CAR_Public/120816.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, August 16, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 162

                             Headlines

BIG 5: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Credit Card Purchases
BRAVO BRIO: Faces Suit Over Alleged Wage and Hour Law Violations
BROTHER INT'L: Judge Trims Toner Cartridge Class Action Claims
CAPITAL ONE: Contacted Class Without Prior Consent, Suit Says
CC MEDIA: "Live Rock Concerts" Class Suits Dismissed in June

CENTEX CORP: Texas Appeals Court Tosses Class Action Settlement
CERVINI FARMS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: October 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Set-Top Boxes
COMCAST CORP: Ninth Cir. Refused to Rehear Calif. Suit

COMCAST CORP: Sup. Ct. to Hear Philadelphia Cluster Case in Nov.
DAVEY TREE: Still Awaits Approval of "Ely" Suit Settlement
DAVEY TREE: Unit Continues to Face Claims Over Rice Canyon Fire
DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
EXEL DIRECT: Classification of Drivers as Contractors Challenged

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
GNC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Six Hydroxycut-Related Suits
HANSEN MEDICAL: Judge Trims Securities Class Action Claims
HILLENBRAND INC: Continues to Await Ruling in FCA Action Appeal
HOSPIRA INC: Faces Suit Alleging ERISA Violations in Illinois

HOSPIRA INC: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Ill. Suit
INDYMAC BANCORP: Class Action Settlements Get Prelim. Court Okay
JONES LANG: Maintenance Workers File Overtime Class Action
LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Class Action Over Release of Toxic Pollutants
LAUDERDALE COUNTY, MS: Faces Probe Over School-to-Prison System

MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Make Closing Arguments
MATCH.COM: Judge Tosses Most of Subscribers' Class Action Claims
METROPOLITAN WATER: Cook County Circuit Ct. Certifies Class Action
NEUTROGENA CORP: Sued Over False Claims on Sunscreen Product
NORTHWEST PIPE: Settles Four Class Actions for $13.25 Million

ORIEL THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
REXNORD CORP: Agreed to Settle Suits Over Zurn Brass Fittings
REXNORD CORP: Zurn Continues to Face Asbestos-Related Suits
SOLTA MEDICAL: Awaits Final Okay of Deal in Suit vs. Aesthera
STRAUSS GROUP: Sued Over Misleading Claims on Fruit Yogurts

TEXAS BRINE: Faces Class Action Over Radioactive Sinkhole
TRULY NOLEN: Appeals Court Rules Against Class Arbitration
VAQUERIA TRES: Recalls Juice Drink With Pineapple-Guava Flavor
WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Black Workers Lose Class Certification Bid
WELLS FARGO: Consultants File Overtime Class Action in Texas

WEST PUBLISHING: McGuireWoods Must Forfeit Fees, 9th Cir. Rules


                          *********

BIG 5: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Credit Card Purchases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated class action lawsuit over
credit card purchases against Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation,
according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 1, 2012.

The Company was served on the following dates with the following
nine complaints, each of which was brought as a purported class
action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company's
stores in California using credit cards and were requested or
required to provide personal identification information at the
time of the transaction: (1) on February 22, 2011, a complaint
filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los
Angeles, entitled Maria Eugenia Saenz Valiente v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455049; (2) on February 22,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Scott Mossler v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455477; (3) on February 28,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Yelena Matatova v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455459; (4) on March 8,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Neal T. Wiener v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC456300; (5) on March 22,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Francisco, entitled Donna Motta v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-509228; (6) on March
30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in
the County of Alameda, entitled Steve Holmes v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. RG11563123; (7) on March 30,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Francisco, entitled Robin Nelson v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-508829; (8) on April 8,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Joaquin, entitled Pamela B. Smith v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 39-2011-00261014-CU-BT-STK;
and (9) on May 31, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Deena
Gabriel v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC462213.

On June 16, 2011, the Judicial Council of California issued an
Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge designating the
California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles as having
jurisdiction to coordinate and to hear all nine of the cases as
Case No. JCCP4667.  On October 21, 2011, the plaintiffs
collectively filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging
violations of the California Civil Code, negligence, invasion of
privacy and unlawful intrusion.  The plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at
the Company's stores in California were improperly requested to
provide their zip code at the time of such purchases.  The
plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the class members, the following:
statutory penalties; attorneys' fees; costs; restitution of
property; disgorgement of profits; and injunctive relief.

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.
Because this litigation remains in the preliminary stages and,
among other things, discovery is still ongoing, the Company is not
able to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome in this
litigation or to estimate a range of potential loss in the event
of an unfavorable outcome in this litigation at the present time.
If this litigation is resolved unfavorably to the Company, such
litigation and the costs of defending it could have a material
negative impact on the Company's results of operations or
financial condition.


BRAVO BRIO: Faces Suit Over Alleged Wage and Hour Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
alleging wage and hour law violations, according to the Company's
August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 24, 2012.

On May 24, 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit alleging certain violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as certain Iowa wage and hours laws.  The
Company has answered the complaint and denied the allegations.
The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these
allegations and intends to continue to vigorously defend against
them, including challenging the plaintiffs' efforts to certify a
class.  Due to the preliminary nature of this matter, the Company
cannot currently estimate with any degree of certainty the amount
or range of potential loss relating to such action, if any.


BROTHER INT'L: Judge Trims Toner Cartridge Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a New
Jersey federal judge on Aug. 9 trimmed a proposed class action
alleging printer company Brother International Corp. misrepresents
how often its color cartridges must be replaced, but left other
claims standing so the suit can move ahead.

U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson granted Brother's motion to
dismiss the consumer plaintiffs' breach of express and implied
warranty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and injunctive relief claims but denied the motion with respect to
a host of state consumer protection claims.


CAPITAL ONE: Contacted Class Without Prior Consent, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Alarcon on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., and Capital One
Services, LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-04145 (N.D. Calif., August 7,
2012) alleges that Capital One negligently, knowingly, and
willfully contacted the Plaintiff and Class members on their
cellular telephones without their prior express consent.

Capital One has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
contacting the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular
telephones via an "automatic telephone dialing system," and by
using "an artificial or prerecorded voice," without their prior
express consent, Ms. Alarcon contends.  Hence, she asserts, she
brings the action for injunctive relief and statutory damages
resulting from Capital One's illegal actions.

Ms. Alarcon is a resident of Daly City, California.

Capital One Bank is a nationally chartered bank and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Capital One Financial Corporation with its principal
place of business in McLean, Virginia.  Capital One Services is a
limited liability company that provides credit card services for
Capital One Bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com
                  esantacana@lchb.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com


CC MEDIA: "Live Rock Concerts" Class Suits Dismissed in June
------------------------------------------------------------
All the class action lawsuits over allegations of "live rock
concerts" monopoly were dismissed in June 2012 following the
parties' settlement of the dispute, according to CC Media
Holdings, Inc.'s August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries were co-defendants with Live
Nation (which was spun off as an independent company in December
2005) in 22 putative class actions filed by different named
plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country
beginning in May 2006.  In the Master Separation and Distribution
Agreement between one of the Company's subsidiaries and Live
Nation that was entered into in connection with the spin-off of
Live Nation in December 2005, Live Nation agreed, among other
things, to assume responsibility for legal actions existing at the
time of, or initiated after, the spin-off in which the Company is
a defendant if such actions relate in any material respect to the
business of Live Nation.  Pursuant to the Agreement, Live Nation
also agreed to indemnify the Company with respect to all
liabilities assumed by Live Nation, including those pertaining to
the 22 putative class actions.

The class action proceedings generally alleged that the defendants
monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for "live rock
concerts" in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs claimed that they paid higher ticket prices for
defendants' "rock concerts" as a result of defendants' conduct,
and they sought damages in an undetermined amount.  The Judicial
Panel for Multidistrict Litigation centralized these class action
proceedings in the Central District of California.  Plaintiffs and
defendants settled the cases for $535,000, and all of the cases
were dismissed with prejudice on June 21, 2012.  Pursuant to the
Master Separation and Distribution Agreement, Live Nation paid the
entire $535,000 settlement amount on behalf of the defendants.


CENTEX CORP: Texas Appeals Court Tosses Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that a Texas appeals
court tossed out a $1 million settlement for Centex shareholders
after finding that the class members were not given a chance to
opt out of the offer.

At least four class actions were filed after Dallas-based Centex
and its board of directors agreed in April 2009 to receive 0.975
shares of Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-based Pulte for each of its
common shares.

Facing claims that the buyout was too low, the parties reached a
settlement in January 2010.

But one shareholder, Daniel Rocker, argued that class counsel had
"settled for a judgment that provides no benefits whatsoever for
class members, but a hefty fee for the lawyers."

Summarizing those objections, the Fifth District Court of Appeals
said: "Rocker contends that the defendants received the benefit of
a complete release from all claims, class counsel received
attorney's fees of $1.1 million, and the class representatives
received $750 each, 'while the judgment provided nothing to class
members: no money, no coupons, no injunction, no equitable relief,
and no declaration of their rights against the defendants;
absolutely nothing.'"

Though the companies batted down the damages claims as "wholly
untenable and speculative," they nevertheless "bargained for, and
received, a waiver of all unknown claims, including those that
would have been material to a class member in making the decision
whether or not to object to the settlement," Justice Martin
Richter wrote for a three-member panel.

"And appellees did not establish that any damages released were
'incidental to the requested injunctive or declaratory relief,'
that is, 'damages that flow directly from liability to the class
as a whole on the claims forming the basis of the injunctive or
declaratory relief,' that might be certified without opt-out
rights," he added.

This unlimited release meant that the companies would have to give
class members the right to opt out, the panel concluded.

That offer, however, never happened.

In addition to overturning the settlement and class approval, the
court also threw out the cash award of attorneys' fees.

Under state rules of civil procedure, none of the attorneys' fees
could be awarded in cash if no part of the settlement benefits
were in cash.

"Here, if there was no cash recovery for the class, fees could not
be awarded in cash, regardless of the value of the benefit to the
class," Justice Richter wrote.  "We may not apply an equitable
doctrine to achieve a result prohibited by the statute."

A copy of the Opinion in Rocker v. Centex Corporation, et al., No.
05-10-00903-CV (Tex. App. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/13/texas.pdf


CERVINI FARMS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cervini Farms stiffed workers
for overtime and minimum wage while making them work 10 hours a
day, 7 days a week, a class action claims in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ramirez, et al. v. Cervini Farms
California, Inc., et al., Case No. 1403248 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Santa Barbara Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/13/FarmLabor.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Santos Gomez, Esq.
          Cesar H. Nava, Esq.
          Stanley J. Hodson, Esq.
          NAVA & GOMEZ, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          326 South "A" Street, Suite 2
          Oxnard, CA 93030
          Telephone: (805) 483-2465
          E-mail: cnava@ng-law.com
                  sgomez@ng-law.com
                  sjhodson@ng-law.com


COLONIAL BANCGROUP: October 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. on Aug. 10 issued a statement regarding the
In Re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ERISA Litigation.

                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

   IN RE COLONIAL BANCGROUP, INC.     Case No.: 2:09CV792-MHT-WC
        ERISA LITIGATION                   CLASS ACTION
                      --------------------------

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE FOLLOWING CLASS:

All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Colonial BancGroup 401(k) Plan at any time between April 18, 2007
and August 25, 2009 and whose accounts included investments in
Colonial BancGroup, Inc. common stock.

            PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.
           THIS IS A COURT-ORDERED LEGAL NOTICE.
              THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION.

A proposed settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal
court in the above-captioned class action lawsuit alleging
breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") in connection with the Plan.  The terms of
the Settlement are contained in a Stipulation of Settlement, which
was executed on June 13, 2012.  A copy of the Stipulation is
available at http://www.ColonialERISASettlement.com

The proposed Settlement provides for a payment of $2.5 million to
settle all claims against all Defendants.  Under the Settlement,
the proceeds, net of expenses described in the Stipulation (which
include notice and certain administrative expenses, Court-approved
attorneys' fees and expenses and Plaintiff case contribution
awards, taxes, and other costs related to the administration of
the Settlement Fund) will be allocated to Members of the
Settlement Class whose Plan account(s) suffered losses as a result
of investing in Colonial BancGroup, Inc. stock during the Class
Period. Settlement proceeds will be allocated in accordance with a
Plan of Allocation approved by the Court.

If you qualify, you will receive such an allocation.  You do not
need to submit a claim or take any other action unless you wish to
object to the Settlement.  The United States District Court for
the Middle District of Alabama authorized this Notice.

THE COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 10:00 A.M. ON OCTOBER 12, 2012 TO
DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT.

Additional information about the proposed Settlement, including
the Notice of Class Action Settlement, Settlement Fairness
Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Attorney Expenses, which has been mailed to Members of the
Settlement Class and explains how Settlement Class members can
object to the Settlement and the Stipulation, is available at
http://www.ColonialERISASettlement.com

In addition, Class Counsel have established a toll-free number,
(800) 255-0894, to assist in answering questions regarding the
Settlement.

If you would like to update your address information, please
contact Class Counsel at (800) 255-0894 or
info@ColonialERISASettlement.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT.

DATED: August 10, 2012.

By Order of the Court

The Hon. Myron H. Thompson, United States District Court Judge


COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Set-Top Boxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation continues to defend antitrust class action
lawsuits related to set-top boxes, according to the Company's
August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is the defendant in 22 purported class actions filed
in federal district courts throughout the country.  All of these
actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings.
In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of
all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the plaintiffs
allege that the Company improperly "tie" the rental of set-top
boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust
laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California,
Illinois and Alabama.  The plaintiffs also allege a claim for
unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class
of the Company's premium cable customers and on behalf of
subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from California,
Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington.  In January 2010,
the Company moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims
for unjust enrichment and violations of the unfair/deceptive trade
practices acts of Illinois and Alabama.  In September 2010, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of
additional state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade
practices acts on behalf of new subclasses in Connecticut,
Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico and West
Virginia. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their
unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state law claims on
behalf of the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses.  In
June 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint alleging
only violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
antitrust law in Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices
acts in California and Washington.  The plaintiffs seek relief on
behalf of a nationwide class of the Company's premium cable
customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable
customers from California and Washington.  In July 2011, the
Company moved to compel arbitration of certain claims and to stay
the remaining claims pending arbitration.

The West Virginia Attorney General also filed a complaint in West
Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that the Company
improperly "tie" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of
digital cable services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust
Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.  The
Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust
enrichment/restitution.  The Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for West Virginia, and it was
subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the
multidistrict litigation.  In March 2010, the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the Attorney General's motion to remand the
case back to West Virginia state court.  In June 2010, the
Attorney General moved to sever and remand the portion of the
claims seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief back to West
Virginia state court.  The Company filed a brief in opposition to
the motion in July 2010.

The Company believes the claims in each of the pending actions are
without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously.  The
Company cannot predict the outcome of any of the actions,
including a range of possible loss, or how the final resolution of
any such actions would impact the Company's results of operations
or cash flows for any one period or its consolidated financial
position.  In addition, as any action nears a trial, there is an
increased possibility that the action may be settled by the
parties.  Nevertheless, the final disposition of any of the
actions is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, but could possibly be
material to its consolidated results of operations or cash flows
for any one period.


COMCAST CORP: Ninth Cir. Refused to Rehear Calif. Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied in May 2012
a petition for rehearing filed by plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit initiated in California, according to Comcast
Corporation's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

The Company is among the defendants in a purported class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California in September 2007.  The potential class is comprised
of all persons residing in the United States who have subscribed
to an expanded basic level of video service provided by one of the
defendants.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce
video programming have entered into agreements with the defendants
who distribute video programming via cable and satellite
(including the Company), which preclude the distributor defendants
from reselling channels to customers on an "unbundled" basis in
violation of federal antitrust laws.  The plaintiffs seek treble
damages and injunctive relief requiring each distributor defendant
to resell certain channels to its customers on an "unbundled"
basis.  In October 2009, the Central District of California issued
an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.  In
March 2012, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the District Court's order.  In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
petition for a rehearing, which the Ninth Circuit denied in May
2012.


