Toyota Motor Corp. was sued today in Los Angeles federal court for failing to disclose to investors that there was a major design defect in the automaker's acceleration systems.

The proposed class action complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles by a San Diego law firm on behalf of all purchasers of Toyota publicly traded securities, accuses Toyota, certain of its affiliates and certain of their officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that Toyota issued "materially false and misleading statements" regarding its operations and its business and financial results and outlook when the company knew it had a design problem.

"Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that there was a major design defect in Toyota's acceleration system, which could cause unintended acceleration," the lawsuit, filed by the firm Coughlin Stoia, alleges.

"As a result of defendants' false statements, Toyota's securities traded at artificially inflated prices - reaching a high of $91.78 per share on Jan. 19."

Toyota's stock price had fallen to $73.49 per share on Feb. 3.

Toyota was also sued Friday in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of all affected owners of the 2010-year Prius and the 2010 Lexus HS250h hybrid. Both models share the same braking system, which has been the object of consumer complaints.

A state appeals court has struck down a San Diego curfew law for teenagers, calling it unconstitutionally broad.
The 4th District Court of Appeal ruled last week that the ordinance doesn't allow teens to travel to certain legal nighttime events, such as school or religious activities, because to get there they have to be accompanied by an adult.

The city ordinance makes it a misdemeanor for anyone 18 to be out from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. unless they're going to a job or have an adult with them.

A similar ordinance was struck down in 1997 but then revised.

The San Diego city attorney's office says it will revise the law again and hopes to have a new version ready in two weeks.

It's been more than a decade since "Amy," as she's known in court papers, was first sexually abused by her uncle. The abuse ended long ago and he's in prison, but the pictures he made when she was 8 or 9 are among the most widely circulated child pornography images online.

Now the 20-year-old woman is taking aim at anyone who would view those images and asking for restitution in hundreds of criminal cases around the country.

Her requests and those filed by other victims of child pornography are forcing federal judges nationwide to grapple with tough legal questions: Is someone who possesses an abusive image responsible for the harm suffered by a particular child? And how much should that person have to pay?

"It is hard to describe what it feels like to know that at any moment, anywhere, someone is looking at pictures of me as a little girl being abused by my uncle and is getting some kind of sick enjoyment from it. It's like I am being abused over and over again," Amy wrote in court papers.

Dr. Conrad Murray, personal physician to Michael Jackson, will surrender to authorities Monday afternoon, his attorneys said.

Murray will turn himself in at a courthouse at 1:30 p.m., they said in a written statement.

Los Angeles County prosecutors have said criminal charges related to Jackson's death last summer would be filed Monday. Prosecutors have not said who would be charged or what the charges would be, but Murray's attorneys have said he expected to be charged.

Charges originally were expected to be filed last Friday, but they were delayed because prosecutors and Murray's chief defense lawyer, Ed Chernoff, failed to reach agreement on a surrender deal for the doctor, a law enforcement source with detailed knowledge of the talks said.

As the Supreme Court nears the midpoint of its annual term and prepares to hear several momentous cases, one question looms: Will the justices' split decision reversing past rulings and allowing new corporate spending in political races set the tone for the term, or will Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission be an exception?

"Is this a turning point?" asks Pamela Harris, director of Georgetown Law's Supreme Court Institute. Harris notes that Chief Justice John Roberts' concurring opinion in the campaign-finance case defended reversing past rulings that have been, as Roberts wrote, "so hotly contested that (they) cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases."

"That is an incredibly muscular vision of when you would overrule precedent," which usually guides justices in new cases, Harris says. "That makes it look like this is a court that's ready to go."

Several pending cases — some that already have been argued, some that will be argued in upcoming weeks — are likely to show the reach of the Roberts Court and its boldness.

Temple University law professor David Kairys expects the Citizens United to distinguish the Roberts Court for years. "I think it will actually define more than this particular term," he says. "It might define the Roberts Court."

Nokia said on Monday it would defend itself vigorously against a class action complaint filed in the United States that claims the firm and its top executives hid some product delays from investors in 2008.

"Nokia has reviewed the allegations contained in the complaint and believes that they are without merit," the company said.

The City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System filed the case on Feb 5 against Nokia Corporation, chief executive Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, then-chief financial officer Rick Simonson and Kai Oistamo, head of Nokia's phone business.