/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130124.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 24, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 17


ADT SECURITY: Privacy Class Action Remanded to District Court
APPLE INC: S. Korean iPhone Users Withdraw Privacy Class Action
APPLE INC: No Ruling Yet on Class Action Issue in Poaching Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement of Credit Protection Suit Approved
BELL: Class Action Over Internet Service Slowdown Can Proceed

BENEFICIAL MUTUAL: ADA ATM Suits Show No Sign of Slowing Down
CANADA: Three Law Firms File Suit Over Student Loan Data Breach
CANADA: JSS Barristers Files Suit Over Student Loan Data Breach
CANADA: Bob Buckingham Files Suit Over Student Loan Data Breach
CANADA: Merchant Law Firm Files Suit Over Student Loan Data Breach

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Ill. Ct. Dismisses "Padilla" Class Action Suit
CRUNCH LLC: Ex-Employees File Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
DUFF & PHELPS: Faces Suit Over Dakota's Proposed Acquisition
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: John Dwyer to Represent CEO in Class Actions
HIGHMARK: Plaintiffs File Motion to Withdraw Settlement

JASON D. HASS: Faces Suit Alleging Debt Adjustment Act Violations
KNOTT'S FINE: Recalls Chicken Salad Sandwiches Due to Health Risk
LOCAL SERVICE: Zoning Dispute Won't Proceed as Class Action
MANTRIA CORP: Atty. Faces Suit Over Client's $54-Mil. Ponzi Scheme
MASSACHUSETTS: Foster Care Class Action Trial May Take Weeks

MISSISSIPPI: Faces Violation of Privacy Class Action Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Reinstates Part of MBS Class Action
MOTRICITY: Faces Class Action Over Text-Message Subscriptions
NEINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Action Over Settlement Fees
NORQUAY DEVELOPMENTS: Victoria Fire Class Suit in Discovery Phase

PREMIERWEST BANCORP: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Starbuck
REDDY ICE: Sued Over Factory's Release of Toxic Ammonia
ROHNERT PARK, CA: Sued For Seizing Vehicles Without Warrant
ROYAL LABS: Faces False Advertising Suit Over Body Wash Product
SAN ANTONIO SPURS: McGuinness' Class Action Faces Uphill Battle

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Sued For Transferring Shareholder Wealth to CEO
SENECA INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Coinsurance Penalties
SEQWATER: Flood Victims Urged to Join Class Action
SEQWATER: Couple to Join Flood Victims' Class Action Suit
SYNGENTA CROP: Centralia Gets Share in Atrazine Settlement

SYNGENTA CROP: Evansville Among Cities to Get Settlement Checks
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Rochon Genova Files ACTOS Class Action
TNS INC: Being Sold to Siris for Too Little, Suit Claims
ZYNGA INC: Sued For Not Paying Software Engineers' OT Wages


ADT SECURITY: Privacy Class Action Remanded to District Court
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that a class action plaintiff
who claimed that his right to privacy was violated when a home
security company recorded his telephone call failed to state a
cause of action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held on Jan. 17.

Expressing doubt that the plaintiff had an objectively reasonable
expectation that his conversation with the security company was
not being recorded, a unanimous panel nevertheless remanded the
case so that the district court could consider allowing the
plaintiff to amend his complaint so as to satisfy federal pleading

John Faulkner, a California resident, brought a putative class
action against ADT Security Services, Inc., ADT Security Systems,
West, Inc., and Tyco International, Inc., in San Mateo Superior
Court.  In it he alleged that ADT recorded his telephone
conversation with a customer service representative without his
consent, in violation of California's invasion of privacy law.

The case was later removed by the defendants to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on diversity

The complaint alleged that Mr. Faulkner called ADT to dispute a
charge and was transferred to technical support.  He said that
during the call he began hearing periodic "beeping" sounds.

When he asked about the sounds, he alleged, the representative
told him the conversation was being recorded and, in a subsequent
call to customer service, was informed that it was the company's
policy to record telephone calls and that he could end the call if
he did not wish to be recorded.

Mr. Faulkner filed suit in state court and the defendants removed
the case to federal court based on diversity and moved to dismiss
the complaint based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the motion, on the basis that Mr.
Faulkner's conversation was not a confidential communication
because he had "no objectively reasonable expectation that his
telephone conversation with ADT would not be overheard or
recorded," the standard established by the California Supreme

Senior Judge Robert D. Sack of the Second Circuit, sitting by
designation, wrote the panel opinion.  He said the plaintiff's
"threadbare" allegation that that his conversation was "carried on
in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the
communication desires it to be confined thereto," did not allege
facts that would lead to the plausible inference that he had an
objectively reasonable expectation that he would not be recorded.

He explained:

"Although circumstances may arise under which the nature of the
relationship or the character of the communications between a
customer and a home security company could plausibly constitute a
confidential communication under the California statute . . . too
little is asserted in the complaint about the particular
relationship between the parties, and the particular circumstances
of the call, to lead to [such a] conclusion."

Judge Sack concluded that although federal procedural rules apply
to all actions in federal court and under them Mr. White properly
granted the motion to dismiss, given that the case was removed
from state court on diversity grounds, the panel was "in an
abundance -- perhaps an overabundance -- of caution," nevertheless
remanding the case so that Judge White could consider whether to
allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint in a manner that would
satisfy federal pleading standards.

Judges Ronald M. Gould and Milan D. Smith, Jr. concurred in the

The appeal was argued by Gretchen Carpenter of Strange & Carpenter
in Los Angeles for the plaintiff and Philadelphia attorney Robert
Hickok for the defendants.

The case is Faulkner v. ADT Security Services, Inc., 11-16233.

APPLE INC: S. Korean iPhone Users Withdraw Privacy Class Action
Yonhap reports that a group of South Korean iPhone users withdrew
a class-action suit against Apple Inc., citing difficulty proving
in court that their privacy was violated by the smartphone's user
location tracking, a legal representative for the plaintiffs said
on Jan. 18.

A total of 29 users filed the first-ever suit against the U.S.-
based tech company and its local unit Apple Korea Inc. in April
2011, seeking 800,000 won (US$757) per person in damages.  They
claimed the electronics maker violated the users' privacy by
allowing the location-recognition feature on the iPhone to track
and store data without their consent.

"(We) could not secure concrete evidence as it was held by the
defendant," the legal representative said.  "After persuading the
clients to drop the suit, (we) have decided to seek a

The plaintiffs submitted the withdrawal to the Seoul Central
District Court on Jan. 8, according to court officials.

The plaintiffs also apparently took into consideration that losing
the case may negatively influence a separate class-action suit
filed with a regional court, the representative said.

The massive class-action suit representing nearly 27,000 iPhone
users is currently being processed at the Changwon District Court
based in the city of Changwon, 398 kilometers southeast of Seoul.
The suit seeks to award each complainant 1 million won in

In 2011, an attorney at the law firm received 1 million won in
Apple's first-ever compensation payment after the regional court
accepted in a summary decision the attorney's request for
compensation over the iPhone's secret functions.

APPLE INC: No Ruling Yet on Class Action Issue in Poaching Suit
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that internal e-mails
show that executives at tech companies such as Apple and Google
believed that an agreement to refrain from poaching each other's
workers would bring real financial benefits, a U.S. judge said on
Jan. 17.

Five former employees of various tech companies have filed a civil
lawsuit against Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp. and others,
alleging an illegal conspiracy to eliminate competition for each
other's employees.

At a hearing in San Jose, California federal court on Jan. 17,
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh also ordered Apple Chief Executive
Tim Cook to be questioned by plaintiff attorneys for four hours.

Judge Koh must decide whether the lawsuit can proceed as a class
action, which would give the plaintiffs more leverage to extract a
large settlement.  Judge Koh said that at the time the no-poaching
agreements were forged, top executives felt a collective approach
toward hiring was more efficient than dealing with employees

"That, I think, is the biggest problem for the defendants," said
Judge Koh, who did not identify the executives.  However, Judge
Koh also closely questioned a key economic analysis commissioned
by the plaintiffs, which the judge said had "holes."

Judge Koh did not rule on the class action issue during the
hearing on Jan. 17.

In 2010, Google, Apple, Adobe Systems Inc., Intel, Intuit Inc. and
Walt Disney Co.'s Pixar unit agreed to a settlement of a U.S.
Justice Department probe that bars them from agreeing to refrain
from poaching each other's employees.

The Justice Department and California state antitrust regulators
then sued eBay Inc. late last year over an alleged no-poaching
deal with Intuit.  eBay said the government is wrong, and has not
been named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit.

Plaintiff attorneys have estimated that civil damages potentially
could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

In court on Jan. 17, Adobe attorney Robert Mittelstaedt said the
plaintiffs had no evidence that employees were actually impacted
by the no-cold call deals.

"It's not in the data," Mr. Mittelstaedt said.

In 2007, Apple's Steve Jobs asked former Google Chief Executive
Eric Schmidt to stop trying to recruit an Apple engineer, a
transgression that threatened one junior Google employee's job,
according to a court filing last year.  At the time, Mr. Schmidt
was an Apple board member.

Judge Koh on Jan. 17 criticized attorneys for the tech companies
for being too slow to schedule depositions of top executives.
Apple attorney George Riley attempted to spare Mr. Cook from a
deposition, saying that when Mr. Cook was chief operating officer
(COO) of the company before succeeding Jobs in 2011, Mr. Cook had
no role in any of the no-hire agreements.

"I find it hard to believe a COO would have no say over salary and
compensation for all employees," Judge Koh responded.

Additionally, Google attorneys agreed that Mr. Schmidt, now
Google's executive chairman, could be questioned by plaintiffs'
lawyers on February 20.  Executives from several other companies
were also scheduled for depositions, including Intel chief
executive Paul Otellini.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
is In Re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, 11-cv-2509.

BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement of Credit Protection Suit Approved
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval of the settlement in the class

District Judge Thelton E. Henderson held that the terms of the
settlement constitute a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement
as to all Settlement Class Members in accordance with Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and directs its consummation
pursuant to its terms and conditions.

Judge Henderson defined the class as all people in the United
States who were enrolled in a Credit Protection program issued by
FIA Card Services, N.A., a subsidiary of Bank of America
Corporation, between January 1, 2006 and July 17, 2012.  The
programs include, but are not limited to: Credit Protection Plus,
Cardholder Security Plan, Credit Protection Plan, Credit
Protection Deluxe, and Credit Protection Fleet.  The Settlement
Class includes customers who originally enrolled in a Credit
Protection program prior to January 1, 2006, but remained enrolled
at any time on or after January 1, 2006.

The Court appointed Juan Arevalo, Mitchell Sandow, Jason Chan,
Blanche Melendez, Rose Rowley, Vivian Somers, Wilfred Somers,
Cheryl Ross, Maryellen Richmond, Frederick Richmond, Maude
Stewart, Marion Walton, Angela Zeleny, and Dominick Mattiello,
Jr., as Executor of the Estate of Dominick M. Mattiello, as
Settlement Class Representatives.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (Chair of Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee and Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel); Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP; and Carey, Danis & Lowe were appointed
as Class Counsel.

The Court approves the Plan of Allocation of the Settlement Amount
and interest accrued thereon. If any amounts remain in the
Settlement Fund following the deduction of claim notice and
settlement administration costs and taxes, any attorneys' fees and
costs, and/or service awards awarded by the Court, and the pro
rata distribution of settlement funds to all eligible Class
Members who have submitted timely and valid claims, the remaining
amounts will be distributed to the Center for Responsible Lending,
which the Court finds to be a suitable cy pres recipient.

The Court dismisses the Action with prejudice and without costs to
any party except as provided in the Agreement.

A copy of the District Court's January 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/blmemFfrom Leagle.com.

BELL: Class Action Over Internet Service Slowdown Can Proceed
Shuyee Lee, writing for CJAD, reports that the class action
lawsuit against Bell for its alleged internet service slowdown
five years ago can proceed: the Supreme Court of Canada has
refused to hear the media giant's appeal.

That means the Quebec Court of Appeal's ruling that authorized the
lawsuit stands.

Local consumer advocacy group, Union des consommateurs, had
requested in 2008 the greenlight on behalf of users in Quebec and
Ontario who the group says were left high and dry by Bell.

The group says Bell had identified all of its clients who were
using peer-to-peer applications because this practice uses up a
lot of bandwith.  The group alleges Bell slowed down the internet
service during peak hours.

But the group argues clients paid for high speed service and
didn't get it.  It also says Bell had the nerve to run ads at the
time saying their internet speed was constant without that
frustrating slowdown during peak times.

The lawsuit is based on the non-respect of contract terms and
false representation.

It could still take years before the actual case reaches the

BENEFICIAL MUTUAL: ADA ATM Suits Show No Sign of Slowing Down
J. Colin Knisely, Esq. at Duane Morris LLP reports that
Pittsburgh-based law firm Carlson Lynch has now filed sixty-eight
Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") ATM class action lawsuits in
Pennsylvania Federal District Courts against banks operating in
Pennsylvania and surrounding states, and it does not appear that
the filings are going to stop anytime soon.

Carlson Lynch filed the first such lawsuits in April 2012 in
federal district court in Pittsburgh, and all of the lawsuits
named the same plaintiff, Robert Jahoda, a blind individual who
claims that he was denied services by certain banks as the result
of ATMs that are not accessible to the visually impaired.
Mr. Jahoda has now filed thirty-five lawsuits in the Western
District. Similarly, Carlson Lynch has now filed nineteen ADA ATM
class action lawsuits in the Eastern District since August 2012 on
behalf of Daryl Garner, another blind individual.  Recently,
Carlson Lynch began filing ADA ATM class action lawsuits in the
Middle District.  The named plaintiff in those matters, Thomas
Klaus, has now filed fourteen lawsuits.   All of the complaints
specifically quote a March 2012 Wall Street Journal article that
maintains that nearly 50 percent of the more than 400,000 ATMs in
the United States are inaccessible to the visually impaired,
despite the fact that new standards pertaining to accessibility to
ATMs for the visually impaired took effect on March 15, 2011, and
all ATMs were required to be upgraded to meet these new
requirements by March 15, 2012.   At this point, it does not look
like any bank will be spared, so it is important for banks to
ensure that they are compliant.

Meanwhile, the first of many ATM accessibility class action
lawsuits, pursuant to the ADA, against Philadelphia-area banks was
filed in federal district court in Philadelphia in August 2012.
The lawsuit against Beneficial Mutual Savings Bank was filed by
the same Pittsburgh-based law firm, Carlson Lynch.

As a refresher, here are the specific ADA ATM requirements:

                          Speech Output

Machines shall be speech enabled.  Operating instructions and
orientation, visible transaction prompts, user input verification,
error messages and all displayed information for full use shall be
accessible to and independently usable by individuals with vision
impairments.  Speech shall be delivered through a mechanism that
is readily available to all users, including but not limited to,
an industry standard connector or a telephone handset.  Speech
shall be recorded or digitized human, or synthesized. 2010 ADA -
707.5 Input Controls

At least one tactilely discernible input control shall be provided
for each function.  Where provided, key surfaces not on active
areas of display screens shall be raised above surrounding
surfaces. Where membrane keys are the only method of input, each
shall be tactilely discernable from surrounding surfaces and
adjacent keys. 2010 ADA - 707.6.1

                          Numeric Keypads

Numeric keys shall be arranged in a 12-key ascending or descending
telephone keypad layout.  The number five key shall be tactilely
distinct from the other keys. 2010 ADA - 707.6.2

                          Display Screen

The display screen shall be visible from a point located 40 inches
(1015 mm) above the center of the clear floor space in front of
the machine.  Characters displayed on the screen shall be in a
sans serif font.  Characters shall be 3/16 inch (4.8 mm) high
minimum, based on the uppercase letter "I."  Characters shall
contrast with their background with either light characters on a
dark background or dark characters on a light background. 2010 ADA
- 707.7.1, 707.7.2

                        Braille Instructions

Braille instructions for initiating the speech mode shall be

CANADA: Three Law Firms File Suit Over Student Loan Data Breach
The Canadian Press reports that the federal government now faces a
third class-action suit over the loss of a portable hard drive
containing personal information about more than half a million
people who took out student loans.

The law firms of Sutts, Strosberg LLP, Branch MacMaster LLP and
Falconer Charney LLP are seeking C$600 million in compensation on
behalf of those affected by the loss of the hard drive.

This latest class-action lawsuit comes on the heels of two similar
actions launched last week.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada earlier revealed it
had lost a device containing data on 583,000 Canada Student Loans
Program borrowers from 2000 to 2006.

The missing files include student names, social insurance numbers,
dates of birth, contact information and loan balances of
borrowers, as well as the personal contact information of 250
department employees.

Borrowers from Quebec, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories
during this time period are not affected.

No banking or medical information was on the portable device.

The loss of the hard drive from an office in Gatineau, Que.,
across the Ottawa River from Parliament Hill, came to light as the
department looked into another breach -- a missing USB key
containing the personal information of more than 5,000 Canadians.

Human Resources went public with the second, more far-reaching
loss -- more than two months after an employee discovered that an
external hard drive was missing.

"We are shocked that the government of Canada has known about this
breach of privacy for so long without revealing to the country
what happened," Falconer Charney lawyer Ted Charney --
tedc@falconercharney.com -- said in a statement.

The department had no comment on the lawsuits.

"Should litigation be formally commenced, the Department (of)
Justice will respond on behalf of HRSDC," a spokesperson said in
an e-mail.

The RCMP and the privacy watchdog are investigating the lost data.

Human Resources is sending letters to affected people, for whom it
has current contact information, to advise them on how to protect
their personal information.

A toll-free number has been set up at 1-866-885-1866 (or 1-416-
572-1113 for those outside North America) to help people determine
whether they are affected.

CANADA: JSS Barristers Files Suit Over Student Loan Data Breach
CBC News reports that JSS Barristers, a Calgary law firm, has
launched a class-action lawsuit against the federal government on
behalf of students who may have been affected by the loss of some
computer information.

In November, data belonging to the Canada Student Loans Program
was placed on an external hard drive which later disappeared along
with the information of nearly 600,000 students.

The lawsuit alleges that loss is a breach of privacy and has put
the students at risk of identity theft.

"We'd like to try and get the federal government to step up and
provide monitoring for the class members, so that if the
information starts to be used in identity theft, it can be
detected early and the damage can be minimized," said Robert
Hawkes -- hawkesr@jssbarristers.ca -- a lawyer with JSS

All of the information was in connection to student loans handed
out between 2000 and 2006.

Mr. Hawkes says students who feel they are included in this group
do not need to sign up immediately but they can monitor the case
on the firm's Web site.  Lawyers in other parts of the country are
launching similar court action.

In the meantime, officials in Ottawa say students can ask for
their social insurance number to be flagged in the event unusual
activity is noted.

Calgary Herald reports that JSS Barristers' statement of claim
"seeks specific protective and prophylactic measures, along with
damages for losses suffered," according to a news release.

The claims in the suit have not been proven in court.  The suit
must be certified by a judge before it can proceed.

CANADA: Bob Buckingham Files Suit Over Student Loan Data Breach
Rebecca Lindell, writing for Global News, reports that a
Newfoundland lawyer is pursuing a class action lawsuit against the
federal government after a portable hard drive containing the
personal information of half a million Canadians went missing.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada earlier announced
that it lost the personal information of 583,000 people who held
student loans between 2000 and 2006.

Bob Buckingham, a lawyer based in St. John's, Nfld. filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of the students on Jan. 17.

"The social, familial, community damages are beyond comprehension
at the moment in terms of what can be done with this information
and (the government) should be punished for what has happened," he
told Global News.

The lost information includes names, birth dates, Social Insurance
Numbers, addresses and student loan balances -- all data many fear
could be used by fraudsters to apply for a loan, credit card or

HRSDC said there is no evidence the lost information, which was on
a backup drive, has been accessed or used for fraudulent purposes.

But Mr. Buckingham said the impacts may not be immediate as
identity theft follows people around for a lifetime.

"People are concerned it may have been stolen by people who are
unscrupulous and have nefarious purposes and are concerned how the
information may be used against them and their interests down the
road," he said.

The case, according to the lawyer, is a strong one considering the
harm caused to Canadians and the fact that Human Resources
Minister Diane Finley has acknowledged the loss was avoidable.

More than 4,000 students have contacted Buckingham so far and
another 60,000 have visited his Web site in the past 48 hours.
Parents, siblings and spouses of loan holders may also be
affected, he warned.

Among them is Chris Gallant, who took out a loan in 2005 and now
lives in Ottawa.

"I'm definitely going to be involved in it.  Somebody needs to pay
for this because our information is out there and we can't control
it," he said.

Another former student, Adam Daniels, spent the weekend worrying
before calling HRSDC on Jan. 14 to find out his information has
been lost.

"When I called on Monday they did recommend I get a credit check
and let my financial institution know," said Mr. Daniels, who now
lives in St. John's, Nfld.

NDP MP Ryan Cleary said that response falls short.

"To ask students to worry about cleaning it up when it is the
Conservative government's fault, that's not good enough.  It's
obvious to see why there's been a class action filed," he said.

Mr. Daniels said he hoped the lawsuit will put enough collective
pressure on the government to act.

"I certainly hope in the coming months they are going to announce
something for those of us who were impacted," he said.  "We've all
gone from lamenting about our student loan payments, which make up
a large portion of our income to now, to talking about the fact
that our private information is out there."

Mr. Buckingham said is aiming to achieve financial remuneration
for his clients as well as punitive and aggravated damages against
the government.

He also wants to see the government put concrete measures in place
to address any fraud that may occur quickly and in a way that
protects the victims.

This most recent breach is the third time in less than a year that
a public servant lost a portable drive, compromising the security
and identities of millions of Canadians.

HRSDC recently lost another portable hard drive containing the
personal information of 5,000 Canadians in November. Elections
Ontario staff lost two memory sticks that held data on about 2.4
million voters last spring.

As Canada gathers more data, they should be diligent about
preventing data loss through missing hard drives or misplaced
memory sticks, according David Murakami Wood, Canada Research
Chair in Surveillance Studies at Queen's University.

"Government needs to start taking this more seriously and start
considering data as if it is part of a real person, not just
information about someone," he said.

The department is now taking action to prevent any future breaches
including new security policies like banning portable hard drives
and unapproved USB keys, instating mandatory training for all
employees handling sensitive records and new disciplinary

The federal privacy commissioner is also investigating the breach.

People can call HRSDC at 1-866-885-1866 (or 416-572-1113 outside
North America) from 8:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. EST for information about
whether their data has been impacted.

CANADA: Merchant Law Firm Files Suit Over Student Loan Data Breach
Merchant Law Group on Jan. 17 launched class action litigation
against the federal government seeking compensation for all
Canadians whose personal information has been lost due to a
missing portable hard drive containing personal information of
more than half a million Canadians who have received student
loans.  Human Resources and Skills Development Canada has
identified that the data device found to be missing from an HRSDC
office in Gatineau in early November and has not be recovered.
The hard drive had personal information on 583,000 Canadians who
dealt with the Canada Student Loans program from 2000 to 2006.

"Merchant Law Group is filing class action lawsuits with the
Courts in Calgary and Winnipeg, with similar actions to follow
shortly as part of Canada-wide class action litigation against the
federal government for this serious loss of personal information
concerning more than 580,000 Canadians. One of the many important
issues raised in this litigation is that this privacy breach
involves the federal government having lost not just people's
names and addresses, but also their SIN numbers and dates of
birth, and that a loss discovered in early November was only
disclosed to the Canadian public in January", said Tony Merchant,
Q.C.  "The people who have contacted our law firm wish to be
promptly protected from identity theft or other misuse of their
personal information."

"When affected Canadians call their financial institutions, they
are encouraged to hire online identity theft protection services
for C$15 to C$30 a month, but there are no offers by the federal
government to either protect people or compensate them for
obtaining protection services.  583,000 Canadians are being set
adrift," Mr. Merchant said.

Merchant Law Group LLP has twelve offices across Canada, from
Montreal to Victoria.

Calgary Herald reports that an employee with Human Resources and
Skills Development Canada discovered the hard drive was missing in
early November from an office in Gatineau, Que., but it took more
than two months to investigate internally and ultimately report it
publicly to Canadians.

No banking or medical information was included on the portable
external hard drive, which was not approved for use by the federal
government.  The file did not contain information of borrowers
from Quebec, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, which manage
their own student loan programs.

The information was being used to contact individuals for a survey
and was saved onto the external hard drive as a backup storage
option, according to federal officials.  However, the information
was not encrypted -- an extra layer of security required by the
government, but not followed in this case.

The government has notified the RCMP and federal privacy

The lawsuit claims the federal government was negligent and failed
to do its fiduciary duty to protect the student loan recipients'
personal information.

The suit alleges that as a result, the people whose information
was lost are now at risk of becoming victims of identity theft or
other kinds of misuse.

"As a result of the privacy breach, the plaintiff and the class
members must . . . monitor their own credit and bank account
activities for fraudulent behavior.  The actual and potential
threat to the class members' personal information can be expected
to continue indefinitely.  Further, numerous class members have
undergone expense to monitor and protect their interests," reads
the statement of claim.

"They have suffered and will continue to suffer serious injuries
including emotional trauma from the stress of fearing or knowing
that unauthorized persons may have their personal information,"
reads the suit.

Steve Rennie, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
Mr. Merchant questioned why it took the government so long to
disclose the data loss.

"One of the many important issues raised in this litigation is
that this privacy breach involves the federal government having
lost not just people's names and addresses, but also their SIN
numbers and dates of birth, and that a loss discovered in early
November was only disclosed to the Canadian public in January," he
said in a statement.

"The people who have contacted our law firm wish to be promptly
protected from identity theft or other misuse of their personal

The RCMP and the privacy watchdog are also investigating the loss.

A Liberal MP wrote on Jan. 17 to Human Resources Minister Diane
Finley, calling on the government to pay for credit-check reports
for anyone affected by the data loss.

"This is simply unacceptable.  Canadians should not have to pay
for the mistakes of this government," Rodger Cuzner wrote.

The NDP has also criticized the government over the data loss.

Human Resources is sending letters to affected people, for whom it
has current contact information, to advise them on how to protect
their personal information.

A toll-free number has been set up at 1-866-885-1866 (or 1-416-
572-1113 for those outside North America) to help people determine
whether they are affected.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Ill. Ct. Dismisses "Padilla" Class Action Suit
District Judge John W. Darrah granted a motion to dismiss a second
amended class action complaint captioned RAY PADILLA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 11 C 7686, (N.D. Ill.)

Ray Padilla challenges the effectiveness of the dietary supplement
glucosamine, which Costco sells in the Kirkland Signature(TM)
Extra Strength Glucosamine HCL line of joint-health dietary
supplements.  These Kirkland products include Kirkland
Signature(TM) Extra Strength Glucosamine HCL with MSM, and
Kirkland Signature(TM) Extra Strength Glucosamine/Chondroitin
Sulfate.  Mr. Padilla's Second Amended Complaint alleges one count
against Costco, a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2.

Judge Darrah dismissed with prejudice Mr. Padilla's ICFA claim as
to Glucosamine Chondroitin, and dismissed without prejudice his
ICFA claim as to Glucosamine with MSM.

The Court held that Mr. Padilla did not purchase Glucosamine
Chondroitin and has not sustained any actual damage. To bring an
ICFA claim, the plaintiff must either allege it was a consumer of
the defendant or allege a nexus with Illinois consumers.  In
addition, Mr. Padilla has failed to make any connection between
the clinical studies that he cites and the actual representations
appearing on the Glucosamine with MSM product label, thus, failing
to state an ICFA claim as to Glucosamine with MSM.

Mr. Padilla may file a Third Amended Complaint within 30 days of
the order.

A copy of the District Court's January 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/pZFPRzfrom Leagle.com.

CRUNCH LLC: Ex-Employees File Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
Kathleen Beachler, an individual; and Osa Tyehimba, an individual;
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Crunch, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; New Evolution
Ventures, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and New
Evolution Fitness Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:13-cv-00225
(N.D. Calif., January 16, 2013) is brought as a nationwide
collective action for claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and a California statewide class action pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover, among other things:

   * unpaid minimum wages;

   * unpaid overtime compensation;

   * unpaid additional pay for the Defendants' failure to provide
     meal and rest periods to California-based employees;

   * unreimbursed work-related expenses incurred by California-
     based employees; and

   * unpaid statutory amounts for the Defendants' failure to
     provide accurate wage statements to California-based

Ms. Beachler is a resident of Orange County, California.  She was
employed by the Defendants from approximately 2009 through 2012 as
an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee.  Mr. Tyehimba is a resident
of Douglas County, Georgia.  He was employed by the Defendants
from approximately 2010 through 2012 as an hourly-paid, non-exempt
employee.  Both Plaintiffs were employed as personal trainers.

Crunch LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company based in New
York.  New Evolution Ventures LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability
Company based in Northern California.  New Evolution Fitness is a
Delaware Limited Liability Company based in Northern California.
These Defendants own and operate chains of health and fitness
facilities throughout the United States of America, including in
the state of California.  The true names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Omel A. Nieves, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Alison C. Gibbs, Esq.
          301 North Lake Avenue, 7th Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101-1807
          Telephone: (626) 440-5200
          Facsimile: (626) 796-0107
          E-mail: nieves@huntortmann.com

DUFF & PHELPS: Faces Suit Over Dakota's Proposed Acquisition
Thomas Rutkowski, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. Noah Gottdiener, Robert M. Belke, Peter W. Calamari,
William R. Carapezzi, John A. Kritzmacher, Harvey M. Krueger,
Sander M. Levy, Jeffrey D. Lovell, Norman S. Matthews, Gordon A.
Paris, Duff & Phelps Corporation, Duff & Phelps Acquisitions, LLC,
Dakota Holding Corporation, Dakota Acquisition I, Inc. and Dakota
Acquisition II, LLC, Case No. 650144/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January
15, 2013) seeks to enjoin Dakota's proposed acquisition of Duff &
Phelps in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $665.5
million, or $15.55 per share.

In approving the Proposed Acquisition, the Individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due
care and disclosure to Duff & Phelps shareholders by agreeing to
sell Duff & Phelps without first taking steps to ensure that the
and Class members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum
consideration under the circumstances, Mr. Rutkowski contends.  He
asserts that the Company's true value is compromised by the
consideration offered in the Proposed Acquisition and the Proposed
Acquisition is the product of the Board's breaches of fiduciary

Mr. Rutkowski is a shareholder of Duff & Phelps common stock.

Duff & Phelps is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New
York.  Together with its subsidiaries, the Company engages in the
provision of independent financial advisory and investment banking
services in North America, Europe, and Asia.  The Company serves
publicly traded and privately held companies, government entities,
and investment organizations.  DPA is a subsidiary of Duff &
Phelps and was formed in connection with the acquisition of
Standard & Poor's Corporate Value Consulting by Duff & Phelps in
September 2005.  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Dakota
Acquisition II will be merged with and into DPA, with DPA as the
surviving entity in the merger and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Company.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

Dakota is affiliated with entities or funds managed by The Carlyle
Group, Stone Point Capital, Pictet & Cie and Edmond de Rothschild
Group.  Dakota Acquisition I is affiliated with entities or funds
managed by The Carlyle Group, et al., and will be merged with and
into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving
corporation in the merger and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dakota.
Dakota Acquisition II is affiliated with entities or funds managed
by The Carlyle Group, et al., and will be merged with and into
DPA, with DPA as the surviving entity in the merger and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977
          Facsimile: (561) 741-0626
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
The Law Offices of Jon C. Furgison on Jan. 18 announced a
shareholder class action filing against Hewlett-Packard Company
alleging securities fraud in connection with the company's 2011
acquisition of Autonomy Corporation, plc.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, and entitled Neumann v. Hewlett-Packard
Company, et al., was brought on behalf of purchasers of HP common
stock during the period between February 20, 2008 and November 20,
2012.  Motions for lead plaintiff for this action are due in Court
no later than January 25, 2013.

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  Should members of
the putative class have questions concerning their rights and
interests, they may contact plaintiff's counsel at (310) 356-6890.

On August 18, 2011, HP announced that it had agreed to purchase
Autonomy, a British company that supplies software that analyzes
unstructured data, such as e-mails, online videos and web-surfing,
for patterns.  HP paid approximately $11.1 billion to acquire
Autonomy.  At the time of the purchase, Hewlett-Packard insiders
touted the deal's potential for substantial synergistic effects
that would prove profitable for the company.  According to the
complaint, HP and its insiders continued to make public statements
about the benefits of the Autonomy purchase throughout 2012.

According to the complaint, HP knew at the time it made its
statements that it had vastly overpaid for Autonomy and that the
purported synergistic benefits would never materialize.  As widely
reported, the company was forced to take an $8.8 billion write
down related to its acquisition of Autonomy, which it announced on
November 20, 2012.

The complaint also alleges a fraudulent scheme by Hewlett-Packard
and certain insiders from at least February 20, 2008 until the
present, concerning one of its most profitable products, its
proprietary Integrity servers.  These servers are sold primarily
to HP's largest corporate customers and typically carry high
profit margin service contracts -- in some years the Integrity
servers have accounted for as much as 15% of profits.

According to the complaint, beginning in early 2008, HP learned
that the Integrity servers were facing obsolescence.  The servers
run on the Itanium chip, manufactured by Intel Corporation.  The
complaint notes that without the Itanium chip, HP could not sell
the Integrity servers, and its high-profit service agreements
would be wiped out.  At some point prior to February 2008, Intel
told HP that it wished to stop making the Itanium chips, because
they were no longer profitable for Intel.  According to the
complaint, HP, facing massive losses in profits, secretly agreed
to pay Intel millions of dollars -- just so that it would agree to
continue to make the Itanium chips.  These payments served no
purpose other than to convince Intel to continue to make the chips
and the agreement was a closely-guarded secret of the Company, the
complaint alleges.  At the same time it knew its Integrity servers
were facing obsolescence, HP continued making statements, which
the Complaint alleges to be false, regarding the long-term
viability of those servers.

Shareholders allege that the frauds associated with the Autonomy
acquisition and the Integrity servers have had a severe effect on
HP's stock.  From February 20, 2008 until November 20, 2012, when
the public finally knew the truth about the two events, HP's
market capitalization declined from $117 billion to $23 billion, a
loss of $94 billion.  It had traded as high as $54.52 at one point
during the class period, and it closed at $11.71 on November 20,

Plaintiff Paul Neumann seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of HP common stock during the Class Period.

Contact: Jon C. Furgison, Esq.
         Law offices of Jon C. Furgison
         Telephone: 310-356-6890
         E-mail: jonfurg@gmail.com

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: John Dwyer to Represent CEO in Class Actions
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that Cooley
partner John Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- a go-to lawyer for
eBay Inc., will represent Hewlett-Packard Co. CEO Meg Whitman in
securities class actions stemming from HP's ill-fated acquisition
of British software firm Autonomy.

Mr. Dwyer, co-chair of Cooley's securities litigation group, and
Stephen Neal, the firm's chairman, will defend Ms. Whitman against
accusations that she knew of problems with the 2011 Autonomy deal
and gave false assurances to the public, said attorneys involved
in the litigation.

Mr. Dwyer's ties to Ms. Whitman, a prominent figure in Silicon
Valley who ran for governor in 2010, spring from his work for San
Jose-based eBay, where Ms. Whitman served as CEO from 1998 to

Ms. Whitman joined HP's board of directors in March 2011 and
replaced Leo Apotheker as CEO in September 2011, after the $10.2
billion deal to acquire Autonomy had been announced.

HP disclosed an $8.8 billion write down related to the Autonomy
purchase last November, setting off a wave of investor actions.
To date, roughly a dozen shareholder suits filed in the Northern
District of California after the disclosure have been consolidated
before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco.

San Diego plaintiffs firms Robbins Arroyo (previously Robbins
Umeda) and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd were among the first to
file and are likely to seek leading roles representing investors.

Other firms involved in the litigation include Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius representing Hewlett-Packard; Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati for HP CFO Catherine Lesjak; and Fenwick & West for former
controller James Murrin.

Plaintiffs lawyers allege HP insiders knew of accounting
irregularities at Autonomy and deceived the market for months. Mr.
Dwyer declined to comment.

HIGHMARK: Plaintiffs File Motion to Withdraw Settlement
Rich Lord, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
class-action plaintiffs against Highmark and UPMC on Jan. 18 filed
a motion to withdraw a proposed settlement with the region's
dominant insurer, saying the information they relied on to justify
the pact included misrepresentations.

Attorneys for Royal Mile Co., Cole's Wexford Hotel and Pamela Lang
wrote in their motion that a key plank of the proposed settlement
-- Highmark's promise to maintain its low-cost Community Blue
product -- was really no concession at all.

Those attorneys have argued that UPMC and Highmark used their
dominance of the region's markets for medical care and health
insurance to inflate charges.

UPMC, in documents filed under seal in the case on Jan. 17, showed
the plaintiffs that Highmark "was already bound to reintroduce the
Community Blue insurance product prior to the execution of the
[settlement] Agreement, contrary to Highmark's express warranty,"
according to the motion.

In an e-mailed statement, one of the attorneys representing Royal
Mile, Benjamin J. Sweet, wrote: "It appears that the covenants
regarding the reintroduction of Community Blue that we believed
Highmark exchanged for a release of the Class's claims were
entirely illusory and in direct contravention of Highmark's
representation that the terms of the settlement are 'new
undertakings and not otherwise binding upon it as pre-existing

Highmark spokesman Aaron Billger called the plantiffs'
interpretation of the settlement agreement's validity "flawed and

"We stand behind our offer," he said.

He said the insurer's attorneys would file a detailed response in
court by Jan. 28.

The settlement between Highmark and the plaintiffs would have
provided the plaintiffs' attorneys with $4.5 million and documents
they could use to pursue claims that UPMC used its market power to
gouge ratepayers.

The plaintiffs' attorneys had argued that the pact also provided
prompt benefits, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in
savings, to ratepayers.

Highmark, they said, would pledge to not give some medical
providers higher reimbursements than others through 2014, thus
enhancing competition.  And Highmark would guarantee to continue
to offer Community Blue.

Without those planks, the settlement offers little immediate
benefit to ratepayers.

A Highmark spokesman could not be immediately reached.

A hearing on the proposed settlement before U.S. District Judge
Joy Flowers Conti has been cancelled.

The judge is handling two other lawsuits involving the region's
feuding medical institutions.

In one, West Penn Allegheny Health System is suing UPMC, claiming
it unlawfully sought to stifle competition.  In the other, UPMC
sued Highmark, claiming the insurer used unlawful means to try to
siphon business from the region's dominant hospital system.

JASON D. HASS: Faces Suit Alleging Debt Adjustment Act Violations
Donna Debnar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Law Office of Jason D. Hass, P.L.C., d/b/a J. Hass
Group, LLC; Jason D. Hass; Jeremy R. Hass; and Jeffrey Hass, Case
No. 2013CV225599 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., January 7, 2013) is
a consumer class action lawsuit brought on behalf of individuals
subjected to the Defendants' violations of the Georgia Debt
Adjustment Act.

The Defendants violated the GDAA by failing to comply with its
annual requirements for debt adjusters, and by charging fees in
excess of those authorized under the GDAA, Ms. Debnar contends.

Ms. Debnar is a resident of Roswell, Fulton County, in the state
of Georgia.

The Defendants are a collection of interrelated entities, limited
liability companies, corporations, partnerships, and individuals
or a joint enterprise and venture that collectively comprise a
debt adjustment services operation allegedly targeting financially
troubled consumers and extracting exorbitant fees for worthless
services from individuals least able to afford it.

The Law Office of Jason D. Hass is an Arizona corporation based in
Scottsdale, Arizona, and is in the business of debt adjusting,
budget counseling, debt settlement and debt management.  The Hass
Defendants are directors and officers of the firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          Jean G. Mangan, Esq.
          345 West Hancock Avenue
          Athens, GA 30601
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          Facsimile: (866) 766-9245
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          G. Rick DiGiorgio, Esq.
          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Jon C. Conlin, Esq.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: rdigiorgio@cwcd.com

               - and -

          David E. Hudson, Esq.
          Christopher A. Cosper, Esq.
          Christopher J. Driver, Esq.
          HULL BARRETT, P.C.
          Post Office Box 1564
          Augusta, GA 30903-1564
          Telephone: (706) 722-4481
          Facsimile: (706) 722-9779
          E-mail: DHudson@HullBarrett.com

KNOTT'S FINE: Recalls Chicken Salad Sandwiches Due to Health Risk
Knott's Fine Foods, Inc. of Paris, Tennessee, is voluntarily
recalling its 3 ounce Chicken Salad Sandwiches with an expiration
date of 1/29/13 and earlier because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled Chicken Salad Sandwiches were distributed in West
Tennessee, Western Kentucky and North Mississippi in 35 retail

The product comes in a 3 ounce black wedge with clear plastic film
closure.  UPC code is 0-11984-01132-6.  All expiration dates
1/29/13 and earlier are being recalled.  The expiration date is
located on an orange sticker on the clear film of the package.

A picture of the recalled products' label is available at:


No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the Tennessee Department of Agriculture revealed the presence of
Listeria monocytogenes in 1 - 3 oz. Chicken Salad Sandwich.

No other Knott's Foods products were found to be affected.

The production of the product has been postponed while the FDA and
the Company continue to investigate the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased any of the above mentioned Knott's
Chicken Salad Sandwiches are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-731-642-1961 Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Central Standard Time.

LOCAL SERVICE: Zoning Dispute Won't Proceed as Class Action
District Judge Lewis T. Babcock denied the Motion for Class
Certification Pursuant to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., filed by
plaintiffs in the lawsuit, ONYX PROPERTIES LLC, a Colorado Limited
Liability Company; EMERALD PROPERTIES, LLC, a Colorado Limited
Liability Company; VALLEY BANK AND TRUST, a Colorado State Bank;
PAUL NAFTEL, an individual; SHAUNA NAFTEL, an individual; and The
Estate of LOCAL SERVICE CORPORATION by and through its Chapter 11
Bankruptcy Trustee, SIMON E. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF
EXPRESS, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF
Defendant, Civil Case No. 10-cv-01482-LTB-KLM, Consolidated w/11-
cv-02321-RPM-MJW (D. Colo.).

The Plaintiffs owned large tracts of property in Elbert County,
Colorado, that they sought to divide into 35-acre parcels for
development and sale in 2004 to 2006.  The Plaintiffs filed the
lawsuit against the Board of County Commissioners in June 2010,
asserting that the BOCC violated their constitutional rights to
due process by improperly enacting and subsequently enforcing
illegal or non-existent zoning regulations, and related zoning
map, against them and other property owners in Elbert County.  The
Plaintiffs raise individual claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for
the loss of their individual property rights without due process
of law.  They also assert class claims under Sec. 1983 against the
BOCC seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Judge Babcock ruled that the proposed class is not sufficiently
cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.

A copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/s7iMnjfrom Leagle.com.

Local Service Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr.
D. Colo. Case No. 08-15543) on April 25, 2008.  In June 2010, the
U.S. Trustee's Office appointed Simon Rodriguez as the Chapter 11
trustee for the LSC estate.

John D. Watson, who held stock interests in LSC, is a debtor in a
separate Chapter 7 case.  Jeffrey A. Weinman was appointed as the
Chapter 7 trustee for Mr. Watson's bankruptcy estate (Bankr. D.
Colo. Case No. 07-21077) in February 2008.  Mr. Weinman became the
sole board member of LSC, elected himself President, and was
authorized to make decisions for LSC.

MANTRIA CORP: Atty. Faces Suit Over Client's $54-Mil. Ponzi Scheme
The Legal Intelligencer reports that two investors have filed a
class action suit against a Philadelphia-based law firm, alleging
that the firm should have known that its client, Mantria Corp.,
for whom it served as securities counsel, was engaged in a $54
million Ponzi scheme.  According to the suit, the firm either knew
or negligently failed to realize that Mantria was selling
unregistered securities to unaccredited investors.

MASSACHUSETTS: Foster Care Class Action Trial May Take Weeks
Martine Powers, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that a
federal class action lawsuit that was set to go to trial on Jan.
22 was expected to shine a harsh light on the Massachusetts child
welfare system, laying out accusations that the state allowed
thousands of children to suffer a wide range of abuses, including
sexual assault, constant foster home uprooting, and inappropriate
prescribing of psychotropic drugs.

Children's Rights, a New York City-based child welfare watchdog
group, first filed a lawsuit against the state's Department of
Children and Families in April 2010, stating in court filings that
the state is "causing physical and psychological harm to the
abused and neglected children it is mandated to protect."

On the morning of Jan. 22 at John Joseph Moakley Courthouse, the
advocacy group was set to call its first witness: A woman who grew
up in the state's foster care system and experienced harrowing
abuses while being shuttled from home to home, said Marcia
Robinson Lowry, executive director of Children's Rights.

"She had the kind of experiences you wouldn't wish on anyone,"
Ms. Lowry said.  "When taxpayers hear what they've been spending
money on, they will be appalled."

But the state plans to argue in court that officials at the
Department of Children and Families are aware of the problems
cited by Children's Rights, and have already taken steps to
improve the child welfare system, said Angelo McClain,
commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.

"We're hoping as we present our stories, the court will conclude
that we're very passionate about making improvements to the
system," Mr. McClain said, "and that we've had results."

The lawsuit is one of more than a dozen filed in recent years by
Children's Rights against child welfare departments in states
around the country.  Massachusetts is the first state since 2006
to fight the accusations in court, rather than agree to a

The trial could take weeks.

Reports published by Children's Rights in recent months outline
troubling statistics about the state of child welfare in

According to federal audits of 47 child welfare jurisdictions in
the country, Massachusetts ranked 8th worst in mistreatment rates,
and 13th worst in the timeliness of adoptions.

On average, caseworkers fail to make more than one-quarter of
their required monthly visits to the homes of children in the
state's care, according to reports written by child welfare policy
experts and released by Children's Rights.

A study by the US Government Accountability Office, cited by the
advocacy group, said that 40 percent of foster children in
Massachusetts are prescribed psychiatric medications -- a much
larger percentage than children not in the state's care, only
about 10 percent of whom receive the same drugs.

"The problems in foster care are often invisible problems,"
Ms. Lowry said, "but they're not without extreme pain for the
children who bear the brunt of those problems."

Ms. Lowry recognized that some improvements have been made since
the lawsuit was filed, but said those corrections have come at a
disappointing pace.

"The state readily admits that in some areas they haven't made any
progress," Ms. Lowry said.  "The state's had initiatives; it's
just they haven't succeeded. In some degree, it's too little too

"The fact that the state is trying," she continued, "is not making
life any better for these children."

Mr. McClain contended that the state has made significant
improvements.  In 2008, the Department of Children and Families
implemented a new model for how to manage cases and ensure that
children do not fall through the cracks.

That new model, he said, has been effective: "Fewer than 1 percent
of Massachusetts children currently experience abuse or neglect
while in the state's care, according to state officials.  And in
the past four years, the number of foster care placements that
prove stable increased from 72 percent to 79 percent."

"I was given a clear mandate to transform the system, and we've
done quite a bit of work since 2008 and 2009 to implement that
mandate," Mr. McClain said.  "It's clear we've made some
significant changes in a number of areas."

Additionally, last year, the Department of Children and Families
increased reimbursement rates for foster parents by 15 percent to
20 percent, though Ms. Lowry suggested that the payment increase
was prompted by the lawsuit.

"I don't question [Children's Rights] motives, and I think they
believe that we could be doing a better job," Mr. McClain said.
"But I don't know how much they've taken into account the
improvements we've made since 2008."

Mr. McClain said he was concerned that resources being used to
defend the case could have better been put to use in helping the
children of Massachusetts.  "It's distracting the agency from
doing the work we need to do," Mr. McClain said.

MISSISSIPPI: Faces Violation of Privacy Class Action Suit
Courthouse News Service reports that Mississippi violates privacy
by requiring repeated fingerprint scanning from people who "rely
on government-provided certificates to pay for child care," a
class action claims in Federal Court.

MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Reinstates Part of MBS Class Action
The Litigation Daily reports that a federal judge has reinstated
part of a purported class action that accuses a Morgan Stanley
subsidiary of making false and misleading statements in its
offering materials for mortgage-backed securities.  The decision
is the latest to follow a Second Circuit ruling last fall that
expanded the right of plaintiffs to assert standing in MBS suits
against banks.

MOTRICITY: Faces Class Action Over Text-Message Subscriptions
Courthouse News Service reports that Motricity dba Goldpocket
Wireless, and Ericsson dba Goldpocket Interactive cram people for
monthly text-message subscriptions, a class action claims in King
County Court.

NEINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Action Over Settlement Fees
Yamri Taddese, writing for Law Times, reports that a Toronto
personal injury lawyer is facing a class action spearheaded by a
former client who won C$150,000 as a settlement award but alleges
she ended up keeping only C$8,000 of it.

Cassie Hodge of Brooklin, Ont., is taking Gary Neinstein and his
firm, Neinstein & Associates LLP, to court with a claim that the
lawyer unlawfully included costs in a contingency agreement and
charged her fees she didn't understand.  She's seeking C$1 million
in punitive damages.  None of the allegations have been proven in
court and Mr. Neinstein has yet to file a statement of defense.
His lawyer, however, argues the matter is an inappropriate one for
a class action.

According to her notice of application, Ms. Hodge, a mother of
two, was in a car accident in 2002 that left her with serious
physical injuries.  She retained Mr. Neinstein as a lawyer and
signed an agreement that said she'd pay him 25 per cent of the
damages recovered in addition to partial indemnity costs and

But she didn't receive a copy of the agreement, her counsel Peter
Waldmann says.

Nearly three years ago, Ms. Hodge won a C$150,000 settlement award
that included costs.  Mr. Neinstein told Ms. Hodge that C$100,000
of the amount was for the claim and the rest would go to "party
and party costs" and disbursements, according to Ms. Hodge's

"I received no explanations as to how the breakdown of C$150,000
into C$100,000 for the claim and C$50,000 was arrived at," she
wrote in her affidavit.

"I was not consulted about it and the minutes of settlement is
silent on it."

In the end, Ms. Hodge said she paid Neinstein & Associates
C$60,000 in fees.  That amount included "legal fees" and "party
and party costs."  She also paid the firm nearly C$50,000 in
disbursements, according to the claim.  At the same time, she says
she paid about C$32,000 for a third-party litigation loan after
borrowing C$19,500 at an interest rate of 26 per cent in addition
to other costs.

"The listed disbursements included C$4,008.27 in photocopies,
C$2,791.2 in laser copies, and C$1,280.7 for scanned documents,
being a total for copies of C$8,080.17," her application states.

The disbursements also included "interest recovery charges,"
Mr. Waldmann tells Law Times.  It's unclear what this fee means as
lawyers can only charge interest once they've rendered a bill, he

For the purpose of her lawsuit, Ms. Hodge was able to obtain an
unsigned copy of the retainer agreement, according to
Mr. Waldmann.

When Ms. Hodge requested backup invoices and receipts for the
disbursements Mr. Neinstein allegedly claimed, she was asked to
pay a C$500 retainer in advance to prepare the materials,
Mr. Waldmann wrote in the notice of application.

The agreement Ms. Hodge signed "does not contain a statement that
the client and the solicitor have discussed options for retaining
the solicitor other than by way of contingency-fee agreement,
including retaining the solicitor by way of an hourly rate
retainer," the notice of application states.  This is contrary to
s. 2(3)(i) of the regulation, Ms. Hodge alleges.

Including costs in a contingency-fee agreement without approval of
the Superior Court is illegal, Mr. Waldmann claims.

"We have a law in force which says that contingency agreements
can't include costs," he says.

"A lawyer can't take any part of the costs unless a judge approves
it and if you look at s. 28 [of the Solicitors Act], a judge is
only to approve it if there are extraordinary circumstances."

The agreement Ms. Hodge signed also doesn't contain a statement
that lets the client know of her right to ask the Superior Court
of Justice to review and approve the lawyer's bill, Mr. Waldmann
wrote in the notice of application.

Ensuring clients are aware of the meaning of the fees a lawyer
asks them to pay is at the heart of the regulation, says
Mr. Waldmann.  "Most people don't understand the concept of costs.
So when they're signing an agreement, they're told fees are going
to be 25 per cent of whatever the recovery is plus the costs.
They don't necessarily appreciate what the cost part means."

Although there are no statistics showing how often these
situations occur, "if this is a general practice -- and it appears
to be -- there are possibly thousands" of litigants who have
unlawfully paid costs to their lawyers, Mr. Waldmann charges.

For its part, Neinstein & Associates is preparing its response,
says counsel Chris Paliare --
chris.paliare@paliareroland.com -- of Paliare Roland Rosenberg
Rothstein LLP.  "We've told [Waldmann] from the very outset,
before the court, that this is a class proceeding without merit."

The complainants may pursue other remedies for their claims, but
they don't include a class action, says Mr. Paliare.  "That's the
position we've had since the outset.  That's not to say that
[Waldmann's] client or clients, if they have more, don't have an
alternative remedy."

Mr. Waldmann says two other plaintiffs, also former clients of
Mr. Neinstein's, are involved in the case.

There were no provisions for contingency fees prior to 2004,
according to Mr. Waldmann, who notes they had been considered
illegal up until then.  But there were a few cases before 2004
that found otherwise and those rulings led to their legalization,
he adds.

"When they were legalized, there were provisions put into the
Solicitors Act, s. 28, and regulations were passed which concerned
being fair to the public.  The purpose of the statute is that the
client understands and is treated fairly."

In December, meanwhile, a Superior Court judge awarded C$7,000 in
costs to Neinstein & Associates after Ms. Hodge brought a motion
for a third-party funding agreement and abandoned it after the
funder withdrew its commitment to finance her litigation.

NORQUAY DEVELOPMENTS: Victoria Fire Class Suit in Discovery Phase
Tara Bowie, writing for Woodstock Sentinel-Review, reports that
lawyers hope by the end of 2013 a AUD60-million lawsuit launched
by survivors of the Victoria Street fire and explosion will be
resolved one way or another.

It's been almost two years since an explosion and fire ripped
through the 45-unit apartment complex on Victoria Street South.
Two people died, Margaret Gillett, 73, and Bill Watmough, 79,
during the explosion that early Sunday morning on March 27, 2011.

The tragedy left about 100 people homeless.

The lawsuit, which started to be organized just days after the
horrific explosion, received judge's certification in the later
half of 2012.  Lawyers from the offices of Sutts, Strosberg LLP of
Windsor and Falconer Charney LLP of Toronto are handling the class
action lawsuit that is now in the discovery phase.

"Discovery is the stage of the lawsuit where each side exchanges
all relevant documents with the other side.  Then representatives
of each party in the lawsuit attend to be cross-examined under
oath about the matters in the lawsuit," lawyer Sharon Strosberg
said in an e-mail exchange with the Sentinel-Review.

The lawsuit should go to trial in a Woodstock courtroom by the end
of 2013, Ms. Strosberg wrote in the e-mail.

Listed as defendants in the suit are the owners of the building
Norquay Developments Limited, Coinamatic Canada Inc., the company
that supplied the gas dryers, Union Gas Limited and Carolyn
Dedrick the property manager for the building.

The large class includes anyone that rented an apartment or other
space in the building, was present at the time of the explosion,
or owned property that was located in a unit in the building.

The Office of the Ontario Fire Marshal continues to investigate
the cause of the explosion.

"It is still under investigation.  The cause has not been
determined yet," Carol Gravelle, a public affairs officer from the
Office of the Fire Marshal said.

No timelines were provided as to when the investigation would be

PREMIERWEST BANCORP: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Starbuck
Sector Grid Trading Company, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. James M. Ford, Thomas R. Becker, James L.
Patterson, John A. Duke, John L. Anhorn, Richard R. Hieb, Sr.,
Dennis N. Hoffbuhr, Patrick G. Huycke, Rickar D. Watkins, John B.
Dickerson, Brian Pargeter, Mary P. Carryer, Bruce Currier,
PremierWest Bancorp., Starbuck Bancshares, Inc. and Pearl Merger
Sub Corp., Case No. 650121/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 11, 2013)
is a shareholder class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of PremierWest common stock.

The complaint challenges the Defendants' actions in causing the
Company to enter into an agreement pursuant to which Starbuck
will, among other things, purchase all of the issued and
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock for $1.65 per
share in a transaction, which protects and advances the interests
of the members of PremierWest's directors at the expense of the
Plaintiff and PremierWest's other public common stockholders.  The
complaint also challenges the Defendants' efforts to conceal
material information from the Plaintiff and PremierWest's other
public common stockholders in the proxy statement that the Board
caused the Company to file with the SEC and mail to PremierWest's
shareholders in connection with soliciting shareholder votes in
support of the Sale Agreement.

Sector Grid, a resident of New York, has owned common shares of
PremierWest continuously since June 13, 2011.

PremierWest is a publicly traded corporation, headquartered in
Medorf, Oregon.  The Company is a bank holding company for the
PremierWest Bank, an Oregon state-chartered commercial bank with
thirty-two full service banking offices located in northern
California and southern Oregon.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.  Seattle, Washington-based
Starbuck is a registered bank holding company and the parent
company of AmericanWest Bank.  Pearl Merger Sub, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Starbuck, is an Oregon corporation formed solely for
the purpose of effecting consummation of the Sale Agreement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
          David Titus, Esq.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602
          Facsimile: (212) 952-0608
          E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com

REDDY ICE: Sued Over Factory's Release of Toxic Ammonia
Courthouse News Service reports that a Reddy Ice factory forced
neighbors to evacuate and burned their respiratory systems in a
toxic ammonia release on Jan. 10, a class action claims in East
Baton Rouge Parish Court.

ROHNERT PARK, CA: Sued For Seizing Vehicles Without Warrant
Pedro Dector and Floriberto Perez Ojeda and all others similarly
situated v. City of Rohnert Park, Rohnert Park Department of
Public Safety and Does 1-5, inclusive, Case No. 4:13-cv-00104
(N.D. Calif., January 8, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiffs'
vehicles were seized without a search warrant.

On separate occasions, involving separate vehicles they
respectively owned, the Plaintiffs were stopped within the city
limits by Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety officers for
alleged traffic violations, which do not involve a motor vehicle
collision or accident.  Because they are not validly licensed to
drive in California due to their immigration status, RPDPS
officers ordered the 30-day impoundment of the Plaintiffs'
vehicles for 30 days.  By this action, the Plaintiffs seek damages
for violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and
the California Constitution based on the unlawful warrantless
seizure of their vehicles.

The Plaintiffs, who are residents of the County of Sonoma,
California, are each married and have families consisting of minor
children.  They own vehicles, which they use for work and to
transport their families to school, medical appointments, and
other day-to-day necessities of life.

The City of Rohnert Park is a governmental entity organized under
the laws of the state of California and is responsible for the
policies, practices, actions and omissions of the RPDPS.  The
RPDPS is a law enforcement agency organized under the laws and
established, controlled and operated by and on behalf of the City.
The Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark T. Clausen, Esq.
          769 Carr Avenue
          Santa Rosa, CA 95404
          Telephone: (707) 542-9700
          Cellular Telephone: (707) 235-3663
          Facsimile: (707) 542-9713
          E-mail: MarkToddClausen@yahoo.com

ROYAL LABS: Faces False Advertising Suit Over Body Wash Product
Courthouse News Service reports that Royal Labs Natural Cosmetics
falsely advertises its "body wash" as organic, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

SAN ANTONIO SPURS: McGuinness' Class Action Faces Uphill Battle
Daily Business Review reports that Larry McGuinness made headlines
when he filed a class action suit against the San Antonio Spurs
after the team's coach had four star players sit out a game that
the Miami attorney had paid to see.  Viewed by sports law
attorneys as having an uphill battle, Mr. McGuinness says he'll
donate any money he gets from the suit to Hurricane Sandy victim.

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Sued For Transferring Shareholder Wealth to CEO
Jerald Kallick, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated shareholders v. SandRidge Energy, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Tom L. Ward, Jim J. Brewer, Everett R. Dobson,
William A. Gilliland, Daniel W. Jordan, Roy T. Oliver, Jr., and
Jeffrey S. Serota, Case No. 8182- (Del. Ch. Ct., January 7, 2013)
accuses SandRidge's Board of Directors of habitually transferring
significant shareholder wealth to Tom Ward, the Company's chairman
and chief executive officer, despite the Company's status as the
worst-performing energy company in America.

Now that one of the Company's largest shareholders has publicly
signaled its intention to run a consent solicitation to replace
all of the members of the incumbent Board, the Board has violated
its fiduciary duties in an attempt to thwart the consent
solicitation and disenfranchise the Company's shareholders, Mr.
Kallick asserts.  He contends that in addition to the grossly
improper direct compensation, the Board also has permitted Mr.
Ward to compete directly with the Company for the acquisition of
mineral rights.

Mr. Kallick is a shareholder of SandRidge.

SandRidge is a Delaware corporation with its executive offices in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  SandRidge is an independent oil and
natural gas company concentrating on development and production
activities in the Mid-Continent, West Texas and Gulf of Mexico.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Bernard C. Devieux, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com

SENECA INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Coinsurance Penalties
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that a Seneca Insurance Co.
unit was hit with a proposed class action on Jan. 14 in
Pennsylvania federal court alleging it shortchanges some
policyholders by assessing a coinsurance penalty on the
replacement cost of a damaged property instead of its actual cash

Policyholder Emanuel Ruth Investment Corp. alleges Seneca
Specialty Insurance wrongly rejected its request to file a claim
for the actual cash value of a damaged property and instead
determined the claim according to the higher replacement value.

SEQWATER: Flood Victims Urged to Join Class Action
Stephen Johnson and Petrina Berry, writing for The Australian
Associated Press, report that flood victims in Brisbane and
Ipswich are being urged to join what litigants describe as
potentially the largest class action in Australian history.

Litigation funder and law firm Maurice Blackburn have released
maps showing parts of the cities they argue should have been
spared inundation in January 2011.

Modeling by US hydrologists says riverside locations in Brisbane's
city center, including the Eagle Street Pier, the inner-city areas
of New Farm, Auchenflower and West End, along with central
Ipswich, would not have flooded if the Wivenhoe Dam had been
operated properly.

It is alleged that dam operator Seqwater had failed to operate the
dam competently, leading to excess water being released on January
8 and 9, 2011 as Brisbane braced for the biggest floods since

IMF Australia executive director John Walker said their
"potentially" billion-dollar class action could set a new
Australian record, arguing the flooding "didn't need to occur".

"What we have here is a dam that sits above millions of people and
what we have is an extreme hazard," he told reporters on Jan. 21.

Maurice Blackburn Class Actions principal Damian Scattini said
Seqwater held too much water in Wivenhoe Dam for too long, before
"they panicked and released too much at once".

Mr. Scattini said that despite floods occurring in December 2010
and early January 2011, Seqwater closed its flood center until
January 6.

"They closed the gates and presumably went home," he said, adding
their behavior was "negligent".

Auchenflower resident and engineering consultant Liam Stitt, 50,
who had AUD80,000 worth of goods destroyed by the floods, is
joining in the class action in the hope of justice for those who
were uninsured.

Mr. Stitt was insured for home and contents damage but his
business equipment was not covered.

"I had a view from day one they mismanaged the dam," he told AAP.

But Seqwater chief executive Terri Benson said the engineers had
been faithful to the operating manual as they faced three flood
events over a five-week period in December 2010 and January 2011.

"Seqwater remains confident that Wivenhoe Dam was managed and
performed as it was designed," Ms. Benson said in a statement.

Ipswich councilor Paul Tully says only 15 homes and four
businesses at Goodna would have been destroyed if Wivenhoe dam had
been managed differently, instead of the 600 that were destroyed.

"Goodna would have been back to normal within 24 hours but now we
are still facing years of heartbreak with destroyed homes,
marriages and families," Mr. Tully said in a statement.

Ipswich Mayor Paul Pisasale agreed too much water was released,
but is declining to join the class action.

"This legal battle will drag on for the next five to 10 years and
the only people who are going to win this are the lawyers," he
told AAP.

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman and his successor as Brisbane
Lord Mayor Graham Quirk declined to comment on the specifics of
the potential class action.

The litigants hope to make a decision on whether to proceed by
April, and see a possible court case running for up to four years.

SEQWATER: Couple to Join Flood Victims' Class Action Suit
Tuck Thompson, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that flood
victims Tony and Julie Reed see the looming class-action lawsuit
against the operators of the Wivenhoe Dam as a financial lifeline.

The Reeds suffered more than AUD1 million in damages and lost
value to their family home in Mt Ommaney and a former rental
property in Fig Tree Pocket.

"We have a lot at stake," Mr. Reed said on Jan. 21.

"We hope we can get a settlement.  Even 50 per cent of what we
lost is better than nothing."

Mr. Reed said he wasn't surprised that experts hired by the law
firm acting for flood victims suggested many homes would not have
flooded if the dam was properly managed.

"That's what we thought all along," he said.

The family was critical of the government's inquiry into the dam
operation during the flood.

"That was a waste of public money and for show," Mr. Reed said.

They were unaware the home and contents insurance purchased
through a broker did not include riverine flood cover and their
insurance company rejected their claim.  They received a charity
payout of AUD60,000 and about AUD5,000 from the government.

Friends and relatives helped, but they had to re-negotiate their
loan to get back on track.

Mr. Reed attended meetings held by law firm Maurice Blackburn
explaining the litigation process for flood victims.

He intends to sign up for the class-action to recover some of his

He said the family was disappointed the State Government had shown
no willingness to admit error.

SYNGENTA CROP: Centralia Gets Share in Atrazine Settlement
Bruce Kropp, writing for WJBD News, reports that the City of
Centralia has received nearly $543,000 as part of a class action
lawsuit settlement against the manufacturers of Atrazine.

City Manager Dan Ramey says the money is part of $105-million
being distributed to 1,085 cities across the country.  The money
is to compensate water systems for money spent in removing the
chemical during the water treatment process.  The chemical runs
off fields into waterways used for drinking water after being
sprayed on corn and other crops.

Mr. Ramey says the city is not restricted in how it can use the
proceeds from the settlement.  "The money will be put into the
general fund at this point and the city council will have their
option of how to spend the money in the future," said Mr. Ramey.
"The city's budget right is very tight right now in almost every
fund, so I'm sure before it is over the money will be spread
around both in the water department and possibly the general

Mr. Ramey thanked City Attorney Mike Jones for the knowledge to
get the city involved in the Class Action suit and the Mayor and
City Council for pursuing the settlement.

SYNGENTA CROP: Evansville Among Cities to Get Settlement Checks
John Martin, writing for Evansville Courier & Press, reports that
Evansville is among more than 1,000 cities nationwide to receive a
slice of cash in a class-action lawsuit settlement with the
largest manufacturer of the weed killer atrazine.

A St. Louis law firm, Korein Tillery, announced that checks are
being received by water systems in those cities as part of the
settlement of the litigation City of Greenville (Ill.) vs.
Syngenta Crop Protection Inc.

Evansville's settlement is six figures, said Jerry Brown, a
spokesman for the law firm.  The exact amount was not available on
Jan. 18.

Fifty-one cities and towns in Indiana filed claims to help recoup
the cost of removing atrazine from their drinking water, with 16
cities receiving at least $100,000.  The state total will exceed
$7 million.

The Swiss company Syngenta is the largest manufacturer of atrazine
in the world, according to a news release by Korein Tillery.
Although banned in Europe, atrazine continues to be heavily used
in the United States.

A growing number of independent scientists in the United States
are calling for tighter restrictions, the release states.

"Science has been fighting an uphill battle against giant
pesticide manufacturers like Syngenta who claim that a little weed
killer in your drinking water won't hurt you," Stephen Tillery, a
partner in the law firm, is quoted as saying in the release.
"Independent scientists now believe, however, that even trace
amounts can harm you and your children for generations to come.

"Every cent of the settlement fund will be distributed to class
members.  The scope of this settlement is enormous. These
settlement funds will be used to help protect the health of
millions of people across the country."

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Rochon Genova Files ACTOS Class Action
On January 17, 2013, law firm Rochon Genova LLP filed its
certification record in a proposed class action on behalf of users
of a diabetes drug ACTOS (pioglitazone hydrochloride) against
Takeda Pharmaceutical and Eli Lilly.  The action alleges that the
defendants knew or ought to have known that ACTOS materially
increases the risks of bladder cancer and failed to disclose those
risks in a timely manner and have failed to recall the drug in

The case is brought by the daughter of a Toronto woman who died in
April 2011 after battling bladder cancer for more than two years
following her use of ACTOS.  Her daughter, a registered nurse, is
confident in the strength of the evidence in support of the case:
"I believe the expert evidence that's been filed confirms what
manufacturers knew all along about the association between ACTOS
and bladder cancer.  They had this information and it should have
been shared with doctors and patients years ago.  There were much
safer treatments my mother could have used to control her diabetes
without putting her life at risk; she should have been given all
the relevant information to make an informed choice about her
treatment.  That choice was taken away from her.  "The evidence in
the record confirms the link between ACTOS and bladder cancer and
includes the opinion of Dr. Bruce Trock, a Professor of
Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Dr. Trock reviewed the relevant body of scientific literature and
concluded that ". . . the body of evidence from epidemiologic
studies of pioglitazone [ACTOS] and bladder cancer supports the
conclusion that pioglitazone is a risk factor for bladder cancer".

The record also contains the report of Dr. Michael Pollak, a
Professor of Oncology at McGill's Faculty of Medicine.  Dr. Pollak
noted the early evidence for the association between ACTOS and
bladder cancer in preclinical toxicity studies.  In his view,
given the availability of safe alternative therapies, such as
metformin, and the very significant morbidity and mortality
associated with bladder cancer, all knowledge of a potential
association between ACTOS and the development of bladder cancer
should have been disclosed by the manufacturers in the information
used by prescribing physicians.

A third report by consultants at AxSource, a Canadian regulatory
consulting firm, concluded that the information about ACTOS
published in the desk reference used by Canadian physicians did
not accurately reflect the knowledge of the manufacturers about
the drug's association with bladder cancer.

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court.  The plaintiff and class members are represented by the
Toronto based law firm of Rochon Genova LLP.

TNS INC: Being Sold to Siris for Too Little, Suit Claims
Courthouse News Service reports that TNS Inc. is selling itself
too cheaply through an unfair process to Siris Capital Group for
$21 a share, shareholders claim in New York County Supreme Court.

ZYNGA INC: Sued For Not Paying Software Engineers' OT Wages
Andrew Luo, individually and collectively on behalf of those
similarly situated v. Zynga, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:13-cv-00186 (N.D. Calif.,
January 14, 2013) accuses the Company of failing to pay employees
all wages and overtime due at the agreed upon hourly rate under
California and federal law.

Zynga failed to properly itemize wage statements for all wages due
at termination, and failed to timely pay all wages due during
employment and at termination, Mr. Luo alleges.  He contends that
he and members of the proposed class were not properly compensated
by Zynga for all overtime hours worked as required by the
applicable state wage and hour laws of California.

Mr. Luo is a former Zynga "Software Engineer," who spent more than
50% of his time performing non-exempt testing, engineering, and
quality assurance work.  He entered into an employment
relationship with Zynga and was employed by Zynga in California
from June 2010 to August 2012.

Zynga is a Delaware company headquartered in San Francisco,
California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY, APLC
          9861 Irvine Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 208-3400
          Facsimile: (949) 713-0432
          E-mail: jgaray@garay1aw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          555 W. Fifth Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533-4160
          Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Glenn C. Nunes, Esq.
          1 Sansome Street, Suite 3500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 946-8894
          Facsimile: (415) 946-8801
          E-mail: glenn@nunes1awgroup.com



Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2013. 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 $775 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 A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *