---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
     
             Monday, February 8, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 2

                           Headlines

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: "Do I Need An Attorney?" Campaign Under Fire
ALLSTATE & GEICO INSURANCE: Sued Over "Imitation" Auto Parts
BMJ MEDICAL: Berger & Montague Files Complaint in Florida
CEDANT CORP.: Royal Auto Club Acquisition Collapses
CHOLESTECH CORP.: Glancy Firm Files Complaint in California

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Settles Racial Discrimination Suit for $25MM
E*TRADE GROUP: Complaint Survives; Class Certification Sought
KERR-MCGEE CORP: Ready to Settle Fume Suit for $10.25 Million
LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Berger & Montague File Suit in Massachusetts
LOEWEN GROUP: Weiss & Yourman Files Complaint in [New York]

LOEWEN GROUP: Wechsler Harwood Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Lawsuit Alleges Race & Sex Discrimination
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: 8th Circuit Revives Pricing Practices Suit
PEOPLESOFT, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
PEOPLESOFT, INC.: Stull Stull File Complaint in California

SAFEWAY STORES: State To Referee Potential Antitrust Violations
SERVICE CORPORATION: Little Rock-Based Cauly Firm Files Complaint
SMARTALK TELESERVICES: Shapiro Haber Files Complaint in Ohio
THERAGENICS CORP.: Spector & Roseman File Complaint in Georgia
UTAH DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS: Indian Prisoner Sweat Lodge Rites Suit

VISION TWENTY-ONE: Burt & Pucillo File Complaint in Florida
ZILA, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Arizona
ZILA, INC.: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Arizona
ZILA, INC.: Wechsler Harwood Files Complaint in Arizona
ZILA, INC.: Cohen Milstein Files Complaint in Arizona

                           *********

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: "Do I Need An Attorney?" Campaign Under Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Cook County, Ill., judge has allowed a lawsuit against Allstate
Insurance and its "Do I Need An Attorney?" campaign to proceed as
a class action, reports the Journal of Commerce.  The lawsuit
alleges that Allstate's program, which informs claimants they
don't have to consult or hire a lawyer to settle claims, violates
the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The court denied
Allstate's motion to dismiss the deceptive practices count.

The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Allstate's program is
intended to dissuade them from consulting or hiring an attorney,
duping injury victims into dealing directly with Allstate and
obtaining a less than a fair amount of $8,677 for a claim.  
Attorney Clint Krislov of Krislov & Associates Ltd. of Chicago,
who argued the plaintiffs' case, said, "This is a giant step
toward restoring a fair chance for injured parties to get a fair
recovery on their claims and preventing others from being
deceptively lured into dealing unassisted with Allstate, and
ensuring that the negotiations are conducted on a fair playing
field."

Mr. Krislov, in an interview with the Journal of Commerce, could
not give specific details on how the "fair amount of $8,677" per
claim was derived.

The Court set a March 2 hearing on plaintiffs' request to enjoin
Allstate from continuing to send the "Do I Need An Attorney?"
letters and making these representations to new accident victims.

Deborah Campbell, vice president, property/casualty claims
service organization at Allstate, told The Journal of Commerce
the judge had already clarified the class action to just the one
case concerning the "Do I Need A Lawyer" letter on Jan. 28.  At
that time he told the plaintiffs' lawyers to find appropriate
representation for the lawsuit and return on March 2.  "We have
had insurance regulators and attorneys general ask us for
clarification about this letter," Ms. Campbell said.  She added
the company has shown that this advice is just part of the entire
Allstate package for settling a claim.  "It simply provides a
choice to the claimant."  She continued, saying that the interest
the plaintiffs' bar is showing in this letter is "a good
indication that it is successful.  We think the bar is very
frustrated by the part of the letter that explains to a claimant
that if he or she receives an offer from Allstate and then
consults an attorney, the attorney can only take a contingency
fee, if any, from the amount above the offer from Allstate."

But Jim Peterson of Hill Peterson Carper Bee & Deitzler PLLC,
Charleston, W.Va., also counsel for the plaintiffs, said, "This
is not about attorney fees.  This is about stopping an unfair,
targeted, and centrally administered practice that attacks
children and adults alike from receiving fair and on-the-square  
settlements."


ALLSTATE & GEICO INSURANCE: Sued Over "Imitation" Auto Parts
------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Co. and Geico Insurance are targets of
lawsuits claiming both insurers mislead consumers by compelling
auto repair shops to use imitation parts when repairing vehicles
owned by Geico and Allstate policyholders, according to a news
report appearing in The Journal of Commerce.

Both suits, filed Jan. 27 in Arizona's Maricopa County Superior
Court, seek class action status, claiming the companies' actions
constitute a breach of contract with customers.

Geico and Allstate policies state that repairs will be made using
parts that restore vehicles to pre-crash physical condition and
cash value, the Journal says, and, according to the lawsuits,
both insurers require repair shops use parts manufactured by
third parties that are not authorized, sanctioned or made by  
vehicle manufacturers.  The suit claims that these imitation
parts do not restore a car to original cash value, diminish its
resale value, jeopardize the manufacturer's warranty and threaten
the car's structural integrity.


BMJ MEDICAL: Berger & Montague Files Complaint in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders represented by Berger & Montague, P.C. and Beasley,
Leacock & Hauser, P.A, filed a class action suit on Feb. 2, 1999,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Civil Action No. 99-8086-CIV-Zloch, seeking damages for
alleged violation of  the federal securities laws on behalf of
all persons, excluding the defendants  and their affiliates, who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of  BMJ Medical
Management, Inc. pursuant or traceable to BMJ's February 4,  1998
initial public offering at any time prior to December 17,  1998.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants participated in,
approved and/or permitted to be made misrepresentations of
material fact in the Prospectus, and omitted to disclose material
facts necessary to make the statements made to plaintiffs and the
class not misleading, concerning BMJ's capitalization, accounting
practices and management procedures in violation of sections 11,  
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. sections
77k, 77(l)(a)(2) and 77o, and common law.

The Complaint further alleges, among other things, that
defendants' violations caused plaintiffs and the class damages;
that on December 17, 1998, BMJ commenced bankruptcy proceedings
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code; and that BMJ's
stock, which had been issued to the public at $7.00 per share,  
closed at approximately $0.08 per share on December 31, 1998.


CEDANT CORP.: Royal Auto Club Acquisition Collapses
---------------------------------------------------
Cendant Corp. is dropping plans to acquire part of Royal Auto
Club Ltd. after British antitrust regulators demanded that
Cendant divest from its Green Flag breakdown assistance business.
The $758.8 million deal had been announced in May. It was driven
by expected cost savings and synergies between Royal Auto Club
and Green Flag, said Cendant vice chairman Stephen P. Holmes.

Cendant's shares fell 56 1/4 cents, or 2.5 percent, to $21.87 1/2
on the New York Stock Exchange.  Cendant, which owns brand names
such as Ramada, Avis and Century 21 real estate, has been
shedding businesses since an accounting scandal surfaced in  
April from the operations of CUC International Inc., one of the
companies that merged in December 1997 to create Cendant.  
Cendant has lost $20 billion of its market value since revealing
accounting irregularities in April.  Ten directors associated
with CUC have resigned, and investors filed one of the largest
class-action lawsuits in history in federal court.

Money set aside for the Royal Auto Club purchase will instead be
used to reduce debt and repurchase Cendant shares, Holmes said.
Cendant recently announced it was boosting its stock buybacks by
$200 million, to $1.2 billion.  Cendant, which moved its
headquarters to New York from Parsippany, N.J., last month, has
more than 35,000 employees and operates in more than 100
countries.


CHOLESTECH CORP.: Glancy Firm Files Complaint in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint was filed Friday in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Cholestech Corp.
(Nasdaq:CTEC) between July 30, 1997, and June 26, 1998, inclusive
by The Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy in Los Angeles.

The Complaint charges Cholestech and its president, chief
executive officer and director, Warren E. Pinckert II, with
violations of the federal securities laws and seeks damages under
those laws.

In summary, the Complaint claims that, during the Class Period,
the defendants publicly misreported the sales-performance levels
and market acceptance of the Company's primary product, the LDX
System. The Company essentially describes that product as a
diagnostic testing method that allows for the rapid and  
simultaneous testing and measuring of multiple biochemical
analytes with a single drop of blood.  The LDX System includes
the LDX Analyzer and a variety of single-use cassettes, and is
marketed largely to end users such as physician-office
laboratories, health-care promotional settings and pharmacy
markets.  The high-volume repeat sales of these cassettes to such
targeted end users for use with their installed LDX Systems is
fundamental to the Company's overall profitability outlook and
the Company priced the individual system components accordingly.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
engaged and participated in a continuous course of conduct to
misrepresent the financial success of Cholestech's operations.
The defendants knew that the LDX System had been underperforming
expectations in the marketplace as a result of slow market  
acceptance as well as limited end-user sales and installation of
that system.  In response, the defendants materially overstated
the Company's reported earnings by their strategy of "stuffing"
its product distribution channel with excessive LDX system
"deliveries."  This "channel stuffing" strategy enabled the
defendants to inflate the Company's earnings by booking as
revenues all "deliveries" of its product to distributors, even
where such "deliveries" did not amount to actual sales of the LDX
System to the targeted end users and the attendant installation
of that system and cassette purchase by such end users.

As a result of the foregoing fraudulent conduct, Cholestech's
common stock traded during the Class Period at artificially
inflated prices as high as $17.875 per share, plummeting to $6
when the Company finally revealed that the overstuffed
distribution channels were not effectively selling through to the  
targeted end users.

Members of the Class may move the Court, not later than 60 days
from Feb. 5, 1999, to serve as lead plaintiff.


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Settles Racial Discrimination Suit for $25MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Transportation Inc., the nation's third-largest railroad, has
settled a class-action lawsuit claiming race discrimination,
reportedly for $25 million.  The settlement affects thousands of
black union employees.  The workers' suit, filed in 1994, accused
Jacksonville, Fla.based CSX Transportation of discriminating
against black workers in employment policies, practices and
procedures.  A CSX spokeswoman wouldn't comment on the settlement
when questioned by reporters.  CSX Transportation is a holding of
CSX Corp. of Richmond, Virginia.


E*TRADE GROUP: Complaint Survives; Class Certification Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
The nationwide class action filed against E*TRADE Group, Inc. has
reached a new level of intensity as lawyers for the plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification on February 2, 1999,
according to the firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP and Brian W. Newcomb, Esq.  The case was originally filed on
November 21, 1997 in the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara and has survived a previous motion to dismiss.

"It is ironic that the motion to certify the class was filed on
the very day that E*TRADE's trading systems, once again, were
incapacitated, " said Seth R. Lesser, from Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP. "This is the exact same problem alleged
in the lawsuit.  And, these problems have been systematic since
at least September 1996 to the present day," he added.

According to papers filed with the court, plaintiffs contend that
E*TRADE's inherent incapacity to process its customer trades in a
reasonably timely manner violates its contractual obligations,
its regulatory requirements and its fiduciary obligations to its
customers.  E*TRADE's problems were exacerbated, according to
plaintiffs allegations, by E*TRADE's marketing of its brokerage
services with promises the customers would be able to place
trades and check on their accounts 24 hours a day and that trades
placed while the markets were open would be executed in seconds.

In support of their motion for class certification, plaintiffs
submitted affidavits from Professor Michael J. Barclay, Professor
of Finance at the University of Rochester's William E. Simon
Graduate School of Business Administration and Junius Peake,
Monfort Distinguished Professor of Finance at the University of
Northern Colorado and former Governor and Vice-Chairman of the
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., detailing how  
E*TRADE's alleged actions can be litigated on a class-wide basis.


KERR-MCGEE CORP: Ready to Settle Fume Suit for $10.25 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kerr-McGee Corp. has agreed to pay $10.25 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit alleging one of its chemical plants released  
fumes that harmed hundreds of people living nearby.  Under the
settlement, filed in federal court Jan. 26 and reported by the
Associated Press, people living within seven miles of the
Hamilton, Mississippi, plant for three months or more since the
place opened in 1958 could file claims for some of the money.
Amounts paid out would be based on how long the recipients lived
nearby and how close to the plant they were.  A court hearing on
the settlement is set for July 19, 1999.

Kerr-McGee denied any wrongdoing and said it settled the 1996
lawsuit to avoid a long and costly trial.  The lawsuit, filed on
behalf more than 800 people, accused Kerr-McGee of releasing
harmful fumes such as sulfur dioxide, titanium tetrachloride,  
chlorine and ammonia in violation of state and federal law.  The
plaintiffs blamed the pollutants for respiratory ailments and
central nervous system disorders.


LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Berger & Montague File Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. announced that it has filed a Complaint
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The action, seeking class action status,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Lernout & Hauspie Speech
Products (Nasdaq: LHSPF) securities during the period from
February 3, 1998 through December 1, 1998, inclusive.

Purchasers of LHSPF securities during the Class Period may join
this action and may, not later than March 20, 1999, move the  
court to serve as a representative plaintiff for the Class.  

The Complaint alleges that Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products had
improperly accounted for "in-process" research and development of
other voice recognition and translation software companies it had
acquired since at least 1996.  In accounting for those
acquisitions, Lernout wrote-off up to 60% of the in-process
research and development of the acquired companies.

The SEC had commented that these write-offs were excessive.  
Lernout was forced to assign the excess R&D write-offs to
goodwill recorded for its various acquisitions.  As a result, the
Company was forced to amortize more goodwill, thereby incurring
material, added expenses during the Class Period. This, in turn,
materially reduced the income the Company reported and will
report in the future.

Further, during the Class Period, the individual defendants and
other Lernout insiders sold 528,176 shares of their personal
Lernout holdings for proceeds in excess of $23 million.


LOEWEN GROUP: Weiss & Yourman Files Complaint in [New York]
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Yourman commenced a class action lawsuit
against Loewen Group, Inc. ("Loewen Group" or the "Company")
(NYSE:LWN)(TSE:LWN)(ME:LWN )and certain individuals associated
with the Company.  The Class on whose behalf plaintiff has
initiated this litigation includes investors who purchased their
Loewen Group shares in the period from March 5, 1997 through
October 6, 1998.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws (Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934) by misrepresenting or failing to disclose
material information about Loewen Group's results of operations,
financial condition and weaknesses in its financial internal
controls which resulted in the Company's failure to successfully
integrate certain corporate acquisitions during the Class Period.  
As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and
omissions, the price of Loewen Group's stock was artificially
inflated during the Class Period.  At the end of the Class
Period, the Company announced that its long-time Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer resigned upon request of the Board of
Directors.

Purchasers of Loewen Group securities during the Class Period may
move the court no later than March 1, 1999 to serve as a lead
plaintiff of the class.


LOEWEN GROUP: Wechsler Harwood Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood filed a class action lawsuit in the United  
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
February 3, 1999 against Loewen Group Inc. ("Loewen") (NYSE: LWN)
and certain of it officers and directors for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants misled the market
during the Class Period by (i) materially inflating revenues
through the improper early recognition of revenues on pre-need
cemetery sales; (ii) improper accounting for and illegal use of
customer trust funds; and (iii) the issuance of false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial internal
controls, particularly over the integration of certain corporate
acquisitions.

Following the announcement that the Florida Department of Banking
and Finance suspended the Company's Florida operations, the price
of the Company's common stock, which traded as high as $35.75
during the Class Period, fell to less than $5.00 per share.

Purchasers of Loewen common stock between March 5, 1997 and
January 14, 1999, may, not later than 60 days from December 29,
1998, move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff of a class
action seeking to recover damages on behalf of all similarly-
situated purchasers of Loewen common stock, excluding the
defendants and their affiliates.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Lawsuit Alleges Race & Sex Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of current and former Northwest Airlines employees is
suing the company, claiming blacks and women are denied
promotions and subject to an "openly hostile" work environment,
especially at an Atlanta maintenance center.  The lawsuit, filed
in U.S. District Court in Atlanta and reported in the Atlanta
Journal and Constitution, alleges Northwest "has maintained a
system of discrimination and fostered racial and gender
prejudice."

"Thirty-three years have elapsed since the passage of the 1964
Civil Rights Act but, unfortunately, time has stood still at
Northwest, particularly at its Atlanta facility," the suit said.   
It said blacks and women at the Atlanta center have been
"subjected to the presentation of nooses, Confederate flags,
misogynist or racist graffiti, jokes and comments which debase,
degrade and demean" them.  The suit also claims Northwest
managers withheld advancement opportunities and used different
promotion tests for blacks and women.  

Northwest spokesman Jon Austin said the Minneapolis-based carrier  
"absolutely disputes these allegations.  They're untrue and we'll
demonstrate that in court. We do not tolerate harassment or
discrimination in any form, and if it is alleged we investigate  
and deal with it," Austin said.

James Voyles, a Marietta attorney for the plaintiffs, who include
workers in Atlanta and other cities, said they can document the
allegations.

The suit, filed Jan. 15, has 53 named plaintiffs and seeks class-
action status, which could bring in thousands more, Voyles said.
It seeks wages and benefits lost as a result of the alleged
discrimination, as well as an injunction against the activity.    
The named plaintiffs first filed complaints with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued "right to sue"
letters late last year, the suit said.  Voyles said he also
represents three white Northwest workers who claim they were
fired for giving information to the EEOC.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: 8th Circuit Revives Pricing Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Airlines' pricing practices may be examined in court  
after a federal appeals court ruling that revives a consumer
lawsuit.  A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled Tuesday that a district judge erred in dismissing
the lawsuit, which accused Northwest of overcharging ticket
buyers since a 1986 merger with Republic Airlines.

The consumers who sued Northwest don't want to undo the merger,
but they seek as much as $400 million in alleged fare overcharges
each year.  "It is a meter that's running," said Craig Wildfang,
a Minneapolis attorney for the consumers.  He will try to have
the case certified as a class action, he said.

The ruling sends the case back to district court, but Northwest  
spokesman Jon Austin promised an appeal of Monday's decision.  
"This is an issue that has been litigated before three federal
judges already and has been rejected each time until today,"
Austin said.  "We think this is an incorrect decision.  We
believe that on review it will be found to be so."

Seven consumers filed the lawsuit in 1997. They argued that the
merger violated antitrust law and led to higher ticket prices for
passengers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, where
North west accounts for 80% of the traffic.  The case is being
watched closely outside Minnesota.  Attorneys general from  
11 states filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the
consumers, arguing that U.S. District Judge David Doty misread
the Clayton Act in his ruling.  The consumers sued under a
section of the law that prohibits companies from anti-competitive
use of stock and assets that they acquire.  Northwest argued that
since the two airlines fully merged and Republic's stock ceased
to exist, no claim was possible under that part of the law.  The
three appellate judges disagreed, saying the section wording
expressly provides for such a claim even when all of a company's
stock or assets are acquired.

"This is great news for air travelers, good for competition,"
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said. "It could be a way to
secure competitive prices or damages for noncompetitive prices."


PEOPLESOFT, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against PeopleSoft,
Inc. (Nasdaq: PSFT) and its officers and directors for violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach LLP.

Purchasers of PeopleSoft, Inc. common stock during the period
between February 5, 1997 and January 28, 1999, may, not later
than 60 days from January 29, 1999, move the court to serve as
lead plaintiff of a class action  seeking to recover damages on
behalf of all similarly situated purchasers of PeopleSoft, Inc.
common stock.


PEOPLESOFT, INC.: Stull Stull File Complaint in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody announced that that on February 4, 1999, a
securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
PeopleSoft, Inc. (NASDAQ:PSFT) and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of PeopleSoft at artificially inflated prices
between February 4, 1997 and January  28, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934) by misrepresenting or failing to disclose
material information about PeopleSoft's 1996, 1997 and 1998
financial results. As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements and omissions, the price of PeopleSoft's
securities were artificially inflated during the Class Period,
such that persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
PeopleSoft's securities during the Class Period were damaged by
overpaying for their securities.

Members of the Class may, not later than March 30, 1999, move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff.


SAFEWAY STORES: State To Referee Potential Antitrust Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles has directed the attorney general to try
to negotiate asettlement with Safeway of any potential antitrust
violations surrounding its planned purchase of Carr Gottstein
Foods Co., reports the Anchorage Daily News.  Such a settlement
could be an important hurdle in completing the $330 million
merger of the state's two largest grocers, although any agreement
would still need to be approved in state court.  The purchase may
also need approval of the federal government and faces a civil
suit challenge.

The state still needs to resolve "some tough issues" with Safeway
officials, King said. If an agreement is not reached in the next
two to five days, the state will return the issue to the Federal
Trade Commission, which has also been reviewing the merger.
Federal officials have said that an active state role does not
necessarily mean the federal government will drop out, although  
it tries not to duplicate efforts.  The state would not reach an
agreement that the federal government could not accept, Bob King,
a Knowles spokesman, said.

Attorney General Bruce Botelho said both sides know what the "big
issues" are and are ready to try to reach a formal agreement.   
The central issue is whether putting the 61 Carrs and Safeway
stores in Alaska under one ownership will raise food prices and
hurt consumers.  Richard Near, Safeway's Alaska chief, said last
month that he believed some of the stores would need to be sold
to another grocery company to satisfy the state. Near was not
available for comment Wednesday.  Don Anderson, chief financial
officer of Anchorage-based Carrs, said he was pleased with the
governor's decision. "We felt it's an Alaska issue."  In recent
weeks, Safeway and Carrs officials have been asking the state to  
play a more active role in the review, saying the state
understands the Alaska market better than the federal trade
commission.

In a press conference Wednesday, Anchorage attorney Peter
Gruenstein criticized the governor's involvement in the merger.
"It's not the governor's role to authorize the attorney general,"
he said.  "This is different than the governor deciding where I
am going to cut the budget.  This is law enforcement; no
political role in it," he said. "It would be as though the
governor was deciding whether or not the attorney general should
press murder charges," he said.  Gruenstein is representing
consumers in a class-action suit asking the state to block the
merger.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Little Rock-Based Cauly Firm Files Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A., based in Little Rock,
Arkansas, announced that it filed a suit alleging fraud on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
or securities of Service Corporation International (NYSE:SRV)
between February 2, 1998 and  
January 26, 1999, or exchanged the common stock of Equity
Corporation International (NYSE:EQU) for the shares of Service
Corporation in the January 19, 1999 merger between the two
companies.

This lawsuit alleges that, during the class Period, certain
officers and directors of Service Corporation issued false
statements which caused the price of Service Corporation common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.  Thereafter,
Service Corporation issued $830 million of stock to acquire
Equity Corporation International and certain officers and
directors of Service Corporation sold, in the aggregate, over
2,470,000 shares of Service Corporation common stock between $39-
42 per share, and reaped $96 million before it collapsed in price
to $15.75 on January 26, 1999.


SMARTALK TELESERVICES: Shapiro Haber Files Complaint in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit alleging securities fraud was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
against SmarTalk Teleservices, Inc. (Nasdaq: SMTK) and three
of its officers and directors, by the law firm Shapiro Haber &
Urmy LLP.  The case was filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased SmarTalk common stock during the period October 22,
1998 through January 7, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants misled the market
during the Class Period by materially overstating revenues and  
underreporting expenses for the third quarter ended September 30,
1998, as announced on October 22, 1998.  On January 7, 1999, the
Company shocked the market by disclosing its need to restate its
previously reported results for the third quarter, despite prior  
assurances that an internal accounting review would ensure the
accuracy of the Company's third quarter financials.  After the
January 7 announcement, the price per share of the Company's
common stock plunged more than 75%.


THERAGENICS CORP.: Spector & Roseman File Complaint in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for  the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all
purchasers of Theragenics  Corp. (NYSE: TGX) common stock during
the period of January 29,  1998 through January 11, 1999,
inclusive by the law firm  of Spector & Roseman, P.C.

The Complaint alleges that Theragenics and certain officers and
directors of the Company during the Class Period violated
Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The Complaint charges that the defendants issued a series
of materially false and misleading statements concerning the  
Company's business, operations, and its prospects for future
profitability.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Theragenics issues
materially false and misleading statements relating to its
relationship with Indigo Medical and the sale of Theraseed(r).
Because of the issuance of these false and misleading statements,
the price of Theragenics common stock was artificially inflated  
during the Class Period.  Prior to the disclosure of the true
facts, certain defendants sold thousands of share of Theragenics
stock realizing more than $2.7 million in proceeds.

Members of the Class may, no later than March 16, 1999, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the Class.


UTAH DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS: Indian Prisoner Sweat Lodge Rites Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A medicine man and four prison inmates, report United Press
International have filed a $3 million lawsuit against the Utah
Department of Corrections claiming the department is violating
American Indian prisoners' rights by not providing regular sweat
lodge ceremonies.  The Salt Lake Tribune says that the complaint
alleges racial discrimination and claims the prisoners' religious
freedoms are violated.

The suit reportedly stems from the barring of Darrell A. Gardner
Sr., a self-described mixed-blood Ute from White-Rocks, from
continuing to serve as spiritual leader in sweat lodge ceremonies
at the Central Utah Correctional Facility at Gunnison.  Gardner
was barred under strict new rules requiring medicine men who lead
sweat lodge ceremonies to be of full Indian blood, and not
"mixed-blood," as Gardner apparently is.  Gardner said he had
been helping out in the sweat lodges for the past 10 years before
being banned.  The stricter rules were set by the Native American
Religious Task Force, a 15-member panel of tribal, corrections
and legislative officials set up by the governor's office to
oversee Indian religious programs at the state's prison system.

Sweat lodge ceremonies have been permitted at Utah prisons since
1985, when a class-action suit was filed to allow them.  But the
latest lawsuit argues that because of the new rules, the number
of individuals now qualified to lead the ceremonies is too low to
allow for a regular sweat lodge schedule.

The sweat lodges are sauna-like affairs that Indians use in
ceremonial purifications.


VISION TWENTY-ONE: Burt & Pucillo File Complaint in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Burt & Pucillo, LLP announced that a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws has  
been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
the common stock of Vision Twenty-One Inc. (Nasdaq:EYES) during
the period from Dec. 5, 1997 through Nov. 5, 1998 inclusive.

Named as Defendants are Vision Twenty-One, Theodore N. Gillette
and Richard Welch.  The Complaint in this action alleges that
purchasers of Vision Twenty-One common stock during the Class
Period were damaged by reason of the company's false and
misleading statements regarding first and second quarter 1998
results of operations; the integration of certain acquired
businesses into the company's operations, including Block Vision
Buying Group; and the extent to which the company's financial
statements during the Class Period were prepared in accordance
with GAAP.


ZILA, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss announced that a class action has been commenced in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of purchasers of Zila, Inc. (Nasdaq:ZILA) publicly traded
securities during the period between March 11, 1998 and Jan. 13,
1999.  Members of the Class may, no later than 60 days from Jan.
25, 1999, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the Class,
if you so choose.

The complaint charges Zila and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants continually misrepresented the position and prospects
of Zila and its claimed innovative new oral cancer detection  
system, OraTest(R), although OraTest(R) had yet to be approved by
the FDA.

Defendants' alleged fraud inflated the market price for Zila's
publicly traded securities. From the beginning of the Class
Period until the fraud was disclosed on Jan. 13, 1999, when the
FDA announced it would not approve OraTest(R), the defendants had
artificially inflated the price of Zila stock from $4 per share
up to over $12 per share.  The defendants' scheme almost tripled
the price of Zila stock in less than a three-month period.
However, the Jan. 13, 1999 FDA announcement withholding its
approval of OraTest(R) immediately impacted Zila common stock,
decreasing it, in the period of a day, in value by over 50% to
below $6 per share.


ZILA, INC.: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
against Zila, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZILA) and certain of it officers and  
directors for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Purchasers of Zila, Inc. common stock between February 17, 1998
and January 13, 1999, may, not later than March 26, 1999, move
the court to serve as a lead plaintiff of a class action seeking
to recover damages on behalf of all similarly-situated purchasers
of Zila, Inc. common stock, excluding the defendants and their
affiliates.


ZILA, INC.: Wechsler Harwood Files Complaint in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP filed, on February 4,
1999, a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona against Zila, Inc. (NASDAQ:ZILA) and
certain of it officers and directors for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Among other
things, plaintiff claims that defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding Zila's product OraTest(r) and
the status of the clinical trials during Zila's efforts to obtain
FDA approval to sell OraTest(r) in the United States.

Purchasers of Zila common stock between October, 29, 1998 and
January 12, 1999, may, not later than March 26, 1999, move the
court to serve as a lead plaintiff of a class action seeking to
recover damages on behalf of all similarly-situated purchasers of
Zila common stock, excluding the defendants and their affiliates.


ZILA, INC.: Cohen Milstein Files Complaint in Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on  
behalf of purchasers of securities of Zila, Inc. (Nasdaq:ZILA)
during the period February 17, 1998 through January 13, 1999.

The complaint charges Zila and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that the defendants continually
misrepresented the position and prospects of Zila and its claimed
innovative new oral cancer detection system, OraTest(R), although
OraTest(R) had yet to be approved by the FDA.

Defendants' alleged fraud inflated the market price for Zila's
publicly traded securities. From the beginning of the Class
Period until the fraud was disclosed on Jan. 13, 1999, when the
FDA announced it would not approve OraTest(R), the defendants had
artificially inflated the price of Zila stock from $4 per share
up to over $12 per share. The defendants' scheme almost tripled
the price of Zila stock in less than a three-month period.
However, the Jan. 13, 1999 FDA announcement withholding its
approval of OraTest(R) immediately impacted Zila common stock,
decreasing it, in the period of a day, in value by over 50% to
below $6 per share.

Members of the Class, may move the Court, no later than 60 days
from January 25, 1999 to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class.


                           *********



                           *********

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., Princeton, NJ, and Beard
Group, Inc., Washington, DC.  Peter A. Chapman, Editor.

Copyright 1999.  All rights reserved.  ISSN XXXX-XXXX.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.   

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.   
  
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 301/951-6400.  
       
                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *