CAR_Public/120117.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, January 17, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 12

                             Headlines

AMERICAN HONDA: 9th Cir. Tosses Class Action Over Brake System
BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Engaging in Wireless Spam Ads
BIG LOTS: Recalls 43,700 5-Light Floor Lamps Due to Shock Hazard
BLUEBONNET ELECTRIC: Class Action Over 2009 Wildfire Ongoing
CASEY'S: Nokomis Gets Check From Class Action Settlement

CINGULAR WIRELESS: Seeks Dismissal of AT&T Merger Class Action
COMCAST CORP: Judge Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Class Action
EBAY INC: Judge Tosses Coin-Grading Price-Fixing Class Action
KAZ USA: Recalls 19,000 Honeywell Portable Electric Heaters
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Antitrust Class Action in New York

MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Sued Over Proposed Acquisition by Fertitta
PLAIN DEALER: Homeowner Files Class Action Over "PDWrapUp"
QUALITY TRANSPORT: Set to File Class Action Over 40-Car Pileup
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sanford Wittels & Heisler Files Class Action
STATE OF ARIZONA: Sued Over Reduced Retirement Benefits

T-MOBILE: Mills Law Firm Files Class Action Over ZIP Codes
THOMSON CRUISES: Faces Class Action Over Poor Hygiene at Ships
WALGREEN CO: Faces Class Action Over Expensive Generic Drugs


                          *********

AMERICAN HONDA: 9th Cir. Tosses Class Action Over Brake System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that American Honda
Motor Co won a legal victory as a divided U.S. appeals court on
Jan. 12 said a nationwide lawsuit over a brake system used in some
Acura RL vehicles should not have been certified as a class-
action.

The 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Pasadena, California, is a fresh setback for consumers, who have
seen their ability to sue collectively curtailed after a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling last June in favor of Wal-Mart Stores Inc
that narrowed class-action litigation.

The 9th Circuit said a Los Angeles district court judge erred in
finding that California's tough consumer protection laws should
apply to a nationwide class of consumers who bought or leased
Acura RLs equipped with the optional Collision Mitigation Braking
System from August 17, 2005 to December 16, 2008.

It also said the lower court wrongly found that consumers could
have relied on advertising by American Honda about the system,
part of a $4,000 technology package.

Lawyers for the roughly 2,000 plaintiffs did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.  American Honda, which is part of
Japan's Honda Motor Co Ltd, had no immediate comment.

The brake system was designed to warn Acura RL drivers with an
alarm and flashing indicator that a crash may be imminent, and
tighten seat belts and apply brakes automatically if a frontal
crash appeared unavoidable.

But drivers claimed that the system might deploy or fail to warn
too slowly, and would shut off in bad weather.

The lower court found enough in common among the claims to certify
a class.  It also said American Honda failed to show why other
states' laws should prevail, even though the purchases and leases
took place in 44 U.S. states.

But writing for the 9th Circuit majority, Judge Ronald Gould said
it was unfair to apply California law everywhere.

Judge Gould said other states had strong interests in regulating
similar transactions, often under materially different consumer
protection laws.

He also said there were no "common issues of fact" because drivers
nationwide could not have relied on Honda's "small scale"
advertising for the brake system.

Circuit Judge Dorothy Nelson dissented, citing California's
"compelling interest" in regulating the conduct of American Honda,
which has headquarters in Torrance, California.

The 9th Circuit returned the case to the Los Angeles district
court for further proceedings.

Judge Gould and U.S. District Judge James Gwin, who normally works
in Cleveland, comprised the majority.  Both were appointed to the
bench by President Bill Clinton.  Judge Nelson was appointed by
President Jimmy Carter.

The case is Mazza et al v. American Honda Motor Co, 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 09-55376.


BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Engaging in Wireless Spam Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
Ron Sager, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Bank of America Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, Soundbite Communications, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 5:12-cv-00197 (N.D. Calif., January 11,
2012) is brought to stop the Defendants' alleged practice of
making unsolicited text message calls to cellular telephones, and
to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct.

In an effort to promote its banking services, Bank of America
engaged Soundbite to conduct an especially pernicious form of
solicitation: the transmission of unauthorized advertisements, in
the form of "text message" calls to the cellular telephones of
consumers throughout the nation, Mr. Sager alleges.  He argues
that by effectuating these unauthorized text message calls, known
as "wireless spam," the Defendants have caused consumers actual
harm, not only because consumers were subjected to the aggravation
that necessarily accompanies wireless spam, but also because
consumers frequently have to pay their cell phone service
providers for the receipt of the wireless spam.

Mr. Sager is a citizen of Illinois.

Bank of America, a Delaware corporation, is a global banking
concern that markets and sells various financial products and
services to consumers throughout the United Slates.  Soundbite, a
Delaware corporation, is a self-described "global leader in on-
demand, multi-channel communications," and is a mobile marketing
company with customers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS, LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone:  (949) 459-2124
          Facsimile: (949) 459-2123
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com


BIG LOTS: Recalls 43,700 5-Light Floor Lamps Due to Shock Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Big Lots, of Columbus, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about
43,700 Five-Light Floor Lamps.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The wiring for the lamp's light sockets can become exposed, posing
a risk of electric shock to consumers.  In addition, use of the
recommended standard 40 watt light bulbs can generate excessive
heat, which can melt the double plastic shades over the bulbs.

The firm has received four reports of melting lamp shades.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Classic Quarters Five Light Floor Lamps.  The
lamps stand about five feet tall and have a gunmetal or chrome
colored metal pole and five adjustable lights mounted on flexible
metal tubes at the top.  Dark plastic or multi-colored double
plastic shades cover each of the five lights.  Recalled lamps use
standard incandescent or CFL bulbs and have labels marked with the
model number "G-1843-5" affixed to the underside of the lamp base.
These lamps can be further identified by SKU numbers 612007239,
612007829 or 612008982 at the beginning of the instructions.
Lamps that use candelabra bulbs are not subject to this recall and
can be identified by labels marked with the model number "G-1844-
5B" and SKU numbers 612009036 or 612009037 in the instructions.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12086.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Big Lots stores nationwide from April 2010 through
November 2011 for between $30 and $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the lamps and return them
to a Big Lots store for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Big Lots toll-free at (866) 244-5687 between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.biglots.com/


BLUEBONNET ELECTRIC: Class Action Over 2009 Wildfire Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Foster, writing for YNN, reports that testimony continued in
Bastrop on Jan. 12 in the class-action lawsuit against Bluebonnet
Electric Co-op and McCoy Tree Surgery.

The plaintiffs in the case, more than two dozen Bastrop residents,
are seeking $6 million from the utility after a 2009 wildfire,
according to the Bastrop Advertiser.  They say that negligence on
the part of Bluebonnet Electric led to the downed power line which
started the blaze.

The wildfire burned about 1,200 acres and destroyed 28 homes.

On Jan. 11, the court heard from crew supervisor Tim Grimm, a
lineman with Bluebonnet Electric, who was among the first to find
the downed line.

The self-admittedly nervous witness described in detail the scene
at Camp Wilderness Ridge, where the fire began.  Mr. Grimm said he
found power lines damaged in more than one place, with the most
significant damage between what the courtroom called poles "4" and
"5."

All wires between poles 4 and 5 were down and showed evidence of
potential fire-starting behavior.  Across the easement laid a
large tree which Mr. Grimm said had fallen.  Answering to defense
attorney Tab Keener, Mr. Grimm concluded that the power lines were
knocked down by "the tremendous force from the tree fall."

When asked if he was confident that the tree caused the downed
lines, the 23-year veteran with Bluebonnet Electric said he was
sure.

"There's no doubt in my mind," Mr. Grimm said.

Photographs were showed as evidence in the case, including one of
Mr. Grimm measuring the distance between the fallen tree's trunk
and centerline of the easement.  The distance was reported at
about 16 feet, placing the tree outside of the 10-foot easement
which the utility is responsible for maintaining.

Mr. Grimm called it an "emergency situation."

"There was fire, smoke, people around," Mr. Grimm said.  "It was
awesome, awesome in a bad way."

Answering another defense attorney, Mr. Grimm said that the
easement in that area was "clean" leading up to the fire, but when
pressed by Roger Rider, an attorney for the plaintiffs, Mr. Grimm
could not recall the last time that he had been in the area before
the blaze.

Mr. Grimm was the third witness questioned in the case with many
more slated to take the stand.  The case is expected to last
several weeks.

Bluebonnet Electric is also a defendant in a class-action lawsuit
stemming from the 2011 Labor Day weekend wildfires which destroyed
more than 1,600 homes in Bastrop County.


CASEY'S: Nokomis Gets Check From Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve McLaughlin, writing for The Journal-News, reports that the
Nokomis City Council met on Jan. 9 with all members present.

Commissioner Michael Guidish reported that the city received a
check for $56,376 as the result of a nationwide class action suit
which had been settled.

The lawsuit was in regard to MTBE, an octane enhancer added to
gasoline, which found its way into sources of drinking water after
having leaked from underground storage tanks.

Judy Beaman and Jo Ann Keele addressed the council on behalf of
the chamber of commerce.  The group is responsible for the
downtown Christmas light display and would like to purchase more
lights for next year.

They plan to ask other civic/fraternal organizations for
assistance in purchasing eight additional snowflake lights that
cost $250 each.

Council members complimented the group for their efforts this year
and approved the request for $250 to purchase new lights.

Mayor Keith Hancock noted that employees who operate city vehicles
have been using a Casey's General Store credit card to charge gas
in the past.  He stated that Casey's has offered a nickel per
gallon discount for future purchases.

A representative of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
has taken samples from the new well that was recently drilled.
The results of those tests should be complete within the next two
weeks and the well will go on line shortly thereafter.

The merry-go-round at Fred B. Johnson Park will get a make-over
thanks to the help of T. J. Graden, owner of the Haldane Custom
Paint and Body shop in Forreston.  Mr. Graden, a former resident
of Nokomis, has offered to dismantle the merry-go-round, take it
to his body shop, and restore it to its original condition free of
charge.

The city will advertise for part-time help at city hall following
the departure of Angela Ginnard.  The successful candidate should
be able to demonstrate basic bookkeeping, accounting, and computer
skills and pay will be commensurate with experience.

During the course of the meeting, the council noted and/or
approved the following:

    * Revenues were received from income tax, $12,002 and Ameren
      Illinois, $7,877

    * Monthly bills were approved totaling $32,948

    * A fencing project at Shane Cole Park is nearly complete


CINGULAR WIRELESS: Seeks Dismissal of AT&T Merger Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that Cingular
Wireless urged the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit to reject a class action that alleges adverse effects from
its merger with AT&T Wireless, arguing that customers must
arbitrate their claims individually.

Two years after AT&T merged with Cingular in 2006, Washington
state customers filed a class action, claiming breach of contract,
fraud and violation of the state Consumer Protection Act.  The
complaint claims that Cingular intentionally degraded AT&T's
wireless network after the merger to force customers into choosing
between a more expensive Cingular plan and an early termination
fee.

U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez denied AT&T's motion to
compel arbitration in 2009, calling the arbitration provisions in
the carrier's contract "substantively unconscionable" and
unenforceable under Washington law.

But that decision came into question in April 2011 after the U.S.
Supreme Court upended a similar case involving AT&T's arbitration
contracts, Concepcion v. AT&T Corp.  In that case, a sharply
divided court said the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts state
laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class action
lawsuits.

As the appeal for the Cingular case came before the 9th Circuit on
Jan. 9, an attorney for the carriers emphasized the precedence of
Concepcion.

Concepcion means a "death knell" for state laws that declare
arbitration agreements unenforceable because they bar class
actions, Mayer Brown attorney Evan Tager told the three-judge
panel.

Judge Raymond Fisher said the carriers could "achieve half a
victory" with the Supreme Court ruling, noting that consumers
still have a procedural means to attack an contract bar on class
actions.  He asked if Washington law recognizes substantive and
procedural unconscionability.

Frank Bland Jr., counsel for the consumers, cited a Washington
appeals court decision that said procedural unconscionability was
enough to strike down a contract.  He added, however, that the
state Supreme Court has not weighed in on the issue.
Judge Susan Graber said the court would have to remand the
consumers' case if it found that Concepcion "deals with
substantive unconscionability only."

Claiming that Concepcion addressed the identical clause as the
present case, Mr. Bland urged the court to look at other parts of
the contract to determine if it is unconscionable.

Mr. Trager said Concepcion clearly applied.

"The bottom line is they are asking you to create a split with
four other Courts of Appeal and disregard the decisions of 17
district judges within this circuit."


COMCAST CORP: Judge Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has dismissed most of a class action that claims Comcast
markets and sells service plans without disclosing additional
equipment fees.

Lead plaintiff Athanassios Diacakis said Comcast offered him
numerous deals over the phone, including a Triple Play package
that bundles cable, phone and Internet services, without
mentioning the additional fee to lease a modem.

Mr. Diacakis filed a class action in June, claiming Comcast
violated California's consumer, unfair-competition and false-
advertising laws.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong agreed to dismiss most
claims on Jan. 9.

Though she declined to determine whether Comcast's actions were
misleading, she found the lead plaintiff's claims were not
particular enough "to pass muster."

"The [amended complaint] fails to specify when or where Comcast
advertisements were viewed, the content of those advertisements,
or which of them in particular Plaintiff relied upon," Judge
Armstrong wrote.

Mr. Diacakis can try his unfair-competition and false-advertising
claims again in an amended complaint.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
in Diacakis v. Comcast Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-03002
(N.D. Calif.), is available at http://is.gd/bsd6Fa


EBAY INC: Judge Tosses Coin-Grading Price-Fixing Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has tossed a class action against eBay, finding that it
would not make economic sense for the auction site to run a price-
fixing conspiracy on coin-grading services.

The class took issue with a certification policy enacted by the
Internet Rules Committee, a working group of "coin industry
insiders."

EBay allegedly worked with the group to create a certification
policy for coins sold on its Web site, with a stated goal of
combating misrepresented and counterfeit listings.

The resulting certification policy allows only coins graded by one
of five authorized services to be listed as "certified."

Universal Grading Service claimed that eBay worked with five
certified coin-grading services to limit the number of authorized
graders, thus artificially increasing the prices of grading
services.  When coin sellers passed those costs to coin buyers,
eBay allegedly saw higher commissions.

The complaint sought damages from coin dealers Vadim Kirichenko
and Joseph Kimoto, on behalf of a class of grading companies not
certified by eBay, consumers who bought coins certified by eBay
and other related groups.

By accusing smaller outfits of selling counterfeit coins and
fraud, eBay hampered Universal Grading's ability to participate in
the "then burgeoning online market for certified coins," according
to the complaint.

Dealers that had their coins graded by Universal Grading allegedly
received e-mails from eBay with the subject line "eBay Listing
Removed: Counterfeit Currency and Stamps."

But U.S. Judge Ronald Whyte ruled on Jan. 9 that the allegations
in the fourth amended complaint, like those in earlier iterations,
failed to state a conspiracy claim under the Sherman Act because
the scheme "does not make economic sense."

Even if the alleged convoluted conspiracy drove profit, eBay has
proven that it can raise commissions without losing users.  Thus,
it would be "far easier and more efficient for eBay to simply
raise its fees for the sale of coins than to conspire with
unrelated non-profit trade groups to develop a policy that might
result in higher commissions," Judge Whyte wrote.

The complaint also undermines the class's theory, as only 0.3
percent of the coins listed on eBay are certified.  This means
that commissions have declined on 99.7 percent of coins whose sale
prices decreased under the certification policy.  "An already
improbable conspiracy" is not made plausible when the complaint
"suggests that the perpetrator has lost money as a result of the
agreement," the 17-page decision states.

Competitive justifications, including the aim of reducing
fraudulent listings, add further support to eBay's policy.

Rather than assailing eBay, the class should aim their gripes at
the survey that resulted in the certification policy, which was
commissioned by the Professional Numismatists Guild and American
Numismatic Association.  The court notes that said survey simply
relied on what it believed to be the conclusions of industry
experts.

The guild and its chairman, Barry Stuppler, already settled with
the plaintiffs.

The class's "novel" theory that it need not establish harm in the
monopolized market because it is a consumer and not a competitor
"stretches the concept of antitrust injury too far," Judge Whyte
added, noting that Section 2 of the Sherman Act states that a
defendant must compete in the affected market to be liable for
inflicting antitrust injury.

Since the class had four opportunities to amend its complaint over
several years and has been thus far unable to survive dismissal
motions, Judge Whyte dismissed its remaining claims with
prejudice.

A copy of the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice in
Universal Grading Service, et al. v. eBay, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-
02755 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/12/509-cv-02755.pdf

  
KAZ USA: Recalls 19,000 Honeywell Portable Electric Heaters
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor, Kaz USA Inc., of Southborough, Massachusetts, and
manufacturer, Ningbo SMAL Electrics Co. Ltd., of China, announced
a voluntary recall of about 19,000 Honeywell Surround Select
Portable Electric Heaters.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The heater's internal housing, including the fan, heating element
and circuitry, can detach, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall includes Honeywell Surround Select Series portable
electric heaters with model numbers HZ-420, HZ-430, and HZ-440 and
five-digit date codes that have 11 as the last two digits.  The
heaters are black or white cylinders with a handle on top.  The
model number is stamped into the plastic on the bottom of the
heater.  The date code is located on the metal prongs of the
heater's electrical plug.  "Honeywell" and "Surround Heat" are
printed on the front of the heaters.  This heater was distributed
by Kaz USA under license from Honeywell.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12087.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Best
Buy, Meijer and Walmart stores nationwide from July 2011 through
December 2011 for between $50 and $70.

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the heaters and
contact Kaz for a full refund.  For additional information,
contact Kaz at (800) 370-8137 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.kaz.com/recall/


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Antitrust Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Perlow at Courthouse News Service reports that Morgan
Stanley and KeySpan Corp., New York City's largest electricity
vendor, face an antitrust class action accusing them of
withholding electricity from the market to goose prices to the
tune of $300 million.

Plaintiffs Alfred Konefsky and Martha McCluskey, both professors
at the University at Buffalo Law School, claim KeySpan and Morgan
Stanley Capital Group cut an illegal deal to inflate prices.

According to the federal complaint, on Jan. 18, 2008, KeySpan and
Morgan Stanley "executed an agreement (the 'Morgan/KeySpan Swap')
that ensured that KeySpan would withhold substantial output from
the New York City electricity generating capacity market, a market
that was created to ensure the supply of sufficient generation
capacity for New York City consumers of electricity, and in turn
reduce capacity supply to be included in statewide capacity market
demand curve auctions (the statewide area is referred to as the
'New York Control Area' or 'NYCA').  The likely effect of the
Morgan/KeySpan Swap was increased capacity prices for retail
electricity suppliers who purchased capacity, and, in turn, pass
increase supply prices directly to consumers who pay for
electricity in New York City and New York State.  For its part,
Morgan Stanley obtained a $21 million profit payment in connection
with the Morgan/KeySpan Swap, while incurring no substantial
expense, advancing no funds and taking no risk in such
transaction."

Sellers of retail electricity in York City must purchase a product
from generators known as "installed capacity," which was created
by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) to ensure
sufficient generation capacity to meet expected demand.

"Between 2003 and 2006, KeySpan, the largest seller of electricity
generating capacity ('installed capacity') in the New York City
market (the 'NYC Capacity Market') earned substantial revenues due
to tight supply conditions.  Because purchasers of capacity
required almost all of KeySpan's output to meet expected demand,
KeySpan's ability to set price levels was limited only by a
regulatory ceiling (called a 'bid cap').  Indeed, the market price
for capacity was consistently at or near KeySpan's bid cap,"
according to the complaint.

But market conditions were about to change, as two new large
electricity generating plants came online in 2006, breaking the
capacity shortage that had kept prices at the capped levels, the
plaintiffs say.

The professor plaintiffs say KeySpan could prevent the new
capacity from reducing prices by withholding a substantial amount
of its own capacity from the market, which it weighed against the
option of competitive bidding.

"KeySpan searched for a way to avoid the revenue decline from
bidding its cap and the revenue risks of competitive bidding," the
complaint states.  "It decided to enter an agreement that gave it
a financial interest in the capacity of Astoria Generating Company
('Astoria') -- KeySpan's largest competitor. By providing KeySpan
with revenues from a larger base of sales, such an agreement would
make a 'bid the cap' strategy more profitable than a successful
competitive bid strategy.  Rather than directly approach its
competitor, KeySpan turned to Morgan Stanley to act as the
counterparty to the agreement -- the Morgan/KeySpan Swap --
recognizing that Morgan Stanley would, and in fact did, enter into
an offsetting agreement with Astoria (the 'Morgan/Astoria Hedge).

"With KeySpan deriving revenues from both its own and Astoria's
capacity, the Morgan/KeySpan Swap eliminated any incentive for
KeySpan to bid competitively, enabling KeySpan to bid the cap on
its capacity.  Capacity prices remained as high as if no new
capacity had entered into the New York City Market."

The plaintiffs estimate the defendants inflated electricity
capacity prices in the New York City area by $200 million and in
the rest of the state by $100 million, while reaping $63 million
in illegal gains for themselves.

They seek disgorgement, penalties and treble damages for attempted
monopoly violations of the Sherman Act, unjust enrichment, and
violations of New York business law.

A copy of the Complaint in Konefsky, et al. v. KeySpan
Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00017 (W.D.N.Y.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/12/KeySpan.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence J. Vilardo, Esq.
          Randall D. White, Esq.
          CONNORS & VILARDO LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: ljv@com1ors-vilardo.com
                  rdw@connors-vilardo.com

               - and -

          Judith L. Spanier, Esq.
          Karin Fisch, Esq.
          Natalie S. Marcus, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700
          E-mail: jspanier@abbeyspanier.com
                  kfisch@abbeyspanier.com
                  nmarcus@abbeyspanier.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Sponseller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. SPONSELLER
          409 Broad Street, Suite 200
          Sewickley, PA 15143
          E-mail: dsponseller@sponsellerlawfirm.com
          Telephone: (412) 741-4422


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Sued Over Proposed Acquisition by Fertitta
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Olson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., John K. Castle,
Christopher J. Artinian, William C. Anton, Dr. John J. Connolly,
Robert A. Goldschmidt, Stephen E. Paul, David B. Pittaway, Dianne
H. Russell, Zane Tankel, Alan A. Teran, Fertitta Morton's
Restaurants, Inc., Fertitta Morton's Acquisition, Inc., Fertitta
Entertainment, Inc., and Claim Jumper Acquisition Company, LLC,
Case No. 2012-CH-00994 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., January 11,
2012), which is brought on behalf of holders of Morton's Series A
Convertible Preferred Stock, is for breach of contract and for
breaches of fiduciary duties in conjunction with the announcement
on December 23, 2011, of the notice of redemption of the Preferred
Stock by the Company.  The December Notice advises holders of the
Preferred Shares that on January 23, 2012, Morton's will redeem
all 1,200,000 issued and outstanding Preferred Shares for $5 a
share.

Based on the Fertitta Purchaser's offer of $6.90 a share for each
outstanding share of common stock, if the Proposed Redemption
takes place, the holders of the Preferred Shares will suffer a
loss of at least $1.90 a share, Mr. Olson contends.  He argues
that the Proposed Redemption is in violation of the terms of the
Certificate of Designations filed by Morton's with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2010, which clearly
contemplates an adjustment to the Preferred Shares for a merger or
reorganization.  He seeks to enjoin the Proposed Redemption or,
alternatively, to recover damages in the event that the Proposed
Redemption is consummated because the consideration offered to
holders of the Preferred Shares is unfair and inadequate.

Mr. Olson is a holder of Preferred Shares of Morton's.  He
received the Preferred Shares as part of the settlement of a
nationwide class action lawsuit brought against Morton's by its
employees relating to a claim that Morton's was required to pay
the full minimum wage to all employees nationwide for whom it had
taken the "tip credit" against the minimum wage.

Morton's, a Delaware corporation, owns and operates upscale
steakhouse restaurants.  The Individual Defendants are officers
and directors of the Company.  Fertitta Morton's is a Delaware
corporation and is a newly-formed holding company of Defendant
CJAC and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of FBI.  Fertitta
Morton's Acquisition is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Fertitta Morton's.  FEI is a Texas corporation,
while CJAC is a Nevada limited liability company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Rowe, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF ROWE & ASSOCIATES
          100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1010
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 345-1357
          Facsimile: (312) 896-0212
          E-mail: jamesrowe@rowelegal.com

               - and -

          Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          E-mail: jbrodsky@brodsky-smith.com
                  esmith@brodsky-smith.com
                  mackerman@brodsky-smith.com

PLAIN DEALER: Homeowner Files Class Action Over "PDWrapUp"
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that an irate homeowner filed a
class action claiming the Plain Dealer trespasses upon his
property every Sunday by throwing an unwanted "PDWrapUp" onto it,
in a "nonbiogradable plastic bag that creates a choking and/or
suffocation hazard".

A copy of the Complaint in Reddy v. The Plain Dealer Publishing
Co., Case No. 12773256 (Ohio C.P. Ct., Cuyahoga Cty.) (Mason, J.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/12/PressTrespass.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary C. Sotera, Esq.
          WESTON HURD LLP
          The Tower at Erieview
          1301 East 9th Street, Suite 1900
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 241-6602
          E-mail: MSotera@westonhurd.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Dolan, Esq.
          THE DOLAN LAW FIRM LLC
          3890 Rocky River Drive, Ste. 1S
          Cleveland, OH 44111
          Telephone: (216) 780-3036
          E-mail: mdolan3@att.net


QUALITY TRANSPORT: Set to File Class Action Over 40-Car Pileup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
transportation company has begun the process of filing a class-
action lawsuit for damages suffered in a 40-car pileup on
Interstate 10 last month.

Quality Transport filed a discovery suit on Jan. 3 in the Orleans
Parish Civil District Court on behalf of itself the other 40
unknown drivers.

The plaintiff states that it intends to bring forth a lawsuit once
other drivers have been identified.

The discovery action described in the filing seeks to obtain and
preserve media, film, digital images, raw footage, aerial photos,
still photos and news clips related to the crash.  The request
states that the plaintiff expects to find the cause of the
accident and the identity of the other drivers and witnesses of
the accident by surveying the requested materials.

Quality Transport is being represented by Marc J. Yellin of New
Orleans-based Deutsch, Kerrigan and Stiles.

The case has been assigned to Division L Judge Kern A. Reese.

Case number 12-00005

Marc J. Yellin, Esq. can be reached at:

          Marc J. Yellin, Esq.
          DEUTSCH, KERRIGAN AND STILES
          755 Magazine Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-5141
          E-mail: myellin@dkslaw.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sanford Wittels & Heisler Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys at Sanford Wittels & Heisler on Jan. 12 filed a $100
million gender discrimination employment class action complaint
against Quest Diagnostics, Inc. and AmeriPath, Inc., (collectively
known as "Quest") in U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The complaint details the systemic discriminatory treatment of
female sales representatives company-wide by the self-proclaimed
"world leader in diagnostic testing, information and services."

"Although Quest boasts about its dedication to delivering quality
care down to the molecular level, the company falls woefully short
of devoting similar attention to extending equal employment
opportunities to its female sales reps," said David Sanford, the
plaintiffs' lead attorney.  "Quest has known or should have known
that its business practices have an illegal disparate impact on
women, employees with family responsibilities and pregnant
employees.  However, it has consistently failed to adopt measures
to rectify this pervasive discrimination that its discriminatory
policies, practices and procedures creates."

Indiana resident Erin Beery and Florida resident Heather Traeger,
both of them current Quest employees in the AmeriPath division,
filed the suit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-
situated sales reps employed from February 17, 2010 to the
present.  Ms. Beery is an Executive Territory Manager in Quest's
Anatomical Pathology Sales Division in Indianapolis; Ms. Traeger
is Senior Executive Territory Manager in the Anatomical Pathology
Sales Division in Bradenton.

The complaint details a wide range of discriminatory practices in
the selection, promotion and advancement of sales reps at Quest
Diagnostics and AmeriPath, including discrimination on the basis
of pregnancy and caretaking responsibilities in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes.

In addition, both of the named plaintiffs in the case have
individual claims of disparate pay, differential treatment, gender
hostility, the creation of a hostile work environment and
retaliation in the workplace affecting them in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes.

According to Ms. Beery and Ms. Traeger, high ranking company
officials within Quest's predominately-male management team foster
an environment detrimental to the success and advancement of
female employees.  They describe "old boys' club" attitudes that
pervade the enterprise, including forcing women to work under less
favorable circumstances than their male counterparts and denying
them the educational and job advancement opportunities afforded
men in similar positions.

"There is no question that male employees and, in some cases,
women without primary childcare responsibilities, have advanced
and continue to advance more rapidly to better and higher-paying
jobs at Quest," said Sharon Y. Eubanks, a member of the
plaintiffs' legal team.  "The managers who are maintaining and
promoting the current male-dominated management structure have a
disproportionate impact on the promotion and compensation
decisions that affect female sales reps."

The complaint asserts that Quest's policies do not provide
sufficient oversight or safety measures to protect women from
intentional and overt discrimination of even facially-neutral
policies, so that female employees discriminated against have no
recourse within the company.  It cites an absence of internal
incentives or disciplinary measures to ensure company executives
and managers comply with company discrimination policies and equal
employment laws.

The filing also asserts that a significant number of the women who
work for Quest have been and are affected by the same
discriminatory employment policies, practices and procedures to
which Ms. Beery and Ms. Traeger were subjected, justifying the
certification of the class.

Ms. Beery and Ms. Trager seek declaratory and injunctive relief,
backpay; front pay; compensatory, nominal and punitive damages;
and attorneys fees and legal expenses for themselves and the
class.

New Jersey based Quest is one of the largest companies in the U.S.
It is currently ranked at 320 on the Fortune 500, reporting
revenue of $7.4 billion and employing 42,000 workers in 2011.

                About Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP

Sanford Wittels & Heisler is a law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in
qui tam, employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and
complex corporate class action litigation and has represented
thousands of individuals in major class action cases in the United
States.  The firm also represents individual clients in
employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical
malpractice, and personal injury matters.  In May 2010, the firm
secured the largest jury award in the U.S. in a gender
discrimination class action in an employment case when a jury
returned a verdict of $253 million in compensatory and punitive
damages against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.  For more
information, contact Sanford Wittels & Heisler at (202) 742-7777.

For more information, contact Jamie Moss, newsPRos, 201-788 0142,
jamie@newspros.com

David Sanford can be reached at:

          David Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER
          1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 742-7780
          E-mail: dsanford@swhlegal.com

Sharon Y. Eubanks can be reached at:

          Sharon Y. Eubanks, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT
          2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 457-7013


STATE OF ARIZONA: Sued Over Reduced Retirement Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that retired law enforcement
officers say in a class action that Arizona's Public Safety
Personnel Retirement System illegally reduced their benefits.

A copy of the Complaint in Rappleyea, et al. v. The Public Safety
Personnel Retirement System, et al., Case No. CV2012-000404 (Ariz.
Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/12/AzPensions.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert E. Yen, Esq.
          Caroline A. Pilch, Esq.
          YEN PILCH KOMADINA & FLEMMING, P.C.
          6017 N. 15th Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 241-0474
          E-mail: ven@vpklaw.com
                  pilch@vpklaw.com


T-MOBILE: Mills Law Firm Files Class Action Over ZIP Codes
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Halstead, writing for Marin Independent Journal, reports
that a San Rafael law firm filed a class-action lawsuit in Marin
Superior Court last week against T-Mobile, alleging the German
cellphone company's U.S. subsidiary violated California law by
requiring its customers to supply their ZIP codes in credit card
purchases.

The Mills Law Firm of San Rafael sued T-Mobile on behalf of Edward
Pringle, a San Francisco resident.  Mr. Pringle could not be
reached for comment.

"He would rather not speak to the press," said Josh Boxer of
Tiburon, lead attorney in the case.

A spokeswoman for T-Mobile said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.

According to the suit, Mr. Pringle purchased goods at T-Mobile's
retail store at the Northgate mall in San Rafael on Nov. 4, 2011
and was required "as a condition of using credit card payment for
said goods" to enter his ZIP code into T-Mobile's electronic
keypad.  The suit states, "At no time did the T-Mobile cashier
advise Plaintiff that his personal identification information was
not required."

The number of class-action suits based on similar allegations have
skyrocketed since the California Supreme Court ruled in February
2011 that a ZIP code is considered "personal identification
information" under the California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of
1971.  That law made it illegal for retailers -- although there is
a special exemption for gas stations -- to request and record a
customer's "personal identification" information during a credit
card transaction.  The law imposed a penalty of up to $250 for the
first violation and up to $1,000 for each subsequent violation.
Ken McEldowney, executive director of Consumer Action, a San
Francisco-based national consumer advocacy organization, said the
collection of ZIP codes is a back-door way for businesses to get
their customers' addresses.

"It's another area in which people's privacy has been eroded,"
Mr. McEldowney said.  "Why should you have to provide a ZIP code
in order to buy something unless it's being delivered?"

Mr. Boxer said once a retailer has a customer's ZIP code number
and credit card information, "It is very easy to get their home
address, phone number and other personal identifying information,
and that information can be sold to third parties or used for
marketing purposes -- all purposes the statute was designed to
prevent."

Last year's Supreme Court ruling came in a case involving
Williams-Sonoma and reversed two lower-court opinions.  Since that
decision, which the Supreme Court said would apply retroactively,
class-action suits have been filed against Target, Wal-Mart,
Victoria's Secret, Old Navy LLC, Macy's and more than a dozen
other retailers.

"There was a sort of a sea change last year with many retailers
realizing that their conduct was now prohibited by California
law," Mr. Boxer said.  "Just about everybody has wised up that
it's improper; but T-Mobile hasn't gotten on board."

The suit does not specify how much T-Mobile should pay in
penalties.

"We're not exactly sure how many credit card transactions T-Mobile
has engaged in California over the past year," Mr. Boxer said.
"But we presume there have been tens if not hundreds of thousands
of transactions at $1,000 per violation.  We will be seeking
pretty significant damages."

Mr. Boxer said his firm decided to file the suit in a Marin County
court because Pringle's transaction occurred in Marin and because
"Marin County jurors tend to be protective of their privacy
rights, and we think this is an issue that will resonate."


THOMSON CRUISES: Faces Class Action Over Poor Hygiene at Ships
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Owen, writing for Bowling Green Cruise Examiner, reports
that more than 200 persons have filed a "class action type"
lawsuit against a cruise line because of problems with odors and
poor hygiene when they sailed two years ago.

British based Thomson Cruises experienced problems on their
flagship, the Dream, and passengers that sailed between May and
October, 2010 have filed the suit.

The Dream is a 55,000 ton, 1,506 passenger ship that Thomson
purchased from Costa Cruises.  There were reports of numerous
problems on board the ship in its early days of operation,
including plumbing problems.

According to a British newspaper, "This is Staffordshire",
complaints included "toilets blocked and overflowing, food was
undercooked and reused, and air conditioning units were often
broken".  Another couple claimed they might have become sick
because of the trip.

The Web site Cruise Critic allows cruisers to submit critiques of
individual cruise ships, says that 90% of responders in 2011 gave
the Dream a favorable response.


WALGREEN CO: Faces Class Action Over Expensive Generic Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
the UFCW claims Walgreen illegally filled prescriptions for
generic Zantac and Prozac with co-defendant Par Pharmaceuticals'
higher-priced drugs.

A copy of the Complaint in United Food and Commercial Workers
Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Walgreen
Company, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00204 (N.D. Ill.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/12/Walgreen.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
          Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyfaucher.com
                  afata@caffertyfaucher.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Karmel, Esq.
          THE KARMEL LAW FIRM
          221 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-2910
          E-mail: jon@karmellawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Dawn M. Goulet, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  dmg@wexlerwallace.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 L. Toledo, 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  * * *