The church withdrew the lawsuit on Monday June 11 before a hearing called to discuss whether Archbishop Raymond Burke would have to testify under oath in a deposition for the case.

The archdiocese said in a statement, "After discussing the issue with attorneys representing the Chackes law firm, we believe that our point of protecting the integrity of the mediation process has been understood and that we can proceed with the mediation of additional claims.''

Gerry Greiman, an attorney representing the firm, said, "We've always felt this case had no merit. I can only assume based on the archdiocese's actions today that they agree.''

He is to enter federal prison in the coming weeks to serve a four-year sentence. A jury in April convicted Geddings of five counts of mail fraud as part of a scheme to defraud the public of his honest services. Geddings had hid his ties to major lottery vendor Scientific Games as he sought and won a seat on the lottery commission.

His attorney, Tommy Manning of Raleigh, entered what is known as an Alford plea in court, said Wake Assistant District Attorney David Sherlin. An Alford plea allows defendants to maintain innocence but to nonetheless plead guilty because they see no other favorable alternative. Geddings has appealed his federal sentence.

The court determined that the towns and counties failed to identify a special injury that could be compensated. It said the claim was essentially a products liability issue, and falls under the state Product Liability Act, which excludes coverage for exposure to toxic material.

A lawyer for the towns and counties, Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick, said they were considering whether to ask the court to reconsider its decision, which dismissed the last remaining claim of the lawsuit.

"It means that the New Jersey Supreme Court turned its back on lead-poisoned children of New Jersey, and they allowed the companies that profited from lead paint to turn their back on the children of New Jersey and the crisis that they created," Fitzpatrick said.

Individuals have little recourse to sue because they cannot identify which manufacturer made the paint that is on the walls of their home, Fitzpatrick said.

The paint makers praised the ruling, noting the Missouri Supreme Court had a similar decision on Tuesday.

"These companies are not responsible for risks today from poorly maintained lead paint," said Bonnie J. Campbell, spokeswoman for the paint makers and a former attorney general of Iowa.

New Jersey Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen, who had entered the case in support of the towns and counties, said the ruling was disappointing, but did recognize that landlords must maintain their properties to prevent lead paint from flaking and becoming a health hazard.

The aged housing stock in New Jersey has at least 2 million units with lead paint, Chen said. As a result, 4,547, or nearly 2.5 percent of New Jersey children under 6, had high levels of lead, compared to 1.6 percent nationally, according to the state Department of Health and Senior Services.

The lawsuit was originally filed in December 2001 by Newark, and was later joined by other towns and counties.

A trial judge had dismissed the entire lawsuit, but an appellate panel reinstated the claim charging the manufacturers with creating a public nuisance.

Pearson also called himself as a witness, saying his problems began in May 2005 when he brought in several suits for alterations. A pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit was missing when he requested it two days later. He said Soo Chung tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants.

As Pearson explained that those weren't the pants for the suit, he choked up and left the courtroom crying after asking Bartnoff for a break.

Pearson originally asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit, which was more than $1,000. But because the Chungs insisted the pants had been found, they refused to pay.

Manning has said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson, but the judge was not satisfied and increased his demands — including asking for money to rent a car so he could drive to another business.

Since December 2005, juries in Pennsylvania and California have awarded Wal-Mart workers $251 million in pay and damages after deciding the retailer didn't properly compensate them for overtime and breaks. Wal-Mart, the largest U.S. employer with 1.9 million workers, faces more than 70 other U.S. wage-and-hour suits, including class actions.
Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., is "exploring options for appeal," in the New Mexico and Missouri cases, spokesman John Simley said. "These decisions were not on the merits of the case, but only on whether they should proceed as class actions."

"Even more courts across the country have found that cases like these are not suited for class treatment," Simley said. "An example of that came in New York today, where the court found in favor of Wal-Mart on every aspect of class certification analysis."

Individual circumstances are too varied and the group of people too broad to weigh the New York case as a group, Platkin wrote, noting that "not each and every individual who was ever an hourly employee of defendant during the relevant time period worked without pay, nor was every hourly employee deprived of premium pay for overtime hours."
Including a larger group would "result in miniscule individual awards of damages to class members," Platkin wrote.

In Missouri, Wal-Mart lost a bid to reverse class certification of a similar lawsuit when an a state appeals court upheld a lower court decision granting hourly workers in that state the right to sue as a group.

The Missouri decision expanded the lawsuit by changing the case from an opt-in action, which requires workers to ask to join the suit, to an opt-out suit, which makes hourly workers part of the litigation automatically unless they ask to be let out.

The decision means that Wal-Mart will be facing a group suit by more than 200,000 current and former hourly workers in Missouri, rather than a lawsuit by several hundred or several thousand. Typically, a small number of potential plaintiffs would opt into a suit.

"This gives these people their day in court," said attorney Steve Long, who represents the Missouri workers. He said he would be seeking a trial in 2008.
The Court of Appeals of New Mexico on Tuesday upheld a 2005 lower court's decision granting class action status to Wal-Mart hourly workers in that state who claim they worked off the clock without compensation and missed rest breaks. The New Mexico class would include about 40,000 current and former Wal-Mart hourly employees, said attorney Jerry Bader, who represents the workers.

In New York, while the workers could bring individual claims against Wal-Mart, the cost of pursuing these suits would be too high, said Jonathan Selbin, an attorney for the workers there.
"These are not claims these people could realistically bring without a class action," he said. "Obviously we're disappointed. We plan to appeal. We think the judge got it wrong."
The lawsuit claimed that Wal-Mart required its hourly employees to work off the clock and through breaks and would have covered unpaid workers as far back as August 1995, he said.

In its fight for LaSalle Bank, Bank of America [ticker: BAC] said in an appeal filing that it was “shocking” that the Dutch court would disregard fundamental European Union law.

The Charlotte, N.C.-based bank has accused a Dutch court of unlawful action by blocking its $21 billion purchase of Dutch banking giant ABN Amro’s U.S. unit.

In support of calls from investors, last month a Dutch commercial court froze the deal between Bank of America and LaSalle Bank in order to allow for a shareholder vote.

The Dutch Supreme Court is hearing appeals by both ABN and Bank of America over the frozen deal and will rule later this month or in early July on whether the sale can take place.