/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120116.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 16, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 11


AVIS RENT A CAR: Faces Suit Over IGLTA and NGLCC Discounts
BALLY TOTAL: Lifetime Members File Class Action
BELL EXPRESSVU: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Late Fees
CHARIOT CARRIERS: Recalls 114,000 Bike Trailers & Conversion Kits
COVELLLI ENTERPRISES: Faces Discrimination Class Action

DEMDACO: Recalls 5,480 Candleholder Collection Tea Light Candles
FANNIE MAE: Lenawee County Takes Part in Transfer Tax Suit
KOSMOS ENERGY: Sued in Texas for Misleading Investors on IPO
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Paid $45-Mil. Under Price-Fixing Suits Deal
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Defends Price-Fixing Suits in Canada

PFIZER: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Neurontin(R) Drug
QUIBIDS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices
SCOTTRADE INC: Sued Over Illegal Fees on Day Trades
STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Settles BUI Class Action for $5.6 Million
STATE OF CONNECTICUT: Medicaid Recipients File Class Action

SYMANTEC CORP: Accused of Defrauding "Scareware" Consumers
TABOO GENTLEMEN'S CLUB: Nude Dancer Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages


AVIS RENT A CAR: Faces Suit Over IGLTA and NGLCC Discounts
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal
class action, a woman claims Avis Rent A Car violated her civil
rights by offering discounted rates to gay and lesbian customers,
but not to her.

Lynn Evenchik of Pima County, Arizona, says she paid more than
$300 for a 1-week car rental from an Avis outlet at San Diego
International Airport.

Ms. Evenchik says she could have got a discount if she belonged to
the Gay and Lesbian Travel Association or the National Gay and
Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

She is not, though, so she seeks an injunction and damages under
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Ms. Evenchik filed a class action "on behalf of consumers who have
suffered from this illegal and unfair business practice."

"Avis is one of the world's leading automobile rental brands, and
maintains numerous locations throughout the State of California,
including at least 12 in San Diego County," the complaint states.
"In September 2010, Avis entered into a three-year partnership
with the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association
('IGLTA') pursuant to which it provides discounted rental rates to
gay and lesbian car renters. Avis' Worldwide Discount ('AWD') Code
Q200430 provides such renters with discounts of up to 25 percent
off of Avis' regular rates.  Similarly, Avis offers discounted
rates to members of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of
Commerce ('NGLCC').  These discount programs are intended to
generate additional business for Avis, in return for which Avis
pays a commission to the referring organizations.  This practice
violates California's Unruh Civil Right Act (the 'Unruh Act'),
which prohibits businesses from offering discounts to customers
based upon, inter alia, their sexual orientation.  These unfair
and unlawful business practices result in many consumers who are
not affiliated with those organizations paying substantially
higher rental rates than those made available to gay and lesbian
renters who use the above AWD Codes," according to the complaint.

Ms. Evenchik says members of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber
of Commerce get discounts of up to 20 percent.  She says Avis
gives the two organizations a 3 percent commission on rentals
booked through their Web sites.

"Although Avis offers many discounted rates and AWD [Avis
Worldwide Discount] codes, the IGLTA/NGLCC discounts are among the
best that Avis makes generally available and is frequently a
better rate than small businesses and other affinity groups
obtain," the complaint states.

Ms. Evenchik says: "On July 7, 2011, plaintiff rented a vehicle
from Avis at its San Diego International Airport location for a
period of one week. She was charged a total of $311.36 for the
rental.  Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that she
could have obtained a better rental rate by using the IGLTA or
NGLCC AWD codes.  Plaintiff is not a member of or associated with
either of those organizations and was not aware of those discount
codes at the time of her rental."

Ms. Evenchik is represented by Eric Benink with Krause, Kalfayan,
Benink & Slavens, of San Diego.

Mr. Benink did not immediately respond to a request for an

Avis declined to comment.

A copy of the Complaint in Evenchick v. Avis Rent A Car System,
LLC, Case No. 12-cv-00061 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric J. Benink, Esq.
          David B. Zlotnick, Esq.
          Mary K. Wyman, Esq.
          550 West C Street, Suite 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          E-mail: ebenink@kkbs-law.com

BALLY TOTAL: Lifetime Members File Class Action
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Bally
Total Fitness faces a federal class action accusing it of
depriving lifetime members of gym privileges by selling their
memberships to L.A. Fitness, and in one case, telling a member he
had to drive 5 hours to use his membership.

Lead plaintiffs Juan Dorado and Michael Markzon say they both
bought lifetime memberships to Bally Total Fitness; Mr. Dorado
says he bought four lifetime memberships.

"In 2011, Bally sold rights to many of its members and their life-
time memberships to defendant LA Fitness (LAF); as well as sold
certain Bally clubs to LAF," the complaint states.  "Yet, there
are geographic areas in the U.S. that do not have LA Fitness

"As of December 1, 2011, there are no longer Bally-owned clubs in
the Chicago area, all having been sold to LAF.

"In the New York City area, Bally sold to LA Fitness, some of its
members (along with their lifetime memberships); however, there
are no LA Fitness facilities in New York City.

"In Seattle, Bally sold to LA Fitness, some of its members (along
with their lifetime memberships); however, LA Fitness facilities
in Seattle will not honor the membership if it was purchased in

"For other potential plaintiffs throughout the U.S., there are no
LA Fitness facilities nearby at which they can work out.  For
others, Bally did not assign their contracts to LA Fitness, but
did sell all of the Ballys in their geographic area to LA

Mr. Dorado adds: "LA Fitness is not honoring any of Dorado's
lifetime memberships; although it purchased all of the Chicago
area Bally clubs.  Plaintiff Dorado has been told that he and his
family can work out as long as they do so at a Bally facility in
Saint Louis, Missouri.  Mr. Dorado lives in the Chicago area,
approximately 5 hours away."

Mr. Markzon says he "has worked out at the same Bally facility in
Chicago for the past approximately 11 years."  But "LA Fitness is
not honoring the membership because it was purchased in Kansas."

The men say that in some cases LA Fitness "will not allow access
to LA Fitness by former Bally members unless they buy a new

Messrs. Dorado and Markzon seek class damages from Bally and LA
Fitness for consumer fraud, deceptive business practices, breach
of contract and violations of the Honest Services Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Dorado, et al. v. Bally Total Fitness
Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 12-cv-00137 (N.D. Ill.), is
available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Cooper, Esq.
          500 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1514
          Chicago, IL 60611

               - or -

          3620 W. 80th Lane
          Merrillville, IN 46410
          Telephone: (312) 371-6752
                     (219) 228-4396
          E-mail: cooperlaw3234@gmail.com

BELL EXPRESSVU: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Late Fees
Claude Gagnon on Jan. 11 introduced a motion to authorize the
institution of a class action against the corporation Bell
Expressvu regarding the charging since June 1, 2010 of an annual
interest rate of 42.58% on the amounts paid after the expiry date
prescribed for payment.

The unilateral modification by Bell Expressvu of the annual
interest rate applicable on late fees represents a 58% increase
compared to the annual interest rate of 26.82% that was charged to
its clients before June 1st, 2010.

This class action concerns all persons who have paid late fees
since June 1, 2010 pursuant to a contract with Bell Expressvu for
television services.

This new class action follows the decision of the Honourable Lucie
Fournier j.c.s. rendered in another case on December 16, 2011
which certified the class action against Bell Canada and Bell
Mobility Inc. regarding the charging since June 1, 2010 of an
annual interest rate of 42.58% on the amounts paid after the
expiry date prescribed for payment.

All persons concerned by the present motion to authorize the
institution of this class action, may, if they wish provide us
with their relevant information by completing the form obtained by
consulting the Web site of the petitioner's lawyers at

For further information:

For any additional information regarding the present press
release, you may contact Me Guy Paquette or Me Mathieu Charest-
Beaudry, of the law firm Paquette Gadler Inc. at 514-849-0771 or
you may also consult the web site of the firm at
http://www.paquettegadler.comunder the section Class action.

CHARIOT CARRIERS: Recalls 114,000 Bike Trailers & Conversion Kits
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Thule Child Transport Systems Ltd., doing business as Chariot
Carriers, of Calgary, Canada, announced a voluntary recall of
about 44,000 Chariot bicycle trailers and 70,000 bicycle trailer
conversion kits.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bicycle trailer's hitch mechanisms can crack and break,
causing the trailer to detach from the bicycle.  This poses an
injury hazard to children in the bicycle trailer.

The firm has received 24 incident reports worldwide, three of
which occurred in the United States, involving the bicycle
trailers and the conversion kits.  No injuries have been reported.

Chariot Carriers convert to strollers, jogging strollers and bike,
hike or ski trailers.  This recall involves Chariot bicycle
trailers and bicycle trailer conversion kits.  Recalled trailers
have serial numbers from 1205-xxxx to 0710-xxxx (representing
manufacture dates December 2005 through July 2010) located the
left side on the frame.  Recalled conversion kits have hitch arms
that attach the carrier to the bicycle with model number
"20100503" printed on a label attached to the aluminum tube next
to the warning label.  Older conversion kits without a label, but
with a release push button located where the hitch arm inserts
into the carrier, are also being recalled.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold at
specialty bicycle stores nationwide and on various websites from
December 2005 through August 2010 for between $400 and $925 for
Chariot bicycle trailers and from October 2002 through August 2011
for between $40 and $70 for bicycle trailer conversion kits.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycle
trailers and bicycle trailer conversion kits and contact Chariot
Carriers for a free repair kit which the consumer can install.
For more information, contact Chariot Carriers at (800) 262-8651
between 10:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at

COVELLLI ENTERPRISES: Faces Discrimination Class Action
Rich Lord, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that a
Panera Bread franchisee had a policy of keeping "fat, black or
ugly" people off of the cash registers and out of management
positions, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court on
Jan. 11 that seeks class action status.

The lawsuit by Guy M. Vines, 21, of Castle Shannon, claims that
Panera franchisee Covelli Enterprises discouraged managers from
hiring African Americans, and then relegated them to menial, back-
of-the-shop roles.

It follows a lawsuit filed in November by a former Panera Bread
manager who said he was fired under pretenses after he objected to
such policies.  Both Mr. Vines and the former manager are
represented by attorney Sam Cordes.

"Here there was a policy that we don't promote, nor do we allow
people that are black, fat or ugly to work up in the front of our
store," said Mr. Cordes on Jan. 11.  "If you're black, we don't
allow you to work in the front, and we don't promote you into

Covelli Enterprises responded with a statement from its director
of corporate affairs, Allen Ryan.

"These complaints represent a coordinated attempt by two
disgruntled former employees to discredit the company for a profit
motive," Mr. Ryan wrote.  "The timing of Mr. Vines's complaint . .
. is suspect in that is was filed only a few weeks after his
attorney filed a lawsuit against Covelli on behalf of Mr. Vines's
former manager whom ironically Mr. Vines's complaint charges with
discriminating against him by assigning him to the least desirable
tasks within the caf??."

Mr. Vines, who is black, worked at Panera at the Galleria in Mt.
Lebanon from November 2009 through August 2011, according to the
complaint.  While he was there, a district manager told a store
manager that Sam Covelli, of Covelli Enterprises, might give them
both a "death sentence" if he saw Mr. Vines working a cash
register, because Mr. Vines was a "that" -- code for an African

Because Mr. Vines was a good employee, the store manager continued
to periodically put him on the cash register, and tried to promote
him, the complaint said.  He was repeatedly reprimanded, however,
and was not allowed to promote Mr. Vines, it said.

Mr. Vines eventually was forced to quit because of the policies,
the complaint said.

"The fact is that Mr. Vines walked off his shift in the wake of
being disciplined for repeatedly violating the company's dress
code policy and other company policies related to health and
safety standards," Mr. Ryan wrote.

Mr. Cordes said he now works at another restaurant.  He seeks
actual, compensatory and punitive damages.

Mr. Vines seeks to represent the interests of all African
Americans hired at Panera Bread branches owned by Covelli
Enterprises, which is based in Warren, Ohio.  Mr. Cordes said that
the class of plaintiffs does not include overweight or "ugly"

The earlier lawsuit was filed by Scott Donatelli, who managed the
Galleria location from 2007 through mid-2011.  Mr. Cordes said he
objected to the Covelli Enterprises personnel policies, and was
dismissed when he needed extra time off to recover from surgery.

Covelli Enterprises filed an answer to the complaint broadly
denying accusations of discrimination, and saying the franchisee
"maintained policies prohibiting unlawful conduct and [kept] a
work environment free from unlawful discrimination."

That case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry.

DEMDACO: Recalls 5,480 Candleholder Collection Tea Light Candles
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, DD Traders Inc., doing business as Demdaco, of Leawood,
Kansas, and manufacturer, Tien Chi Art Co Ltd. of Xiamen City,
Fujian Province, China, announced a voluntary recall of about
5,480 Tea Lights in Carruth Candleholder Collection Sets.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The tea light can burn with an excessive flame height, posing a
fire hazard to consumers.

The firm is aware of one fire that resulted in minor property
damage.  There are no reports of injuries.

The recalled tea lights were sold as part of the Carruth
Candleholder Collection sets.  The Carruth candleholder sets are
resin votive candle holders with a glass insert that holds a tea
light.  The stock number is printed on a label on the bottom of
the candleholders.  The tea lights are white.  The following eight
models and stock numbers are included in this recall: Butterfly,
17708; Smile, 17709; Sun, 17710; Roots of Love, 17711; Sunflower,
17712; Hummingbird, 17713; Bunny, 17714; Friendship, 17715.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by home
decorating and gift stores nationwide from January 2010 to
November 2011 for about $14.

Consumers should immediately stop using the tea light candle and
contact Demdaco for a free replacement tea light.  For additional
information, consumers should contact Demdaco toll-free at (888)
336-3226 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at

FANNIE MAE: Lenawee County Takes Part in Transfer Tax Suit
Daily Telegram reports that Lenawee County is taking part in a
class action lawsuit seeking to force two federal loan agencies to
pay property transfer taxes.  Lenawee County commissioners were
briefed on the dispute on Jan. 10.

Genesee County started the class action against Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, the federal mortgage loan agencies that are refusing
to pay state and local transfer taxes, said county treasurer
Marilyn Woods.

"The amount of transfer tax that we would be receiving is
substantial," said register of deeds Vicki Daniels.  The federal
agencies are refusing to pay taxes when they foreclose on
mortgaged properties and when they resell the real estate.

The state treasurer has ruled the federal agencies cannot exempt
themselves from the transfer taxes, said Ms. Woods.

Ms. Daniels said some counties are refusing to record deeds
without the payments.  Lenawee and other counties are recording
the deeds and sending the documents to Lansing to deal with the
unpaid taxes.

KOSMOS ENERGY: Sued in Texas for Misleading Investors on IPO
Courthouse News Service reports that Kosmos Energy misled
investors in its $594 million initial public offering, making
materially false statements about gross oil production from the
Jubilee field and concealing design defects that cost the company
hundreds of millions of dollars to remediate and will keep the
wells from producing for several years, a class of investors

A copy of the Complaint in Brady v. Kosmos Energy Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 12-00251 (Tex. Dist. ct., Dallas Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore C. Anderson, Esq.
          Robert M. Behrendt, Esq.
          3109 Carlisle Street, Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 969-9099

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Paid $45-Mil. Under Price-Fixing Suits Deal
As of December 1, 2011, Micron Technology, Inc. paid $45 million
into an escrow account in accordance with its $67 million
settlement resolving price-fixing lawsuits, according to the
Company's January 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 1, 2011.

At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits
have been filed against the Company and other DRAM suppliers in
various federal and state courts in the United States of America
and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging a
conspiracy to increase DRAM prices in violation of federal and
state antitrust laws and state unfair competition law, and/or
unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM
products during the period from April 1999 through at least June
2002.  The complaints seek joint and several damages, trebled, in
addition to restitution, costs and attorneys' fees.  A number of
these cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
for consolidated pre-trial proceedings.  In July, 2006, the
Attorneys General for approximately forty U.S. states and
territories filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The complaints allege, among
other things, violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and
certain other states' consumer protection and antitrust laws and
seek joint and several damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and
other relief.  On October 3, 2008, the California Attorney General
filed a similar lawsuit in California Superior Court, purportedly
on behalf of local California government entities, alleging, among
other things, violations of the Cartwright Act and state unfair
competition law.

On June 23, 2010, the Company executed a settlement agreement
resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases
and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged
DRAM price-fixing in the United States.  Subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the class
settlements, the Company agreed to pay approximately $67 million
in aggregate in three equal installments over a two-year period.
As of December 1, 2011, the Company paid $45 million into an
escrow account in accordance with the settlement agreement.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Defends Price-Fixing Suits in Canada
Micron Technology, Inc. continues to defend price-fixing class
action lawsuits pending in Canada, according to the Company's
January 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 1, 2011.

Three putative class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of DRAM
products also have been filed against the Company in Quebec,
Ontario, and British Columbia, Canada, on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers, asserting violations of the Canadian
Competition Act and other common law claims.  The claims were
initiated between December 2004 (British Columbia) and June 2006
(Quebec).  The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, restitution,
costs, and attorneys' fees.  The substantive allegations in these
cases are similar to those asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases
filed in the United States.  Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was denied in the British Columbia and Quebec cases
in May and June 2008, respectively.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed
an appeal of each of those decisions.  On November 12, 2009, the
British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed, and on November 16,
2011, the Quebec Court of Appeal also reversed, the denial of
class certification and remanded the cases for further

PFIZER: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Neurontin(R) Drug
Notice of certification of a class action relating to the drug
Neurontin(R) (gabapentin) is being disseminated on Jan. 11.  The
action alleges that use of Neurontin(R), a prescription
anticonvulsant that is commonly prescribed for off-label uses,
results in an increased risk of experiencing suicidal behavior.
The action applies to all Canadians who were prescribed and
ingested the drug Neurontin(R) prior to August 5, 2004.

Among the issues the court approved for determination at trial are
whether Neurontin(R) is ineffective and/or defective or unfit for
the purpose for which it was intended and sold, and whether Pfizer
breached a duty to warn class members or materially misrepresented
any of the risks of harm from using Neurontin(R).  Another issue
approved for determination is whether the class can elect to
require Pfizer to account for all or part of the gross revenue or
net income received from the sale of Neurontin(R).

Class members are represented by the law firm Siskinds LLP in
London, Ontario, and the law firms Dunn & Company and Hanson
Wirsig Matheos in Vancouver, British Columbia.  Michael J.
Peerless, a partner with the law firm Siskinds LLP, said that "We
are very pleased that individuals across Canada who experienced
suicidal behavior from using Neurontin(R), and their family
members, will be allowed to go forward with their claims on a
class basis.  We look forward to taking the next steps in this
litigation and to continue pressing forward in representing the
claims of these individuals."

It is too early at this stage to quantify the claims of class
members if the action is successful, but it is anticipated that
the amount will be significant.  Any Canadians who have used
Neurontin(R) are encouraged to visit http://www.classaction.caor
call Joan Stewart at 1-800-461-6166 ext. 2382.

Michael J. Peerless, Esq. can be reached at:

          Siskinds LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          P.O. Box 2520
          London, Ontario
          N6A 3V8
          Telephone: 519-660-7866
          E-mail: mike.peerless@siskinds.com

QUIBIDS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices
Brett Bundale, writing for Herald Business, reports that a penny
auction Web site registered in Nova Scotia is becoming one of the
most popular -- and controversial -- online bidding companies.

QuiBids of Oklahoma bills itself as a fun and fast-paced auction
Web site where consumers can score coveted retail products at
absurdly low prices.

But critics have assailed the Web site as a scam, and it has been
targeted by a class action lawsuit alleging deceptive and unfair
trade practices.

The hubbub has raised questions about the company's foray into
Canada and its decision to register in Nova Scotia.

QuiBids public relations director Jill Farrand says the company
chose to register in this province after weighing different

But Geoffrey Loomer, a professor at Dalhousie University's
Schulich School of Law, said U.S. companies often register in Nova
Scotia for liability and tax reasons.

"A Nova Scotia unlimited liability company is a very common
vehicle used by U.S. parent companies to bring their business into
Canada because of tax reasons," Mr. Loomer said.

"There is not really a Canadian tax advantage, but there is a
significant U.S. tax advantage."

Mr. Loomer said registering as a limited liability company also
effectively shields QuiBids in the U.S. from legal responsibility.

For example, if the Canadian arm of the business faces a lawsuit,
the U.S. assets would not be at risk.

Also, Nova Scotia, unlike some other provinces, does not require
the principals of the company to live here.

According to the province's Registry of Joint Stock Companies,
QuiBids' president, chief operating officer, director and
secretary all live in Oklahoma City.  The only local contact is
Charles Reagh, a lawyer at Stewart McKelvey in Halifax.

QuiBids began operating in 2009 in the U.S. and last year in
Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia.

Although the Better Business Bureau in Canada hasn't received any
complaints about the penny auction Web site, the Oklahoma arm of
the business council has processed more than 700 complaints.  But
most of those were the result of a buyer's misunderstanding of the
auction Web site's design and policies, according to a report by
the Oklahoma bureau.

Don MacKinnon, president and CEO of the Better Business Bureau in
Halifax, said it's "buyer beware" when it comes to penny auction
Web sites.

"The consumer has to be very careful before jumping into these
things because this is how these companies make money," he said.
"Buyers should make sure they know what they are getting into and
read the rules and fine print before getting involved."

QuiBids uses a pay-to-participate model that requires users to buy
bids to take part in auctions.

Although items that are up for auction only increase by a penny at
a time, each bid actually costs the bidder 60 cents.

An Apple iPad, for example, could be won for as little as $25.50.
But because each of the 2,550 bids costs 60 cents, QuiBids
actually takes in more than $1,500 for a product that retails for
less than half that amount.

Mr. Farrand said the auction Web site is well-received by
participants everywhere it is offered.

"We've had a lot of acceptance from consumers," she said.  "Over
the past couple of years, we've had really a lot of success.  Of
course we have our challenges to overcome, but we've done really

However, a class action lawsuit filed against QuiBids in 2010
claimed that the Web site was unfair and more akin to a casino
than an auction.

Mr. Farrand dismissed charges that the Web site is misleading or
similar to gambling.

"It's unfortunate we have those criticisms, but we do want to be
as transparent as possible," she said.  "One of our goals is to
inform our customers, so everywhere on our site we explain how we
operate, (and) we have the QuiBids 101 section that gives tips on
how to participate on our site.

"But we're definitely not a gambling site," Mr. Farrand added.
"No one ever has to walk away empty-handed or out of money."

The auction Web site also has a Buy It Now feature that allows
unsuccessful bidders to take the total amount of a failed bid and
apply it toward the retail price of the item, plus fees, taxes and
shipping and handling.

SCOTTRADE INC: Sued Over Illegal Fees on Day Trades
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Scottrade
illegally collected extra fees on day trades, a class action
claims in St. Louis County Court.

Lead plaintiff Irina Borzakovskaia says Scottrade let its pattern
day-trading customers trade without regard to the equity in their
account, in violation of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(FINRA) rules.

"By failing to follow FINRA rules plaintiffs were harmed and/or
Scottrade was otherwise enriched by collecting fees on trades that
should not have been allowed," the complaint states.

The SEC defines a pattern day trader as one who executes four or
more day trades in five business days in a margin account, if the
number of day trades are more than 6 percent of the customer's
total trading activity for that same five-day period.

FINRA rules contain minimum equity requirements and limit buying
power for pattern day traders.  Ms. Borzakovskaia and two other
named plaintiffs say Scottrade allowed them to make trades without
regard to those rules from 2008 to Jan. 8, 2010.

The class consists of all Scottrade customers who engaged in
pattern day trading who were allowed to make trades in violation
of FINRA rules.  They seek disgorgement of Scottrade's profits
from the trading fees and actual and punitive damages for
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices

Scottrade and four Scottrade officials are named as defendants.

A copy of the Complaint in Borzakovskaia, et al. v. Scottrade,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12SL-CC00084 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis
Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julia M. Lutovich, Esq.
          8151 Clayton Road, Suite 200
          St. Louis, MO 63117
          Telephone: (314) 898-3054
          E-mail: julia@lutovichlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack B. Spooner, Esq.
          SPOONER LAW, LLC
          7733 Forsyth, Suite 2000
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-4300
          E-mail: jspooner@primary.net

STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Settles BUI Class Action for $5.6 Million
The Los Angeles Times reports that the California Department of
Motor Vehicles will pay $5.6 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit over its practice of suspending the driving privileges of
people who have been convicted of boating under the influence.

The case stems from the 2005 arrest and conviction of a man for
boating under the influence on the Colorado River.  After DMV
suspended his driver's license and required him to attend a class
on alcohol addiction -- the same penalties issued for driving
under the influence -- he sued to contest the practice.

In March 2007, a Superior Court judge ruled that the DMV was
misinterpreting state law and barred the department from
suspending driving privileges for BUI convictions.

After several more years of litigation, the two sides agreed to
settle the case last year.  The $5.6 million settlement was
approved on Jan. 9.

After attorney's fees, the money will go to the 753 boaters who
had their driving privileges suspended after BUI convictions.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT: Medicaid Recipients File Class Action
Christine Stuart at Courthouse News Service reports that
Connecticut has so "systematically stripped of workers" its
Department of Social Services that the state can no longer
"process Medicaid applications in a timely manner," delaying or
denying medical aid to nearly 5,000 people, according to a federal
class action.

Lead plaintiff Paul Shafer says he is "one of nearly 5,000
Connecticut residents whose applications for Medicaid have been
pending well beyond the 45-day time period generally required for
the processing of Medicaid applications.  At the end of November
2011, nearly 55 percent of all of the Medicaid applications were
pending beyond the federally mandated time limits.  As a result of
the defendant's failure or refusal to process Medicaid
applications in a timely manner, he has been unable to access
Medicaid coverage for his anti-seizure medication or other
medically necessary treatment for his seizure disorder."

Class representatives Mr. Shafer and Joshua Harder sued
Connecticut Department of Social Services Commissioner Roderick

Mr. Harder says he is "one of the thousands of individuals whose
applications for Medicaid have been approved, subject to a
designated 'spend-down' requirement.  Every month, several hundred
such 'medically needy' individuals are newly found to be eligible
for Medicaid subject to this requirement.  Although plaintiff
Harder provided documentation in October 2011, in the form of
medical bills, of compliance with his 'spend-down' requirement for
the six month period between July 1 to December 2011, he was not
provided Medicaid benefits.  As a result of the defendant's
failure or refusal to provide Medicaid benefits in a timely manner
to persons who have demonstrated compliance with their respective
'spend-down' requirements, Plaintiff Joshua Harder has been unable
to access Medicaid coverage for his needed medical treatment.
Neither of the named plaintiffs has received timely or adequate
notice of a reason for the delay in the processing or the receipt
of their Medicaid benefits."

Under the Medicaid spend-down requirement (42 C.F.R. 435.831(d)),
"'medically needy' individuals receive a notice from DSS every six
months advising them that they are eligible for Medicaid once they
satisfy the designated spend-down amount for that period, an
amount which is equal to the amount by which their income exceeds
the medically needy income limit in their part of the state plus
any applicable disregard, multiplied by six," the complaint

"The notices advise these 'medically needy' individuals that their
Medicaid benefits will be activated upon the submission of any
medical bills for the current six month period, or any unpaid
medical bills from a previous period, meeting or exceeding their
particular spend-down amount, and that, upon such submission, they
will be eligible for full Medicaid benefits until the end of that
six month period, at which point a new spend-down period will
begin with potentially a different spend-down amount.

"In response to these notices, 'medically needy' recipients
routinely present medical bills to demonstrate satisfaction of
their spend-down amounts.

"The same DSS eligibility workers who process Medicaid
applications commonly process medical bills submitted in an
attempt to satisfy spend-down amounts.

"Because of their high caseloads, these workers are not able to
timely process these medical bills to determine that spend-down
amounts have been satisfied, resulting in eligible recipients
waiting weeks or months for the calculation to be completed and
Medicaid benefits to be provided.

"Sometimes, the processing of medical bills submitted to establish
satisfaction of Medicaid spend-downs is so untimely that the end
of the six month spend-down period arrives before the DSS worker
has been able to review the medical bills submitted."

The complaint was filed by two attorneys with New Haven Legal

A spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Social Services said
that filing a lawsuit was not the best way to handle the

"We are disappointed that legal services has chosen to file a
lawsuit that will consume precious time and resources, rather than
working with us on practical approaches to re-investing in DSS,"
David Dearborn said in a statement.

"It's common knowledge that the agency has dealt with major,
double-digit percentage staffing losses over the last decade and
increasing monthly Medicaid (19.5%) and SNAP (81.0%) caseloads
over the past five years.  To meet these critical needs, we are
working with the Office of Policy and Management to refill
existing vacancies and hire additional staff; and we have begun
the process of upgrading the entire IT infrastructure."

Legal Assistance attorney Shelley White replied: "We realize of
course that the state has had budgetary problems.  But even under
these circumstances, states must comply with federal law if they
want to continue to receive hundreds of millions of dollars of
federal reimbursement under Medicaid.  One of the most basic
requirements of federal law is that applications for Medicaid must
be processed timely, in a specified number of days, so that
Medicaid is actually available when needed."

Ms. White's co-counsel Sheldon Toubman added that "previous
administrations seemed to not value the essential benefit programs
administered by DSS and thus severely cut back on its staffing in
successive budgets.  It is unfortunate that Governor Malloy's
Administration and his Commissioner of Social Services inherited
such a severely hobbled agency.

"However, given his commitment to preserving the safety net, we
are optimistic that Governor Malloy will step up to the plate and
recognize the need to reverse these cutbacks and thus avoid
jeopardizing federal funds."

DSS spokesman Mr. Dearborn countered: "As Commissioner Rod Bremby
has emphasized, we can't correct and resolve issues resulting from
lack of investment over the past decade in a matter of months.
However, the commissioner and agency are committed to doing so as
promptly and as cost-effectively as possible."

Mr. Toubman bristled at the notion that the lawsuit would tie up
resources, saying this has been an issue for years.

As for the IT system, he said the earliest those improvements will
be made is 16 months from now.

"How does that help someone today can't get onto Medicaid?"
Mr. Toubman asked in a telephone interview.

He said what the state needs now is more staff.  He suggested that
many workers retired last October and could be hired back.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, enjoining the
state from failing or refusing to process applications for
Medicaid and failing to provide Medicaid benefits to eligible
people within the time frames required by federal law.

A copy of the Complaint in Shafer, et al. v. Bremby, Case No. 12-
cv-00039 (D. Conn.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sheldon Toubman, Esq.
          426 State Street
          New Haven, CT 06510-2018
          Telephone: (203) 946-4811
          E-mail: stoubman@nhlegal.org

               - and -

          Shelley White, Esq.
          New Haven Legal Assistance Assoc.
          426 State Street
          New Haven, CT 06510-2018
          Telephone: (203) 946-4811
          E-mail: swhite@nhlegal.org

SYMANTEC CORP: Accused of Defrauding "Scareware" Consumers
James Gross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Symantec Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
5:12-cv-00154 (N.D. Calif., January 10, 2012) is brought to obtain
redress for, and put an end to, Symantec's alleged defrauding of
consumers across the country through the deceptive design and sale
of certain of its software products.

Through a common deceptive scheme, Mr. Gross alleges, Symantec
uniformly defrauds consumers into purchasing the three products at
issue in this lawsuit -- PC Tools Registry Mechanic, PC Tools
Performance Toolkit and Norton Utilities, collectively the
"Scareware" -- which Symantec represents as capable of identifying
and fixing a wide range of PC errors, privacy threats, and other
computer problems.  He contends that the Scareware does not
conduct any diagnostic testing on the computer, and instead,
invariably report, in an extremely ominous manner, that harmful
errors, privacy risks, and other computer problems exist on the
user's PC, regardless of the real condition of the computer.

Mr. Gross is a citizen of the state of Washington.

Symantec is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Mountain
View, California.  Symantec is one of the world's largest
developers of computer security software, and also sells a variety
of products that it claims will increase the speed, performance
and stability of a consumer's personal computer, protect against
privacy risks, remove harmful errors and "clean up" hard drives.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean P. Reis, Esq.
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          Facsimile: (949) 459-2123
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Chandler R. Givens, Esq.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com

TABOO GENTLEMEN'S CLUB: Nude Dancer Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a nude dancer
filed a federal class action against a nightclub, claiming it does
not pay its dancers at all, but charges them to work, and adds
escalating fees for private dances they perform.

Tammy M. Blake sued Taboo Gentlemen's Club and its manager Casey

She says she danced under the stage name "Brooke" from March 2010
until January 2011 at the club, which "engaged in the business of
serving food and spirituous beverages and featuring all nude and
semi-nude exotic dancers."

Ms. Blake says she worked 7 1/2-hour shifts, 4 to 5 days a week,
but the "defendants did not pay plaintiff any wages for work
duties she performed," nor did they pay the other dancers.

Instead, she says, the club made dancers pay it $10 for each night
shift they worked and $5 for each day shift.  The money came from
the dancers' personal tips.

In addition, dancers had to cough up $10 for each "private dance"
they did, $40 for each 20-minute "champagne room" dance, and $65
for each half-hour "champagne room" dance.  That money too came
from their tips.

The complaint does not elucidate the nature of the champagne room
or its dances.

Ms. Blake says the club did not pay minimum wage, and added injury
to the insult by fining them $10 to $25 for being late to work,
and $50 for missing work without notice.

She seeks unpaid wages, costs, and statutory liquidated damages
for labor violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Blake v. Taboo Gentlemen's Club LLC, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-00002 (N.D. W.Va.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garry G. Geffert, Esq.
          114 S. Maple Ave.
          P.O. Box 2281
          Martinsburg, WV 25402
          Telephone: (304) 262-4436
          E-mail: geffert@wvdsl.net

               - and -

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          8403 Colesville, Road, #610
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com


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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *