Procter & Gamble Co is being sued by parents claiming new Pampers diapers have caused severe rashes and other skin conditions on their children, court documents showed, assertions the company has called "completely false."

The action, filed by the law firm of Keller Rohrback, comes on the heels of parents' complaints that updated Pampers Swaddlers and Cruisers diapers with P&G's new Dry Max technology appear to have caused rashes and burns on their children. A number of parents have voiced concern in Internet forums such as Facebook.

"While we have great empathy for any parent dealing with diaper rash - a common and sometimes severe condition - the claims made in this lawsuit are completely false," P&G said in a statement. "We have every confidence that we will prevail in this meritless lawsuit."

According to documents, the lawsuit wants the court to require P&G to ensure that Pampers will not cause severe rashes, blisters, welts, chemical burns and other skin ailments and to regularly test the product. It also wants parents to be reimbursed for the diapers and compensated for treatment of skin ailments in their children they say were caused by the diapers.

Last week, Pampers dismissed reports that the diapers were causing skin irritations after the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada said they were investigating the products.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by Pfizer Inc. that sought to thwart a securities lawsuit alleging the drugmaker misrepresented the safety profile of the blockbuster pain drug Celebrex.

The plaintiffs alleged that Pfizer's Pharmacia unit deliberately withheld the full results of a medical study that showed no safety advantage to using Celebrex over less expensive anti-inflammatory drugs.

Pfizer argued that investors missed a two-year statute of limitations to bring the lawsuit. The investors said there was no evidence of a possible fraud until the Washington Post published an article about missing Celebrex data in August 2001, meaning their April 2003 lawsuit was within two years of that development.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled last year that the lawsuit was not filed too late. The Supreme Court let that ruling stand without comment.

The high court's denial of Pfizer's appeal comes a week after the justices ruled unanimously that investors didn't wait too long to file securities lawsuits alleging that Merck & Co. misrepresented the safety of painkiller drug Vioxx. Pfizer's appeal had been on hold pending the outcome of the Merck case.

The case has been closely watched by environmentalists and agribusiness. A federal judge in San Francisco barred the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa nationwide until the government could adequately study the crop's potential impact on organic and conventional varieties.

St. Louis-based Monsanto is arguing that the ban was too broad and was based on the assumption that their products were harmful. Opponents of the use of genetically engineered seeds say they can contaminate conventional crops, but Monsanto says such cross-pollination is unlikely.

Organic groups and farmers exporting to Europe, where genetically modified crops are unpopular, have staunchly opposed the development of such seeds.

The nation's largest court system is in the midst of a painful budget crisis that has shut down courtrooms and disrupted everything from divorce and custody proceedings to traffic ticket disputes.

The Los Angeles court system has already closed 17 courtrooms and another 50 will be shut down come September unless something is done to find more money. The judge who presides over the system predicts chaos and an unprecedented logjam of civil and family law cases in the worst-case scenario.

The crisis results from the financially troubled state's decision to slash $393 million from state trial courts in the budget this year. The state also decided to close all California courthouses on the third Wednesday of every month.

What has emerged is a hobbled court system that is struggling to serve the public.

Custody hearings, divorce proceedings, small-claims disputes, juvenile dependency matters and civil lawsuits have been delayed amid the courtroom shutdowns in Los Angeles. Drivers who choose to fight traffic tickets now have to wait up to nine months to get a trial started.

Complex civil lawsuits, those typically involving feuding businesses, could really feel the hit. It now takes an average of 16 months for such cases to get resolved, but court officials expect the cuts to bog down these civil matters to the point that they take an average of four years to finish.

In a case that pits nondiscrimination policies against freedom of religion, the Supreme Court is grappling with whether universities and colleges can deny official recognition to Christian student groups that refuse to let non-Christians and gays join.

The high court was to hear arguments Monday from the Christian Legal Society at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. The Christian group said its constitutional freedoms of speech, religion and association were violated when it was denied recognition as a student group by the San Francisco-based school.

The group has made this argument at several universities around the nation with mixed results. The high court's decision could set a national standard for universities and colleges to follow when Christian and other groups that want to exclude certain people apply for money and recognition from the school.

Hastings said it turned the Christian Legal Society down because all recognized campus groups, which are eligible for financing and other benefits, may not exclude people due to religious belief, sexual orientation and other reasons.