CAR_Public/130103.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 3, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 2

                             Headlines


AMAZON.COM: Recalls Nap Nanny(R) Recliners
ASUS COMPUTER: Judge Rejects Tablet Class Action Settlement
AURORA LOAN: Motion for Judgment Denied in Foreclosure Suit
BANKSIA FINANCIAL: Debenture Holders File Class Action
BARBADOS: Bajan Gun Owners File Suit v. Police Commissioner

CASH AMERICA: To Defend Arbitration Claims in "Alfeche" Suit
CELERA CORP: Court Allows Investor to Opt Out of Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Fired Black Teachers Sue BOE Over Discrimination
CLAIRE'S STORES: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
COMICS UNLEASHED: Comedians File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages

D R HORTON: Mediator Hammers Deal in Chinese Drywall Suits
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Internet "Cookies"
H&R BLOCK: Class Decertification Ruling in "Basile" Suit Stands
H&R BLOCK: Plea to Compel Arbitration in RAL-Related Suit Pending
H&R BLOCK: Plea to Compel Arbitration in Fee Litigation Pending

H&R BLOCK: RSM McGladrey-Related Lawsuit Remains Pending
HAIG'S DELICACIES: Recalls Tzatziki, Falafel and Spanakopita
HAMILTON COLLEGE: Interns File Minimum Wage Class Action
IMMUCOR INC: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Still Stayed
MEDTRONIC INC: Suit Over Sprint Fidelis Product Still Pending

MEDTRONICS INC: Obtains Final Approval of INFUSE Suit Settlement
MEIJER DISTRIBUTION: Recalls 140,500 Falls Creek Kids Denim Jeans
MONTANA POWER: Kerr Dam Suit May Proceed as Class Action
NEW JERSEY: Red-Light Camera Suit Deal to Pay Partial Refunds
NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS: Sued Over Definition of "Basement"

NVR INC: Still Defends Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Wages
PANERA BREAD: Settles Black Workers' Racial Bias Class Action
POOL CORP: Continues to Defend Consumer MDL in Louisiana
STEHOUWER'S FROZEN: FSIS Lists Stores That Sold Recalled Products
TORO COMPANY: Lawnmower Purchasers' Suit Still Pending in Canada

TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Sudden Acceleration Class Action for $1BB
TVA: Knoxville Attorney to Serve as Mediator in Class Action
VENTURA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels


                          *********



AMAZON.COM: Recalls Nap Nanny(R) Recliners
------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and four major
retailers are announcing a voluntary recall to consumers who own
Nap Nanny(R) recliners made by Baby Matters, LLC of Berwyn,
Pennsylvania.

Retailers currently participating include Amazon.com, Buy Buy
Baby, Diapers.com and Toys R Us/Babies R Us.  At the request of
the CPSC, these retailers have agreed to voluntarily participate
because the manufacturer is unable or unwilling to participate in
the recall.

CPSC is warning parents and caregivers that these baby recliners
contain defects in the design, warnings and instructions, which
pose a substantial risk of injury and death to infants.  This
recall includes the Nap Nanny Generations One and Two, and the
Chill(TM) model infant recliners.

In July 2010, CPSC and Baby Matters, LLC issued a joint recall
news release
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10309.html]that
offered a discount coupon to Generation One owners toward the
purchase of a newer model Nap Nanny, and improved instructions and
warnings to consumers who owned the Generation Two model of Nap
Nanny recliners.

At the time of the 2010 recall, CPSC was aware of one death that
had occurred in a Nap Nanny recliner and 22 reports of infants
hanging or falling out over the side of the Nap Nanny, even though
most of the infants had been placed in the harness.  Subsequently,
despite the improvements to the warnings and instructions,
additional deaths using the Nap Nanny recliners were reported,
including one in a Chill model.  Since the 2010 recall, CPSC has
received an additional 70 reports of children nearly falling out
of the product.

The Nap Nanny is a portable infant recliner designed for sleeping,
resting and playing.  The recliner includes a bucket seat shaped
foam base and a fitted fabric cover with a three point harness.
Five thousand Nap Nanny Generation One and 50,000 Generation Two
models were sold between 2009 and early 2012 and have been
discontinued.  One hundred thousand Chill Models have been sold
since January 2011.  The recalled Nap Nanny recliners were sold at
toy and children's retail stores nationwide and online, including
at http://www.napnanny.com/ All models were priced around $130.
A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13083.html

For more information, consumers should review the return policy of
the individual retailer from which they purchased a Nap Nanny
recliner.  If the product was purchased at one of the retailers
below, see the link or call for instructions on returns:

   * Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/

   * Buy Buy Baby: Toll-free at (877) 328-9222,
     http://www.buybuybaby.com/productRecalls.asp

   * Diapers.com: (800) 342-7377, http://www.diapers.com/

   * Toys R Us/Babies R Us: (800) 869-7787,
     http://www.toysrusinc.com/safety/recalls/


ASUS COMPUTER: Judge Rejects Tablet Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge rejected a proposed class settlement against Asus Computer
over its poorly designed Transformer Prime tablets, telling both
sides the agreement leaves out too many potential class members.

Lead plaintiff Colin Fraser sued Asus Computer International and
its parent company Asustek Computer Inc., which is based in
Taipei, Taiwan.  Mr. Fraser said he purchased the Transformer
Prime tablet and discovered that the gadget's spun aluminum panel
blocks GPS and Wifi signals.

Asus confirmed the design flaw in a Facebook post, telling
consumers that the tablet's metallic unibody design "may affect
the performance of the GPS when receiving signals from
satellites."  Mr. Fraser claimed that Asus responded by removing
GPS from the product's spec list and -- shortly before his tablet
arrived -- announced plans to release a new and improved
Transformer Prime.

Asus told U.S District Judge William Alsup that it had spent
"'significant money and engineering resources'" to develop a GPS
extension kit known as a "dongle" that attaches to the tablet and
boosts wireless signals.  The company offered the free kit to
purchasers who filled out a request form on the company's
Web site.

Mr. Fraser and Asus signaled that they had begun settlement talks,
and in May, Judge Alsup appointed interim class counsel and sent
the parties to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for
mediation.

After months of negotiations, the parties tentatively agreed that
the class would include any U.S. purchaser who had not returned
the tablet for a refund. Class members could apply for a $17 cash
payment and a free dongle, provided they submitted a claim within
45 days of a notice sent by Asus.

But on Dec. 21, Judge Alsup -- expressing concern that potential
class members might never hear about the settlement and be left
out -- rejected the proposed settlement.

"In exchange for this nationwide blanket release, Asus would be
obligated to pay only on a claims-made basis," Judge Alsup wrote.
"There would be no established settlement fund amount, and no
additional benefit to the class such as cy pres [allowing money to
be used to promote the interests of the class rather than going
back to Asus] or other relief.  Instead, after a short notice
period, the claims of all class members failing to opt out would
be extinguished -- whether or not they received actual notice of
the settlement agreement.  Long experience has taught us that a
small percentage will go to the trouble to submit a form for $17."

Judge Alsup continued: "To be sure, there is a benefit to Asus in
a class-wide release regardless of the number of claim forms
submitted.  From Asus' perspective, it has a legitimate business
interest in 'buying peace' and moving on to its next challenge.
The court is not critical of Asus and, indeed, understands its
position.  Nonetheless, what is fair to Asus is not necessarily
fair to the absent class members.  Fairness to absent class member
counts.  Convenience to the defendant does not."

The judge also pointed out that the proposed settlement's methods
of providing notice to affected consumers is lacking.  He doubted
that publication on the Asus Web site and Facebook page would
"provide adequate and timely notice to the over 100,000 class
members" and rejected Asus' plans to send "push notifications" to
the devices.

