CAR_Public/120502.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 2, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 86

                             Headlines

ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Denial of Lebanon City Claim Upheld
BAPTIST HOSPITAL: Certification of Class II in Fla. Suit Reversed
BLOCKBUSTER: Settles Video Privacy Class Action
BP P.L.C.: Obtains Dismissal of Consolidated ERISA Suit in Texas

CANADA: Civil Service Retirees Give Up on Class Action
CENTRO: CBA Says Actions in 2007 Refinancing Deplorable
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
CITY PACIFIC: Faces AUD60 Million Investor Class Action
COINSTAR INC: Gets Preliminary OK of Settlement in Securities Suit

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN: Chester Class Action Certified
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Fails to Get Stay of Remand Order in Ala. Suit
EBAY INC: Judge Dismisses Fraud Claims in Class Action
FIRST AMERICAN: Judge Certifies Property Appraisal Class Action
GROUPON INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action

HONDA OF NORTH HOLLYWOOD: Judgment on Medrazo's UCL Claim Reversed
HOUDINI'S MAGIC: App. Ct. Affirms Denial of Class in Employee Suit
IMAX CORP: Ontario Court Certifies Securities Class Action
LINEBARGER GOOGAN: Trial Court Rejects Interlocutory Appeal Motion
LONG BEACH: App. Ct. Alters Denial of 4 Claims in Tax Refund Suit

LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Order on 3 Charges in Tax Refud Suit Reversed
MECHEL OAO: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Dismissed as Defendant in "Collins" Lawsuit
NBTY INC: N.Y. Trial Court Denies Dismissal of Securities Suit
OZZIE JUROCK: B.C. Court Certifies Second Class Action

PFIZER INC: N.Y. Court Certifies Celebrex-Related Class Action
QIAO XING: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
RALPHS GROCERY: App. Ct. Upholds Denial of Class Action Waiver
REDDY ICE: May 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
RITE AID: Class Certification Denial of Wage-and-Hour Suit Altered

RITE AID: Penn. Court Alters Dismissal of Breach of Contract Suit
TENNESSEE: HCMC Set to Get Medicare Settlement Payment
UNITED STATES: Border Patrol Sued Over Suspicionless Stops

* Michigan Credit Unions Settle Class Actions Over ATM Signs


                          *********

ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 26 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
purchasers of Accretive Health, Inc. common stock during the
period between March 2, 2011 and April 24, 2012.

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

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/accretive/

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

The complaint charges Accretive Health and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Accretive Health provides revenue cycle management services
for hospitals and healthcare providers in the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects.  Specifically, the Company
failed to disclose that it was violating health privacy laws,
state debt collection laws and state consumer protection laws.  As
a result of defendants' false statements, Accretive Health's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $30.80 per share on August 1, 2011.

On March 29, 2012, Accretive Health announced that in response to
a lawsuit filed by Minnesota's Attorney General, the Company had
agreed to no longer collect debts on behalf of Fairview Health
Services and would transition management of those operations to
Fairview.  Accretive Health further announced that it expected
this change to negatively impact its fiscal year 2012 revenue by
$62 million to $68 million.  Then, on April 24, 2012, the
Minnesota Attorney General released a report which highlighted
aggressive practices used by Accretive Health, including demanding
payment from people seeking care in emergency rooms, cancer wards
and delivery rooms.  As a result of this news, Accretive Health's
stock plummeted $7.63 per share to close at $10.86 per share on
April 25, 2012, a one-day decline of 41%.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company was violating
privacy standards under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act and the Health Information Technology for
Economic and Clinical Health Act by, among other things, (i)
failing to provide appropriate safeguards to prevent the misuse or
disclosure of protected health information; (ii) failing to keep
all protected health information strictly confidential; and (iii)
failing to develop, implement, maintain and use appropriate
technical and physical safeguards to preserve the integrity,
confidentiality and availability of protected health information
and to prevent non-permitted use or disclosure of the information;
(b) the Company failed to encrypt protected patient health
information; (c) the Company was violating the terms of its
contract with Fairview by failing to limit access of protected
health information to the persons or classes of persons in its
workforce who needed access to it in order to carry out their
duties; (d) the Company was violating Minnesota state debt
collection laws by, among other things, failing to provide
patients with required disclosures identifying itself as a debt
collection agency; (e) the Company was violating Minnesota
consumer protection laws by, among other things, failing to
disclose to patients the extent of the Company's access to data
and the manner in which it utilizes such data; and (f) the effect
the Company's violations of health privacy laws, state debt
collection laws and state consumer protection laws would have on
its future earnings and on its relationship with Fairview.

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

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents defrauded
investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human
rights violations.  It is a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San
Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C.,
Philadelphia and Atlanta,


ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Denial of Lebanon City Claim Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Four,
affirmed a trial court order denying the city of Lebanon,
Missouri's challenge to the rejection of its claim to be included
in a settlement class by Defendant Alltel Communications, LLC.

The appeal arises from a class action lawsuit filed by the City of
University City and a class of Missouri municipalities against
several telecommunications, alleging that the Defendants were
liable to the municipalities under their respective ordinances for
taxes on revenues derived from providing commercial mobile radio
services; for maintaining antennas or other facilities; for flat
taxes with respect to providing such services; and for interest
and/or penalties on any such taxes not timely paid.  The parties
subsequently reached a settlement.

The class action is captioned CITY OF UNIVERSITY CITY, et al.,
Appellants, v. AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, et al., Respondents, Case
No. ED 96940 (Miss. App. Ct.)

"The trial court properly interpreted Section 26.8 [of the Code of
Laws of the City of Lebanon] as imposing a fee on
telecommunications companies that did not qualify City for
inclusion in the settlement class," Chief Judge Kurt S. Odenwald,
who penned the appeals court decision, related.

The appeals court decision is concurred by Judges Patricia L.
Cohen and Robert M. Clayton.

A copy of the Appeals Court's March 27, 2012 decision is available
for free at http://is.gd/R71t5Afrom Leagle.com.


BAPTIST HOSPITAL: Certification of Class II in Fla. Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baptist Hospital, Inc. appealed a trial court order certifying two
classes in a class action lawsuit challenging the liens imposed by
BHI under Escambia County's hospital lien law for services
rendered at BHI's satellite facilities in Santa Rosa County.

BHI argued, and the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First
District agreed, that the trial court abused its discretion in
certifying Class II because the representative for that class,
Appellee Marco Demello, lacks standing and because the trial
court's order is facially inconsistent as to whether Mr. Demello
meets the typicality requirement for the class.

Accordingly, in an April 9, 2012 Opinion, the Appeals Court
reversed the certification of Class II but affirmed the
certification of Class I and the designation of Appellee Marc
Baker as representative of that class without further comment.

The appeals case is captioned BAPTIST HOSPITAL, INC., Appellant,
v. MARC BAKER AND MARCO DEMELLO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Appellees, Case No. 1D11-5236 (Fla.
App. Ct.)

A copy of the Appeals Court's April 9 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/lbqRpmfrom Leagle.com.

J. Nixon Daniel, III -- JND@beggslane.com -- and Jack W. Lurton --
JWL@beggslane.com -- of BEGGS & LANE, RLLP, represent Appellant
Baptist Hotel.

Bobby J. Bradford and R. Jason Richards of AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS
& OVERHOLTZ, PLLC, represent Appellees Baker and Demello.


BLOCKBUSTER: Settles Video Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Blockbuster has
agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing it of violating
federal video privacy laws by retaining information about
consumers' movie rentals, court records show.

Blockbuster and the consumer who sued, Minnesota resident Baseem
Missaghi, quietly filed papers earlier last month stating that
they had "agreed on the principal terms" of a settlement.

Blockbuster and Mr. Missaghi said in the papers that they were
still finalizing the deal, but expect to file the agreement with
the U.S. District Court in Minnesota by early June.

If the settlement goes through, it will resolve a lawsuit dating
to last September, when Mr. Missaghi alleged that Blockbuster
unlawfully kept "a virtual digital dossier on millions of
consumers nationwide."

He alleged that Blockbuster's records "contain not only its
customers' credit card numbers and billing/contact information,
but also a highly detailed account of their video viewing
histories and preferences."

Mr. Missaghi argued that the data retention violates the Video
Privacy Protection Act, a law passed in 1988 after a newspaper in
Washington printed the video rental records of Supreme Court
nominee Robert Bork.  The law prohibits movie rental services from
disclosing information about the movies people watch without their
consent.

The act also requires movie rental companies to destroy personally
identifiable information as soon as it is no longer needed.

Blockbuster isn't the only company that was accused recently of
violating the Video Privacy Protection Act.  Netflix, Hulu and
Redbox all have been sued for allegedly violating the same law.

Netflix agreed to a $9 million settlement of the matter in
February, though the details still haven't been made public.

But Hulu and Redbox are fighting the cases.  Redbox recently
convinced the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that consumers have no
right to sue for violations of the portion of the video privacy
law that deals with retaining records, as opposed to disclosing
them.  But the lawsuit against Redbox is continuing because the
consumers who are suing also allege that the company broke other
laws.

The lawsuit against online video company Hulu accuses it of
working with the analytics company KISSmetrics, which allegedly
used "supercookies" to track people.  Hulu is arguing that the
federal video privacy law only applies to brick-and-mortar rental
stores.

Blockbuster previously was sued for allegedly violating the same
law by participating in Facebook's defunct Beacon program, which
told users about their friends' activity at ecommerce sites.

That lawsuit eventually got rolled into the Beacon class-action
litigation, which Facebook agreed to settle for $9.5 million.


BP P.L.C.: Obtains Dismissal of Consolidated ERISA Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Keith P. Ellison dismissed a consolidated class
action complaint against BP P.L.C. arising out of the BP-operated
Deepwater Horizon rig catastrophe and brought pursuant to the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act.  BP is a large producer
of offshore oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico.

The case is captioned In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, In re
BP p.l.c. ERISA Litigation, Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-4214 (S.D.
Tex.)  Plaintiffs are nine individual participants and
beneficiaries of four BP employee investment and savings plan
regulated by ERISA, who purport to represent all persons that held
units of BP Stock Fund within the January 16, 2007 through June
24, 2010 period.  They allege that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by continuing to offer BP stock as an investment
option to Plan participants even as the Defendants knew that BP
stock was not a suitable investment.

Judge Ellison found that the Complaint fails (i) to point to
material, non-public facts known to Defendants; and (ii) to allege
facts sufficient to call into question the ongoing viability of
BP.  The Plaintiffs also failed to adequately allege that
Defendants made misrepresentations while acting in a fiduciary
capacity, the Court said.

A copy of the District Court's March 30, 2012 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/ZYPXx4from Leagle.com.


CANADA: Civil Service Retirees Give Up on Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Derek Spalding, writing for Times Colonist, reports that about
27,000 retirees from the provincial civil service have given up on
a lengthy class action lawsuit to recover millions of dollars paid
into medical insurance premiums.

The retirees felt the provincial government owed them C$90 million
for reducing their premiums for Medical Services Plan benefits and
Extended Health Care benefits.

The provincial government in 2002 decided to stop paying 100 per
cent of employee premiums, which the retirees argued constituted a
breach of contract.

The B.C. Supreme Court in 2005 approved a class-action lawsuit,
launched by Frederick Bennett.  At trial, however, the courts
ruled that the government was under no contractual obligation to
pay out the benefits.

The retirees appealed and were in court until June 2011. The Court
of Appeal upheld the original ruling last month.

Government workers across the country can expect to see more of
these type of cutbacks, said lawyer Albert Peeling, who had been
arguing the case for the retirees.

"Pensions everywhere are under siege," he said.  "It's tough for
the people who thought they were promised this and planned their
retirement a certain way."

Mr. Bennett and his 27,000 retirees could have sought approval for
an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but have decided against
it.

"There's not much left to do," said Sarjit Manhas, president of
the B.C. Government Retired Employees Association, the group that
first approached Mr. Peeling with their case.  "This has been a
long process."

Mr. Peeling said the retirees, many of them now between 75 and 85,
still feel robbed of what they thought was part of their
employment terms.

The province argued in court that it had no obligation under a
collective agreement or legislation to pay the premiums.


CENTRO: CBA Says Actions in 2007 Refinancing Deplorable
-------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that the
behavior of Centro's management in negotiating the refinancing of
the company's AUD5 billion short-term debt during 2007 was
"deplorable", according to the nation's largest bank, Commonwealth
Bank.

The revelation in the class action trial into the company's 2007
near-collapse came as former Centro chairman Brian Healey took to
the stand.

Under cross examination, Mr. Healey was presented with a letter
sent to him on December 17 of that year -- the same day Centro
revealed its refinancing problems but not its accounting errors --
from Craig Williams of CBA that expressed the bank's profound
concerns over the management's "fundamental lack of disclosure of
liquidity issues".

The letter, drafted while Centro was in the thrust of negotiating
a standstill agreement with its five key Australian lenders, was
also sent to then CBA chief executive Ralph Norris and then CBA
executive Stuart Grimshaw, who is now head of the Bank of
Queensland.

In the letter, CBA said Centro had "excluded CBA from discussions
with other banks" in relation to extensions on facilities and new
tranches of debt.

"We find Centro's actions deplorable," the letter to Mr. Healey
read.

CBA also told Mr. Healey in the letter that over several months it
had tried to impress upon management the bank's intent to reduce
its overall exposure to Centro, which was more than AUD1 billion.
Mr. Healey said that at no point before receiving the letter was
he told by former Centro chief executive Andrew Scott or former
chief financial officer Romano Nenna that the relationship had
soured to such an extent.

When asked how he felt on receiving the letter, Mr. Healey told
the court: "I was very disappointed."

Within weeks, Mr. Scott and Mr. Nenna were stood down from their
positions and the company informed the market that billions in
short-term debt that was not previously disclosed might not be
refinanced.

Hundreds of shareholders have joined two separate class actions
into the company's near-collapse.  The shareholders allege that
millions of dollars in investor value were wiped out after the
market learnt of mistakes in the company's accounts and its
refinancing issues.

The case continues.  Former Centro auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers
has also been joined to the claim and has recently admitted it
failed in its duty to Centro when preparing the error-riddled
accounts.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action (5:12-cv-00465-W) in the United States
District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, on behalf of all
persons who purchased Chesapeake Energy Corporation common stock
between April 30, 2009 and April 17, 2012, inclusive.  This class
action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board Aubrey K. McClendon.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Chesapeake common stock
during the Class Period, you have until June 25, 2012 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

Chesapeake was co-founded by Defendant McClendon in 1989.  The
Company is a leading natural gas producer, and has very
aggressively promoted the use of fracking to extract previously
unrecoverable reserves.

While Ms. McClendon currently owns roughly 1.35 million shares of
Chesapeake stock (presently worth approximately $24 million), this
interest is dwarfed by Ms. McClendon's share of Chesapeake's oil
and gas wells pursuant to the Company's Founders Well
Participation Program (the "FWPP").  Under that program, McClendon
has the right to purchase 2 1/2% interest in each well drilled by
Chesapeake, must pay a proportionate share of related costs, and
is entitled to a proportionate share of revenues generated
therefrom.

Ms. McClendon has participated aggressively in this program, and
amassed interests currently valued over $300 million.  However,
because of large up front development and operating costs,
McClendon's FWPP interests are significantly underwater and have
yet to generate any positive cash flow.

Unbeknowst to Class members, starting in 2009, Ms. McClendon
leveraged all of his FWPP interests in order to pay up front
development costs.  He not only secured loans on his ownership
interests in the wells, but also sold off revenue "participation
rights" in the wells.  Ms. McClendon also secured a personal loan
in excess of $500 million from EIG Global Energy Partners, a hedge
fund that engaged in financing transactions with Chesapeake.

As a result, by year end 2011, Ms. McClendon had amassed personal
debt on Chesapeake related wells, and from Chesapeake business
partners, exceeding $1 billion.  The size of the debt, and Ms.
McClendon's leveraging of all his FWPP related interests,
represented material undisclosed risks to Chesapeake investors.

It was not until April 18, 2012 that these previously undisclosed
details were widely disclosed by investigative reports published
by Reuters and The Wall Street Journal.  Chesapeake shares
plummeted $1.06 (from $19.12 per share) -- a 5.5% decline
representing over $500 million in market value losses.

On April 26, 2012, Chesapeake abruptly terminated the FWPP
program, while Board members disclaimed any knowledge of the size
of Ms. McClendon's indebtedness.  Chesapeake shares are now
selling at less than $18.00 per share.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  The firm represents victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  It has
offices in New York and Chicago.


CITY PACIFIC: Faces AUD60 Million Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Klan, writing for The Australian, reports that five former
directors of failed Gold Coast financier City Pacific, including
founder and former managing director Phil Sullivan, are facing a
$60 million class action brought on behalf of about 11,000
investors.

Trilogy Funds Management, the current managers of the First
Mortgage Fund -- which had raised about AUD1 billion from
predominantly retiree investors when it was under the control of
City Pacific -- is pursuing compensation after significant losses
were incurred on loans to two property developers between 2006 and
2009.

The other former City Pacific directors named in the action are
Stephen McCormick, Ian Donaldson, Thomas Swan and Peter Trathen.

The listed City Pacific raised about AUD1 billion from investors,
many of which believed they were investing in a low-risk
investment.

The loans involved were to Gold Coast developer Bullish Bear
Holdings -- now collapsed -- and developer Atkinson Gore
Agricultural, which was headed by former Gold Coast developer
Craig Gore, who now claims to be bankrupt.


COINSTAR INC: Gets Preliminary OK of Settlement in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington on April 9, 2012, granted
preliminary approval to a $6 million cash settlement, plus
interest, in the class action In re Coinstar Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
C11-133 MJP.

The settlement resolves claims against Coinstar, Inc., Paul Davis,
and J. Scott Di Valerio.

The Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island, as
lead plaintiff, on behalf of the class, alleges that Defendants
made material misstatements and omissions in connection with
Coinstar's publicly released revenue and earnings guidance for the
fourth quarter of 2010 as well as the impact in the fourth quarter
2010 from agreements with certain studios to delay new release
movies to Coinstar for 28 days from their release through other
outlets, seasonality, slow Blue-ray DVD sales, and the weak slate
of fourth quarter 2010 titles, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and that this had the effect of
artificially inflating the price of Coinstar's common stock.

If one has purchased the common stock of Coinstar from October 29,
2010 to February 3, 2011, inclusive, and were allegedly damaged
thereby, he/she may be eligible to recover if a Proof of Claim and
Release form with supporting documents is submitted by August 21,
2012.

A settlement hearing will be held on August 10, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.
before Judge Pechman in the United States Courthouse, United
States District Court, Western District of Washington, 700 Stewart
Street, Suite 14229, Seattle, WA 98101.  The deadline for
objecting to the settlement or for seeking exclusion from the
class is July 20, 2012.

A copy of the Court's April 9, 2012 order is available at
http://is.gd/cMPVqffrom Leagle.com.

Lead Plaintiff and the class are represented by:

          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
          Nicole M. Zeiss, Esq.
          Serena Hallowell, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel No: 212-907-0700
          E-mail: mgoldman@labaton.com
                  jgardner@labaton.com
                  nzeiss@labaton.com
                  shallowel@labaton.com

               - and -

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Tel No: (800) 721-3900
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

Defendants are represented by:

          Barry M Kaplan, Esq.
          Emily S. Schlesinger, Esq.
          Gregory Lewis Watts, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI (WA),
          704 Fifth Avenue
          Suite 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          E-mail: bkaplan@wsgr.com
                  eschlesinger@wsgr.com
                  gwatts@wsgr.com


COMMONWEALTH OF PENN: Chester Class Action Certified
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge certified a
class and two separate subclasses in a state-funding fight for
Chester Upland School District, where at least one-fifth of the
students allegedly have disabilities.

A copy of the Memorandum Re: Class Certification in Chester Upland
School District, et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-00132 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/27/chesterupland.pdf


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Fails to Get Stay of Remand Order in Ala. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge W. Keith Watkins of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama denied Countrywide Home Loans'
motion to stay a remand order in a class action in favour of
plaintiff Celestine Thomas.

Countrywide sought a stay of the remand (i) to require Ms. Thomas
to file a stipulation on behalf of all putative class members that
no individual class member would seek or accept damages in excess
of $75,000, or (ii) in the alternative, require a stipulation from
class members currently represented by counsel for plaintiff.

"Countrywide has not submitted evidence from which it can be found
that the fees of the putative class members come close to
exceeding $75,000, or that another basis exists by which to value
the claims," the District Court stated in an April 10, 2012
Memorandum Opinion and Order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/j1nMBpfrom Leagle.com.

The action is remanded to the Circuit Court of Macon County,
Alabama, Judge Watkins ordered.

The case is captioned CELESTINE THOMAS, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly Alabama residents, Plaintiff, v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, Defendant, Case No. 3:11-CV-399-WKW (Ala.
M.D.)

Celestine Thomas is represented by:

          Charles Lance Gould, Esq.
          William Henry Robertson, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROWN METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL
          E-mail: lance_gould@beasleyallen.com
                  bill_robertson@beasleyallen.com

Countrywide Home is represented by:

          John Robert Chiles, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN LLP
          Las Olas Center II
          350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 850
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel No: (954) 414-6200
          E-mail: jchiles@burr.com

               - and -

          Matthew Thomas Mitchell, Esq.
          Zachary David Miller, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN LLP
          420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Tel No: (205) 251-3000
          E-mail: mmitchel@burr.com
                  zachary.miller@burr.com


EBAY INC: Judge Dismisses Fraud Claims in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed most of a class action alleging that eBay should
not have applied a new charge every month that it renewed listings
for products posted by sellers.

EBay introduced the Good 'Til Canceled feature in September 2008,
a policy that automatically renewed an unsold product listing
unless the seller canceled the post or sold the item.  But every
month that eBay renewed the listing, it charged a 35 cent
"insertion" fee, and recharged for any of the extras that the
seller initially chose when posting the item.

Lead plaintiff Richard Noll sued eBay in September 2011 claiming
that Web site did not make these recurring fees known when sellers
signed up.

Rather, it allegedly advertised the Good 'Til Canceled feature at
"no extra cost."

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila on April 23 tossed Mr. Noll's
claims for fraud, unfair competition, false advertising and
consumer legal remedies.

The judge declined, however, to dismiss Mr. Noll's claims for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment.

At this stage, it is still unclear whether eBay incorporated its
2008 listing update into sellers' contracts, according to the
decision.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss in Noll v. eBay, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11-cv-04585 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/27/511-cv-04585.pdf


FIRST AMERICAN: Judge Certifies Property Appraisal Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge certified a
class that claims First American eAppraiseIT inflated property
appraisals to benefit mortgage lenders.

A copy of the Order Granting Motion for Class Certification and
Setting Case Management Conference in Spears, et al. v. First
American eAppraiseIT (a/k/a eAprraiseIT, LLC), Case No. 08-cv-
00868 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/27/eappraiseit.pdf


GROUPON INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of all investors who purchased Groupon, Inc. common stock
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO") on November 4, 2011 and all
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period between
November 4, 2011 and March 30, 2012.

On March 30, 2012, Groupon disclosed a "material weakness" in its
internal control and announced that it was restating its financial
results for the fourth quarter of 2011 because the Company had
underestimated the amount of money it was required to set aside
for customer refunds.  The previously undisclosed accounting
restatement increased the Company's losses in the fourth quarter
to $64.9 million, from $42.3 million.  In reaction to the negative
news, Groupon's share price declined nearly 17% from $18.38 per
share to $15.28 per share, well below its recent IPO price of
$20.00 per share and its trading high of over $31 per share.

The Complaint alleges that Groupon's Offering Documents issued in
connection with the Company's IPO were false and/or misleading as
they failed to disclose material adverse facts about the adequacy
of the Company's internal financial controls and the Company's
financial results and accounting.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased Groupon stock between November 4, 2011 and March
30, 2012, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Marc Grobler at
Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Groupon shares in the Company's IPO and/or
between November 4, 2011 and March 30, 2012, inclusive, and wish
to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your
behalf must be filed with the Court no later than June 4, 2012.
You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding
the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton and Boston,
specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class
actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.  Currently
serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions
nationwide.

Contact: Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
         Marc Grobler, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 394-3399
         E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                mgrobler@saxenawhite.com
         Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


HONDA OF NORTH HOLLYWOOD: Judgment on Medrazo's UCL Claim Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Audrey Medrazo, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against defendant
Honda of North Hollywood (HNH) asserting claims under the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA),
based upon HNH's alleged violations of Vehicle Code sections
11712.5 and 24014.  She alleged that HNH's sale of motorcycles
without hanger tags that disclosed the dealer-added charges for
freight and destination was an unlawful business practice.

Under her second appeal, Ms. Medrazo challenged the trial court's
granting of HNH's motion for judgment, which was filed after Ms.
Medrazo completed her presentation of evidence at trial.  The
trial court found that Ms. Medrazo failed to establish that she,
or any other class member, was injured by HNH's conduct, and
therefore HNH was entitled to judgment on the UCL and CLRA claims.

In a March 27, 2012 decision, the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, reversed the judgment as to the UCL claim.  The
Appeals Court opined that the undisputed evidence before the trial
court was sufficient to establish that Ms. Medrazo "has suffered
injury in fact and has lost money . . . as a result of the
[alleged] unfair competition," (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17204.)
Thus, Medrazo has standing to bring a lawsuit on her own behalf
and as a representative action, said Associate Justice Thomas L.
Willhite, Jr., who penned the Appeals Court decision.

The Appeals Court however affirmed the judgment as to the CLRA
claim on the ground that Ms. Medrazo forfeited any issue regarding
that claim by failing to adequately address it in her briefs on
appeal.

Justices Norman L. Epstein and Steven C. Suzukawa concurred with
the decision.

The case is captioned AUDREY MEDRAZO, et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. HONDA OF NORTH HOLLYWOOD, Defendant and Respondent,
Case No. B230410 (Calif. App. Ct.)

A copy of the Appeals Court's March 27, 2012 decision is available
at http://is.gd/wJCDFJfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants are:

          Steven A. Simons, Esg.
          STEVEN A. SIMONS ATTORNEY
          15315 Magnolia Blvd. Ste 308
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Tel No: 818-368-9642

                - and -

          Eric M. Kapigian, Esq.
          William M. Krieg, Esq.
          KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG
          2014 Tulare S treet
          Fresno, CA 93721
          Tel No: (559) 441-7485

Counsel for the Defendant and Respondent are:

          Richard D. Buckley, Jr., Esq.
          Aaron H. Jacoby, Esq.
          ARENT FOX LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Tel No: (213) 443-7569 (for Buckley)
                  (213) 443-7530 (for Jacoby)
          E-mail: buckley.richard@arentfox
                  jacoby.aaron@arentfox.com


HOUDINI'S MAGIC: App. Ct. Affirms Denial of Class in Employee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, upheld a trial
court's denial of class certification of an employee class action
lawsuit against Houdini's Magic Shop, Inc.

The Appellate Court agrees with the trial court that evidence
before the court clearly shows that individual questions of proof
predominate.

The lawsuit was commenced by Brett Wagner against his former
employee, Houdini's.  He alleged four causes of action based on
allegations non-payment of wages and failure to provide 10-minute
rest breaks in a rest area separate from toilet rooms.  He also
moved to certify three classes of current and former employees.

The case is captioned BRETT WAGNER, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. HOUDINI'S MAGIC SHOP, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case
No. A132251 (Calif. App. Ct.)

A copy of the Appellate Court's March 28, 2012 decision is
available at http://is.gd/l10UF5from Leagle.com.


IMAX CORP: Ontario Court Certifies Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP and Sutts, Strosberg, LLP on April 27 issued a notice
of Certification of the IMAX Corporation class action.

     Authorized by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION OF THE IMAX CORPORATION CLASS ACTION
Read this notice carefully as it may affect your legal rights.

                         THE CLASS ACTION

This notice is directed to all persons, other than certain persons
associated with the defendants, who acquired securities of Imax
Corporation in the period from and including the opening of
trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ on February
17, 2006 to and including the close of trading on the Toronto
Stock Exchange and NASDAQ on August 9, 2006 and who held some or
all of those securities at the close of trading on August 9, 2006.

                     THE CERTIFICATION ORDER

On December 14, 2009, Justice van Rensburg of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice certified the action Silver et al. v. Imax
Corporation et al., court file no. CV-06-3257-00 (the "Ontario
Action") as a class proceeding, and appointed Marvin Neil Silver
and Cliff Cohen as the representative plaintiffs.

Certification means that the Ontario Action may proceed to trial
as a class action involving, among other things, claims for
damages for misrepresentation and conspiracy relating to Imax's
fiscal 2005 financial results.

Certification is a preliminary procedural matter and does not
involve any finding by the court that the claims, or the
allegations of fact on which they are based, have any validity.
The defendants deny that the claims have merit.

                            LEGAL FEES

The plaintiffs and Class Counsel signed a fee agreement providing
for the payment of fees, disbursements and applicable taxes, only
in the event of success in the class action, to be paid out of any
recovery in the class action of up to thirty-three and one third
percent (33.3%) of the Recovery, plus applicable taxes, plus a
proportionate share of any interest accruing on the Recovery, less
the fee portion of any costs already paid in the Action to the
Lawyers by the Defendants.

Class Counsel will make a motion to the court to have the fee
agreement approved.

As a Class Member, you will not be required to pay any costs in
the event that the class action is unsuccessful.

                    THE CLASS PROCEEDINGS FUND

The plaintiffs may seek financial support from the Class
Proceedings Fund. If they are awarded financial support and if the
class action is successful, the Class will also pay to the Class
Proceedings Fund a 10% levy of any award or settlement funds plus
the amount of any financial support it paid.

     DO NOTHING IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLASS ACTION

Class Members who want to participate in the class action are
automatically included and need not do anything at this time.  YOU
MUST OPT OUT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLASS ACTION

Class Members who do not want to participate in the class action
must opt out.  If you want to opt out of the class action, you
must send a written, signed election, including your name,
address, telephone number to:

          Sarkis Isaac, Esq.
          Howie & Partners LLP, Chartered Accountants
          3063 Walker Road, Windsor ON N8W 3R4
          Attention: IMAX Class Action
          Fax: 519-250-1929
          E-mail: sisaac@howieandpartners.com

No Class Member will be permitted to opt out of the class action
unless the election to opt out is received by Howie & Partners LLP
on or before July 30, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. E.T.

Each Class Member who does not opt out of the class action will be
bound by the terms of any judgment or settlement whether favorable
or not and will not be allowed to prosecute an independent action.
If the class action is successful, he or she may be entitled to
share in the amount of any award or settlement recovered.  In
order to determine if you are entitled to share in the award or
settlement and the amount, if any, of your share, it may be
necessary to conduct an individual determination.  There may be
costs payable by you if it is determined that you are not entitled
to share in the award or settlement.  You will have the
opportunity to decide if you wish to proceed with your individual
determination before it begins.

No person may opt out a minor or a mentally incapable member of
the Class without permission of the court after notice to The
Children's Lawyer and/or the Public Guardian and Trustee, as
appropriate.

A Class Member who opts out will not be entitled to participate in
the class action.

                         THE U.S. ACTION

A class action has been preliminarily certified by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of those persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Imax common stock over the NASDAQ stock exchange from
February 27, 2003 to July 20, 2007.  That action is styled In re
IMAX Corporation Securities Litigation, court file no: 06-cv-
06128-NRB.

IF YOU ELECT TO REMAIN A CLASS MEMBER IN THIS ACTION, YOU WILL NOT
THEREBY BE PRECLUDED FROM BEING A CLASS MEMBER IN THE U.S. ACTION.

The procedural and substantive laws applicable to the claims
asserted in the U.S. Action may differ materially from those that
are applicable to the claims asserted in the Ontario Action.

If you are a Class Member who purchased Imax shares over the
NASDAQ and you would like further information regarding the U.S.
Action, you should contact one of the or the attorneys who are
acting for the plaintiff in the U.S. Action.  Those attorneys are:

          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: 800-889-3701
          Fax: 212-684-5191
          Attn: Karin E. Fisch, Esq.
                Richard Margolies, Esq.
          Web site: http://www.abbeyspanier.com

                      ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This Notice was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The court offices will be unable to answer any questions about the
matters in this Notice.  The certification order and other
information are available on the Imax class action Web site at
http://www.imax-classaction.com

Questions for class counsel should be directed by e-mail or
telephone to:

          Michael G. Robb, Esq.
          Siskinds LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          Telephone: 1-800-461-6166 (toll free)
          Fax: 1-519-672-6065
          London, ON N6A 3V4
          E-mail: michael.robb@siskinds.com

          Jay Strosberg, Esq.
          Sutts, Strosberg LLP
          600-251 Goyeau Street
          Telephone: 1-800-216-9888 (toll free)
          Fax: 1-866-316-5308 (toll free)
          Windsor, ON N9A 6V4
          E-mail: imax-classaction@strosbergco.com

                    NOTICE TO BROKERAGE FIRMS:

Please deliver this notice by e-mail to your clients who purchased
Imax securities during the Class Period and for whom you have
valid e-mail addresses.  If you have clients who purchased Imax
securities during the Class Period for whom you do not have valid
e-mail addresses, please contact Class Counsel to obtain hard
copies of this Notice for the purpose of mailing the Notice to
those clients.  The Parties will reimburse your reasonable costs
incurred in delivering this notice in accordance with this
request.

TO U.S. BROKERAGE FIRMS: If you choose not to bring this notice to
the attention of your clients who purchased shares within the
Class Period, please be advised that the parties to this Action
will apply to the appropriate United States District Court under
Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code for an order
allowing them to discover the identity and e-mail and/or mailing
address of your clients who purchased shares within the Class
Period.


LINEBARGER GOOGAN: Trial Court Rejects Interlocutory Appeal Motion
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. denied the defendant's motion for
interlocutory appeal and motion to stay in the lawsuit DARRELL L.
WRIGHT, SR. AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LENORA S.
WRIGHT, DECEASED, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated
persons and entities, Plaintiffs, v. LINEBARGER GOOGAN BLAIR &
SAMPSON, LLP, a Texas limited liability partnership, Defendant,
Case No. 10-2304 (W.D. Tenn.).

The Complaint alleges that Linebarger caused thousands of
Tennessee persons and entities to pay an unlawful attorney's fee
in direct violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).  In March 2011, the Court declined to stay the complaint
pending the resolution of a similar state class action.  The Court
also declined to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for conversion and
unjust enrichment, but dismissed claims for violation of the TCPA
and for negligence.

To this, the Defendant sought to clarify four questions for
interlocutory appeal -- among them is whether the Tax Injunction
Act bar a class action lawsuit brought by delinquent taxpayers
against the City of Memphis' tax collection law firm.

In a March 26, 2012 decision, Judge Mays opined that the Defendant
is not entitled to an interlocutory appeal because it has failed
to establish substantial ground for disagreement about the Court's
TIA ruling.

Also, in a Motion for Revision under Local Rule 7.3 of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, the
Defendant argued that a "change of law" occurred after the filing
of its original Motion for Interlocutory Appeal.  The Court
disagreed with the Defendant's contention and denied the Motion
for Revision.

A copy of the District Court's March 26 decision is available at
http://is.gd/bbERW5from Leagle.com.


LONG BEACH: App. Ct. Alters Denial of 4 Claims in Tax Refund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, reversed a
June 2007 trial court dismissal order of four claims in the tax
refund action captioned John W. McWilliams, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, Defendant and Respondent, Case
No. B200831 (Calif. App. Ct.) that seeks the recovery of telephone
user taxes.  The other two remaining claims in the complaint are
affirmed, the Appellate Court held.

The class action challenges the legality of the City of Long
Beach's telephone users tax (TUT).  It sets forth six causes of
action, the first four of which seeks a refund of improperly
collected TUT on the Plaintiff's own behalf and on behalf of all
members of the class.  The specific causes of action are:

  (I) Plea for declaratory and injunctive relief preventing
      further collection of the TUT.

(II) Plea for declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the
      "unconstitutional" amendment to Long Beach Municipal Code
      regarding the TUT.

(III) For money had and received.

(IV) Unjust enrichment.

  (V) For violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
      Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

(VI) For a Writ of Mandate requiring the City to provide an
      adequate remedy.

The Plaintiff appealed an order of dismissal the trial court
entered after it sustained the City's demurrer to the complaint.

In a March 28, 2012 decision, the Appellate Court held that the
Plaintiff's complaint states sufficient facts to support the first
4 causes of action but insufficient facts to support the last 2
causes of action.

A copy of the Court's March 28, 2012 order is available at
http://is.gd/3gt6y0from Leagle.com.

Counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant  are

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          Symphony Towers
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, California 92101
          Tel No: (619) 239-4599
          Fax No: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          Tel No: (310) 278-2600
          E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 West Lancaster Ave
          One Haverford Centre
          Haverford, Pennsylvania 19041
          Tel No: (610) 642-8500
          Fax No: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: TimothyMathews@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Sandra W. Cuneo, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          2nd floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Tel No: (310) 461-1620
          Fax No: (310) 461-1621
          E-mail: scuneo@cuneolaw.com

Counsel for the Defendant/Respondent are:

          Michael G. Colantuono, Esq.
          Sandra J. Levin, Esq.
          Amy C. Sparrow, Esq.
          Tiana J. Murillo, Esq.
          Robert E. Shannon, esq.
          Belinda R. Mayes, Esq.
          Heather Mahood, Esq.
          Monte H. Machit, Esq.
          COLANTUONO & LEVIN, PC
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA  90071-3137
          Tel No: (213) 542-5700
          Fax No: (213) 542-5710
          E-mail: MColantuono@CLLAW.US
                  SLevin@CLLAW.US
                  TMurillo@CLLAW.US


LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Order on 3 Charges in Tax Refud Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action captioned WILLY GRANADOS, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent,
Case No. B200812 (Calif. App. Ct.), the plaintiff challenged the
legality of the telephone user tax (TUT) he and other class
members paid to the County of Los Angeles.  He appealed an order
of dismissal after the trial court sustained the County's demurrer
to his complaint.

In a March 28, 2012 decision, the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, affirmed the order of dismissal with respect to
the fourth and fifth causes of action in the complaint but
reversed the order with respect to the remaining causes of action.

"Granados's complaint [] does not state sufficient facts to
support the fourth cause of action for violation of due process
and fifth cause of action for a writ of mandate," the Appellate
Court opined.

A copy of the Appellate Court's March 28, 2012 decision is
available at http://is.gd/XmNBFXfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant are:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          Symphony Towers
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, California 92101
          Tel No: (619) 239-4599
          Fax No: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          Tel No: (310) 278-2600
          E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 West Lancaster Ave
          One Haverford Centre
          Haverford, Pennsylvania 19041
          Tel No: (610) 642-8500
          Fax No: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: TimothyMathews@chimicles.com

               -- and --

          Sandra W. Cuneo, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          2nd floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Tel No: (310) 461-1620
          Fax No: (310) 461-1621
          E-mail: scuneo@cuneolaw.com

Counsel for Defendant/Respondent are:

          Elwood Liu, Esq.
          Brian D. Hershman, Esq.
          Brian M. Haffstadt, Esq.
          Katie A. Richardson, Esq.
          Erica L. Reilley, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street
          Fiftieth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel No: (213) 489-3939
          E-mail: eliu@jonesday.com
                  bhershman@jonesday.com
                  bhaffstadt@jonesday.com
                  krichardson@jonesday.com
                  ereilley@jonesday.com


MECHEL OAO: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the securities class action entitled DEAN FREDERICK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
PENSION AND RETIREMENT GROUP, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 807 LABOR MANAGEMENT
FUND, LOCAL 138 PENSION TRUST FUND, CITY OF WESTLAND POLICE AND
FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiffs, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CITY OF
FORT LAUDERDALE GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. MECHEL OAO, IGOR V. ZYUZIN, STANISLAV A. PLOSCHENKO,
VLADIMIR A. POLIN, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. No. 11-3666-cv
(2nd Cir.)

Mechel is a Russian mining and metallurgy corporation.  Under its
second amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Mechel and
its officers misrepresented the reasons for the inflated price of
the company's stock during the relevant period.

"Because the [Second Amended Complaint] fails to plead scienter
against any Defendant, the district court properly dismissed the
action as against all Defendants," the Second Circuit concluded.

A copy of the Second Circuit's April 11, 2012 decision is
available at http://is.gd/NkNHgQfrom Leagle.com.

Jack Fruchter, Esq. -- jfrutcher@aftlaw.com -- of ABRAHAM,
FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP, represented the Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. -- jsjacobson@debevoise.com -- of
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP, represented Defendant-Appellee Mechel
OAO.


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Dismissed as Defendant in "Collins" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patrick J. Duggan dismissed Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; and the
Federal National Mortgage Association as defendants in the class
action captioned JOHN W. COLLINS and VITA COLLINS, Plaintiffs, v.
MACOMB COUNTY SHERIFF ANTHONY WICKERSHAM, et al., Case No. 11-
12999 (E.D. Mich.) in a March 24, 2012 decision available at
http://is.gd/sU1t06from Leagle.com.

Filed in July 2011, the complaint alleged violations of state and
federal law in connection with the foreclosure of their property
located in Warren, Michigan.

MERS served as mortgagee in relation to the Plaintiffs' 2005 loan
from Nations First Financial.  Wells Fargo eventually became the
servicer of the loan.  When the Plaintiffs failed to make loan
payments, Wells Fargo instituted foreclosure proceedings.  Wells
Fargo then quitclaimed the property to Fannie Mae, and Fannie Mae
moved to evict the Plaintiffs from the property.

Judge Duggan also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file
an amended complaint.  "Plaintiffs' proposed amendments to the
Complaint are futile with respect to the claims against MERS,
Wells Fargo, and Fannie Mae.  It also does not appear that the
proposed Amended Complaint includes substantial changes to the
allegations against the Macomb County Sheriff and Writs, Inc.,
which are the remaining defendants in this action."


NBTY INC: N.Y. Trial Court Denies Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. failed to obtain dismissal of the federal securities
fraud class action complaint captioned John F. Hutchins,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. NBTY, Inc., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. CV-10-2159
(E.D.N.Y.).

NBTY manufactures, markets and distributes nutritional
supplements.  The Plaintiff filed the class action on behalf of
all purchasers of NBTY common stock from November 9, 2009 to April
27, 2010, alleging securities law violations.

The Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded his allegations against the
Defendants, District Judge Leonard D. Wexler opined in a March 30,
2012 Memorandum and Order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Q8qtMffrom Leagle.com.


OZZIE JUROCK: B.C. Court Certifies Second Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Anderson, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a second
class-action lawsuit against real estate promoter Ozzie Jurock has
been certified by the British Columbia Supreme Court.

Mr. Jurock is one of seven defendants named in a class-action suit
brought by investors in Crestwood Estates in Williams Lake.

The lead plaintiff is Brian Stachniak of Delta, who along with his
wife bought one of the 76 units in Crestwood for C$109,900 in
2007.  Mr. Stachniak claims the defendants misrepresented the
value of the units, failed to report major repair work that needed
to be done and failed to upgrade the units as promised.  Mr.
Stachniak also claims the defendants said the units, once rented,
would cover almost all of the costs of purchasing and maintaining
the unit.  Instead however, the cost to rectify the deficiencies
in the unit is expected to be C$16,000 and an appraisal of the
unit values is at C$71,700, before taking into account the cost of
remediation.

None of these allegations have been proven in court.

Judge Robert Sewell, without deciding on the merits of the case,
certified the suit as a class action, finding that the pleadings
disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class of
plaintiffs and a number of common issues.

Last November, Judge Jon Sigurdson certified as class action a
similar suit against Mr. Jurock and others brought by purchasers
in a condominium development in Prince Rupert.  That decision has
been appealed, Ward Branch -- wbranch@branmac.com -- of Branch
MacMaster LLP, which is representing the defendants in both cases,
said in an e-mail.

The defendants are now considering whether to appeal Judge
Sewell's decision, Mr. Branch said.

The certification "is probably the single most important step in
the life of a class action," said Jason Murray --
jmurray@kleinlyons.com -- a lawyer at Klein Lyons, the Vancouver
firm representing female RCMP officers in a proposed class-action
lawsuit alleging discrimination and harassment.

First, certification enables a number of individuals to join
forces to bring an action and there is strength in numbers,
Mr. Murray said.

"A defendant can wear down individuals on their own with
litigation, with costs, with time.  So there's a little more of a
levelling of the playing field between a strong defendant and a
group of people," he said.

Second, it's a relative rarity that a class action will go to
trial and most settle once certification is granted, Mr. Murray
said.

Why that happens is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Murray said it's a "common opinion" that once a court has
determined strong allegations in granting certification defendants
tend to "see the writing on the wall."

"They realize it's not a frivolous claim and at that point they
come to the realization that it's time to talk settlement."

Mr. Branch disagrees.

"The concept that certification automatically leads to settlement
is actually a bit of an urban legend," he said.  "In fact,
research done by our firm shows that just as many class actions go
to trial on their merits as any other type of case."

In other words, most cases -- whether class or otherwise -- settle
before trial.

And whether the defendants appeal the certification in this case
or not, "they do intend to fight the merits," Mr. Branch said.

The other defendants named in the class action are David Barnes,
Ralph Case, Standard Apartments Ltd., Proper Tee Investments Ltd.,
AMG Investments Ltd. and Worldwide Referrals Realty Inc. All but
AMG and Worldwide are also named in the Prince Rupert action.


PFIZER INC: N.Y. Court Certifies Celebrex-Related Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted class certification to
the consolidated securities fraud lawsuit captioned In re: Pfizer
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case Nos. 04-Civ.-9866 (LTS)(HBP), 05
MD 1688 (LTS), (S.D.N.Y.).

Lead Plaintiff Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana brought
the action on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired
Pfizer, Inc. stock between October 31, 2000, and October 19, 2005
against Pfizer and corporate officers Henry McKinnell, John
LaMattina, Karen Katen, Joseph Feczko, and Gail Cawkwell.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the federal securities
laws by concealing the results of studies concerning two Pfizer
drugs, Celebrex and Bextra, and making misstatements and omissions
in their public filings and statements concerning the company.

A class action is superior to other method for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy, Judge Swain found.

She also opined that certification of a sub-class consisting of
all persons who purchased stock contemporaneously with sales of
Pfizer stock by Individual Defendants on certain dates (the 20A
Subclass) is appropriate to expedite resolution of the case.

Judge Swain further determined that Lead Plaintiff TRSL as well as
plaintiffs Christine Feckles, Julie Perusse and Alden Chace are
adequate class representatives.  The Plaintiffs, she added, have
met their burden of demonstrating the adequacy of their proposed
class counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer.

A copy of the District Court's March 29, 2012 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/blZS5dfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff are:

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq.
          Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
          Brenda F. Szydlo, Esq.
          Ned C. Weinberger, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel No: (646) 722.8500
          Fax No: (646) 722.8501
          New York, NY
          E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
                  rschriffin@gelaw.com
                  mthomas@gelaw.com
                  bszydlo@gelaw.com
                  nweinberger@gelaw.com

               - and -

          David Kessler, Esq.
          Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Karen E. Reilly, Esq.
          Michelle M. Newcomer, Esq.
          BARROW AY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Tel No: (610) 667.7706
          Fax No: (610) 667.7056
          E-mail: dkessler@ktmc.com
                  azivitz@ktmc.com
                  bsweet@ktmc.com
                  kreilly@ktmc.com
                  mnewcomer@ktmc.com

Counsel for Defendants are:

         Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
         Lynn K. Neuner, Esq.
         George S. Wang, Esq.
         Lisa H. Rubin, Esq.
         SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
         425 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017-3954
         Tel No: (212) 455-2000
         Fax No: (212) 455-2502
         New York, NY
         E-mail: mchepiga@stblaw.com
                 lneuner@stblaw.com
                 gwang@stblaw.com
                 lrubin@stblaw.com

Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs are:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Grand, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel No: (212) 584-0700
          Fax No: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweis.com
                  dbuchanan@seegerweis.com


QIAO XING: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on April 27 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
stock of Qiao Xing Universal Resources, Inc. between July 15, 2011
and April 16, 2012, inclusive.

To join the Qiao Xing class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at
866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.  The action filed by the Rosen
Law Firm is pending in the District Court of the Virgin Islands.

The Complaint asserts violations of the securities laws against
Qiao Xing and its present and former officers and directors for
issuing false and misleading information to investors.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose
that in June 2011 the Company's then CEO and Chairman Rui Lin Wu
transferred Company funds to a bank account under his control.

On April 16, 2012 NASDAQ halted trading in Qiao Xing's shares.  On
April 20, 2012 the Company announced the commencement of an
internal investigation into Wu's June 2011 fund transfers.  The
Complaint alleges that as a result of this adverse information,
Qiao Xing's stock price has dropped, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 26, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
        New York, New York 10016
        Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
        E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
        Web site: http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


RALPHS GROCERY: App. Ct. Upholds Denial of Class Action Waiver
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a prior opinion, the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, addressed Ralphs Grocery Co.'s appeals from orders
denying its petitions to compel arbitration of two class action
lawsuits filed by its employees, alleging Labor Code and Unfair
Competition Law violations.  Ralphs had unsuccessfully sought
arbitration of those disputes in accordance with provisions in
various agreements that subject such claims to individual binding
arbitration and prohibit proceedings on a class or representative
basis, and the Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's orders
denying Ralphs' petitions. (Massie v. Ralphs Grocery Co., McLeod
v. Ralphs Grocery, B187844, B187854, May 14, 2007 [nonpub. opn.].)
Thereafter, the California Supreme Court granted Ralphs' petitions
for review and remanded the matters with directions to vacate the
Appeals Court's prior decision and to reconsider the cause in
light of Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443.
(S153059.)  The Appeals Court in turn remanded the matter to the
trial court for the required factual showing.

After permitting the parties to conduct discovery on the Gentry
factors and considering supplemental briefing and argument on the
issues, the trial court again denied Ralphs' motion to enforce its
class action waiver and compel individual arbitration, finding
"Just as in Gentry, the class arbitration waivers found in this
case jeopardize the rights of its employees by prohibiting the
most practical and most likely, only, effective means of
challenging defendants' overtime practices."

Ralphs appeals.  "Because we conclude the agreement Ralphs seeks
to enforce is procedurally and substantively unconscionable and
unenforceable as a result, we affirm," the Appeals Court stated in
an April 2, 2012 decision, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/vUz2Wffrom Leagle.com.

The case is captioned JAMES MASSIE, et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, et al., Defendants and
Appellants, Case No. B224196 (Calif. App. Ct.)

Linda S. Husar, Esq. -- lhusar@reedsmith.com -- and Steven B.
Katz, Esq. -- skatz@reedsmith.com -- of REID SMITH; and Henry D.
Lederman, Esq. -- hlederman@littler.com -- and Lisa C. Chagala,
Esq. -- lchagala@littler.com -- of LITTLER MENDELSON represent the
Defendants/Appellants.

Scott A. Brooks, Esq. -- brooks@dfis-law.com -- and Craig S.
Momita, Esq. -- momita@dfis-law.com -- of Of DANIELS, FINE,
ISRAEL, SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITS, LLP represent the Plaintiffs/
Respondents.


REDDY ICE: May 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on April 27 issued a notice of
proposed settlement of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. securities class
Action.

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
TEXASDALLAS DIVISION

In re: REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC. (ticker symbol:RDDYQ) and REDDY
ICE CORPORATION, Debtors.Case Nos.: 12-32349 and 12-32350Chapter
11Jointly Administered

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE PUBLICLY-TRADED SECURITIES OF REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC. BETWEEN
AUGUST 10, 2005 AND SEPTEMBER 15, 2008, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE
DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS").[1]

On April 12, 2012, Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice
Corporation filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11
of Title 11 of the United States Code in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rules 7023 and 9019 of the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, that a settlement of the
action captioned John Chamberlain, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-13451 (E.D. Mich.) for One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000) has been proposed in connection with Reddy
Ice's bankruptcy filing, and in the interests of justice and for
the convenience of all parties, the Securities Action has been
transferred to the Bankruptcy Court for purposes of approving and
administrating the Settlement in conjunction with other matters
affecting the Reddy Ice bankruptcy estate.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Stacey G. C. Jernigan
in the Bankruptcy Court, Earle Cabell Building, U.S. Courthouse,
1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75242-1496 at 9:30 a.m.
(prevailing Central Time) on May 18, 2012 to determine, among
other items related to Reddy's Ice's bankruptcy proceeding: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement, as set forth in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement, is fair and reasonable and should be
approved pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019; (2) whether the Class
described above should be certified for purposes of settlement
pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7023; (3) whether the proposed plan
for allocating the settlement proceeds, as set forth on the
Web site, http://classaction.kccllc.net/ReddyIceshould be
approved; and (4) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award
of attorneys' fees not to exceed 15% of the Settlement Amount and
reimbursement of expenses not to exceed $300,000 should be
approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
AMOUNT.  If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible
to receive a payment from the proposed Settlement, you must submit
a Proof of Claim form, along with the supporting documentation
requested in the Proof of Claim form, postmarked no later than
July 18, 2012 to Reddy Ice Holdings Class Action, c/o Kurtzman
Carson Consultants LLC, P.O. Box 6177, Novato, CA 94948-6177.  You
can obtain a copy of the Proof of Claim form by visiting the
Web site http://classaction.kccllc.net/ReddyIceor you can call
(866) 731-4775 and request that a Proof of Claim form be mailed to
you.  If you are a member of the Class and do not submit a proper
Proof of Claim form, you will not share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any order pertaining to the Settlement that is entered by the
Bankruptcy Court.  Depending on the number of claims filed and
when Class Members purchased, acquired and sold their Reddy Ice
securities, the estimated average recovery per damaged share of
Reddy Ice common stock will be approximately $.032 (before the
deduction of attorneys' fees and expenses set forth above and
before payments that would be made to those with transactions in
options).[2] Additionally, if the amount of attorneys' fees and
expenses set forth above are requested and approved by the Court,
the average cost per damaged share of Reddy Ice common stock will
be approximately $.014.  Please note that these amounts are only
estimates.

If you are a member of the Class, you also have the right to
exclude yourself from the Class or to submit an objection to the
proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation and/or application for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.  To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a letter stating that you
"request exclusion from the Class in the In re Reddy Ice Holdings,
Inc. Bankruptcy Case, Case Nos. 12-32349 and 12-32350" and your
request must be received by Lead Counsel (at the address set forth
below) on or before May 11, 2012. In light of Reddy Ice's
bankruptcy, if you choose to exclude yourself from the Class, you
will have limited rights, if any, to proceed against the
Defendants for the claims asserted in the Securities Action.  If
you are a member of the Class and do not exclude yourself from the
Class, you will be bound by any order pertaining to the Settlement
that is entered by the Bankruptcy Court.  Any objections to the
proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or application for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must be filed with
the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court, at Earle Cabell Building, U.S.
Courthouse, 1100 Commerce Street, Room 1254, Dallas, Texas 75242-
1496, and submitted to Lead Counsel on or before May 11, 2012.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
Inquiries, other than requests for copies of the Proof of Claim
form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706

[1] Excluded from the Class are the Defendants (i.e., Reddy Ice,
William P. Brick, Steven J. Janusek and Jimmy C. Weaver), current
and former officers and directors of Reddy Ice, members of the
immediate family of each of the individual defendants and their
legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns and any
entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
Also excluded from the Class are any person or entity who excludes
themselves by requesting exclusion from the Class in accordance
with the requirements set forth herein.

[2] The combined recovery for the Put/Call Options shall not
exceed 3% of the Net Settlement Fund.  See the Plan of Allocation
available for review at http://classaction.kccllc.net/ReddyIce


RITE AID: Class Certification Denial of Wage-and-Hour Suit Altered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a March 27, 2012 per curiam decision, the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Apellate Division, reversed a trial court order denying
class certification in the complaint captioned JENNIFER HEARN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Siutated,
Plaintiff-Apellant v. RITE AID CORPORATION, and RITE AID OF NEW
JERSEY, Defendants-Respondents, Case No. A-2009-10T1 (N.J. Sup.
Ct.).

The plaintiff represented a purported class of assistant managers
(ASMs) employed at Rite Aid pharmacies since May 14, 2006.  The
complaint, filed in 2006, alleges violations of the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
Plaintiff moved for class certification in May 2010.

"Because the record demonstrates the presence of common issues of
fact and law, the trial judge erred in permitting the inevitable
minor differences in each ASM's work experiences to override the
efficient disposition of the larger common issues through class
certification," the Appellate Court held.  "Moreover, the judge
disregarded the policy favoring the class action device,
particularly in instances where class members likely do not have
sufficient financial resources to pursue their claims on an
individual basis against a defendant possessing superior
resources."

Moreover, stating that the existence of contradictions does not
warrant disregarding a witness' entire certification, the
Appellate Court affirmed the trial court order denying Rite Aid's
motion to strike certifications.

The matter is remanded for further consideration of whether the
class certification should be amended to include former managers
of Brooks/Eckerd, an entity purchased by Rite Aid in 2007.

A copy of the Appellate Court's March 27, 2012 per curiam decision
is available at http://is.gd/OLACSbfrom Leagle.com.


RITE AID: Penn. Court Alters Dismissal of Breach of Contract Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the May 5,
2011 order of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas that
granted preliminary objections filed by appellee, Rite Aid, and
dismissed the class action complaint of appellants David M. Landay
and the law firm Patberg Carmody & Ging.  The case is remanded for
further proceedings.

The case is captioned DAVID M. LANDAY AND PATBERG CARMODY & GING,
Appellants, v. RITE AID, Appellee, Case No. 901 WDA 2011 (Penn.
Sup. Ct.)

The class action, filed in 2010, alleges that Rite Aid violated
Pennsylvania law and breached its contracts with the Appellants by
charging a flat fee of $50 for reproducing pharmacy records.

A copy of the Appeals Court's March 23, 2012 decision is available
at http://is.gd/JLAytKfrom Leagle.com.


TENNESSEE: HCMC Set to Get Medicare Settlement Payment
-------------------------------------------------------
Ken Walker, writing for The Paris Post-Intelligencer, reports that
Henry County Medical Center expects to be receiving a sizeable
check soon as the result of a class action lawsuit it was in
regarding the Medicare program.

HCMC Administrator Tom Gee said during the April 24 meeting of the
hospital's board of trustees that a settlement was recently
reached in a class action suit regarding underpayment of Medicare
funds between 2007-11.

The hospital was one of several in Tennessee that had joined the
suit as plaintiffs.  Mr. Gee said the payment to be received is
expected to be "significant" -- probably in the six-figure range
-- and have a major effect on the medical center's bottom line.

Also during the April 24 meeting, Mr. Gee said the hospital has
had better-than-expected admissions totals lately and HCMC also
has some Medicare settlements and stimulus funds expected by the
end of the fiscal year.

Phil Wichlan, board chairman, pointed out the dollar figures for
HCMC could be even better if patients would just keep their
appointments.

He said the hospital's sleep lab and X-ray departments especially
seem to have high numbers of prospective patients who make
appointments, but just don't show up.

"We're losing revenue there," Mr. Wichlan said, suggesting the
hospital might want to examine charging a fee for missed
appointments at some point in the future.

"Our society doesn't value commitments to appointments," Mr. Gee
said.  "We have people who don't show up for surgeries, believe it
or not."

In other action on April 24

    * Mr. Gee said steel has been finished for the new imaging
center on Tyson Avenue and brick is going up on the other end of
the building, which will belong to Bethel University.

He said most of the issues about the new building now revolve
around governmental approval of air space above the building and
the pedestrian bridge that will cross Tyson on the Bethel
(northeast) end.

There are also still questions about the timing of construction
for a new traffic light at the Joy Street turnoff from Tyson.

    * The hospital is starting a trial program to encourage
employee fitness and wellness activities. Employees who take part
will be eligible for discounts on their health insurance.
UNITED STATES: Border Patrol Sued Over Suspicionless Stops
----------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union disclosed that three residents
of the Olympic Peninsula on April 26 filed a class-action lawsuit
challenging the U.S. Border Patrol's practice of stopping vehicles
and interrogating occupants without legal justification.  Filed in
U.S. District Court in Seattle, the lawsuit says that the Border
Patrol's suspicionless stops on the Peninsula violate
constitutional rights, and it seeks a court injunction barring
such unlawful stops in the future.  The Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project (NWIRP) and the ACLU of Washington are representing the
residents and will seek class-action status for the suit.

"The Border Patrol's actions have created a climate of fear and
anxiety for many people living on the Olympic Peninsula.  The
residents in this suit all are U.S. citizens who worry that they
could be stopped and questioned without reason any time they drive
or are passengers in cars.  We're asking the court to put in place
safeguards to stop the Border Patrol's unlawful and unfair
practices," said Sarah Dunne, legal director of ACLU.

"People are being stopped based solely on their appearance and
ethnicity.  This is unlawful and contrary to American values.  No
one in a car should be stopped and interrogated by government
agents unless the law enforcement officer has a legal basis to do
so," said Matt Adams, legal director of NWIRP.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the Border Patrol's
suspicionless stops violate the Fourth Amendment and exceed the
agency's legal powers.  The suit seeks to prohibit Border Patrol
agents from stopping vehicles without reasonable suspicion that an
occupant has entered the U.S. without approval.  It also seeks to
prohibit stops altogether until each agent on the Olympic
Peninsula has received training regarding what constitutes
reasonable suspicion for a stop.  The suit would have the court
require that Border Patrol agents prepare documentation recording
the basis of their suspicion that justifies each stop.
Furthermore, the documentation should be easily accessible to a
court-appointed special master to monitor compliance.

The plaintiffs have experienced unwarranted stops and
interrogations in a variety of settings, all while going about
their daily lives.  Agents provided flimsy pretexts or no reason
at all for the stops.  Some stops appear to be based on nothing
but the Border Patrol agents' perception of the plaintiffs'
ethnicity or the color of their skin.  The incidents are typical
of troubling encounters which many residents of the Peninsula have
had with Border Patrol agents.

    * Jose Sanchez is a resident of Forks and correctional officer
for the Olympic Corrections Center.  In 2011 in Forks, Border
Patrol agents stopped the vehicle he was in, saying its windows
were too dark -- even though the driver's side window was not
tinted.  The agents questioned Sanchez -- a U.S. citizen -- about
where he was from.

In an earlier incident, Mr. Sanchez and a family member were
traveling in a vehicle near Forks, when Border Patrol agents
stopped the car and interrogated him about his immigration status.
Though agents told him that his vehicle was stopped because its
windows were too dark, the agents did not ask for his insurance or
registration.  When he provided those documents, the agents
refused to inspect them.

In yet another incident at Forks, Mr. Sanchez was traveling home
in a vehicle which was followed by Border Patrol agents.  When he
arrived at his house, the agents approached him.  But when Mr.
Sanchez began to record the encounter with his cell phone, the
agents backed away.

When Mr. Sanchez called the Border Patrol office to complain about
being repeatedly stopped and interrogated, the office supervisor
told him simply, "We have certain cars that we need to pull over."

    * Ismael Ramos Contreras is a resident of Forks and a senior
and student government body president at Forks High School.  In
2011 at Port Angeles, he was traveling in a vehicle with several
teenage friends to pick up tuxedos for a Quinceanera (15th
birthday) celebration when the vehicle was stopped by four Border
Patrol agents.  One agent tried to take the key out of the
ignition, so the driver handed him the key.  Agents interrogated
the boys about their immigration status, but never provided a
reason for the stop.

In an earlier incident in 2010, while walking out of the Clallam
County Courthouse in Forks with his mother, Mr. Ramos Contreras
was approached by a person who addressed him by name and began
questioning him about where he lived and came from.  Based on the
questions, his mother identified the person as a Border Patrol
agent; the person indeed turned out to be an agent who was in
plain clothes and wearing their badge backwards.

    * Ernest Grimes is a resident of Neah Bay, a correctional
officer at Clallam Bay Corrections Center, and a part-time police
officer.  In 2011 near Clallam Bay, a Border Patrol agent stopped
the vehicle in which Grimes was traveling, approached with his
hand on his weapon, and yelled at Mr. Grimes to roll down his
window.  Without offering a reason for the stop, the agent
interrogated Mr. Grimes about his immigration status.  Mr. Grimes,
who is African American, was wearing his correctional officer
uniform at the time.

Representing the plaintiffs are NWIRP legal director Matt Adams,
ACLU-WA legal director Sarah Dunne and staff attorney La Rond
Baker, and cooperating attorneys Nicholas Gellert, Brendan Peters,
Javier Garcia, and Steve Merriman of the firm Perkins Coie LLP.


* Michigan Credit Unions Settle Class Actions Over ATM Signs
------------------------------------------------------------
Credit unions in Grand Rapids and Adrian recently settled separate
class-action lawsuits brought by a Livingston County retiree who
has made a second career of suing financial institutions that fail
to follow federal regulations about ATM notification signs.  Nancy
Kinder of Fowlerville and her partner Ray Harrison have driven
around the country looking for ATMs without proper fee
notification signs.  The two then photograph ATMs that lack legal
signage and file class actions against the credit unions and banks
that own the ATMs, saying that nondisclosure of fees for ATM
transactions violates the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.  Ms.
Kinder and Mr. Harrison have filed dozens of lawsuits in Michigan,
New Mexico and Texas.  Both credit unions said the ATM's in
question have on-screen notices that allow consumers to cancel a
transaction without a fee.  They also dispute that Ms. Kinder
suffered any actual harm or damages as a result of the absence of
an on-machine posted fee notice, but agreed to settle given the
expense of litigation.  Under the settlement, both credit unions
will pay $1,000 to Ms. Kinder, and $15,000 in legal fees. They
will also set aside more than $50,000 to satisfy the claims of
potential claimants.  After all individual claims have been
settled, any money remaining in the settlement fund -- up to
$5,000 each -- will be donated to Kinder's designated charity --
the Karmanos Cancer Institute.  Meanwhile, legislation was
introduced last week in Congress to remove the duplicate
disclosure requirement.

                           *********

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  * * *