---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 30, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 84

                             Headlines


3T DESIGN: Recalls 676 Cervelo Bicycles With Aura Pro Handlebars
AMEDISYS INC: Bids to Dismiss Securities and Other Suits Pending
AMEDISYS INC: Defends Wage and Hour Class Suit in Connecticut
AMEDISYS INC: Defends Wage and Hour Class Suit in Illinois
APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Claims on Multiple Charges Suit

ARAMARK HEALTHCARE: Faces Overtime Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Families of Murder Victims to Join Class Action
CONRAIL: Faces Class Action Over Train Derailment & Chemical Spill
COPART INC: Awaits Approval of "Ortiz" Class Suit Settlement
CURREY & CO: Recalls 2,200 Chandeliers Due to Electric Shock Risk

DAVEY TREE: Continues to Defend Suits Over Rice Canyon Fire
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Defends Wage and Hour Suits in California
EXIDE TECH: Faces Suit Over Pollution Brought at Calif. Facility
FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Class Suit Involving Bank Remains Pending
GOGO: Faces Class Action Over Exclusive Airline Contracts

GRACO CHILDREN'S: Seat Defect Class Action to Remain in Fed. Court
INTEGRITY STAFFING: Warehouse Workers' Class Action Revived
JTH HOLDING: Continues to Defend Consolidated RAL Suit in Ill.
JTH HOLDING: "Martin" Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Denial of Cert.
LAND OF NOD: Recalls 2,500 Plush Dollies Due to Choking Hazard

LOS ANGELES: Police Violates Order on Homeless People, Suit Claims
MILLER ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Class Suit
MORGAN KEEGAN: Investors' Counsel Balks at Class Suit Accord
NEW YORK, NY: Cop Forms Hardly Support Stop-and-Frisk Suit Abuses
TANGOE INC: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Faces More Burden in Defamation Counterclaims
UNILEVER PLC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Advertising
UNITED STATES: Immigration Must Provide Bond Hearings, Judge Rules
UNITED STATES: Sioux City Won't Join Suit Over 2011 Flooding
VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Suit Over Defective Door Wiring Harnesses


                             *********


3T DESIGN: Recalls 676 Cervelo Bicycles With Aura Pro Handlebars
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with distributor, Cervelo Cycles Inc., of Toronto,
Canada; and manufacturer, 3T Design Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced
a voluntary recall of about 623 Cervelo Bicycles with Aura Pro
Handlebars in the United States of America and 53 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The bicycle's handlebar clamps can detach during riding causing
the rider to lose control, posing a risk of injury.

3T Design has received one report of an incident resulting in
minor injuries.

The Aura Pro custom bicycle handlebars are original equipment on
the 2013 Cervelo P-Series bicycles which come in black, gray and
red color combinations.  The handlebars are finished in gloss
black with "3T," AURA-PRO," and "ULTIMATE-PERFORMANCE" in white on
the handlebar's top surface.  The recall includes the P3 with
Shimano Ultegra and P5 Three with SRAM Red bicycle models.
"Cervelo" and "P3" or "P5" appear on the bicycle's frame.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/vU2sFA

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Cervelo bicycle retailers nationwide from September 2012 through
January 2013 for about $3,600 for the P3 with Shimano Ultegra
bicycle and about $6,000 for the P5 Three with SRAM Red bicycle
with these handlebars.

Consumers should stop using their bicycles immediately and contact
3T Design to obtain a free repair kit that includes four
replacement bolts and instructions.  Consumers can follow the
instructions to replace the handlebar's bolts or take the bicycle
to a Cervelo authorized dealer for a free repair.  3T Design Ltd.
may be reached at (800) 223-3207 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.3tcycling.com/and click on Recall for more
information.


AMEDISYS INC: Bids to Dismiss Securities and Other Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. and other defendants' motions to dismiss
securities, ERISA and derivattive lawsuits, remain pending,
according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

                Securities Class Action Lawsuits

On June 7, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana against the Company and certain of its current and
former senior executives.  Additional putative securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana on July 14, July 16, and July 28,
2010.

On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the
putative securities class action lawsuits and the Federal
Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes.  In the same order, the
Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-
lead plaintiffs (together, the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs") for the
putative class.  On December 10, 2010, the Court also consolidated
the ERISA class action lawsuit with the putative securities class
actions and Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint")
which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action
complaints.  The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts about the Company's business, financial condition,
operations and prospects, particularly relating to the Company's
policies and practices regarding home therapy visits under the
Medicare home health prospective payment system and the related
alleged impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
operations and prospects.  The Securities Complaint seeks a
determination that the action may be maintained as a class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities
between August 2, 2005, and September 28, 2010, and an unspecified
amount of damages.

All defendants previously moved to dismiss the Securities
Complaint.  On June 28, 2012, the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Complaint.  On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration.  Through that
motion, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs have asked the Court to rescind its
June 28, 2012 dismissal order and to reverse its decision to grant
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  In the alternative, the Co-
Lead Plaintiffs have asked the Court to modify its dismissal order
to grant Co-Lead Plaintiffs permission to file a second amended
complaint.  The Defendants filed a response in opposition to the
Co-Lead Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in late August
2012.  That motion is fully-briefed and remains pending before the
court.

                       Derivative Actions

On July 2, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana, purporting to assert claims on
behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and
former officers and directors.  Three similar derivative lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana on July 15, July 21, and August 2, 2010
(together, the "Federal Derivative Actions").  The Company is
named as a nominal defendant in all of those actions.  On October
22, 2010, the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana issued an order consolidating the Federal Derivative
Actions with the putative securities class action lawsuits and for
pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative
Actions filed a consolidated, amended complaint (the "Derivative
Complaint") which supersedes the earlier-filed derivative
complaints.  The Derivative Complaint alleges that certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company by making allegedly false
statements, by allegedly failing to establish sufficient internal
controls over certain of the Company's home health and Medicare
billing practices, by engaging in alleged insider trading, and by
committing unspecified acts of waste of corporate assets and
unjust enrichment.  All defendants in the Federal Derivative
Actions, including the Company as a nominal defendant, have moved
to dismiss the Derivative Complaint.  That motion is fully briefed
and remains pending before the court.

On July 23, 2010, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the Nineteenth
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of
Louisiana.  That action also purports to assert claims on behalf
of the Company against certain of its current and former officers
and directors.  On December 8, 2010, the Court entered an order
staying the action in deference to the earlier-filed derivative
actions pending in federal court.

                   ERISA Class Action Lawsuit

On September 27, 2010, and October 22, 2010, separate putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company,
certain of its current and former senior executives and members of
its 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee.  The lawsuits allege
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") since January 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007, respectively.
The plaintiffs brought the complaints on behalf of themselves and
a class of similarly situated participants in the Company's
401(k) plan.  The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan's participants by
causing the 401(k) plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock
during the respective class periods when it was an allegedly
unduly risky and imprudent retirement investment because of the
Company's alleged improper business practices.  The complaints
seek a determination that the actions may be maintained as a class
action, an award of unspecified monetary damages and other
unspecified relief.  As noted, on December 10, 2010, the Court
consolidated the putative ERISA class actions with the putative
securities class actions and derivative actions for pre-trial
purposes.  In addition, on December 10, 2010, the Court appointed
interim lead counsel and interim liaison counsel in the ERISA
class action.

On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell
(the "Co-ERISA Plaintiffs"), filed an amended, consolidated class
action complaint (the "ERISA Complaint"), which supersedes the
earlier-filed ERISA class action complaints.  The ERISA Complaint
seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class
action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
participants in the Company's 401(k) plan from January 1, 2008
through present.  All of the defendants have moved to dismiss the
ERISA Complaint.  That motion is fully briefed and remains pending
before the court.

The Company says it is unable to assess the probable outcome or
reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from
the securities, shareholder derivative and ERISA litigation given
the preliminary stage of these matters.  The Company intends to
continue to vigorously defend itself in the securities,
shareholder derivative, ERISA and wage and hour litigation
matters.  No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome
of the securities, shareholder derivative and ERISA litigation
matters or the impact of any of the inquiry, investigation or
litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be
material, individually or in the aggregate.

The Company recognizes that additional putative securities class
action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that
other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to
matters involving the Company's home therapy visits and therapy
utilization trends or other matters.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The Company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


AMEDISYS INC: Defends Wage and Hour Class Suit in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. is defending a wage and hour class action lawsuit
pending in Connecticut, according to the Company's March 12, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against the Company in which three former employees
allege wage and hour law violations.  The former employees claim
they were paid on both a per-visit and an hourly basis, thereby
misclassifying them as exempt employees and entitling them to
overtime pay.  The plaintiffs allege violations of Federal and
state law and seek damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), as well as under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.  The
Plaintiffs seek class certification of similar employees and seek
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back
three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania
statute.

The Company says it is unable to assess the probable outcome or
reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from
the wage and hour litigation given the preliminary stage of this
matter.  The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself in the wage and hour litigation matters.  No assurances can
be given as to the timing or outcome of wage and hour litigation
matters or the impact of any of the inquiry, investigation or
litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be
material, individually or in the aggregate.

The Company recognizes that additional putative securities class
action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that
other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to
matters involving the Company's home therapy visits and therapy
utilization trends or other matters.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The Company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


AMEDISYS INC: Defends Wage and Hour Class Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. is defending a wage and hour class action lawsuit
pending in Illinois, according to the Company's March 12, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On September 13, 2012, a putative collective and class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company in which a
former employee alleges wage and hour law violations.  The former
employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly
basis, thereby misclassifying her as an exempt employee and
entitling her to overtime pay.  The plaintiff alleges violations
of Federal and state law and seeks damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  The
Plaintiff seeks class certification of similar employees who were
or are employed in Illinois and seeks attorneys' fees, back wages
and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and
three years under the Illinois statute.

The Company says it is unable to assess the probable outcome or
reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from
the wage and hour litigation given the preliminary stage of this
matter.  The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself in the wage and hour litigation matters.  No assurances can
be given as to the timing or outcome of wage and hour litigation
matters or the impact of any of the inquiry, investigation or
litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be
material, individually or in the aggregate.

The Company recognizes that additional putative securities class
action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that
other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to
matters involving the Company's home therapy visits and therapy
utilization trends or other matters.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The Company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Claims on Multiple Charges Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse House News Service reports that Apple
clearly discloses that multiple charges accompany multiple
downloads of the same song, a federal judge ruled, dismissing
claims with leave to amend.

Robert Herskowitz and Phoebe Juel hope to represent a class of
customers who made repeated downloads of the same song from
iTunes, only to discover that Apple charged them every time.  Juel
says Apple charged her when she downloaded a song from Apple that
she had already downloaded but could not locate on her computer.
Herskowitz alleges he was charged more than once for the same
product.

A federal judge consolidated their cases, which allege breach of
contract, bad faith, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, fraud and unjust enrichment.

Apple argued in its motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs "do not
and cannot point to any legal obligation requiring Apple to
provide them with a second download of the same song free of
charge.  To the contrary, their agreement with Apple expressly
bars that claim, and provided an express and exclusive remedy that
plaintiffs ignore."  That remedy is to contact Apple for
assistance.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh agreed with Apple, noting that "the
agreement in effect at the time of Juel's purchase contained an
express provision that purchasers were not entitled to re-download
a song free of charge."

Apple's Terms and Conditions state that "products may be
downloaded only once and cannot be replaced if lost for any
reason," the ruling states (emphasis in original).  "Once a
product is downloaded, it is your responsibility not to lose,
destroy or damage it, and Apple shall not be liable if you do so."

Since Juel alleges that she downloaded a song again after she was
unable to access it after the first download, and since the
express terms of the agreement make clear that she was only
entitled to download the song once, Koh found that Apple did not
breach its contract with her.

Juel also does not allege that she contacted Apple when she was
unable to access the song, which is Apple's "express and exclusive
remedy" for "technical problems" with song downloads, according to
the ruling.

The judge cited ambiguity in Herskowitz's contract argument in
dismissing it.

"It is unclear from the face of the complaint whether Herskowitz
is alleging a breach of contract claim based on: (1) the fact that
Herskowitz purchased and downloaded one song for which Apple
charged him twice, which may constitute a breach of contract
claim; or (2) whether Herskowitz intentionally or unintentionally
purchased and downloaded a single song twice, and was then charged
by Apple twice, which -- as discussed in regard to Juel -- may not
constitute a breach of contract claim," the ruling states.
"Consequently the court does not find that Herskowitz has
sufficiently alleged and shown facts that provide the grounds for
his entitlement to relief."

She also cited the ambiguous nature of Herskowitz's California
Legal Remedies Act and unfair competition claims, but granted him
leave to amend all of them.

Giving Herskowitz a bit of advice, she said it might suffice for
him to state a claim for unfairness under California's unfair
competition law if his "allegation is that Apple charges
individuals twice for a single purchase and single download."

"However, if Herskowitz's allegation is that Apple is required to
issue refunds after customers download the same song multiple
times, despite the clear provision warning customers to download a
song only once and the provision providing for refunds under
limited circumstances, the plausibility of such a claim is much
weaker," she added.

Koh also tossed bad-faith claims with leave to amend.  The implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing is "limited to assuring
compliance with the express terms of the contract, and cannot be
extended to create obligations not contemplated by the contract,"
according to the ruling (emphasis in original).

As to the fraud claim, Juel "failed to allege the 'what,' 'when,'
'where,' and 'how' elements of a claim for fraud, particularly as
they relate to Apple's alleged misrepresentations, scienter,
intent to defraud, or Juel's justifiable reliance," according to
the ruling.

While Juel referred to Apple's "misleading advertising campaign,"
she "does not point to any representation that Apple allowed
customers to 'redownload' a song if they 'could not locate' for
any other reason," Koh wrote.  "In fact, as discussed previously,
the agreement states expressly that iTunes songs 'may be
downloaded only once and cannot be replaced if lost for any
reason.'"

Juel also did not allege when and where she saw and relied on the
alleged misrepresentations, the judge noted.  Similarly, she did
not allege any facts to support the notion that Apple had
knowledge of an alleged misrepresentation or intent to defraud.

The ruling slaps at Juel for giving "little more than 'conclusory
allegations' and 'unwarranted references.'"

"Without more, there is no basis for inferring that Apple made any
false statements knowingly and with the intent to defraud the
customers," Koh wrote, again granting leave to amend.

The court further notes that the plaintiffs are not allowed to
allege claims brought on behalf of customers who bought products
other than from the iTunes store because the terms and conditions
for the iBookstore and other app stores are different from those
for the iTunes store.

Herskowitz is represented by Joseph Tabacco Jr. of Berman
DeValerio. Juel's lead attorney is Christopher Land of the Law
Offices of John Kithas.

Apple is represented by Penelope Preovolos of Morrison & Foerster.


ARAMARK HEALTHCARE: Faces Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Aramark Healthcare Support
Services stiffs workers for overtime, a class action claims in
Federal Court.


AUSTRALIA: Families of Murder Victims to Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Dowsley and Elissa Hunt, writing for Sunday Herald Sun,
report that murder victim Sarah Cafferkey's family will launch an
unprecedented legal assault against the State Government over
criminals who kill while out on parole.  Other victims' families
have been invited to join a class action, amid claims danger signs
were ignored as potential murderers roamed the streets.

The campaign includes a push to get the Government to register
"high-risk offenders" on a public internet site. In a bid to
launch its case, the Cafferkey family has reached out to Erin
Brockovich, made famous in the movie about her life, who organized
a meeting with her firm Shine Lawyers.  Ms. Cafferkey was stabbed
to death by career criminal and convicted killer Steven James
Hunter, who murdered the 22-year-old in November last year, nine
days after his parole ended.

The Sunday Herald Sun said Hunter, who pleaded guilty to murder on
April 11, was suspected of operating an illicit drug trafficking
network while on parole, missed drug-testing appointments as part
of his parole requirements and spoke of committing gruesome acts
of violence.

Ms. Cafferkey's mother, Noelle Dickson, said the corrections
system failed to protect her daughter.

"Their failure to act on red flags raised with Corrections
Victoria about Steven Hunter may have cost my daughter her life,"
she said.

Sources have claimed parole officers have been warned they face
instant dismissal and possible criminal prosecution if they speak
out about failures regarding breaches by parolees, some who have
gone on to murder.

There has also been widely held concern within the justice system
about young parole officers being assigned serious offenders who
manipulate them.  Victoria Police has investigated 12 murders
since 2008 that have been committed by parolees across the state.
Some had not been returned to jail after breaching parole
conditions.

Sandra Betts, the mother of murder victim Raechel Betts, who was
slain by triple-murderer John Leslie Coombes, said there was a
systemic failure to dig deep enough into a serious offender's
history during evaluations before their release into the
community.  Ms. Betts is advocating higher standards of risk
assessment and believes an ''active'' taskforce is required to
investigate serious offenders released on parole.

"For parolees released after serious violence, aggressive rapes
and murder, there ought to be a taskforce that checks on them, not
just some parole officer behind a desk.  There has to be this idea
of risk assessment," she said.

In their claim, they will argue the actions of the parolees and
the dangers they posed to the community were foreseeable.

"We believe evidence will demonstrate that relevant members of
Corrections Victoria failed to discharge their respective common
law duties of care based on the legal duty imposed upon them,"
Ms. Dickson said.

Several law firms have baulked at taking on the case because of
costs, despite believing they have a basis for a claim against
likely respondents Corrections Victoria and the Adult Parole
Board.  Any class action would challenge the state under the
Wrongs Act.  The basis of any writ would claim the state and its
organizations failed to take "reasonable care to ensure the safety
of the community".

In a draft seen by the Sunday Herald Sun it states that
"omissions" within the state's justice departments are to be the
foundation of the state's liability.

"We also believe that perhaps relevant members of the parole board
are failing to discharge their respective common law duties of
care when it comes to the release of 'dangerous persons' into the
community," it said.

"It's quite clear the parole board has been placed under increased
pressure by human rights law and appears to be paying more
attention to the rights of the criminal than the public."

The mooted action has similarities with a damages claim filed by
Carl Williams' family in 2012 over his murder in Barwon Prison.

Filed on behalf of Mr. Williams' daughter Dhakota, the Williams
are suing the State Government for AUD1 million.


CONRAIL: Faces Class Action Over Train Derailment & Chemical Spill
------------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Johnson, writing for NBC10, reports that a class action
lawsuit was filed on April 13 relating to the Paulsboro, New
Jersey train derailment and chemical spill that forced hundreds of
people from their homes and left dozens sick last year.  The
plaintiffs include more than 100 first responders, young children,
and property owners who allege they sustained injuries and damages
after the hazardous chemical spill.

On November 30, seven cars of an 84-car train derailed on or near
a swivel-style bridge over Mantua Creek.  The accident released
vinyl chloride, leading to the evacuation of more than 329
families and businesses.  Dozens were checked out at a hospital.

"We believe and are alleging in this case this derailment not only
could have been prevented but that there was knowledge beforehand
of the risks of trains transporting dangerous chemicals and
tankers across this bridge and that knowledge was sufficient that
they were obligated to take action to avoid the kind of harm that
happened on November 30 of last year," said Aaron Freiwald, lead
trial counsel for the plaintiffs, during a press conference on
April 13.

Erma and Walt Stevenson have lived in Paulsboro for 26 years.
They say they've grown increasingly frustrated with Conrail
officials.

"Conrail has not been very nice to us, said Erma during a press
conference in her home on April 13.  "They are not my favorite.
They tell you a lot of things and you find out that they've lied
to you."

In the case, Spears et al v. Conrail et al, filed in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia on April 13, all of the individual
plaintiffs claim they inhaled significant quantities of vinyl
chloride.  The chemical is linked to short-term breathing
problems, but prolonged exposure has been tied to cancer.  They
are asking for compensatory damages, damages for physical injuries
and losses, mental anguish, property loss, and medical monitoring
now and in the future.

"These are factory workers, engineers, police officers, school
kids and their moms and dads, grandparents.  And none of them
should have been put through the physical and emotional hell these
companies have put them through," said Scott McKinley, co-counsel
for the plaintiffs.

Cassandra Clarke, mother of two, said her daughter, 12, and son,
7, got sick as a result of the spill.

"As a parent it's your worst nightmare.  I am really concerned
that my children are going to be alright, that they are going to
have longevity and be lively," said Ms. Clarke.

First responders claim that Conrail representatives advised them
throughout the day that they did not need breathing masks or other
personal protective equipment, despite high readings of vinyl
chloride in the air.  The suit states they later underwent
extensive medical testing that showed high levels of vinyl
chloride in their urine.  Other plaintiffs in the new civil action
claim they were walking their young children to school, driving to
work or inside their home when they say they were engulfed by
fumes.

"The November 30th derailment was no accident," said Mr. Freiwald.
"Defendants knew that the bridge was not safe for rail traffic
involving highly dangerous chemicals.  There was complete
disregard for the health and safety of those living in and around
Paulsboro and now we are asking these companies to pay for the
damage they have done."

In March Conrail offered to settle with hundreds of Paulsboro
residents.  They offered some families $500 per child and those
who live closest to the site were offered more.  But lawyers for
the families say the amount would not cover future medical bills
if the children get sick.


COPART INC: Awaits Approval of "Ortiz" Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc., disclosed in its March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 30, 2012, that the parties in a class action
lawsuit in California are in the process of getting approval of a
settlement and administering the settlement funds.

On September 21, 2010, Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres filed a
lawsuit against the Company in Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, San Bernardino District, which purported to be a class
action on behalf of persons employed by the Company in the
positions of facilities managers and assistant general managers in
California at any time since the date four years prior to
September 21, 2010.  The complaint alleges failure to pay wages
and overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and rest
breaks, in violation of various California Labor and Business and
Professional Code sections, due to alleged misclassification of
facilities managers and assistant general managers as exempt
employees.  Relief sought includes class certification, injunctive
relief, damages according to proof, restitution for unpaid wages,
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, attorney's fees
and costs, interest, and punitive damages.  A mediation of the
matter occurred on February 12, 2013, and resulted in a settlement
of the matter for an immaterial amount.  The parties are in the
process of getting the Court's approval of the settlement and
administering the settlement funds.

Copart, Inc., is a provider of online auctions and vehicle
remarketing services in the United States (U.S.), Canada and the
United Kingdom (U.K.).  The Company was incorporated in Delaware
and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


CURREY & CO: Recalls 2,200 Chandeliers Due to Electric Shock Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Currey & Company, of Chico, California;
and manufacturer, YQF Lighting Manufacturer Co, LTD, of China,
announced a voluntary recall of about 2,100 chandeliers in the
United States of America and 100 in Canada.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Defective wiring can conduct electricity to the chandeliers' metal
parts, posing an electric shock hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves 10 models of Currey & Company crystal or
metal chandeliers. They were sold in various colors and measure
approximately 21 inches wide and 55 inches high.  The model name
is on the exterior of the shipping carton.  Item numbers are
printed on a white label on the interior of the chandeliers'
canopy.  Recalled chandeliers include:

  Item No. (1st
  four digits)     Model        Color             Size
  -------------    -----        -----             ----
  9150 and 9151    Guilia       Smoke             Small & Large
  9152 and 9154    Guistina     Yellow and Blue   N/A
  9155             Giselle      Smoke             N/A

  9061, 9062 and   Valentina    Clear, Black      Small
  9063             and White

  9064             Passionata   White             N/A
  9065             Ovation      Black             N/A

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/lXaQtE

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at home
furnishing stores, lighting centers and by interior decorators
nationwide, online at www.lightingdirect.com and Amazon.com, from
January 2010 through February 2013 for about $500 to $3,250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chandeliers,
turn off the chandelier's power supply and contact Currey &
Company instructions on how to obtain a free replacement
chandelier, including shipping, or free repair of the chandelier
by a licensed electrician.  Currey & Company may be reached toll-
free at (866) 577-6430 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.curreyco.com/and
click on Important Safety Recall located at the bottom of the home
page for more information.


DAVEY TREE: Continues to Defend Suits Over Rice Canyon Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Davey Tree Expert Company continues to defend its subsidiaries
against lawsuits arising from the Rice Canyon fire, according to
the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

Davey Tree Surgery Company, a Davey subsidiary, and Davey Resource
Group, a Davey division, along with the Company 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.  The Plaintiffs'
motions seeking class certification were denied and the orders
denying class certification were affirmed on appeal.  SDG&E 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 asserted its claims
against Davey for indemnity.

Davey previously notified its insurers of the Rice Canyon fire
claims (collectively the "Davey Insurers"), vigorously defended
the third-party claims, and worked with the Davey Insurers both to
defend the claims and to ensure coverage of any potential
liabilities.

During the third quarter 2012, Davey entered into a Settlement and
Release Agreement (the "Agreement") among Davey, SDG&E and Davey
Insurers.

Under the Agreement (a) Davey paid SDG&E an amount previously
expensed and accrued as self-insurance, (b) the Davey Insurers
paid SDG&E amounts under Davey's insurance policies in effect
during the period of the Rice Canyon fire, and (c) SDG&E agreed to
defend and hold harmless Davey from any and all claims that are
currently asserted against Davey.

The Davey Tree Expert Company -- http://www.davey.com/-- which
was founded in 1880, incorporated in 1909 and headquartered in
Kent, Ohio, has two primary operating segments that provide a
variety of horticultural services to its customers throughout the
United States and Canada.  The Company's Residential and
Commercial Services segment provides for the treatment,
preservation, maintenance, cultivation, planting and removal of
trees, shrubs and other plant life.  The Company's Utility
Services segment is principally engaged in line clearing for
public utilities, including the clearing of tree growth from power
lines, clearance of rights-of-way and chemical brush control.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Defends Wage and Hour Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corporation continues to defend its
subsidiaries from wage and hour class action lawsuits pending in
California, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

Four different lawsuits purporting to be class actions have been
filed against AMR and certain subsidiaries in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws.  On April 16, 2008,
Lori Bartoni commenced a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Alameda; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn
Banta filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura
Karapetian filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, and on March 11, 2010, Melanie
Aguilar filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.  The Banta, Aguilar and
Karapetian cases have been coordinated in the Superior Court for
the State of California, County of Los Angeles.  At the present
time, courts have not certified classes in any of these cases.
The Plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities failed to
pay overtime charges pursuant to California law, and failed to
provide required meal breaks, rest breaks or pay premium
compensation for missed breaks.  The Plaintiffs are seeking to
certify the classes and are seeking lost wages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and other sanctions permitted under California law
for violations of wage hour laws.  The Company is unable at this
time to estimate the amount of potential damages, if any.

Founded in 2005, Emergency Medical Services Corporation (EMSC) --
http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical
services in the United States, including ambulance services.  The
Company is headquartered in Greenwood Village, Colorado.


EXIDE TECH: Faces Suit Over Pollution Brought at Calif. Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse House News Service reports that Exide concealed that
its battery-recycling facility in Vernon, Calif., polluted the
environment and exposed residents to potentially fatal levels of
arsenic, a class of investors claims.


FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Class Suit Involving Bank Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit involving a subsidiary of Franklin
Financial Services Corporation remains pending, according to the
Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Farmers and Merchants Trust Company of Chambersburg ("F&M Trust"
or "the Bank") is participating in a class-action lawsuit against
one private label mortgage-backed securities (PLMBS) servicer that
centers on defective warranties and representations made as part
of the underwriting process.  The Company says the resolution of
this action is unknown at this time.

Franklin Financial Services Corporation --
http://www.franklinfin.com/-- was organized as a Pennsylvania
business corporation in 1983 and is a registered bank holding
company.  The Company is headquartered in Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania.


GOGO: Faces Class Action Over Exclusive Airline Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge tossed claims from airline passengers who say that in-flight
Internet provider Gogo stifles competition with long-term airline
contracts.

In an antitrust class action complaint, lead plaintiffs James
Stewart, Joel Milne and Joseph Strazullo claimed that passengers
on many major U.S. airlines are stuck with Gogo whether they like
it or not.  They said the provider charges up to $17.95 for
in-flight Internet service under its exclusive 10-year contracts
with major airlines. The first of Gogo's exclusive airline
contracts does not expire until 2018, according to the complaint.

The $17.95 charge allegedly applies to fights longer than three
hours, whereas it costs $9.95 for passengers to connect their
mobile devices.

Gogo is allegedly locked into those contracts with AirTran, Alaska
Airlines, American Airlines, Delta, Frontier Airlines, United
Airlines, US Airways and Virgin America.

Meanwhile Row 44, which acts as the in-flight Internet provider to
Southwest Airlines, offers unlimited satellite based service for
$5, the class said.

U.S. District judge Edward Chen earlier this month ruled that Gogo
had monopolized in-the-air Internet service, rather than tie the
airlines only on an "aircraft-by-aircraft" basis.  He said the
class failed to show why "airplanes that could be equipped" with
Internet service, not just those that actually did have internet
capability, "should not be included in the full range of selling
opportunities reasonably open to a competitor."

Factoring in all North American aircraft that could be fitted to
provide Internet access, Gogo argued that its share of the market
was only 16 percent, not the 85 percent or higher alleged by the
class.  For that reason, the passengers failed to show how the
contracts demonstrated a "substantial foreclosure of competition
in the relevant market," according to the ruling.

"Plaintiffs do not allege, for example, that there are substantial
technological or design barriers to installing a competitor's
internet connectivity services on such planes, nor do they allege
that there are substantial financial barriers which prevent
competition for these planes," Chen wrote, dismissing the class's
claims under the Sherman Act and Cartwright Act.  "In the absence
of such allegations, the court agrees with Gogo that plaintiffs
cannot focus solely on planes that are actually equipped with
internet access, and, as a result, plaintiffs' allegation that
Gogo dominates the market with respect to North American aircraft
that are actually equipped to provide internet connectivity to
passengers (85 percent) shows little."

Gogo argued that airlines can terminate the contracts if a
competitor offers a better service.  Without reaching the merits,
however, Chen said it is not as simple as that for airlines to
walk away.

Based on the language in the contracts, "an airline cannot
terminate simply because a competitor of Gogo offers a superior
service or business arrangement," Chen wrote.

"Rather, there is an additional condition that must be satisfied -
e.g., 'failing to adopt [the competitor's] service would likely
cause competitive harm to the airline,' and not, notably, the
passenger on the airplane," he added.

The class has 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Joel Milne and Joseph Strazullo filed similar claims in the
Central District of California but voluntarily dismissed the case
in October 2012.


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Seat Defect Class Action to Remain in Fed. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean McLernon, writing for Law360, reports that an Oklahoma
federal judge on April 11 refused to remand to state court a Graco
Children's Products Inc. customer's putative class action over an
allegedly defective child safety seat, arguing that damages in the
case could possibly top the Class Action Fairness Act's $5 million
threshold.  Named plaintiff Penny Ezell had argued that documents
from Graco reveal that compensatory damages for consumers who
purchased the company's TurboBooster car seat would be less than
$4 million.


INTEGRITY STAFFING: Warehouse Workers' Class Action Revived
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth Circuit
ruled on April 12 that Fair Labor Standards Act collective action
and state law class action claims were not inherently
incompatible, reviving a lawsuit accusing Integrity Staffing
Solutions Inc. of illegally failing to pay warehouse workers for
time spent waiting to clear security checkpoints.  A three-judge
appellate panel issued a published opinion that partially reversed
a Nevada district judge's ruling that said former Integrity
workers Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro failed to state valid claims
under the FLSA.


JTH HOLDING: Continues to Defend Consolidated RAL Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JTH Holding, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit relating to refund anticipation
loans, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended January 31, 2013.

The Company was sued in November 2011 in federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Florida and Illinois, and additional
lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland
and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012
in New York and in Minnesota.  All of the cases were consolidated
before a single judge in federal court in the Northern District of
Illinois, and in June 2012, the plaintiffs filed a new complaint
in the consolidated action.  The consolidated complaint alleges
that an electronic refund check (ERC) represents a form of refund
anticipation loan (RAL) because the taxpayer is "loaned" the tax
preparation fee, and that an ERC is therefore subject to federal
truth-in-lending disclosure and state law requirements regulating
RALs.  The plaintiffs, therefore, allege violations of state-
specific RAL and other consumer statutes.  The lawsuit purports to
be a class action, and the plaintiffs allege potential damages in
excess of $5 million.  The Company is aware that virtually
identical lawsuits have been filed against several of its
competitors.

The Company believes at this time a loss related to this matter is
not probable; consequently the Company has not recorded a loss
contingency related to this matter.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims in this case, and intends to
defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to
the outcome or the impact on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.  The consolidated
case is at a very early stage.

JTH Holding, Inc. -- a Delaware corporation based in Virginia
Beach, Virginia, is a holding company engaged through its
subsidiaries as a franchisor and operator of a system of income
tax preparation offices located in the United States and Canada.


JTH HOLDING: "Martin" Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Denial of Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JTH Holding, Inc. said in its March 12, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended January 31, 2013, that the plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit styled Martin v. JTH Tax, Inc., did not appeal the order
denying class certification.

In November 2010, several former customers of one of the Company's
South Carolina franchisees initiated a purported class action
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and another of
the Company's employees in the United States District Court for
the District of South Carolina, in a case styled Martin v. JTH
Tax, Inc.  In this case, the plaintiffs allege that the employees
of the Company's franchisees fraudulently increased customer tax
refunds, and that this behavior was pursuant to a plan or scheme
in which the Company and its employees were involved.  In this
case, the plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $5 million,
certification of class action status, treble damages under a claim
pursuant to The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
of 1970, punitive damages, and other damages.

This case is in the early stages of the proceeding, but in
February 2013, the court issued a ruling denying certification of
the case as a class action.  That decision has not been appealed
by the plaintiffs, and consequently, the case can now proceed only
on the individual claims related to tax returns filed by the
several former customers who are the plaintiffs in this case.

The Company believes at this time a loss related to this matter is
not probable; consequently the Company has not recorded a loss
contingency related to this matter.  The Company intends to defend
this case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the
outcome or the impact on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.

JTH Holding, Inc. -- a Delaware corporation based in Virginia
Beach, Virginia, is a holding company engaged through its
subsidiaries as a franchisor and operator of a system of income
tax preparation offices located in the United States and Canada.


LAND OF NOD: Recalls 2,500 Plush Dollies Due to Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, The Land of Nod, of Morton Grove, Illinois; and
manufacturer, Radiant Exports, Noida, India, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,500 Dollies.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The hands on the plush dolls can detach, posing a choking hazard
to young children.

The firm has received one report of the doll hand detaching and
three reports of the dolls hands loosening.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall includes plush handmade baby dolls in five styles and
colors.  The all fabric dolls measure about 12 inches tall and 10
inches wide.  The dolls are dressed in a one piece printed floral
fabric outfit with a white lace trimmed hood over the head of the
dolls.

   Product Name    Color         SKU No.    Item Number
   ------------    -----         -------    -----------
   Clara           Yellow        404543      3710080-YE
   Eleanor         Light Blue    404551      3710080-LB
   Hannah          Cream         404608      3710080-CR
   Lila            Dark Blue     404756      3710080-DB
   Rose            Red           404799      3710080-RE

The SKU number is printed on a sewn-in label attached to the right
leg of the doll and on a hang tag fastened to the right arm.
Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/71KLT9

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold
exclusively at The Land of Nod stores and online at
http://www.landofnod.com/from October 2012 to March 2013 for
about $30.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled dolls away from the
child and return the dolls to The Land of Nod for a full
merchandise credit.  The Land of Nod may be reached at (800) 933-
9904 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday or online at http://www.landofnod.com/and click on Safety
Recalls at the bottom of the page for more information.


LOS ANGELES: Police Violates Order on Homeless People, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles
police violated a court order protecting homeless people in Venice
Beach by continuing to seize and destroy their belongings, three
homeless people claim in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Nancy Hanson sued Los Angeles in Federal Court.
She and co-plaintiffs David Busch and Denise Krajewski claim that
in "an extraordinary display of arrogance," LAPD officers and
Department of Public Works employees "swept through Third Avenue
in Venice" without notice on March 7, 2012, and trashed their
belongings.

As many as 70 homeless people live and sleep at Third Avenue
between Rose and Sunset, according to the complaint.  Hanson says
the homeless people moved there after authorities forced them off
Venice Boardwalk.

In June 2011, the Federal Court issued a preliminary injunction
against similar police tactics on Skid Row.  Lavan vs. City of Los
Angeles bars the city from "taking and summarily destroying the
property of homeless individuals without notice."

The 9th Circuit renewed the preliminary injunction in September
2012, without ruling on whether homeless people have a
constitutionally protected interest in leaving their belongings on
public sidewalks.

In the new complaint, Hanson claims that on March 7 last year,
"The homeless community on Third Avenue in Venice woke early on
that morning and, as they did every other day, neatly organized
their possessions and left to get food, use a bathroom, obtain
services at St. Joseph's and the Venice Family Clinic, both
nearby, or engage in other common daily tasks.

"After nearly everyone had left, public works and the police
arrived mid-morning with three large trash trucks.  City employees
and agents slashed protective coverings and ties and threw the
property away.  All of the items on the sidewalks were seized and
thrown into the public works trucks."

Hanson says Busch retrieved some of his belongings after District
11 Councilman Bill Rosendahl intervened.  Homeless services then
drove Busch and others to a city yard in another part of Venice.

"When Mr. Busch and the others arrived, their property had been
dumped on the ground.  A few people were able to reclaim some of
their belongings, but much of it had been irretrievably damaged or
destroyed.  Moreover, one of the public works trucks had
apparently already gone to the yard on the other side of the city,
making it completely inaccessible to the homeless individuals,"
the complaint states.

Hanson calls the city's crass action a "devastating blow," costing
homeless people medicine, medical records, birth certificates,
IDs, family photographs, clothing, tents and blankets.

She claims the city knew that the belongings had been "left
unattended temporarily," and that a public worker "cut away a
neatly packed cart that was deliberately secured to a tree and
then threw away all of the property on the cart."

Hanson says the city never posted signs or gave them notice.  And,
"Astonishingly," she says, city officials claimed that a city
ordinance "trumped" the Constitution and the court's orders, and
"somehow did not apply in Venice."

The city "has made it clear that it believes it is above the law
and the courts.  This is the fifth time the city has been sued in
two decades for the very same action directed against homeless
individuals and the second time that it has been sued for seizing
and destroying the property of homeless individuals in Venice,"
the complaint states.  "Despite the fact that the courts have
consistently found the city's conduct unlawful, the city brazenly
repeated its illegal tactics."

The complaint claims that the ruling in Lavan settled three
issues.

"First, the court held, and the 9th Circuit affirmed, that the
property of homeless individuals is protected by the Fourth
Amendment's protection against unlawful and unreasonable seizure.
Second, the court held that the property of homeless individuals
is not abandoned simply because they leave for a short time to use
a bathroom, get food, or perform other necessary daily tasks.
Third, even if the city could somehow reasonably believe that the
property in question was abandoned, it may not be destroyed
without notice and an opportunity to reclaim it."

The class seeks declaratory judgment, another injunction, and
statutory damages.

They are represented by Carol Sobel of Santa Monica, who also
litigated Lavan.

Sobel did not respond to requests for an interview.

Neither Councilman Rosendahl nor the city replied to requests for
comment.


MILLER ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2011, several purported class action lawsuits were filed
against Miller Energy Resources, Inc., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The
lawsuits made similar claims and have been consolidated into one
case, styled In re Miller Energy Resources, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  The lawsuit names the Company, along with several of
the Company's current and former executive officers, Scott Boruff,
Paul Boyd, Ford Graham, David Hall, and Deloy Miller, as
defendants.  The Plaintiffs allege two causes of action against
the defendants: (1) violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Exchange Act, (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  The case seeks money damages against the Company and the
other defendants, and payment of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.
The Company have filed a Motion to Dismiss the case.  Given the
current stage of the proceedings in this case, the Company says
currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or reasonably
estimate the range of losses, related to this matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 12, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

Miller Energy Resources, Inc., is an independent exploration and
production company that utilizes seismic data and other
technologies for the geophysical exploration, development and
production of oil and natural gas wells in the Cook Inlet Basin of
southcentral Alaska and the Appalachian region of eastern
Tennessee.  The Company is based in Knoxville, Tennessee.


MORGAN KEEGAN: Investors' Counsel Balks at Class Suit Accord
------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for LawywersandSettlements.com, reports that
Attorney Howard Prossnitz firmly believes his clients and many of
the 12,000 other Morgan Keegan (MK) bond investors that filed a
securities fraud class action against the now-defunct investment
firm Morgan Keegan are being offered a raw deal.

Without a review by the courts, members in the class-action suit
will receive 2 to 4 cents on the dollar after lawyers' fees.
Mr. Prossnitz argues MK investors are owed as much as 10 times
that amount.

"I don't ask the courts to make exemptions on a regular basis,"
says Mr. Prossnitz, who has spent the last three years litigating
on behalf of MK investors.  "I just know this settlement is not
fair to people."

That's why he has filed yet a second motion on behalf of his
clients, arguing that the settlement fails the approval test for
class actions.  His clients, the Christenson's, lost $100,000, and
the current settlement provides them with damages of only $3,000
or 3 cents for every dollar that was lost.

At the height of the market in 2007, the MK closed-end bond funds
were worth an estimated $1.5 billion.  Two years later, their
value had withered to a paltry $134 million.  In other words, the
total loss to investors was $1.4 billion.  It was hardly what
retail investors thought could happen to a so-called bond fund.

"Technically these were bonds, but as my expert likes to say,
technically a tiger is cat.  And when you buy a cat, you don't
expect a tiger to be dropped at your door," he adds.

The collapse of the four MK closed-end bonds was an iconic moment
in the 2007 financial crisis.  Thousands of investors piled into
the funds believing their investment strategy was as steady as the
Rock of Gibraltar.  What they didn't know was that the MK funds
were "structured finance instruments," laced with collateralized
debt obligations (CDOs) that consisted primarily of high-risk
mortgages.  When the housing bubble burst, so did the bond funds.

"This brought the problems of structured finance home to Main
Street," he adds.  "Here's a case where the average guy on the
street who thought he was buying a bond fund inadvertently got
swept up in structured finance."

A record 1,000 disgruntled investors brought their dispute with MK
to FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) for
arbitration.  It was the largest number of arbitrations brought
against a single investment firm in the history of FINRA.

Although investors failed to recover all their losses, those FINRA
arbitrations, and related hearings, resulted in investors
receiving 35 cents for every dollar lost.

Other investors choose to join a class-action suit against MK,
believing their case was strong enough to recover more or at least
the same amount as the FINRA cases received. "The FINRA results
set the benchmark," says Mr. Prossnitz.  "And based on the FINRA
results, the case should be worth $400 million, not $62 million."

"One reason I felt so strongly about this is that I have been
trying these Morgan Keegan arbitrations for the last three years,"
says Mr. Prossnitz.

"I realize these are good cases and I know the settlements are not
fair to people, because in the arbitration cases where I represent
MK clients, I've had a 94 percent success rate.  I know this is
not a fair settlement," he adds.  "The lawyers will get $19
million and the investors will get pennies on the dollar."

The Morgan Keegan firm was sold in 2012 to Raymond James. Lawyers
representing MK in the class action have successfully argued that
the Christenson's have no standing to ask for a review because
they do not fit the definition of a class member.

Mr. Prossnitz is asking the court, once again, to reconsider the
settlement.  Its decision could be yet another iconic moment
emerging from the rubble of the 2007 financial services industry
debacle.

Howard Prossnitz focuses his practice on arbitration and class-
action litigation for aggrieved investors.  Over the last 36
years, Prossnitz has recovered millions for investors through
FINRA arbitration, individual cases and class actions.  In 2012,
Mr. Prossnitz settled a class action against Heart Check America
for $4 million.


NEW YORK, NY: Cop Forms Hardly Support Stop-and-Frisk Suit Abuses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New York Daily News reports that with a single pointed question,
the federal judge presiding over the stop-and-frisk trial got to
the heart of why she was wrong to sanction this class-action
extravaganza -- and why she must toss the case at the close of
testimony.

Judge Shira Scheindlin let civil rights activists into the case
based on the stories of 12 New Yorkers who say police
unconstitutionally stopped them, plus evidence purporting to show
that cops similarly victimized huge numbers of people.  To make
that leap, she authorized the activists to study millions of forms
on which police checked boxes recording the reasons for individual
stops.  The boxes indicate grounds like "high-crime area" or
"furtive movements."  They are supposed to show that a cop had
reasonable suspicion of criminality before interfering with
anyone's liberty.

A Columbia University professor reviewed the forms on the
preposterous theory that he could divine from the boxes how often
cops met the legal standard of reasonable suspicion.  He found
that on 82% of the forms, cops had checked boxes indicating they
had proper cause to conduct a stop, that 12% of the forms lacked
enough information to draw a conclusion and that only 6% of the
reports failed to justify stops.

Those proportions hardly support the allegation of widespread
abuse.  Still more, the boxes actually reveal next to nothing
about the difficult judgment calls that prompted any single cop to
make any particular stop, let alone the thinking of thousands of
cops making millions of stops.  All those interactions between
cops and citizens involve complex judgments; how complex becomes
clear when you consider that rendering a verdict in the case has
involved days of testimony.

That's why Judge Scheindlin was so off the mark in accepting the
forms as a foundation for claiming that police have victimized
hundreds of thousands of people.  And that's why it was
astonishing to hear Judge Scheindlin utter these words in court:

"You really don't know much about the stop just by looking at the
form, do you?"

The judge was speaking at the time to former Chief of Department
Joseph Esposito, who was on the witness stand.

"Correct," he answered, as it became crystal clear that Judge
Scheindlin had given the go-ahead to a case built on evidence
that, by her own statement, is wholly unreliable.  Case dismissed,
Your Honor.


TANGOE INC: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C. on April 12 disclosed
that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against Tangoe,
Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of the Company during the period from December
20, 2011 through September 5, 2012.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Alfred G. Yates Jr., at 1-800-391-5164, toll
free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail.  Please visit
http://yatesclassactionlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 30, 2013.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding
organically growing its customer base.  Following news that Tangoe
had engaged in a "risky acquisition-driven growth strategy" and
questions regarding its reported organic growth, its share value
declined.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Tangoe common stock during the Class Period.

The firm is also investigating actions on behalf of shareholders
for the following companies: Atlantic Power Corporation,
Bazaarvoice, Inc., Boeing Company, Caterpillar Inc., Diodes, Inc.,
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., Hess Corporation, Impax
Laboratories, Inc., Incyte Corporation, ITT Educational Services,
Inc., Maxwell Technologies, Inc., Star Scientific, Inc., and
Toyota Motor Corporation.

If you are a shareholder of any of the above companies and wish
learn more about any of the investigations or have any questions,
please contact Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-5164,
toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail.

Contact: Alfred G. Yates, Jr.
         Tel: (412) 391-5164
         Toll Free: 1(800) 391-5164
         Fax: (412) 471-1033
         Web site: http://yatesclassactionlaw.com
         E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Faces More Burden in Defamation Counterclaims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse House News Service reports that Trump
University faces a higher burden in pursuing defamation
counterclaims against a former student who called its real estate
seminars a money grab, the 9th Circuit ruled.

Tarla Makaeff filed a deceptive business practices class action
against the for-profit school in 2010, claiming that Trump
University, now called the The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, took
her for nearly $60,000 based on promises never delivered.

Makaeff claimed that she paid $1,495 for the "free" three-day
seminar, which turned out to be an infomercial.  Trump University
representatives allegedly induced her and others to spend $35,000
for the Trump University "Gold Program," and convinced them to
increase their credit card limits to finance risky real estate
deals.

With the "guarantee" that her first real estate deal would earn
her $35,000, Makaeff said she signed up for the Gold Program "so
she could immediately pay off her Trump University debt, leaving
only profits for the future," the complaint stated.

Makaeff said she attempted before filing suit to get her money
back from the school, and that she launched a campaign to warn
others when that failed.

She said contacted the attorney general of New York, the Federal
Trade Commission, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York State
Board of Education and the Better Business Bureau, and posted
messages online "to alert other consumers of my opinions and
experience with Trump University," and to "inform other consumers
of my opinion that Trump University did not deliver what it
promised."

Other former students and various media have levied and reported
similar claims against the school since at least 2005.

After being hit with the class action, Trump University shot back
with a counterclaim for defamation based on Makaeff's online
postings and other comments.  Makaeff then moved to strike the
counterclaim under California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits
Against Public Participation) law.

U.S. District Judge Irma Gonzalez in San Diego declined to strike
the counterclaims, leading Makaeff to bring an appeal in the 9th
Circuit.

Though a three-judge panel reversed, they voiced some serious
questions about the very existence of the anti-SLAPP law.

Gonzalez had failed to set the appropriately high standard that
Trump University must meet to prove defamation as a "limited
public figure," according to the ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has identified "limited public figures" as
those "who achieve their status by 'thrust[ing] themselves to the
forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved.'"

This is exactly what Trump University has done, sometimes through
its famous namesake, since it began "aggressively" advertising its
services and fighting back against negative press.

"To be clear: Trump University is not a public figure because
Donald Trump is famous and controversial," Judge Kim McLane
Wardlaw wrote for the panel.  "Nor is Trump University a public
figure because it utilized Donald Trump as a celebrity pitchman.
Trump University is a limited public figure because a public
debate existed regarding its aggressively advertised educational
practices.  Did Trump's famous moniker draw public attention when
Trump University's business practices proved worthy of debate?
Perhaps.  However, having traded heavily on the name and fame of
its founder and chairman, Trump University was in no position to
complain if the public's interest in Trump fueled the flames of
the legitimate controversy that its business practices
engendered."

To win its defamation counterclaim, Trump University must now show
that Makaeff "made her statements with 'actual malice,' i.e.,
knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of their truth."

"If, upon remand, Trump University cannot make such a showing, it
has no possibility of success on the merits and the district court
should grant Makaeff's special motion to strike," Wardlaw wrote.

Trump University assistant general counsel Jill Martin said she
will petition for an en banc rehearing.

"We will not be dropping the counterclaim, as Ms. Makaeff, who
repeatedly praised Trump University, must be held accountable for
her defamatory statements," Martin said.

Martin discussed Makaeff's early praise of the program in a 2011
brief.  That changed only after "Makaeff found herself in
financial trouble completely unrelated to her transaction with
Trump University" upon completion of the programs, according to
the brief.

"Makaeff's allegations of crimes are indisputably defamatory per
se," the brief also stated.  "She admitted in her letters that her
sole goal was to obtain a refund of the money she paid to Trump
University."

In two concurrences, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Judge Richard
Paez agreed with the majority ruling but showed little love for
California's Anti-SLAPP law, which is intended to discourage
lawsuits that are designed "to deter ordinary people 'from
exercising their political or legal rights or to punish them for
doing so."

The 9th Circuit's 1999 ruling in United States ex rel. Newsham v.
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. found that the statute could
peacefully coexist with federal rules of procedure.  Writing that
California's statute "cuts an ugly gash" across an otherwise
orderly federal process, Kozinski said that the present case, if
reheard before a full 11-judge panel, could provide a "fresh look
at the question."

He added a long list of the statute's apparent shortcomings.

"Designed to extricate certain defendants from the spiderweb of
litigation, it enables them to test the factual sufficiency of a
plaintiff's case prior to any discovery; it changes the standard
for surviving summary judgment by requiring a plaintiff to show a
'reasonable probability" that he will prevail, rather than merely
a triable issue of fact; it authorizes attorneys' fees against a
plaintiff who loses the special motion by a standard far different
from that applicable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11; and
it gives a defendant who loses the motion to strike the right to
an interlocutory appeal, in clear contravention of Supreme Court
admonitions that such appeals are to be entertained only very
sparingly because they are so disruptive of the litigation
process."

Judge Paez agreed in a separate concurrence, writing the statute's
"application in federal court has created a hybrid mess that now
resembles neither the Federal Rules nor the original state
statute."


UNILEVER PLC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Unilever misleads consumers
by advertising that its I Can't Believe It's Not Butter spray
contains "0 fat" and "0 calories," when the bottle actually
contains 771 calories and 82 grams of fat, a class claims.


UNITED STATES: Immigration Must Provide Bond Hearings, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that Immigration
authorities must provide bond hearings for immigrants and asylum-
seekers detained by at least six months, the 9th Circuit ruled.

In 2010, a class led by the American Civil Liberties Union of
Southern California had challenged the indefinite holding of
noncitizens who are potentially deportable because of criminal
history, or are applicants for admission who were picked up at the
border or a port of entry.

Lead plaintiffs Alejandro Rodriguez, Abdirizak Aden Farah, Jose
Farias Cornejo, Yussuf Abdikadir and Abel Perez Ruelas had have
since been released, deported or won their cases, ACLU attorney
Ahilan Arulanantham said.

Rodriguez had been brought to the U.S. from Mexico when he was a
child and was detained for three years without a hearing.
Abdrirzak Aden Farah, a Somali refugee, was detained for more than
eight months without a hearing.  Yussuf Abdikadir, also Somali,
was held for about six months, according to the group's third
amended complaint.  Mexican national Jose Farias Cornejo, a lawful
permanent resident who has lived in the U.S. all his life, spent
months in lockup beyond his 180-day sentence for a drug
conviction.

The plaintiffs claimed that such indefinite detention, as
justified under two federal immigration statutes, was
unconstitutional because they were offered no review by a "neutral
arbiter."

U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter agreed last September, issuing an
injunction in Los Angeles that required the government to identify
all the class members who were being detained under the challenged
rules and to "provide each of them with a bond hearing before an
Immigration Judge with power to grant their release."

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims
that the hearings could deplete federal resources and lead to the
release of criminals.  There have been about 400 hearings since
last November, and about two-thirds have resulted in release,
according to the ruling.

"Contrary to the government's rhetoric, this injunction will not
flood our streets with fearsome criminals seeking to escape the
force of American immigration law," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote
for the Pasadena-based panel.  "The district court's narrowly
tailored order provides individuals, whose right to be present in
the United States remains to be decided, a hearing where a neutral
decision-maker can determine whether they might deserve
conditional release from the prison-like setting where they might
otherwise languish for months or years on end.  These hearings
simply ensure that 'the nature and duration of commitment bear
some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual
is committed.'"

Arulanantham, the ACLU attorney who argued the case, said he hopes
the Obama administration will take the 9th Circuit's lead and
adopt a policy allowing for such hearings.

"The government's position is extremely Draconian," he said.

He added that refugees and immigrants convicted of minor crimes
should be afforded the same basic hearings as others in detention.

"The government has said throughout this litigation that they
don't trust their own judges," he said.

On any given day there are about 300 people being held in similar
circumstances in Los Angeles and thousands more nationwide,
Arulanantham said.

The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately return a
request for comment.  It had argued that Section 1226(c) and
Section 1225(b) of 8 U.S.C. "unambiguously require" detention
"subject to a finding of flight risk or dangerousness," the ruling
states.

The appellate panel did not buy the government's claim that it did
not have the resources to conduct the hearings.

"The government's arguments regarding the resources required to
implement the injunction are also not compelling," Wardlaw wrote.
"Hundreds of hearings have already occurred under the district
court's order, belying any suggestion that the preliminary
injunction is prohibitively burdensome.  Moreover, even if the
government faced severe logistical difficulties in implementing
the order -- a premise that appellees dispute -- they would merely
represent the burdens of complying with the applicable statutes,
as construed to avoid practices occasioned by an interpretation of
the statutes that risks running afoul of the Constitution."


UNITED STATES: Sioux City Won't Join Suit Over 2011 Flooding
------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Karsyn, writing for Sioux City Journal, reports that South
Sioux City officials have changed their minds and will not join a
class-action lawsuit against the federal government seeking
compensation for 2011 Missouri River flooding.

Mayor Bill McLarty said the City Council did not want to wait five
or six years for the case against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to be resolved, fearing it could delay payments from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.

"We have too much invested in order to wait six years to get a
payment," Mayor McLarty said on April 12.

Council members voted against entering the lawsuit after an
executive session at an April 8 City Council meeting, although
City Administrator Lance Hedquist had said the week before that
the city would join.  He said the Corps of Engineers hadn't done
enough to prevent the flooding, which caused billions of dollars
in damage in the summer and fall of 2011 to buildings, roads and
farm fields.

The Corps attributed the flooding to heavy rainfall in Montana and
North Dakota and record snowpack in the Rocky Mountains, which
overwhelmed reservoirs.

The St. Joseph, Mo., firm Murphy, Taylor, Siemens & Elliott is
organizing the lawsuit on behalf of landowners and municipalities
from South Dakota to Missouri, but Mayor McLarty said the fact
that no other Siouxland city or government agency has joined
played a part in the decision.

The Sioux City Council voted against joining the case on April 1.

Mr. Hedquist has estimated the flood caused $7.3 million in damage
to South Sioux City.  In November 2011, the city asked FEMA for $6
million for flood damages.  The agency agreed to reimburse
municipalities for qualifying costs.

Mayor McLarty said that in the April 8 discussion, council members
said they thought FEMA might not make a payment until a court
decision came down in five or six years and they didn't want to
take that chance.

"It (being a part of the class-action lawsuit) can be brought up
again, but I don't think they will," Mayor McLarty said.  "The
opinion was pretty strong."


VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Suit Over Defective Door Wiring Harnesses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse House News Service reports that Volkswagen 2005-06
Jettas have defective door wiring harnesses, affecting the
driver's side door, windows, locks, mirrors, fuel door and trunk
release, 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, Valerie Udtuhan, 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  * * *