/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110413.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 13, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 73 Headlines AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Faces Securities Class Action in Mass. BC FERRIES: Faces Class Action Over Expired Tickets BED BATH: Removes "Poligrates" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif. BURGER KING: June 15 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set CHILDREN'S PLACE: Removes "Beltran" Song-Beverly Suit to ND Calif. CHINA INTEGRATED: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears GUAM: Hospital Authority Sued Over Unpaid Retirement Benefits IBM CORP: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Eligibility Process KANSAS: Judge Okays Settlement in Property Seizure Class Action ORTHO-MCNEIL: May Face Suit Over Topamax Birth Defects PUMA NORTH: Removes "Poligrates" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif. SAXON MORTGAGE: Sued for Unfair Debt Collection Practices UNION CARBIDE: Sued in W. Va. for Releasing Hazardous Substances WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Over Basic Health Program Cuts WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Over Force-Placed Flood Insurance WELLINGTON, AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Water Quality ********* AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Faces Securities Class Action in Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of American Superconductor Corporation, has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of AMSC between Nov. 2, 2010, and April 5, 2011, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that AMSC and certain of its executive officers misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AMSC was providing its primary customer -- Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. -- with contracted shipments in excess of its needs; (2) Sinovel was not paying AMSC for certain contracted shipments; (3) AMSC was continuing to provide Sinovel with contracted shipments although Sinovel was not paying for certain prior shipments; (4) AMSC was imroperly recognizing revenue on certain contracted shipments to Sinovel; (5) AMSC's revenues were overstated; and (6), the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls. On April 5, 2011, AMSC disclosed that on the last day of AMSC's 2010 fiscal year Sinovel refused to accept contracted shipments, and AMSC believed Sinovel intended to reduce its level of inventory before accepting further contracted shipments. AMSC also informed investors it was reviewing the appropriateness of the timing of its revenue recognition on certain unpaid shipments in fiscal 2010. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased AMSC securities between Nov. 2, 2010, and April 5, 2011, you have certain rights and have 60 days from April 6, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215)638-4847 Toll-Free at (888)638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ BC FERRIES: Faces Class Action Over Expired Tickets --------------------------------------------------- Sarah Douziech, writing for The Province, reports that a high-profile North Vancouver lawyer filed a class-action lawsuit on April 8 on behalf of ferry riders who were angered when B.C. Ferries pocketed $1.2 million in prepaid fares after it cancelled a refund policy last year. The claim was filed, lawyer Jim Poyner said, because the ferry corporation's move in April 2010 to terminate refunds or roll- overs for unused prepaid fares was "a breach of contract" with customers. "We saw it as a conduct that had to be stopped and had to be challenged," Mr. Poyner said, adding that at least 100 people are involved in the claim. Prepaid fares originally expired after two years, but their cash value could be refunded or rolled over to buy new tickets with no time limit. B.C. Ferries' new policy states prepaid fares are valid for two years and can only be rolled over to buy new tickets for six months after expiry. B.C. Ferries president and CEO David Hahn defended the change in an interview with The Province earlier this month. "We've been very firm and very aggressive in saying people could not use their cards after the expiry date," Mr. Hahn said. "The policy is fixed and it's going to stay that way." Mr. Hahn said Ferries notified all cardholders for whom it had an email address and also posted notices on ships and in terminals. "These are sophisticated travelers," said Mr. Hahn. "It's the responsibility of the individual to understand the terms and conditions of what they purchased." John Orton, a retired accountant in Victoria, is named as the representative plaintiff in the claim filed on April 8. According to the filing, Orton was watching the news last month, nearly a year after the change was instituted, when he found out he wouldn't get the $327 he paid for four unused tickets bought in May 2007 and expiring in May 2009. The problem is that a "tremendous" number of people Mr. Poyner has heard from had no idea about the rule change, he said. But Deborah Marshall, spokesperson for B.C. Ferries, said the corporation made every effort to let customers know about the change. Emails were sent to 5,000 registered users and handouts were given to passengers at ticket booths, alerting them to the change, Marshall said. She declined to comment on the legal matter. Meanwhile, Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC) president Bruce Cran said calls keep coming in about the class-action lawsuit, even from non-ferry riders who are "extremely sympathetic" to those affected. Mr. Cran pointed to an Angus Reid poll done on behalf of the CAC that found 90% of B.C. residents thought B.C. Ferries should voluntarily pay back or honor the prepaid fares. It also found 80% of the province opposes the ferry corporation's decision to stop refunding or rolling over prepaid passes and 87 per cent thought the provincial government should step in and force it to give people their money back. "I thought this would have been solved politically," Mr. Cran said, citing the strong public opinion on the matter. He said the poll results were sent to both Premier Christy Clark and B.C. Ferries. B.C.'s transportation minister, Blair Lekstrom, declined to comment on April 8. Former transportation minister Shirley Bond had said she was told B.C. Ferries' actions were legal and similar to the practices of other businesses. Mr. Poyner's lawsuit will have to be certified by the courts before it can go any further. He said he expects that decision to come in the fall. BED BATH: Removes "Poligrates" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Bonnie Poligrates, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-11-508808 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on March 4, 2011. The plaintiff accuses BBB of requesting and recording personal identification in the course of a credit card transaction, in violation of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, California Civil Code Section 1747.08. On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Bed, Bath & Beyond, on April 6, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-01661 to the proceeding. Bed, Bath & Beyond is represented by: David F. McDowell, Esq. Purvi G. Patel, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 892-.5200 E-mail: DMcDowell@mofo.com PPatel@mofo.com BURGER KING: June 15 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement pursuant to an order of the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida: IN RE BURGER KING HOLDINGS, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 10-48395 CA 40 Complex Business Litigation Section PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND SETTLEMENT HEARING TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF BURGER KING HOLDINGS, INC. WHO HELD SUCH SHARES ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 THROUGH AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 19, 2010. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that the above-captioned action has been certified as a class action and that a settlement, which includes the payment of up to $1,000,000 in Plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, has been proposed. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Gill S. Freeman in the Miami-Dade Circuit Court, 73 W. Flagler Street, Room 1407, Miami, Florida 33130 at 9:45 a.m., on June 15, 2011 to determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION. Any class member has the right to appear and to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, provided he or she complies with certain conditions set forth in the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Class Action Determination, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear. You may obtain copies of the Notice by contacting: Burger King Holdings, Inc. Notice Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 Telephone: (877) 333-5236 Inquiries or comments about the proposed Settlement may be directed to Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel as follows: Emily C. Komlossy, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite # 206 Hollywood, FL 33021 Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 If the Court approves the proposed settlement and you do not object in the manner provided for in the Notice, you will be forever barred from contesting the fairness, reasonableness or adequacy of the proposed Settlement, or from pursuing the Settled Claims as defined in the Notice. Dated: March 23, 2011 Entered By Order of the Court CHILDREN'S PLACE: Removes "Beltran" Song-Beverly Suit to ND Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Isabel Beltran, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-11-508995 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on March 9, 2011. Plaintiff, a resident of California, alleges four causes of action: (1) alleged violations of the Song- Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, codified at California Civil Code section 1747.08; (2) common law negligence; (3) invasion of privacy; and (4) unlawful intrusion. Plaintiff's complaint arises from a purported purchase transaction at a Children's Place store located in San Francisco, California. On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, The Children's Place, on April 6, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-01664 to the proceeding. Defendants operate retail stores throughout the United States, including California. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Patterson, Esq. Matthew I. O'Connor, Esq. HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6990 The Children's Place is represented by: Michelle C. Doolin, Esq. Mazda K. Antia, Esq. Jennifer M. French, Esq. COOLEY LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 550-6000 E-mail: doolinmc@cooley.com mantia@cooley.com jfrench@cooley.com CHINA INTEGRATED: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears ------------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important May 24, 2011 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action filed by the firm on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of China Integrated Energy, Inc. from March 31, 2010 through March 16, 2011. To join the China Integrated class action, visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Phil Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The case is pending the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. According to the Complaint, China Integrated issued materially false and misleading financial statements to investors because it concealed related-party transactions. On March 16, 2011, analyst firm Sinclair Upton Research issued a report alleging that China Integrated concealed a host of transactions between the Company and its officers and directors that had the effect of funneling cash to these officers and directors. In addition, citing Chinese SAIC filings, the report stated that China Integrated misrepresented its financial performance, business prospects, and financial condition to investors. These adverse disclosures caused China Integrated's stock price to drop, damaging investors. On March 23, 2011, the Company issued a rebuttal, in which it denied most of Sinclair Upton's allegations, but conceded that it had engaged in an undisclosed related party transaction with the CEO's 22 year old son. After the Company's rebuttal, the stock price fell once again, damaging investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 24, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Jonathan Horne, Esq. or Phil Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at. You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/ No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may choose to do nothing at this point and remain an absent class member. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. CONTACT: Phil Kim, Esq. Jonathan Horne, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. 275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com jhorne@rosenlegal.com http://www.rosenlegal.com/ GUAM: Hospital Authority Sued Over Unpaid Retirement Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Kerrigan, writing for Pacific News Center, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed in Guam's Superior Court seeking more than $7 million in unpaid GovGuam retirement benefits owed to GMHA employees. The suit names 9 years in which retirement fund benefits were not paid in full. Those years are 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2010 and 2011. A copy of the class action suit is available at: http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/images/pdf/gmhsuitretirement.pdf The suit estimates that the total amount of unpaid employee and employer contributions for those years to be "approximately $7 million". But the lawsuit also seeks interest and penalties which would push the total well over $7 million, "the final amount to be determined at trial." The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Lourdes B.Q. Tenorio, and all other "employees of the Guam Memorial Hospital Authority who are members of the Government of Guam Retirement Fund." Ms. Tenorio is the Chief of Admissions at GMH where she has been employed since 1987. The lawsuit was filed on April 8 by Ignacio C. Aguigui of the Lujan, Aguigui & Perez law firm. According to Pacific News Center, it is the second major lawsuit which the Lujan law firm filed Friday. The other was a $269 million Class Action Suit filed in District Court seeking an order to force GovGuam to pay the tax refunds it has not paid since at least 2006. Mindy Aguon, writing for KUAM, reports that Mr. Aguigui filed a lawsuit on behalf of Rae and Jeff Paeste and Sharon Zapanta and all other taxpayers who have been waiting to receive their income tax refunds. The plaintiffs filed timely and valid annual income tax returns through the Guam Department of Revenue & Taxation and the government has not paid the refunds since at least 2006 to the present. Court documents state that the class, which includes all taxpayers who are waiting for their refunds and have not been given a notice of disallowance of claims by the government, will continue to suffer economic hardship because of the government's continued failure to promptly pay refunds. On April 4, Governor Eddie Calvo announced that his administration intends to borrow money to pay the more than $269 million that is owed to island taxpayers. The lawsuit is seeking a judgment forcing the payment of refunds as well as attorney's fees. IBM CORP: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Eligibility Process -------------------------------------------------------------- Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims thousands of Medicaid recipients were denied benefits or suffered unfair lapses in medical coverage after Indiana handed off the eligibility process to IBM, which screwed up the installation so badly it was fired 7 years early from its $1.3 billion contract. The class claims that while the state ultimately canceled the $1.3 billion contract to have IBM "privatize and modernize" Medicaid determinations, it has continued to use its subcontractors, which are severely deficient in handling applications and appeals. The class sued IBM, ACS Human Services, Phoenix Data and Arbor E&T in Marion Superior Court. Indiana is not named as a defendant. In December 2006, Indiana's Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) contracted with IBM to "privatize and modernize the public benefits eligibility determination process," according to the complaint. IBM managed the overall process, while "most of the day-to-day responsibilities to work with beneficiaries to determine their eligibility, and even process their appeals, were delegated to other contractors," such as ACS, Phoenix and Arbor. One thousand five hundred state workers became employed under the "IBM-coalition," according to the complaint. While the FSSA had final say in which applicants were approved or denied benefits, it relied on recommendations made through IBM contractors, who hold themselves out to applicants as the Indiana FSSA, the class claims. "In March 2009, IBM was put on notice by the State of Indiana that its performance in managing the functions critical to eligibility determinations through its subcontractors was grossly deficient, and after an effort to correct the multitude of problems through a Corrective Action Plan, the State terminated its $1.3 billion contract with IBM," the complaint states. "IBM's role was phased out through Dec. 14, 2009, seven years before the expiration of the 10-year contract. FSSA and IBM have sued each other over the termination of the contract." After IBM was out of the picture, Indiana contracted directly with ACS, Phoenix and Arbor, the class says. "The contractors were to interview beneficiaries, gather documents, process them, enter facts into the computer systems, explain program requirements, explain appeal rights, assist clients who needed special help to assure that eligibility was correctly and properly determined and that appeal rights were honored," the complaint states. The class says the contractors have a duty to maintain benefits for recipients who have submitted appeals, until they receive a fair hearing. It adds that the "defendants also undertook to perform FSSA's duty to assess whether a recipient who no longer qualified under one category of Medicaid might qualify under a different category, before cutting off benefits." But the class says the defendants have "routinely 'lost' client documents, including appeal requests," failed to return clients' phone calls, then denied coverage without adequate information. It says the defendants' workers also "send demands for client- supplied information that are so poorly worded and non-specific that the client has little guidance on which to base a response," and deny coverage when "the beneficiary responds to the best of their ability but not to the worker's unstated intent, without even calling the beneficiary for clarification." The class adds that the defendants' call centers are designed so that beneficiaries are blocked from speaking to someone with the authority to solve issues, and that the staff is poorly trained and not permitted to investigate problems. And the defendants have illegally prohibited beneficiaries from access to computerized records with information about the status of their cases. The class claims that appeals have become "so back-logged that fair hearings have been delayed for months beyond the 90-day time limits." "As a result of these actions, plaintiffs and thousands of vulnerable Medicaid recipients similarly situated had and are having their benefits interrupted or terminated altogether, losing the value of access to health care and coverage afforded to them under law," the class says. Plaintiff Courtney Anderson, a 20 year-old woman who suffers from a severe seizure disorder, says her benefits were unfairly cut off when she was switching from one Medicaid program to another, and that the defendants processed her case for termination, despite her two appeals. Ms. Anderson's mother was unable to refill her anti-seizure prescriptions, putting her health in "immediate jeopardy," she. Only with the help of an attorney were her benefits eventually reinstated. The class demands damages from IBM, ACS, Phoenix and Arbor, for unfair denial of Medicaid benefits. A copy of the Complaint in Bowman, et al. v. International Business Machines Corp., et al., Case No. 49D071104PL013108 (Ind. Super. Ct., Marion Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/08/IBM.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott R. Severns, Esq. Anna M. Howard, Esq. 10293 N. Meridian Street, Suite 150 Indianapolis, IN 46290 Telephone: (317) 817-0300 E-mail: sseverns@severns.com amh@severn.com KANSAS: Judge Okays Settlement in Property Seizure Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Morris, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that a judge approved a settlement on April 8 in which Kansas City police will pay about $1.2 million to 50 people who have contended that police improperly seized their property. The order ended a decade-long class-action lawsuit brought against the Kansas City Police Department by plaintiffs who alleged that police illegally handed their money and property to the federal government for forfeiture, rather than running it though a state system that would have given money to schools. Lawyer George Barton, who represented the class, told Jackson County Circuit Judge Brian C. Wimes that all 50 class members who submitted valid claims would be paid in full. "They are receiving an amount equal to the value of the currency and property that was seized from them," Mr. Barton said. "So this is a fair, reasonable and adequate settlement." Lawyers representing police said the department admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement terms to avoid the uncertainties of a trial. "Because of the amount and size of a significant number of claims, there was significant risk and exposure," said Travis Salmon. "This is a reasonable and fair settlement agreement." Because the class members, and not school districts, sued the Police Department, the settlement money will go to them, not to education. Kansas City restaurant owner George Ricketts, who represented class members at the hearing, said the settlement was fair and asked the judge to approve the agreement. Ricketts lost a BMW and more than $130,000 and other property and cash in April 1996 when police raided his home, convinced he was a drug dealer. An appeals court later threw out his conviction. Under the terms of the settlement, he will be paid $200,000. Ricketts declined to speak about the settlement after the hearing. Another lead defendant, Albert Raymond Pearsall of Albuquerque, N.M., will be paid $73,102. The names of other class members who will be paid under the settlement were not filed with the court on April 8. Separate from those payments to the plaintiffs, Mr. Barton and his firm will be paid more than $1.3 million in legal fees and $99,370 in expenses. The issue driving the settlement came to light in a Kansas City Star series published in May 2000, "To Protect and Collect," which exposed how police circumvented state laws by turning over millions of dollars in alleged drug money they had seized to the federal government. Federal agencies kept most of the money and returned a percentage to the Police Department. State law, however, required that forfeited money be used for public education. In January 2001, a Missouri appeals court ruled that Kansas City police had to return $34,000 to an imprisoned drug felon. Lawyers filed the class-action suit a couple of weeks later. Police soon changed their forfeiture procedures. They say they now run every case through state court unless a federal judge signs a warrant demanding assets in a particular case. ORTHO-MCNEIL: May Face Suit Over Topamax Birth Defects ------------------------------------------------------ Women who delivered children with Topamax birth defects after taking the drug or its generic form topiramate during pregnancy may have legal recourse. The FDA recently announced a link between the drug and oral birth defects, and as a result, Topamax users who delivered children with cleft lips or cleft palates may be able to file a Topamax lawsuit to recover financial compensation. To find out if you can file a claim for medical bills and other damages after delivering a child with Topamax birth defects, visit http://www.classaction.org/topamax.html/and complete the free case evaluation form for a no cost, no obligation review of your claim. Topamax birth defects may require both surgical and non-surgical treatment, the cost of which could be recovered through a Topamax lawsuit. Depending on the extent of the Topamax cleft, several surgeries may be needed. A cleft lip will typically require one to two surgeries, with the initial procedure being performed by the time the child reaches three months old. Repair of a Topamax cleft palate, however, often requires several procedures performed over the course of 18 years. Additionally, depending on the extent of the Topamax birth defect, speech therapy, special dental care, and psychological counseling may also be required. Treatment for Topamax birth defects can extend over the course of several years and result in costly medical bills for the child's family. Women who elect to take legal action for their child's Topamax birth defects may be able to recover the cost of these expenses, as well as other damages. To find out if you are eligible for financial compensation, visit Class Action.org and complete the free case evaluation form. The Topamax attorneys working with the site are offering this online case review at no cost and remain committed to protecting the rights of women who bore children with Topamax birth defects. About Class Action.org Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the United States. Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them take action against the manufacturers of defective products, drugs, and medical devices. Information about consumer fraud issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site. Visit http://www.classaction.org/today for a no cost, no obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer rights. PUMA NORTH: Removes "Poligrates" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bonnie Poligrates, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Puma North America, Inc., et al., Case No. RG 11564143 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), was filed on March 4, 2011. The plaintiff accuses the defendants of requesting and recording personal identification in the course of a credit card transaction, in violation of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, California Civil Code Section 1747.08. On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Puma North America, on April 6, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-01671 to the proceeding. Puma North America is represented by: Fletcher C. Alford, Esq. Laura L. Geist, Esq. Jordan S. Altura, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 E-mail: falford@gordonrees.com lgeist@gordonrees.com jaltura@gordonrees.com - and - Debra Ellwood Meppen, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 E-mail: dmeppen@gordonrees.com SAXON MORTGAGE: Sued for Unfair Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Marie Gaudin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01663 Marie Gaudin v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. (N.D. Calif. April 6, 2011), seeks to redress and remedy defendant Saxon Mortgage Services' policy and practice of collecting "trial" payments from its delinquent residential mortgage customers by falsely promising them the opportunity to retain their homes through an income-based loan modification under the protocols and guidelines established by the Homeowners Affordable Modification Program. Ms. Gaudin alleges that Saxon's conduct with respect to the HAMP trial agreements violated the Unfair Competition Law and also constituted unfair debt collection practices under the Rosenthal Act. Ms. Gaudin relates that Saxon, after making a promise to permanently modify her mortgage, then delayed the processing of the loan modification, while urging her to continue making trial payments. Saxon subsequently denied her a permanent modification without cause. Saxon sent Ms. Gaudin several letters purportedly explaining why she had been declined for a permanent modification. In these letters, Saxon falsely claimed that Ms. Gaudin had failed to make the trial payments and supply requested documents. When she confronted Saxon with the falsity of these statements, Saxon made no attempt to back up or explain them. Marie Gaudin is a single, self-employed, small business woman who has operated a San Francisco bridal boutique for over 30 years. Defendant Saxon, a Texas corporation, does business throughout California and has its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Mulligan, Esq. JENKINS MULLIGAN & GABRIEL LLP 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 210 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (415) 982-8500 - and - Peter B. Fredman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN 125 University Ave, Suite 102 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 868-2626 E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com UNION CARBIDE: Sued in W. Va. for Releasing Hazardous Substances ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses Union Carbide, Dow Chemical, Elkem Metals, Globe Specialty Metals and West Virginia Alloys of contaminating West Virginia with arsenic, iron, lead, and other toxins, and endangering and harming public health. A copy of the Complaint in Ballard, et al. v. Union Carbide Company, et al., Case No. 11-C-531 (W. Va. Cir. Ct., Kanawha Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/08/Env.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas F. Urban II, Esq. URBAN & FALK, PLLC 2867 S. Abingdon St. Arlington, VA 22206 Telephone: 703-861-5235 - and - Jared R. Woodfill, Esq. Wallace T. Ward III, Esq. Robert Summerlin, Esq. WOODFILL & PRESSLER, LLP 909 Fannin, Suite 1470 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: 713-751-3080 WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Over Basic Health Program Cuts ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a Snohomish County woman who's been fighting breast cancer has filed a potential class-action lawsuit over cuts to Basic Health, a month after the state booted 17,000 people off the subsidized health care program. Among those disqualified from the program were children, seniors, illegal immigrants, and legal immigrants who have not lived in the U.S. for at least five years. Seattlepi.com reports that the complaint was filed against the state on April 7 in U.S. District Court and seeks class-action status. It accuses the state of violating the Constitution's equal-protection clause by disqualifying some legal immigrants while serving other immigrants and citizens. A spokeswoman for Basic Health said she could not comment on the lawsuit. The plaintiff, Rattiya Unthaksinkun, says she is a married mother of two who has lived legally in the U.S. for four years. She says she recently had to cancel a needed medical test because she lost coverage. "She does not know how she is going to be able to pay for this test if her Basic Health benefits are not reinstated," the complaint said. Ms. Unthaksinkun is eligible to become a naturalized citizen because her husband is a citizen, but the couple can't afford to go through the process, she said in a court declaration. The lawsuit echoes another complaint filed against Washington over a proposed cut in food stamps for legal immigrants. In that case, a federal judge temporarily stopped the state from making the cut in January. The Basic Health lawsuit also follows weeks of appeals and complaints from people who had found the state's disenrollment process rushed and confusing. Of the 17,000 people dropped from the program, 7,300 have appealed. More than 4,100 have been reinstated. WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Over Force-Placed Flood Insurance -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Wells Fargo Bank forces borrowers to take out too much flood insurance on their homes, then takes kickbacks and commissions on the force-placed insurance. A copy of the Complaint in Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 11-cv-_____ (W. Pa.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/08/WellsFlood.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles G. Frohman, Esq. Paul J. Lukas, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Kai Richter, Esq. Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 E-mail: frohman@nka.com lukas@nka.com drake@nka.com krichter@nka.com bailey@nka.com WELLINGTON, AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Water Quality --------------------------------------------------------------- Wellington Times reports that the controversy about the state of Wellington's water went unabated as a group of angry water users press ahead with their calls for a class action. "We are going ahead, I'm getting a lot of letters to my PO Box 90 address and I have many calls of support," said Sue Bloomfield Bell, one of the prime movers behind the campaign. Supporting her action is a very frustrated Michael Lyness who, in his anger, brought a sample of the water to the Wellington Times office. "Look at this. It looks like a bottle of coke. It's disgusting. I am very upset," he said. His frustrations, like many others in the area, spilled over after his water pipes were air scoured. "It is getting better, but this is unbelievable. How much has been wasted with their mismanagement of this." Mr. Lyness said he wanted people to demand more action. "It's not just the state of the water, but also the time you have to spend washing it in NapiSan," he said. "I am now part of this class action, it will take time but we will do it. "In fairness they have scoured and done their best. I believe they're into zone 3 of their work but how frustrating has this been." The council remains steadfast that the eight-week timeline is enough to complete the work. ********* 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. Leah Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2011. 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 * * *