COMCAST CORP: Sup. Ct. to Hear Philadelphia Cluster Case in Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for November
2012 with respect to Comcast Corporation's petition for review of
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling affirming class
certification in one of the antitrust class action lawsuits
pending against the Company, Comcast disclosed in its August 1,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in two purported class actions
originally filed in December 2003 in the United States District
Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  The potential class in the Massachusetts case,
which has been transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, is the Company's customer base in the "Boston
Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is
the Company's customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago
Clusters," as those terms are defined in the complaints.  In each
case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under
antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers were
certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively.  The
Company appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia
Cluster case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed
the class certification in August 2011 and denied the Company's
petition for a rehearing en banc in September 2011.

In March 2010, the Company moved for summary judgment dismissing
all of the plaintiffs' claims in the Philadelphia Cluster.  In
April 2012, the District Court issued a decision dismissing some
of the plaintiffs' claims, but allowing two claims to proceed to
trial.  The plaintiffs' claims concerning the other two clusters
are stayed pending determination of the Philadelphia Cluster
claims.

In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling, and
has scheduled oral argument for November 2012.  In July 2012, the
trial court vacated the September 2012 trial date for the
Philadelphia Cluster case.


DAVEY TREE: Still Awaits Approval of "Ely" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Davey Tree Surgery Company, a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert
Company, was named as a defendant in Peter Ely et al. v. Davey
Tree Surgery Company et al., a purported class-action lawsuit in
the State of California filed on July 15, 2008, in the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda.
The plaintiffs alleged on behalf of themselves and a putative
class that Davey Tree Surgery Company failed to comply with
California law concerning off-duty meal periods and the required
content of paycheck stubs.

The plaintiffs alleged that they and the putative "meal periods"
class were not provided with uninterrupted, duty-free 30-minute
meal periods.  In addition, plaintiffs claimed that because they
were allegedly required to work during their meal breaks, Davey
Tree Surgery Company violated California's minimum wage law
because they and the putative class members were not paid minimum
wage for their alleged work during meal breaks.  Plaintiffs also
contended that Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California law
by not including the time that they and the putative "wage
statement" class members worked during their meal periods, their
hourly rates of pay and the number of hours worked at each hourly
rate on their paycheck stubs.

The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certified both the "meal periods" class and the "wage statements"
class; some individuals were members of both classes, while others
were members of only one class (collectively, the "class
members").  A trial was initially scheduled for January 30, 2012,
and was rescheduled to March 26, 2012, pending results of a
mediation process initiated in January 2012 with plaintiffs and
Local Union 1245 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (the "Union").

As a result of the mediation, on January 6, 2012, Davey Tree
Surgery Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of
All Claims (the "Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiffs,
counsel for the class members, and the Union representing the
class members.

The Settlement Agreement requires court approval of its terms.
The Court, in April 2012, granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement and set a hearing for final approval on the
motion in August 2012.  In the event that the Court denies final
approval of the Settlement Agreement with prejudice and both Davey
Tree Surgery Company and the plaintiffs have exhausted all means
to challenge that denial, the Settlement Agreement will be void in
all respects and the litigation will continue.

The Settlement Agreement provides for Davey Tree Surgery to pay a
total sum of $2,900,000 that was recorded in the fourth quarter
2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


DAVEY TREE: Unit Continues to Face Claims Over Rice Canyon Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert Company continues to face
claims arising from the 2007 Rice Canyon fire, according to the
Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Davey Tree Surgery Company, a Davey subsidiary, and Davey Resource
Group, a Davey division, have previously been sued, together with
a utility services customer, San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E"),
and its parent company, as defendants, and as cross-defendants in
cross-complaints filed by SDG&E, in the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of San Diego, arising
out of a wildfire in San Diego County that started on October 22,
2007, referred to as the Rice Canyon fire.

Numerous lawsuits related to the Rice Canyon fire were filed
against SDG&E, its parent company, Sempra Energy, and Davey.  The
earliest of the lawsuits naming Davey was filed on April 18, 2008.
The Court ordered that the lawsuits be organized into four groups
based on type of plaintiff, namely insurance subrogation
claimants, individual/business claimants, governmental claimants,
and plaintiffs seeking class certification.  Plaintiffs' motions
seeking class certification have since been denied.  SDG&E has
filed cross-complaints against Davey for contractual indemnity,
declaratory relief, and breach of contract.  SDG&E has reportedly
settled many of the third-party claims and is now actively
asserting damage claims against Davey.

Davey has notified its insurers of the Rice Canyon fire claims, is
vigorously defending the third-party claims, and continues to work
with the insurers both to defend the claims and to ensure coverage
of any potential liabilities.

At this time, and as previously reported, Davey believes that
insurance coverage and recorded accruals are sufficient to provide
for losses related to these potential liabilities and additional
losses, if any, would be remote.

However, due to the nature and extent of these claims, an adverse
result in these proceedings leading to a loss in excess of Davey's
available insurance coverage could have a material and adverse
effect on Davey's business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.  Adverse results, even if within the
limits of Davey's available insurance coverage, could materially
and adversely (a) affect Davey's ability to obtain comparable
insurance in the future, or, (b) if such insurance were
obtainable, affect the policy limits, premiums, self-insured
retentions and other terms and conditions thereof.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
federal judge on Aug. 10 tossed a multibillion-dollar securities
fraud class action against Deutsche Bank AG, ruling that to
survive the standard set in the Fait v. Regions Bank ruling,
plaintiffs needed to show the bank hadn't believed its financial
statements on its real estate exposure.

U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts granted Deutsche Bank's
request to reconsider her Aug. 19 decision to keep alive the
consolidated class actions accusing the Frankfurt, Germany-based
financial giant of making false and misleading statements about
its exposure.


EXEL DIRECT: Classification of Drivers as Contractors Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Villalpando, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Exel Direct Inc., Deutsche Post DHL, DHL
Express (USA), Inc., and Does 1 to 50, Case No. RG12634666 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 14, 2012) alleges that the
Defendants have routinely violated the California Labor Code and
California Code of Regulations by improperly categorizing Class
Members, including the Plaintiff, as independent contractors when
they are, in fact, employees.

Specifically, the Plaintiff challenges Defendants' policies of,
among other things, (i) classifying drivers as independent
contractors instead of employees, (ii) failing to reimburse
Plaintiff and the Class for reasonable business expenses, and
(iii) making deductions from Plaintiffs and the Class' wages.  The
Plaintiff and all putative Class members are current or former
Drivers of the Defendants, who are or were employed as
"independent contractors."

Mr. Villalpando is a resident of Oakley, California.  He worked as
a driver at the Defendants' office located in Sears' warehouse in
California between approximately September 2008 and December 2011.

Exel Direct is engaged in the business of delivery services in the
state of California.  Exel Direct is a wholly owned entity of
Deutsche Post DHL and is part of the Supply Chain division of
Deutsche Post DHL.  Deutsche Post DHL owns and operates under a
number of different names and entities, which are headquartered in
Ohio, including DHL Express (USA).  The true names and capacities
of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Company removed the lawsuit on August 6, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the proposed class includes at least 100 members, the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
and at least one putative class member is a citizen of a state
different from one of the Defendants.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-04137 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Clint J. Brayton, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  cbrayton@schneiderwallace.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 460
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Federal Express stiffs
quality control tech specialists in aircraft operations for
overtime and makes them work off the clock, a class action claims
in Los Angeles Superior Court.

  
GNC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Six Hydroxycut-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. continues to defend six class action lawsuits
arising from alleged injuries caused by Hydroxycut-branded
products, according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On May 1, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
issued a warning on several Hydroxycut-branded products
manufactured by Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc. ("Iovate").
The FDA warning was based on 23 reports of liver injuries from
consumers who claimed to have used the products between 2002 and
2009.  As a result, Iovate voluntarily recalled 14 Hydroxycut-
branded products.  Following the recall, the Company was named,
among other defendants, in approximately 93 lawsuits related to
Hydroxycut-branded products in 14 states.  Iovate previously
accepted the Company's tender request for defense and
indemnification under its purchasing agreement with the Company
and, as such, Iovate has accepted the Company's request for
defense and indemnification in the Hydroxycut matters.  The
Company's ability to obtain full recovery under the indemnity is
dependent on Iovate's insurance coverage, the creditworthiness of
its insurer, and the absence of significant defenses by such
insurer.  To the extent the Company is not fully compensated by
Iovate's insurer, it can seek recovery directly from Iovate.  The
Company's ability to fully recover such amounts may be limited by
the creditworthiness of Iovate.

Currently, there are 74 pending lawsuits related to Hydroxycut in
which the Company has been named: 68 individual, largely personal
injury claims and six putative class action cases, generally
inclusive of claims of consumer fraud, misrepresentation, strict
liability and breach of warranty.  As any liabilities that may
arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable
at this time, no liability has been accrued in the accompanying
financial statements.

As previously reported, the six putative class actions are:

   * Andrew Dremak, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences Group,
     Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of
     California, 09CV1088 (filed May 19, 2009);

   * Enjoli Pennier, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences, et al.,
     U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana,
     09CV3533 (filed May 13, 2009);

   * Alejandro M. Jimenez, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences,
     Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
     California, 09CV1473 (filed May 28, 2009);

   * Amy Baker, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc.,
     et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama,
     09CV872 (filed May 4, 2009);

   * Kyle Davis and Sara Carreon, et al. v. Iovate Health
     Sciences USA, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Northern
     District of Alabama, 09CV896 (filed May 7, 2009); and

   * Lenny Charles Gunn, Tonya Rhoden, and Nicholas Atelevich,
     et al., v. Iovate Health Sciences Group, Inc., et al., U.S.
     District Court, Southern District of California, 09CV2337
     (filed October 24, 2009).

By court order dated October 6, 2009, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated pretrial
proceedings of many of the pending actions in the Southern
District of California (In re: Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2087).


HANSEN MEDICAL: Judge Trims Securities Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Lana Birbrair, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Aug. 10 pared some securities law violation
claims from a putative shareholder class action alleging medical
robotics maker Hansen Medical Inc. artificially inflated its
revenues, but allowed the bulk of the case to continue.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken tossed several claims against
Hansen and a group of its former executives in the shareholders'
third amended complaint.


HILLENBRAND INC: Continues to Await Ruling in FCA Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. (FCA) and a number
of individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class
action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers
of Batesville(R) caskets against Hillenbrand, Inc. and its former
parent company, Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., now Hill-Rom
Holdings, Inc. (Hill-Rom), and three national funeral home
businesses (the FCA Action).  A more detailed history of the
litigation has been disclosed in the Company's previous filings.

The lawsuit claimed, among other things, that the Company's
maintenance and enforcement of, and alleged modifications to, its
long-standing policy of selling caskets only to licensed funeral
homes were the product of a conspiracy among the Company, the
other defendants, and others to exclude "independent casket
discounters," resulting in suppressed competition in the alleged
market for caskets and allegedly leading consumers to pay higher
than competitive prices for caskets.

Plaintiffs in the FCA Action have generally sought monetary
damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of Batesville caskets,
trebling of any such damages that may be awarded, recovery of
attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs
in the FCA Action filed a report indicating that they were seeking
damages ranging from approximately $947 million to approximately
$1.46 billion before trebling on behalf of the purported class of
consumers they seek to represent, based on approximately one
million casket purchases by the purported class members.

The Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas
denied class certification on March 26, 2009, and ultimately
dismissed the lawsuit on September 24, 2010, concluding that
"plaintiffs shall take nothing by their suit."  Currently, the FCA
Action is on appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs have appealed both the District Court's order of
dismissal and the order denying class certification.  The parties
have submitted all appellate briefs, and the Court of Appeals
heard oral argument from the parties on December 5, 2011.  The
Court of Appeals has not yet issued its ruling affirming or
reversing the District Court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

If plaintiffs succeed in overturning the judgment, reversing the
District Court order denying class certification, and a class is
subsequently certified in the FCA Action filed against Hill-Rom
and Batesville, and if the plaintiffs prevail at a trial of the
class action, the damages awarded to the plaintiffs, which would
be trebled as a matter of law, could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition, and cash flow.  In antitrust actions such as the FCA
Action, the plaintiffs may elect to enforce any judgment against
any or all of the co-defendants, who have no statutory
contribution rights against each other.  The Company and Hill-Rom
have entered into a Judgment Sharing Agreement that apportions the
costs and any potential liabilities associated with this
litigation between the Company and Hill-Rom.

The defendants are vigorously contesting both liability and the
plaintiffs' damages theories.

As of June 30, 2012, the Company had incurred approximately $29.2
million in cumulative legal and related costs associated with the
FCA Action since its inception.  Costs incurred in 2012 were $0.5
million.


HOSPIRA INC: Faces Suit Alleging ERISA Violations in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit alleging violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according
to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Hospira, certain members of Hospira's Board of Directors and other
current or former Hospira employees have been named as defendants
in a lawsuit alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The lawsuit is Veronica Lynch,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on
behalf of the Hospira 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan v. Hospira,
Inc., Pamela Hannon, Henry A. Weishaar, Lori O. Carlson, Richard
J. Hoffman, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors
of Hospira, Inc., Roger W. Hale, Connie R. Curran, Jacque J.
Sokolov and Heino von Prondzynski, filed June 11, 2012, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties,
generally alleging that Hospira stock was not a prudent investment
for 401(k) participants.  The lawsuit seeks class action status,
equitable relief and monetary damages.


HOSPIRA INC: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Ill. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
commenced in Illinois filed an amended complaint in June 2012,
according to Hospira, Inc.'s August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

Hospira and certain of its corporate officers and former corporate
officers are defendants in a lawsuit that alleges violations of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  The case is City of
Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
Hospira, Inc., F. Michael Ball, Thomas E. Werner, Christopher B.
Begley and James Hardy, and it is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  This
lawsuit is the result of a consolidation of two previously
reported cases.  An amended complaint was filed on June 25, 2012.
The amended complaint alleges, generally that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
Hospira's financials and business prospects and failed to disclose
material facts affecting Hospira's financial condition.  The
lawsuit alleges a class period from February 4, 2010 (the
announcement of Q4 2009 earnings), through October 17, 2011
(Hospira announced preliminary financial results for the third
quarter of 2011 on October 18, 2011).  The lawsuit seeks class
action status and damages including interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.


INDYMAC BANCORP: Class Action Settlements Get Prelim. Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Winnick, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Aug. 10 preliminarily approved settlements
totaling $11.5 million in twin securities class actions accusing
former IndyMac Bancorp. Inc. CEO Michael W. Perry and another
executive of lying about the mortgage lender's underwriting
practices and deteriorating financial position.

U.S. District Judge George H. Wu granted preliminary approval to a
$5.5 million settlement in a securities class action against
Mr. Perry on behalf of all who purchased IndyMac stock between
March 1, 2006, and March 1, 2007, along with a $6.5 million
settlement in another securities suit.


JONES LANG: Maintenance Workers File Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that commercial real
estate brokerage giant Jones Lang Lasalle has stiffed maintenance
workers for overtime since January, when it reclassified them from
salary to hourly employees, according to a federal class action.
Lead plaintiff Larry Jackson claims the defendant incorrectly
classified him as an exempt employee,and refuses to pay him
overtime after 40 hours a week.

"Since plaintiff has been re-classified, there have been multiple
instances where he has not been paid for all of his overtime
hours," the complaint states.  "Plaintiff's manager has either
doctored his time card to show that plaintiff only worked 40 hours
or outright refused to pay plaintiff for his overtime hours."

Chicago-based Jones Lang Lasalle purchased Dallas-based The
Staubach Company in 2008 for $613 million, creating the world's
second-largest commercial real estate brokerage firm.

Jackson seeks actual and punitive damages for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Jackson v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas,
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02700 (N.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/13/JonesLangLasalle.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          MEREDITH MATHEWS
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar St. Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400

               - and -

          Jill J. Weinberg, Esq.
          WEINBERG LAW FIRM
          6425 Willow Creek Drive
          Plano, TX 75093
          Telephone: (972) 403-3330


LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Class Action Over Release of Toxic Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean McLernon, writing for Law360, reports that a pair of Maryland
residents lodged a putative nuisance class action against cement
manufacturer Lafarge North America Inc. and bankrupt steel maker
RG Steel LLC in state court on Aug. 9, seeking damages for health
hazards caused by the companies' alleged release of toxic
pollutants.

RG Steel and Lafarge operate facilities in the Sparrows Point
Peninsula section of Baltimore County that have caused noxious
odors and released hazardous substances into the atmosphere,
according to the complaint.  Soil samples from the area contained
excessive levels of lead and manganese.


LAUDERDALE COUNTY, MS: Faces Probe Over School-to-Prison System
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Root's Hillary Crosley, Mississippi's Lauderdale
County is under investigation by the Department of Justice for
creating a "school-to-prison" pipeline for students in the local
education system.  The move by the DOJ, which looks into the
practice that has children locked in small cells for small wrongs,
like talking out of turn, and at times sprayed with mace, follows
a federal class-action suit by the Southern Poverty Law Center in
2009 against the Lauderdale County Juvenile Detention Facility,
accusing the establishment of "shockingly inhumane" treatment of
their charges, reports CNN.

"Students most affected by this system are African-American
children and children with disabilities," the Justice Department
said.

The federal agency's civil rights division seeks "meaningful
negotiations" in 60 days to end the constitutional violations or
else a federal lawsuit would be filed against state, county and
local officials in Meridian, according to a Justice Department
letter dated Aug. 10 to those officials.

The letter also names two Lauderdale County Youth Court judges,
Frank Coleman and Veldore Young.

State and local officials couldn't be reached immediately for
comment on Aug. 10.

"The systematic disregard for children's basic constitutional
rights by agencies with a duty to protect and serve these children
betrays the public trust," Thomas E. Perez, assistant U.S.
attorney general, said in a statement.  "We hope to resolve the
concerns outlined in our findings in a collaborative fashion, but
we will not hesitate to take appropriate legal action if
necessary."


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Make Closing Arguments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that Maricopa County
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "reliance on Hispanic appearance in
immigration-related investigations" violates the Constitution's
Equal Protection Clause, plaintiffs' attorneys in the civil rights
class action wrote in their closing arguments.

The five named plaintiffs in the federal complaint, filed more
than four years ago, were detained by sheriff's deputies during
"crime suppression sweeps," allegedly conducted to enforce
Arizona's human-smuggling law.

Plaintiffs' attorneys claim Sheriff Arpaio's admission that his
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office "has a practice of considering
apparent Hispanic descent as one among several indicators in
forming reasonable suspicion to justify immigration-related
investigatory detentions of drivers and passengers during traffic
stops" clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause.
But attorneys for Maricopa County and Sheriff Arpaio claim in
their closing arguments that trial evidence "amply demonstrates
that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof that
defendants, or any MCSO deputy, acted with discriminatory intent,
motive or animus in any manner, or that defendants had a policy,
pattern, or practice that was motivated by a discriminatory
purpose."

Sheriff Arpaio "can oppose 'rampant' illegal immigration without
having racial or ethnic animus toward the illegal immigrants
specifically, or Latinos in general," his attorneys claims.

The plaintiffs disagree.  They say "that the use of race for this
purpose is permissible because that is how U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) trained certain MCSO officers . . . is
no defense if those actions were unconstitutional under clearly
established law."

Sheriff Arpaio's "practice of planning saturation patrols in
response to racially motivated requests from the public is
sufficient to demonstrate the MCSO's discriminatory intent,"
plaintiffs' attorneys said in their closing arguments.

Deputies have targeted Latinos "for pretextual traffic stops based
on low-level traffic and equipment violations in order to maximize
the number of opportunities to investigate drivers and passengers
in reference to their identity and immigration status," the
lawyers say in their arguments.

But Sheriff Arpaio's attorneys claim that the plaintiffs were
wrong to suggest that "Arpaio had racially discriminatory intent,
motive, purpose, or animus against Latinos when he publicly
announced in 2007 an MCSO 'crackdown' on illegal immigration."
They claim that the "race-neutral reality is that Arizona is a
border state and that Maricopa County is a well-recognized major
human smuggling corridor."

The plaintiffs are not seeking money damages, but an injunction to
stop Sheriff Arpaio and his office from exceeding their authority,
and from engaging in racial discrimination.

It is not known when U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow will rule
on the case.

A copy of the Complaint in Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et, Case
No. 07-cv-02513 (D. Ariz.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/01/MelendresvArpaio.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Bodney, Esq.
          Peter S. Kozinets, Esq.
          Karen J. Hartman-Tellez, Esq.
          Isaac P. Hernandez 025537, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          Collier Center
          201 East Washington Street, Suite 1600
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-23 82
          Telephone: (602) 257-5200
          E-mail: dbodney@steptoe.com
                  pkozinets@steptoe.com
                  khartman@steptoe.com
                  ihernandez@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Robin Goldfaden, Esq.
          Monica M. Ramirez, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS'
          RIGHTS PROJECT
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415 343-0770

               - and -

          Kristina M. Campbell, Esq.
          Nancy Ramirez, Esq.
          MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
          634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: 213 629-2512 x136


MATCH.COM: Judge Tosses Most of Subscribers' Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lana Birbrair, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas federal
judge on Aug. 10 tossed most of a putative class action alleging
Match.com tricked customers into signing up for its services by
falsely claiming it had millions of active subscribers, finding
that the site's user agreements did not require it to remove
unused or fraudulent profiles.

U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay found that Match.com had not
breached its subscriber agreement when it allegedly failed to
fully vet new profiles, remove inactive or fake profiles, or block
scammers from accessing the site.


METROPOLITAN WATER: Cook County Circuit Ct. Certifies Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Cook County Circuit Court Judge on Aug. 11 certified a class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of 1,150 non-union employees of the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking
to restore $38 million in deferred compensation benefits illegally
eliminated by a November, 2010 action of the MWRD Board of
Commissioners.

This class action lawsuit was filed in December, 2010 by 27
current MWRD employees seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
against the District, which had eliminated vested and accrued
termination and sick leave pay for all non-union employees,
effective January 1, 2011.  In December, 2010 these plaintiffs
obtained temporary restraining orders preventing the application
of the policy adopted in November, 2010 to those plaintiffs forced
to retire early without their full pensions by December 31, 2010
or lose tens of thousands of dollars in these deferred benefits.

On January 25, 2012, Judge Billik's ruling granted the named
plaintiffs partial summary judgment, holding that the MWRD
employment handbooks and policies created a right to these vested
and accrued benefits.  The Court also found that plaintiffs hired
prior to November, 1994 had the right to future accrual of these
termination and sick leave pay benefits that could not be
unilaterally eliminated by the District because these Plaintiffs
were hired prior to the date when the District's Employee Handbook
first contained clear language disclaiming that the policies could
not constitute an enforceable contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Hogan Marren,
Ltd.  Patrick E. Deady, one of the partners of the firm, said the
termination and sick pay benefits accrued through December 31,
2010 for all 1,150 employees, were estimated to be $25 million and
projected future benefits for the 400 pre-November, 1994 employees
were estimated to be $13 million.

For a copy of the August 8, 2012 and January 25, 2012 rulings of
Judge Billik, go to http://www.hmltd.comor call (312) 946-1800,
ext. 439.


NEUTROGENA CORP: Sued Over False Claims on Sunscreen Product
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Neutrogena sells sunscreen
product with false and misleading statements that they are
waterproof and "sweatproof," a class action claims in Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Franco v. Neutrogena Corporation, Case
No. 12-cv-01991 (S. D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/13/Neutrogena.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com
                  lgomez-gray@bffb.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: tcarpenter@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 427-3600
          E-mail: sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com


NORTHWEST PIPE: Settles Four Class Actions for $13.25 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Corvin, writing for The Columbian, reports that Vancouver-
based Northwest Pipe Co. has agreed to pay $13.25 million to
settle four lawsuits filed by shareholders, including a class-
action complaint that accused the company and senior managers of
accounting fraud.

In a quarterly financial report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission last week, the company said the parties
involved have agreed, "subject to court approval," to settle a
class-action lawsuit for $12.5 million and three other cases for
$750,000.

The company said it also agreed "to make certain corporate
governance modifications" as part of the settlement, according to
its SEC filing.

The agreement, worth a total of $13.25 million, concludes legal
battles stemming from the company's announcement in late 2009 that
it had delayed its third-quarter earnings report until it could
resolve an internal investigation of accounting matters.

What followed were shareholder lawsuits, management shake-ups and
stunning financial reports, including one in which the company
said it had overstated its profits by $37 million to $47 million
over the course of a number of years.

An SEC probe of the company remains under way, the company said in
its Aug. 7 SEC filing.  "We are cooperating fully with the SEC in
connection with these matters," the company said.

Northwest Pipe -- which manufacturers steel pipe primarily for
drinking water systems -- has experienced more recent accounting
hiccups and has run afoul of the Nasdaq stock exchange, on which
it's listed as NWPX.

In March, it announced new "material errors" with its accounting
procedures, saying it would have to restate its books, including
decreasing its retained earnings by up to $12 million.

The company has said that it has boosted its internal financial
controls, among other changes, to address both its earlier
financial missteps and its more recent ones.

The company also has previously received multiple delisting
warnings from Nasdaq officials for failing to file its financial
reports in a timely manner.  The most recent warning came in March
when the Nasdaq gave the company an April deadline to file its
delayed earnings reports.

The company complied, issuing late and restated financial reports,
including data for all of 2011 showing the company bounced back to
profitability.

Despite its legal and other troubles, the company has scored
business victories, including securing a deal -- worth $69 million
in revenue -- to provide welded steel pipe for a water pipeline
project in Texas.  "The project is a significant part of our plans
for 2012-2013," Rich Roman, president and CEO of Northwest Pipe,
said in a news release.

Earlier this month, the company reported that its second-quarter
profit was down.  It posted a profit of $3.6 million, of 38 cents
per share, for the three-month period ended June 30.  That
compares with a profit of $5 million, or 53 cents per share, for
the second quarter of 2011.

The company's net sales of $131 million were down by 8.9 percent,
year-over-year.  Although sales and profit were down, Mr. Roman
said, the company expects a stronger second half of 2012.

In announcing this week that it has resolved its legal disputes,
Northwest Pipe said the bulk of the $13.25 million settlement
"will be paid by the company's insurers" and has been included as
part of its accrued liabilities.

The single $12.5 million lawsuit representing most of the total
settlement amount was a class-action complaint led by Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund.  It alleged
that former Northwest Pipe executives and the company itself
deliberately misled shareholders about when revenue was
recognized, manipulated the assignment of costs to make
unprofitable contracts look profitable and pressured plant
managers to order steel before it was needed in order to inflate
quarterly revenue.

In February 2011, attorneys for the company asked a U.S. District
Court judge to throw out the lawsuit, arguing that "the facts and
circumstances" of the case "point to accounting error, not
accounting fraud."

The judge denied the request.  Subsequently, the parties involved
in the lawsuit entered into a mediation process in January.
During a second round of mediation talks in July, the parties
reached a settlement of the class-action matter, and three other
related lawsuits.


ORIEL THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Oriel Therapeutics sold
itself too cheaply to Sandoz, shareholders say in a heavily
redacted federal complaint filed in Manhattan, with a demand for
$1 billion in punitive damages.


REXNORD CORP: Agreed to Settle Suits Over Zurn Brass Fittings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation disclosed in its August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it recently reached an agreement
in principle to settle claims related to Zurn PEX brass fittings.

The Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries,
LLC (formerly known as Zurn Industries, Inc.), have been named as
defendants in fifteen lawsuits, brought between July 2007 and July
2011, in various United States courts (MN, ND, CO, NC, MT, AL, VA,
LA, NM, MI and HI).  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits represent
(in the case of the proceedings in Minnesota), or seek to
represent, a class of plaintiffs alleging damages due to the
alleged failure or anticipated failure of the Zurn brass fittings
on the PEX plumbing systems in homes and other structures.  The
complaints assert various causes of action, including but not
limited to negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, and violations
of the Magnuson Moss Act and certain state consumer protection
laws, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages
(including punitive damages).  All but the Hawaii lawsuits have
been transferred to a multi-district litigation docket in the
District of Minnesota for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  One
Hawaii case remains in Hawaii state court, and the other is in
federal court with a current dispute over whether it will be
transferred to Minnesota or remain in federal court in Hawaii.
The court in the Minnesota proceedings (the "Court") certified
certain classes of plaintiffs in Minnesota for negligence and
negligent failure to warn claims and for breach of warranty
claims.  On July 6, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th
Circuit affirmed the class certification order of the Court.
Class certification has not been granted in the other state court
actions.

The Company recently reached an agreement in principle to settle
the Zurn PEX brass fittings liability underlying this litigation.
The settlement is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the
Company's overall exposure for both known and unknown claims
related to the alleged failure or anticipated failure of Zurn
brass fittings on PEX plumbing systems; subject to the right of
eligible class members to opt-out of the settlement and pursue
their claims independently.  The settlement remains subject to
reaching an agreement with plaintiffs and the Company's insurers
on definitive terms, and Court approval, including the right of
objection by interested parties, and utilizes a product liability
claims fund, which is capped in amount and duration.  The
settlement also covers the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses and related administrative costs.  For the first quarter
ended June 30, 2012, the Company recorded an incremental charge in
the amount of $10.1 million related to the brass fittings
liability.  While the Company believes its current reserve
reflects the most likely estimate of the loss contingency
associated with bringing all aspects of the Zurn PEX brass
fittings matter to resolution, additional reserve adjustments
should be expected.  Management, however, does not expect such
adjustments will be material to its financial position, assuming
there are no significant changes in current facts and assumptions,
although there can be no assurances.

The Company's insurance carriers continue to fund the Company's
defense in these proceedings; however, they have filed a lawsuit
for a declaratory judgment in Florida state court challenging
their coverage obligations with respect to certain classes of
claims.  The Florida lawsuit, which is pending, is expected to be
resolved in conjunction with finalization and approval of the
settlement of the underlying claims subject to certain factors.

The Company can provide no assurance that the liability and
related litigation will be resolved on the anticipated terms, or
at all, or that the Court will approve the settlement.  If the
Court does not approve the settlement the Company will continue to
vigorously defend these claims.  Even if the Court approves the
settlement the Company expects to continue to vigorously defend
against any opt-out claims.  In addition, the Company cannot
provide assurance that the insurance carriers' action will be
resolved, or on the final terms of such resolution.  Due to the
uncertainties of litigation (including approval of the potential
settlement), and the related insurance coverage and collection
actions and issues, as well as the actual number or value of
claims (including opt-outs), the Company may be subject to
substantial liability beyond the reserves that have been taken
that could have a material adverse effect on the Company and its
results of operations.


REXNORD CORP: Zurn Continues to Face Asbestos-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation's subsidiaries continue to face class action
lawsuits alleging personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are subject to asbestos and
class action related litigation.  As of June 30, 2012, the
Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC
and an average of approximately 80 other unrelated companies were
defendants in approximately 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits
representing approximately 27,000 claims.  Plaintiffs' claims
allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used
primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment
of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos
components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.  These
claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by
insurers.  As of June 30, 2012, the Company estimates the
potential liability for asbestos-related claims pending against
Zurn as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten
years to be approximately $42.0 million of which Zurn expects to
pay approximately $33.0 million in the next ten years on such
claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years.  The $42.0 million was developed based on an
actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout
through the next 10 years.  However, there are inherent
uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos
claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives.

As a result, Zurn's actual liability could differ from the
estimate described.  Further, while this current asbestos
liability is based on an estimate of claims through the next ten
years, such liability may continue beyond that time frame, and
such liability could be substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of June 30, 2012, is approximately
$256.9 million, and believes that all current claims are covered
by this insurance.  However, principally as a result of the past
insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain
coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers
have paid the first $180.9 million of aggregate liabilities. In
order for the next $51.0 million of insurance coverage from
solvent carriers to apply, management estimates that it would need
to satisfy $14.0 million of asbestos claims.  Layered within the
final $25.0 million of the total $256.9 million of coverage,
management estimates that it would need to satisfy an additional
$80.0 million of asbestos claims.  If required to pay any such
amounts, the Company could pursue recovery against the insolvent
carriers, but it is not currently possible to determine the
likelihood or amount of such recoveries, if any.

As of June 30, 2012, the Company has a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of $42.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.  However, there is no assurance that $256.9 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's
asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed $256.9 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.


SOLTA MEDICAL: Awaits Final Okay of Deal in Suit vs. Aesthera
-------------------------------------------------------------
Solta Medical, Inc. is awaiting final approval of a settlement of
a class action lawsuit against its subsidiary, according to the
Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On December 4, 2009, Aesthera Corporation was served with a class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut alleging that Aesthera caused unsolicited
fax advertisements to be sent to the plaintiffs in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, and Connecticut
state law.  The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a
class, and it alleges that Aesthera caused unsolicited fax
advertisements to be sent from August 1, 2006, through the
present.  Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the TCPA and
Connecticut state law, attorneys' fees and costs of the action,
and an injunction to prevent any future violations.  In May 2010,
Aesthera reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter on
a class-wide basis by consenting to certification of a settlement
class to receive payment out of a settlement fund.  On November 5,
2010, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for certification
of a settlement class and for preliminary approval of the parties'
settlement.

On April 15, 2011, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion without
prejudice on the grounds that the proposed means of giving notice
to the class -- i.e., via fax -- was not adequate.  The Court
directed the plaintiffs to revise their motion to provide for
notice to the class via United States mail.  The Court further
directed that the cost of this notice should be borne by Aesthera
without reduction to the amount of the settlement fund.  On August
22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a renewed unopposed motion for
certification of a settlement class and for preliminary approval
of the parties' settlement.  This renewed motion provides for
notice to the class via United States mail.  Pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act (see 28 U.S.C. Section 1715), on August 30,
2011, Aesthera gave the Attorney General of the United States and
each of the state attorneys general notice of the proposed
settlement.  On September 29, 2011, the Court entered an Order
stating that it would grant plaintiffs' renewed motion upon
submission of a revised notice to the class providing that the
claim form will be a fillable PDF that will enable perspective
class members to complete and submit the form electronically.  On
October 12, 2011, the parties jointly submitted revised long-form
and summary versions of the Notice to the Class providing that the
Proof of Claim will be a fillable PDF that will enable perspective
class members, if they so choose, to complete and submit the form
electronically without need to print it.  On October 14, 2011, the
Court granted Plaintiffs' renewed Motion to Certify Class for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement.  Notice was sent by the
claim's administrator to potential members of the class.

A fairness hearing was held on March 27, 2012, at which the Court
approved the settlement subject to certain conditions, which have
since been fulfilled.  On May 5, 2012, the Court ordered the
Plaintiffs to submit an amended settlement agreement and final
approval order.  Plaintiffs filed the required papers on June 15,
2012.  Upon the Court's execution of the final approval order, the
Company will be released from the class claims.  The Company does
not believe the final disposition of this action will have a
material effect on its financial statements and future cash flows.


STRAUSS GROUP: Sued Over Misleading Claims on Fruit Yogurts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ela Levy-Weinrib, writing for Globes, reports that two lawsuits
have been filed with the Central District Court, with requests to
be recognized as class-action suits, against Strauss Group Ltd.
and Tnuva Food Industries Ltd., for allegedly including almost no
fruits and nuts in their yogurt marketed as containing them.  The
lawsuit against Strauss is for NIS72 million, and the lawsuit
against Tnuva is for NIS142.5 million.

The petitioners allege that Tnuva's "Yogurt with granola fruit"
and Strauss's "Yogurt with granola nuts" mislead consumers,
because the products contain less than 6% fruit.  By law, with
this proportion, the products should be labeled as "fruit
flavored".

Strauss has a 42% share of the yogurt market, with NIS126 million
in sales.  The company's "Yogurt with granola nuts" reportedly has
NIS6.3 million in sales a year.


TEXAS BRINE: Faces Class Action Over Radioactive Sinkhole
---------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that an
enormous, foul-smelling, possibly radioactive sinkhole swallowed
an acre of cypress trees and forced 150 home evacuations,
Louisianans say in a class action against the Texas Brine Co.

"On Friday, August 3, 2012, a sinkhole, 422 feet deep and 372 feet
wide emerged releasing a foul diesel odor and created salt-water
slurry, which contains diesel fuel," the federal class action
begins.

Lead plaintiff Lisa LeBlanc and the class live in Assumption
Parish, about 50 miles south of Baton Rouge.  According to the
federal complaint, a salt cavern failed, which Texas Brine Co. was
using to store radioactive material, a byproduct of the drilling
industry.

The class claims that Texas Brine knew the cavern walls were
liable to breach as early as January 2011, but failed to warn the
public.

"The public was not warned in January 2011 or any time thereafter
or prior of the potential danger resulting from the failure of
this cavern and the general public had no knowledge of the storage
of the radioactive material in the cavern," the complaint states.

The class claims Texas Brine "used the cavern as a deposit area
for naturally occurring radioactive material arising from drilling
into two defendant-owned salt caverns . . ."

"In early September 2010, defendant began reworking the cavern
well, milling a section of salt higher than the existing cavern
roof, at 3,400 feet deep, to see if the upper strata could be
mined.  This area extends for about 100 feet through the well
casing above the cavern roof.

"On January 21, 2011, Mark J. Cartwright, President of Texas Brine
Co. Saltville informed the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources (LDNR), via letter, about a failed integrity test of the
cavern and suspicion that the cavern may have breached the
Napoleonville Dome's outer wall.  These problems with the cavern
led to the cavern being plugged in June 2011.  The area milled in
September 2010 may be the source of the salt dome breach.

"LDNR records show that Defendant had been examining the cavern's
wall at least since June 2010."

The class claims Assumption Parish officials ordered the area
evacuated on Friday, Aug. 3, the day the sinkhole opened.

On Saturday, Aug. 11, Texas Brine agreed to make a "significant
contribution" to a fund set up to help residents evacuate,
according to The Associated Press.

A U.S. Department of Energy document on storage of naturally
occurring radioactive material in salt caverns states that oil
field wastes -- but not other industrial wastes -- are exempted
from the hazardous waste requirements of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.

According to that document, "Disposal of NORM [naturally occurring
radioactive material]-Contaminated Oil Field Wastes in Salt
Caverns": "On July 6, 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued a regulatory determination that exempted any
wastes arising from the exploration, development, and production
of crude oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy from regulation
as hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle C (53 FR 25477).  . . .
Given the federal exemption from RCRA for oil field wastes, the
waste management requirements faced by most operators will be
state requirements."

The document, which was released in 1998, states that Louisiana
law prohibited storage of naturally occurring radioactive waste in
salt caverns, and that the law would have to be amended before
storage would be possible.

The class seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages,
medical monitoring and costs.

A copy of the Complaint in Leblanc, et al. v. Texas Brine Company,
LLC, Case No. 12-cv-_____ (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/13/Sinkhole.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew Moreland, Esq.
          Kevin P. Klibert, Esq.
          Salvadore Christina, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Crose, Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          106 West 7TH Street
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: (985) 536-1186

               - and -

          Lana Ourso Chaney, Esq.
          112 N. Curtis Street
          P.O. Box 580
          Pierre Part, La 70339
          Telephone: (985) 252-1336
          E-mail: lourso1@aol.com

               - and -

          Richard G. Perque, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD G. PERQUE, LLC
          700 Camp St., Suite
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 681-2003
          E-mail: richard@perquelaw.com

               - and -

          Autumn A. Town, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AUTUMN TOWN, LLC
          700 Camp St., Suite 112
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 528-9500
          E-mail: autietown@gmail.com


TRULY NOLEN: Appeals Court Rules Against Class Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, reports that a California
appeals court on Aug. 9 overturned a ruling that would have
allowed a group of Truly Nolen of America employees to arbitrate
their wage-and-hour claims against the pest control company as a
class.

California's Fourth District Court of Appeal vacated a decision by
a state superior court, which had previously ruled that Truly
Nolen pest control technicians who accused the company of failing
to pay their full wages and provide required breaks could not be
forced to arbitrate their claims as individuals.


VAQUERIA TRES: Recalls Juice Drink With Pineapple-Guava Flavor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vaqueria Tres Monjitas Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall of
the juice beverage with pinneaple-guava flavor (guava-pina) in all
the pack sizes available in the market.  The product has been
recalled because it may contain sodium caseinate, a milk
derivative, that it is not declared in the label as required by
the Food and Drug Administration.  People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to this ingredient run the risk of an allergic
reaction if they consume the product.  No illnesses have been
reported to date.

The product is available in plastic containers of the following
sizes: 8 oz, 14 oz, 32 oz, 64 oz & 128 oz.  Once the labels are
corrected the product will be available for sale again.  Pictures
of the labels of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm315320.htm

Consumers interested in returning the product for a refund can
contact Vaqueria Tres Monjitas at 787-474-1817 or 787-474-1818.


WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Black Workers Lose Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that black
workers who brought racial discrimination claims against one of
the nation's largest building companies cannot proceed as a class,
the 7th Circuit ruled.

Walsh Construction Company, like most construction contractors,
requires a highly flexible workforce to handle the multistage
building process.  The company has a small number of permanent
employees who supervise projects, and superintendants make most
day-to-day employment decisions.  Walsh has an antidiscrimination
policy and provides management training.

In a 2006 complaint, 12 former Walsh employees claimed that a
Chicago-area superintendent had practiced or tolerated racial
discrimination.  Citing statistical analysis, they said black
employees were less likely than white or Hispanic workers to
receive overtime hours or promotions.

In addition, some superintendents and foremen allegedly used the
words "nigger" and "coon" to refer to black workers or allowed
other employees to do so.  The complaint also alleged that
derogatory graffiti and hangman's nooses had appeared in portable
toilets on some sites.

U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow certified two classes
covering all of Walsh's 262 projects in the Chicago area since
mid-2001.  She reasoned that the proposed class differed from one
that the Supreme Court disbanded in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.

But the 7th Circuit rejected this reasoning last week.  Though
there are two problems with the proposed class, the court found
that a third issue ultimately dooms the case.

First, none of the 12 representatives had worked for Walsh since
2002. A class cannot proceed without representative plaintiffs
since the court struck down such "across-the-board classes" in
General Telephone v. Falcon in 1982.  But the problem could be
rectified simply by naming different lead plaintiffs, the court
found.

Second, the proposed "overtime class," which contains "all blacks
employed as journeymen . . . who were denied opportunities to
work, not afforded overtime hours or not afforded premium pay
hours, because of their race," defines the case based on a future
decision on the merits -- that the workers were denied benefits
"because of race."

This definition makes it impossible to determine who is in the
class until the case ends, but that meaning can be easily changed.

The problem fatal to the complaint lies in the lack of class
commonality, according to the court's three-judge panel.

Because superintendents and foremen change sites so often, and the
discrimination alleged stemmed from the actions of a few
individuals, common questions of fact probably do not exist, the
panel determined.

"To evaluate plaintiffs' grievances about Walsh, however, a court
would need site-specific, perhaps worker-specific, details, and
then the individual questions would dominate the common questions
(if, indeed, there turned out to be any common questions)," Chief
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the court.

Even the alleged statistical analysis cannot save the proposed
class because it "has the same problem as the statistical evidence
in Wal-Mart: it begs the question," the ruling states.

The analyst never justified his assumption that Walsh's Chicago-
area sites are the appropriate unit of analysis, and he did not
attempt to control for variables other than race.  Other factors
such as Walsh's collective bargaining agreements, which require it
to offer overtime opportunities first to union stewards, could
have caused the reported trends, the court found.

The data could also be explained by predominantly white union
members.

"Wal-Mart tells us that local discretion cannot support a company-
wide class no matter how cleverly lawyers may try to repackage
local variability as uniformity," Judge Easterbrook wrote.  "The
12 plaintiffs did not experience the working conditions at all 262
sites either individually or collectively, and a given plaintiff's
bad experience with one of the five supervisors we have named does
not present any question about the conduct of Walsh's many other
superintendents and foremen."

Claims must be brought on a site-by-site basis, the 7th Circuit
determined, noting that some sites are large enough to meet class
action numerosity requirements.

"We urge the parties and the judge to act with dispatch," Judge
Easterbrook wrote.  "It has been a decade since any of the
plaintiffs worked for Walsh, and the case is six years old.  It
should not be allowed to gather moss."

Former superintendents John Taheny, Robert Kuna, Arthur Crummie,
Robert DeBoer, and Jim Gumber were named in the complaint as
practicing discrimination.  None works for Walsh today.

A copy of the decision in Bolden, et al. v. Walsh Construction
Company, No. 12-2205 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/13/walsh.pdf


WELLS FARGO: Consultants File Overtime Class Action in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that former Wachovia home mortgage
consultants can advance overtime claims against Wells Fargo as a
class, a federal judge ruled.

A copy of the Order in In re: Wells Fargo Wage and Hour Employment
Practices Litigation (No. III), Case NO. 11-md-02266 (S.D. Tex.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/13/Wells%20Fargo.pdf


WEST PUBLISHING: McGuireWoods Must Forfeit Fees, 9th Cir. Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the law firm
McGuireWoods must forfeit more than $7 million in fees for its
role in settling a class action against West Publishing and
Kaplan, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ruled.

The three-judge panel found that the firm's incentive agreements
with class representatives had created an intolerable conflict of
interest.

West and Kaplan agreed in 2007 to pay $49 million to settle claims
that they had conspired to block competition in the market for bar
review courses.

U.S. District Judge Manuel Real initially approved the agreement
in Los Angeles, despite the objections of some members of the
class. He also awarded McGuireWoods over $7 million in fees,
though he denied the firm's request for an additional $325,000 in
incentive awards meant for five class representatives who had
signed agreements with the attorney who first brought the case.

In doing so, Judge Real found that the agreements had "violated
the ethics rule against fee-sharing with non-lawyers, and created
conflicts of interest between the class representatives and
unnamed class members."

On hearing the case the first of two times, the 9th Circuit
affirmed the settlement agreement, but it too had a problem with
the incentive agreements.  The appeals court reversed and remanded
the fee issue, directing the lower court "to consider in the first
instance the effect, if any, of the conflict arising out of the
incentive agreements on the request by class counsel for an
attorney's fee award."

After such consideration, the district court found that
McGuireWoods deserved no fees at all for its representation of the
class.  The incentive agreements, and the unethical conflict of
interest that they created, had "tainted McGuireWoods's
representation" beyond repair, the court found.

The issue went before the Pasadena-based federal appeals court for
a second time, but fared no better.

McGuireWoods argued that the District Court should have taken into
account the fact that the incentive agreements had not harmed the
class, for which the firm had secured millions of dollars more
than had been projected at the outset.

But the 9th Circuit disagreed in a ruling published on Aug. 10.

"The District Court could have considered this factor, among
others, in exercising its equitable discretion, and could have
reasonably concluded that McGuireWoods was entitled to some
attorneys' fees for its efforts and notable success in this case,"
wrote Judge Sandra Ikuta for the panel.  "But our conclusion that
the District Court could have reasonably taken this approach does
not make its failure to do so an abuse of discretion.  A District
Court has the primary responsibility for determining a reasonable
fee award and must weigh any benefits McGuireWoods conferred on
the class against the pervasive conflict of interest caused by the
incentive agreements with class representatives."

A spokesman for McGuireWoods said the firm "strongly disagrees"
with the ruling.

"We appreciate the recognition by the Ninth Circuit that we
achieved a 'notable success' for the class and its acknowledgement
that the existence of the incentive agreements caused the class no
harm," attorney William Allcott told Courthouse News.

"However, we strongly disagree with the court's conclusion with
respect to the incentive agreements and believe the court applied
a legal standard that was not generally recognized when the
attorney who had entered into those incentive agreements joined
our firm.  Our disappointment in the outcome is mitigated by the
knowledge that the effect of the decision is to augment the
recovery by the class and that a final distribution of the balance
of the $49 million settlement to the class members now is much
nearer to a reality."

A copy of the Opinion in Rodriguez, et al. v. Disner, No. 10-55309
(9th Cir.), is available at: http://is.gd/IZ15fc

The Appellant Sandra Disner was represented by:

          Margaret A. Grignon, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          E-mail: magrignon@reedsmith.com

McGuireWoods LLP was represented by:

          Terry W. Bird, Esq.
          Thomas R. Freeman, Esq.
          BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,
          NESSIM, DROOKS & LINCENBERG, P.C.
          Los Angeles, CA
          E-mail: twb@birdmarella.com
                  trf@birdmarella.com

               - and -

          Sidney Kanazawa, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East
          8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
          E-mail: skanazawa@mcguirewoods.com


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *