Starbucks is being sued again by a customer who claims to have been short-changed in the beverage department.

Stacy Pincus, of Chicago, Illinois, is suing Starbucks for $5 million, alleging that the coffee giant puts too much ice in its chilled beverages, denying its customers the amount of tea or coffee the company advertises. Pincus also questions the higher cost of chilled beverages, despite the fact they contain less liquid than heated drinks.

"Advertising practices are clearly meant to mislead consumers when combined with the standard practice of filling a cold drink cup with far less liquid than the cup can hold," Pincus states in her class-action federal lawsuit.

"We are aware of the plaintiff's claims, which we fully believe to be frivolous and without merit," countered Starbuck's spokeswoman Jaime Riley. "Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any 'iced' beverage. If a customer is not satisfied with their beverage preparation, we will gladly remake it."

This is the second time in as many months that Starbucks has been sued over the volume of its beverages; in March, another class-action suit against the company claimed it short-changed latte drinkers by 25%.

—Source:  marketwatch.com

A convicted burglar who was shot during an attempted break-in is suing the homeowner.

According to news sources, after homeowner David McLaughlin's alarm on his detached garage went off, he investigated the situation and saw a man running from the building along a dark, dirt alleyway. McLaughlin then opened fire, hitting the thief, David Bailey, in the back of the arm. Now, two years after the shooting, Bailey has filed a civil suit claiming McLaughlin acted recklessly in firing the gun.

According to the complaint, “As the plaintiff (Bailey) was running down the alley away from defendant's residence, the defendant (McLaughlin) continued to the public right-of-way (and off his property) and continued firing his weapon down the dark alley.”

Bailey further contends that McLaughlin told neighbors he “had no idea what he was firing at.”

The complaint concludes that McLaughlin “owed the plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care when he exited his property and began firing gunshots down a dark alley.”

“My client thinks it’s outrageous and I tend to agree,” said McLaughlin’s attorney Brian Pierce. “You don’t ordinarily expect someone to burglarize you and turn around and sue you for damages.”

The lawsuit claims the suspect never actually entered the homeowner’s garage and is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

—Source:  ktla.com (Los Angeles, CA)

A thirteen year-old red-headed boy has filed a "wrongful life" lawsuit against his parents for allegedly causing him "voluntary prejudice" by giving life to him despite knowing he would be born into a life of pain and suffering.

Liam Murphy, whose parents both have red hair, claims they knew he would very likely inherit what he describes as a very undesirable trait: red hair.

“My life is a torture!” the young boy said. “I keep being told that I have no soul or that I am from an endangered species. People keep calling me Carrottop, Strawberry Shortcake or Ginger Freak, and all of that is my parents’ fault! They knew they were offering me a life of misery, and they selfishly decided to have children anyways.”

The youth is demanding $1.35 million in “pain and suffering” as monetary compensation for the entire experience of having a disabled life versus having a healthy mind and body, as well as $800,000 in “loss of enjoyment of life.”

“My client was intentionally exposed to a life of rejection and bullying by his parents,” said James Franklin O’Connor, the young Murphy's attorney. “Many scientific studies have proven the social difficulties suffered by people with red hair, but this couple who had suffered from it themselves, consciously decided to expose their children to the same thing.”

According to news reports, a few “wrongful life” lawsuits have generated financial compensations of up to $20 million for some children, but these were for plaintiffs born with heavy disabilities or debilitating diseases.

—Source:  worldnewsdailyreport.com

A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a lawsuit cannot continue as a class action suit against TGI Friday's by customers angry over a discrepancy in the price of their drinks.

Debra Dugan of New Jersey sued the popular restaurant chain several years ago claiming TGI Friday's engaged in "menu engineering" to exploit its customers by charging different prices for the same drinks depending on whether they were ordered at the bar (where she was charged $2.00) or a dining table (where she was charged $3.59), all in violation of state consumer protection laws. According to news reports, two other plaintiffs eventually joined the suit.

A three-judge panel of the state appeals court reversed a lower court ruling that granted class action status for anyone who ordered unpriced drinks at one of the 14 company-owned New Jersey restaurants. In its holding, the court noted that people who either didn't look at the menus or ask the prices before ordering couldn't necessarily claim damages.

“The class definition erroneously includes all persons who purchased an unpriced soda, beer or mixed drink regardless of whether they reviewed the menu before purchasing the beverages,” the panel wrote. “If a person did not look at the beverage section of the menu, TGIF’s failure to list prices on the menu had no causal nexus to the person’s decision to purchase a particular beverage.”

The court decision allows the individual plaintiffs to go ahead with their claims.

—Source:  nj.com