/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110628.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 28, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 126 Headlines ACCUTANE: Litigation Attorneys Available to Review IBD Claims AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 2,500 Portable Generator Batteries BRITAX CHILD: Recalls 20,800 Units of B-Nimble Strollers CHULA VISTA, CA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Utility Taxes COSTCO WHOLESALE: Wal-Mart Decision May Affect Class Action DURHAM, CANADA: Gives Clarifications on Lost USB Key FAIRBRIDGE FOUNDATION: Class Action Set to Return in November FISHER AND SHAPIRO: Sued Over Doctored Foreclosure Affidavits FORNEY LP: Sued for Faxing Unsolicited Advertisements GAMMA SPORTS: Recalls 2,000 Children's Tennis Racquets HAIN CELESTIAL: Deceives Consumers Over Organic Claims, Suit Says KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime M&F WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Proposed Sale to MacAndrews & Forbes MEYERS ASSOCIATES: Accused of Making Improper Wage Deductions NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Super Bowl Fans Seek Compensation OPENFEINT INC: Sued Over Unauthorized Access to Mobile Devices PANDORA MEDIA: Accused of Selling Consumer Info to Advertisers RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA: Employees File Class Action RUGBY LABORATORIES: Recalls 898,000 Children's Pain & Fever Drops TARGET: Recalls 51,700 Infant Girls Sandals Due to Choking Hazard TIMBERLAND CO: Being Sold to VR for Too Little, Suit Claims UNITED STATES: FTC Opposes Class Action Settlement UNITED STATES: February 2012 Deadline Set for Pigford Claims UPONOR PEX: Property Owners May File Class Action Over Fittings ********* ACCUTANE: Litigation Attorneys Available to Review IBD Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The Accutane litigation attorneys working with Class Action.org are available to review claims from Accutane users who were diagnosed with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. Potentially, Accutane litigation may be an option for users who developed either of these digestive conditions, which belong to a group of disorders known as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). If you or a loved one was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease after taking Accutane, visit http://www.classaction.org/accutane.htmland complete the free, no obligation case review form on the right to find out if you are eligible for Accutane litigation. According to Accutane litigation, the manufacturer of the drug failed to warn patients of the potential Accutane IBD risk. Reportedly, the acne drug has been linked to the development of inflammatory bowel disease in users, who as a result may be eligible for Accutane litigation. Alleged Accutane ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease can cause inflammation of the intestines, resulting in symptoms such as: chronic abdominal pain; diarrhea; loss of appetite; bleeding from the rectum; and loss of appetite. IBD can also lead to other health problems such as anemia, arthritis, liver inflammation, gallstones and kidney stones. Users of the acne drug who are suffering from Accutane Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis may be eligible for Accutane litigation. Potentially, an Accutane lawsuit would allow patients the chance to seek compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering and other damages resulting from their condition. To learn more about Accutane litigation and to receive a free evaluation of your Accutane IBD claim, visit Class Action.org today. The Accutane litigation attorneys working with the site are providing this online case review at no cost and remain committed to protecting the rights of Accutane users who were diagnosed with Accutane ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease. 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.orgtoday for a no cost, no obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer rights. AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 2,500 Portable Generator Batteries ---------------------------------------------------------- About 2,500 portable generator batteries were recalled by American Honda Motor Co. of Torrance, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The hazard labels attached to the batteries used on the generators are printed in Japanese instead of English. As a result, consumers handling the battery may not be able to adequately avoid risks associated with the batteries. No incidents or injuries have been reported. Only portable generator model numbers EM4000SX, EM5000SXK3 and EM6500SXK2 with hazard labels printed in Japanese are affected. The word Honda and the model numbers are located on the side of the generator. The battery is located above the wheel. The model number and serial numbers are located on the generator frame. The recalled serial numbers are: Model Number Serial Number ------------ ------------- EM4000SX EBRC-1000015 to 1000518 EM5000SXK3 EBMC-1000005 to 1001184 EM6500SXK2 EBJC-1000017 to 1000857 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11744.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Honda power equipment dealers nationwide from January 2011 to March 2011 for between $2,250 and $2,890. American Honda is contacting consumers and giving them the correct label. Consumers can either install the label themselves or contact a Honda dealer to install the label for free. For more information, contact American Honda between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday toll-free at (888) 888- 3139 or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/recalls/ BRITAX CHILD: Recalls 20,800 Units of B-Nimble Strollers -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Britax Child Safety Inc., of Charlotte, North Carolina, announced a voluntary recall of about 20,000 units of B- Nimble Strollers in the United States of America and 800 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. An audible click heard when the brake pedal is pressed can give a false impression that the brake is fully engaged when it is not. When the brake is not engaged, the stroller can move unexpectedly posing a risk of injury to the child occupant. Britax has received seven reports of the brake not being fully engaged. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves B-Nimble umbrella strollers manufactured on or after August 1, 2010. Strollers included in the recall have model numbers U311771, U311773, U311775 and U311780. The date of manufacture labels and model numbers can be found on the lower frame/tube on either the left or the right side. The strollers were sold in a variety of colors including black and silver, Cowmooflage (black and white), green and red. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11256.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at juvenile product and mass merchandise stores nationwide and online retailers between September 2010 and June 2011 for about $200. Consumers should immediately stop using their strollers and contact Britax for information and to request an improved replacement stroller. Consumers who resume use of their strollers while awaiting the replacement should always ensure that the brake is fully engaged. For additional information, contact Britax toll-free at (888) 427-4829 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday and, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.britaxusa.com/ CHULA VISTA, CA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Utility Taxes -------------------------------------------------------------- The San Diego-based law offices of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield, LLP and Newport Beach-based Capretz & Associates have filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Chula Vista, Calif., demanding restitution as a result of continued collection of a controversial tax on cell phone calls. According to co-lead counsel Thomas Penfield, a partner with Casey Gerry, the lawsuit was filed in the San Diego Superior Court on behalf of Chula Vista residents seeking a refund of taxes arising from the City of Chula Vista's improper collection and administration of a "Utility Users Tax" (UUT) collected on mobile phone use. "Through this class action, we seek a refund from the City for back taxes unlawfully collected over the years from Chula Vista residents," Mr. Penfield said. Added attorney James Capretz, with Capretz & Associates, "we believe all Chula Vista taxpayers are clearly entitled to a refund of all UUTs improperly collected for the maximum period permissible, along with the legal rate of interest." Mr. Penfield said the controversy stems from a now outdated tax, levied on users of telephones, electricity and other utilities, which was introduced in 1970 and accounts for more than $9 million in revenue for the city each year -- $5.6 million of that from cell phone users. In simple terms, Mr. Penfield said, the tax on cell phones is "illegal, as the law introducing it was passed before the invention of cell phones." Moreover, "the UUT is automatically added to the monthly charges and embedded in billing statements, so most tax payers are not even aware of the tax -- or the fact that it has been illegally collected." Additionally, in 2006, said Mr. Penfield, the I.R.S. acknowledged that bundled service, where local and long distance are not separately billed (including landline and cellular telephone service), and all long distance service are also non-taxable. Realizing that there are a host of thorny legal -- and financial -- issues related to the tax, The City of Chula Vista last year introduced a ballot proposition, Proposition H, which if passed and the UUT found to be constitutional, would have legalized the City's right to collect fees on cell phone calls. The proposition, which Capretz called "a failed attempt to retroactively authorize UUTs" did not pass, intensifying the controversy and solidifying the illegal status of cell phone taxes. Despite the conclusive defeat of Proposition H, the City continues to date to levy and collect the UUT -- and taxes continue to flow into the City's coffers. "These monies belong to the cell phone using residents of Chula Vista, and in all fairness, should be returned," said Mr. Penfield. "The City has no legal or equitable right to retain these funds." About Casey Gerry San Diego's oldest plaintiff's law firm, Casey Gerry -- http://www.caseygerry.com-- was founded in 1947, and since then has worked to help recover hundreds of millions of dollars for families and individuals who have suffered serious injury or lost loved ones. The firm's 13 attorneys practice in numerous areas, including asbestos, personal injury, product liability and pharmaceutical litigation. Located at 110 Laurel St. in the Banker's Hill neighborhood of San Diego, the firm also has a satellite office in Carlsbad, Calif. About Capretz & Associates James T. Capretz is the principal of the Newport Beach law firm of Capretz & Associates -- http://www.capretz.com-- a firm that emphasizes complex civil and multidistrict litigation in its practice. He is consistently listed in the Martindale-Hubbell Bar Registry of Preeminent Lawyers. He was the only attorney in private practice named in the initial publication of the top 50 most influential business people in Orange County by the Orange County Business Journal. He has served as Special Counsel in the seminal national product liability class action entitled Bowling vs. Pfizer, et al. in federal district court in Cincinnati, Ohio since 1992 and he has held positions of responsibility in several other federal class action lawsuits across the United States. He is a charter member of the prestigious Santa Monica-Base RAND Institute for the Civil Justice, So Cal 50 Executive Committee. His contact number is 949-724-3000. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Wal-Mart Decision May Affect Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Cronin Fisk and Karen Gullo, writing for Bloomberg News, report that Costco Wholesale Corp. may be able to block women accusing it of gender bias from suing as a group because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in a discrimination suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The women sued Costco in 2004, accusing the largest U.S. warehouse-club chain of limiting promotions of female employees to assistant general manager and general manager by failing to post such job openings. They won the right to sue as a group in a class action in 2007. Costco's appeal of that order was put on hold while the Supreme Court considered Dukes v. Wal-Mart. Parts of the Costco decision conflict with the Supreme Court's June 20 ruling barring women suing Wal-Mart from pursuing their claims in a nationwide class action, according to legal experts. Michael Harper, a professor at Boston University School of Law, predicted the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco will send the Costco case back to the trial judge for reconsideration. "Bottom line: Under Dukes, a class cannot be certified for this case as framed," Mr. Harper said of the 2007 order granting the Costco workers class status. "If I were Costco, I would be feeling pretty good about this decision." The Supreme Court said lawyers for women suing Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart failed to point to a common corporate policy that led to gender discrimination at thousands of its U.S. stores. Lawyers for the women said they will reframe their legal arguments and, if necessary, pursue smaller group or individual suits. 'Fatally Flawed' The lawsuit against Costco features "the same lawyers using the same theories, but more importantly, the same experts to conjure up this guilt by statistical evidence," Joel Benoliel, spokesman for Issaquah, Washington-based Costco, on June 19 said in a phone interview. "I think that our case will be dismissed by the Ninth Circuit for exactly the same reasons," Mr. Benoliel said, referring to the San Francisco appeals court. "The case is fatally flawed and has been from the beginning." The Dukes decision provides an additional hurdle to class actions, requiring plaintiffs to show that a common issue "predominates," Mr. Harper said. This will affect the Costco case because the original decision was made under a less stringent standard, which required only that employment lawyers show evidence of a common issue, he said. Corporate Culture The Supreme Court wasn't convinced by arguments that the corporate culture at Wal-Mart harmed women, Mr. Harper said. That part of the Wal-Mart ruling may doom the Costco class as well, he said. The Wal-Mart women's "only evidence of a general discrimination policy was a sociologist's analysis asserting that Wal-Mart's corporate culture made it vulnerable to gender bias," the Supreme Court found. The plaintiffs needed to provide significant proof that the company operated under a general policy of discrimination, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, reversing the lower-court ruling. "Because respondents provide no convincing proof of a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy, we have concluded that they have not established the existence of any common question," Judge Scalia said. Mr. Harper said the appeals court is unlikely to reject or approve the 2007 decision granting the Costco women class-action status, which makes litigation less costly for plaintiffs and gives them more leverage in settlement talks. Remand 'More Likely' "More likely they'll remand it," sending it back to the trial court, he said. The Costco women should still be able to sue as a group, said Brad Seligman, a lead attorney for plaintiffs in both suits. Costco is a "much narrower case," covering two types of managers who were affected by decisions made above the store level, Mr. Seligman said. Dukes involved as many as 1.5 million current and former workers at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in the U.S. The potential class in Costco is less than 1,000 women, he said. "We candidly conceded in Dukes that it could be unmanageable to do individual damages hearings for every class member," Mr. Seligman said in an interview. Costco is "much smaller and much more manageable of a case," he said. "Overall, the Costco class action and their theories look a whole lot like the theories in the Wal-Mart case," said Justin Page, a lawyer with Bass, Berry & Sims in Nashville, Tennessee. "They use some of the exact same experts. The evidence they used to show a common practice is very similar," he said. 'Uphill Battle' "These plaintiffs will have an uphill battle," said Mr. Page, who represents corporations in employment litigation and isn't involved in the Wal-Mart or Costco cases. The part of the Costco judge's decision certifying the class for injunctive relief under one section of the federal rules of procedure is similar to the initial decisions allowing the Wal-Mart class, Mr. Page said. "The Supreme Court in Dukes rejected that 9-0, and said the request had to be evaluated under another section that is more stringent," he said. In the 2007 decision that allowed the Costco class action, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in San Francisco wrote that "the court finds that plaintiffs have presented strong evidence of a common culture at Costco which disadvantages women." Central Management Plaintiffs will need to show a direct connection to discrimination beyond a common culture, Mr. Harper said. "How does that common culture play out at the regional decision- making level?" Mr. Harper asked. "It looks like central management at Costco has little role to play" in making decisions on promotions to assistant general manager and general manager, he said. "There is evidence that officers are involved but the key question is how involved are they," he said. Under the Dukes decision, "you have to have some significant proof that the problem is centralized," he said. All cases alleging employer bias and seeking class certification, including the Costco suit, will be affected by the Wal-Mart decision, said Sara Kane, a New York lawyer who represents workers and isn't involved in the Wal-Mart or Costco actions. Next Steps "People are saying there's no hope, but there are ways to proceed," she said. The appellate court will either send the Costco case back to the trial judge or ask the parties to submit new filings on whether the Dukes decision applies, she said. The Wal-Mart workers complained that the company's policy allowing discretion to local managers over pay and promotions harmed women. The Supreme Court found that the effect of such discretion couldn't be considered a common question, a requirement for a class action. "In a company of Wal-Mart's size and geographical scope, it is quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction," Judge Scalia said. Costco doesn't use postings or an application process for open assistant and general manager positions, according to court papers. Costco contends decisions to promote a lower-level manager to an assistant manager are made by warehouse general managers with the involvement of district vice presidents, Judge Patel said in her decision approving the Costco class. The company said upper management isn't involved, Judge Patel said. Headquarters Sign-Off The women suing the company disagree. The chief executive officer of Costco "signs off on every store manager position," Mr. Seligman said. "The decisions for both positions are made at Costco headquarters." The Costco plaintiffs may be able to keep their class certification if a court agrees that "signing off" on promotions is enough to establish centralized decision-making, Ms. Kane said. "The fact that the overall number is so much smaller may make it easier to present the more rigorous statistical evidence the Supreme Court required in Dukes," said Mr. Page, the Nashville lawyer. "But that may not be enough because the evidence looks so similar." Costco in 2000 investigated the disparity of promotions of women into management and began posting jobs for lower-level manager positions. "There was a conscious decision made not to post vacancies for GM and AGM," Judge Patel said in her decision granting the class action. Disparity's Obligation This gives plaintiffs an opening for winning a revised attempt at class certification by meeting the standard requiring predominance of a common issue, Mr. Harper said. Recognizing disparity imposes an obligation on the company to do something about it and could provide a common question for purposes of a class action, he said. The questions for Costco would be, "Did they know or should they have known there was a problem? Did they not properly respond to that in the central offices?" he said. This may show negligence as a common question, he said. Lawyers for the women would have to "talk not only about commonality, but predominance" under the new rules, he said. "It requires some development of the substantive law," he said. "But that's their best shot." The case is Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST), 04-03341, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Wal-Mart case is Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 10-00277, U.S. Supreme Court (Washington). DURHAM, CANADA: Gives Clarifications on Lost USB Key ---------------------------------------------------- The Oshawa Express reports that the Region of Durham wants to assure residents that what was lost on a USB key won't be found in court -- by anyone who doesn't need to know, of course. As the class action lawsuit continues questions have come up pertaining to the lost USB key that contained the personal and confidential information of Durham Regional health patients. A recent statement from the Region hopes to clarify some of those queries. In December 2009, a USB key was lost by a Durham Regional Health nurse. On it was the personal information of more than 83,500 residents who had received an H1N1 vaccination shot. A lawsuit against the Region was certified in December 2010 as a class action, and named John Sherlock Rowlands the representative plaintiff. The causes were listed as "negligence; breach of a fiduciary duty; breach of confidence and/or violation of privacy; breach of a statutory duty, public malfeasance and/or failure to act; and breach of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Members of the action and their counsel are seeking C$40 million in "special damages for the purpose of obtaining credit monitoring for a period of years to be determined by the court" and "punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages," from the Region because of the loss of the USB key, says an April 2011 certification order from Justice P. Lauwers. Currently, the lawsuit is in the opt-out phase. At this time, those residents who had their information lost have the chance to bow out of the class action. Flaherty Dow Elliott & McCarthy LLP will represent the plaintiffs, while David Boghosian of Boghosian and Associates will represent Durham. The Region's release answers two questions the class action members have been asking. First, "why am I included automatically into the lawsuit?" "Many residents, whose names were on the USB key, have questioned why they have been automatically included in the class action, with responsibility being placed on them to opt out," says the release. "Automatic inclusion, and the need for individuals to opt out of the class action, if they so choose, was mandated by the Class Proceedings Act, which is the provincial legislation that governs class actions in Ontario." The release also seeks to put to rest concerns that the release of personal information to the plaintiff's counsel could result in another breach. "The supply of this information -- by the Region to Flaherty Dow Elliott & McCarthy LLP -- was court ordered and falls under applicable privacy legislation," the release clarifies. "No breach of confidentiality has been committed by the Region in responding to this court order. The action was required by the Rules of Court which governs disclosure of information relating to a lawsuit, including what information was on the USB key." "In addition, for this lawsuit, the Certification Order also required the Region provide Flaherty Dow Elliott & McCarthy LLP with all of the information that was on the lost USB key. That information has not yet been provided to the law firm. However, when it is, the law firm will be bound by strict rules of confidentiality relating to any information it receives in the course of the lawsuit, so that no privacy concerns should arise as a result of that disclosure." Deloitte LLP, the litigation administrator for the class action as appointed by the court, will have no access to the information at all. "The Region has not provided Deloitte LLP with any of the information that was contained on the lost USB key, nor will it do so in the future," notes the release. While the proverbial cow is out of the barn in this situation, Durham plans on keeping as much confidential as possible, continues the release. "The Region will take all necessary steps to ensure the ongoing confidentiality of the personal information contained on the USB key throughout the class action process." FAIRBRIDGE FOUNDATION: Class Action Set to Return in November ------------------------------------------------------------- Blake Nicholson, writing for Central Western Daily, reports that a class action taken out by former Fairbridge Farm residents has been adjourned and will return to court in November. Almost 70 former residents have launched the class action against the Fairbridge Foundation and the state and federal governments over failures to protect them against alleged sexual, mental and physical abuse. Roop Sandhu, an associate at Slater and Gordon, the firm that launched the class action, said the case was still in its early stages. He said at this stage in class actions, the defense often launched a flurry of applications in dispute of technicalities. The parties are in dispute about a number of issues including whether the case should be conducted as a class action or a series of individual claims, issues relating to the statute of limitations and the provision of documents and archival information. Mr. Sandhu said he believed this to be more delaying tactics and said his clients wanted their day in court. "Last week was just sort of an attempt to hear the parties on what they think the order of battle should be," he said. It's still too early to know the amount of compensation being sought. "For this group of people it's not really about the money, it's about acknowledgment," he said. "No amount of money can really make up for the things that happened to these people." FISHER AND SHAPIRO: Sued Over Doctored Foreclosure Affidavits ------------------------------------------------------------- Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims the Fisher and Shapiro law firm used "false, deceptive and unfair foreclosure litigation tactics" that the Cook County Chancery Court ordered it to reopen 1,700 foreclosure lawsuits. Lead plaintiff Stacy Hill, who says she was among those 1,700, claims that Fisher and Shapiro, of Chicago, removed the signature page from at least 1,700 foreclosure affidavits and reattached them to other documents, which included fees for Fisher and Shapiro. Citing the Chancery Court's General Administrative Order No. 2011- 01, Ms. Hill's complaint states: "The Order provides alarming detail: that 'affidavits filed in pending mortgage foreclosure cases by the law firm of Fisher and Shapiro were altered without the affiants' knowledge. The affidavits were altered in such a way that included changing the content of the original affidavit by removing the signature page and reattaching the signature page by the affiant to the altered content. The alteration of the contents in the affidavits included, but were not limited to, adding attorneys' fees and costs, adding insurance costs, inspection costs, preservation costs, and/or taxes incurred on the property." Ms. Hill says Fisher and Shapiro filed a foreclosure suit against her in 2009 and altered an affidavit after it had been notarized by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. She claims the phony affidavits resulted in invalid foreclosure judgments and wrecked credit ratings. She seeks an injunction and class damages for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, consumer fraud and deceptive trade. A copy of the Complaint in Hill v. Fisher and Shapiro, LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-04198 (N.