/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100524.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 24, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 100 Headlines ADT SECURITY: Sued for Imposing Illegal Early Termination Fee BOK FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Oklahoma CADENCE DESIGN: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit D.R. HORTON: California Court Dismisses "Wilson" Suit FORD MOTOR: Golomb & Honik Suit Alleges Minivans are Unsafe GOOGLE INC: Accused in Oregon Suit of Wi-Fi Privacy Invasion HONEYWELL INT'L: Sued, with PPG, in N.J. for Chromium Monitoring INTERSTATE BATTERY: Accused of Deceptive Business Practices JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Accused in N.Y. Suit of False Imprisonment KINDER MORGAN: Various Affiliates Defend "Lugliani" Suit LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending NATIONWIDE LIFE: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Breach of Contract PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls 17,800 Plastic Strap-On Tree Steps REED ELSEVIER: County Appeals Recusal Motion in Lexis Nexis Suit SERVICE CORPORATION: Defends "Conley" Suit in Texas SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in Fla. SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Sands" Suit in Calif. SERVICE CORPORATION: Defends "Prise" Suit in Pennsylvania SERVICE CORPORATION: Class Certification in "Helm" Suit Denied SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Stickle" in Arizona SERVICE CORPORATION: Approval of Settlement in "Welch" Pending SUBRBAN PROPANE: D. N.J. Lawsuit Challenges Price Disclosure TUESDAY MORNING: Lawsuit by Non-exempt Employees Remains Stayed UNITED STATES: Dept. of Defense Accused of Not Paying Bonuses VOLT MANAGEMENT: Accused of Failing to Pay Vacation Pay XCEL ENERGY: Oral Arguments in Rehearing Plea Set for May 24 XCEL ENERGY: Unit Remains a Defendant in Gas-Trading Suit ********* ADT SECURITY: Sued for Imposing Illegal Early Termination Fee ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Maddox, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ADT Security Services, Inc. Case No. 2010-CH-21300 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 18, 2010), asserts violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and breach of contract. Ms. Maddox says that the security system supplier wrongfully charged an early termination fee on its security service contracts. Ms. Maddox alleges that ADT's uniform early termination fee is an invalid penalty designed to discourage unsatisfied clients from canceling their security service contracts. Ms. Maddox canceled her contract with ADT when its security system alarm at her residence failed to work properly. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Doherty, Esq. James M. Smith, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 North La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 BOK FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- BOSC, Inc., continues to be a defendant in a putative class action as a result of underwriting SemGroup Energy Partners, LP's Initial Public Offering. BOSC is BOK Financial's subsidiary. BOSC has been joined as a defendant in a putative class action brought on behalf of unit holders of SemGroup Energy Partners, LP in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The lawsuit is brought pursuant to Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against all of the underwriters of issuances of partnership units in the Initial Public Offering in July 2007 and in a Secondary Offering in January 2008. BOSC underwrote $6.25 million of units in the Initial Public Offering. BOSC was not an underwriter in the Secondary Offering. No new developments were repored in BOK Financial Corp.'s April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. BOK Financial Corp. -- http://www.bokf.com/-- is a regional financial services company that provides commercial and consumer banking, investment and trust services, mortgage origination and servicing, and an electronic funds transfer network. Holdings include Bank of Albuquerque, N.A., Bank of Arizona, N.A., Bank of Arkansas, N.A., Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., Bank of Texas, N.A., Colorado State Bank & Trust, N.A., Bank of Kansas City, N.A., BOSC, Inc., Cavanal Hill Investment Management, Inc., the TransFund electronic funds network, and Southwest Trust Company, N.A. Shares of BOK Financial are traded on the NASDAQ under the symbol BOKF. CADENCE DESIGN: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has denied Cadence Design Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010. During fiscal 2008, three complaints were filed in the District Court all alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Cadence's common stock. The three complaints are: (1) Hu v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister, William Porter and Kevin S. Palatnik, filed on Oct. 29, 2008; (2) Vyas v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister, and Kevin S. Palatnik, filed on Nov. 4, 2008; and (3) Collins v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister, John B. Shoven, Kevin S. Palatnik and William Porter, filed Nov. 21, 2008. On March 4, 2009, the District Court entered an order consolidating these three complaints and captioning the consolidated case In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation. The District Court also named a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated litigation. The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on April 24, 2009, naming Cadence, Michael J. Fister, Kevin S. Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin Bushby as defendants, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Cadence's common stock who traded Cadence's common stock between April 23, 2008 and Dec. 10, 2008. The amended complaint alleged that Cadence and the individual defendants made statements during the Alleged Class Period regarding Cadence's financial results that were false and misleading because Cadence had recognized revenue that should have been recognized in subsequent quarters. The amended complaint requested certification of the action as a class action, unspecified damages, interest and costs, and unspecified equitable relief. On June 8, 2009, Cadence and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On Sept. 11, 2009, the District Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to allege a valid claim under the relevant legal standards, and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The District Court gave the plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint, and the plaintiffs did so on Oct. 13, 2009. The amended complaint filed on Oct. 13, 2009, names the same defendants, asserts the same causes of action, and seeks the same relief as the earlier amended complaint. Cadence moved to dismiss the Oct. 13, 2009, amended complaint. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss on March 2, 2010. Cadence Design Systems, Inc. -- http://www.cadence.com/-- develops electronic design automation (EDA) software and hardware. The company licenses software, sells or leases hardware technology, and provides design, methodology and education services throughout the world to help manage and accelerate electronics product development processes. Its range of products and services are used by the electronics companies to design and develop complex integrated circuits (ICs) and electronics systems. The company offers its customers three license types for its software: perpetual, term and subscription. D.R. HORTON: California Court Dismisses "Wilson" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has dismissed the lawsuit captioned James Wilson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., after the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the lawsuit in exchange for a waiver of costs, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The putative class action was filed on March 24, 2008, by five customers of Western Pacific Housing, Inc., one of the company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, against the company, Western Pacific Housing, Inc., and the company's affiliated mortgage company subsidiary, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint sought certification of a class alleged to include persons who, within the four years preceding the filing of the suit, purchased a home from the company, or any of its subsidiaries, and obtained a mortgage for such purchase from the company's affiliated mortgage company subsidiary. The complaint alleged that the company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Sections 16720, 17200 and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code by effectively requiring homebuyers to apply for a loan through the company's affiliated mortgage company. In June 2009 the complaint was amended to limit the putative class to California customers only and the claims asserted were limited to alleged violations of the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint alleges that the homebuyers were either deceived about loan costs charged by our affiliated mortgage company or coerced into using the company's affiliated mortgage company, or both, and that discounts and incentives offered by the company or its subsidiaries to buyers who obtained financing from the affiliated mortgage company were illusory. The action seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. In January 2010, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their lawsuit in exchange for a waiver of costs. On April 8, 2010, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice by the court. The suit is James Wilson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., Case No: 08 CV 592 BEN RBB, (S.D. Calif.). Representing the plaintiffs is: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Blumenthal & Nordrehaug 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com Representing the defendants is: John T. Brooks, Esq. Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101-3372 Phone: 619-236-1414 Fax: 619-232-8311 E-mail: jtbrooks@luce.com FORD MOTOR: Golomb & Honik Suit Alleges Minivans are Unsafe ----------------------------------------------------------- In response to complaints by owners of a Ford Windstar, model years 1999-2003, alleging a risk of severe injury caused by a defect in the design of the vehicle's rear axle, Golomb & Honik, P.C., filed a class action law suit against Ford Motor Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The rear axles on Ford Windstar model years 1999-2003 are unsealed hollow cylinders that collect and trap water and other corrosive agents. According to the complaint, Ford's failure to install proper drainage ports into these axles causes them to rust from the inside out. This rust eventually causes the axles to crack, and ultimately split into two separate pieces. The axles on affected Ford Windstars are susceptible to failing while the vehicle is being operated. It is believed that more than 949,000 Windstars were manufactured with a defective axle. The plaintiff, Aaron D. Martin and the Class are represented by Damien Zillas, Esquire, of Golomb & Honik, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In May 2010, while plaintiff Martin's 2001 Windstar minivan was being operated, it cracked and broke apart into two separate pieces due to internal rust. Although this design flaw has been widely discussed in the automobile community and failures of the axle assembly have been previously documented, Ford has failed to remedy the defects or offer replacements for this potentially dangerous product. Nor has Ford notified owners of 1999 - 2003 Windstars that their vehicles might be prone to sudden failure during operation. The lawsuit alleges that Ford is in breach of its implied warranty of merchantability and its express warranty. According to Mr. Zillas, "The axle on these minivans can fall apart while they are being driven, potentially causing serious injury or death, and for that reason we urge anyone in possession of a 1999-2003 Windstar to contact us." GOOGLE INC: Accused in Oregon Suit of Wi-Fi Privacy Invasion ------------------------------------------------------------ Karina Brown at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action accuses Google of violating privacy by running a fleet of cars that snoop into Wi-Fi streams at businesses and private homes while gathering information for Google Street View. In a related case, a German regulator on Tuesday threatened to sue Google unless it turned over a hard drive that could reveal what sort of information the company had collected. In Portland, lead plaintiff Vicki Van Valin claims Google operates vehicles mounted with "wireless sniffers" that decode Wi-Fi data. She claims Google captured and decoded her Social Security number, banking information, medical records and other personal information, then stored the data on servers where "hundreds if not thousands" of Google employees could see it. Google uses a "fleet of specially adapted vehicles," and uses tricycles and snowmobiles to map areas not accessible by full- sized cars, according to the complaint. Each vehicle is mounted with nine cameras which together record a 360-degree view. The cameras have been the subject of previous lawsuits accusing Google of privacy invasion. Ms. Van Valin says the vehicles also have "3G/GSM/WiFi" antennas to scan open Internet connections. She says Google uses "wireless sniffers" to "secretly capture" information flowing over each wireless network the vehicle passes. The information must be decoded before it is understandable, Ms. Van Valin says, so Google stores the data on its servers before decoding it, making it accessible to "hundreds if not thousands of Google employees." Ms. Van Valin says the fact that it is unreadable in its raw form, and must be decoded to be read, makes it "understood to be private, protected information by users and operators of home- based WiFi systems." Ms. Van Valin, who works from home, says she used her open wireless connection "to transmit and receive personal and private data, including but not limited to personal emails, personal Internet research and viewing, work-related documents, work- related Internet research and viewing, credit card information, banking information, personal identification information such as Social Security numbers, date of birth, medical information and telephone calls made using a voice over Internet (VOIP) protocol." Ms. Van Valin demands punitive damages for privacy invasion and violations of computer laws, and an injunction stopping Google from intercepting any more information. In Germany on Tuesday, a regulator for the city-state of Hamburg gave Google until May 26 to hand over a hard drive containing information it collected and stored in Germany. A copy of the Complaint in Van Valin, et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00557 (D. Or.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/Google.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rick Klingbeil, Esq. RICK KLINGBEIL, PC 520 SW Sixth, Suite 950 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: 503-473-8565 E-mail: rick@klingbeil-law.com - and - Brady Mertz, Esq. BRADY MERTZ LAW OFFICE 2285 Liberty St. NE Salem, OR 97301 Telephone: 503-385-0121 E-mail: brady@bradymertz.com - and - Brooks Cooper, Esq. BROOKS COOPER 520 SW 6th Ave., Suite 914 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: 971-645-4433 E-mail: brooks@bcooper-law.com HONEYWELL INT'L: Sued, with PPG, in N.J. for Chromium Monitoring ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Smith at the New Jersey Independent reports that at least three Jersey City residents filed a class action lawsuit last week against two area companies for health problems that allegedly arose or could arise from the presence of chromium residue in sites near where they have lived. The suit, brought by residents Mattie Halley, Latrecia Smith and Barry Wein, is the first of its kind that seeks medical screening and monitoring, according to a spokeswoman for one of the law firms involved. It alleges that Honeywell International and PPG Industries dumped and failed to clean up carcinogenic hexavalent chromium at more than 100 sites in Jersey City. It also seeks compensation for property owners whose properties may be devalued as the result of toxic pollution. Honeywell and PPG have been in the hotseat in recent years over historic chromium disposal practices. Both companies produced chromium for industrial use during the first half of the 20th century, and a by-product known as chrome ore processing residue (COPR) - a substance that can remain in soil, water and air for decades - has been implicated as a potential cause of lung cancer in those who suffer long-term exposure, such as residents of areas near COPR sites. "The defendants' internal records demonstrate they had early knowledge of cancer risks associated with exposure to hexavalent chromium," says Steven German, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs. According to the lawsuit, PPG and Honeywell deliberately attempted to mislead regulatory agencies about these risks. Representatives for the plaintiffs have mounted a website describing the lawsuit and identifying contaminated properties; the site also seeks to recruit additional plaintiffs by offering a free case evaluation to those who think they may be affected. A copy of the Complaint in Smith, et al. v. Honeywell International, Inc., and PPG Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. _________ (N.J. Super. Ct., Hudson Cty.), is available at: http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/files/chromeclassactioncomplaint.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven J. German, Esq. Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq. GERMAN RUBENSTEIN LLP 19 West 44th St., Suite 1500 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: 212-704-2020 - and - Esther E. Berezofsky, Esq. Gerald J. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS CUKER & BEREZOFSKY Woodland Falls Corporate Center 210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: 856-667-0500 - and - Allan Kanner, Esq. Elizabeth Petersen, Esq. Rebecca J. Davis, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C. 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: 504-524-5777 - and - Howard A. Janet, Esq. Robert K. Jenner, Esq. Kenneth M. Suggs, Esq. JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC 1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 320 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: 410-653-3200 INTERSTATE BATTERY: Accused of Deceptive Business Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Interstate Battery System of America tricks customers by listing replacement auto batteries' "list price" as 20 percent higher than their actual retail price, a class action claims in Oakland, Calif., Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Milano v. Interstate Battery System of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02125 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/CCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Philip B. Obbard, Esq. David Stein, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California St., Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-981-4800 E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com pbo@girardgibbs.com ds@girardgibbs.com JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Accused in N.Y. Suit of False Imprisonment ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that JetBlue held passengers captive on the tarmac at JFK Airport for 11 hours on Valentine's Day 2007, a class action claims in Queens County Court, N.Y. A copy of the Complaint in Biscone v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, et al., Index No. 3776/2008 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/Humans.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul S. Hudson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAUL S. HUDSON, PC 4411 Bee Ridge Rd. #274 Sarasota, FL 34233 Telephone: 410-940-8934 E-mail: globetrotter1947@hotmail.com KINDER MORGAN: Various Affiliates Defend "Lugliani" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Various affiliates of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., defend a suit captioned James Lugliani vs. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al., pending in the Superior Court of California, Orange County. James Lugliani, a former Kinder Morgan employee, filed suit in January 2010 against various Kinder Morgan affiliates. On behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Mr. Lugliani claims that the Kinder Morgan defendants have violated the wage and hour provisions of the California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code by: (1) failing to provide meal and rest periods; (2) failing to pay meal and rest period premiums; (2) failing to pay all overtime wages due; (3) failing to timely pay wages; (4) failing to pay wages for vacation, holidays and other paid time off; and (5) failing to keep proper payroll records. Because the case was only recently filed and served, the Kinder Morgan defendants have not yet filed an answer. The defendants will file their answer in February 2010 and intend to vigorously defend the case. No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Houston-based Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. owns or operates approximately 26,000 miles of pipelines and 150 terminals. The company's pipelines transport more than two million barrels per day of gasoline and other petroleum products, and up to seven billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. The company operates through four segments: Products Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2 and Terminals. LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The petition for rehearing filed by each of the parties to the class-action lawsuit, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR, is pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The putative class-action complaint was filed on Nov. 1, 2002, by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., and certain BCO Independent Contractors on behalf of independent contractors who provide truck capacity to the company and its subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the company and certain of its subsidiaries. The complaint was amended on April 7, 2005. The Amended Complaint alleged that certain aspects of the company's motor carrier leases and related practices with its BCO Independent Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and sought injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorney's fees. On Aug. 30, 2005, the District Court granted a motion by the plaintiffs to certify the case as a class-action. On Jan. 16, 2007, the District Court ordered the decertification of the class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of determining remedies. Immediately thereafter, trial commenced for purposes of determining what remedies, if any, would be awarded to the remaining named BCO Independent Contractor Plaintiffs against these Landstar subsidiaries: -- Landstar Inway, Inc., -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and -- Landstar Ranger, Inc. On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of the defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings related to the decertification of the class and the denial of the plaintiffs' requests for damages and injunctive relief. On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by Plaintiffs for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings related to the decertification of the plaintiff class and other important elements of the Litigation relating to liability, injunctive relief and monetary relief. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of certain of the District Court's rulings in favor of the Defendants. The Defendants asked the Appellate Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal with the Appellate Court with respect to certain other rulings of the District Court. On Sept. 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its ruling, which, among other things, affirmed the District Court's rulings that: -- the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable federal leasing regulations from charging administrative or other fees to BCO Independent Contractors in connection with voluntary programs offered by the Defendants through which a BCO Independent Contractor may purchase discounted products and services for a charge that is deducted against the compensation payable to the BCO Independent Contractor (a "Charge-back Deduction"), -- the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or disgorgement with respect to violations by Defendants of the applicable federal leasing regulations but instead may recover only actual damages, if any, which they sustained as a result of any such violations, and -- the claims of BCO Independent Contractors may not be handled on a class action basis for purposes of determining the amount of actual damages, if any, they sustained as a result of any violations. Further, the analysis of the Appellate Court confirmed the absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs of the federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of all leases currently in use between the Defendants and BCO Independent Contractors. However, the ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District Court's rulings: -- that an old version of the lease formerly used by Defendants but not in use with any current BCO Independent Contractor complied with applicable disclosure requirements under the federal leasing regulations with respect to adjustments to compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on certain loads sourced from the U. S. Dept. of Defense, and -- that the Defendants had provided sufficient documentation to BCO Independent Contractors under the applicable federal leasing regulations relating to how the component elements of Charge-back Deductions were computed. The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court to permit the Plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief with respect to these violations of the federal leasing regulations and to hold an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an opportunity to produce evidence of any damages they actually sustained as a result of such violations. Each of the parties to the Litigation has filed a petition with the Appellate Court seeking rehearing of the Appellate Court's ruling. No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 27, 2010. The suit is Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 02-cv-01005 (Fla.) (Adams, J). Representing the plaintiffs are: Daniel E. Cohen, Esq. Daniel R. Unumb, Esq. Paul D. Cullen, Esq. Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq. Joseph A. Black, Esq. Susan Van Bell, Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, PLLC 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007-3770 Telephone: 202-944-8600 - and - Michael R. Freed, Esq. BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND, PL Humana Centre Building 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: 904-366-1500 Representing the defendants are: Daniel R. Barney, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT & HANSON, P.C. 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280 Washington, DC 20036-5804 Telephone: 202-783-5485 - and - Timothy W. Wiseman, Esq. Robert L. Browning, Esq. Gregory M. Feary, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVEN, LIGHT & HANSON, P.C. 10 W. Market St., Suite 1500 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968 Phone: 317-637-1777 Fax: 317-687-2414 - and - Andrew Tysen Duva, Esq. Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: 904-353-2000 NATIONWIDE LIFE: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Nationwide Life Insurance breaches contracts by adding "cost of insurance" charges to premiums, a class action claims in Buffalo Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Meidenbauer v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Case No. 10-cv-00409 (W.D.N.Y.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/insure.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Manning, Esq. John J. Giardino, Esq. Craig R. Bucki, Esq. PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP 3400 HSBC Center Buffalo, NY 14203 Telephone: 716-847-8400 E-mail: cbucki@phillips1ytle.com - and - Stephen R. Miller, Esq. John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER LLC 800 W. 47th St., Suite 630 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-561-6500 - and - Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Lee R. Anderson, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Rd., Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-714-7100 PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls 17,800 Plastic Strap-On Tree Steps ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Primal Vantage Co., Inc., of Randolph, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 17,800 Ameristep Plastic Strap-On Tree Steps. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The plastic portion of the step can break, posing a fall hazard to the user. Primal Vantage has received six complaints of step breakage, including two reports of consumers being bruised and cut. This recall involves a plastic tree step that attaches to a tree via a nylon strap and a large metal buckle. It is used to climb a tree in order to hunt from an elevated position. Models 105 and 155 both have either a 10/08 or 12/08 date code, which is stamped on the plastic portion of the step. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10236.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from December 2008 through November 2009, through various outdoor and sporting goods retailers nationwide as a 3-step package in model 105 or as a single step in model 155. Consumers should stop using the tree steps immediately. They should contact Primal Vantage for details on how to obtain a full refund. Consumers are asked not to return the product to retail stores as refunds can only be provided by Primal Vantage. For additional information, contact Primal Vantage toll free at (866) 972-6168 between 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit their website at http://www.treestandcustomerservice.com/to print a return form or for further information on how to locate the date code on your tree step. REED ELSEVIER: County Appeals Recusal Motion in Lexis Nexis Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that county lawyers have appealed a startling setback for a mandatory e-filing system owned and operated by Lexis Nexis in Atlanta's courts. A judge outside the county ruled earlier this month that no local judge could hear the class action against both the county and the giant publisher over fees imposed outside state law. DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Castellani on May 4 granted a motion to disqualify and recuse all Fulton County State and Superior Judges from the case. According to the order, "There exists at this point at least an appearance of impropriety, i.e., a situation in which reasonable minds might perceive that the ability of one of the Fulton County State or Superior Court judges to carry out his or her responsibilities respecting the instant action with impartiality, integrity and or competence is impaired." The case was referred to Chief Judge Cynthia J. Becker of the Stone Mountain Circuit. Ms. Becker is the administrative judge of the Fourth Judicial Administrative District and will appoint a judge who is not a member of the Fifth Judicial Administrative District, which includes Fulton County, to preside over the case. At issue is that Fulton County State and Superior Court judges "are alleged to have participated in the scheme enacted by the defendants to impose a mandatory e-filing system upon litigants in Fulton County State and Superior Courts, charging certain fees in connection therewith; that the judges have participated in this scheme by promulgating a pilot program or otherwise issuing administrative orders authorizing co-defendant Lexis-Nexis Courtlink Inc.'s mandatory e-filing scheme and charge of fees therewith." Attorneys Steven Newton, Shuli Green and Auden Grumet represent W. Phillip McCurdy III, Michael Cawthon, Nelson Picklesimer, Kenneth Clowdus as administrator for the estate of Kenneth Larry Clowdus and The Best Jewelry Manufacturing Co. Mr. Newton said in an interview that he considered the county's appeal futile. "Fulton County is trying to delay the hearing on the merits, but I don't think they will win an appeal on this issue," Mr. Newton said. "Judge Castellani's order was very detailed. It could have not been any more clear. It was not a close call. It was not even an iffy call." The lawsuit, filed Jan. 6, is the fourth claim against Fulton County and Reed Elsevier, owner of Lexis-Nexis Courtlink. The Fulton County Superior Court case was originally filed in May 2009, then voluntarily dismissed and refiled on Jan. 6. Mr. Newton filed a similar lawsuit against Lexis-Nexis Courtlink and Fulton County in Federal Court. He filed the original federal claim in December 2007 but withdrew it in March 2008, then refilled it in June 2008. That case was dismissed in March 2009. A copy of Fulton County, Georgia's Petition for Interlocutory Appeal in McCurdy, et al. v. Fulton County Georgia, et al., Case No. 2010-CV-179757 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.) (Baxter, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/Interlocutory.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven J. Newton, Esq. Shuli Green, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN J. NEWTON, P.C. 215 14th St., NW Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: 404-874-5006 - and - Auden Grumet, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AUDEN L. GRUMET, LLC 1718 Peachtree St., NW South Tower, Suite 1080 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 770-458-3845 SERVICE CORPORATION: Defends "Conley" Suit in Texas --------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International continues to defend the securities suit captioned Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corporation International, et al., Civil Action 04-MD-1609, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The Securities Lawsuit resulted from the transfer and consolidation by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of three lawsuits: (1) Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL; in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; (2) Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corporation International, et al .; Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL; in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; and (3) Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Cause No. 04-CV-20114; in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Securities Lawsuit names as defendants SCI and several of SCI's current and former executive officers or directors. The Securities Lawsuit is a purported class action alleging that the defendants failed to disclose the unlawful treatment of human remains and burial sites at two cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida. No discovery has occurred. No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading provider of deathcare products and services. At March 31, 2010, the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387 cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states, eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value, caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction. SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International continues to defend the matter Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris Holding of Florida, Inc, a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., Case No.; 04-25646 CA 32, pending in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The suit was filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia. Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor record keeping, spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the decedent could not be readily located. Subsequently, the decedent's grave was located and verified. In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of all persons buried at this cemetery whose burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this was due to poor record keeping, maps, and surveys at the cemetery. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third amended class action complaint and added two additional named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief. No class has been certified in this matter. No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading provider of deathcare products and services. At March 31, 2010, the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387 cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states, eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value, caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction. SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Sands" Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International continues to defend the matter F. Charles Sands, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al., Case No. BC421528, pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District. The suit was filed in September 2009 against SCI and certain subsidiaries regarding its Eden Memorial Park cemetery in Mission Hills, California. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and their families. The plaintiff also seeks the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery operations. The plaintiff claims the cemetery damaged and desecrated burials in order to make room for subsequent burials. Since the case is in its preliminary stages, the company cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages. No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading provider of deathcare products and services. At March 31, 2010, the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387 cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states, eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value, caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction. SERVICE CORPORATION: Defends "Prise" Suit in Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International continues to defend the matter Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Service Corporation International, Cause No. 06-164, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The suit was filed by two former Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc. employees in December 2006 and purports to have been brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all Alderwoods and SCI-affiliated employees who performed work for which they were not fully compensated, including work for which overtime pay was owed. The court has conditionally certified a class of claims as to certain job positions for Alderwoods employees. Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violations of the FLSA, failure to maintain proper records, breach of contract, violations of state wage and hour laws, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, quantum meruit, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unpaid wages, liquidated, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading provider of deathcare products and services. At March 31, 2010, the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387 cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states, eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value, caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction. SERVICE CORPORATION: Class Certification in "Helm" Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The motion of the plaintiffs to certify the matter Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI, as a class action has been denied by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Two suits were filed on Dec. 5, 2007, by counsel for plaintiffs in the matter Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Service Corporation International, Cause No. 06-164, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Almeda. The suits are: (1) Bryant, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al., Case No. RG-07359593; and (2) Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI, Case No. RG-07359602. The suits assert state law claims similar to the federal claims asserted in the "Prise" suit. The suits were removed to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco/Oakland Division. The Bryant case is now Case No. 3:08-CV-01190-SI and the Helm case is now Case No. C 08-01184-SI. On Dec. 29, 2009, the court in the Helm case denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading provider of deathcare products and services. At March 31, 2010, the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387 cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states, eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value, caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction. SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Stickle" in Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International continues to defend the matter Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al., Case No. 08-CV-83, pending in the U.S. District Court for Arizona, Phoenix Division. Counsel for plaintiffs in the matter Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Service Corporation International, Cause No. 06- 164, filed this case on Jan. 17, 2008, against SCI and various related entities and individuals asserting Fair Labor Standards Act and other ancillary claims based on the alleged failure to pay for overtime. In September 2009, the Court conditionally certified a class of claims as to certain job positions of SCI affiliated employees. No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading provider of deathcare products and services. At March 31, 2010, the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387 cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states, eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value, caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction. SERVICE CORPORATION: Approval of Settlement in "Welch" Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The approval of the settlement in the mater Shauna Welch v. California Cemetery & Funeral Services, LLC, Case No. BC 396793, remains pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles. In August 2008, the plaintiff filed a class action on behalf of employees of a subsidiary of Service Corporation International in California for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the Business & Professions Code. The plaintiff specifically alleges that she and the putative class are unable to negotiate their paychecks without paying a fee and/or without being subject to a waiting period since paychecks are issued from an out-of-state bank. Subject to court approval, the parties have agreed to settle this case for an amount which is not material to the company. No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- headquartered in Houston, Texas, is North America's leading provider of deathcare products and services. At March 31, 2010, the company owned and operated 1,441 funeral homes and 387 cemeteries (of which 221 are combination locations) in 44 states, eight Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through its businesses, the company markets the Dignity Memorial(R) brand which offers assurance of quality, value, caring service, and exceptional customer satisfaction. SUBRBAN PROPANE: D. N.J. Lawsuit Challenges Price Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------ On March 17, 2010, the law firm of Nichols Kaster, PLLP filed a nationwide consumer class action against Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. and its operating subsidiary, Suburban Propane, L.P. The lawsuit alleges that Suburban Propane unfairly charges its customers excessive prices for propane, without disclosing its per gallon price in advance of delivery. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Suburban Propane unlawfully charges its customers a variety of fees that are not properly disclosed, including tank pump out and pick up fees that are designed to prevent customers from rejecting deliveries and choosing a competitor. Lead Plaintiff Robert Slack became so upset about Suburban Propane's business practices that he launched his own website at http://www.suburban-propane-class-action.com/in January of 2010, to express his concerns. According to the lawsuit, many of Suburban Propane's customers from across the country have submitted written comments to his website reporting similar experiences, and have reported being charged prices of as much as $7.00 per gallon. Suburban Propane is the fourth-largest retail marketer of propane in the United States, measured by retail gallons sold. According to its most-recent Annual Report, residential customers accounted for less than half (44%) of Suburban Propane's retail propane sales by volume, but accounted for 61% of Suburban Propane's margins on retail propane sales during the most recent fiscal year, reflecting higher margins in its residential propane business. Plaintiffs' counsel Paul Lukas stated, "it is wrong for Suburban Propane to exploit its residential customers by charging them arbitrary and exorbitant propane prices and hidden fees that are not disclosed until after delivery. When customers fill up the gas tank in their car, they are told the price in advance, are charged the same amount as the car in front of them, and are able to have their tank filled by a competitor without paying additional fees as a penalty. Suburban Propane's customers are entitled to the same protections. In fact, these customers are entitled to even greater protection because Suburban Propane owns many of its customers' tanks, and literally has them over a barrel because it does not allow other companies to fill those tanks." Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Kai Richter, Esq. Rebekah Bailey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612.256.3200 E-mail: lukas@nka.com krichter@nka.com bailey@nka.com - and - Patricia Barasch, Esq. SCHALL & BARASCH, L.L.C. 110 Marter Ave. Suite 302 Moorestown Office Center Moorestown, NJ 08057 Telephone: 856.914.9200 E-mail: pbarasch@schallandbarasch.com The case is entitled Slack et al v. Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. et al, and is venued in federal district court in New Jersey, near Suburban Propane's corporate headquarters in Whippany, New Jersey. Additional information about this case can be found at http://www.nka.com/or may be obtained by calling Nichols Kaster, PLLP toll free at (877) 448-0492. TUESDAY MORNING: Lawsuit by Non-exempt Employees Remains Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed by hourly, non-exempt employees against Tuesday Morning Corporation continues to remain stayed. In December 2008, the lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles. The plaintiffs allege claims covering meal and rest period violations. This case has been stayed pending the outcome of another case. No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Tuesday Morning Corporation -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/-- is a closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, housewares, gifts and related items in the United States. The company's merchandise primarily consists of lamps, rugs, kitchen accessories, small electronics, gourmet housewares, linens, luggage, bedroom and bathroom accessories, toys, stationary and silk plants, as well as crystal, collectibles and silver serving pieces. UNITED STATES: Dept. of Defense Accused of Not Paying Bonuses ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that the Pentagon stiffed retiring civilian employees of performance-based annual bonuses through a loophole in regulations, denying them the bonus if they quit in the last 3 months of a calendar year, according to a federal class action. The class claims that employees' performance is reviewed between Oct. 1 and Sept. 30 -- a full year -- but if an employee leaves after Sept. 30 but before Jan. 1 of the following year, the Pentagon won't pay the bonus. The class claims the Pentagon's National Security Personnel System, which replaced longevity-based pay with merit-based pay, gives the government the ability to pay bonuses more than 90 days after the employees have earned them. The performance-based bonuses come "from a pool of money created at least in part through the designation by the Secretary of Defense of a percentage of all the civilian employees' annual pay increases," according to the complaint. The class claims this means the employees themselves pay for their own bonuses with contributions from their annual pay increases. "DOD has wrongfully denied compensation to departing employees who have contributed to and earned these performance-based bonuses on the basis of technical departure timing issues that do not find support in the regulations," the class claims. Class representative Ralph Price says he was denied the bonus he earned because he quit 1 day before the first payroll day of the new year -- more than 3 months after he had earned his annual bonus. The class claims the Pentagon is violating the Administrative Procedures Act, the Back Pay Act, and the Constitution. It seeks back pay, and a declaration that the Pentagon cannot deny performance-based bonuses to employees who have earned them. A copy of the Complaint in Price v. Gates, et al., Case No. 10- cv-00216 (E.D. Va.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/PentaBonuses.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa A. Bertini, Esq. Hyojin Bae, Esq. BERTINI O'DONNELL & HAMMER, PC 999 Waterside Drive, Suite 1010 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: 757-670-3868 E-mail: lbertini@bohlaw.net - and - David J. Meiselman, Esq. Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq. Rebecca Coll, Esq. Jerome Noll, Esq. MEISELMAN, DENLEA, PACKMAN, CARTON & EBERZ P.C. 1311 Mamaroneck Ave. White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: 914-517-5000 VOLT MANAGEMENT: Accused of Failing to Pay Vacation Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Deanna Williams, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Volt Management Corporation, Case No. 2010-CH-21308 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 18, 2010), accuses the staffing and placement services provider of not paying temporary employees all earned and accrued vacation pay upon the termination of their employment, in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, which provides that employees are entitled to a proportionate share of vested vacation pay which cannot be forfeited at the time of their termination. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. David E. Stevens, Esq. Maureen A. Bantz, Esq. WERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 XCEL ENERGY: Oral Arguments in Rehearing Plea Set for May 24 ------------------------------------------------------------ Oral arguments in Xcel Energy, Inc.'s petition for rehearing on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversing the ruling of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi, are expected to be presented to the Fifth Circuit panel on May 24, 2010, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In 2006, Xcel Energy received notice of a purported class action lawsuit filed in U. S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi. The lawsuit names more than 45 oil, chemical and utility companies, including Xcel Energy, as defendants and alleges that defendants' CO2 emissions "were a proximate and direct cause of the increase in the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina." Plaintiffs allege in support of their claim, several legal theories, including negligence and public and private nuisance and seek damages related to the loss resulting from the hurricane. In August 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety against all defendants on constitutional grounds. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On Oct. 16, 2009, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court decision, in part, concluding that the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to overcome the constitutional challenges that formed the basis for dismissal by the district court. A subsequent petition by defendants, including Xcel Energy, for en banc review was granted. Oral arguments are expected to be presented to the Fifth Circuit panel on May 24, 2010. The suit is Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al. Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/ -- is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the U.S. XCEL ENERGY: Unit Remains a Defendant in Gas-Trading Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Xcel Energy, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, e prime, inc., remains a defendant in the matter Texas-Ohio Energy vs. CenterPoint Energy et al. e prime was in the business of natural gas trading and marketing although e prime has not engaged in natural gas trading or marketing activities since 2003. Thirteen lawsuits have been commenced against e prime and Xcel Energy (and NSP-Wisconsin, in one instance); alleging fraud and anticompetitive activities in conspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and manipulate natural gas prices. The initial gas-trading lawsuit, a purported class action brought by wholesale natural gas purchasers, was filed in November 2003 in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California. e prime is one of several defendants named in the complaint. This case is captioned Texas-Ohio Energy vs. CenterPoint Energy et al. The other twelve cases arising out of the same or similar set of facts were filed. Many of these cases involve multiple defendants and have been transferred to Judge Phillip Pro of the U. S. District Court in Nevada, who is the judge assigned to the Western Area Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation. No further details were disclosed in Xcel Energy's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/ -- is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the U.S. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *