Several top restaurateurs in New York are being sued after dropping tipping in favor of a "service included" format.

According to news reports, Shake Shack king Danny Meyer, who operates popular places such as Union Square Cafe, Gramercy Tavern and Marta, joined with several other "pricey" New York restaurants to change tipping policies to a "service included" format. The restaurateurs claim their goal is to pay workers more equitably and make customers’ lives easier by raising menu prices and overall wages by the same percentages.

Now, they are facing a class-action lawsuit that alleges the restaurateurs were really out to illegally line their own pockets because the "service included" places raised menu prices by higher percentages than tips typically given by customers. The lawsuit accuses Meyer of ringleading a price-fixing “conspiracy” that “unlawfully transfers millions of dollars from customers and servers to restaurateurs."

The suit demands damages for every supposedly overcharged customer based on “credit card records and other evidence of purchases.”

Meyer maintains that the “service included” is fairer to workers. A spokesman for Meyer told news sources, “We intend to vigorously contest the suit.” It would be a big mistake to laugh it off. Although the case was filed in California, it’s only a matter of time before ruthless New York barristers get into the act."

—Source: nypost.com

Two law firms in Florida have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Florida Power & Light Company for allegedly inadequately maintaining its infrastructure and equipment, resulting in a loss of power to nearly 4.4 million customers statewide in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma.

Miami-based MSP Recovery Law and Dort Law are seeking between $2 billion and $3 billion in damages. According to news reports, within eight days of the storm making landfall, 99% of customers affected had their power restored. The utility also notes that many of the trees that knocked out the power were planted by the local municipalities "in dangerous locations far too close to power lines."

—Source:  Wall Street Journal

Two home improvement stores are being sued in separate class-action lawsuits filed by the same attorney for allegedly selling 4x4 lumber that doesn't match up to 4" x 4".

Some customers of Home Depot and Menards have joined together in class-action lawsuits accusing the retailers of false advertising because a 4x4 piece of lumber is not actually four inches by four inches. Yet, according to news reports, it is a general understanding among contractors and carpenters, as well as throughout the lumber industry, that the discrepancy has been that way for decades. In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs claim to be damaged by the alleged deception, but neither complaint specifies the damages.

In a court filing in support of its motion to dismiss, Home Depot argues that the plaintiffs “received exactly what they were supposed to receive – lumber that complies with applicable standards – and thus have not suffered an injury-in-fact.”

The stores take issue with the claims of any real damage done by the use of the nominal measurements.

“Plaintiffs’ claims are based entirely on the thickness and width of the product,” notes the Menards memorandum. “[R]egardless of what the shelf tags and product labels purportedly said or did not say, the undeniable fact remains that Plaintiffs received exactly what they were supposed to receive.”

—Source: consumerist.com

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California has ordered a temporary stay in the landmark climate change lawsuit brought by 21 people, ages 10 to 21, against the federal government.

Backed by environmental groups, the children claim in their lawsuit, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana et al. v. The United States of America, that the federal government has violated their constitutional rights by encouraging the use of fossil fuels, which produce greenhouse gases that the plaintiffs say are damaging the climate system.

Two years ago, the Obama administration tried to have the cased dismissed. Earlier this year, the Trump administration petitioned the court to intervene, review, and overturn a decision made by a federal judge last year to allow the climate lawsuit to go to trial.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, says the Ninth Circuit’s ruling could signal an end to the lawsuit.

“It’s entirely possible the panel’s ruling suggests that the end is near for this bizarre matter,” said Horner. “Of course, it’s possible the circus will continue a little while longer, continuing to chew through taxpayer resources to knock off what has to be seen as something of a desperation lawsuit."

—Source: climatedepot.com