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/23/Foreclose.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Anita Dellaria, Esq. Mark Bulgarelli, Esq. Ilan Chorowsky, Esq. PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC 505 N. LaSalle, Suite 350 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 787-2717 - and - Kelli Dudley, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KELLI DUDLEY 9130 S. Houston Ave., 1st Floor Chicago, IL 60617-4319 Telephone: (312) 771-9770 FORNEY LP: Sued for Faxing Unsolicited Advertisements ----------------------------------------------------- Sebastian Contracting Corporation, an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Forney, L.P. and Seven Fields, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-22427 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 22, 2011), challenges the Defendants' practice of faxing unsolicited advertisements. The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the common law of conversion, and the consumer protection statutes forbidding and compensating unfair business practices. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the TCPA by sending advertising faxes to it and the other members of the class without first obtaining their prior express invitation or permission, and by not displaying a proper opt out notice. The Plaintiff is an Illinois corporation. Forney is Pennsylvania limited partnership, which has its principal place of business in Seven Fields, Pennsylvania. Seven Fields is the general partner and control entity of Forney. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 GAMMA SPORTS: Recalls 2,000 Children's Tennis Racquets ------------------------------------------------------ About 2,000 Quick Kids Junior Tennis Racquets were voluntarily recalled by GAMMA Sports, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The orange grip tape on the tennis racket's handle contains high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves Quick Kids 23-inch aluminum junior tennis racquets with orange tape on the hand grip. Recalled racquets have lot number "F:3:10:08" stamped onto the bottom of the racquet grip below the "G." Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11745.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online at http://www.gammasports.com/,http://www.atssports.com/and http://www.holabirdsports.com/from December 2010 through March 2011 for about $15. Consumers should immediately take the recalled tennis racquets away from children and contact GAMMA Sports for a free replacement grip kit. GAMMA Sports is directly contacting all known purchasers of the recalled tennis racquets. For more information, contact GAMMA Sports at (800) 333-0337 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.gammasports.com/ HAIN CELESTIAL: Deceives Consumers Over Organic Claims, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and Center for Environmental Health v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., and Does 1-100, Case No. RG11575336 (Calif. Super. Ct, Alameda Cty., May 11, 2011), alleges unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices of Hain Celestial with respect to its cosmetic products sold under the Jason(R) and Avalon Organics(R) brands, which are marketed, labeled and sold as "organic," but which in fact contain less than 70% organic ingredients. The lawsuit alleges that the Jason(R) Products are all marketed and labeled as "Pure, Natural & Organic" and the Avalon Organics(R) Products are all marketed and labeled as "Organics." The Plaintiffs argue that Ms. Brown and the Class would not have purchased the Products, and would not have paid a high price for the Products, but for the Defendant's false and misleading identification of the Products as organic. Ms. Brown is a resident of California and purchased one of the Products. CEH is a non-profit corporation dedicated to protecting the public from environmental health hazards and toxic exposures. CEH is based in Oakland, California. The Company is a Delaware limited corporation with its principal place of business in Melville, New York. The Defendant advertises, markets, distributes and sells the Products in California. Does 1 through 100 are persons or entities whose true names and capacities are presently unknown to the Plaintiffs. Hain Celestial removed the lawsuit on June 22, 2011, from the California Superior Court, Alameda County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Because the Plaintiffs are from California and the Defendant is incorporated in Delaware with its main office located in New York, the diversity requirement for removing the lawsuit is satisfied, Hain Celestial argues. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:11-cv-03082 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark N. Todzo, Esq. Howard J. Hirsch, Esq. Lisa Burger, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 759-4111 Facsimile: (415) 759-4112 E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Simon J. Frankel, Esq. Margaret D. Wilkinson, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 E-mail: sfrankel@cov.com mwilkinson@cov.com KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Permanente stiffs workers for overtime and doesn't pay them for all hours worked, according to a class action in Alameda County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Scott v. Kaiser Permanente, et al., Case No. RG11582019 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/23/Kaiser.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Qualls, Esq. Robin G. Workman, Esq. Aviva N. Roller, Esq. QUALLS & WORKMAN, L.L.P. 177 Post Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 782-3660 E-mail: dan@qualls-workman.com robin1@qualls-workman.com aviva@qualls-workman.com M&F WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Proposed Sale to MacAndrews & Forbes ------------------------------------------------------------- Theodore Feit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ronald O. Perelman, Barry F. Schwartz, William C. Bevins, Bruce Slovin, Philip E. Beekman, Martha L. Byorum, Charles T. Dawson, Viet D. Dinh, Theo W. Folz, John M. Keane, Paul M. Meister, Stephen G. Taub, Carl B. Webb, MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc., and M & F Worldwide Corp., Case No. 651743/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 23, 2011), is brought as a class action lawsuit on behalf of all owners of MFW common stock, except the Defendants and their affiliates. The lawsuit arises out of the proposed acquisition of MFW by its chairman, Ronald Perelman. Mr. Feit contends that the Individual Defendants have breached, and are continuing to breach, their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by proposing to sell the Company for a wholly inadequate consideration. The Plaintiff is an MFW shareholder. MFW is a Delaware corporation and maintains its executive offices in New York. MFW, through its subsidiaries, provides check and check-related products, direct marketing, and customized business and home office products in North America and internationally. The Individual Defendants are officers and/or directors of MFW. MacAndrews & Forbes is a private diversified holding company with interests in biotechnology, check printing and check related products and services, consumer products, defense, education, entertainment, financial services, gaming and other industries. MacAndrews & Forbes, through its subsidiaries, owns approximately 43% of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. Joseph Levi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 15th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: rlefkowitz@zlk.com jlevi@zlk.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (202) 333-2121 E-mail: denright@zlk.com etripodi@zlk.com MEYERS ASSOCIATES: Accused of Making Improper Wage Deductions ------------------------------------------------------------- James Thomas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Meyers Associates, L.P., and Bruce Meyers, Case No. 651720/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 22, 2011), is brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and improper wage deductions from the Defendants Meyers. Mr. Thomas alleges that the Defendants knowingly failed to pay him and the other Class members the minimum wage for all hours worked. He asserts that when he and other Class members did not earn commissions, the Defendants failed to provide them a "spread of hours" premium for every day in which they worked over 10 hours, as required by Section 142-2.4 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations. He adds that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants routinely made improper deductions from his and other Class members' earned wages/commissions. The Plaintiff is a resident of New York, and worked for the Defendants from August 2004 until July 2009. Meyers Associates is a New York partnership, with its principle place of business located at 45 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10006. Mr. Meyers is an owner and managing partner of Meyer Associates, firm operated as full-service independent broker- dealers offering a comprehensive range of financial and wealth management services for retail investors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Joseph, Esq. Michael D. Palmer, Esq. D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 233 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 E-mail: charles@jhllp.com mpalmer@jhllp.com maimon@jhllp.com NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Super Bowl Fans Seek Compensation -------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Super Bowl ticket-holders displaced during the seating fiasco at Cowboys Stadium in February said on June 21 in a court filing they should be compensated for lost income on top of the other expenses they incurred. Ticket holders who lost their seats or had obstructed views "at a very minimum" should be paid for lost income suffered as a result of traveling to suburban Arlington, according to a document filed in response to a motion by the Dallas Cowboys and the NFL seeking to dismiss the class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed after 1,250 temporary seats were declared unsafe just hours before the game between the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers. It says 475 ticket holders were forced to watch from standing-room locations while others were relocated, causing them to miss part of the game won by Green Bay. Another group of fans suffered because they learned upon arrival at the stadium that they had seats with obstructed views, the suit contends. The NFL said last month in its motion to have the suit dismissed that it satisfied its obligations to the displaced fans by offering them the actual prices they paid for their tickets as well as all documented travel, lodging and meal expenses. A league spokesman said it would have no comment on the plaintiffs' latest filing. Michael Avenatti, a Los Angeles attorney representing the ticket holders, said he expects to take the depositions of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Cowboys owner Jerry Jones before the end of the summer. "The law permits the fans to receive 100 percent of their damages, and we intend on recovering just that," Mr. Avenatti said. The ticket holders' filing said there is nothing on record to prove that all eligible fans received settlement offers from the NFL. Moreover, the offers had too many strings attached, including caps on the amount of compensation for meals and lodging, the filing said. "Defendants' so-called settlement offers do not come close to making plaintiffs whole," the filing said. The filing also reiterated the ticket holders' claim that the NFL and the Cowboys knew before the game that the temporary seats weren't ready and amounted to fraud. "Defendants instead threw a "Hail Mary pass" and hoped, by some miracle, the problems would somehow solve themselves and legitimate seats would magically appear," the filing said, citing e-mail and other documents publicly released by the city of Arlington after the game. The NFL and the Cowboys said in their motion that they didn't know until just before kickoff that the seats were inadequate and that work on them continued into the afternoon on the day of the game. OPENFEINT INC: Sued Over Unauthorized Access to Mobile Devices -------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Hines, Jennifer Aguirre and Alexander Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. OpenFeint, Inc., and GREE International, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-03084 (N.D. Calif, June 22, 2011), is a consumer class action lawsuit brought on behalf of those who were victims of privacy violations, and unfair and deceptive business wherein their privacy and security rights were violated by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that OpenFeint individually, and in concert, with third parties gained unauthorized access to, and unauthorized use of, the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' mobile devices used for communication over a cellular network in order to access, collect, monitor, and remotely store the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' mobile device's Unique Device Identifiers, Personally Identifiable Information, OpenFeint user account, GPS "Fine" co-ordinates, and Facebook/Twitter profiles, linking the aggregated data with the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' UDIDs for financial gain. Specifically, notes Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service, OpenFeint's business plan included accessing and disclosing personal information without authorization to mobile-device application developers, advertising networks and web-analytic vendors that market mobile applications. The company acquired such information covertly, without adequate notice or consent, involving 100 million consumer mobile devices. After accessing one of OpenFeint's applications, the company bypassed both the technical and code barriers designed to limit unauthorized access, as well as his mobile device's privacy and security settings, Mr. Hines claims. OpenFeint used the data it collected to collaborate with application developers and create a database that further enabled the tracking scheme and conducted systematic and continuing surveillance of the class members' mobile-device activity, which continued on June 24. In spite of this activity, OpenFeint assures customers that its applications are all safe for downloading, according to the suit. OpenFeint presents itself as a standalone application that provides a "social platform" for mobile devices, allowing application developers to add social-networking aspects to their gaming applications, including Facebook connect integration and cloud storage for saved games, according to the complaint. But in reality, Mr. Hines claims, OpenFeint is "essentially a mobile platform to obtain user's [unique device identifiers], aggregate user's data, and sell such for financial gain." Mr. Hines and two other named plaintiffs allege computer fraud, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, bad faith and seven other statutory violations. They seek more than $5 million in damages. The Plaintiffs also demand trial by jury. Mr. Hines is a resident of Fort Worth, Texas; Ms. Aguirre is a resident of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Mr. Hernandez is a resident of Dallas, Texas. OpenFeint, a Delaware corporation headquartered in California, does business throughout the United States of America. GREE is incorporated and headquartered in California. A copy of the Complaint in Hines, et al. v. OpenFeint, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-03084 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://is.gd/8WQr0B The Plaintiffs are represented by: David C. Parisi, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 15233 Valleyheart Drive Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com - and - Joseph H. Malley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, P.C. 1045 North Zang Blvd. Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: (214) 943-6100 Facsimile: (214) 943-6170 E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com PANDORA MEDIA: Accused of Selling Consumer Info to Advertisers -------------------------------------------------------------- Troy Yuncker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pandora Media, Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-03113 (N.D. Calif., June 23, 2011), challenges Pandora's practice of collecting the personal information of its users and then disseminating it to third-party advertising libraries, like Google's AdMob. While Pandora purports to obtain user consent for the collection of the information, Pandora does not explain, and consumers are unaware, that the information is used not for purposes of the Pandora application itself, but rather for the transmission and commercialization of the information by way of third-party advertisers, the Plaintiff alleges. Mr. Yuncker is a resident of Illinois, and owned an Android mobile device on which he downloaded and used the Pandora application. Pandora Media is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business at 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1650, in Oakland, California 94612. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis M. Gregorek, Esq. Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Patrick H. Moran, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com manifold@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com moran@whafh.com - and - Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 588-1440 Facsimile: (312) 427-1850 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA: Employees File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- CBS42 reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of employees in a state pension plan. The suit alleges that the governing bodies of the Retirement System of Alabama invested in golf courses, condominiums, hotels, resorts and stock and debt holdings in companies conducting business in Alabama when there were more profitable investments out of state. Two Birmingham law firms filed the lawsuit which names RSA CEO David Bronner and its governing bodies and boards of control as defendants. Attorneys for the plaintiffs claim that smaller returns on RSA investments caused the state to contribute more tax dollars into the fund and placed a financial burden on the employees who depend on it. "Because the returns have lagged what maybe they otherwise could have done the state legislature passed a new law that says the participants have to contribute more of their pay," said Billy Pritchard, Pritchard, McCall & Jones, L.L.C. "I think part of it is a side political agenda they had to try to promote the state of Alabama, get some goodwill for the state of Alabama and maybe promote the state and its business activity. While that may be well intended on their part, that's not what the law allows or authorizes them to do. They are bound by what is known as the Prudent Man Rule for investing funds for its members." An RSA representative declined to comment on the lawsuit on June 22. RUGBY LABORATORIES: Recalls 898,000 Children's Pain & Fever Drops ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with manufacturer, Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., of Aquebogue, New York, and distributor, Rugby Laboratories, Inc., of Duluth, Georgia, announced a voluntary recall of about 898,000 Children's Pain & Fever Concentrated Drops. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. This over the counter medicine contains acetaminophen which calls for child-resistant packaging as required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Although the original bottle has child-resistant packaging, a separate dropper unit provided for dispensing the drug to children does not. When in use, a child can access the medicine, posing serious health problems or death if more than the recommended dosage is consumed. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recall involves Rugby Children's Pain & Fever Concentrated Drops (Acetaminophen Drops) in a 1/2 fl. oz. (15 ml) bottle size. The UPC code 305361936723 can be found with the bar code at the bottom of the box. The affected lot numbers are: 09002 09379 10272 10368 10487 09131 09394 10273 10406 11058 09215 10154 10366 10433 The lot numbers can be found stamped into the bottom of the carton with the expiration date and above the label on the bottle printed in black. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11258.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at drug stores, grocery stores and other retailers nationwide between January 2009 and June 2011 for about $4. Consumers should immediately store this product with the child- resistant closure in place and keep it out of the reach of children. To arrange for a free replacement dropper, contact Altaire Pharmaceuticals at (800) 258-2471 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday. For additional information, contact Rugby Laboratories at (800) 645-2158 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday. TARGET: Recalls 51,700 Infant Girls Sandals Due to Choking Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Target, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a voluntary recall of about 51,700 Circo Aloma Infant Girls Sandals. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The decorative plastic flowers can detach, posing a choking hazard. Target has received eight reports of the decorative flowers detaching from the sandals. No injuries have been reported. The recalled infant girls sandals are white with decorative plastic flowers attached to the toes and sides. The sandals were sold under the style name "Aloma" in infant girls' sizes 2 through 5. "Circo" is printed on the inside and bottom of the shoe. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11257.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Target stores and Target.com nationwide from January 2011 to May 2011 for about $10. Consumers should immediately stop using the sandals and return them to any Target store to receive a full refund. For additional information, contact Target Guest Relations at (800) 440-0680 between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.target.com/ TIMBERLAND CO: Being Sold to VR for Too Little, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Timberland Co. is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process, including an $87 million termination fee, to VR Corp., for $2 billion, or $43 per share. A copy of the Complaint in Kramer v. Swartz, et al., Case No. 6596 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/23/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 North Market Street, Suite 1401 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 Email: CKeener@rmgglaw.com - and - Mark C. Gardy, Esq. James S. Notis, Esq. Kira German, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 560 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 3085 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: (201) 567-7377 E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com jnotis@gardylaw.com kgerman@gardylaw.com UNITED STATES: FTC Opposes Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------- Darren Waggoner, writing for Collections & Credit Risk, reports that the Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief in federal court opposing a class-action settlement that would require consumers to surrender protections provided by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and state laws in exchange for minimal payments. UNITED STATES: February 2012 Deadline Set for Pigford Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ South Florida Times reports that a court-ordered process of officially notifying African-American farmers and their heirs about the $1.25 billion "Pigford II" class action settlement is underway. Black farmers around the country who tried to file a claim in the 1999 settlement of the discrimination class action lawsuit but were unable to receive a decision on the merits because their claims were late are now receiving information by mail about their legal rights and options under the settlement. The notification drive includes a nationwide radio advertising campaign, particularly in areas where large numbers of the farmers are believed to live. Also, a summary of the notice is being published in print publications, including black newspapers, general market daily and community newspapers, and announcements will be posted online, as well. The plaintiffs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the proposed settlement in late 2010 and President Barack Obama signed the bill on Dec. 9, authorizing payment of the settlement. If the court approves the settlement, it will resolve discrimination claims related to USDA farm loans and other benefits. The proposed settlement includes $1.25 billion for cash payments and loan forgiveness for affected farmers who file valid claims. Eligibility extends to African Americans who farmed or attempted to farm between Jan. 1, 1981, and Dec. 31, 1996; were prevented from applying for or were denied a USDA farm loan during that period or were given a loan with unfair terms; and who filed or attempted to file a late claim between Oct. 13, 1999, and June 18, 2008, in the original Pigford case that was never considered because they tried to submit it after the late claim deadline. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will consider whether to grant final approval at a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 1. Those who wish to object to the settlement must do so by Aug. 12, 2011. The deadline for filing claims may be as early as Feb. 28, 2012. Class members should visit http://www.BlackFarmerCase.comor call 1-877-810-8110 for full information, including the notice, key dates and claims-filing details. For more information, call the lead counsel, Andrew Marks, of Crowell & Moring, at 202-624-2500; Gregorio Francis, of Morgan & Morgan, 407-420-1414; or Henry Sanders, of Chestnut, Sanders, Sanders, Pettaway & Campbell, 334-875-9264. UPONOR PEX: Property Owners May File Class Action Over Fittings --------------------------------------------------------------- An Uponor class action may be an option for property and homeowners who experienced problems with their Uponor PEX brass plumbing fittings. Potentially, an Uponor class action would allow consumers the opportunity to collectively bring a claim in court seeking compensation for water damage caused by their failing plumbing fittings. To find out if you can participate in an Uponor class action, visit http://www.classaction.org/uponor-pex-plumbing-fittings.htmland complete the form on the right for a no cost, no obligation evaluation of your claim. An Uponor class action lawsuit may be an option for consumers, as it has been alleged that the Uponor PEX brass F1960 plumbing fittings can fail prematurely, sometimes within months after installation. Allegedly, these plumbing fittings are experiencing problems when exposed to water due to a chemical reaction known as dezincification, which can cause water leaks and low water pressure. Consumers who suffered water damage to floors, walls and other property as a result of Uponor failure may be able to participate in an Uponor class action lawsuit. If you have noticed water leaks or other problems with your brass Uponor plumbing fittings, you may be able to participate in an Uponor class action lawsuit. Visit Class Action.org to learn more about your eligibility for an Uponor class action lawsuit and to receive a free evaluation of your water damage claim. The Uponor class action attorneys working with Class Action.org are providing this online consultation at no cost and remain committed to protecting the rights of consumers who suffered water damage due to Uponor PEX failure. 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.orgtoday for a no cost, no obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer rights. ********* 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, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne Lopez, 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 * * *