CAR_Public/120425.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 25, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 81

                             Headlines

ABC: Says "The Bachelor" Discrimination Class Action No Merit
ADVANCE AMERICA: Court Denies Class Certification in "Stone" Suit
ADVANCE AMERICA: Oral Argument before Fla. Supreme Ct. in 2Q 2012
ADVANCE AMERICA: Made Final $3.25MM Payment in "Kucan" Settlement
ADVANCE AMERICA: "Johnson" Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania

ADVANCE AMERICA: "King" Plaintiffs Settle Suit for Minimal Amount
ADVANCE AMERICA: Faces Consolidated Stockholder Suit Over Merger
APPLE CORP: Canadian E-Book Owners May Be Eligible for Damages
APPLE CORP: Canadian Firms File Suit Over E-Book Price-Fixing
BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Insurance Premiums

BP: Mike Dewine Files Class Action Over Pension Fund Losses
BRIDGENEX LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Calif. Suit Claims
CHICAGO, IL: Firefighter Applicants Claim Discrimination
EXXONMOBIL OIL: July 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Credits to Minors

FRENCH TRANSIT: Sued Over Falsely Labeled Deodorant Products
GERBER PRODUCTS: Sued Over Probiotics & Prebiotics in Baby Foods
HANSEN MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
HIGHER ONE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Bank Fees
IOWA: Plaintiffs' Lawyer to Appeal Class Action Ruling

LOFTON & LOFTON: Accused of Not Paying Employees Overtime Fees
MAINE: Faces Class Action for Restricting Immigrants' Benefits
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Manatt Faces Suit Over $26MM Settlement
NESTLE PURINA: Faces Class Action Over Chinese-Made Dog Treats
OMEGA FLEX: Enters $4.7MM Deal to Settle Dispute with Insurer

ORIENT PAPER: Still Defends "Henning" Stockholder Class Suit
PRIMO WATER: Defends Securities Class Action in North Carolina
REACHLOCAL INC: $0.8MM Class Settlement Gets Court's Final Nod
SOUTH DAKOTA: Settles Prison Medication Class Action
STEREOTAXIS INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Missouri

TICKETMASTER: Subject to Arkansas State Law, Court Rules
TIME WARNER: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unpaid Overtime
TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks to Overturn Hybrid Suit Small Claims Award
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Summary Judgment Bid in Royalties Suit Denied
WCA WASTE: Negotiates Settlement to Resolve Merger-Related Suits

WILMINGTON TRUST: Delaware Court Consolidates 2 ERISA Class Suits
WILSHIRE BANCORP: Suit Over False Financial Statements Dismissed


                          *********

ABC: Says "The Bachelor" Discrimination Class Action No Merit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reality TV World reports that The Bachelor producers say there is
no merit to a newly-filed class action lawsuit which claims the
long-running ABC reality dating franchise has purposely
discriminated against people of color.

"This complaint is baseless and without merit," The Bachelor's
Warner Horizon production company said in a statement to
Entertainment Weekly.

"In fact, we have had various participants of color throughout the
series' history, and the producers have been consistently -- and
publicly -- vocal about seeking diverse candidates for both
programs.  As always, we continue to seek out participants of
color for both The Bachelor and The Bachelorette."

Nashville residents Nathaniel Claybrooks and Christopher Johnson
reportedly filed the class action lawsuit against ABC and the
producers of The Bachelor franchise -- which has never cast a
minority Bachelor or Bachelorette in 24 seasons -- on April 18.

According to the lawsuit, The Bachelor producers have "refus[ed]
to hire minority applicants" in "a conscious attempt to minimize
the risk of alienating their majority-white viewership and the
advertisers targeting that viewership."

Messrs. Claybrooks and Johnson, who are both African-American,
reportedly claim they applied for the show during an open casting
call in August but were rejected based on their race.

Mr. Claybrooks alleges his casting interview took "less than half
the time of white applicants in front of him," while Mr. Johnson
claims he was dismissed before he was even allowed to interview.

"I was stopped by a young gentleman about five feet into the door.
He saw fit to ask me exactly what was I doing here," Mr. Johnson
reportedly told reporters during a Wednesday press conference with
Mr. Claybrooks and their attorneys.

"Looking back at how I was treated at the casting call last year,
it was clear that that wasn't possible -- I never even had a
chance," Mr. Claybrooks added.

While The Bachelor creator Mike Fleiss has frequently blamed a
lack of qualified applicants for the show's sparse minority
representation, the men's lawyers believe that isn't the case.

"[It's] just pretext.  We think they purposely do not want people
of color on this show," attorney Cyrus Mehri said.  "These two
gentlemen have come forward and so have dozens of other people --
all they're seeking is an equal opportunity, an equal chance to
compete.  How do you explain zero [Bachelors and Bachelorettes of
color] for 23 [seasons]?"

"[ABC and the producers] are sending a message of exclusiveness --
of denying people opportunity -- and that has a negative effect on
this country that we plan today to start to turn around.  This is
a case about hope and change.  We believe we have concrete
solutions about how to make this show... into a kind of show that
will be inclusive, will be diverse, and will better reflect this
country."

Messrs. Claybrooks and Johnson refused the financial compensation
they will be seeking in the case, Entertainment Weekly reported.

"This case is impact litigation... it can be a vehicle for
change," Mr. Mehri said.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Court Denies Class Certification in "Stone" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A California trial court rejected plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit filed against Advance America, Cash
Advance Center, Inc. alleging violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law, according to the Company's March 15, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 16, 2008, Kerri Stone filed a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California in San Diego against
the Company and its California subsidiary.  Defendants removed the
case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The amended class complaint alleged violations of the
California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law and the California
Unfair Competition Law and sought an order requiring defendants to
disgorge and/or make restitution of all revenue and loan
principal; pay three times the amount of damages the class members
actually incurred; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
and punitive damages.  In December 2011, the District Court denied
Plaintiff's motion for class certification but allowed plaintiffs
to maintain the action individually. Plaintiff subsequently filed
a motion to add three individual plaintiffs, which motion is still
pending.  The Company anticipates that the case will proceed to
trial as to the individually named plaintiffs in late 2012 or
early 2013.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc. --
http://advanceamericacash.com/-- provides cash advance services
primarily in the United States.  As of December 31, 2011, it
operated 2,541 centers in 29 states in the United States, 33
centers in the United Kingdom, and 10 centers in Canada, as well
as had 13 limited licensees in the United Kingdom.  The company
operates its centers under the Advance America, National Cash
Advance, Check Advance, First American Cash Advance, First
American Cash Loans, First American Loans, Purpose Financial, and
Purpose Money brands.  The Company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Spartanburg, South Carolina.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Oral Argument before Fla. Supreme Ct. in 2Q 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments to an arbitration appeal review before the Florida
Supreme Court related to a class action complaint against a unit
of Advance America, Cash Advance Center, Inc. has been set to
occur within the next three months, according to the Company's
March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

The Company's subsidiary, McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC,
along with certain of the Company's former directors, are
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit commenced by former
customers Wendy Betts and Donna Reuter, on January 11, 2001, and a
third named class representative, Tiffany Kelly, in the Circuit
Court of Palm Beach County, Florida.  The putative class action
alleges that McKenzie, by and through the actions of certain
officers, directors, and employees, engaged in unfair and
deceptive trade practices and violated Florida's criminal usury
statute, the Florida Consumer Finance Act, and the Florida
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The suit
seeks unspecified damages, and the named defendants could be
required to refund fees and/or interest collected, refund the
principal amount of cash advances, pay multiple damages, and pay
other monetary penalties.  Ms. Reuter's claim has been held to be
subject to binding arbitration.  However, the trial court has
denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration of Ms. Kelly's
claims.  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision,
but certified a "Question of Great Public Importance" to the
Florida Supreme Court.  The Florida Supreme Court accepted the
Company's appeal and stayed the appellate court's mandate pending
the outcome of their review of the appellate court's decision.
Oral argument before the Florida Supreme Court is scheduled for
the second quarter of 2012 and the Company anticipates a final
decision regarding the enforceability of the arbitration clause
before the end of 2012.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc. --
http://advanceamericacash.com/-- provides cash advance services
primarily in the United States.  As of December 31, 2011, it
operated 2,541 centers in 29 states in the United States, 33
centers in the United Kingdom, and 10 centers in Canada, as well
as had 13 limited licensees in the United Kingdom.  The company
operates its centers under the Advance America, National Cash
Advance, Check Advance, First American Cash Advance, First
American Cash Loans, First American Loans, Purpose Financial, and
Purpose Money brands.  The Company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Spartanburg, South Carolina.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Made Final $3.25MM Payment in "Kucan" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Center, Inc. made a final
$3.25 million payment in January pursuant to a settlement
resolving a class action against its North Carolina subsidiary,
according to the Company's March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2011.

On July 27, 2004, John Kucan, Welsie Torrence, and Terry Coates,
each of whom was a customer of Republic Bank & Trust Company, the
lending bank for whom the Company previously marketed, processed,
and serviced cash advances in North Carolina, filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the General Court of Justice for the
Superior Court Division for New Hanover County, North Carolina
against the Company and Mr. William M. Webster IV, Chairman of the
Company's Board of Directors and the Company's former Chief
Executive Officer, alleging, among other things, that the
relationship between the Company's North Carolina subsidiary and
Republic was a "rent a charter" relationship and therefore
Republic was not the "true lender" of the cash advances it
offered.  The lawsuit is captioned Kucan et al. v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc. et al.
The lawsuit also claimed that the cash advances were made,
administered and collected in violation of numerous North Carolina
consumer protection laws. The lawsuit sought an injunction barring
the subsidiary from continuing to do business in North Carolina,
the return of the principal amount of the cash advances made to
the plaintiff class since August 2001, along with three times the
interest and/or fees associated with those advances, which could
have, under certain circumstances, totaled approximately $220
million, plus attorneys' fees and other unspecified costs.

On September 17, 2010, the Company and the class representatives
entered into a settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement did
not include any admission of wrongdoing.  Pursuant to the terms of
the settlement agreement, the case was dismissed; the Company and
all other defendants were released from any and all claims and
liability.  The Company established a settlement pool of
approximately $18.75 million for payments and/or credits to settle
the claims of certain customers of the Company's North Carolina
subsidiary and payment of all attorneys' fees, class action
administration fees, and any and all other fees and expenses
related to the litigation.  The Company took a charge against
earnings in the third quarter of 2010 of approximately $16.3
million to cover the estimated net costs of settlement less
insurance proceeds.  The trial court entered an order granting
final approval of the settlement on January 31, 2011.  In January
2012, the Company made a final payment of $3.25 million, for which
it took a charge against earnings in the third quarter of 2010.
Against this backdrop, the Company considers the matter closed.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc. --
http://advanceamericacash.com/-- provides cash advance services
primarily in the United States.  As of December 31, 2011, it
operated 2,541 centers in 29 states in the United States, 33
centers in the United Kingdom, and 10 centers in Canada, as well
as had 13 limited licensees in the United Kingdom.  The company
operates its centers under the Advance America, National Cash
Advance, Check Advance, First American Cash Advance, First
American Cash Loans, First American Loans, Purpose Financial, and
Purpose Money brands.  The Company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Spartanburg, South Carolina.


ADVANCE AMERICA: "Johnson" Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 2007, Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love, and Bonny
Bleacher filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. and two of its subsidiaries
alleging that the Company provided lines of credit to borrowers in
Pennsylvania without a license required under Pennsylvania law and
with interest and fees in excess of the amounts permitted by
Pennsylvania law.  The complaint seeks, among other things, a
declaratory judgment that the monthly participation fee charged to
customers with a line of credit is illegal, an injunction
prohibiting the collection of the monthly participation fee, and
payment of damages equal to three times the monthly participation
fees paid by customers since June 2006, which could total
approximately $135 million in damages, plus attorneys' fees and
costs.  By order dated August 18, 2011, as amended by memorandum
order dated August 31, 2011, the trial court compelled the class
representatives to arbitrate for immediate appeal their claims on
an individual basis and stayed the litigation.  The trial court
denied plaintiff's motion to certify the August 18, 2011 order.
The plaintiffs have not filed for arbitration.

No new updates in the case were reported in Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers, Inc.'s March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc. --
http://advanceamericacash.com/-- provides cash advance services
primarily in the United States.  As of December 31, 2011, it
operated 2,541 centers in 29 states in the United States, 33
centers in the United Kingdom, and 10 centers in Canada, as well
as had 13 limited licensees in the United Kingdom.  The company
operates its centers under the Advance America, National Cash
Advance, Check Advance, First American Cash Advance, First
American Cash Loans, First American Loans, Purpose Financial, and
Purpose Money brands.  The Company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Spartanburg, South Carolina.


ADVANCE AMERICA: "King" Plaintiffs Settle Suit for Minimal Amount
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned "Raymond King and Sandra
Coates v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Pennsylvania,
LLC" has agreed to settle the dispute for a de minimis amount,
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc. disclosed in its March
15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On January 18, 2007, Raymond King and Sandra Coates, who were
customers of BankWest Inc., the lending bank for which the Company
previously marketed, processed, and serviced cash advances in
Pennsylvania, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging
various causes of action, including that the Company's
Pennsylvania subsidiary made illegal cash advance loans in
Pennsylvania in violation of Pennsylvania's usury law, the
Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act, the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the
Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the
Pennsylvania Credit Services Act.  The complaint alleges that
BankWest Inc. was not the "true lender" and that the Company's
Pennsylvania subsidiary was the "lender in fact."  The complaint
seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, and
the trebling of any compensatory damages.  By order dated August
18, 2011 and a subsequent memorandum dated August 31, 2011, the
trial court entered an order staying the litigation and compelling
the class representatives to arbitrate their claims on an
individual basis.  The plaintiffs subsequently agreed to settle
the case for a de minimis amount.  The Company considers the
matter matter closed.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc. --
http://advanceamericacash.com/-- provides cash advance services
primarily in the United States.  As of December 31, 2011, it
operated 2,541 centers in 29 states in the United States, 33
centers in the United Kingdom, and 10 centers in Canada, as well
as had 13 limited licensees in the United Kingdom.  The company
operates its centers under the Advance America, National Cash
Advance, Check Advance, First American Cash Advance, First
American Cash Loans, First American Loans, Purpose Financial, and
Purpose Money brands.  The Company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Spartanburg, South Carolina.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Faces Consolidated Stockholder Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc. is defending itself
against a consolidated stockholder class action complaint relating
to a merger acquisition deal with Grupo Elektra, according to the
Company's March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On February 15, 2012, the Company announced that it had entered
into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which it would be
acquired by a subsidiary of Grupo Elektra, S.A. de C.V.  Under the
terms of the merger agreement, the Company's stockholders will
receive $10.50 in cash per share of its common stock.

On February 17, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery styled Joel Rosenfeld v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 7255.  The
Rosenfeld complaint named as defendants the Company, the members
of its board, its Chief Financial Officer, Grupo Elektra S.A. de
C.V., Eagle U.S. Sub Inc., and Eagle U.S. Merger Sub Inc. The
complaint alleges that as a result of the merger agreement whereby
Eagle U.S. Merger Sub Inc. will merge with and into the Company,
the individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize the value of the Company to our stockholders.
The complaint also alleges that all defendants have aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual
defendants.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

Also on February 17, 2012, a purported class action was filed in
the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas in Spartanburg County
styled Brad Feik v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.,
et al., Civil Case No. 2012-CP-42-00807.  The Feik complaint named
as defendants the Company, the members of its board, Eagle U.S.
Sub Inc., and Eagle U.S. Merger Sub Inc.  The complaint alleges
that as a result of the merger agreement whereby Eagle U.S. Merger
Sub Inc. will merge with and into the Company, the individual
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize the value of the Company to its stockholders. The
complaint also alleges that Eagle U.S. Sub Inc. and Eagle U.S.
Merger Sub Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by the individual defendants.  The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

On February 24, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery styled Juan Fernandez v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 7277.  The
Fernandez complaint named as defendants the Company, the members
of its board, its Chief Financial Officer, Eagle U.S. Sub Inc.,
and Eagle U.S. Merger Sub Inc.  The complaint alleges that as a
result of the merger agreement whereby Eagle U.S. Merger Sub Inc.
will merge with and into the Company, the individual defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties by failing to sufficiently
inform themselves of the Company's value and by failing to
maximize the value of the Company to its stockholders.  The
complaint also alleges that Eagle U.S. Sub Inc. has aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual
defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On February 28, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery styled Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System v. Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 7290. The LMPERS complaint named
as defendants the Company, the members of its board, Grupo Elektra
S.A. de C.V., Eagle U.S. Sub Inc., and Eagle U.S. Merger Sub Inc.
The complaint alleges that as a result of the merger agreement
whereby Eagle U.S. Merger Sub Inc. will merge with and into the
Company, the individual defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize the value of the Company to our
stockholders. The complaint also alleges that Grupo Elektra S.A.
de C.V., Eagle U.S. Sub Inc. and Eagle U.S. Merger Sub Inc. aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the
individual defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Also on February 28, 2012, a purported class action was filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Kenneth Flier v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 7290. The
Flier complaint named as defendants the Company, the members of
its board, Eagle U.S. Sub Inc., and Eagle U.S. Merger Sub Inc. The
complaint alleges that as a result of the merger agreement whereby
Eagle U.S. Merger Sub Inc. will merge with and into the Company,
the individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize the value of the Company to its stockholders.
The complaint also alleges that Eagle U.S. Sub Inc. and Eagle U.S.
Merger Sub Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by the individual defendants.  The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

On March 1, 2012, a proposed order of consolidation was filed with
the Delaware Court of Chancery, seeking to consolidate the four
cases filed in that Court.  On March 7, 2012, the Delaware Court
of Chancery granted the order of consolidation which provides,
among other things, that the four cases will be consolidated under
the caption In re Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 7255.

On March 8, 2012, a complaint was filed in the South Carolina
Court of Common Pleas in Spartanburg County styled Manuel Cavazos
and Alan Wiernik v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. et
al., Civil Case No. 2012-CP-42-1088. The Cavazos complaint named
as defendants the Company, the members of its board, its Chief
Financial Officer, Grupo Elektra S.A. de C.V., Eagle U.S. Sub Inc.
and Eagle U.S. Merger Sub Inc.  The complaint alleges that as a
result of the merger agreement whereby Eagle U.S. Merger Sub Inc.
will merge with and into the Company, the individual defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the
value of the Company to its stockholders. The complaint also
alleges that the Company and Grupo Elektra S.A. de C.V. aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual
defendants. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc. --
http://advanceamericacash.com/-- provides cash advance services
primarily in the United States.  As of December 31, 2011, it
operated 2,541 centers in 29 states in the United States, 33
centers in the United Kingdom, and 10 centers in Canada, as well
as had 13 limited licensees in the United Kingdom.  The company
operates its centers under the Advance America, National Cash
Advance, Check Advance, First American Cash Advance, First
American Cash Loans, First American Loans, Purpose Financial, and
Purpose Money brands.  The Company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Spartanburg, South Carolina.


APPLE CORP: Canadian E-Book Owners May Be Eligible for Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Magder, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that all
Canadians who have bought electronic books in the past two years
could be rewarded if Apple and book publishers are found guilty of
price fixing, says a local lawyer.

Last February, lawyer Normand Painchaud filed in Quebec Superior
Court for permission to launch a class-action lawsuit against
Apple Corp. and five book publishers, among them Harpercollins
Publishers Inc. and Penguin Group, the same group being pursued in
the U.S.

"Prices have definitely gone up," Mr. Painchaud said.  "So
consumers could be eligible for damages."

Like antitrust lawsuits launched by the Department of Justice in
the U.S. and the European Union, the Quebec suit claims that Apple
colluded with book publishers to artificially set electronic book
prices higher than the $9.99 standard Amazon had set for most of
its electronic books.

Reached on April 20, Mr. Painchaud said his is one of three
lawsuits in Canada, with other requests for class actions being
launched in British Columbia and Ontario.  Mr. Painchaud said if
his or any of the other lawsuits are successful, there will
probably be a method set out to extend damages to all Canadian
owners of electronic books.

The Quebec request, filed under the name Antoine Pontbriand,
refers to the agency model of book pricing that Apple implemented
prior to releasing its iPad in 2010.  Rather than having book
publishers sell their works at wholesale prices, then allowing
retailers to mark up the cost, the Apple model allowed book
publishers to set the retail prices, and then gave 30 per cent of
revenue to Apple.  The agreement also called for Apple to be
guaranteed to have the lowest price, and for publishers to match
any discount given to other retailers.

"The anti-competitive nature of this conspiracy, and the Publisher
Respondents' motivation to control ebook pricing, is also revealed
by the fact that the price of an ebook in many cases now
approaches -- or even exceeds -- the price of the same book in
paper even though there are almost no incremental costs to produce
each additional ebook unit," the suit claims.

If successful, any Canadians who bought ebooks since April 1, 2010
would be eligible for damages.  And since prices went from less
than $10 to $12, $14, or even more for an ebook, these could be
significant sums.

Mr. Painchaud said Canadians must be patient, since a class-action
lawsuit is a long process.

"It could take two, three or four years easily" Mr. Painchaud
said.

However, it is possible some Canadians won't have to wait that
long.  Several book publishers have already agreed to settle with
the U.S. Department of Justice.

According to Reuters, Hachette and HarperCollins settled with a
group of U.S. states, agreeing to pay $51 million to those who
bought ebooks.  Simon & Schuster is in negotiations with the
states to join that settlement.  Mr. Painchaud said Canadians
would probably also be eligible for compensation.

"This is a North American case," he said.


APPLE CORP: Canadian Firms File Suit Over E-Book Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marlowe, writing for Digital Media Wire, reports that
Canadian lawyers are building up to a class-action suit against
Apple and several major ebook publishers.  The proposed action
makes many of the same charges that the U.S. one does, seeking
redress for Canadians who overpaid due to the companies' alleged
conspiracy to lessen competition and "fix, maintain, increase or
control the prices of e-books."

At least five suits have been filed in Ontario, Quebec and B.C. by
firms that include Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman of Vancouver
and Siskinds LLP of Ontario.

Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, Simon &
Schuster, and their Canadian subsidiaries have been accused of
contravening the Competition Act, but none has yet responded.

The suits contend that the collusion was designed to knock Amazon
off its perch as the top ebook seller by preventing retailers from
undercutting Apple's prices, among other things.  As a result,
Canadians were forced to pay "as much as 50 per cent for most
titles over Amazon's previous prices."

"We did our own research in Canada in terms of are the markets the
same, does the pricing work the same, if there was a wrongful act
in the United States, did that same act take place in Canada and
therefore would the same legal claims exist? And we believe the
same claims do exist," said Charles Wright with Siskinds.  "It is
the same model and Canadians would have been affected in the same
way."

"A U.S. case only covers a U.S. resident and obviously it would be
our view that to the extent that the claims have merit and there's
compensation to be paid to U.S. residents, there's no reason
similar compensation shouldn't be available for Canadian
residents," said Mr. Wright.

It will be interesting to see if these lawsuits will gain any
traction now that the US Justice Department has had its way.
Apple, Penguin, and Macmillan are continuing to fight in the USA.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Insurance Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham Business Journal reports that a Hoover man and his
Bessemer construction company have filed a class action lawsuit
against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama and its national
trade association.

The antitrust suit, filed on April 17 on behalf of Fred R.
Richards, Richards and Sons Construction Co. Inc. and all
customers of the Birmingham-based insurer, alleges 37 members of
the Chicago-based Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association conspired
not to compete with the Alabama insurer.

The end result, according to the suit, was that the Alabama
insurer was able to charge higher premiums and gain a 90 percent
market share when its closest rival controls just 5 percent of the
market.

On behalf of all the Alabama insurer's customers, it seeks damages
equal to three times the amount that premiums were "artificially
inflated" since April 17, 2008.

Koko Mackin, vice president of corporate communications and
community relations, said the suit lacked merit, noting the
insurer has the fifth-lowest family premiums in the nation among
all employers.

"Our company operates in compliance with a license from the Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association," she said.  "We comply with all
state and federal laws and do not believe the allegations of the
lawsuit have any merit."

The suit comes after the insurer reported a $256.9 million profit
last year, up 58 percent from 2010, as the BBJ reported.

Ms. Mackin attributed that increase to lower-than-expected payouts
due to the nation's ailing economy.


BP: Mike Dewine Files Class Action Over Pension Fund Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pat Galbincea, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that Ohio
Attorney General Mike DeWine sued BP on April 19 in Cuyahoga
County Common Pleas Court on behalf of four state pension funds
that lost nearly $100 million due to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon
disaster.

Mr. DeWine filed a similar class-action lawsuit in federal court
in Houston on Feb. 13, but U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison
recently threw out certain claims because federal court was the
wrong venue for them.

The new lawsuit claims that BP misrepresented information about
its safety practices and procedures before the Deepwater Horizon
explosion in April 2010, that killed 11 workers, injured 17 and
caused 205.8 million gallons of crude oil to spill into the Gulf
of Mexico.

BP also made false and misleading statements regarding the size of
the oil spill, according to the lawsuit.  Former BP CEO Tony
Hayward admitted BP's promised safety procedures were never put in
place.

The gushing wellhead was finally capped three months later on July
15, 2010.  It was the largest accidental oil spill in the history
of the petroleum industry.

"The BP Deepwater Horizon spill caused the tragic loss of life and
extensive environmental damage," Mr. DeWine said in a news
release.  "Another result of this immense disaster was to Ohio
pension systems providing retirement benefits for current and
future employees that invested in BP in good faith and were
adversely affected when their stock price plummeted."

The affected pension funds were the Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System, the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio,
the School Employees Retirement System of Ohio and the Ohio Police
and Fire Pension Fund.

Daren J. Beaudo, spokesman for BP, said in an e-mail that company
officials will respond to the specific allegations of the lawsuit
in court.

Lisa Peterson Hackley, a spokeswoman for Mr. DeWine, said
Mr. DeWine is seeking to recover as much as possible of the $100
million the pension funds lost.

The suit in federal court failed because, "The judge will not
allow federal claims against foreign issuers on non-U.S. stock
purchases," Ms. Hackley said.  "He let the claims involving
purchases of BP's New York-traded American Depository Shares
stand, but the others were not covered by federal securities law.

"That's why we're seeking compensation in Cuyahoga County, where
the Ohio Securities law will apply."


BRIDGENEX LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Calif. Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Dozier, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Bridgenex LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 1-12-CV-222765 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.,
April 19, 2012) is brought on behalf of all individuals, who are
or previously were employed by Bridgenex in California and who
were paid on an hourly basis at any time during the period
beginning four years prior to the filing of the complaint and
ending on the date as determined by the Court.

The Plaintiff alleges that his and other class members' typical
workday required them to perform work in excess of eight hours in
a workday.  He contends that for these workdays in excess of
eight, he and other class members were paid only the regular rate
of pay for a nonexempt employee paid on an hourly basis, and were
not paid the correct overtime wage for the hours worked in excess
of eight in a workday.

Mr. Dozier was employed by Bridgenex in California and was
classified as a non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis from
May 2011 to January 20l2.

Bridgenex is an entity created under the laws of the state of
California with its principal place of business in Santa
Clara, California.  Bridgenex provides technical staffing and
consulting to high tech companies throughout the United States of
America.  The true names and capacities of the Individual
Defendants are presently unknown to Mr. Dozier.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232


CHICAGO, IL: Firefighter Applicants Claim Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
WLS-TV/DT reports that despite a court order, a group of African-
American firefighters says the City of Chicago is not treating
applicants fairly.

Six thousand African Americans were part of the class action suit
who alleged discrimination in 1995 by the Chicago Fire Department.
The Supreme Court ruled in their favor in August 2011 with a $30
million compensation, and the city was ordered to hire back more
than 100 of the applicants.  Out of that pool of 6,000 candidates,
about 1,600 of them indicated they were still interested in being
firefighters.  After testing physical ability, background checks
and medical exams, that number was whittled down to 111.

Now, some say the criteria for the medical exam to become a
firefighter was not fair.  Steven Hill and Shondrea Hopkins filed
discrimination complaints on April 19.  They say they were passed
over once again after an initial medical report showed elevated
creatine.

"I was hoping to get the job.  That's what I was hoping for.
That's what I fought for that's what I waited for anticipated
since I was a kid almost," Steven Hill said.

"I was hoping to work for the city, and make a difference saving
lives and making a difference helping people," Shondrea Hopkins
said.  "I feel overlooked.  I feel like my chances have slipped
away."

The American Journal Of Medicine reports "creatine kinase is
expressed at high levels in muscle . . . and the base level of
creatine kinase levels are higher in African Americans . . .(and
in all races) men had higher creatine kinase levels than women."

Mr. Hill said he got a private doctor's letter giving him
clearance.  He was made an alternate after buying the academy
training uniform.

"A lot of us too were tossed around and pushed around as if we
were unhuman in trying to get this job," Mr. Hill said.

A Chicago fire department's spokesman said "Two or three
applicants [were]excluded solely due to substantially higher than
'normal' ck levels."  The spokesperson also said, "We are fully
aware that African Americans have naturally higher ck level than
other races and that was taken into account when the evaluations
were made."

The president of the African American Firefighters League says
there were 15 African Americans excluded for high creatine levels.

After a complaint is filed with the Illinois Department of Human
Rights, the parties are offered mediation.  If that is not
satisfactory, the department has a year to investigate and issue a
ruling.


EXXONMOBIL OIL: July 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Tomlinson Rust McKinstry Grable P.C. and Napoli, Bern, Ripka LLP
on April 19 issued a statement regarding the settlement of a class
action lawsuit against ExxonMobil Oil.

The parties to a class action lawsuit filed in Custer County on
behalf of those who own or have owned a royalty interest, and
their heirs, successors and assigns, in the Putnam Oswego Unit (in
Dewey and/or Custer County, Oklahoma), at any time since November
1, 1968 to the present have entered in to an agreement to settle
the suit for $30,000,000.  The lawsuit claims that people may be
due payments from ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and/or Mobil
Exploration and Producing North American Inc.  This claim applies
to class members whether they were paid royalties by ExxonMobil or
another company.  On March 1, 2012, the District Court of Custer
County certified the class as a settlement class and preliminarily
approved the settlement.  If you may be a member of this
settlement class, you can view a copy of the Settlement Agreement
online at http://www.PutnamOswegoLawsuit.com

The Court has scheduled a Settlement Fairness Hearing on July 2,
2012, at 9:00 a.m. in the District Court of Custer County, State
of Oklahoma, before the Honorable F. Pat VerSteeg, to determine
whether the Court should: (a) approve the Settlement Agreement as
fair, adequate and reasonable; (b) enter the proposed Judgment
approving the Settlement Agreement; and (c) approve the
application of Class Counsel for payment of Class Representatives'
fee and Class Counsel's fees and expenses.

Class members are automatically included in the settlement of this
suit if they have or had owned such a royalty interest at any time
since November 1, 1968, unless a member submits, no later than
June 11, 2012, an Exclusion Request Form (see Settlement
Agreement).  The Settlement Agreement provides that the net
settlement proceeds will be distributed pursuant to a Plan of
Allocation and Distribution.  The Plan essentially provides that
the net settlement proceeds will be distributed only to current
royalty owners according to their ownership interests in the Unit,
subject to the rights of class members who are not current royalty
owners but who believe they have a valid legal claim to past
royalty payments, and who successfully assert this claim in the
claim resolution process under the Plan of Allocation and
Distribution.  If you remain in the settlement class but want to
object to the settlement agreement, the Plan of Allocation and
Distribution, payment of Class Representatives fees or Class
Counsel fees and expenses you or your personal counsel must file a
written objection and mail a copy to Class Counsel no later than
June 11, 2012, and appear at the Settlement Fairness Hearing.
Additional information regarding the exclusion and objection
processes may be found at http://www.PutnamOswegoLawsuit.com

For additional information, or if you wish to discuss this
settlement or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
our toll free number at 1-866-381-0595 or visit
http://www.PutnamOswegoLawsuit.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Credits to Minors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for paidContent, reports that an
Arizona woman whose teenage son purchased virtual goods wants
Facebook to give refunds to him and thousands of "minor children"
who misrepresented their right to acquire the company's online
currency, Facebook Credits.

In a class action lawsuit filed in San Jose, Glynnis Bohannon is
seeking millions for minors and their parents and guardians under
California's consumer protection laws.

The issue appears to turn on Facebook's requirement that users not
"provide any false personal information."  It may also turn on the
company's rules for using its currency such as:

If you are under the age of 18, you may make payments only with
the involvement of a parent or guardian.  You should review these
Payments Terms with a parent or guardian to make sure that you
both understand them.

In a related court filing, Manager of Payment Operation Bill
Richardson writes that "users who are purportedly aged 13-17
purchased well in excess of $5,000,000 in Facebook Credits in
calendar year 2011."  Facebook requires users to be at least 13 to
sign on to the social network.

Facebook Credits are widely used in many games and apps and allow
users to do things like purchase virtual sheep or play poker on
sites like Zynga.  The currency is a big money maker for Facebook
which takes a 30 percent cut of all transactions.

The issue of minors who rack up online currency bills has become
an issue for other companies like Apple which is facing a lawsuit
over so-called bait apps.  These are games that can be downloaded
for free but then induce minors to make in-app purchases.

In the past, commentators have been divided over whether selling
virtual goods to minors is unethical or whether it is simply a
parenting question for which the companies should not be
responsible.

Under US law, contacts with minors are typically "voidable",
meaning that the minor has the right to back out of the agreement
(there are of course exceptions).

"We believe this complaint is without merit and we will fight it
vigorously," accordingly to Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes.

Facebook describes the lawsuit in this request to move the case to
federal court from state court where it was filed in March.


FRENCH TRANSIT: Sued Over Falsely Labeled Deodorant Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that French Transit falsely labels
its Crystal Body deodorant as "all natural" and aluminum-free,
disguising the harmful ingredient as "alum" on its packaging, a
federal class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Pierce v. French Transit, Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-01943 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/20/deodorant.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Heather M. Peterson, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2361 Rosecrans Avenue
          Fourth Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmp@kirtlandpackard.com


GERBER PRODUCTS: Sued Over Probiotics & Prebiotics in Baby Foods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Gray, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Gerber Products Company; Nestle USA, Inc.,
Case No. 5:12-cv-01964 (N.D. Calif., April 19, 2012) arises out of
the alleged acts and omissions of the Defendants in connection
with these products:

   * Good Start Gentle Formula (Stage = Birth);

   * Good Start Protect Infant Formula (Stage = Birth);

   * Gerber DHA & Probiotic Single Grain Cereal
     (Stage = Supported Sitter);

   * Good Start 2 Gentle Formula (Stage = Crawlers); and

   * Good Start 2 Protect Formula (Stage = Crawlers).

The action addresses the advertisements the Defendants have made
and continue to make about their infant and toddler baby food with
probiotics and prebiotics, intended for children 0 years of age
and up, Ms. Gray says.  She alleges that the Defendants' labeling
and advertising claims are false and deceptive because the use of
probiotics and prebiotics in children two years of age and younger
has not been sufficiently substantiated, and most scientists
concur that probiotics/prebiotics use can, in fact, harm
developing children.

Ms. Gray is a resident of California.  During the class period,
Ms. Gray asserts that she was exposed to and saw the Defendants'
claims about the Products, purchased them in reliance on those
claims, and suffered injury as a result of the Defendants' unfair
competition.

Gerber Products is a Michigan corporation.  Nestle is a Delaware
corporation and a subsidiary of Nestle S.A., in Vevey,
Switzerland.  The Defendants advertised, marketed, distributed and
sold the Products to consumers in the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Maggie K. Realin, Esq.
          Skye Resendes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron.marron@gmail.com
                  maggie.realin@yahoo.com
                  skyer@san.rr.com


HANSEN MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated third amended securities class action complaint
pending in California, according to the Company's March 15, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Following the Company's October 19, 2009 announcement that it
would restate certain of its financial statements, a securities
class action lawsuit was filed on October 23, 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming the
Company and certain of its officers.  Curry v. Hansen Medical,
Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05094.  The complaint asserts claims for
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Hansen
stock between May 1, 2008 and October 18, 2009, inclusive, and
alleges, among other things, that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to make disclosures regarding
the Company's financial results and compliance with GAAP while
improperly recognizing revenue; that these misstatements and/or
nondisclosures resulted in overstatement of the Company's revenue
and financial results and/or artificially inflated the Company's
stock price; and that following the Company's October 19, 2009
announcement, the price of the Company's stock declined.  On
November 4, 2009 and November 13, 2009, substantively identical
complaints were filed in the Northern District of California by
other purported Hansen stockholders asserting the same claims on
behalf of the same putative class of Hansen stockholders.
Livingstone v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05212 and
Prenter v. Hansen Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-05367.  All
three complaints seek certification as a class action and
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys fees.
On December 22, 2009, two purported Hansen stockholders, Mina and
Nader Farr, filed a joint application for appointment as lead
plaintiffs and for consolidation of the three actions. On February
25, 2010, the Court issued an order granting Mina and Nader Farr's
application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and consolidating
the three securities class actions.  On July 15, 2010, the Court
entered an order granting lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint.  Lead plaintiffs' second amended
complaint, in addition to alleging that shareholders suffered
damages as a result of the decline in the Company's stock price
following the October 19, 2009 announcement, also alleges that
shareholders suffered additional damages as the result of share
price declines on July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009, January 8, 2009,
July 6, 2009, and August 4, 2009, all of which lead plaintiffs
allege were caused by the disclosure of what they claim was
previously misrepresented information.  The defendants filed their
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on October 13,
2010.  The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave
to amend on August 25, 2011.  Plaintiffs' third amended complaint
was filed on October 18, 2011.  Defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on January 9, 2012.  The hearing on Defendants' motion to
dismiss is set for April 19, 2012.  The Company and the named
officers intend to defend ourselves vigorously against these
actions.

Hansen Medical, Inc. -- http://www.hansenmedical.com/-- develops,
manufactures, and sells medical robotics designed for positioning,
manipulation, and control of catheters and catheter-based
technologies. The company's products comprise the Sensei Robotic
Catheter System and its related Artisan and Lynx catheters.  The
company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Mountain View,
California.


HIGHER ONE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Bank Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Higher One
Holdings preys on college students by giving them bank accounts
and debit cards for their financial aid money, and then charging
"deceptive, undisclosed and unconscionable service fees," a class
claims in Federal Court.

Ventura College student Sherry McFall says her financial aid money
was automatically deposited into a Higher One account like many
American college students.  Although Higher One is not a bank, it
partners with co-defendant The Bancorp Bank to provide students
with checking accounts, the lawsuit says.

Claiming that Higher One misrepresents itself as a "preferred
banking provider" endorsed by colleges and universities,
Ms. McFall said she did not realize she had other banking options.

The lawsuit quotes Securities and Exchange Commission filings that
allegedly show 76 percent of students at participating schools
banked with Higher One in 2009, making it the "default choice" on
college campuses.

"Higher One has arrangements with hundreds of colleges and
universities around the country whereby a student's scholarship,
federal financial aid, and/or loan money is automatically
deposited into a Higher One bank account," the complaint states.
"Financial-aid refunds -- the money left over after the school
deducts its tuition and fees, which students are to use for things
like books and living expenses -- are automatically deposited into
a Higher One bank account linked to a Higher One debit card.
Students then may access their financial aid money at an ATM or a
merchant that accepts MasterCard."

Students receive Higher One debit cards in the mail even before
they matriculate, Ms. McFall says.

"Students are also bombarded with advertisements and emails
encouraging them to use the Higher One cards to access their
financial aid money 'immediately' and 'faster' than any other
method," according to the complaint.  "And students are forced to
use a Higher One Web site in order to access their financial aid
money.  When, on that Higher One Web site, students are asked to
choose how they would like their financial aid refund disbursed,
Higher One concedes students' other banking options, deceives
students about its excessive and unconscionable fees, and does not
adequately disclose the full complement of fees students will be
subjected to by Higher One."

Ms. McFall says Higher One charges fees that are not "reasonably
avoidable" and raked in $66 million in convenience fees for 2010
alone.

Other fees are more modest, according to the complaint, which
describes $25 a charge for students who try to move their money to
another account, 50 cents for a PIN transaction fee, and $4.50 for
using ATMs not owned by Higher One, which includes the ATM owner's
$2 fee.

"Targeting financially unsophisticated students with excessive
bank fees -- and using scarce financial aid money to pay those
fees -- is unethical and immoral and makes it more difficult for
students to meet legitimate education expenses," Ms. McFall
claims.

The class seeks $5 million in damages for breach of contract,
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Neither Higher One nor Bancorp responded to e-mailed requests for
comment.

A copy of the Complaint in McFall v. Higher One Holdings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-03360 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/20/Higher%20One.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareii@tzlegal.com


IOWA: Plaintiffs' Lawyer to Appeal Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the dismissal of a key class-
action discrimination lawsuit means blacks will continue to face
unfair treatment when they apply for state jobs unless Iowa Gov.
Terry Branstad uses his power to change hiring practices, an NAACP
leader said on April 18.

The Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr., president of the Iowa/Nebraska NAACP,
called on Gov. Branstad to lead the charge to reform the state's
civil service system, claiming it has long disadvantaged blacks.
He spoke at a news conference one day after a judge dismissed a
class-action lawsuit that claimed Iowa's state government
discriminated against black job applicants by allowing subtle
racial bias to creep into hiring and promotion decisions.

District Judge Robert Blink said the plaintiffs failed to prove a
unique legal theory based on research that suggests most Americans
automatically prefer whites to blacks, even if they are unaware
they do.  The lawsuit, considered the largest of its kind against
a state's civil service system, covered up to 6,000 blacks passed
over for jobs or promotions since 2003.  It sought up to $50
million in lost wages and damages and court-ordered changes to
state hiring practices to better track and eliminate disparities.

Judge Blink ruled the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim of
widespread bias across state government, saying the data showed
blacks fared poorly when seeking jobs in some agencies compared
with whites but were favored in others.  He said the discrepancies
could be caused by any number of factors and that, overall, the
state had a better record of hiring blacks than the private
sector.

Rev. Ratliff said it was disappointing that the judge did not
acknowledge testimony from several witnesses at the trial that
showed qualified blacks had been repeatedly denied job interviews
and promotions throughout state government.

"They have patiently waited for justice.  All they wanted was to
fairly compete for employment.  And those already employed, all
they wanted was the opportunity to be promoted like any other
qualified person," he said.

Class member Charles Zanders, 61, said it was like a slap in the
face when he heard about the ruling.  Mr. Zanders spent 29 years
working for Qwest Communications.  He applied to the Iowa
Communications Network, a state-owned telephone system but was
never interviewed.

"The hurt was just as intense as the hurt was when I went through
the application process and got not one interview," he said.

Iowa has a reputation of being progressive on many issues,
Mr. Ratliff said, but its employment policies sent a message to
blacks that their lives don't count.  He said he would tell young
blacks not to seek employment with the state "because its state
practices do not support a fair playing field for African
Americans."

Gov. Branstad should first review a report submitted by the NAACP
to former Gov. Chet Culver in 2007 that was result of a yearlong
study by a task force established by Gov. Tom Vilsack in 2006,
Mr. Ratliff said.  It included 10 recommendations.

Mr. Ratliff said Gov. Culver issued an executive order requiring
changes, including diversity training, but that not much has
changed in the state's hiring practices.

The plaintiffs' lead attorney, Thomas Newkirk, said on April 17
that a victory will be won when Gov. Branstad and Democratic
Attorney General Tom Miller, whose office is defending the state
in the lawsuit, say they're willing to make changes.

Gov. Vilsack and Gov. Culver, both Democrats, failed to make
significant changes, he said.  Gov. Branstad, a Republican, has so
far not stepped in to deal with the issue.

"He has responsibility for it now. The system has been broken for
the first year of his term. The question is: Will Gov. Branstad
say the system is broken but we're OK with that, or will he come
forward and say we need to fix the system?" Mr. Newkirk said.

Gov. Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht released a brief statement on
April 18, saying: "We continually look for ways to improve our
processes."

The April 17 ruling does not mean the case is over for Iowa.
Mr. Newkirk said he will be appeal Judge Blink's ruling to the
Iowa Supreme Court within 30 days.

In addition, dozens of individual lawsuits are proceeding through
the courts.  They were separated from the larger class-action case
and focus on allegations of discrimination more blatant than the
subtle racial bias claimed in the larger case.


LOFTON & LOFTON: Accused of Not Paying Employees Overtime Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ernestine Johnson and Crystal Williams, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Lofton & Lofton Management, Inc.,
Lofton & Lofton Management V, Inc., Lofton & Lofton Management VI,
Inc., Lofton Holding Four, Inc., Lofton Holding Seven, Inc., Three
Key Management, LLC, Ronnie Lofton, Sr., Ronnie Lofton, Jr., and
Lillian Lofton, Case No. 2012-CH-14788 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
April 20, 2012) arises from the Defendants' policy of not paying
employees for all the time that they actually worked in a given
pay period.

The Defendants' policy of not paying employees for all the time
that they actually worked in a given pay period violates the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act and the contracts the Defendants entered into with their
employees, the Plaintiffs contend.  As a result of the Defendants'
violations of the IMWL, IWPCA and the contracts, the Defendants
must pay back wages, among other remedies, to current and former
employees, the Plaintiffs assert.

The Plaintiffs are residents of the City of Chicago, in Cook
County, Illinois.  During parts of 2009 and 2010, Ms. Johnson was
employed at a McDonald's Restaurant located in Chicago, Illinois,
which was owned and operated by Defendant, Lofton Holding Seven,
Inc.  Between April 2005 and August 2011, Ms. Williams was
employed at various times at each of the five McDonalds Restaurant
franchises owned and operated by the Defendants.  Between 2009 and
August 2011, Ms. Williams was as a manager at four of the five
locations owned and operated by the Defendants.

The Lofton Defendants are Illinois corporations.  The Lofton
Defendants do business under the name McDonalds, are franchisees
of non-party McDonald's Corporation, and are engaged in the
business of preparing and serving fast food to customers.  Three
Key is an Illinois limited liability company, and is an office
administrative services company that provides administrative
services, including payroll administration, to the Lofton
Defendants.

Ronnie, Sr., is a resident of the City of Plainfield, in Will
County, Illinois.  Ronnie, Sr., is an owner and president of the
Lofton Defendants and is a member of Three Key.  Ronnie, Jr., is a
resident of the City of Romeoville, in Will County, Illinois.
Ronnie, Jr. is an officer of the Lofton Defendants.  Lillian is a
resident of the City of Plainfield, in Will County, Illinois.
Lillian is an owner and secretary of the Lofton Defendants and is
a member of Three Key.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy E. Hoerman, Esq.
          CREMER, SPINA, SHAUGHNESSY, JANSEN & SIEGERT, LLC
          One North Franklin Street, 10th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 726-3800
          Facsimile: (312) 726-3818
          E-mail: thoerman@cremerspina.com


MAINE: Faces Class Action for Restricting Immigrants' Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan M. Cover, writing for The Portland Press Herald, reports
that Hans Bruns of Fort Fairfield is the plaintiff in a case filed
by Maine Equal Justice Partners and the American Civil Liberties
Union of Maine.  The groups claim that the state violated the U.S.
Constitution when it implemented a law in October that restricts
benefits to legal immigrants.

"The Constitution can't be bullied and its protections cannot be
ignored," said Zachary Heiden, an attorney with the ACLU of Maine.

In a lawsuit filed on April 19 in U.S. District Court, the groups
seek class-action status to represent about 500 Maine residents
who are in the same situation as Mr. Bruns.  They are asking the
court to require the state to restore health insurance to everyone
who was affected by the cut.

The LePage administration offered no comment on April 19 in
response to the lawsuit, but it did provide information on the
policy adopted last year in the state budget.

John Martins, spokesman for the DHHS, said the policy is
consistent with federal guidelines, which allow states to
determine the level of benefits they offer to legal noncitizens
who have lived in the U.S. for fewer than five years.

"The growth of Maine's public assistance programs and the
generosity of these programs have brought forth difficult
decisions in order to live within our means," Mr. Martins said in
a prepared statement.

The cuts to benefits were part of the two-year state budget passed
by the Legislature in June 2011.  The cuts are projected to save
the state $1.3 million in this fiscal year, and $2.6 million in
the next fiscal year, which starts July 1.

Advocates who filed the lawsuit say Mr. Bruns is just one of 500
people in Maine who no longer have health insurance because of the
new law.  The law affects all legal noncitizens age 21 and older
who are not pregnant.  A sizable number of them are elderly and
disabled, said Robyn Merrill, an attorney for Maine Equal Justice
Partners.

Mr. Bruns has cancer and has been a legal resident of the U.S.
since December 2007.  Originally from Germany, he has lived in
Maine since 2009 with his American wife.

Before last year's passage of the state budget, which eliminated
all but emergency coverage for legal noncitizens who have lived in
the U.S. for less than five years, Mr. Bruns received MaineCare
health insurance for about a year.  MaineCare is the state's
version of Medicaid.

In an affidavit filed with the lawsuit, Mr. Bruns says he has
adenoid cystic carcinoma and needs chemotherapy, radiation and
possibly surgery, and may not be able to wait until December for
benefits.

He did not attend a news conference in Portland announcing the
lawsuit on April 19 because he was receiving treatments in Presque
Isle,  Ms. Merrill said.  Those treatments are paid for through
charity care covered by hospitals.

"Because my full MaineCare benefits have been terminated, and I
have very little money, I no longer have access to help that I
need including pain medication, help with transportation to
medical appointments, access to some specialty care and all the
types of medical services that I need to survive," Mr. Bruns said
in the affidavit.  "I am getting some medical help as charity
care, but I have to keep begging for it and never know if it will
still be there."

Even before he was elected in 2010, Gov. Paul LePage said he
wanted to restrict benefits to noncitizens because the state
cannot afford to pay for people who move to Maine to get help.
Shortly after taking office in January 2011, he signed an
executive order to allow DHHS officials to inquire about
immigration status when deciding who qualifies for benefits.

In his budget speech that year, he said Maine is "one of the few
places in the country that offers welfare on day one for legal
noncitizens."

Statistics provided by the administration show that 21 states
provide some level of coverage to legal noncitizens and, of those,
15 offer state-funded services.

Advocates say the new restrictions violate equal protection
guarantees in the U.S. Constitution that prohibit the state from
"discriminating in the distribution of benefits or services"
because of alien or immigration status.

"Without proper treatment, Hans faces a terrifying and painful
fight for his life with a very poor prognosis for survival," Ms.
Merrill said.  "We are asking the court to restore Hans' health
insurance coverage so he can get the full range of treatment that
could result in better health outcomes and ease his suffering."


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Manatt Faces Suit Over $26MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that former NFL
players won a $26 million class action settlement with the NFL
Players Association a few years ago.  Now they're looking to run
up the score with a malpractice action against class counsel
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and McKool Smith.

On April 18 the two law firms made a goal line stand at the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  But they may not get the
call they need from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Judges N. Randy
Smith and Morgan Christen.

Letting the malpractice action proceed would be inconsistent with
Judge William Alsup's finding that the settlement was fair and
reasonable, Manatt attorney Sean SeLegue --
Sean.SeLegue@aporter.com -- argued.  "There's nothing wrong with
inconsistency," Judge Kozinski replied, "if you have parties who
didn't have a chance to litigate the claim."

Hall of Famer Herb Adderley and Bernard Parrish brought the
original class action in 2007 on behalf of 2,000 other retired
players, alleging the NFL and the players association cut them out
of licensing and marketing revenue in favor of current players.

The case went to a jury trial before Judge Alsup in 2008,
resulting in a $28 million verdict, including $21 million in
punitive damages.  While on appeal the case settled for $26.25
million.  Manatt and McKool asked for a 30 percent fee award, but
Judge Alsup instead awarded 20 percent.  While generally praising
the firms' work, the judge said it did not justify premium fees.
In particular, he criticized the firms for failing to admit
additional evidence, including a talent-savvy expert -- a
"Mr. Hollywood," in Judge Alsup's words -- who might have
testified about how much an agent could have negotiated for the
former players.

Now Mr. Parrish and six class members are pursuing a malpractice
action, saying Manatt and McKool should have won a larger verdict,
which would have led to a higher settlement.  Judge Alsup
dismissed the case in 2010, saying the players should have
objected before the case was settled, and that Manatt deserved
credit for obtaining a "whopping" punitive damages award.

On April 17 the players' attorney, Maxwell Blecher of Los Angeles'
Blecher & Collins, argued that Judge Alsup had "pulled a rabbit
out of the hat" by creating a novel theory of "narrower estoppel"
to block the players' action.

That argument seemed to get traction with Judge Christen, who
questioned whether the players should have known their malpractice
claims would be decided at the settlement hearing.  "What put them
on notice that they needed to come forward at that hearing?" she
asked McKool Smith's attorney, Munger, Tolles & Olson partner Sean
Eskovitz.

Judge Kozinski read from the notice that went out to class members
warning that the hearing was the time to bring complaints about
the settlement or waive them.  "I don't see anything there talking
about the lawyers," Judge Kozinski said.

Mr. Smith noted there is Ninth Circuit case law favoring both
sides' position, but said he was troubled by Durkin v. Shea &
Gould, which held that a malpractice action "does not even accrue
until after the settlement becomes final."

"So I'm stuck with Durkin," he told Mr. SeLegue.  "How are you
going to get me around it?"

In rebuttal, Mr. Blecher argued that Durkin is controlling, and to
rule for the law firms "you would have to effectively overrule
Durkin."


NESTLE PURINA: Faces Class Action Over Chinese-Made Dog Treats
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a
Pomeranian named Cleopatra died of kidney failure a week after
eating Purina's Chinese-made dog treats, her owner claims in a
federal class action.

Dennis Adkins bought Yam Good dog treats from Wal-Mart last month
for his 9-year-old pooch.  Waggin' Train, a Nestle Purina company,
makes the chicken jerky and yams treats in China, according to the
complaint.

"Between March 13, 2012 and March 15, 2012, Mr. Adkins gave one of
the treats to Cleopatra daily, which he chopped into two to three
pieces," the lawsuit states.  "Mr. Adkins made no other changes in
her diet."

"Immediately thereafter, Cleopatra became sick and, on March 26,
2012, died of kidney failure."

"Mr. Adkins owns another nine year old Pomeranian, named Pharaoh,"
the complaint continues.  "Mr. Adkins did not feed any of the 'Yam
Good' treats to him.  Pharaoh did not become ill."

Apart from the treats, Mr. Adkins usually cooked beef and chicken
for Cleopatra and Pharaoh, his attorney Daniel Edelman told
Courthouse News.

"Our client's dogs were not taking any other manufactured
products, only chicken jerky," Mr. Edelman, of Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, said in an interview.

"One of his dogs ate it and died, and the other wouldn't touch it,
and is alive and well.  The normal consequences of eating chicken
and yams do not include kidney failure."

Waggin' Train dog treats are made in China.  The Yam Good
packaging states the treats are "wholesome," "nutritious & great
tasting" and "what nature intended," according to the complaint.
The packaging also allegedly states: "It means a lot to us to help
you treat your dog right."

Mr. Adkins claims that "Nestle Purina and Waggin' Train, LLC had
received complaints of more than 500 incidents in which dog treats
containing chicken jerky imported from China caused dogs to become
sick or die."

Quoting a blog post on PoisonedPets.com, the complaint says,
"Makers of Waggin' Train dog treats Nestle Purina continue to deny
today any problem with their treats despite hundreds of reports of
complaint to the FDA.  . . .  Nestle-Purina states if the FDA
can't find the contaminant then they do not have to take the
product off the market or take any responsibility for the illness
and death of pets associated with their product."

Mr. Adkins says Waggin' Train's Web site now has warnings about
its products on its Web site, but it still markets those products
as "wholesome."

"The portion of Waggin' Train Web site promoting 'Yam Good' dog
treats as of April 16, 2012, still described the 'Yam Good'
product as follows:

'The name says it all! Sure to please even the pickiest of dogs,
these wholesome yams wrapped with chicken are packed with flavor
and goodness.  Waggin' Train Yam Good snacks will satisfy your dog
with the natural sweetness of yams,'" according to the complaint.

"Neither Mr. Adkins nor any other reasonable person would feed dog
treats to their dogs knowing that there was a substantial risk of
death or illness form doing so," the suit also states.  "Mr.
Adkins did not learn of the FDA warning or see the warnings on the
Waggin' Train Web site until after his dog died.

"Waggin' Train and Nestle Purina intentionally concealed known
facts concerning the safety of their dog treats in order to
increase or maintain sales," Mr. Adkins claims.

Mr. Edelman took issue with this advertising in an interview with
Courthouse News.

"It's not appropriate to state without reservation that something
is wholesome, when your own Web site notes that the FDA has raised
questions about the safety of the products," Mr. Edelman said.

Mr. Adkins seeks punitive damages for breach of warranty, fraud,
negligence and product liability.  Nestle Purina Petcare Company,
Waggin' Train LLC, and Wal-Mart are named as defendants.

A copy of the Complaint in Adkins v. Nestle Purina Petcare
Company, et al., Case No. 12-cv-02871 (N.D. Ill.), is available
at:

      http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/20/Jerky.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          Thomas E. Soule, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


OMEGA FLEX: Enters $4.7MM Deal to Settle Dispute with Insurer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. disclosed in its March 15, 2012, Form 8-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
March 8, 2012 that it has negotiated a $4.7 million settlement to
resolve its complaint against a former insurer.

In 2007, the Company instituted a legal complaint against a former
insurer, seeking reimbursement of amounts paid in defense of a
lawsuit that was brought against the Company in 2004.  As of March
2, 2012, the Company agreed to settle its lawsuit and entered into
a definitive settlement agreement with the former insurer for
reimbursement of defense costs incurred by the Company in the 2004
law suit and attorneys' fees incurred in the coverage action.  The
settlement agreement provides for a payment of $4,700,000 to the
Company by insurer within 20 days of the effective date of the
agreement.  In exchange, the Company released all claims against
the insurer arising out of the class action litigation and the
coverage litigation, and further agreed to dismiss the coverage
litigation currently pending in court.  In addition, the Company
agreed to indemnify the insurer against any claims that may be
brought against the insurer by the Company's former corporate
parent, Mestek, Inc. with respect to the claims released in the
settlement agreement.


ORIENT PAPER: Still Defends "Henning" Stockholder Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Orient Paper, Inc. continues to defend a putative class action
complaint initiated by Mark Henning, according to the Company's
March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 6, 2010, a stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company, certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company, and Roth Capital Partners, LLP.  The
complaint in the lawsuit, Mark Henning, et al. v. Orient Paper et
al., CV-10-5887 RSWL (AJWx), alleges, among other claims, that the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and
omitted to state material facts that rendered its affirmative
statements misleading as they related to the Company's financial
performance, business prospects, and financial condition, and that
the defendants failed to prevent such statements from being issued
or corrected.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and experts' fees.
Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of themselves and a class
consisting of the Company's stockholders (other than the
defendants and their affiliates).  The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on January 28, 2011, and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss with the court on March 14, 2011.  On July 20, 2011, the
court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, thus allowing the
litigation to proceed to discovery.

Nevertheless, at this stage of the proceedings, management cannot
opine that a favorable outcome for the company is probable or that
an unfavorable outcome to the company is remote.  While certain
legal defense costs may be later reimbursed by the Company's
insurance carrier, no reasonable estimate of any impact of the
outcome of the litigation or related legal fees on the financial
statements can be made at the present time.

Orient Paper, Inc., was incorporated under the laws of the State
of Nevada on December 9, 2005, under the name of Carlateral, Inc.
Carlateral, Inc. started its business by providing financing
services specializing in subprime title loans, secured primarily
using automobiles as collateral.


PRIMO WATER: Defends Securities Class Action in North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
Primo Water Corporation is defending itself against a securities
class action complaint filed in North Carolina, according to the
Company's March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On December 2, 2011, Primo, certain members of its board of
directors, certain members of management, certain shareholders and
company advisors were named as defendants in a purported class-
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.  The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a class of persons who
acquired its common stock in or traceable to its initial public
offering and our secondary offering as well as purchasers of its
common stock between November 4, 2010 and August 10, 2011.  The
complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by, among other things, making misrepresentations about its
projected financial results and business operations in order to
artificially inflate the price of its stock.  The complaint
requests unspecified damages and costs.

The Company does not believe it has merit and plan to vigorously
contest and defend against it.  The Company is insured for
potential losses subject to limits, which it does not expect to
reach.  Additionally, the Company has a $250 deductible related to
this coverage, which has been accrued for estimated litigation-
related expenses, primarily legal costs, and is included in non-
recurring and acquisition-related costs in the Consolidated
Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2011.
The Company is required to indemnify each of the named defendants
that are party to the lawsuit against losses and expenses they
incur in connection with the litigation.

Primo Water Corporation -- http://www.primowater.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, provides three- and five-gallon purified
bottled water, self-serve filtered drinking water, water
dispensers, and carbonating beverage appliances in the United
States and Canada.  As of December 31, 2011, its exchange and
refill services were offered in each of the contiguous United
States and in Canada at approximately 23,600 combined retail
locations.  The Company was founded in 2004 and is headquartered
in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.


REACHLOCAL INC: $0.8MM Class Settlement Gets Court's Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California trial court approved, on a final basis, the
settlement resolving a wage-and-hour class action complaint
against Reachlocal Inc., according to the Company's March 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On March 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by two of the
Company's former employees in California Superior Court in Los
Angeles, California.  The complaint alleged wage and hour
violations in a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and a
California class action.  On December 9, 2011, the Court granted
final approval of a settlement of the class action for $0.8
million, which together with legal costs resulted in a charge of
$0.8 million recorded in fiscal 2010.

Headquartered in Woodland Hills, California, ReachLocal, Inc.
provides a suite of online marketing and reporting solutions to
small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) primarily in the United
States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, India, the
Netherlands, Germany, and Japan.  The company serves clients in
various industry verticals, such as home repair and improvement,
automobile sales and repair, medical and health services, legal
services, and retail and personal services.  It was founded in
2003.


SOUTH DAKOTA: Settles Prison Medication Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Denise DePaolo, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
South Dakota corrections officials and inmates at the women's
prison have reached a settlement in a federal class-action lawsuit
over the dispensing of medications.

The inmates alleged in their complaint that prison officials were
denying inmates mental health medications in violation of their
Constitutional rights under the Eighth and 14th amendments.

The settlement negotiated in mediation prohibits prison officials
from changing, increasing, reducing, or discontinuing the dosage
of any prescription except under the direction of a qualified
physician or other person authorized by law to prescribe
medications.

The settlement was signed last week by Judge Charles Kornmann, who
dismissed the case on April 20.

Under the settlement, state prison officials did not admit to any
violation of prisoners' rights.


STEREOTAXIS INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stereotaxis, Inc., continues to defend itself against a purported
securities class action lawsuit in Missouri, according to the
Company's March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On October 7, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company, one of the Company's current executive
officers and a past executive officer in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri by Kevin Pound, a purported
shareholder of the Company.  The complaint alleges that, during
the period from February 28, 2011 through August 9, 2011, the
Company and certain of its officers made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition
and future business prospects, in violation of sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees and
equitable/injunctive relief.  On December 29, 2011, the court
granted an unopposed motion appointing Local 522 Pension Fund as
lead plaintiff in the action.  The Company has not yet formally
responded to the complaint.  The Company believes the complaint is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.
However, litigation is inherently uncertain and it is too early in
the proceeding to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or to
reasonably estimate possible losses, if any, related thereto.  In
addition, the Company has obligations, under certain
circumstances, to indemnify the individual defendants with respect
to claims asserted against them and otherwise to the fullest
extent permitted under Delaware law and the Company's bylaws and
certificate of incorporation.

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

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, Stereotaxis, Inc. --
http://www.stereotaxis.com//-- designs, manufactures, and markets
cardiology instrument control systems for use in a hospital's
interventional surgical suite or interventional lab for the
treatment of arrhythmias and coronary artery diseases in the
United States and internationally.


TICKETMASTER: Subject to Arkansas State Law, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeannie Nuss, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Tennessee's law on deceptive practices applies to Ticketmaster and
its parent company, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled on April 19,
but the high court stopped of offering an opinion on whether the
company's fees violate the statute.

The court's 4-3 split decision comes after Corey McMillan, an
Arkadelphia man, said he was charged nearly $50 in fees to buy
four tickets to see country music singer Jason Aldean in concert.
Mr. McMillan sued Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and Ticketmaster.

Mr. McMillan's attorneys are seeking class-action status and argue
that Ticketmaster is violating Arkansas' law on deceptive trade
practices.  Attorneys for Ticketmaster, however, argued that the
law did not apply to the company.

Ticketmaster took the case to federal court, where a judge asked
the Arkansas Supreme Court to figure out whether the state law
applies to an entity such as Ticketmaster.

The state's highest court sided with Mr. McMillan, saying the law
"does not exclude exclusive ticket agents."

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Karen R. Baker said
the court "offer(s) no opinion on whether the additional fees or
charges by Ticketmaster violate" the law.

But in a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Jim Hannah said that
the majority did establish Ticketmaster's criminal liability.

"The majority has abandoned its judicial role as the interpreter
of the statue and by ignoring the clear legislative intent has
assumed the legislative role of declaring an act criminal," Judge
Hannah wrote.

Chief Justice Hannah went on to say that the part of the law in
question was intended to control ticket scalping.

"By any analysis, Ticketmaster is not scalping tickets; it is the
seller in the first instance," he wrote.

Associate Justice Robert L. Brown went so far as to call the
majority of the court's conclusion "absurd."

"With today's interpretation by the majority, all first-party
ticket sellers across the State, will be subject to fines for a
criminal violation if they charge fees similar to those charged by
Ticketmaster," Justice Brown wrote in his dissent.  "This absurd
result is not what the General Assembly intended."

Mr. McMillan said that at an advertised price of $42.75 each, the
four concert tickets should have cost $171.  Instead, he paid a
total of $220.60, including the fees.  His attorneys said the
charges included a convenience fee of $9.40 per ticket, a facility
charge of $2 per ticket and a processing fee of $4 on the whole
order.

Chad Pekron, an attorney for Ticketmaster and Live Nation,
declined to comment on April 19.

One of Mr. McMillan's attorneys, Todd Turner, said he's pleased
with the court's ruling.

"Under (Ticketmaster's) theory, they could add a $100 charge if
they wanted to," Mr. Turner said.  "There'd be no limit to what
they could tack on."

Mr. McMillan is not the first person to challenge Ticketmaster
fees.

A pair of men had sued in Los Angeles over fees they were charged
for purchasing tickets to Wilco and Bruce Springsteen concerts.  A
settlement that received preliminary approval from a judge last
year would give customers a $1.50 credit on up to 17 tickets they
purchased between specific dates in 1999 and 2011 that they can
use on future purchases.


TIME WARNER: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Time Warner Cable fails to
pay its workers overtime or give enough breaks, a class claims in
a San Diego county court.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks to Overturn Hybrid Suit Small Claims Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Deutsch, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that lawyers
for American Honda Motor Co. returned to court on April 19 to try
to overturn a highly publicized small claims court award to a
woman who sued over the fuel economy of her hybrid Honda Civic.

Superior Court Judge Dudley W. Gray II was hearing witnesses from
both sides as Honda sought to reverse a court commissioner's award
of $9,867 to Heather Peters, who opted out of a class-action
settlement designed to give some 200,000 owners between $100 and
$200 each, plus a rebate if they buy a new Honda.

Ms. Peters said she might never have brought the case if it wasn't
for the puny amount offered in the class-action suit.

"$200 and a coupon? That was worth fighting," she said.

Her success in small claims court has led some 1,700 other hybrid
owners to follow her example.

Honda called as a key witness Karen Takahashi, service manager at
Honda Hollywood, where Ms. Peters bought her car.

Ms. Takahashi testified she took a Honda hybrid out for a 115-mile
test drive on freeways and streets and was able to achieve 53 to
55 mpg.  She said she is a conservative driver and did not try to
manipulate the car to achieve better mileage.

On cross-examination, Ms. Peters, who is a lawyer, showed photos
of the dashboard of the car that was tested and pointed out that
its battery was fully charged.  Ms. Peters has said her battery
failed early on, received a software update and never again was
fully charged, leaving the car to run almost entirely on gasoline.

Ms. Peters called a former Honda analyst and technical writer,
Jeffrey Holliday of Baltimore, who said he was tasked with testing
Honda hybrids after repeated customer complaints about mileage.
He testified he was never able to duplicate the promised 50 mpg
listed in the brochure for the car.

"I'm an aggressive driver so I made an attempt to drive
conservatively.  It's a great car but I was not able to duplicate
it," he said.

Ms. Peters' husband, Michael Cassadin, testified the car had
performed well when he first met Peters in 2008, but it quickly
deteriorated and a software update made it worse.  He said that
when they left the house on April 19 the dashboard showed the car
was getting 25 mpg.

Later in the day, Ms. Peters testified and presented figures she
said showed Honda knew it had problems with the hybrid cars but
continued to advertise them as a perfect solution to gas price
problems and a way to help the environment.

She told a Honda lawyer that the situation with her car is getting
worse and she now has trouble accelerating up hills.

The lawyer, Roy Brisbois, accused Ms. Peters of causing the
problems by the way she drove the car.  He said she previously had
sportier cars and that when she bought her car to the dealer it
had extreme wear on the outside of the tires.

Ms. Peters said she had been driving very conservatively.

Outside court, Ms. Peters said she had never expected to spend
this much time on her small-claims action when she first went to
court, but she said she's glad the entire issue is being aired.

"My purpose is to hold Honda accountable for false advertising and
to raise awareness."

She said she did not expect that Honda would fight her so
vigorously.

"This raises brand awareness with the public that instead of
trying to make things right, they will fight consumers to the
death," she said.

Mr. Brisbois declined to comment outside court, saying he would
not say anything until after a decision is rendered.

The judge is expected to take the matter under submission Friday
and issue a ruling later.

Ms. Peters' small-claims suit was a unique end run around the
class-action process that she said offered too little to Honda
owners and too much to lawyers.  She urged Honda owners to take
the small-claims route as she did.

Honda's appeal of the small-claims verdict is essentially a
retrial.  According to small-claims rules, it is the last chance
for review of the case and cannot be appealed further.

Unlike the small-claims trial, Honda has legal representation, and
Ms. Peters, who renewed her law license, is presenting new
evidence she has discovered since she received her award.  She
testified in the first part of the hearing on April 20 with
lawyers for Honda questioning her.

A judge has valued the class-action settlement at $170 million.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs have pegged the value between $87.5
million and $461.3 million, depending largely on how many people
accept rebates of up to $1,500.

The judge approved more than $8 million in plaintiff attorneys'
fees in his 43-page ruling.


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Summary Judgment Bid in Royalties Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Morris, writing for Variety, reports that a federal
judge has denied Universal Music Group's motion for a summary
judgment in a pair of class action suits over digital royalties
filed by the Rick James estate, Rob Zombie and his band White
Zombie, Whitesnake and Dave Mason.

On April 19, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston, who is
presiding in San Francisco, vacated a scheduled April 20 hearing
and denied UMG's motion to toss the case.  The suits will now
likely move to trial; attorneys for the plaintiffs plan to move
for class certification on all counts.

Last April, the James estate filed its class action against UMG,
alleging that the company has wrongfully computed royalties for
digital downloads and ringtones as sales, rather than as licenses.
The suit by Zombie and the other plaintiffs was filed in May.
More than a dozen such actions have been filed to date.

Suits spring from a September 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
decision in a case filed by F.B.T. Productions, which handled
Eminem in the early days of his career, against UMG imprint
Aftermath.  The appellate court ruled that digital royalties
should be computed as licenses.

The damages phase in that case, which had been scheduled to begin
in Los Angeles April 24, was moved back earlier last week; a
hearing in the case is now set for mid-June.


WCA WASTE: Negotiates Settlement to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
WCA Waste Corporation entered into a tentative settlement to
resolve class action complaints relating to its merger deal with
Cod Intermediate, LLC, et al., according to the Company's March
15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 29, 2011, a putative stockholder class action
complaint related to the Agreement and Plan of Merger Agreement,
dated as of December 21, 2011, by and among Cod Intermediate, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, indirectly owned by
Macquarie Infrastructure Partners II U.S., L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership ("MIP II US") and Macquarie Infrastructure
Partners II International, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
("MIP II International" and, together with MIP II US, the
"Investor Group"), Cod Merger Company, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cod Intermediate, LLC
and the Company, as amended from time to time (the "Merger
Agreement"), was filed by Tammy Newman, a purported stockholder of
WCA, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas.  The plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on February 3, 2012.  The complaint, as
amended alleges that Board of Directors of WCA, WCA, MIP II US and
MIP II International violated applicable law by breaching and/or
aiding and abetting the other defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, candor, independence, good
faith and fair dealing.  Among other remedies sought, the lawsuit
seeks to enjoin the proposed merger, unless and until the Company
adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain a merger
agreement providing the highest possible value for stockholders
and discloses all material information to stockholders about the
merger.

On February 15, 2012, another putative stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
styled Graham v. WCA Waste Corp., et al., No. 2012-09500. In that
suit, the plaintiff purports to assert similar claims against, and
seek similar relief with respect to, the same defendants as in the
Newman Action.

The Company anticipates that the Graham Action will be
consolidated with the Newman Action.

On February 14, 2012, the Company and the other parties to the
Newman and the Graham Actions reached a settlement in principle,
which provides for the dismissal with prejudice of the Newman
Action and the Graham Action and a release of the defendants by a
shareholder class from all present and future claims asserted in
the Newman Action or the Graham Action (or otherwise relating to
the Merger) in exchange for, among other things, supplemental
disclosure.   In addition, as part of the settlement in principle,
the Company (or its insurers or successors) has agreed to pay an
amount not to exceed $350, or such lesser amount as the Court may
award, to plaintiffs' counsel for their fees and expenses.  The
proposed settlement is subject to further definitive documentation
and to a number of conditions, including, without limitation, the
completion of certain reasonable discovery by the plaintiffs and
court approval of the proposed settlement.   There is no assurance
these conditions will be satisfied.

The Company says the settlement will not affect the merger
consideration to be paid to its stockholders in connection with
the proposed merger.

WCA Waste Corporation is a vertically integrated, non-hazardous
solid waste management company providing non-hazardous solid waste
collection, transfer, processing, and disposal services in the
United States.  As of December 31, 2011, the Company owned and/or
operated 25 landfills, 29 collection operations and 29 transfer
stations/materials recovery facilities (MRFs).


WILMINGTON TRUST: Delaware Court Consolidates 2 ERISA Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sue Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware opined that the consolidation of these two ERISA lawsuits
is appropriate -- Karen Outten and James Bradford, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wilmington Trust
Corporation, et al. and Julie Gray, on behalf of herself and a
class of persons similarly situated v. Wilmington Trust
Corporation, et al., Civ Nos. 10-1114-SLR, 11-00101-SLR (Del.).

The lawsuits were filed in December 2010 and January 2011.
Plaintiffs Outten and Gray, participants of the Wilmington Trust
Company Thrift Savings Plan, allege in their respective complaints
that the Wilmington Trust fiduciaries failed to act solely in the
interest of Plan participants and beneficiaries, thereby breaching
their fiduciary duties during the time period of December 31, 2006
to December 31, 2010.

Furthermore, Judge Robinson found that Plaintiff Gray's proposed
leadership structure is better suited to represent the interests
of the class and thus approved the proposal.  Plaintiff Gray moved
for the appointment of Stull, Stull & Brodyand the Egleston Law
Firm as interim co-lead ERISA counsel and the Law Offices of
Joseph J. Bodnar as interim liaison counsel.

A copy of the Delaware Court's March 15, 2012 memorandum opinion
is available at http://is.gd/ryF2qrfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiff Karen Outten and James Bradford are:

          James P. McEvilly, III, Esq.
          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Sandra G. Smith, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Rd. Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Tel No: 302 482 3182 (for McEvilly)
                  215 277 5770 (for Wells/Smith)
          Fax No: 302 482 3612 (for McEvilly)
          E-mail: jmcevilly@faruqilaw.com
                  jwells@faruqilaw.com
                  ssmith@faruqilaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Julie Gray are:

          Joseph J. Bodnar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH J. BODNAR
          P.O. Box 1022
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Tel No: 302 445 4572
        | Fax No: 302 397 2039
          E-mail: JBODNAR@BODNARLAW.NET

                -- and --

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 E 45th St Ste 500
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel No: (212) 687-7230
          Fax No: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: emills@ssbny.com

               -- and --

          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          EGLESTON LAW FIRM
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel No: (212) 683-3400
          Fax No: (212) 683-3402
          E-mail: egleston@gme-law.com

Counsel for Defendants are:

          Robert Scott Saunders, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
          One Rodney Square
          P.O. Box 636
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Tel No: (302)651 3170
          E-mail: rob.saunders@skadden.com

                -- and --

          Julia E. Zukerman, Esq.
          Michael J. Prame, Esq.
          Sarah A. Zumwalt, Esq.
          Thomas S. Gigot, Esq.
          GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
          1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006-5811
          Tel No: 202-861-6605 (for Zuckerman)
                  202-861-6633 (for Prame)
                  202-861-5432 (for Zumwalt)
                  202-861-6624 (for Gigot)
          E-mail: jzuckerman@groom.com
                  mprame@groom.com
                  szumwalt@groom.com
                  tgigot@groom.com


WILSHIRE BANCORP: Suit Over False Financial Statements Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California federal court ordered in early March the final
dismissal of a class action complaint against Wilshire Bancorp,
Inc. alleging false financial statements, according to the
Company's March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On March 29, 2011, Wilshire Bancorp Inc., its former Chief
Executive Officer, and its current Chief Financial Officer were
named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in
a case entitled Michael Fairservice v. Wilshire Bancorp, Inc. et
al.  The complaint arises out of the Company's announcement that
it had concluded an internal investigation in connection with the
activities of its former senior marketing officer and implemented
remedial procedures in response to that investigation.  The
internal investigation was conducted by the Company's audit
committee with the assistance of outside independent professional
firms and the Company's internal audit department, and was
undertaken following questions from the FDIC regarding the loan
files originated by that marketing officer and after the execution
of a search warrant related to loan files involving the former
officer, as well as to address activities of the former officer
that had previously come to the attention of management.  The
scope of the Company's internal investigation focused on loan-
related and other business activities of the former senior
marketing officer.  As part of its investigation, management
discovered a deficiency in the operating effectiveness of loan
underwriting, approval, and renewal processes for those loan
originations and asset sales associated with the former officer.
Specifically, these processes lacked effective supervision and
oversight by the Company's former Chief Executive Officer.  The
Company's former Chief Executive Officer, who was responsible for
overseeing these matters, resigned following the reporting of
these activities to the Company's Board of Directors.

The purported class action complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that Wilshire Bancorp had deficiencies in its
underwriting, origination, and renewal processes and procedures;
was not adhering to its underwriting policies; lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and, as a result, its financial
statements were materially false and misleading. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, among other remedies.  Wilshire
Bancorp and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint, which were granted on February 8, 2012.  In connection
with the granting of the motions to dismiss, the judge provided
the plaintiffs with leave to file an amended complaint on or
before February 29, 2012.  Because the plaintiffs did not file an
amended complaint within the specified time period, the judge by
minute order, dated March 5, 2012, dismissed the class action
lawsuit.

Wilshire Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.wilshirebank.com/-- operates
as the holding company for Wilshire State Bank that offers a range
of financial products and services.  The company was founded in
1980 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


                           *********

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  * * *