"To receive the 'push' notification, a class member would need to
be using a TF201 device that is connected to the internet.  The
gravamen of this civil action is that the defects in question have
led to reception issues.  Therefore, it cannot be reasonably
assumed that all or virtually all class members will receive the
push notification.  The very reception issues in suit create too
much doubt on that score.  Even if the reception worked, moreover,
there is no reasonable assurance that the devices would be in use
during the claims period, especially after time has passed," Judge
Alsup wrote.

Judge Alsup also questioned whether the dongle would truly solve
the Transformer Prime's reception issues, noting that an expert
hired by both parties tested the kit on the GPS "and was
specifically instructed not to consider Wifi functionality."

"Even if the expert's valuation were credited, an issue which this
order does not decide, the expert's report only analyzes the value
of the GPS feature and does not consider the value of Wifi
functionality, which also is in the complaint," Judge Alsup wrote.
"Counsel do address this disconnect. Although the settlement
agreement states that class counsel believe that the claims
asserted in the complaint have merit, counsel now downplay or
ignore the Wifi claim, perhaps because the very existence of the
claim is cross-wise with the proposed avenue of giving notice."

The judge concluded by suggesting that "[t]he most likely way to
resurrect this settlement would be to limit the release only to
those who submit a claim or to provide for a cy pres disposition
of unclaimed funds."  "Please ask for no more stays," he added.

A copy of the Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement in Fraser v. Asus Computer International, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-00652 (N.D. Calif.) (Alsup, J.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/yyYE6R


AURORA LOAN: Motion for Judgment Denied in Foreclosure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Mortgage
lender Aurora Loan Services failed to honor its promise not to
foreclose on homeowners who had opted into a program they believed
would help them keep their homes.

Mauder and Alice Chao, Deogenoso and Glorina Palugod, and Maritza
Pinel were all in danger of foreclosure when Aurora offered them
"workout agreements" that gave them the opportunity to cure their
defaults while adhering to a monthly payment plan.  In a class
action filed in November 2011, the five homeowners claimed Aurora
misled them into believing that they could avoid foreclosure and
eventually obtain loan modifications if they complied with the
agreement, all the while Aurora continued to collect payments from
them and still planned to foreclose.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denied Aurora's motion
for judgment, rejecting its argument that the class' claims were
preempted by the Home Owners' Loan Act.

"Notwithstanding plaintiffs' compliance with the terms of the
Workout Agreements, Aurora lulled plaintiffs into a false sense of
security that they were safe from foreclosure, which, in turn,
effectively obviated their ability to avoid foreclosure by, inter
alia, exercising their statutory right to reinstatement," Judge
Armstrong wrote.  "In sum, the court finds that plaintiffs' claims
for rescission and restitution are based on a general duty not to
misrepresent material facts and do not purport to regulate
Aurora's lending activity by imposing a new disclosure
requirement.  Accordingly, plaintiffs' first and second claims for
rescission and restitution based on theories of fraudulent
inducement and failure to consideration are not preempted by
HOLA."

A copy of the Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings in Mauder, et al. v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Case No.
10-cv-03118 (N.D. Calif.) (Armstrong, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/26/410-cv-03118.pdf


BANKSIA FINANCIAL: Debenture Holders File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Katie Bice, writing for Herald Sun, reports that a class action on
behalf of 16,000 duped Banksia investors has been launched against
the failed lender and its directors.

Laurence Bolitho, of Kyabram, will act as the lead plaintiff on
behalf of those who poured AUD662 million into the company that
collapsed in October.

Solicitor Mark Elliott said it was important for all debenture
holders to have an opportunity to "get something back from this
mess".

"As far as we are aware it is the first (action) and as far as we
are aware it will be the representative action on behalf of all
debenture holders," he said.

Mr. Elliott said he had been working on the case since Banksia's
collapse.

"We were shocked at some of the initial findings of the receiver,"
he said.

"There appears to be multiple breaches of duty by multiple
parties.

"There are some serious issues to be tried."

A senior counsel has been retained to help with the case.

Supreme Court documents outlining allegations of negligence by
Banksia, company founder Patrick John Godfrey and directors
Nicholas Livingstone Carr, Peter William Keating, Neil Stewart
Mathison and Geoffrey Grenville Skewes were filed this week.

The statement of claim alleges Banksia and Cherry Fund Ltd were
not run in a proper and efficient manner and Banksia failed to
keep investors informed about the company position.

Court documents claim investors have been told Banksia had "likely
been insolvent for some considerable time" before receivers were
appointed.

It claims the extent of the insolvency is still unknown but
investors stand to lose in excess of AUD300 million.

Mr. Bolitho's damages claim also lists as defendants The Trust
Company Ltd and RSD Chartered Accountants, who were responsible
for holding the invested money and for auditing Banksia's
finances.

It is alleged the accountants failed to properly audit Banksia's
books and report breaches of the law that might have been
committed.

Receiver Tony McGrath told a receivership meeting earlier this
month investors would get between 50c and 65c in the dollar and it
could take up to three years to come through.

The receiver is investigating whether auditor negligence played a
part in the demise with accounts approved only weeks before
Banksia's collapse.

Mr. McGrath told the meeting Banksia's financial woes could be
traced back to the start of the global financial crisis.


BARBADOS: Bajan Gun Owners File Suit v. Police Commissioner
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barbados Nation reports that the lawsuit by gun owners against
Commissioner of Police Darwin Dottin just got bigger.

Licensed owners of firearms have now pooled together to file a
class action lawsuit against the country's top cop in an effort to
prevent him from forcing them to pay a separate fee for additional
barrels which they use during shooting competitions.

President of the Barbados Rifle and Pistol Federation, Antonio
"Boo" Rudder, has also joined the legal suit.

Hearing of the initial injunction, filed by just two firearm
owners -- Gladstone Carrington and Robert Ross -- was adjourned in
the No. 12 Supreme Court because the Solicitor General's office
was not in a position to proceed with the matter.

It was set to be heard by Justice Jacqueline Cornelius on
Dec. 27 at 10:00 a.m.  The injunction seeks to prevent Mr. Dottin
from forcing gun owners to pay Bds$200 per barrel for their
special conversion firearms.


CASH AMERICA: To Defend Arbitration Claims in "Alfeche" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc., disclosed in its July 27, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it intends to vigorously
defend any arbitration claims that are initiated the class action
complaint commenced by P. Alfeche, et al.

On March 5, 2009, Peter Alfeche and Kim Saunders, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against Cash America International, Inc.,
Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC, Cash America Net of Pennsylvania,
LLC and Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com
(collectively, CashNetUSA).  The lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that CashNetUSA's online consumer loan activities in
Pennsylvania were illegal and in violation of various Pennsylvania
laws, including the Loan Interest Protection Law, the Pennsylvania
Consumer Discount Company Act (the CDCA) and the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Laws.  The lawsuit also seeks
declaratory judgment that several of CashNetUSA's contractual
provisions, including the class action waiver and the choice of
law and arbitration provisions, are not enforceable under
Pennsylvania law and that CashNetUSA's loan contracts are void and
unenforceable.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages
(including the trebling of certain damages), punitive damages and
attorney's fees.  CashNetUSA filed a motion to enforce the
arbitration provision, including its class action waiver, located
in the agreements governing the lending activities.  In August
2011, the U.S. District Court ruled that the arbitration
provision, which includes the class action waiver, was valid and
enforceable and granted the motion to compel arbitration and
stayed the litigation.  In August 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to reconsider, which the court denied, and in September
2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification for
interlocutory appeal, which was denied in November 2011.  In
February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of
the court's decision, which the court denied on June 13, 2012.

Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate
liability, if any, with respect to any future filed arbitrations
can be determined at this time.  CashNetUSA believes that the
plaintiffs' claims are without merit and will vigorously defend
any arbitration claims that are initiated.

Cash America International, Inc. is a Fort Worth, Texas, retailer
which operates over 1,000 pawn shops in the United States.  The
Company also provides check-cashing services and short-term
unsecured loans both through its pawn shops as well as in self-
standing facilities, and also on the Internet under the name
"enovafinancial."


CELERA CORP: Court Allows Investor to Opt Out of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the Delaware Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 27
that a large investor should be allowed to opt out of a
shareholder class action settlement, making it potentially more
difficult for companies to end litigation.

The court reversed a ruling from the lower Court of Chancery and
ruled that a large holder of shares of Celera Corp. must be
allowed to pursue their claims for "substantial" monetary damages
relating to the company's sale to Quest Diagnostics Inc.

Delaware's Court of Chancery is a major venue for shareholder
class actions challenging mergers and acquisitions.  The lawsuits
almost always end in settlements and rarely provide for opt-outs
by those shareholders who oppose the settlements.

The case stems from the 2011 acquisition of Celera by Quest for
$680 million.

The deal was opposed by BVF Partners LP, which argued in letters
to Celera's board that the company was undervaluing its drug
royalties. BVF had nearly a quarter of Celera's stock by the time
the deal closed on May 17, 2011.

At the same time that BVF was fighting the deal, a separate
shareholder with a smaller investment, the New Orleans Employees'
Retirement System, sued the board for breaching their fiduciary
duties by selling too cheaply.

Weeks after filing its lawsuit, the pension fund settled its
lawsuit in return for Celera reducing the deal's termination fee
and several non-monetary changes.  Shareholders did not receive
additional money from the settlement, which would release all
shareholder legal claims, including those of BVF.

BVF objected to the settlement and attacked the pension fund as an
inadequate class representative, but Delaware Court of Chancery
Judge Donald Parsons overruled the fund's objections.  BVF then
appealed to the state's highest court.

In its 34-page opinion, the Delaware Supreme Court said BVF must
be given an opt-out because the lower court found the class
representative was "barely" adequate and BVF was a significant
shareholder ready to pursue a clearly identified claim.

"I think it would be fair to say that the decision today in Celera
may make it easier for objectors to class action settlements,
especially those with a substantial holding, to argue for an opt
out option, which in turn may make it more difficult to bring
closure to such claims and more difficult to 'buy global peace',"
said Francis Pileggi, an attorney with Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott in Wilmington.

Big investors have occasionally opted out of federal class action
securities and antitrust cases as they hope to do better on their
own, adding to the legal costs for defendants.

For example, the state of Alaska said in 2007 that its $60 million
securities fraud settlement with Time Warner Inc. was 50 times
what it would have recovered as part of a class action against the
company.  The case involved allegations that the media company
misled investors about AOL, with which it merged in 2001.

Mr. Pileggi said the Supreme Court decision could be compounded by
a September decision by the Court of Chancery involving Hecla
Mining Corp.

Judge Travis Laster found in that case that dismissing a
shareholder lawsuit because the plaintiff was not qualified to
represent a class did not prevent a more diligent plaintiff from
bringing essentially the same case.

The Delaware Supreme Court case is In Re Celera Corporation
Shareholder Litigation No. 212, 2012.


CHICAGO, IL: Fired Black Teachers Sue BOE Over Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Caller News reports that the Chicago Teachers Union is
supporting three recently fired black teachers who are suing the
city for racial discrimination.

Donald Garrett Jr., Robert Green and Vivionell Brown Jr. lost
their jobs because of the Chicago Board of Education's turnaround
program, which replaces most of the administrative and teaching
staff at low-performing schools.

These turnarounds tend to hit schools with above-average numbers
of black faculty members, and they have contributed to a 10-
percent reduction in black teachers in the past decade.

Along with the three teachers, the union filed suit against
Chicago Public Schools on Dec. 26.  Even racially non-
discriminatory employment policies can violate civil rights laws
if they disproportionately affect specific races in practice.

Robin Potter, an attorney for CTU, said in a statement that the
city's policies run afoul of those laws by primarily impacting
black faculty and staff.

"We're now at a crossroads in Chicago.  . . . The racial impact of
the policies and practices of this Board of Education have
devastated the African-American teaching force in that community,"
she said in the statement.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed on behalf of
all black teachers who lost their jobs in June 2010 because of
turnaround restructuring.

A spokesperson for Chicago Public Schools was unable to comment
because the suit had not yet been served.


CLAIRE'S STORES: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Claire's Stores stiff workers
for overtime and minimum wages, a class action claims in Santa
Clara County Court.


COMICS UNLEASHED: Comedians File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that Comics
Unleashed Productions and its founder Byron Allen owe "several
hundred" comedians wages and residuals, stand-up comedienne
Bernadette Pauley claims in a class action.

Ms. Pauley sued CF Entertainment, Comics Unleashed Productions,
Entertainment Studios, and Byron Allen Folks in Superior Court.
Mr. Folks, known as Byron Allen, is the founder and principal of
all the corporate defendants, according to the complaint.

Mr. Folks hosted the half-hour talk show that began in the 2006-07
season, produced by CF Entertainment nka Entertainment Studios.
Shows are still rebroadcast on CBS and the TV One cable network,
according to industry publications.

Ms. Pauley claims that she "and several hundred other actors and
comedians" worked for the defendants on the syndicated TV show,
"pursuant to a standardized contract providing each actor with a
residual payment for subsequent airings of each episode.  While
working on the show, plaintiff and class members were subject to
repeated violations of the California Labor Code."

The complaint continues: "Subsequent to its production, the show
'Comics Unleashed' went on to become tremendously successful,
catapulting its creator Byron Allen Folks to celebrity status.
Standing on the shoulders of the shows' success, defendant Byron
Allen Folks and his affiliate corporate entities have become the
largest independent producer/distributor of first-run syndicated
television programming for broadcast television stations.  To
date, plaintiff and putative class members have not been
reimbursed for residual payments pursuant to the contract."

Mr. Folks got his start in comedy doing stand-up in clubs while he
was a teen-ager, according to IMDB, an entertainment industry
Web site.  He was discovered by comedian Jimmy Walker, who hired
Mr. Folks to work as a writer alongside David Letterman and Jay
Leno.  At 18, Mr. Folks landed a job hosting NBC's comedy talk
show "Real People," which aired from 1979 to 1984.

Ms. Pauley claims she was one of "several hundred actors and
comedians" Mr. Folks hired to perform on Comics Unleashed.  But
for the past four years, she says, Mr. Folks has failed to pay
residuals to her and the class, despite the show's success and
"widespread circulation on various networks."

"On numerous occasions plaintiff reached out to her union and
agents of defendants in an effort to recover her residual
payments.  Although both the union and defendants acknowledged
that plaintiff was entitled to residual payments in communications
with plaintiff, defendants responded to plaintiff's inquires with
continued delay and evasion," the complaint states.

Ms. Pauley claims the defendants "have acted in bad faith, either
misrepresenting to plaintiff the status of their payments, failing
to return plaintiff's phone calls, and at times lying to plaintiff
as to when her payments would be received.  Such conduct unfairly
interfered with plaintiff's right to receive the benefits of the
contract."

Ms. Pauley says she does not know how much money Mr. Folks owes
her and the class, and that it "cannot be ascertained without an
accounting from defendants of all subsequent airings of the
television show Comics Unleashed."

She also claims Mr. Folks refuses to reimburse her and the class
for business expenses on the show, including "air travel, hotel
accommodations, car rentals, wardrobe expenses, and gas required
to drive to and from locations."

Ms. Pauley seeks disgorgement of wrongful profits, wages due, lost
profits, reimbursement for expenses, and damages and statutory
penalties for breach of contract, failure to pay wages and
expenses, and unfair business practices.

She is represented by Matthew Matern of Torrance.


D R HORTON: Mediator Hammers Deal in Chinese Drywall Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
In D.R. Horton, Inc.'s July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012, it disclosed that a mediator is working to facilitate a
global nationwide settlement that will resolve all current claims
against the Company in lawsuits over alleged defective Chinese
Drywall.

The Company is named as a defendant in four Chinese Drywall
lawsuits filed in federal court, involving claims from fewer than
ten of the Company's homeowners.  These lawsuits are purported
class action complaints involving hundreds of plaintiffs who are
suing the homebuilders, suppliers, installers, importers and
manufacturers of the defective Chinese Drywall.  The Company is
also named as a defendant in a single plaintiff Chinese Drywall
lawsuit pending in state court in Florida.  A mediator appointed
by the federal court judge overseeing the multi-district Chinese
Drywall litigation is working to facilitate a global nationwide
settlement that will resolve all current claims against the
Company and bar any future claims against all defendants,
including the Company, related to defective Chinese Drywall.  If
the global nationwide settlement is accepted by all parties in its
current form, any amounts owed by the Company are expected to be
immaterial to its consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.

Headquartered in Downtown Fort Worth, Texas, D.R. Horton Inc. is a
large homebuilder in the United States.  It builds single-family
homes in 71 markets, in 26 states.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Internet "Cookies"
------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that Google
and Viacom violate children's privacy by putting "cookies" on
Web sites to track their Internet use and target them for ads, a
mother claims in a federal class action.

Stephanie Fryar sued Viacom and Google on behalf of her two
children, both of whom are younger than 13.

Viacom is one of the world's largest media conglomerates.  Its
holdings include MTV, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures and
Nickelodeon.  It operates the child-oriented Web sites nick.com,
nickJr.com and neoPets.com.

Ms. Fryar claims her sons registered to use these Web sites and
created profiles on them.

"Upon the plaintiffs' visits to www.nick.com, www.nickjr.com and
www.neopets.com, defendant Viacom placed Internet 'cookies' on the
plaintiffs' computers, which tracked their communications both to
the Web site visited and other Web sites on the Internet," the
complaint states.

"Upon the plaintiffs' visits to www.nick.com, www.nickjr.com and
www.neopets.com, defendant Google placed Internet 'cookies' on the
plaintiffs' computers, which tracked their communications both to
the Web site visited and other Web sites on the Internet.
"Immediately upon the plaintiffs visitingwww.nick.com,
www.nickjr.com and www.neopets.com, Google.com placed a
doubleclick.net cookie named 'id' on plaintiffs' computer.

"Google Inc., through its relationship with Viacom, uses the 'id'
cookie to track the electronic communications of the plaintiffs,
including but not limited to Web sites visited by the plaintiffs.

"Additionally, Viacom knowingly permits Google to use the 'id'
cookie to track video materials requested and obtained from
www.nick.com and www.nickjr.com by the plaintiffs."

Ms. Fryar says Google then uses the cookies to keep records of her
kids' Internet communications and use, videos they watch, and to
show "targeted advertising to them based on their individualized
web usage communications, and videos requested and obtained."

She seeks class damages for violations of the Wiretap Act and
Video Privacy Protection Act, intrusion upon seclusion and unjust
enrichment.

She is represented by Adam Voyles -- adam@lubelvoyles.com -- with
Lubel Voyles in Houston.


H&R BLOCK: Class Decertification Ruling in "Basile" Suit Stands
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class decertification in the putative class action styled Sandra
J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., stands, according to
H&R Block's December 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October
31, 2012.

H&R Block, Inc. has been named in a putative class action styled
Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term
1992 Civil Action No. 3246 in the Court of Common Pleas, First
Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County,
instituted on April 23, 1993.  The plaintiffs allege inadequate
disclosures with respect to the refund anticipation loan (RAL)
product and assert claims for violation of consumer protection
statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty,
common law fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth in Lending Act
(TILA).  Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  A Pennsylvania
class was certified, but later decertified by the trial court in
December 2003.  The intermediate appellate court subsequently
reversed the decertification decision.  On September 7, 2012, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the decision of the
intermediate appellate court, thereby allowing the trial court's
decertification ruling to stand.  The Company has not concluded
that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor has it accrued
a loss contingency related to this matter.  It believes it has
meritorious defenses to this case and intends to defend the case
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of
this case or its impact on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.

H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and
banking services.  Its Tax Services segment provides assisted
income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other
services and products related to income tax return preparation to
the general public primarily in the United States (U.S.), and also
in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: Plea to Compel Arbitration in RAL-Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois court has yet to rule on a H&R Block, Inc.'s motion to
compel arbitration on a lawsuit over RAL and RAC products,
according to the Company's December 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2012.

A series of class action lawsuits were filed against the Company's
in various federal courts beginning on November 17, 2011
concerning the refund anticipation loan (RAL) product and refund
anticipation check (RAC) products.  The plaintiffs generally
allege that the Company engaged in unfair, deceptive and/or
fraudulent acts in violation of various state consumer protection
laws by facilitating RALs that were accompanied by allegedly
inaccurate Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosures, and by
offering RACs without any TILA disclosures.  Certain plaintiffs
also allege violation of disclosure requirements of various state
statutes expressly governing RALs and provisions of those statutes
prohibiting tax preparers from charging or retaining certain fees.
Collectively, the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who
purchased RAL or RAC products in up to 42 states and the District
of Columbia during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the present.
The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, disgorgement of profits,
compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, civil penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs.  These cases were consolidated by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation into a single
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, styled
IN RE: H&R Block Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No.
2373).  The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which
remains pending.

The Company has not concluded that a loss related to the matter is
probable, nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to the
matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims in these cases and intends to defend the cases vigorously,
but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of these cases or
their impact on our consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.

H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and
banking services.  Its Tax Services segment provides assisted
income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other
services and products related to income tax return preparation to
the general public primarily in the United States (U.S.), and also
in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: Plea to Compel Arbitration in Fee Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois court has yet to rule on a H&R Block, Inc.'s motion to
compel arbitration in a compliance fee litigation, according to
the Company's December 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October
31, 2012.

On April 16, 2012 and April 19, 2012, putative class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company in Missouri state and
federal courts, respectively, concerning a compliance fee charged
to retail tax clients beginning in the 2011 tax season.  These
cases are styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.,
in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
(Case#1216CV12290), and Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.,
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK).  Taken together, the
plaintiffs seek to represent all retail tax clients nationwide who
were charged a compliance fee, and assert claims of violation of
state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment.  The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on
certain claims, which remains pending.

The Company has not concluded that a loss related to these
lawsuits is probable, nor has it accrued a liability related to
either of these lawsuits.  The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in these cases and intend to defend the
cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome
of these cases or their impact on our consolidated financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.

H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and
banking services.  Its Tax Services segment provides assisted
income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other
services and products related to income tax return preparation to
the general public primarily in the United States (U.S.), and also
in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: RSM McGladrey-Related Lawsuit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action claim pertaining to RSM McGladrey remains pending,
according to H&R Block, Inc.'s December 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 31, 2012.

On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by
Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant
International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital
Markets LLC (MCM) in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville County,
South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346) styled Brian P. Menezes,
Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, International Textile
Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety Components International, Inc.) v.
McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a RSM EquiCo Capital Markets,
LLC), et al.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October
2011 styled In re International Textile Group Merger Litigation,
adding a putative class action claim against MCM.  Plaintiffs
allege claims of aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, gross
negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against MCM in connection
with a fairness opinion MCM provided to the Special Committee of
Safety Components International, Inc. (SCI) in 2006 regarding the
merger between International Textile Group, Inc. and SCI.
Plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  On February 8, 2012, the
court dismissed plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim against all
defendants.  A class was certified on the remaining claims on
November 20, 2012.

The Company sold MCM effective January 31, 2012, but it remains
responsible for any liabilities relating to certain litigation
matters through an indemnification agreement.  A portion of the
Company's accrual is related to these indemnity obligations.

The Company has not concluded that a loss related to the matter is
probable, nor has it established a loss contingency related to the
matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims in the case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but
there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.

H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide tax preparation and
banking services.  Its Tax Services segment provides assisted
income tax return preparation, digital tax solutions and other
services and products related to income tax return preparation to
the general public primarily in the United States (U.S.), and also
in Canada and Australia.


HAIG'S DELICACIES: Recalls Tzatziki, Falafel and Spanakopita
------------------------------------------------------------
Haig's Delicacies of Hayward, California, is recalling all
Tzatziki, Falafel, Spanakopita and Tyropita because the product
labels do not include Allergy Statements reflecting the use of the
following food allergens:

   * Tzatziki is being recalled because of the undeclared use of
     a food allergen (milk).

   * Falafel is being recalled because of the undeclared use of a
     food allergen (wheat).

   * Spanakopita and Tyropita are being recalled because of the
     undeclared use of food allergens (wheat, milk and eggs).

People who have allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat, milk and
eggs run the risk of life threatening allergic reaction,
anaphylaxis, that required immediate medical care if they consume
the product.

   * Tzatziki is a Greek Yogurt, cucumber and dill dip/spread
     which is packaged in 8 oz retail round deli containers and
     5 lb bulk foodservice cases.

   * Falafels are fried garbanzo bean balls which are packaged in
     5 oz retail rectangular deli containers and 5 lb bulk
     foodservice cases.

   * Spanakopita is a triangular phyllo dough pastry with a
     spinach and cheese filling which is packaged only in bulk
     foodservice cases.

   * Tyropita is a triangular phyllo dough pastry with a cheese
     filling which is packaged only in bulk foodservice cases.

Haig's Delicacies wants to ensure its products are safe.
Consequently, in addition to its ongoing cooperation with the
California Department of Public Health, Haig's Delicacies is
voluntarily recalling all of these items from all of its
customers.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm333429.htm

Haig's Delicacies has immediately segregated its entire inventory
and is notifying consumers and customers not to consume this
product if they have these allergy sensitivities.  The Company has
already addressed this issue by updating all labels to include the
Allergen Statements.

Consumers in possession of these products should not eat the
product if they have these allergy sensitivities and should return
the product to the place of purchase.

Haig's Delicacies will be sending recall notices to all of its
direct customers.  Please call Mark Takvorian at 510-782-6285 for
further information.


HAMILTON COLLEGE: Interns File Minimum Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Kennedy at Courthouse News Service reports that Hamilton
College is sitting on a $720 million endowment but won't pay its
athletic interns/assistant coaches minimum wages, a former
football assistant claims in a federal class action.

Named plaintiff Benjamin J. Kozik, who says he worked at the
private college near Utica for two years, claims that there could
be 40 or more class members who put in long hours for little pay
in the hope of landing a full-time assistant coaching position.

Mr. Kozik claims that he told the top two officials in the Human
Resources department at a Sept. 10 meeting "that interns were
being 'used' to work what was essentially 'slave labor.'"

The complaint continues: "During the course of the meeting with
Human Resources, [HR Director Steve] Stemkoski implied that
[Athletics Director John] Hind was aware that interns in the
Athletics Department were working over ninety (90) hours a week.
Stemkoski added that Hind always pushed in budget meetings for
more pay for employees in the Athletics Department, including
interns, but it was constantly turned down."

The only defendant in the complaint is the college itself.
Hamilton, founded in 1793, is one of the oldest colleges in New
York.  "This is a case about a college with a $650-750 million
endowment that fails to pay interns in its Athletics Department .
. . the wages to which they are entitled to by law," the complaint
states.

Mr. Kozik says he resigned in October, after the fruitless meeting
the month before.

He claims the college violated the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law by failing to pay its athletic interns
minimum wage; by misclassifying them as part-time workers though
they work more than 40 hours most weeks; by stiffing them for
overtime; failing to keep accurate time records; and not offering
spread-of-hours pay, which under New York law gives an extra hour
at minimum wage for shifts worked longer than 10 hours.

While the Athletic Department calls the class "interns," they are
not students, Mr. Kozik says.  He says they meet the legal
definition of employees.

Mr. Kozik claims he was paid "a flat monthly rate of pay
regardless of the number of hours he worked."  During his two-year
tenure, that was $1,000 to $1,100 a month.

Mr. Kozik worked primarily as an assistant football coach, with
wide receivers, kickers and punters.  This fall, he became special
teams coordinator, without any increase in pay, according to the
complaint.

Mr. Kozik says he worked the 2011-12 women's basketball season as
a part-time assistant coach, which boosted his monthly pay by $500
for several months.

During the 4-month football season, when Mr. Kozik worked as many
as 105 hours a week, his effective hourly wage was $2.60 -- "a
rate almost one-third of New York's $7.25 per hour minimum wage,"
he says in the complaint.

His work with women's hoops -- at about 100 hours a week -- paid
about $3.87 an hour, also below the minimum wage.

Mr. Kozik adds that during interns' off-seasons, they are expected
to pitch in at athletic events, keeping the scoreboard, making
game announcements and bringing equipment to the field -- all to
save the college money.

After football season, then, an assistant football coach might
work hockey games in the winter and softball games in the spring.

In the summer, the interns are involved in recruiting and sports
camps.

Hamilton College, named for the country's first treasury
secretary, Alexander Hamilton, is sometimes referred to as one of
the "Little Ivies."

Tuition and board this year cost more than $55,000, according to
the college's Web site. Its endowment is more than $720 million,
according to U.S. News & World Report, which ranked Hamilton No.
16 this year among national liberal arts colleges.

Mr. Kozik says Hamilton has 29 varsity sports, each with at least
one intern.  It also employs full-time assistant coaches, who earn
more and work fewer hours than interns.

"Interns often perform many of the same tasks as full-time
assistant coaches, yet as a matter of common practice or policy
receive much lower pay and are classified as part-time," the
complaint states. "Interns work these long hours with the hope of
receiving a full-time position" at Hamilton or elsewhere.

Mr. Kozik says the prospect of a full-time job was dangled in
front of him when he began telling the new head football coach,
Andrew Cohen, about his frustration with the long hours and low
pay.

Mr. Cohen told him a full-time position could open "in a year or
two" and Mr. Kozik and another football intern "would be at the
top of the list and could 'duke it out for the position,'"
according to the complaint.

Mr. Kozik claims the college "willfully misclassified" the interns
as part-time workers under labor law, knowing they "would not
challenge such policies to avoid jeopardizing their future as
athletic coaches."

Mr. Kozik claims he shared his concerns with Mr.  Cohen, the human
resources director and assistant director, and the athletic
director, all of whom acknowledged the low pay and long hours.

But the meetings Mr. Kozik requested brought reprisals from coach
Cohen, who at one point "exploded in a fit of rage by yelling at
plaintiff," according to the complaint.

Mr. Kozik resigned soon after that.  He says he inquired about a
November meeting he was told an administrator planned to hold
about intern pay, but could not learn what took place.

He asks for a court-supervised notice of the case, to give interns
and former interns a chance to join the lawsuit.  He seeks class
certification, unpaid overtime and minimum wages for each hour
worked, spread-of-hours pay, and an additional and equal amount in
liquidated damages.

He is represented by Robert Ottinger, of New York City.


IMMUCOR INC: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit
against Immucor Inc. remains stayed, according to the Company's
October 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 31, 2012.

Private securities litigation in the U.S. District Court of North
Georgia against Immucor Inc. and certain of its current and former
directors and officers asserts federal securities fraud claims on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's Common
Stock between October 19, 2005, and June 25, 2009.  The case
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by failing to
disclose that Immucor had violated the antitrust laws, and
challenges the sufficiency of the Company's disclosures about the
results of FDA inspections and the Company's quality control
efforts.  In June 2011, the Court dismissed the complaint and
closed the case.  In September 2011 plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  The
plaintiffs' appeal has been stayed pending settlement of the case.
The Company intends to defend the case vigorously if it is
reinstated.  At this time, the Company says it cannot reasonably
assess the timing or outcome of this litigation or its effect, if
any, on its business.

Immucor Inc. makes manual and automated analysis equipment used by
blood banks, hospitals, and clinical laboratories to test blood
prior to transfusions.  Its traditional reagents are used to
manually test samples for blood type, group matching, and foreign
substance detection, while its Galileo, Galileo Echo, and Galileo
NEO automated instrumentation systems use traditional and
proprietary Capture reagents to perform multiple blood tests at
one time.  Immucor sells its products primarily in North America,
Western Europe, and Japan.  Immucor was taken private in 2011 by
equity firm TPG Capital for some $1.9 billion.


MEDTRONIC INC: Suit Over Sprint Fidelis Product Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. continues to defend itself against class action
complaint related to the Sprint Fidelis product, according to the
Company's December 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October
26, 2012.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads.  On October 20, 2009, the court certified a
class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages.  Pretrial proceedings are underway.
The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in
connection with that matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

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

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Medtronic Inc. is a large medical
technology company and is a Fortune 500 company.


MEDTRONICS INC: Obtains Final Approval of INFUSE Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronics Inc. obtained final approval of a settlement resolving
a securities class action complaint relating to the INFUSE bone
graft product in November, according to the Company's December 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 26, 2012.

On December 10, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief
Association filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company and certain current and former officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 in connection with the INFUSE bone graft product.  On
March 30, 2012, the Company announced that the parties had agreed
to a class-wide settlement.  On November 8, 2012, the court
entered final judgment approving the settlement.

The Company recorded an expense of $90 million related to probable
and reasonably estimated damages under U.S. GAAP in connection
with this settlement in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012,
and paid out the applicable portion of such funds to the
plaintiffs' trust account in August 2012.

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Medtronic Inc. is a large medical
technology company and is a Fortune 500 company.


MEIJER DISTRIBUTION: Recalls 140,500 Falls Creek Kids Denim Jeans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Meijer Distribution Inc., of Grand Rapids, Michigan; and
manufacturer, Zhangjiagang Xingyu Print and Dye Knittingly Co.,
LTD, of Zhangjiagang, China, announced a voluntary recall of about
140,500 Falls Creek Kids infant and toddler denim jeans.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The snap on the front of the infant and toddler denim jeans may
come loose and separate from the fabric, posing a choking hazard
to young children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

Falls Creek Kids infant and toddler, boys and girls, denim jeans
were sold in sizes 12M-5T.  "Falls Creek Kids" is printed on a tag
sewn on the inside back of the waistband.  The jeans are denim
with or without a pink star or heart graphic design stitched on
the outside front and back of the jeans.  The jeans also were sold
with cargo style pockets.  There is label on the inside of the
recalled jeans near the front left pocket that includes the date
of production: 04/2012 and production location: Zhangjiagang,
China.  Falls Creek Kids infant jeans with production code 4/2012
in sizes 0-3 mos, 3-6 mos or 6-9 mos. printed on a label on the
inside of the back waistband are not included in the recall.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13084.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Meijer and HEB stores nationwide from June 2012
through November 2012 for about $12.

Consumers should immediately stop using the denim jeans and bring
them to the customer service desk at any Meijer or HEB store for a
full refund.  For additional information, contact Meijer at (800)
927-8699 anytime.  Consumers can also visit http://www.meijer.com/
and click on Product Recalls under the Help section.


MONTANA POWER: Kerr Dam Suit May Proceed as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mann, writing for The Daily Inter Lake, reports that
litigation that has been under way since 1999 over property damage
caused by Kerr Dam may proceed as a class action under a Dec. 27
ruling from the Montana Supreme Court.

With a 5-2 decision, the court overturned the finding by Flathead
District Judge Kitty Curtis that the cause of erosion would need
to be shown on a property-by-property basis around the lake and on
parts of the Flathead River affected by the lake level.

The high court disagreed, saying that damage caused by the dam
over the years has to be considered in aggregate, largely because
the lake can only be maintained at singular elevations at the dam
and elevations cannot be adjusted for particular lakeshore
properties.

The court found that "a class action is far superior, for purposes
of fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy, to
innumerable individual lawsuits."

However, the liability of the defendants -- Montana Power Co. and
PPL Montana -- would have to be determined on a case-by-case
basis.

If a jury finds that decisions to maintain the lake at particular
elevations at particular times of year caused aggregate damage to
properties that is "unreasonable," then Montana Power Co. or PPL
Montana are subject to liability for those damages, the ruling
states.

"The amount of damages, of course, will then be determined on a
property-by-property basis," it continues.

The 44-page ruling, including a dissenting opinion, points out
that a jury theoretically could find the extent of erosion around
the lake when it is at full pool from mid-June to mid-September is
reasonable when balanced against recreational needs of shoreline
property owners and businesses, but the degree of erosion
occurring when the lake is maintained at full pool into October
and November is unreasonable.

The court found that shoreline easements granted to the dam
operator after it was built did provide protections for that
operator.  To suggest otherwise, it states, would hold the
operator "hostage to the most geologically fragile shoreline
property, which is not a reasonable interpretation of the flood
easements."

The plaintiffs in the case were led by north shore property owner
Becky Mattson, who died in July 2010 at age 88.

They alleged that Kerr Dam operations since the dam was completed
in 1938 have resulted in an "ever widening footprint" of the lake,
with severe erosion being caused when the lake is artificially
held at the full pool elevation of 2,893 feet, particularly during
fall storms.  Before the dam was built, court documents state, the
lake reached peak elevations of 2,890 feet.

The case has gone to the Supreme Court for review three times
since litigation got under way in 1999, and the recent ruling
defines the lawsuit "class" as anybody who has owned property on
the lake or portions of the river since November 1991.

That amounts to about 3,000 properties and could entail multiple
owners of each property, said Jamie Franklin, a Chicago-based
attorney representing the plaintiffs.  "There could be multiple
owners associated with the 22 years of those properties. All of
those people would be class members," she said.

"We will be proceeding on behalf of all those people and try to
recover any damages they've incurred," Mr. Franklin added.

Mr. Franklin said he is ready to proceed, and Flathead County
District Courts soon will schedule hearings for the coming year.
Judge Curtis is retiring so another judge will preside over the
case.


NEW JERSEY: Red-Light Camera Suit Deal to Pay Partial Refunds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Frassinelli, writing for The Star-Ledger, reports that close
to a half-million people who received red-light camera tickets in
New Jersey will receive partial refunds under a settlement in a
class-action suit.

The refunds will apply to motorists who received tickets at
intersections in 18 towns where the timing of the yellow lights
wasn't officially certified until July 25.

But motorists, who received tickets from $85 to $140, won't
exactly be able to celebrate with a surf-and-turf dinner.  The
average $6 refund will be more suited for a McDonald's Value Meal.

The refunds apply to motorists who received tickets before July 25
in the cities of Jersey City, Linden and Rahway; the boroughs of
Glassboro, Palisades Park and Roselle Park; and the townships of
Brick, Deptford, East Brunswick, East Windsor, Gloucester,
Lawrence, Monroe, Piscataway, Pohatcong, Union, Wayne and
Woodbridge.

