Tales Stranger than Fiction:
What Was that Bit About the Other Cheek?
A Roman Catholic catechist was awarded nearly $1 million by a Compton, California, jury based on allegations that a priest punched her during a dispute over her teaching methods.
Maria Vega, 57, claimed Rev. Dennis O’Neil punched her above the ear in November 1999 during an argument over how she was teaching catechism at St. Emydius Church. In an apparent departure from the traditional Catholic notion of turning the other cheek, Vega instead opted to sue the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for emotional distress, defamation and battery. According to her attorney, Vega was awarded $952,819 for her troubles.
Vega’s attorney said she filed the lawsuit because the archdiocese refused to acknowledge or investigate her complaint, but the archdiocese insists it followed appropriate procedures to address the situation and promises to seek a new trial.
O’Neil, who was an auxiliary bishop in the Diocese of San Bernardino, died 20 days into the original October 2003 trial at the age of 60. A new trial began in November, resulting in the 9-3 jury verdict in Vega’s favor.
—Source: Associated Press
Suing to Sit at the Table
A Los Angeles lawyer and self-described "better than average blackjack player" is betting that the courts will get him back to the tables in Las Vegas. Ernest Franseschi, Jr., is suing MGM and its casinos after he was allegedly thrown out for being too lucky.
Franseschi claims that officials at the MGM Mirage ejected him because he was winning thousands of dollars at a high-stakes blackjack table. He also accuses the casino of surreptitiously photographing him while gaming. Franseschi believes MGM circulated his picture to other "Sin City" gambling establishments, leading to his alleged banishment from three more casinos on the same day.
The complaint, filed in a California Superior Court, claims invasion of privacy, defamation and alleged transgressions of California’s unfair business practices laws. Franseschi is seeking $74,000 in damages and wants MGM to be forced to include a disclaimer on its California advertising that reads, in part: "It is the policy and practice of MGM Mirage particularly to target skillful and/or winning players and bar such persons from gaming at our properties; only losing and/or unskillful players … are not subject to being targeted to be barred from MGM Mirage casino properties."
An MGM spokesperson familiar with Franseschi’s lawsuit said: "This lawsuit has no merit we are confident we will prevail." He added, "We, like any other business, reserve the right to refuse service."
— Source: Reuters
‘Dinosaur’ discrimination?
A 76-year old game show producer is suing Dick Clark for age discrimination, alleging the eternally young New Year’s Eve host was unwilling to hire a man two years his senior. Clark is 74.
The plaintiff, Ralph Andrews, produced such 1960s and 70s games shows as "It Takes Two," "By the Numbers" and "You Don’t Say," but was allegedly rebuffed when he tried to get back into the Hollywood game through Dick Clark and his self-named production company. According to a complaint filed in early March, Andrews claims he spoke with Clark and other executives about joining the company for more than a year and was told he would be considered for any openings. However, when Andrews wrote to Clark about available positions, Clark allegedly rejected him in a letter stating that "[t]he business is being run by ‘The Next Generation.’" The complaint also claims Clark’s letter noted that "the last development guy we hired was 27 years old. Another person who is joining our staff next week is 30. People our age are considered dinosaurs!"
Clark had hired Andrews for several game shows in the past, including, in 1997, for a brief revival of "It Takes Two." The case remains pending in a California Superior Court.
—Source: Associated Press
A limber lawsuit
A non-profit yoga collective known as the Open Source Yoga Unity is suing yoga master Bikram Choudhury over his claim that a series of yoga positions are his intellectual property.
The Calcutta-born yogi, who is credited with popularizing the "Bikram" form of yoga, sent cease and desist letters to more than 100 yoga schools and teachers alleging they had violated his copyrights and trademarks by offering Bikram classes without his training or permission. But Choudhury’s aggressive protection of a 26-posture series used in Bikram yoga was met with not only resistance, but also a federal lawsuit.
The Open Source Yoga Unity, which has members in the United States and Canada, filed a complaint against Choudhury in federal court claiming that the yoga master’s intellectual property rights are unenforceable. The attorney for Open Source contends that "no one can own a style of yoga" because the positions have been used for centuries. For his part, Choudhury maintains that instructors shouldn’t market their classes as "Bikram" yoga if they are not going to adhere to his own strict teachings, while allegedly collecting a small fortune from books, videos, franchise fees and $5,000 yoga workshops.
The lawsuit is causing turmoil and uncertainty in the yoga industry, where instructors and practitioners fear it could spawn future copyright and trademark claims. Settlement attempts have failed to date, and a trial is currently scheduled for February 2005.
—Source: Reuters
Jury Finds Soup Suit Hard to Swallow
Donald Johnson, a 64-year-old resident of Lake Worth, Florida, claimed to have experienced psychological and sleep disorders since a 1995 visit to a Shoney’s restaurant during which he ordered potato soup but was unwittingly served clam chowder instead. After tasting the soup, Johnson maintained, he then experienced an allergic reaction that required emergency medical treatment and left him suffering from nightmares over the incident. Johnson sought $55,356 in compensation for his medical expenses and pain and suffering.
Although Johnson insisted his nightmares were caused by the imposter soup, Shoney’s attorney suggested perhaps they were instead a product of Johnson’s public listing as a sexual predator and the prison term he served for sexual activity with a child under the age of 12.
After a four-day trial, the jury found Johnson 90 percent to blame for his own damages and served Shoney’s with a bill for $407 of Johnson’s medical expenses. Johnson had refused to settle the case for $1,000 in 1999; Shoney’s now has the option of suing Johnson for its own legal expenses.
—Sources: Associated Press, Palm Beach Post
Betting on Disability
Barroom injuries are a foreseeable consequence of sending employees to boring destinations, at least according to a recent decision from the U.S Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The court upheld an award of disability benefits to Hawaii resident Michael Ilaszczat for injuries he received as a result of a barroom bet he made while assigned to Johnston Atoll for business. The atoll is a two-mile-long chemical and nuclear arms dump located about 700 miles west of Hawaii.
Faced with little to do while dispatched to the isolated U.S. possession, Ilaszczat frequented a local social club and bet a group of U.S. soldiers that one of them could not perform a high-kick without touching him. Ilaszczat won the bet when a soldier’s attempt left him kicked to the ground and in need of an artificial hip.
Kalama Services Inc., the employer which sent Ilaszczat to the island, opted to fire him after the incident led the U.S. military commander to bar Ilaszczat from Johnston Atoll. But an administrative board and judge decided that paying for Ilaszczat’s artificial hip was a better course of action, given that its lack of entertainment makes Johnston Atoll a "zone of special danger." The 9th Circuit agreed, reasoning that "horseplay of [this] type" is the risk employers take when they send employees to such dull destinations.
—Source: Reuters
First, Kill the Lawyers
Haitian civil rights groups are vowing to re-file a lawsuit to stop the sale of an award-winning video game that rewards players for killing Haitians even though the game’s maker apologized and promised to remove offensive language from future versions.
In Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, players take on the role of an ex-convict hired to recover stolen drug money in Miami. Although not all violence in the game is directed at Haitians, players are specifically instructed to "kill the Haitians" and are awarded points for each Haitian they hit.
Rockstar Games has agreed to remove the "kill the Haitians" instruction from any future versions of the top-selling game, and the plaintiffs withdrew their complaint after the case was moved from Florida state court to federal court. Nevertheless, the groups, led by the Haitian-American Coalition of Palm Beach County, maintain that Vice City is dangerous to society and must be taken off the market. Their lawyer, Barry Silver, has said that he will re-file the case.
The original lawsuit sought more than $15,000 in damages from Rockstar, its parent company Take-Two Interactive, Sony Computer Entertainment, Microsoft and retailers Target, Wal-Mart and Best Buy.
—Sources: Associated Press, USA Today
A Cheeseburger By Any Other Name
Two restaurants are seeking court intervention to determine whose misspelling of "cheeseburger" will prevail.
Chicago’s Billy Goat Tavern filed suit against the Cheeburger Cheeburger restaurant chain when the Florida-based company opened a branch in the Chicago suburb of Glenview. The lawsuit alleges that the "Cheeburger Cheeburger" name is a rip-off from the 1970s Saturday Night Live skit that made the Billy Goat famous. What’s more, the Billy Goat contends that patrons will be unable to differentiate between a "cheezborger" and a "cheeburger," leading to the mistaken impression that the two restaurants are affiliated.
Although the Billy Goat never obtained a federal trademark for "cheezborger cheezborger," it has used the slogan since John Belushi put the tavern on the map by portraying a Billy Goat chef yelling "cheezborger cheezborger" in a heavy Greek accent. According to the complaint, the writer of the Saturday Night Live skit was a Billy Goat regular, along with Belushi, Bill Murray, and Dan Akroyd, and based the sketch on his experiences at the tavern. The Florida Cheeburger Cheeburger chain, which has 33 restaurants nationwide, has operated since 1986 and owns two federal trademark registrations for its name.
When the Cheeburger Cheeburger chain opted to establish itself in the Chicago area, Billy Goat’s owner decided it was time to take action. The tavern filed suit in December, seeking a permanent injunction, revocation of Cheeburger Cheeburger’s trademark registrations, and unspecified damages.
–Source: Court TV
Dogsitter Blamed for Emotional Distress
Reunited with his German shepherd more than two months after its escape, Portland, Oregon, resident Doug Baker is now suing the woman allegedly to blame — his dogsitter. Baker accuses Lisa Dunbar and All-Around Pet Sitting of allowing his dog Fremont to escape and then providing sub-par assistance in securing Fremont’s recovery. Baker seeks $160,000 for damages, including lost wages, money expended in search of Fremont and emotional distress caused by the two-month pursuit.
Along with missing work during the ordeal, Baker reports crying every day and screaming every night of Fremont’s 67-day absence. In his quest to find Fremont, Baker consulted with four psychics, a witch and a professional animal tracker, apparently all for naught. Baker’s self-described "nightmare" only came to a close after he received a telephone tip that led him to Fremont’s location.
Dunbar denies that she should or could have done more to help locate her charge, maintaining that she also took time off of work to assist in the search. Baker’s attorney said he hopes the suit will encourage legal changes to hold petsitters to a higher standard of care.
–Source: Associated Press
FDA Faces Suit over Fluorescent "Frankenfish"
The Center for Food Safety, a non-profit advocacy group, is suing the federal government to prevent the sale of glow-in-the-dark zebra fish. The lawsuit calls upon the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services to regulate the GloFish industry, but the FDA has refused since the genetically altered household pet is not intended for consumption.
The GloFish, which hit the U.S. market on January 5, is a cross between a sea anemone and a zebra fish and glows under black light. The suit alleges that GloFish pose a threat if eaten by fish that are later eaten by people despite the developers’ insistence that the glow will not spread to any fish, cats or curious toddlers who may accidentally consume the neon pet. Nevertheless, the State of California has already banned GloFish sales on grounds that they present an ethical problem should the fish inadvertently escape to the wilderness and mingle with natural fish.
The International Center for Technology Assessment, another advocacy group, joined the Center for Food Safety in its suit warning that unregulated sale of GloFish could also open a "floodgate" of unregulated transgenic species sales. GloFish have sold for more than $17 in Taiwan, but the Texas-based company marketing the GloFish hopes to sell the ornamental tank dwellers for about $5 in the United States.
—-Sources: Associated Press, USA Today
The Disabled Working Boy
Konrad Mader is seeking compensation for lost wages from the City of Stamford, Connecticut, after he injured himself on city property in early November. But this isn’t just any run-of-the-mill personal injury claim. Mr. Mader hurt himself when he hit his head on a public playground, which happens quite often to two year olds – like Konrad. But unlike other toddlers, Konrad’s relatively junior age does not prevent him from also having a modeling and acting career, at least according to his mother’s demand letter. The letter asks city officials to pay for Konrad’s medical bills and his pain and suffering, which any two-year-old would have incurred, but also for "the lost wage amount due to [Konrad’s] inability to audition or take modeling or commercial jobs while his head heals."
Konrad’s mother claims his injury is the product of faulty playground equipment – the defect being that the railing’s green color made it blend in with the park’s landscaping. Konrad ran into the railing while running toward a treehouse, and his mother insists the incident could have been avoided if the city had taken the safety precaution of painting the railing a brighter color.
The city is reportedly looking into the claim, but its facilities manager said no plans are underway to alter the equipment. Konrad’s mother does not specify the amount necessary to fully compensate Konrad for his knock on the noggin’, but Konrad did receive several stitches. Maybe the city should consider the fact that, if the wound scars, the new-found look may open the door to new "bad boy" opportunities and roles for the child star.
—Source: Associated Press
Naked Barbie Doesn’t Confuse Court
Toy giant Mattel, Inc., continues to lose in its legal quest to protect the wholesome — and clothed — character of the Barbie doll. Mattel brought suit against an artist who photographed Barbies in vulnerable positions with kitchen appliances, such as naked in a blender and wrapped in a tortilla baking in an oven. But according to a federal appeals court, these sexually provocative depictions are constitutionally protected forms of criticism and don’t confuse consumers.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the dismissal of Mattel’s copyright infringement lawsuit against Utah photographer Tom Forsythe, determining that the Barbie shots were protected instances of parody or satire. The photos were part of "Food Chain Barbie," Forsythe’s social commentary on American consumption and conformism. The series includes further works including nude Barbie on a malt machine and cooking in a wok. Forsythe, who calls himself an "artsurdist," earned a little more than $3,600 selling postcards of his Barbie series.
Both the appellate court and a federal district judge were unconvinced by Mattel’s argument that consumers might believe the company sanctioned the birthday-suit Barbie prints, with the appellate court going so far as to opine that Mattel’s lawsuit "may have been groundless and unreasonable."
— Sources: Associated Press, Reuters
• For more: Tales Stranger than Fiction, click here.