/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111206.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, December 6, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 241


ALASKA AIRLINES: Calif. Ct. Won't Hear Appeal on Demurrer Order
AOL LLC: 9th Cir. Says Cy Pres Deal Improperly Approved
CARRIER IQ: May Face Class Action for Violating Wiretap Law
CLEARWIRE CORP: 7th Cir. Upholds Denial of Motion to Reconsider
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CA: Sued Over Public Document Copy Fees

CVS PHARMACY: Sued Over False Claims on Homeopathic Flue Relief
CYMA CORP: Settles Sexual Harassment & Discrimination Suit
DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: C$8.5MM Paid in Sex Abuse Settlement
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Accused of Making Calls Without Consent
INOFIN INC: Three Law Firms File Securities Class Action

LCD PANEL MAKERS: 7th Cir. Lacks Jurisdiction on Antitrust Suit
MICHAELS STORES: Judge Narrows Scope of Data Theft Class Action
MICROSOFT CORP: Canada Supreme Court to Hear Price-Fixing Appeal
NYGALA CORP: Recalls 10,000 Halloween Projection Flashlights
SANA ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Practice of Charging Sales Tax

SONY NETWORK: Sued in California for Changing PSN Terms of Use
STATE OF MINNESOTA: Settles METO Program Class Action for $2.9MM
VALENCIA HOLDING: Calif. App. Ct. Upholds Denial of Arbitration
VALVE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Security Breach
WESTERN-SOUTHERN LIFE: Burg Simpson Files Class Action


ALASKA AIRLINES: Calif. Ct. Won't Hear Appeal on Demurrer Order
In the lawsuit, Kenneth Don Nelson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Case
No. A130167, the Court of Appeals of California, First District,
dismissed without prejudice the plaintiff's appeal challenging an
order sustaining the defendant's demurrer to his first amended
complaint.  The putative class action dispute stems from the
airline's right to charge certain passengers a "Mexican tourism
tax."  On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court erred
in ruling his claims are preempted by federal law, discounting his
construction of the subject contract, and denying his request to
pursue discovery.  The appeals court held that it does not have
jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's appeal in the absence of
a final judgment.

A copy of the appeals court's Nov. 30 decision is available at
http://is.gd/zVdvALfrom Leagle.com.

AOL LLC: 9th Cir. Says Cy Pres Deal Improperly Approved
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed a
district court's approval of a proposed class action settlement,
including a proposed cy pres settlement distribution, for abuse of
discretion in the case, Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, Case No. 10-55129
(9th Cir.).

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court applied the
incorrect legal standard in approving the proposed cy pres
distribution, and therefore, abused its discretion.

The class action lawsuit was brought in August 2009 by Dawn
Fairchild, Brian Geers, Laurence Gerard, and Robert Nachshin
against America Online, LLC, on behalf of a putative class
consisting of more than 66 million paid AOL subscribers.
Plaintiffs alleged that AOL wrongfully inserted footers containing
promotional messages into e-mails sent by AOL subscribers.  The
parties eventually reached a class settlement.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Nov. 21, 2011 Order is available at
http://is.gd/XzzaSTfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellees is Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
-- rlk@kbklawyers.com -- at KABETECK BROWN & KELLNER LLP in Los
Angeles, California.

Counsel for the defendants-appellees is Mark D. Litvack, Esq. --
mark.litvack@pillsburylaw.com -- at PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
PITTMAN, LLP, in Los Angeles.

Counsel for the objector-appellant is Theodore H. Frank of the
Center for Class Action Fairness in Washington, D.C.

CARRIER IQ: May Face Class Action for Violating Wiretap Law
Andy Greenberg, writing for Forbes, reports that  a piece of
keystroke-sniffing software called Carrier IQ has been embedded so
deeply in millions of Nokia, Android, and RIM devices that it's
tough to spot and nearly impossible to remove, as 25-year old
Connecticut systems administrator Trevor Eckhart revealed in a
video on Nov. 30.

That's not just creepy, says Paul Ohm, a former Justice Department
prosecutor and law professor at the University of Colorado Law
School.  He thinks it's also likely grounds for a class action
lawsuit based on a federal wiretapping law.

"If CarrierIQ has gotten the handset manufactures to install
secret software that records keystrokes intended for text
messaging and the Internet and are sending some of that
information back somewhere, this is very likely a federal
wiretap." he says.  "And that gives the people wiretapped the
right to sue and provides for significant monetary damages."

As Mr. Eckhart's analysis of the company's training videos and the
debugging logs on his own HTC Evo handset have shown, Carrier IQ
captures every keystroke on a device as well as location and other
data, and potentially makes that data available to Carrier IQ's
customers.  The video he's created shows every keystroke being
sent to the highly-obscured application on the phone before a
call, text message, or Internet data packet is ever communicated
beyond the phone.  Mr. Eckhart has found the application on
Samsung, HTC, Nokia and RIM devices, and Carrier IQ claims on its
website that it has installed the program on more than 140 million

Specifically, Mr. Ohm points to changes made to the Wiretap Act
under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 that
forbid acquiring the contents of communications without the users'
consent.  "Because this happens with text messages as they're
being sent, a quintessentially streaming form of communication, it
seems like exactly the kind of thing the wiretap act is meant to
prevent," he says.  "When I was at the Justice Department, we
definitely prosecuted people for installing software with these
kinds of capabilities on personal computers."

Carrier IQ didn't respond to my request for comment, but the firm
has posted a response statement on its website, claiming that it
collects only limited "operational information" on devices for its
carrier customers:

"While we look at many aspects of a device's performance, we are
counting and summarizing performance, not recording keystrokes or
providing tracking tools.  The metrics and tools we derive are not
designed to deliver such information, nor do we have any intention
of developing such tools.  The information gathered by Carrier IQ
is done so for the exclusive use of that customer, and Carrier IQ
does not sell personal subscriber information to 3rd parties. The
information derived from devices is encrypted and secured within
our customer's network or in our audited and customer-approved

But even if the data were somehow aggregated and anonymized before
being communicated to a remote server, Mr. Ohm argues, Carrier IQ
and possibly even Sprint and other carriers shown to have used the
company's services should still expect a costly class action
lawsuit.  "Even if they were collecting only anonymized usage
metrics, it doesn't mean they didn't break the law," says Mr. Ohm.
"Then it becomes a hard, open question.  And hard open questions
take hundreds of thousands of dollars to make go away."

"In the next days or weeks, someone will sue, and then this
company is tangled up in very expensive litigation," he adds.
"It's almost certain."

Over the last month, Carrier IQ has attempted to quash Mr.
Eckhart's research with a cease-and-desist letter, apologizing
only after the Electronic Frontier Foundation came to his defense.
Mr. Eckhart's legal representation at the EFF declined to comment
on the legality of Carrier IQ's business practices.

If the case went to court, Carrier IQ's first line of defense
might be that users have agreed to some form of tracking in their
contract with one of Carrier IQ's cellular carrier customers.  But
when Mr. Eckhart pointed out that in his tests, he turned on the
phone's airplane mode, shutting down its cellular connection and
using only Wifi.  Even then, the app seemed to record all his
keystrokes and communications as they happened.  "[Sprint] defines
their service as their network," he says, referring to his own
tests on his Sprint-connected HTC Evo.  "I don't understand how my
phone on my own wireless network is their service, and how they
have the right to look at that."

Mr. Ohm argues that even when the phone is connected to the
cellular network, only carriers are protected by contracts they
make with users, not an intermediate software company of which
most users are unaware.  And carriers themselves typically don't
spell out in their contracts the kind of surveillance that Eckhart
has shown Carrier IQ to be performing.  "This seems like really
intrusive, comprehensive surveillance," says Mr. Ohm.  "If so, is
there really a provision in the contract that's so all-
encompassing?  They may say they'll periodically monitor for
quality assurance, or something to that effect.  But that seems
like a far cry from saving every keystroke."

CLEARWIRE CORP: 7th Cir. Upholds Denial of Motion to Reconsider
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a trial
court judgment and decision denying reconsideration of a consumer
class action complaint against Clearwire Corporation.

Jerome Damasco filed a putative class action lawsuit against
Clearwire Corporation in an Illinois state court, alleging that
Clearwire violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227, by sending unsolicited text messages to cellphone
users.  Before Mr. Damasco moved for class certification,
Clearwire offered him his full request for relief.  Clearwire then
removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing
that the offer mooted Mr. Damasco's claim.  The district court
agreed, dismissed the complaint, and later denied his motion to
reconsider.  Mr. Damasco appealed both rulings.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit's Nov. 18, 2011 order is available
at http://is.gd/1EwUFwfrom Leagle.com.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CA: Sued Over Public Document Copy Fees
Courthouse News Service reports that strangled by the parlous
state of California's budget, counties are jacking up fees for
copies of public records, but Sacramento County has gone way too
far, charging $13 for page 1 and $3 for each additional page of
electronic copies, which violates state law, a research group says
in a class action.

California Public Records Research sued Sacramento County and its
Clerk-Recorder Craig Kramer, in Superior Court.

The L.A.-based plaintiff says it "is engaged in the business,
inter alia, of locating and retrieving public records," and that
the fees charged in Sacramento violate the state's Public Records
Act, which "mandates that fees for copies of public records shall
be limited to the direct costs of duplication."

But Sacramento County charges $13 for the first page of a
digitized document and $3 for each subsequent page, and $3 for the
first page of a paper copy, and $1 for each subsequent page, and
that's too much, according to the complaint.

Before 1993, the Legislature allowed charges of up to $1 for the
first page of a public document and 50 cents for each subsequent
page, according to the complaint.  In 1993, it changed the law
(Government Code Sec. 27366) to allow counties to set the fees.

However, "In granting this authority to the counties, and to
protect the public from the imposition of unlawful fees, the
Legislature specifically mandated that, in exercising the
discretion given to them to set copy fees, the fees set shall be
limited to recoupment of the direct and indirect costs of
producing copies," the complaint states.

The plaintiff says Sacramento County's "direct and indirect costs
for producing copies of recorded documents did not and do not
exceed 10 cents per page."

It seeks declaratory relief, writ of mandamus, an accounting, an
injunction, refunds, costs, and "an incentive award."

A copy of the Complaint in California Public Records Research,
Inc. v. County of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 34-2011-80001008
(Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald W. Ricketts, Esq.
          28855 Kenroy Avenue
          Santa Clarita, CA 91387
          Telephone: (661) 250-3091

CVS PHARMACY: Sued Over False Claims on Homeopathic Flue Relief
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
CVS Pharmacy's homeopathic All Natural Flu Relief "is nothing more
than a sugar pill that defendant falsely advertises".

A copy of the Complaint in Martinez v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case
No. 11-cv-09922 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          E-mail: cpearson@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          James B. Hardin, Esq.
          Steven R. Telles, Esq.
          Ryan M. Ferrell, Esq.
          895 Dove Street, Suite 425
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com

CYMA CORP: Settles Sexual Harassment & Discrimination Suit
The owners of Cyma Corporation, the nation's largest orchid
supplier, recently settled a class action sexual harassment,
discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

Cyma purchased the assets of Taean Orchids USA, including its
California orchid growing operations in early 2008.  The company,
at the time, was not aware Taean was under investigation by the
EEOC.  The original suit, which was filed in 2010 by the EEOC,
initially demanded Cyma pay damages of over $10 million, and agree
to EEOC oversight under a 5-year consent decree.

Under the settlement agreement, the EEOC was only able to procure
a "costs of defense" class action settlement of $200,000 by Cyma
and $40,000 by Taean's owners (a fraction of the EEOC's initial
demand).  Further, due to Cyma's training regimen and HR
compliance, as acknowledged by Anna Park, regional attorney for
EEOC LA regional district office, the EEOC agreed to a greatly
reduced 21/2-year consent decree (the EEOC usually requires a
minimum of 3-5 year terms).

Cyma Orchids Corporation wishes to correct inaccuracies in recent
news reports relating to the EEOC v. Cyma & Taean litigation.

It has been reported that the owners of Cyma, as well as its
supervisors and managers sexually harassed female Latina workers,
and that this practice was "widespread" and conducted by both
Korean and Hispanic "male supervisory staff."  Further, the report
contended that a male "lead greenhouse worker" was fired for
trying to defend "one of the victims."

According to Neil Klein of McKasson & Klein LLP, legal counsel for
Cyma in the lawsuit, "Cyma strongly denies these unproven
allegations, and in particular that its owner Ken Chung, who
purchased the business from the owners of Taean Orchids USA, Inc.,
co-defendant in the lawsuit was involved.  Since its inception,
Cyma and its management have been and are committed to providing a
work environment free from unlawful harassment, discrimination and

When Cyma purchased the assets of Taean in early 2008, most of, if
not all of Taean employees were retained as employees.  The
company, upon learning of the allegations in late 2008 -- which
occurred on Taean's watch -- Cyma conducted its own investigation,
and instituted ongoing sexual harassment and discrimination
education and training programs for all employees and supervisors.

Important to Cyma and Taean, there was no admission of any
wrongdoing, as reflected in the settlement agreement reached with
the EEOC and CRLA.

Cyma, like many other employers, was hit hard by the financial
crisis and largest recession since the Great Depression in the
1930's and was forced to reduce the size of its workforce in 2008-
2009.  Still, it retained most employees inherited from Taean,
including certain class members who continue to work at the
company.  Kay McLaughlin, the coordinator appointed by the EEOC to
oversee compliance with the consent decree, stated, "Cyma
employees have and continue to enjoy the dignity of working in an
environment free from harassment or discrimination."

DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: C$8.5MM Paid in Sex Abuse Settlement
CBC News reports that the Diocese of Antigonish has now paid out
about C$8.5 million in a historic class action settlement.

Two years ago, the diocese agreed to compensate people who had
been sexually abused by priests.

The victims will receive close to C$13 million.

The settlement was drawn up in 2009 as a result of a class action
lawsuit.  It was expected to cover about 70 claimants around the
diocese, which stretches from Nova Scotia's Pictou County east to
the tip of Cape Breton.

By May, however, that number had climbed to about 140.  The total
settlement amount remains the same at C$13 million, so each
claimant could expect to receive less money.

The diocese says it has been raising the money by gathering up
parish savings and selling off church properties.

Father Paul Abbass says the diocese had to arrange a short-term
loan to cover some of the most recent payment.

"We did do some (loans), and it was based on properties that we
know are very close to being sold," said Mr. Abbass.

"So what we did, because those deals haven't completed, but we
know they're within completion sight, we just arranged for us to
have that money in advance, and then, pay it back when the closing
comes for those properties."

Mr. Abbass says the diocese still has hundreds of properties on
the market.

He's confident it will be able to meet its final payment, of about
C$4.5 million by next November.

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Accused of Making Calls Without Consent
Walter Bradley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Discover Financial Services, Case No. 3:11-cv-05746
(N.D. Calif., November 30, 2011) accuses Discover of negligently,
knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone without his express prior consent, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Discover called him on his cellular
telephone lines dozens of times at multiple times per day.

Mr. Bradley is a resident of California.  He informs the Court
that pursuant to the terms of his contract as an account holder of
a cellular telephone number, he is charged for each call.

Discover is a diversified financial services company that makes
loans to consumers and business through its various subsidiaries.
Discover services millions of consumer debts including credit card
revolving credit under several different brands and service marks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq.
          9845 Erma Road, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 870-0600
          Facsimile: (619) 684-3541
          E-mail: mark@markankcorn.com

INOFIN INC: Three Law Firms File Securities Class Action
Levin Papantonio of Florida, Fishman Haygood of Louisiana and
Schneider Wallace of California and Arizona on Dec. 1 disclosed
that they have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors
who suffered losses from the recent $110 million Inofin fraud
alleged by the SEC.  The firms previously launched an
investigation of subprime auto loan lender Inofin, Inc., of
Rockland, Massachusetts, three of its principal officers, and two
sales agents.  Inofin investors who suffered losses due to the
alleged fraud may be eligible for financial compensation.

The Class Action Complaint is against Inofin and its principal
officers, President Michael Cuomo, Chief Executive Officer Kevin
Mann, and Chief Operating Officer Melissa George.  According to
the Complaint, this group violated the Massachusetts Uniform
Securities Act (MUSA) by conducting business in Massachusetts as a
broker-dealer or agent without being registered, and selling
unregistered securities.

"When companies and the individuals who run them skirt our
national securities laws by selling unregistered securities they
must make the investors whole," says attorney Peter Mougey, head
of the Securities Department at Levin, Papantonio.  "The investors
are victims," says Mr. Mougey, and "they were sold a load of junk
dressed up as a legitimate investment.  We have joined together
three top law firms in the nation to help victims of the Inofin
fraud, who deserve to be compensated for their losses."

Presented to the public as a motor vehicle sales finance company
specializing in the purchase of subprime auto loans, Inofin has
never been registered with the SEC or the Massachusetts Securities
Division of the Offices of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
This, the complaint alleges, did not stop the defendants from
collecting upwards of $110 million through the sale of
unregistered securities.  The victims span twenty-five states and
the District of Columbia.

"Individuals who pedal products like these need to be held
accountable for what they sell," says Joseph Peiffer, a securities
arbitration and commercial litigation attorney with Fishman

To learn more about the securities firms' investigations and
ongoing claims against Inofin, call (888) 435-7001 or visit

LCD PANEL MAKERS: 7th Cir. Lacks Jurisdiction on Antitrust Suit
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied a
petition for leave to appeal filed by LCD panel manufacturers in
an antitrust lawsuit, holding that a district court correctly
determined that the lawsuit is not a class action or mass action
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  The Appellate Court
said it lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from the district
court's remand order.

The lawsuit was filed by the Illinois Attorney General in the
Circuit Court of Cook County against eight LCD panel manufacturers
for violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants unlawfully inflated prices on LCD
products sold to the state, its agencies, and residents and
requests injunctive relief, civil penalties, and treble statutory
damages for the state as a purchaser and, as parens patriae, for
harmed residents.  The defendants removed the case to federal
court under the CAFA, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), 1453.  The Attorney
General moved to remand and argued that the suit did not meet CAFA
requirements and that, therefore, the district court did not have
jurisdiction.  The district court agreed and granted the motion to

The case is captioned LG Display Co., Ltd., et al. v. Lisa
Madigan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Case No.
11-8017 (7th Cir.).

A copy of the Seventh Circuit's Nov. 18, 2011 Order is available
at http://is.gd/03dWdUfrom Leagle.com.

MICHAELS STORES: Judge Narrows Scope of Data Theft Class Action
The American Lawyer reports that in a ruling that may help mark
the boundaries of liability for companies hit by debit card
"skimming" scams, a federal judge has narrowed the scope of a
putative class action against retail crafts giant Michaels Stores
over the theft of data from 90 card readers at 80 store locations.

MICROSOFT CORP: Canada Supreme Court to Hear Price-Fixing Appeal
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear appeals in two B.C.
class-action cases launched against corporate giants on behalf of
consumers who allegedly overpaid for computers and soft drinks, in
an effort to settle contradictory judgments from lower courts on a
key legal issue.

The court will weigh in on the question of whether "indirect
purchasers," or consumers who bought computers or soft drinks from
retailers, not from manufacturers directly, can sue over price-
fixing allegations.

One of the cases, launched on behalf of individual B.C. consumers
and a company called Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd., accuses Microsoft
Corp. of wrongly driving up prices for the software that comes
preinstalled on computers.  The plaintiffs' lawyers say the case
could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The other case, launched on behalf of individual B.C. purchasers
as well as by Sun-Rype Products Ltd., is a fight with several
agribusiness giants, including Archer Daniels Midland Co. over
allegations they fixed the price for the high-fructose corn syrup
used to sweeten soft drinks and foods.

Earlier this year, the B.C. Court of Appeal reversed lower-court
rulings and declined to certify the lawsuits as class actions,
ruling that "indirect purchasers" could not sue manufacturers with
whom they had not done business directly.

But courts across Canada have been divided on the issue.  The most
recent contradiction came from the Quebec Court of Appeal just
weeks ago.  In a similar class-action case against a computer-chip
manufacturer, it ruled indirect purchasers could sue.

On Dec. 1, 2011, the Supreme Court said it will hear appeals in
the Microsoft and ADM cases, which are being keenly watched by
competition lawyers.  Other potential multimillion-dollar lawsuits
against companies alleging price-fixing conspiracies are on hold
or in the wings and awaiting a result.

Lawyer J.J. Camp, whose Vancouver firm Camp Fiorante Matthews
represents the plaintiffs in both cases, said the issues at stake
are big ones for consumers, who would be allowed to join class
actions over price-fixing if the appeal succeeds.

"If you bought a computer, [in the Microsoft lawsuit], we allege
that you paid an embedded charge of about C$20 more than you
should have for the programs and applications that came with your
computer," Mr. Camp said.  "Microsoft drove everybody out of
business and then hiked up their prices."

He said he was not surprised at the decision, given the Quebec
Court of Appeal decision that contradicted the rulings against his
clients in B.C.: "That obviously puts the cat amongst the pigeons
with differing courts of appeal across the country going in
different directions."

Microsoft and its lawyers declined to comment, as did ADM.
Microsoft has settled similar lawsuits across the United States
over price-fixing allegations for a total of C$2.5-billion (U.S.),
including C$1-billion in California alone, and the company has
faced investigations and fines from antitrust watchdogs in the
U.S. and Europe.

The case against ADM and the other agribusiness defendants is
related to the massive bust by U.S. investigators of a price-
fixing scheme for other food additives in the 1990s, dramatized in
the 2009 Hollywood film The Informant, starring Matt Damon.

ADM and the others did not face prosecution from regulators over
corn syrup, but the company paid C$400-million (U.S.) to settle a
U.S. price-fixing class-action over allegations related to corn
syrup price-fixing in 2004.

NYGALA CORP: Recalls 10,000 Halloween Projection Flashlights
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nygala Corp., of Teterboro, New Jersey, announced a voluntary
recall of about 10,000 Halloween Projection Flashlights.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The flashlights can overheat, blister and melt, posing fire and
burn hazards to consumers.

The Company has received one reported incident involving a
flashlight that overheated, blistered and melted.

The black and orange plastic flashlight is 6 1/2 inches long and
has pumpkins, bats, witches, haunted houses and cats on the
handle.  The flashlights come with six different plastic lenses
that attach to the flashlight to project various images, including
a pumpkin, bat, witch, haunted house and cat.  The flashlights use
two AA batteries.  "Flomo," "HW189" and UPC 677916518266 are
printed on the packaging.  Picture of the recalled products is
available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
discount stores in California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah from August 2010
through October 2011 for about $1.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled flashlights,
remove and properly discard the batteries and return the
flashlights to the store where purchased for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Nygala Corp. at (800) 445-5936
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday
or visit the firm's Web site http://www.flomousa.com/

SANA ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Practice of Charging Sales Tax
Harry Kramer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sana Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Al's Beef and Nancy's
Pizzeria, an Illinois corporation and Chicago Franchise Systems,
Inc., an Illinois corporation, Case No. 2011-CH-40818 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., November 30, 2011) arises from the Defendants'
alleged practice of charging its consumers a sales tax to which it
is not entitled.

As a result of the Defendants' conduct, Mr. Kramer brings claims
for an accounting, declaratory judgment, conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

Mr. Kramer is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Sana Enterprises is a food chain that sells prepared foods,
specifically 'fast food.'  Al's Beef is an Illinois corporation
with approximately 36 locations throughout Illinois and Cook
County.  Chicago Franchise is an Illinois corporation and is the
operator of Al's Beef.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
          100 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1010
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950
          E-mail: ldrurylaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Langendorf, Esq.
          134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1515
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-5933
          E-mail: rlangendorf@comcast.net

SONY NETWORK: Sued in California for Changing PSN Terms of Use
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class
action claims Sony unfairly changed the terms of use for its
PlayStation 3 games, forcing customers to waive their right to sue
to keep playing.

Lead plaintiff Stephen Fineman says Sony imposed its new terms of
use on Sept. 15, forcing even longtime owners of the game system
to agree to the new terms -- including mandatory arbitration -- if
they wanted to keep using Sony's online gaming and entertainment

Clicking to agree to terms of service was part of a
straightforward product registration process.  But on April 27
this year the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Concepcion v.
AT&T Corp. that broadened the validity of arbitration clauses and
class action waivers.

"Thereafter," Mr. Fineman says, "Defendants conspired to change
the pre-September 2011 PSN Terms of Use such that in order to
continue to access the PSN, all existing PSN users would be
compelled to waive their existing rights to sue defendants in a
class action in exchange for no consideration."

Mr. Fineman says the new terms of use are 21 pages long, and that
while there is a notice of binding individual arbitration and
class action waiver, "rather than placing the actual arbitration
clause and class action waiver near the notice, in order to
discourage the plaintiff and class members from carefully
reviewing them, defendants placed the provisions near the end of
the terms of use, on the equivalent of page 17. . . .

"To further discourage users from carefully reviewing the
September 2011 PSN terms of use, including the arbitration clause
and class action waiver, defendants prevented users from easily
accessing the terms on the Internet.  The September 2011 terms of
use could only be located if a user expended significant time
navigating through multiple Sony Web sites.

"In contrast . . . all versions of the pre-September 2011 PSN
terns of use contained a web address to allow consumers to review
and print the terms of use."

Those weren't the only hurdles Sony erected, Mr. Fineman says.

To opt out, a user must first agree to the terms of use, then
within 30 days send written notice to Sony's legal department,
"which must include a 'clear statement that you do not wish to
resolve disputes with any Sony entity through arbitration.'"

This notice cannot be given online through Sony's Web sites, by
e-mail or by telephone, Mr. Fineman claims.

He adds: "In order to discourage users from invoking the
arbitration clause, defendants included language that made it
difficult for users to recover their attorney's fees.  Even if a
user prevails in arbitration against any defendant or other Sony
entity, if the claim is less than $75,000, a user can only recover
his or her attorney's fees if he or she has first provided notice
to, and negotiated in good faith with, the defendant before
pursuing arbitration."

Mr. Fineman seeks restitution, declaratory judgment, an
injunction, costs and damages for breach of faith and fair
dealing, and unfair competition.

A copy of the Complaint in Fineman v. Sony Network Entertainment
International LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-05680 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          Alan J. Cooper, Esq.
          6303 Owensmouth Ave., 10th Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367-2263
          Telephone: (818) 961-2000
          E-mail: jberns@bernsweiss.com

               - and -

          Lee A. Weiss, Esq.
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556
          Telephone: (516) 222-2900
          E-mail: lweiss@bernsweiss.com

STATE OF MINNESOTA: Settles METO Program Class Action for $2.9MM
David Hanners, writing for Pioneer Press, reports that a federal
judge on Dec. 1 approved a landmark $2.9 million settlement in a
class-action lawsuit that ends the use of certain restraint
devices and techniques in state facilities and closes a scandalous
treatment program for people with developmental disabilities.

Investigators found that scores of residents in the Minnesota
Extended Treatment Options (METO) program at Cambridge were
routinely handcuffed and placed in leg irons or locked alone in
rooms, sometimes for behavior as innocent as bumping into someone.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank said the settlement would help
people with disabilities "enjoy the promise of the Constitution,
the promise of America."

During the 2-1/2-hour hearing in federal court in St. Paul, Judge
Frank heard from several people who voiced support for the
agreement, which settles a lawsuit filed in July 2009.

A couple of the speakers were directly affected by the state's

"I came because I believe the future shouldn't follow the past,"

Heidi Myhre of West St. Paul told Judge Frank.  She has cerebral
palsy, hearing and vision impairments, dyslexia and other
conditions.  She recounted her months at Anoka State Hospital in
1988, where she said she was forcibly stripped to her underwear
and locked in a room because she argued with someone over a

"I thought the state hospital was supposed to help me, not abuse
me," she said.

Kurt Rutzen of Minneapolis also told the judge he favored the
settlement and said that developmentally disabled people like him
"need everything that everyone else deserves" but that too often,
society "shoves it under the rug, out of mind, out of sight."

Even the lawyer representing the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, which had denied allegations of mistreatment in court
filings, heralded the accord as a milestone.

"This is an important settlement.  It will make a huge difference
to a lot of people," Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Steven
Albert told the judge.

Lawyers for both sides worked for months to settle the case, and
part of the settlement included closing METO last June.  Residents
were transferred to other facilities.

After their lawyers are paid, the plaintiffs will split $1.9
million.  The three named plaintiffs will get $75,000 each, and
the rest will get money based on how many documented incidents of
abuse they suffered, at $200 per incident.

Legislators established METO in 1995, and it was licensed to treat
up to 48 people at the state hospital in Cambridge, 43 miles north
of St. Paul.

The lead plaintiffs in the class-action suit are parents of three
men who had been in the METO program.  They claimed that "as a
means of behavior modification, coercion, discipline, convenience
and retaliation, METO staff restrained plaintiffs using law
enforcement-type metal handcuffs and leg hobbles for conduct as
benign as spitting, laughing or hand-washing."

In their legal complaint, they said they were suing over the
"cruel and improper use of aversive and deprivation procedures."

Many procedures had been detailed in a September 2008 report by
the office of Roberta Opheim, state ombudsman for mental health
and developmental disabilities.

Ms. Opheim's office began investigating the program in 2007 after
getting two complaints that "we thought were a minor reflection of
the system," she told Judge Frank.  Those complaints turned into
an 18-month investigation that disclosed that six of every 10
residents in the program had been restrained or locked away alone.

"One of the most egregious of the cases revealed a client who had
been restrained 299 times in 2006 and 230 times in 2007," the
ombudsman's report said.  "One example of reason to place a
resident in restraints included 'touching the pizza box.' "

At one time, use of restraints had been considered a last resort
when dealing with residents, but the ombudsman found that over
time, staffers began to rely on arm and leg restraints and seldom
tried other methods.

Ms. Opheim's investigators also found that the state agencies that
should've monitored METO and caught the abuses "failed to protect
the clients . . . or turned a blind eye to the problem."

When the Minnesota Office of Health Facility Complaints finally
got around to looking into the matter, its report of problems and
citations ran 99 pages.

Minneapolis attorney Shamus O'Meara, who represented the
plaintiffs, said the settlement "will benefit hundreds of
thousands of residents of the state" because it closes METO and
bars the use of certain restraint devices and techniques at the
state's other facilities.

Some restraint techniques will still be allowed, but their use
will be limited, monitored and reviewed.  Staff will be trained in
alternatives to restraint, visitation policies will be changed
(parents complained they were denied visits with their children),
and there will be other changes.

VALENCIA HOLDING: Calif. App. Ct. Upholds Denial of Arbitration
In the lawsuit Gil Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC, Case
No. B228027 (Calif. App. Ct.), Judge P.J. Mallano affirmed a trial
court's denial of a petition to compel arbitration.  The appeals
court concluded that the arbitration provision is unconscionable:
It is adhesive and contains harsh one-sided terms that favor the
car dealer to the detriment of the buyer.

The class action lawsuit was filed by Gil Sanchez, a car buyer,
against a car dealer, alleging violations of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (Civ. Code, Sec. 1750-1784), the Automobile Sales
Finance Act (Civ. Code, Sec. 2981-2984.6), the unfair competition
law (Bus. & Prof. Code, Sec. 17200-17210), the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, Sec. 1790-1795.8), and the
California Tire Recycling Act (Pub. Resources Code, Sec. 42860-

A copy of the Appeals Court's Nov. 23, 2011 Order is available at
http://is.gd/XzzaSTfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for the Defendant/Appellant is:

          Christopher S. Maile, Esq.
          Soojin Kang, Esq.
          THARPE & HOWELL
          Los Angeles, California
          E-mail: cmaile@tharpe-howell.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Olson, Esq.
          5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, California 90036
          Tel: 310-859-7811
          E-mail: ROlson@gmsr.com

Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent is:

          Hallen D. Rosner, Esq.
          Angela J. Smith, Esq.
          Christopher P. Barry, Esq.
          10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100
          San Diego, California 92131
          Tel No. (858) 348-1005
          Fax No. (858) 348-1150
          E-mail: hal@rbblawgroup.com

VALVE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Security Breach
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Valve Corp. failed to protect personal information of the 35
million people who signed up for its online gaming program called

A copy of the Complaint in Grigsby v. Valve Corporation, Case No.
11-cv-09905 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miriam L. Schimmel, Esq.
          Cory G. Lee, Esq.
          Joshua Carlon, Esq.
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: mschimmel@initiativelegal.com

WESTERN-SOUTHERN LIFE: Burg Simpson Files Class Action
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C. has filed a nationwide
class action lawsuit against Western-Southern Life Assurance
Company and The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company
relating to the sale of Western and Southern's Single Premium
Immediate Annuity (SPIA).

The nationwide class action complaint, case no. 1:11-cv-00836,
filed in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio, alleges
that Western and Southern breached its SPIA contracts by failing
to pay annuity benefits to the annuitant for his/her lifetime.
The SPIA contract requires Western and Southern to pay the
annuitant's designated beneficiaries the annuity payments to the
minimum guarantee date, but if the annuitant lives beyond the
minimum guarantee date, the contract requires payment for the
lifetime of the annuitant.  The class action complaint also
alleges that Western and Southern negligently or fraudulently
misrepresented to plaintiff and potential class members that, even
if they lived beyond the minimum guarantee date, they were only
entitled to benefits up to the guarantee date and not for the
remainder of their life.  Plaintiff's complaint seeks declaratory
relief and compensatory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and all
Class members.

Janet Abaray, managing partner of the Cincinnati Office of Burg
Simpson, said, "Western and Southern sold a SPIA contract to our
client which had a minimum guarantee date of 20 years and required
that if he lived beyond the 20 years, he would continue to receive
his monthly annuity benefits for the remainder of his life.
However, when the 20 years was up, Western and Southern stopped
the annuity payments and told him he was not entitled to annuity
benefits for the rest of his life.  Western and Southern sells
annuity contracts nationwide, so we believe our client may not be
the only victim of these unlawful practices."

With offices in Cincinnati, Denver, Cody and Phoenix, Burg Simpson
is a law firm practicing in the areas of personal injury lawsuits,
class action, medical malpractice lawsuits, dangerous drug
litigation, unsafe products, insurance bad faith, employment law,
commercial and securities litigation.


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  * * *