They apply only to cameras operated by American Traffic Solutions.
In Newark, for example, where 19 of the cameras are located, the
cameras are operated by a different vendor and are not part of the
$4.2 million settlement announced today.

A separate class-action suit is pending against Redflex Traffic
Systems, vendor for cameras in Newark, Edison, New Brunswick,
Cherry Hill, Englewood Cliffs, Springfield Township,
GloucesterTownship and Stratford Borough.

Ramona Way received a $140 ticket in the spring for a rolling
right turn on red at Routes 1&9 and South Stiles Street in Linden
as she returned home from the doctor's office.

She was told on Dec. 28 that American Traffic Solutions had agreed
to a $4.2 million settlement in the class-action suit.

"That's great," she said.

Then she was told the settlement, after attorney and settlement
administrative fees, would be split among 500,000 tickets, leaving
her with a $6 refund.

"That's not great," she said.

"It's an insult," she added.  "That light will go an entrapping
people and they'll continue to make money."

Stephen DeNittis, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said motorists who
received tickets at the intersections in question will get a
postcard as early as February asking them if they want to file
their claim. They would receive their part of the settlement in
the summer.

Mr. DeNittis said the lawyers settled because there was
uncertainty over how the courts would have ruled and they didn't
want to get involved in a prolonged lawsuit.

He said the lawsuits will have a side benefit for New Jersey
motorists.

"Because of our lawsuits, now we believe the camera systems will
be operated correctly going into the future," Mr. DeNittis said.
"The point of the class action was to ensure proper conduct in the
future.  I would hope people would follow through and file a
claim."

In June, the state Department of Transportation suspended cameras
at 63 intersections over questions about whether the yellow lights
were giving motorists enough time to get through an intersection.
The DOT the next month lifted the suspension after finding the
cameras met standards.

In a statement on Dec. 28, American Traffic Solutions general
counsel George Hittner said it was in the best interest of ATS and
customers to "put this issue behind us."

"This settlement will allow them to once again focus their efforts
on enhancing road safety," he said.  "Assuming the court approves
the settlement, this will resolve all outstanding claims against
ATS and those against the cities we work with, including those not
previously included in the current class action lawsuits."

State Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon (R-Monmouth), a vocal critic of
the red-light camera program, said yellow lights on automatic
traffic cops are still too quick, and ATS continues to make
millions of dollars from unsuspecting motorists "in the mythical
name of safety."

He has introduced legislation that would give drivers an extra
second to get through New Jersey intersections with red-light
cameras, and lower the fine for right-turn violations from $85 to
$20.

"We need to fix or kill this flawed program now," Mr. O'Scanlon
said.


NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS: Sued Over Definition of "Basement"
------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hemenway, writing for PropertyCasualty360.com, reports that a
Jersey City, N.J. man has filed a federal class-action lawsuit
against a group of insurers he says is denying claims based on an
allegedly flawed definition of a "basement."

The named insurance-company defendants -- all issuers of flood
policies under the "Write Your Own" program with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency -- include New Jersey Manufacturers,
State Farm, Hartford, Travelers, Liberty Mutual, Selective,
Assurant, Fidelity National, and Philadelphia Contributionship.
The breach-of-contract suit, filed Dec. 13, also leaves the door
open to include more WYO insurers.

The specific claim from Jersey City's Patrick Donnelly stems from
2011's Hurricane Irene.  Mr. Donnelly had a flood policy issued
under the WYO program by NJM's New Jersey Re-Insurance Co.

According to court documents, Mr. Donnelly filed a flood claim but
was sent a letter from FEMA late in February denying the claim
based on what the suit calls an "erroneous classification of the
lowest floor of [Donnelly's] building as a 'basement.'"

The lawsuit claims this alleged wrongful denial occurred numerous
times to numerous home and business owners after Irene and
Superstorm Sandy last year.

The suit names the insurers, rather than FEMA, because the claim
denials were made by FEMA "at the request or recommendation of the
particular [WYO] insurance company that issued the [standard flood
insurance policy] to the insured," alleges Mr. Donnelly.

According to court documents, the definition of a basement in Mr.
Donnelly's policy was, "Any area of the building, including any
sunken room or sunken portion of a room, having its floor below
ground level (subgrade) on all sides."

The lawsuit does not detail the area of Mr. Donnelly's home that
was allegedly mischaracterized by an adjuster.

It is also unclear whether Mr. Donnelly suffered flood damage only
after Irene, or if he was again flooded by Sandy.

Mr. Donnelly's attorney, Jeffrey Bronster, could not immediately
be reached for comment.

According to court records, Mr. Donnelly filed an initial lawsuit
-- naming only New Jersey Re-Insurance Co. as a defendant -- on
Oct. 9, 2012.  Sandy struck the Northeast Oct. 29.

In the suit, there is no claim specific to any alleged erroneous
classification of a basement.  Rather, Mr. Donnelly simply says
the denial was a breach of the insurance contract.

About a month later, NJM responded to the suit by saying Mr.
Donnelly has no right of action.

"[Donnelly] is responsible for reading the [flood policy], as well
as any renewal notices, and is presumed to know the provisions of
the policy, including the insurer's limits of liability, coverages
and exclusions," NJM writes the court.

The insurer has no incentive to act in bad faith during the claims
adjusting process because, as a WYO carrier, it receives a fee for
every dollar paid to a homeowner under a flood policy, continues
NJM.


NVR INC: Still Defends Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against NVR, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007, in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt
from overtime wages.  These lawsuits are similar in nature to
another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004, by another former
employee in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York.  The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of
unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal
to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and
other fees and interest, and where available, multiple damages.
The lawsuits were filed as purported class actions.  However,
while a number of individuals have filed consents to join and
assert federal claims in the New York action, none of the groups
of employees that the lawsuits purport to represent have been
certified as a class, and the Company has filed a motion to
decertify the federal collective action claim and dismiss the
individuals who filed consents from the case.  The lawsuits filed
in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina
have been stayed pending further developments in the New York
action.

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

The Company believes that its compensation practices in regard to
sales and marketing representatives are entirely lawful and in
compliance with two letter rulings from the United States
Department of Labor ("DOL") issued in January 2007.  The three
courts to most recently consider similar claims against other
homebuilders have acknowledged the DOL's position that sales and
marketing representatives were properly classified as exempt from
overtime wages and the only court to have directly addressed the
exempt status of such employees concluded that the DOL's position
was valid.  Accordingly, the Company has vigorously defended and
intends to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits.  Because
the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome of this case, or the amount of damages, if
any, the Company has not recorded any associated liabilities on
the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

NVR, Inc.'s primary business is the construction and sale of
single-family detached homes, townhomes and condominium buildings.
The Company is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


PANERA BREAD: Settles Black Workers' Racial Bias Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Panera
Bread can put some extra money in the pockets of workers who claim
that it denied promotions to "fat, black, and/or ugly" employees,
a federal judge ruled.

In a January 2012 complaint, lead plaintiff Guy Vines claimed that
he worked as a sandwich maker at Panera Bread from 2009 to 2011,
but that his manager said black workers like him were ineligible
for promotion to management.

In forbidding Mr. Vines from working as a cashier, the same
manager also allegedly said "customers would not want to see an
African-American working in the front of the store."  The manager
said he feared he would lose his job for disobeying this rule,
according to the complaint.

Mr. Vines claimed that Covelli Enterprises, the franchiser behind
the Panera where he worked, created racially segregated
environments for 200 to 300 western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio
employees since 2008.

He said Covelli prohibited "fat, black, and/or ugly" employees
from working in the view of customers and denying them promotion.

The parties attended mediation on April 13 and reached a formal
settlement in July.

In addition to a $10,000 payment for Mr. Vines, plus attorneys'
fees and costs, Covelli agreed to give each class member an extra
$0.70 for each hour he worked in excess of his or her first year
of employment through the date of the final court-approved
settlement.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster in Pittsburgh explained
last month why he granted the settlement preliminary approval.

"Here, the class members allege that they were flatly ineligible
for promotion because of their race and regardless of their job
performance," the 20-page opinion states.  "They allege that this
prohibition, although not written down anywhere, was the rule at
all of defendant's restaurants, and that defendant's managers
disobeyed it at their peril.  This question of law and fact
applies evenly across the class and is sufficient to ensure that
'the action can be practically maintained and that the interests
of the absentees will be fairly and adequately represented.'"

The settlement terms also passed scrutiny.

"The class members are receiving a cash payment in the amount of
the additional wages they would have received had they been
promoted to the management position they desired," Judge Lancaster
wrote.  "Accordingly, the court finds that the proposed settlement
is presumptively fair, within the range of reasonableness, and is
not obviously deficient in any way."

He gave final approval after a fairness hearing.

The three-page order states that no class members opted out of the
settlement or filed objections.

A copy of the Order and Final Judgment in Vines v. Covelli
Enterprises t/d/b/a, Panera Bread, Case No. 12-cv-00028 (W.D. Pa.)
(Lancaster, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/24/Panera.pdf


POOL CORP: Continues to Defend Consumer MDL in Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------
Pool Corporation continues to defend itself against a consumer
multidistrict litigation in Louisiana, according to the Company's
July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

A number of purported anti-trust class action lawsuits have been
filed against the Company in various United States District
Courts.  The cases were transferred and consolidated before the
Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2328,
and are presently pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
On June 14, 2012, indirect purchaser plaintiffs, purporting to
represent indirect purchasers of swimming pool products in
Arizona, California, Florida and Missouri, filed an amended class
action complaint.  On June 29, 2012, direct purchaser plaintiffs,
who are current or former customers, filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which added three defendants, Hayward
Industries Inc., Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. and Zodiac Pool
Systems, Inc.  The amended complaints seek unspecified
compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, costs and fees and
other equitable relief.  The Company believes the amended
complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself.

Pool Corporation is a wholesale distributor of swimming pool
supplies, equipment and related leisure products and is a
distributor of irrigation and landscape products in the United
States.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware in 1993 and has
grown from a regional distributor to a multi-national, multi-
network distribution company.


STEHOUWER'S FROZEN: FSIS Lists Stores That Sold Recalled Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
"Stehouwer's Pigs in the Blanket" products that have been recalled
by Stehouwer's Frozen Foods.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/6MmcN6,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

  Retailer Name            City and State
  -------------            --------------
  Meijer                   Stores throughout IL, IN, KY, MI, OH
  D&W Fresh Market         Stores throughout MI
  Family Fare              Stores throughout MI
  Harding's Market         Stores throughout MI
  Village Market Food Ctr. Allegan, Michigan
  Mazen Foods              Detroit, Michigan
  Dick's Food Market       Dorr, Michigan
  Fennville Main St. Mkt.  Fennville, Michigan
  Shop-N-Save Food Center  Fremont, Michigan
  Forest Hills Foods       Grand Rapids, Michigan
  Plumb's                  Grand Rapids, Michigan
  Hamilton Food Center     Hamilton, Michigan
  Leppink's Food Center    Howard City, Michigan
  Valu Land                Lansing, Michigan
  Shop-N-Save Food Center  Ludington, Michigan
  Value Ctr. Marketplace   Madison Heights, Michigan
  Middleville Marketplace  Middleville, Michigan
  Plumb's                  E Apple Avenue, Muskegon, Michigan
  Plumb's                  W River Valley Drive, Newaygo, MI
  Plumb's                  Whitehall Road, North Muskegon, MI
  Ravenna Foods            Ravenna, Michigan
  Valu Land                Roseville, Michigan
  V G's Food Center        Shelby Twp, Michigan
  Weicks Foodtown          Shelbyville, Michigan
  Village Mkt Food Center  South Haven, Michigan
  Leppink's Food Center    Spring Lake, Michigan
  Valu Land                Warren, Michigan
  Tenutas Food Lane        Waterford, Michigan
  Heartland Marketplace    Westland, Michigan
  Big Top Market           Wyoming, Michigan
  Duthler's Family Foods   Wyoming, Michigan


TORO COMPANY: Lawnmower Purchasers' Suit Still Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company continues to defend a class action complaint
filed by Canadian lawnmower purchasers, according to the Company's
December 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31, 2012.

In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Canada filed class action litigation against the Company and
other defendants that (i) contains allegations under applicable
Canadian law that are similar to the allegations made by the
United States plaintiffs, (ii) seeks certification of a class of
all persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994 purchased a
lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower
that was manufactured or sold by the company and other defendants,
and (iii) seeks under applicable Canadian law unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' costs and fees, and
equitable relief.

Management continues to evaluate this Canadian litigation.  In the
event the company is unable to favorably resolve this litigation,
management is unable to assess at this time whether this
litigation would have a material adverse effect on the Company's
annual consolidated operating results or financial condition,
although an unfavorable resolution or outcome could be material to
the company's consolidated operating results for a particular
period.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing.

Based in Bloomington, Minnesota, The Toro Company designs,
manufactures, and markets professional turf maintenance equipment
and services, turf irrigation systems, agricultural micro-
irrigation systems, landscaping equipment and lighting, and
residential yard and snow removal products.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Sudden Acceleration Class Action for $1BB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toyota offered to pay more
than $1 billion to settle class action claims of sudden
acceleration in its vehicles.

Toyota set up a Web site with details of its proposed settlement.
The 50-page proposed settlement includes 244 pages of exhibits.

"The parties have reached a tentative settlement in this case,"
Toyota said on the Web site on Dec. 26.

The case is In re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. It
seeks to cover "all economic loss actions."

Toyota said it asked the court for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement.  "The Court has yet to render a decision.
There are no further details available at this time.  Please do
not contact Toyota, Lexus or Scion or Toyota, Lexus, or Scion
dealers for information about the settlement at this time.  This
Web site [link above] will be updated periodically as more
information becomes available."

Toyota said it will take a $1.1 pre-tax charge against earnings to
cover the cost of the settlement, which it estimates will cost it
$1.2 billion to $1.4 billion, according to The Associated Press.

Hundreds of cases have been filed against Toyota for unintended
acceleration since 2009.  Toyota tried to blame the problem on
faulty floor mats, made by third-party contractors that trapped
accelerator pedals, then withdrew that claim.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement in In Re: Toyota Motor Corp.
Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation, Case No. 8:10ML2151 (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/27/ToyotaSettlement.pdf

  
TVA: Knoxville Attorney to Serve as Mediator in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
WBIR.com reports that a Knoxville attorney will serve as one of
two mediators in a class action lawsuit tied to the TVA coal ash
spill in Roane County.

More than 800 plaintiffs are suing TVA over damages from the spill
which dumped millions of gallons of coal ash from the Kingston
Fossil Plant into the surrounding community.

A federal judge ordered Pamela Reeves and Rodney Max to serve as
joint mediators in the case after the plaintiffs and TVA agreed
the attorneys would be a good fit with the case.

Ms. Reeves works at the Reeves, Herbert and Anderson law firm in
Knoxville.  10News spoke with her by phone, but she declined to
comment on the case.


VENTURA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ventura Foods dba Marie's
misleadingly sells 20 salad dressings and other products as "all
natural" though they contain genetically modified organisms, a
class action claims in Federal Court.


                           *********

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., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2013. 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 $775 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 A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *