/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120201.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, February 1, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 22


BANK OF THE WEST: Faces Suit in California Over Overdraft Fees
CARNIVAL CORP: Cruise Ship Crew Member Files Class Action
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Awaits Final Approval of MDL Settlement
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Defends "Bradley" Class Suit in California
FAMILY DOLLAR: Store Managers Mull Appeal of Class Action Ruling

FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: April 27 Proof of Claim Deadline Set
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Batesville Casket Suit Appeal Remains Pending
IG INVESTMENT: Ont. Court of Appeal Confirms Class Certification
MCGRAW-HILL: Faces Class Action Over Third-Party Sale Royalties
NETFLIX INC: Pomerantz Haudek Files Class Action in California

NEUTROGENA: Sued for Falsely Advertising Cleansers as "Natural"
SHAPIRO & BURSON: Court Tosses "Robo-Signing" Class Action
ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL: Nears Class Action Settlement
VALLEY HEALTH: Sued for Illegally Reducing Pension Benefits
WACHOVIA CORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval

WALTER ENERGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Alabama
ZYNGA INC: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Fees in California


BANK OF THE WEST: Faces Suit in California Over Overdraft Fees
John Fulkerson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bank of the West, Case No. 3:12-cv-00428 (N.D. Calif.,
January 26, 2012) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and
declaratory relief from the Bank arising from its alleged unfair
and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive
overdraft fees in violation of California common law and the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

During the proposed class period, the Bank improperly charged
overdraft fees to customer accounts when a customer did not
overdraw his checking account and when the Bank did not have to
pay out more funds than were in the customer's checking account,
Mr. Fulkerson alleges.  He contends that the Bank also improperly
reordered electronic debit transactions from the highest to lowest
dollar amount and processed debits before credits to deplete the
customer's available funds as quickly as possible while maximizing
the amount of overdraft fees collected.  He adds that the Bank did
not adequately inform its customers that they had the option to
"opt-out" of the Bank's overdraft services, and failed to obtain
customers' affirmative consent to participate in the Bank's
overdraft program.

Mr. Fulkerson is a resident of Dominguez Hills, California, during
the Class Period and, as of July 2011, currently resides in
Bodfish, California.  He has a checking account, loan account and
savings account in the Bank.

The Bank is a California corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary
of BancWest Corporation.  The Bank is a full-service commercial
bank with over $57 billion in total assets and $39.5 billion in
deposits as of December 31, 2010.  The Bank operates more than 700
ATMs and banking branch offices in 19 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
          Ian J. Barlow, Esq.
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 448-9800
          Facsimile: (916) 669-4499
          E-mail: stalley@kcrlegal.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          Olga Anna Pettigrew, Esq.
          Joseph Goljan, Esq.
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: Stephen@sfclasslaw.com

CARNIVAL CORP: Cruise Ship Crew Member Files Class Action
Sakthi Prasad, writing for Reuters, reports that Carnival Corp.,
whose luxury cruise liner Costa Concordia capsized off the coast
of Italy, was sued by a crew member in a first of what may be
multiple U.S. lawsuits seeking class-action status over the
disaster, court documents show.

Lawyers for Gary Lobaton, who was a crew member on board the Costa
Concordia, said in a court filing that he was not aware of the
"dangerous conditions" of the cruise ship until it was too late to
abandon the ship.

The lawsuit sought to determine whether Carnival deviated from
international safety standards when operating the cruise ship.

"Costa Concordia's Captain, Francesco Schettino, delayed the order
to abandon ship and deploy the lifeboats," Mr. Lobaton's lawyers
said in the filing.

Mr. Lobaton, who sued Carnival individually and on behalf of all
others similarly affected by the cruise disaster, had sought
damages from the company, according to the court filing.

Mr. Lobaton had also requested the court to assign class-action
status to the lawsuit.

The 114,500-tonne ship capsized off the Tuscan coast, which left
11 people dead and 22 missing.

According to a January 24 BBC report, the number of dead has risen
to 16.

Carnival could not immediately be reached for comment by Reuters
outside regular U.S. business hours.

The case is Gary Lobaton vs Carnival Corp, Case No. 1:12-cv-00598,
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Awaits Final Approval of MDL Settlement
Discover Financial Services is awaiting final approval of a
settlement of a multidistrict litigation arising from the sale of
its payment protection fee product, according to the Company's
January 26, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended November 30, 2011.

There are eight class action cases pending in relation to the sale
of the Company's payment protection fee product.  The cases were
filed (all in United States District Courts) on: July 8, 2010, in
the Northern District of California (Walker, et al. v. DFS, Inc.
and Discover Bank; subsequently transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois); July 16, 2010, in the Central District of
California (Conroy v. Discover Financial Services and Discover
Bank); October 22, 2010, in the District of South Carolina
(Alexander v. Discover Financial Services, Inc.; DFS Services LLC;
Discover Bank; and Morgan Stanley); November 5, 2010, in the
Northern District of Illinois (Callahan v. Discover Financial
Services, Inc. and Discover Bank); December 17, 2010, in the
Western District of Tennessee (Sack v. DFS Services LLC; Discover
Financial Services, Inc.; and Discover Bank);
January 14, 2011, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Boyce
v. DFS Services LLC; Discover Financial Services Inc.; Discover
Bank); February 15, 2011, in the Southern District of Florida
(Triplett v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., DFS Financial
Services LLC, Discover Bank and Morgan Stanley); and March 7,
2011, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Carter v. Discover
Financial Services, Inc., DFS Financial Services LLC, Discover
Bank, Morgan Stanley et al.).  All of the cases have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois pursuant to a multi-district litigation order issued
by the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February 2011.
These class actions challenge the Company's marketing practices
with respect to its payment protection fee product to cardmembers
under various state laws and the Truth in Lending Act.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary remedies including unspecified damages
and restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and various forms of
injunctive relief including an order rescinding the payment
protection fee product enrollments of all class members.  In June
2011, the Company and class counsel entered into a preliminary
global settlement of all of the pending class actions.

On November 9, 2011, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  The settlement encompasses Discover Bank's sale and
administration of Discover Payment Protection, Identity Theft
Protection, Wallet Protection and Credit Score Tracker.  The
settlement remains subject to final approval by the court
following completion of notice to the settlement class.

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Defends "Bradley" Class Suit in California
Discover Financial Services is defending a class action lawsuit
commenced by a cardmember in California, according to the
Company's January 26, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
November 30, 2011.

On November 30, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company by a cardmember in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (Walter Bradley et al. v. Discover
Financial Services).  The plaintiff alleges that the Company
contacted him, and members of the class he seeks to represent, on
their cellular telephones without their express consent in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent and
willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunctive relief.  The TCPA provides for statutory damages of
$500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations).  The
Company says it is not in a position at this time to assess the
likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this
matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted by the plaintiff.

FAMILY DOLLAR: Store Managers Mull Appeal of Class Action Ruling
Ely Portillo, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports that
Matthews-based Family Dollar recently won a round in a
discrimination lawsuit brought by female store managers, but the
plaintiffs are attempting to appeal a judge's recent ruling
denying them class-action status.

The federal lawsuit was filed in 2008 on behalf of 48 female
Family Dollar store managers, who claim they were paid less than
male managers performing the same jobs.

On Jan. 13, U.S. District Court Judge Max Cogburn denied the
managers' motion to grant the lawsuit class-action status, which
would have opened the suit to hundreds if not thousands of female
store managers.

Judge Cogburn, in Charlotte, ruled that the case was substantially
similar to a massive employment discrimination case last year
against Wal-Mart, in which the plaintiffs sought class-action
status for more than 1 million women working for Wal-Mart.  In
that case, the Supreme Court ruled that their employment
situations were too different to combine all of them together as
one class.

"The plaintiffs in this case will have nothing in common but their
gender and their participation in this lawsuit," said John Wester,
an attorney with Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson who is representing
Family Dollar.  He argued that the managers were from different
geographic regions, had different ages and work experience, and
that they shouldn't be grouped as a class.

The case is the first nationwide attempt at a class-action
employment discrimination lawsuit ruled on since the Supreme
Court's Wal-Mart decision, said Mr. Wester.  The court stuck with
the Supreme Court's reasoning in ruling on the Family Dollar case.

"Here, the complaint alleges that plaintiffs were discriminated
against based on their gender as a result of subjective decisions
made at the local store level," wrote Judge Cogburn.  "This court
finds . . . plaintiffs also cannot satisfy the nearly identical
commonality showing -- of similarly "situated persons" -- that is
required to certify a collective action."

The managers could have pursued their claims as separate cases, a
far more difficult route.  But on Jan. 26, lawyers for the
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking permission to appeal Judge
Cogburn's decision.

They argue that decisions about pay for store managers are made at
Family Dollar's corporate level, not at the separate stores, and
that the female managers should qualify as a class for a single
lawsuit.  "There are specific, objective criteria applied "at the
corporate level of . . . operations" that have disparate impact on
women's salaries as Store Managers," wrote the lawyers.  "Women
are systematically paid less than their male peers in the same

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will now decide whether to
hear the appeal.

FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: April 27 Proof of Claim Deadline Set
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 27 announced Notice of
Pendency and Certification of Class Action, Proposed Settlement
and Settlement Approval/Fairness Hearing against Fidelity
Management & Research Company.



    ALAN ZAMETKIN, on Behalf of Himself and  )  1:08-CV-10960-MLW
        All Others Similarly Situated,       )
                                             )  CLASS ACTION
                                             )  SUMMARY NOTICE
        COMPANY, et al.,                       )

2005 AND JUNE 5, 2008, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an order of the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, a hearing
will be held on May 11, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. EDT, before the
Honorable Mark L. Wolf, at the John Joseph Moakley U.S.
Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, for the purpose of
determining (1) whether the proposed settlement of the action for
the sum of $7,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter, this
action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants
as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated June 17, 2011;
(3) whether the Plan of Allocation(1) of settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved;
(4) the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection
with this action, together with interest thereon; and (5) the
reasonableness of the request by Lead Plaintiff for reimbursement
of his time and expenses incurred in pursuing the action on behalf
of the Class.

If you purchased or acquired Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond Fund shares
between June 6, 2005 and June 5, 2008, inclusive, your rights may
be affected by this action and the settlement thereof.  If you
have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Certification
of Class Action, Proposed Settlement and Settlement
Approval/Fairness Hearing and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release, you may obtain copies by writing to Zametkin v. Fidelity
Management & Research Company Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., PO Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI
53217-8042, or by downloading this information at

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release postmarked no later than April 27, 2012, establishing that
you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the action unless you send a request to be excluded,
in writing, to the above address, postmarked by April 27, 2012.

Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than April 27, 2012, and received
by the following no later than April 27, 2012:

Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747

Manhattan Plaza New York, NY 10005


                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                 DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Batesville Casket Suit Appeal Remains Pending
In 2005, the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. and a number of
individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class
action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers
of Batesville(R) caskets against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. and its
former Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary (now wholly-
owned by Hillenbrand, Inc.), and three national funeral home

The district court has dismissed the claims and denied class
certification, but in October 2010, the plaintiffs appealed these
decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  If the plaintiffs were to succeed in reversing the
district court's dismissal of the claims, but not the denial of
class certification, then the plaintiffs would be able to pursue
individual damages claims: the alleged overcharges on the
plaintiffs' individual casket purchases, which would be trebled as
a matter of law, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

If the plaintiffs were to (1) succeed in reversing the district
court's dismissal of the claims, (2) succeed in reversing the
district court order denying class certification and certify a
class, and (3) prevail at trial, then the damages awarded to the
plaintiffs, which would be trebled as a matter of law, could have
a significant material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.  The plaintiffs
filed a report indicating that they are seeking damages ranging
from approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1,460.0
million before trebling on behalf of the purported class of
consumers they seek to represent.

Hill-Rom and Hillenbrand, Inc. have entered into a judgment
sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any potential
liabilities associated with this litigation between them.  The
Company believes that it has committed no wrongdoing as alleged by
the plaintiffs and that it has meritorious defenses to class
certification and to plaintiffs' underlying allegations and damage

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 26,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

IG INVESTMENT: Ont. Court of Appeal Confirms Class Certification
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed the certification of a class
action against alleged wrongdoing by two fund managers in the
mutual fund market timing debacle in 2004.

The Court's decision in Fischer v. IG Investment Management Ltd.
means that the case against CI Mutual Funds Inc. and AIC Limited
can proceed to trial.  The other defendants, IG Investment
Management Ltd., Franklin Templeton Investments Corp., and AGF
Funds Inc. were not involved in the appeal as they had settled
their cases.  Now, the Court of Appeal decision puts considerable
pressure on the appealing defendants to settle to avoid the cost
of a lengthy and complex trial.

Private class actions and regulatory enforcement proceedings can
both be powerful deterrents to unlawful behavior.  But the case
raised the important question of whether a successful Ontario
Securities Commission (OSC) enforcement proceeding should trump
the right of investors to sue the regulatory respondents for
damages in a civil court.  By ruling that the investors did not
lose their right to sue in court, the decision goes a long way to
consolidating the role of class actions as a meaningful form of
protection for investors.  It also has repercussions for virtually
any class action that follows on a regulatory enforcement
proceedings in which damages have been recovered for those who
sustained losses.  By way of example, the decision may impact on
the various overtime class action appeals that are currently

Fischer arose in the wake of the market timing scandal, when the
OSC commenced proceedings against the five defendant funds for
failing to act in the public interest in relation to market timing
activity in their funds.  The regulatory proceedings ended when
the funds agreed to pay $205 million to aggrieved investors.  The
OSC settlements specified that they were without prejudice to the
rights of any person to bring civil or other proceedings against
the mutual fund managers with respect to the same subject matter.

Dennis Fischer and other representative plaintiffs initiated the
class action after the OSC proceedings ended.  The plaintiffs
sought to recover the difference between the OSC settlement and
the hundreds of millions of additional dollars they maintained
were required to make full compensation to the investors.

But in January 2010, Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice refused to certify the case.  Although the case
otherwise met the requirements for certification, he reasoned, it
was not the "preferable procedure" to resolve the plaintiffs'
claims because the OSC proceedings had provided the plaintiffs
with access to justice and the settlement had satisfied the goals
of deterrence and behavior modification that underpinned Ontario's
class action legislation.

But the Divisional Court reversed Justice Perell, and the Court of
Appeal sided with the Divisional Court, albeit on different

Benjamin Zarnett, Jessica Kimmel and Melanie Ouanounou of Goodmans
represented CI Mutual; James Douglas, David Di Paolo and Heather
Pessione of Borden Ladner Gervais represented AIC; and Joel Rochon
and Sakie Tambakos of Rochon Genova were co-counsel for the
plaintiffs with Davis' Peter Jervis.

MCGRAW-HILL: Faces Class Action Over Third-Party Sale Royalties
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal
class action, an author claims McGraw-Hill "systematically
violates its contracts" by self-dealing transactions with its
subsidiaries to cheat authors on royalties from foreign sales.

Lead plaintiff Bob Cordell claims McGraw-Hill fails to properly
report third-party sales of works outside the United States to
short writers for royalties due them.

Mr. Cordell, who wrote the textbook "Designing Audio Power
Amplifiers," says he signed a standard publishing agreement with
McGraw-Hill in February 2009, in which the publisher agreed to pay
him 10 percent of net receipts for each copy sold to its
international book division or to third parties for use outside
the United States.

Mr. Cordell says McGraw-Hill uses its subsidiaries to avoid paying
royalties on the full market price and fails to report sales to
final purchasers.

The complaint states: "McGraw-Hill systematically violates its
contracts with its authors by failing to remit royalties based
upon the amounts received from third parties for sales of the
works outside of the United States, when these third parties are
the ultimate purchasers of works from McGraw-Hill.

"Instead of carrying out its contractual obligations in good
faith, McGraw-Hill sells works to third parties for use outside of
the United States by purporting to first transfer those works to
related 'divisions' of McGraw-Hill in self-dealing transactions at
below market prices.  Although these McGraw-Hill 'divisions'
subsequently sell these works to independent third parties at
arm's length at the full market price, the publisher credits
authors only with royalties on the lesser value of the artificial
amount of the purported transaction with its 'division.'

"These purported 'sales' of works to its related 'divisions' are
in actual fact little more than book-keeping entries -- and not
genuine sales -- and McGraw-Hill actually sells the works on to
third parties for use outside the United States at arm's length,
at the proper market price upon which royalties should be
calculated under the agreements.  Although McGraw-Hill receives
the full monetary benefit of third party sales, it never reports
these third-party sales to the authors, or remits the full and
correct royalties relating to such third-party sales.

"As a result of the foregoing, McGraw-Hill has failed in its
contractual obligations to properly report third-party sales of
works for use outside the United States, and has further failed to
properly compensate its authors for the sales of such works."

Mr. Cordell seeks class certification, damages for breach of
contract and wants McGraw-Hill ordered to stop its wrongful

He is represented by:

          Robert Lax, Esq.
          535 Fifth Avenue 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 818-9150
          E-mail: rlax@lax-law.com

"We received notice of the case [Thurs] day and are reviewing it,"
McGraw-Hill spokesman Jason Feuchtwanger told Courthouse News on
Jan. 26.  "We will defend ourselves vigorously."

McGraw-Hill employs more than 21,000 people worldwide and has more
than 280 offices in 40 countries.  It reported $6.2 billion in
sales in 2010.

NETFLIX INC: Pomerantz Haudek Files Class Action in California
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against Netflix, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action (CV12-0439), filed in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Netflix
securities between December 20, 2010 and October 24, 2011,
inclusive.  This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b)
and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC,
17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the
Netflix made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company had short-term contracts with
content providers and Netflix was aware that the Company faced a
choice to renegotiate the contracts in 2011 at much higher rates
or not renew them at all; (2) content providers were already
demanding much higher license fees, which would dramatically
effect Netflix's business; (3) the Company recognized that its
pricing would have to significantly increase to maintain profit
margins given the streaming content costs that it would soon
incur; and (4) the Company was not on track to achieve the 2011
earnings forecasts.

On September 1, 2011, after the market closed, Starz
Entertainment, LLC announced that it had "ended contract renewal
negotiations with Netflix."  On this news, Netflix's shares
declined $20.16 or more than 8%, to close at $213.11 on
September 2, 2011.

On September 15, 2011, Netflix issued a press release announcing
an update to its third quarter 2011 guidance.  Netflix revealed
that it had lost a million subscribers upon its price increases
becoming effective.  On this news, Netflix's shares declined
$53.52 per share or more than 25% in two trading sessions, to
close at $155.19 per share on September 16, 2011.

On September 18, 2011, Company CEO Reed Hastings announced the
separation of its streaming and DVD by mail services whereby the
DVD by mail service would be renamed Qwikster and the streaming
service would retain the Netflix name.  Also, subscribers would be
charged separately for the two services.  As a result of this
news, Netflix's shares dropped $26.69 per share or 17% over three
trading sessions, to close at $128.50 per share on September 21,

On October 24, 2011, Netflix issued its financial results for the
third quarter ended September 30, 2011 where it disclosed that it
had a net loss of 810,000 U.S. subscribers, translating into a
cumulative loss of 5.5 million subscribers.  As a result of this
news, Netflix's shares declined $41.47 per share or nearly 35%, to
close at $77.37 per share on October 25, 2011.

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

NEUTROGENA: Sued for Falsely Advertising Cleansers as "Natural"
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Neutrogena falsely advertises its cleansers as "natural," though
they contain a slew of chemicals and artificial fragrances,
including propylene glycol.

A copy of the Complaint in Stephenson v. Neutrogena Corporation,
Case No. 12-cv-00426 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          Victoria Hartanto, Esq.
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117-2212
          Telephone: (415) 913-7800
          E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          500 Fifth Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

SHAPIRO & BURSON: Court Tosses "Robo-Signing" Class Action
Jamie Smith Hopkins, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a
class-action lawsuit over alleged foreclosure "robo-signing" was
thrown out of federal court in Greenbelt when a judge ruled that
the plaintiffs could have raised those complaints during their
foreclosure cases.

The robo-signing scandal -- when underlings or others forged the
names of officials on foreclosure court documentation and later
admitted they didn't verify the information -- shook the mortgage
industry nationwide as courts put foreclosure actions on hold.

The class-action suit was filed after a former paralegal at the
defendant Shapiro & Burson, a law firm based in Virginia that has
handled many Maryland foreclosure cases in recent years,
complained to regulators and prosecutors, alleging that robo-
signing there was routine.

An attorney for Shapiro & Burson suggested that the ruling could
be a blow for other suits seeking damages for alleged foreclosure
misconduct.  The decision by U.S. District Court Judge
J. Frederick Motz said homeowners could have raised the issue
during their foreclosure cases and thus are barred from bringing
it up in a later suit.

"There's been a lot of publicity about robo-signing, and I think
that this decision makes clear that these kind of claims can't be
brought in a subsequent lawsuit," said Robert A. Scott, a partner
at the Ballard Spahr law firm, one of the attorneys representing
Shapiro & Burson.  "If you have a claim related to something that
happened in the foreclosure, you have to bring it in the
foreclosure case."

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Charles Smalley and Pamela Ball,
who each lost a home to foreclosure, declined to comment.

But a consumer lawyer who wasn't involved with the suit thinks the
ruling isn't a death knell for robo-signing cases.

"The dilemma here is the federal courts are seeing a lot more of
these lawsuits because homeowners are struggling," said Phillip
Robinson, acting executive director of Civil Justice, a Baltimore
nonprofit that specializes in foreclosure issues.  "But I think
case law is really uncertain there."

Mr. Robinson, who has several pending lawsuits in state and
federal court that touch on robo-signing, pointed to a recent
federal appeals court decision that suggests Maryland homeowners
aren't barred from suing after a foreclosure if they didn't raise
the complaints during their foreclosure case.  Homeowners aren't
summoned to appear in foreclosure cases in Maryland, and many

And if the complaint is over debt collection practices, Robinson
said, "it's well settled federal law that those claims will . . .
survive a foreclosure case."

The law firm of JR Howell & Associates, which represented the
plaintiffs, alleged in the April suit that robo-signing at Shapiro
& Burson meant the firm's legal fees and other charges were
"fraudulently obtained" and improperly passed on to the

The homeowners argued that allegations of robo-signing at Shapiro
& Burson weren't made until after their foreclosures were
complete, so they couldn't have raised the issue earlier.

But Mr. Motz dismissed that argument in his written decision on
Jan. 26, pointing to the so-called "doctrine of claims preclusion"
in Maryland law.

"The fact that plaintiffs may not have been aware of the existence
of their claims during the litigation of the previous action does
not render the doctrine of claims preclusion from being applicable
'where the means of obtaining such knowledge existed and the
knowledge could have been obtained with ordinary diligence,'"
Mr. Motz wrote, citing a 1978 case.

And Scott, the attorney representing Shapiro & Burson, said of the
homeowners: "There's no dispute . . . that they hadn't paid their
mortgages and that the lenders that were foreclosing had the right
to foreclose."

Allegations of widespread foreclosure robo-signing among mortgage
servicers and their law firms in 2010 prompted calls for reform
and inquiries.  State attorneys general from across the country
are pondering whether to agree to a proposed settlement with big
banks.  A spokesman for Maryland Attorney General Douglas F.
Gansler said on Jan. 27 that he has not yet decided whether to

ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL: Nears Class Action Settlement
Parkersburg News and Sentinel reports that a class-action lawsuit
by former St. Joseph's Hospital employees against the hospital's
former parent company is expected to be settled, according to the
plaintiffs' attorneys.

George Cosenza and Ginny Conley, representing the plaintiffs in
the class action suit, announced on Jan. 28 a settlement has been
reached with Signature Hospital Corporation on the issue of the
loss of accrued benefits, with a hearing planned in late March to
finalize the proposed settlement.

Last April, Mr. Cosenza and Ms. Conley filed suit against
Signature, the then parent company of St. Joseph's Hospital,
alleging Signature, doing business as St. Joseph's Hospital,
failed to compensate employees for their accrued sick leave
following the hospital's purchase by West Virginia United Health
Systems and merger into Camden Clark Medical Center.

The plaintiffs allege 613 former employees were short-changed by
Signature.  Ms. Conley contended the accrued leave ranged from
just a few hours to more than 900.  She said at least one employee
lost 980 hours of banked sick time.  In a November filing, the
attorneys stated they believe Signature owes their clients in
excess of $10.8 million dollars.

In 2010, officials with United Health, Camden-Clark, Signature and
St. Joseph's announced a deal to merge the two hospitals into one
facility.  In January 2011, Signature Hospital Corp. announced its
intent to sell its other two hospitals and wind down operations by
the end of that year.

On Jan. 28, Ms. Conley announced Signature has agreed to pay $4.7
million dollars to resolve the class action case involving the
loss of sick leave benefits.  The sick leave is valued at $3.6
million dollars, Ms. Conley said.

The settlement proposal has been filed with Wood County Circuit
Court and a hearing will be held March 29 to approve the
settlement, Ms. Conley said.

"The goal of this litigation from the beginning was to get these
hardworking and dedicated hospital employees their sick leave pay
that they earned during their years at St. Joseph's.  We are
thrilled the proposed settlement gets them what they deserve,"
Conley and Cosenza said in a press release Saturday.

Vienna resident Earlene Workman, one of the plaintiffs in the
suit, said the employees were happy with the proposed settlement
and praised the work done by the attorneys.

"I feel it was a fair settlement," Ms. Workman said.

"We were reimbursed 100 percent of our sick pay, and that's all we
asked for," she said.

VALLEY HEALTH: Sued for Illegally Reducing Pension Benefits
Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action
claims the Valley Health System illegally reduced pension benefits
for 1,614 employees.

A copy of the Petition for Writ of Mandate Pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure Sec. 1085 RE: (1) Violation of the California
Constitution) in Reichardt v. Valley Health System, et al., Case
No. RIC1201152 (Calif. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty.), is available


The Petitioners are represented by:

          Gregory G. Petersen, Esq.
          John Darling, Esq.
          Alison Gibbs, Esq.
          18301 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 330
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 335-3500
          E-mail: petersen@huntortmann.com

WACHOVIA CORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
Don Jeffrey, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a federal
judge gave preliminary approval to a $75 million cash settlement
of a class-action lawsuit against Wachovia Corp. over mortgage

U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan approved the settlement on
behalf of buyers of Wachovia stock from May 2006 to September
2008, according to a filing on Jan. 27 in Manhattan.  A hearing on
the settlement is scheduled for June 1.

The plaintiffs, which include the pension funds of New York City
public employees, sued in 2008, claiming that Wachovia, after
acquiring mortgage lender Golden West Financial Corp. in 2006,
began to focus on nontraditional mortgage loans, lowering
standards for borrowing and marketing aggressively to build
volume.  The lawsuit claims the company made "false and misleading
statements" to shareholders.

Those who acquired Wachovia stock through its purchase of Golden
West are also entitled to the settlement, according to the filing.

Wachovia was acquired by Wells Fargo & Co. in 2009.  Wells Fargo,
based in San Francisco, rose 55 cents, or 1.9 percent, to $29.60
in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

The case is In re Wachovia Equity Securities Litigation, 08-06171,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

WALTER ENERGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Alabama
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 26 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Walter Energy, Inc. between April 20, 2011 and
September 21, 2011, inclusive.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from January 26, 2012.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Walter and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Walter, through its consolidated subsidiaries, mines and exports
hard coking coal for the global steel industry.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects.  Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse
facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing so-called "squeeze"
events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada
that significantly reduced Walter's coal production; (ii) that the
Company's commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the
second quarter at first quarter sales prices would result in a
material adverse effect on Walter's average sales prices and
operating results during the second quarter; (iii) that Walter was
experiencing a significant decline in its margins and
profitability; and (iv) that, based on the foregoing, defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company and its business prospects during the Class Period.

On August 3, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its
operating results for its 2011 fiscal second quarter, the period
ended June 30, 2011.  For the quarter, the Company announced net
income of $107.4 million, or $1.71 per diluted common share,
significantly less than Wall Street estimates.  Then, on
September 21, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its
attempt to "enhance" its historical statistical disclosure and its
revisions to its 2011 second half sales expectations.  In response
to this announcement, the price of Walter common stock declined
from $75.00 per share on September 20, 2011 to $66.25 on September
21, 2011, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Walter common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a 180-lawyer firm
with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton,
Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta.  It is active in major
litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the
United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.

ZYNGA INC: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Fees in California
Christopher Lee, an individual California resident, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Zynga Inc., a
Delaware corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
1-11-CV-217392 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., January 24,
2012) is brought on behalf of current and former employees of
Zynga, who are or were employed in its California locations and
held titles or positions in software engineering, primarily what
is generally referred in the discipline of engineering to "test
engineers," "software engineers," "computer programmers,"
"architects", "developers," and "quality assurance [QA]

The matrix of titles implemented by Zynga were misnomers lacking
the exercise of discretion and independent judgment in the
performance of their primary duties and in performing such duties
should have been classified as non-exempt and, therefore, paid
overtime, the Plaintiff contends.  He asserts that he and the
class were given titles that were inconsistent and unrealistic
with the job requirements and expectations, and that Zynga failed
to engage in any meaningful activity to ensure its employees were
properly classified under California law, whether as exempt
employees or independent contractors.

Mr. Lee is a resident of California.

Zynga is a Delaware corporation with primary place of business in
California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose R. Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY, APLC
          9900 Irvine Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 208-3400
          Facsimile: (949) 713-0432
          E-mail: jgaray@computerovertime.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          2225 E. Bayshore Drive, Suite 200
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 320-1640
          Facsimile: (650) 320-1645
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.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  * * *