astellas Pharma gouged prices and
illegally blocked entry of generic Prograf (tacrolimus), used to
suppress organ rejection in transplants.

A copy of the Complaint in Louisiana Health Service Indemnity v.
Astellas Pharma US, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-12326 (D. Mass.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Greene, Esq.
          Michael Tabb, Esq.
          Ilyas J. Rona, Esq.
          GREENE LLP
          One Liberty Square, Suite 1200
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 261-0040
          E-mail: tgreene@greenellp.com

               - and -

          James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
          Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
          David Franco, Esq.
          Kevin Oufnac, Esq.
          DUGAN LAW FIRM
          One Canal Place
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180

B & V ENTERPRISES: Sued for Falsely Advertising Meat as Halal
Courthouse News Service reports that two class actions claim B & V
Enterprises dba Super King Markets deceptively advertises and
sells regular meat as halal to Muslims.

A copy of the Complaint in Omar v. B & V Enterprises, Inc., et
al., Case No. 30-2011-00533026 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)
(Dunning, J.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Thompson, Esq.
          Bryan S. Owens, Esq.
          2601 Main Street, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 261-2872
          E-mail: rthompson@ctsclaw.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Robesonia to Join Class Action Settlement
Valdis I. Lacis, writing for Reading Eagle, reports that at a
special meeting on Dec. 28, the board of the Robesonia-
Wernersville Municipal Authority authorized the agency to
participate in a proposed class-action settlement with Bank of
America Corp.

Authority Solicitor Gary R. Swavely Jr. said the authority is
eligible to receive $14,542 as its share of a $62.5 million out-
of-court settlement between Bank of America and 28 state attorneys

Mr. Swavely said the settlement dates from a 2008 investigation of
alleged violations of state and federal antitrust and other laws
by Bank of America and others involving the marketing and sale of
municipal bond derivatives.

"The illegal scheme and wrongful conduct" resulted in unjust
profits for the providers and artificially suppressed yields on
the municipal bond transactions between 1998 and 2007, he said.

Authority Chairman Edward P. Guldin said the board was required to
have paperwork on its decision to participate postmarked by
Dec. 27.

In other business, authority Manager Jeffrey L. Gerhart said
thieves broke into authority buildings last week to steal three
motors, a chain saw and tool kit worth an estimated $1,250.

"It's the first-ever break-in," Mr. Gerhart said of the 44-year-
old wastewater treatment plant.

Mr. Guldin said he hopes to hear soon about the authority's
application for a grant of nearly $60,000 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to repair pump motors, circuitry
panels and a fence that were damaged when the plant was flooded by
storm water in early September.

CBS INTERACTIVE: Sued for Sharing Subscriber Information
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action filed in Los
Angeles claims CBS Interactive secretly collects personal
information on its subscribers and shares it with direct
marketers, in violation of California's "Shine the Light Law."

CHUHAK AND TECSON: Accused of Misrepresentation & Negligence
Kyle R. Orton and Edward Rappaport, Individually and as
Representatives of Class Members v. Chuhak and Tecson, P.C., a
Professional Corporation, and David Shiner, individually, Jeanne
Kerkstra, individually, Gary Stern, individually and Lindsey
Markus, individually, Case No. 2011-CH-44662 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., December 29, 2011) is premised on alleged acts of conflicted
representation, misrepresentation and negligence regarding the
inducement and advice relating to investments in oil and gas
partnerships that were designed to grant tax credits under Section
45K of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants placed them and other
potential class members in a series of partnerships that failed to
confer the anticipated tax benefits to them.  As a result of the
Defendants' acts and omissions, the Plaintiffs alleged that they
have suffered millions of dollars in damages including loss of
investment, adverse tax consequences, penalties, expenses and
professional fees.

Mr. Orton is a professional football player and is a resident of
Denver, Colorado.  Mr. Rappaport is a resident of Atlanta,

Chuhak & Tecson, is a law firm located at 30 South Wacker, Suite
2600, in Chicago, Illinois.  The Individual Defendants are
principals of Chuhak & Tecson.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel F. Konicek, Esq.
          Amir R. Tahmassebi, Esq.
          Amanda J. Hamilton, Esq.
          KONICEK & DILLON, P.C.
          21 W. State St.
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 262-9655
          E-mail: Dan@KonicekDillonLaw.com

FIRST AMERICAN: Sued for Duping Customers to Buy Precious Metals
Jason Miles and Nick Kenney, writing for WMC-TV, report that a
former Tennessee legislator is the target of an $80 million class
action lawsuit after plaintiffs claimed he tricked them into
buying gold by saying it was God's will.

The 47-page lawsuit filed on Dec. 28 in federal court is seeking
damages for people who claim they were duped by the defendants,
including former State Representative Larry Bates.

Mr. Bates is First American Monetary Consultants' "chief
economist."  He is the first defendant listed in the lawsuit filed
by a Covington, Tennessee law firm.

Through a Web site, a radio program, and conferences called "A
Nation in Crisis," the lawsuit claims Mr. Bates and FAMC
fraudulently convinced customers to buy precious metals like gold
and silver coins before, among other things, withholding delivery.

According to the lawsuit, "FAMC specifically targets devout
Christian believers, elderly individuals, and widow/widowers with
significant life savings" who see Mr. Bates as a trusted Christian

They claimed Mr. Bates used Bible verses to solidify his precious
metal sales pitch.

"I'm here to help you separate yourself from the masses who will
be victims of this inevitable debacle," Mr. Bates said on audio

Plaintiff's attorneys consider recordings evidence of the
company's "sky is falling" approach used to swindle what they
described as unsuspecting customers.

Covington attorney J. Houston Gordon said Mr. Bates' business
practices are illegal.

"These are civil allegations," said Mr. Gordon.  "There are
wrongful acts alleged.  Misinterpretation is alleged.  Fraudulent
misrepresentation is alleged.  Conversion of money is alleged."

The 47-page civil complaint claims FAMC either never delivered the
precious metals purchased or delivered them only after exorbitant

In response to one such complaint filed with the Better Business
Bureau, Mr. Bates wrote that the customer had been informed that
delivery time would be indefinite, and that the order included a
"no whine" policy.

Mr. Gordon represents two named plaintiffs, but filed the
complaint as a class action lawsuit based on a seven-month
investigation that revealed other potential angry customers.

"We do not know how many are out there, but we have some reason to
believe that there are hundreds," said Mr. Gordon.

Action News 5 contacted Bates at his home in Hardeman County.  He
said he had not yet seen the lawsuit, but called the allegations,
"pure nonsense."

Mr. Bates said the lawsuit was motivated by a disgruntled former
employee and political opponents.  He said he has a team of
lawyers working on the case.

FRED OLSEN: Faces Class Action Over Norovirus Outbreak
Eastbourne Herald reports that a Hailsham holiday maker is among
134 claimants in a massive High Court action against cruise
giants, Fred Olsen Cruise Lines which could potentially cost the
company millions of pounds in compensation.

In a joint writ issued at London's High Court and just made
publicly available, the claimants alleged they picked up the
deadly sickness bug, norovirus.

The test case for which no court date has yet been fixed is
potentially worth easily in excess of GBP1 million and could run
to much more.

One claim is by a woman who says her husband died as a result.

The other claimants allege they were victims during nine outbreaks
of norovirus on the 880 passenger luxury cruise liner Boudicca
between October 2009 and April 2010.

Cruises can cost over GBP10,000 on the liner.

They claim to have suffered a variety of symptoms which include
nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, wind, lethargy,
fever, fecal incontinence, weight loss, and bloating.

Some passengers claim they still suffer from post infective
irritable bowel syndrome.

The writ accuses the cruise line of putting profits before the
health and safety of its passengers.

It says the company acted with view to commercial gain rather than
safeguarding the safety and well being of the passengers.

The Hailsham claimant is Betty Muriel Bachelor from Battle Road,

The writ claims the company failed to warn passengers before or
during their stay of a norovirus outbreak and allowed them to stay
on board knowing they were at risk of contracting the virus.

It alleges that the company failed to provide specialist training
to cleaning staff, failed to clean all infected rooms and communal
areas enough, including TV remotes, and door handles, failed to
clear public areas, failed to disinfect all public areas with
virus-killing disinfectant, and failed to isolate infected guests
from new guests, the writ says.

And it claims that there was a failure to deep clean the ship
properly between voyages, with the result that the virus remained

It also alleges that the company failed to cancel the holidays or
provide an alternative ship.

Food and drink is said to have been unfit for consumption and
unhygienic leading to passengers becoming ill.

Staff are said to have failed to thoroughly wash, cook and heat
food and to have failed to ensure cold food was properly
refrigerated, that the buffet was covered.

It alleges that instead food was served undercooked and also

In addition to the physical symptoms suffered by passengers the
writ says they also suffered distress and anxiety for themselves,
and from watching each other fall ill, and lost the enjoyment of
their holidays, which were of little or no benefit to them.

FRITO-LAY: Misleads Consumers With All Natural Label, Suit Says
Valarie Zuro on behalf of herself and a class of all others
similarly situated v. Frito-Lay North America Inc., Case No. 3:11-
cv-06672 (N.D. Calif., December 28, 2011) is brought on behalf of
a class of persons, who purchased non-organic products sold under
the Defendant's Tostitos and SunChips brand names, including
Tostitos Restaurant Style Tortilla Chips, Tostitos Crispy Rounds
Tortilla Chips, Tostitos Multigrain, Tortilla Chips, Sun Chips
Original flavored Multigrain Snacks, Sun Chips Garden Salsa
Flavored Multigrain Snacks and Sun Chips French Onion Flavored
Multigrain Snacks.

The Plaintiff asserts that Frito-Lay labels certain of its
Tostitos and SunChips products as "made with ALL NATURAL
ingredients," but those products are not made of "all natural"
ingredients.  The Plaintiff argues that the products contain corn
and vegetable oils, which are made from genetically modified
plants and, hence, not natural.

Ms. Zuro is a resident of San Francisco, California.  For years,
she regularly purchased Tostitos and SunChips products about once
a month for her own consumption, most recently in December 2011.

Frito-Lay, located in Piano, Texas, markets and distributes many
snack products under the Tostitos and SunChips brands.  Frito-Lay
is a wholly owned subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julio J Ramos, Esq.
          35 Grove Street, Suite 107
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 948-3015
          Facsimile: (415) 469-9787
          E-mail: ramosfortrustee@yahoo.com

MARRIOTT INT'L: Removes Labor Code-Violations Suit to N.D. Calif.
Vernon Michael Lambson, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Marriott International, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company LLC, a
Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-11-516082 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.,
December 21, 2011) challenges the Defendants' alleged systemic
illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the
California Labor Code, the Business and Professions Code and wage

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have acted intentionally
and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the
rights of all employees in receiving all meal and rest
breaks/premium pay, and in receiving all overtime at the correct
rate of pay.  The Plaintiff adds that the Defendants failed to
reimburse employees for job-related expenses and to accurately
itemized wage statements.

Mr. Lambson was employed as a non-exempt employee paid on an
hourly basis at the Defendants' property in Truckee, California,
from November 2009 to April 2011.

Marriott and its subsidiary, Ritz-Carlton, are Delaware
corporations doing business in the state of California.  Marriott
owns and operates various hotels in California.  The names of the
Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants removed the lawsuit on December 28, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  They argue that the removal is proper
because some members of the proposed class, including the
Plaintiff, have different citizenship from one or more Defendants.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:11-cv-06669 to the

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Westmoreland, Esq.
          Amber S. Healy, Esq.
          12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 205
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 478-5789
          Facsimile: (509) 561-6441
          E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Apalla U. Chopra, Esq.
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: achopra@omm.com

               - and -

          Adam P. Kohsweeney, Esq.
          Meghann M. Hiscocks, Esq.
          Two Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
          Telephone: (415) 984-8912
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com

MENU FOODS: Pet Owner Questions Suit Settlement Share for Lawyers
Ana Garcia, writing for NBC Southern California, reports that a
woman whose cat died because of eating tainted pet food wants to
know why the lawyers got millions and pet owners did not.

In March 2007, reports surfaced that melamine-tainted pet food
imported from China had sickened or killed as many as 50,000 dogs
and cats.  As many as 150 brands under the Menu Foods umbrella,
including Iams and Purina, were recalled.

By the time Kathy Forcier of Hemet heard the news, it was too late
for her cat.  She had already fed Ashes "Special Kitty" cat food
bought at Walmart.

"She was in complete renal failure," said a tearful Ms. Forcier.
"I was using an eye dropper trying to get water down her."

But Ashes the cat was dying.

"It was horrible, painful death," Ms. Forcier said.  "I am feeling
very, very guilty."

Ms. Forcier is one of more than 24,000 people who were part of a
class-action lawsuit against Menu Foods, which settled for $24

Ms. Forcier recently received a check for $58.76, approximately
half the cost of the vet bills.

"It was an absolute insult," said Ms. Frocier.

The attorneys received $7.4 million.

"Clearly the lawyers benefit," said legal analyst Robin Sax.
"They get paid first."

Class-action lawsuits are filed on behalf of a group of consumers
with the intent of changing a business practice.  Although, there
are many public aspects of the class-action lawsuit --
solicitations, notices, court hearings and court records -- there
are a lot of parts of the settlement that are "not transparent,"
said Ms. Sax.

For example, the lead law firm for the class action, Wexler
Wallace of Chicago, refused to provide a breakdown of the payouts
or disclose how many checks were mailed to claimants in

"Every claimant has the right to expect privacy with respect to
their individual claims and I am going to respect that," said
attorney Kenneth Wexler, who handled the case.

"The range of recovery is not relevant," added Mr. Wexler.

Ms. Forcier disagrees.  She wants to know who got what, and why.

"He didn't lose a pet," said Ms. Forcier.  "He didn't lose a
member of his family."

"That lack of transparency breeds a lack of trust," said Ms. Sax.

The bulk of the settlement checks were mailed this past summer.
If there is any money left over, it will be donated to animal
welfare groups.

Ms. Forcier planned to donate her $58 to the local shelter in her
cat's name.  She wishes it were more.

NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Nursing Home Class Action Nears Trial
Selena Ross, writing for Herald News, reports that a class action
against the province that could result in a payout of tens of
millions of dollars has jumped another legal hurdle, bringing it a
step closer to trial.

The lawsuit, launched six years ago, argues that people who paid
for health care in Nova Scotia nursing homes from 2001 to 2005
were charged unfairly.  If successful, it would refund those fees
to all who paid them.

Justice David MacAdam of Nova Scotia Supreme Court clarified,
point by point, his certification of the class action in a
supplemental decision released in December in an answer to an
appeal filed by the province last year.

Although about 180 people had signed on as plaintiffs, its
certification as a class action means that anyone who paid the
nursing home fees during those years is included -- potentially a
group of thousands.  Justice MacAdam signed a certification order
in 2010.

After the province appealed the certification, the Nova Scotia
Appeal Court found that "as the certification judge, I was
required to determine whether the test for certification was met
on each disputed claim," Justice MacAdam wrote in his decision.

Only certain claims were at issue in the province's appeal.  In
response, the judge specified that one of these claims was
certifiable, while another was not.

The result is that the class action is still certified, but it
will be argued slightly more narrowly, said lead lawyer Ray Wagner
of Halifax.

Specifically, a claim based on Section 7 of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms will not go ahead, Justice MacAdam wrote.  But a
claim based on Sec. 15, which deals with discrimination on the
basis of age and disability, will proceed.

The plaintiffs argue that they were made to pay for health-care
costs that they needed because of their age or disability, while
others who did not need nursing home care had those medical costs
covered by the province.

Those who paid for their own care or a spouse's care from 2001 to
2005 were forced to submit to a financial assessment before the
province identified them as able to pay for certain parts of the

The couple who launched the lawsuit had paid more than $150,000
for three years of the husband's care in a nursing home.

The government stopped charging the fees in 2005, but Premier
Darrell Dexter said last year he was concerned about the potential
liability of taxpayers if the class action is successful.

This decision will end the certification process, unless the
province decides to appeal.

"We will study the decision further before making any
determination of whether or not an appeal will be sought," Health
and Wellness Department spokeswoman Nicole Brooks said in an
e-mail.  "We won't be making any decisions until early in 2012."

Even if there is no appeal, the case won't see a courtroom until
2015 at the earliest, said Mr. Wagner, because of a backlog of
lengthy cases in the Supreme Court.

PALACE ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Customers' Class Action
Bobby Kerlik, writing for Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, reports that
customers of Kennywood, Sandcastle and Idlewild amusement parks
who used a credit card at the parks in the last five years and had
the card's expiration date appear on the receipt may be eligible
for a free admission ticket.

Under the terms of a class-action settlement of a federal lawsuit
against Palace Entertainment, which owns dozens of parks,
including Kennywood, Sandcastle and Idlewild, customers who had
too much information appear on their credit card receipts will
receive a free admission ticket for one of 15 parks across the

Jeff Hanlon of Allegheny County sued Palace Entertainment in
August in U.S. District Court, Downtown.  He claimed that he made
a purchase with his Visa credit card in July at the Idlewild &
Soak Zone park in Ligonier and was provided with a receipt that
showed his card's expiration date, a violation of federal law.

Mr. Hanlon could not be reached for comment on Dec. 28, and
attorneys involved in the class-action suit did not return a call
for comment.  Attorneys for Palace Entertainment did not return

U.S. District Chief Judge Gary Lancaster gave preliminary approval
to the settlement on Dec. 20.

According to the settlement, eligible people must have received an
electronically printed receipt at one of 15 Palace Parks between
Dec. 4, 2006, and Dec. 20, 2011, with more than the last five
digits of the credit or debit card number or the card's expiration

If fewer than 60,000 tickets are given to lawsuit participants,
Palace Entertainment must donate the remainder to charity,
according to the settlement.

Mr. Hanlon will receive $2,500 for being the class-action
representative, and Carlson Lynch, the Sewickley law firm
representing the class, is eligible for up to $390,000 in
attorneys' fees, according to the settlement.

For more information, people can call 1-800-467-5241, according to
the settlement.

PEAK CAMPUS: Violated Landlord & Tenant Ordinance, Ill. Suit Says
Dana Corchin, Individually and as Representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Peak Campus Management, LLC, &
Tailor Lofts, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-44480 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., December 28, 2011) alleges that the Defendants failed to
provide the Plaintiff with the required summary of the Chicago
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance containing the current
interest rate and the previous two years interest rates for
security deposits held by landlords in Chicago.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants, as company practice,
failed to provide their tenants at Tailor Lofts, including her,
with a current Chicago RLTO Summary at the time rental agreements
are initially offered or renewed.  She adds that the Defendants
failed to provide current separate summary of security deposit
interest rates, in violation of the RLTO.

Ms. Corchin was a tenant of the Defendants' property located in
Chicago, Illinois.

Tailor Lofts was the owner, lessor and landlord of the building
rented by the Plaintiff.  Peak Campus was the lessor and
authorized management agent for the building's owner and served as
"landlord" of the Plaintiff's dwelling unit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Krolik, Esq.
          134 North LaSalle St., Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 558-1978
          Facsimile: (312) 558-1970
          E-mail: akrolik@securitydepositlaw.com

               - and -

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

STATE OF IOWA: Class Action Lawyers Seek to Remove Lead Plaintiff
Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
lawyers in a class-action discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf
of black Iowans who were denied state jobs and promotions sought
on Dec. 29 to remove a lead plaintiff, one day after she pleaded
guilty to embezzling unemployment benefits.

Attorneys filed a motion in Polk County District Court to remove
former Iowa Workforce Development adviser Linda Pippen of Fairfax
as one of 29 class representatives in the lawsuit, which covers up
to 6,000 blacks who applied for jobs dating back to 2003.  They
are seeking tens of millions of dollars in lost wages and policy
changes that would end hiring practices that they say allow subtle
biases to hurt black applicants' chances of getting jobs. Judge
Robert Blink is expected to rule in coming months.

In the motion, lead attorney Thomas Newkirk and other lawyers
wrote that Ms. Pippen's guilty pleas on Dec. 28 to using her
position to embezzle $43,000 in unemployment benefits and commit
aggravated identity theft "are not relevant" to the case.  But
they said the conviction meant Ms. Pippen could no longer
represent the interests of the class and added that their
attorney-client relationship with her has been "irreparably
damaged," in part because she had failed to disclose she'd been
charged and they learned it from the news media.

Other class members believe that Ms. Pippen's continued
involvement in the case would interfere with their ability to
advocate for the remedies they are seeking, and Pippen herself has
agreed to give up her position as a representative, the motion

Leaving the courthouse after entering her guilty pleas on Dec. 28,
Ms. Pippen said she did not believe her crimes should have any
impact on the potentially historic discrimination case, which
carried her name: Linda Pippen, et. al., vs. State of Iowa.
Ms. Pippen claims she was unfairly passed over for a job in 1999
in favor of a less-qualified white woman, and then rejected for
another position in 2001 in retaliation after she filed a
complaint about the earlier case.

Her criminal case could not have come at a worse time for the
plaintiffs, creating a public relations disaster for other members
of the class-action lawsuit and their attorneys.  A federal judge
on Dec. 28 questioned why the state employed Ms. Pippen in the
first place, given that she had past convictions for theft and
identity theft.

Another plaintiff, 60-year-old Charles Zanders of Urbandale, said
on Dec. 29 that he was disappointed and angry when he learned
about Pippen's embezzlement and feared it would tarnish their
claims. Mr. Zanders testified at the monthlong trial this fall,
recounting how he did not even get interviews for jobs at the Iowa
Communications Network for which he was more than qualified after
29 years in the telecommunications field.

"We come with every intention of having the state address this
case, and having it done fairly.  We don't want it tinged.  It's
not about Linda Pippen," he said.  "The case is about 6,000 other
African-Americans out there who felt like they've been unjustly
wronged by the state."

In class-action lawsuits, named representatives help make key
decisions about the direction of the case.  Ms. Pippen may still
be able to benefit from the lawsuit as an unnamed member of the
class, depending on how Blink rules.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA: DHS Class Action Settlement Talks Stall
Ginnie Graham, writing for Tulsa World, reports that after a
three-hour meeting on Dec. 28, Gov. Mary Fallin and legislative
leaders did not reach a decision on settling a federal class-
action lawsuit over the state's foster care system.

The Contingency Review Board -- composed of Mr. Fallin, House
Speaker Kris Steele and Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman --
voted to reconvene its executive session at 2:00 p.m. on Dec. 28.

The board is discussing the terms of settling the lawsuit brought
in February 2008 by New York-based child advocacy group Children's
Rights.  The suit, filed in the Northern District of U.S. District
Court, seeks reforms in the child welfare division of the state
Department of Human Services.

The board is required by state law to meet when the Legislature is
not in session to vote on any settlements that may cost taxpayers
at least $25,000.

Mr. Fallin said it is in the best interest of Oklahoma to avoid a
costly legal battle.

"But it has to be sensible," Mr. Fallin said after the meeting,
which ended at 6:00 p.m. on Dec. 28.

Mr. Fallin said several officials were called in for discussion,
which she described optimistically.  She said the goal "first and
foremost is taking care of the children of Oklahoma, especially
our most vulnerable children. Second is looking out for the best
interest of the state of Oklahoma."

Tulsa attorney Fred Dorwart, who is representing Children's
Rights, said it is a good sign that lawmakers are taking time on
this decision.

"We understand it is a major change in the system and has to be
considered," Mr. Dorwart said.  "And they are considering this

A pretrial conference is set for Jan. 6 with the nonjury trial
scheduled to start Feb. 21.

"If the settlement is not voted on tomorrow, then we'll go to
trial Feb. 21," Mr. Dorwart said.  "But we understand they need
time to fully consider this."

No monetary awards will be given to the class or nine original

Children's Rights has argued reforms will be more cost-efficient.

"It's not about money.  It's about management and it's about
policies and procedures," Mr. Dorwart said.  "It will involve
accountability and measurements of the agency in key indicators of
its foster-care system."

A U.S. magistrate has placed an order of confidentiality on the
settlement.  Terms will be released only if the Contingency Review
Board approves it and representatives of the parties sign the

The DHS commission spent five hours in executive session Dec. 20
discussing a proposed settlement.  The oversight board voted 6-3
for the settlement, with commissioners Jay Dee Chase, Aneta
Wilkinson and Richard DeVaughn voting against it.

In court filings, Children's Rights claimed that foster children
were scalded in bath water, sexually molested, beaten with tree
switches and belts and hit in the face. It argues these abuses are
systemic problems, not isolated incidents.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell agreed the suit should be
expanded into a class action, which occurred in May 2009.  The
class is defined as current and future foster children.  DHS has
more than 8,000 children in foster placements.

The original plaintiffs ranged in age from 4 months to 16 years
and had suffered abuse while in DHS foster-care placements.

Children's Rights has been seeking reforms such as caseload
limits, education and training for foster families and staff,
additional placement options for foster children, improved
monitoring, quality assurance and appointment of a neutral

DHS has spent about $7 million on outside attorneys to defend the
lawsuit, and commissioners approved another $2 million for future
costs.  Because it agreed to the settlement, DHS likely will have
to pay some or all of the plaintiffs' legal fees.

Children's Rights has launched legal challenges seeking
improvements in child welfare systems in at least 15 states and
jurisdictions since 1995, with all but two ending in judicial
consent orders that settled the cases.  Legal fees have included
$10.5 million in Georgia and $6.5 million in Michigan.

The Oklahoma lawsuit has more than 775 docket entries, more than
any other case the organization has litigated, said Children's
Rights Executive Director Marcia Lowry.

Commissioners came under criticism earlier this year after some
high-profile child deaths where DHS workers were involved.

Mr. Fallin appointed two new members -- former Oklahoma County
District Attorney Wes Lane of Oklahoma City and businessman Brad
Yarbrough -- who took over as commission chairman in October.

A major point mentioned in judicial orders and disputed among the
parties is caseload per DHS worker.

Despite having a federally recognized tracking system, DHS does
not have a definitive number for average caseload.  Estimates show
that 68% of foster children have workers with 20 or more cases and
that 15% have 30 or more cases.

Accrediting body standards call for no more than 18 children per
caseworker, or eight per caseworker in the case of special needs

                    Key Points of the Lawsuit

These following are the major issues put forth by the Children's
Rights in seeking DHS reforms:

Shortage of foster homes: Alleges placements of children are
wherever a bed is available, without regard to their needs.
Argues not enough emphasis is put on recruitment and training of
foster families.

Crowded, dangerous shelters: Alleges too much reliance on
emergency shelters, including for infants and toddlers.  And
argues children are in shelters for excessive periods of time,
sometimes for more than six months.

Unsafe foster homes: Alleges foster homes are used that
"jeopardize the safety of children."  The suit cites homes that
are dirty, overcrowded and lack adequate food or have adults who
have criminal conviction or who dangerously lack in supervision.

Excessive caseloads, inexperienced workforce: For six years, the
Oklahoma Child Death Review Board has recommended the hiring of
more caseworkers to "meet reasonable professional standards" to
reduce deaths of children due to abuse or neglect.

Grossly inadequate payment for care of foster children: Children's
Rights claims that "Oklahoma fails to provide payments to those
caring for foster children that even approach the actual cost of
those children's care."

Imminent risks of harm: "As a result of these failures, DHS harms
foster children and exposes them to imminent risks of harm."  The
suit lists abuse and neglect of foster children by foster parents,
facility staff or by biological parents while in DHS custody among
the harms.  It also alleges children are frequently moved, with
more than one-third of foster children having four or more

UMPQUA BANK: Sued Over Collection of Excessive Overdraft Fees
Amber Hawthorne, on Behalf of Herself and All Others similarly
situated v. Umpqua Bank, Case No. 3:11-cv-06700 (N.D. Calif.,
December 29, 2011) is a civil action seeking monetary damages,
restitution, and declaratory relief from the Bank arising from its
alleged unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of
excessive overdraft fees relating to bounced checks.

The Plaintiff alleges that instead of simply declining debit
transactions when there are insufficient funds, or warning its
customers that an overdraft fee will be assessed if they proceed
with the transaction, Umpqua routinely processes the transactions
and then charges its customers an overdraft fee of $35 -- even
when the transaction is for only a few dollars.  She points out
that this automatic, fee-based overdraft scheme is intentionally
designed to maximize overdraft fee revenue for Umpqua.

Ms. Hawthorne is a resident of the state of California.

Umpqua is a national bank and provides retail banking services to
millions of consumers, including the Plaintiff and members of the
putative classes, which include the issuance of debit cards for
use by its customers in cunjunction with their checking accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          2000 L Street N.W., Suite 808
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Tycko & Zavareei LLP noted that other banks have also recently
been sued over similar practices.

In August of 2010, a Judge in California awarded Wells Fargo
customers in that state $203 million in damages related to their
overdraft fee practices.  Recently, Bank of America agreed to pay
its customers $410 million after a lawsuit was filed regarding its
overdraft fee practices.  Several other banks have also recently
agreed to pay back customers millions of dollars in improperly
charged overdraft fees, including Bank of Hawaii, Union Bank, Bank
of Oklahoma, and Westamerica.  Wells Fargo, Citi Bank, and Bank of
America have each changed key components of their overdraft fee
policies to make them more consumer-friendly.  "Banks should not
be allowed to gouge customers by unfairly manipulating the manner
in which transactions are posted and overdraft fees are charged.
It's hard enough for families to make ends meet.  It is shocking
that a bank like Umpqua, which claims to be community-focused,
would engage in these abusive practices," said Hassan Zavareei, a
partner at the Washington-D.C.-based law firm Tycko & Zavareei,
which represents the plaintiff, Amber Hawthorne.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Umpqua engaged in a
systematic policy of re-ordering debit card transactions from
highest dollar amount to lowest dollar amount so as to deplete the
customer's available funds as quickly as possible while maximizing
the number of overdraft fees.

The lawsuit also alleges that Umpqua failed to disclose or
properly disclose its overdraft policies, including by providing
bank statements which did not indicate the order in which
transactions were actually posted to accounts.

Tycko & Zavareei, which has sued several other banks nationwide
over improperly charged overdraft fees, is also investigating the
overdraft fee practices of other banks in the region.  "We are
continuing to investigate Umpqua and other banks.  Customers must
be compensated for bank practices that caused millions of dollars
in improperly charged fees," said Zavareei.

A copy of the Umpqua class action complaint is available upon
request from Tycko & Zavareei http://www.tzlegal.com

VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVE: Faces Class Action Over Booking Fees
Nick Vogel, writing for Downers Grove Reporter, reports that those
who have been arrested in Downers Grove any time after May 18,
2009, have a chance to be a part of a class action lawsuit ongoing
against the Village of Downers Grove.

A judge ruled on Dec. 16 that a Downers Grove man may proceed with
a class action lawsuit against the village, forcing a legal debate
over the constitutionality of a $30 fee the village charges

The man, Robert Bailiff, filed the lawsuit in federal court
May 18, 2011.  His argument is that the village's $30
administrative booking fee is unconstitutional.  The fee is
charged to individuals who post bail or bond for any crime for
which Downers Grove police have arrested them.

Bailiff was arrested May 31, 2009, on domestic battery charges.
Upon being booked, the arresting officer took $30 from Bailiff for
the administrative booking fee, the lawsuit claims.

Then on Jan. 3, 2011, the case against Bailiff was dismissed and
the village did not return his $30. So he sued.

The village tried fighting the claim that the suit should be class

Now, because of the recent ruling, if Bailiff wins his case, some
people arrested in Downers Grove after May 18, 2009 could stand to
get their $30 back.

Bailiff's attorney, Vincent DiTommaso, said he expects to send a
letter to anyone who is eligible to join the suit.

"It's the people who (were) arrested and paid the booking fee," he
said.  "At some point we will have a list of all the names and
addresses of all the people."

Anyone who could not pay the fee at the time of their arrest is

The May 18, 2009, was the cut-off date because of a statute of
limitations, Mr. DiTommaso said.

Bailiff believes the village's $30 administrative booking fee
violates the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states
that, among other things, no state shall enforce any law that
deprives "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law . . ."

The village has made $179,290 collecting the fee since 2005.

The administrative booking fee, proposed by the police department,
was adopted June 7, 2005.  The village says there are not arrest
records going back to 2005, but between Jan. 1, 2006 and June 16,
2011, the department handled 7,886 arrests with booking fees.

The fee was introduced as a way to "offset the officer's time
spent on arrestee processing," the village says, and to cover the
cost of annual maintenance fees associated with booking.

The case is expected to continue with a status hearing Jan. 25.

Village spokesman Doug Kozlowski said the village does not comment
on pending litigation, but he did say the village has temporarily
stopped charging the administrative fee due to the lawsuit.


           2005: Year the village began charging
                 an administrative booking fee

   May 31, 2009: Date and year Bailiff was arrested

    Jan 3, 2011: The case against Bailiff was dismissed

   May 18, 2011: Date and year Bailiff filed his lawsuit

WEST ELM: Recalls 840 Dover Dining Tables Due to Injury Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with West Elm, a division of Williams-Sonoma, Inc., of
San Francisco, California announced a voluntary recall of about
830 Dover Dining Tables in the United States of America and about
10 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The wooden base of the table can collapse, causing the glass table
top to fall.  This poses an injury hazard to consumers.

The firm is aware of 14 reports of tables collapsing or breaking,
including one report of a bruise to a consumer's leg.

The Dover dining table is a tempered glass-top table with a brown
wooden base.  The base has four legs, four buttress support bars
and three glasstop support bars.  "West Elm" and "SKU: 2188233"
are printed on a white label on the underside of the long, center
beam.  Picture of the recalled products is available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by West
Elm retail and online stores nationwide from July 2011 through
October 2011 for about $500.

Consumers should contact West Elm for a full store credit.  West
Elm will schedule a free return pickup of the table.  For
additional information, contact West Elm toll-free at (855) 369-
4335 between 7:00 a.m. and midnight Eastern Time seven days a week
or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.westelm.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  * * *