|
Thursday, December 17 2015 |
|
After years of litigation over the size of a sandwich, Subway appears to be within inches of a final settlement of the lawsuit.
According to news reports, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman for the Eastern District of Wisconsin gave preliminary approval to a settlement that has Subway paying $525,000 in a class-action lawsuit filed in 2013 against Doctor's Associates Inc., the Milford, Connecticut-based Subway franchiser that promoted footlong sandwiches for $5. After his footlong sub measured in at 11-1/4 inches, Jason Leslie sued Subway, and his case was consolidated with others into a class action that alleged deceptive advertising by Subway over its footlong sandwich. The settlement provides for plaintiffs such as Leslie to receive $1,000.
"Subway has to change to make sure that nobody is shortchanged," Leslie's attorney Gerald Marks said. "If they think they're paying for a footlong worth of bread and meat and vegetables, that's what they're going to get."
Subway responded, saying it regretted that it didn't fully deliver on its promise and pledged to improve its quality control.
A settlement fairness hearing is scheduled for January 15, 2016.
—Source: app.com
|
|
|
Wednesday, December 09 2015 |
|
A New Jersey lawyer has been ordered to pay nearly $50,000 for pursuing a frivolous lawsuit against two Atlantic City police officers.
According to news reports, attorney Jerry Goldhagen's client claimed he injured his eye socket in 2005 after being hit by stun guns used by Officers Michael Mayer and Owen Ingenito. The problem with the claim, however, comes from the fact that Atlantic City police didn't have stun guns at the time of the alleged injury.
In its ruling in favor of the police officers, the court held that had Goldhagen conducted even a “cursory investigation of the facts and a careful review of the law” before filing the complaint, he would have seen there was no valid claim.
An appellate panel recently upheld the decision to have Goldhagen pay Atlantic City $22,264.25 and the officers $27,680 in the case.
—Source: AtlanticCityNews.net |
|
Thursday, December 03 2015 |
|
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently heard oral arguments in a long-running battle over whether or not snowboarders should be prohibited from boarding at Utah's Alta Ski Area.
According to news reports, the lawsuit was filed in 2014 by four snowboarders against Alta and the U.S. Forest Service on grounds that Alta's prohibition excludes "a particular class of individuals" from use of public land, essentially amounting to discrimination against snowboarders. Alta counters that it is not biased against snowboarders, but rather it has made a business decision to provide a snowboarder-free experience. Alta's lawyers further contend that snowboarding is less safe than skiing because of an alleged "blind spot."
Alta is one of three ski areas in North America that still bans snowboarding.
—Source: ski.curbed.com |
|
Tuesday, November 24 2015 |
|
A New Jersey woman is suing a local police department for failing to prevent her from falling off a chair and fracturing her hip while she was being booked for drunken driving.
Linda Leone admitted having several drinks before getting in her car around 8 a.m. on April 22, 2010. A short time later, Officer Michael Allen arrested Leone when he found her car stopped by the side of the road with the transmission in drive. While Allen was booking Leone, she repeatedly fell out of a chair, eventually remaining on the floor where she fell asleep.
Leone sued the police department in 2012 for failing to prevent her from falling and breaking her hip, but the lower court dismissed the case. Recently, the appellate court allowed the case to move forward, citing previous court findings requiring police to provide a reasonable standard of care for arrestees in their custody.
Belmar Mayor Matthew Doherty said the appellate court's decision to allow the suit to proceed is "ridiculous" and a "waste of taxpayers' dollars."
—Source: njadvancemedia.com |
|
Thursday, November 19 2015 |
|
In a creative twist of legal writing, a judge has thrown out a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against pop star Taylor Swift by quoting her lyrics.
R&B artist Jesse Braham filed suit against Swift alleging that she stole lyrics from his "Playas Gon' Play" song for use in her hit song "Shake It Off." Although the songs sound nothing alike, Braham claimed that Swift ripped off his "Haters gonna hate" and "Playas gonna play" song lines. After demonstrating that those phrases were in common use before Braham's song, Swift's lawyers convinced the judge to throw out the case.
In her legal conclusion, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gail Standish borrowed some of Swift's lyrics, stating, "At present, the Court is not saying that Braham can never, ever, ever get his case back in court. But, for now, we have got problems, and the Court is not sure Braham can solve them. As currently drafted, the Complaint has a blank space — one that requires Braham to do more than write his name. And, in consideration of the Court's explanation in Part II, Braham may discover that mere pleading Band-Aids will not fix the bullet holes in this case. At least for the moment, Defendants have shaken off this lawsuit."
—Source: ftw.usatoday.com |
|
|
|
