Author Archive

Lawsuit: All Because Some Bananas went Kaflooey

March 2nd, 2016. By LucyC

Bananas flambé—so flambé in fact they’re the subject of a lawsuit. Well, it’s not just the bananas…

Business owners in Seekonk, PA, whose business was burnt to the ground by an allegedly overloaded and subsequently out of control truck full of Chiquita bananas that overturned, ruptured a gas line and sparked a fire that destroyed the Old Grist Mill Tavern—are suing. No surprise there. What is surprising, however, is Chiquita’s response to the lawsuit—but we’ll get to that in a minute.

According to the owners’ attorney, David Salvatore, Chiquita banana trucks have been involved in wrecks all over the country. Is it some kind of plot? No, not according to Salvatore, who cites improper loading of the produce trucks. He wants Chiquita and four other defendants to be held responsible.

“It is not accidental that banana truck accidents are a thing of legend and song,” Salvatore said, in an article by the Sun Chronicle. He was referencing Harry Chapin’s 1974 song called “30,000 Pounds of Bananas” which recants the story of an out-of-control banana truck that crashed in Scranton, PA, killing the driver. No comment.

Backing up his lyrical reference, Salvatore claims a recent crash in Freetown bears a striking resemblance to the rollover in Seekonk, which took place on June 24, 2012. He claims trucks carrying containers piled high with bananas can overturn, especially on long curves where trailers heavily loaded with fruit—they tend to tip. Any child playing with toy trucks (if children still do that), would know—you put too much in, over it goes.

The owners of the Grist Mill, Greg and Suzanne Esmay, are suing Chiquita Fresh North America and Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, along with the owner and driver of the truck and a freight company. Seems a reasonable approach to compensation for an event they really couldn’t have caused.

Oh no, not so, claims Chiquita Fresh North America. Not only have they denied any negligence and/or responsibility associated with the destruction of the Grist Mill and likely the largest bananas flambé event in that part of the world has ever seen, according to court papers, its attorneys sought to lay the blame for the fire on the Esmays.

“The sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, was their own negligence, either standing alone or combined with the negligence of others over whom Chiquita exercised no control and for whose conduct it bears no responsibility,” the company wrote in court filings. According to the Sun Chronicle, Chiquita’s statement did not elaborate on its claims. It’s mystifying logic indeed. Needless to say, mediation went sideways. (Just like the bananas.)

Greg Esmay said he’s baffled by Chiquita’s allegations. “I don’t know what we possibly could have done wrong,” he said. Quite. One minute you’re serving burgers to your patrons and the next it’s the big bang.

As for Columbia Gas, they’re keeping quiet about the whole mess, stating: “We value our business relationship with The Old Grist Mill, and are involved in a continuing effort to effect a successful resolution of the pending matter,” Columbia spokeswoman Sheila Doiron said.

I’m betting bananas are not on the menu at The (new) Old Grist Tavern.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | No Comments »

Poetry in Judgment: Inmate’s Case Tossed…Poetically

February 16th, 2016. By LucyC

Well here’s one for the books. A poetic response (literally) to a rather frivolous lawsuit. A judge in Franklin County, Ohio handed down his judgment by writing a 5 stanza poem. Suffice to say, the suit didn’t get the green light.

What was it all about? Darek Lathan, a 47-year old inmate at the Correctional Reception Center in Orient (Ohio) attempted to sue the state after a guard at the center refused to let him use an open restroom during recreation time. Lathan said he soiled himself and was ridiculed as a result. Not pretty. Not very nice, either. But—worthy of a $2 million lawsuit?

Apparently not. At least not according to Franklin County Judge David Cain, who concluded Lathan didn’t have a case. “You know, if he is going to file something that frivolous, he can’t expect me to be too judicious in how I respond,” Judge Cain told The Columbus Dispatch. “He can’t expect me to take it seriously.”

Judge Cain, who had a former career as a journalist, summed it up quite nicely when he penned:

“Claiming loss and shame to boot

the plaintiff filed the present suit,

but the law provideth no relief

from such unmitigated grief.”

“We have to have some fun every once in a while in this job,” Cain told the Dispatch.

Apparently the judge dashed off the entire 5 stanzas in an hour. Well done. As for the plaintiff? He is now incarcerated “elsewhere”.  He didn’t have a lawyer apparently, and made no comment.

Lathan filed his lawsuit in October last year, claiming that while he warned the officer he was struggling with a cold and diarrhea from taking cold showers in the prison, he was refused permission to get out of line. He suffered “harassment, embarrassment, ridiculing (sic) and emotional distress” when other inmates began laughing at him after the bathroom accident, he wrote.

Here’s the poem:

“Cold showers caused his bowels to malfunction

Or so the plaintiff claims

A strict uncaring prison guard

Is whom the plaintiff blames.

While in line for recreation

And little time for hesitation

His anal sphincter just exploded

The plaintiff’s britches quickly loaded.

It made the inmates laugh and play

To see the plaintiff’s pants this way

The foul, unsightly, putrid mess

Caused the plaintiff major stress.

Claiming loss and shame to boot

The plaintiff filed the present suit

But the law provideth no relief

From such unmitigated grief.

Neither runs nor constipation

Can justify this litigation

Whether bowels constrict or flex

De minimus non curat lex.”

Whoa! That’s throwing some serious shade when you start slinging the Latin around!

That last line there translated from Latin means: “the law does not concern itself with trifles.” Clearly not.

In the article from the Columbus Dispatch, Cain, a judge for nearly 30 years, is quoted as follows:

“I read the complaint and quickly concluded that it was totally frivolous,” Cain said after the ruling was posted on the court Website.

“You know, if he is going to file something that frivolous, he can’t expect me to be too judicious in how I respond. He can’t expect me to take it seriously.” This is the first time he’s issued a judgment in rhyme—wonder if it will be the last? Apparently, he only has three years left  before an age restriction prevents him from seeking re-election. “If there’s anything I want to do, I better get about doing it. I just wanted to have some fun.”

Apparently Cain received his journalism degree from Ohio University in 1965 and went on to work at the Dispatch as a reporter for a decade before getting his law degree. In the 1970s, he was among those who wrote song parodies poking fun at local personalities for the Press Club’s Gridiron Shows.

Well, alrighty then. Can’t wait to see what’s next!

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | No Comments »

Hired to Drive, Told to Assemble (IKEA!), Suing for $1.7M

January 8th, 2016. By LucyC

Ok—finally!! After all these years, confirmation!! Every time I had to put together a piece of Ikea furniture I would stall for days—weeks sometimes. After all, I’d survived for a year without that particular piece of furniture—what’s a few more days, right? In fact, the products could lay for months in their boxes, untouched, while I gathered the nerve, the tools and the beer necessary to put a table, desk or wardrobe piece together. Now there’s a guy in New York who’s suing his employer for forcing him to single-handedly put together a 225-pound piece of Ikea furniture by himself. Thank you! (doing a happy dance)—It’s not just me.

Fifty-two year old Carlos Figueroa, a chauffeur to Sweden’s UN Ambassador, alleges in his lawsuit that he endured Scandinavian-style torture when his boss forced him to single-handedly build a massive IKEA wardrobe. He claims that “handyman” was not part of his job description—likely nor was masochist. So, are you sitting down? He’s suing the Swedish Mission in Manhattan for $1.7 million (that’s a lot of wardrobes). He claims he was injured on the job and cites discrimination from his superiors.

The story goes that Figueroa was sent to Ikea in Elizabeth, NJ, to buy “one or two” “Pax” wardrobes (see Ikea video, above) with “Hasvik” sliding doors by his boss, the late Ambassador Marten Grunditz. What’s your first clue this furniture is going to be too heavy, and it turns out, too big for Figueroa to haul back to Manhattan on his own? And anyone who’s tried to get even a Trofast storage bin unit out of the Elizabeth, NJ Ikea store knows the concept of ‘grab ‘n go’ is royally put to the test. So…Grunditz told him to order the units. Yeah, thanks a lot.

When the furniture arrived at the Mission, complete with instructions that clearly show the furniture should be assembled by two people (why are they smiling?), Figueroa was told to assemble the 8-foot-by-7-foot piece by himself.

No additional manpower was provided, despite Grunditz being aware that Figueroa wasn’t a “workman or carpenter,” his suit states.

It took Figueroa three days apparently, to negotiate the instructions, parts (no doubt including endless packages of screws and the ubiquitous Alan key) but he did it. Except for hanging the sliding doors. He was in the process of hanging them when he fell off the five foot ladder and injured his back. He had to have back surgery to relieve pressure in his spine and fix pinched nerves. Wait—there’s more—he also suffered leg injuries. All this has forced Figueroa, who first started working as a driver and office clerk at the Mission in 2006, to take two medical leaves of absence, from September 2013 through February 2014 and from May 2014 onward.

“I’ll be in pain for the rest of my life. I’m disabled,” Figueroa told The New York Post, when they called him. “It’s been very emotional. I’m still in a lot of pain.” Yes, I should think so.

Despite his injuries, Figueroa continued working as a chauffeur after the accident, which, predictably, exacerbated his injuries, according to the lawsuit. Figueroa alleges he was told to lie to doctors about his continued duties “to avoid an uninsured Workers Compensation claim.” Boy, this just gets better and better. Not.

According to the lawsuit, “The important thing is for you to say that you don’t know how you got it and you don’t mention work,” a senior administrative officer under Grunditz texted Figueroa in December 2012. “So you want me to lie,” Figueroa texted back.

The worker responded: “Lying and withholding all info are two different things. You are an office clerk aren’t you? As it happens you don’t need to lie. As much as we don’t know the entire story behind your injury either,” the lawsuit states. So, how “gray” is grey, exactly?

Figueroa is also suing the Mission for discrimination: he claims his colleagues made disparaging comments about Latinos and questioned him about various missing items at the Mission. Seriously? And, there’s also an allegation of denied overtime despite working up to 18-hour driving shifts, with Figueroa claiming his boss said he was “paid too much.” FYI—Grunditz died January 2014.

According to Figueroa’s lawyer, Stanley Chinitz, who spoke with the Post, “Mr. Figueroa is not going to try his case in the press. He has accurately described the facts and this will be for a jury to resolve. Discussions occurred between the parties before the lawsuit was filed and the claims were unable to be resolved.”

You know, there ought to be a therapy group for survivors of Ikea furniture assembly—I’d join—though admittedly in most situations, the quest to assemble is purely self-inflicted.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Lawsuit: Do Snowboarders Deserve Equal Rights?

November 18th, 2015. By LucyC

Right to access public land, discrimination, public safety or an overstated sense of entitlement? According to a group—a small group—of snowboarders—ok 4 snowboarders, the issue(s) lies behind door numbers 1 and 2. And they’ve filed a lawsuit to prove it. So what the heck am I talking about? To allow boarders on ski hills or not. Oh yeah baby—that old chestnut.

The powers that be in charge of Alta Ski Area in Utah have banned boarders from the ski hills. Why? They claim safety of the skiing public. So the 4 boarders are suing. They want access to them thar hills. They brought their lawsuit in 2014, and are alleging discrimination on the part of the resort.

In the interest of providing an unbiased opinion (possibly an oxymoron but let’s roll with it) I should disclose that I am a skier not a boarder. Having been clipped myself by a snowboarder—I can attest it hurts. Luckily, I was not injured but many others have been, some seriously. So, there is a heated debate about allowing boarders and skiers on the same slopes.

Back to the lawsuit…the lawyers representing the resort successfully defended their ban stating that resort officials made a business decision to entice skiers to the private resort east of Salt Lake City by promising a snowboarder-free experience, (kinda like a sand-flea free beach experience?) and it’s well within its rights to keep snowboards off the slopes.

The US Forest Service, which approves a permit for Alta, is also on the side of the resort, and backed up their boarder-free policy in court.

Attorneys for the four boarders have offered the counter argument that Alta doesn’t have the right to keep snowboarders off public land designated by Congress for skiing and other sports, pointing to 119 other ski resorts that operate on public land that allow snowboarding.

Of course, part of the problem is that Alta is world-class skiing and boarding territory. So everyone wants in. But at some point safety must come into the decision-making process. After all, we don’t allow cars on bike paths. Hell, pedestrians aren’t even allowed on bike paths, but that’s a whole cycling vigilante thing we best not get into here. I digress.

Back to the boarders. Their issue, their lawyers state, is with Alta’s claim that skiers find the slopes safer because they don’t have to worry about being hit by snowboarders who cannot always see skiers because their sideways stance leaves them with a blind spot. (Yes—true enough). And, the lawyers continue, Alta’s ban is irrational and based on stereotypes of snowboarders. Ok, don’t get me started.

Apparently, Deer Valley in Utah and Mad River Glen in Vermont also ban snowboarding.

In any event, the case got tossed last year by a federal judge in Utah (wonder if he is a skier…) so the four snowboarders who have now named themselves “Wasatch Equality,” have appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, as you do.

This week, Fox News reported that the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case. Wasatch Equality’s lawyer, Jonathan Schofield, argued the snowboarding ban violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution by denying them access to the mountain. Seriously?

Yup. However, Schofield insisted he was not trying to get snowboarders declared a “protected class,” but press for equal access on government land. Surely they can still access the mountain? They just can’t go snowboarding on it. That’s different, I think.

“You don’t get to play favorites and decide who can come and who can’t,” he told FOX 13. Hmmm.

One of the three judges on the panel, Judge Gregory Phillips, asked “What if I want to take my toboggan down the slope? Would that be an equal protection violation?” Hello! Love it.

Alta insisted that it doesn’t discriminate against people, but has an equipment policy. “This case is about equipment. It’s not about people. It’s about a board,” said Alta Ski Area attorney Rick Thaler. “They’re the same person, the same beliefs, same race, gender, speech, clothing, cultural group.” Not quite sure what he’s on about there.

And so this goes on. The judges have taken the case under advisement with a decision is expected in a matter of months. Maybe at the end of ski season?

So—go get your skis on!

Posted in Discrimination, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Peet’s Cheats? Coffee Lawsuit claims Short-Pouring Going On

November 12th, 2015. By LucyC

A few weeks ago, a man in Winnetka, Illinois filed a lawsuit against a national coffee and tea chain, Peet’s Coffee & Tea, alleging he has been cheated for the past five years. Specifically, he claims the amount of coffee he’s been served versus the amount of coffee advertised (and for which he’s paid) are different—he’s gotten less than promised—of course. And now he’s going to do something about it.

He’s waited five years to say something and this is how he does it? Ok—where do you start?

Well, let’s try the facts—which shouldn’t take long. On October 29, Robert Garret’s attorney, Alexander Loftus, filed a complaint on behalf of his client and presumable “others similarly situated”, in Cook County Circuit Court against Peet’s, which is based in Emerysville, California. The Peet’s lawsuit claims that for several years now the company has shorted its customers on the amount of coffee they receive when ordering either 12-ounce or 32-ounce cups of Peet’s Press Pot coffee.

A 32 oz cup of coffee? Seriously? Why not just get an enema? To put this in perspective for all of you Starbucks folks, that’s like downing a Venti coffee and then ordering another Tall one for the road.

I digress. Back to the facts, such as they are. According to the complaint, the menu board at the coffeehouses state those sizes, and customers may believe they are paying for those sizes. BUT, “in fact,” they receive significantly less coffee. For instance, the complaint asserted the largest cup in which beverages are sold at Peet’s can only hold 24 ounces of coffee. “Only”? “In truth, they are at least 25 percent less than the advertised volume,” Garrett’s complaint stated. He’s certainly observant.

The complaint goes on, no surprise, to state that the volumes referenced on the menu board may actually refer to the size of the French press devices in which the coffee is steeped. BUT, the complaint states that by referencing the volumes on the menu board, Peet’s intended to fool customers into believing they are actually receiving that much coffee.

“Defendants (Peet’s) have engaged in conduct designed to induce, or having the affect (sic) of inducing, consumers to believe that they are receiving materially more ounces of press coffee for their money than they actually are,” the complaint said.

Conversely, getting the full 32 oz of coffee could surely induce a few things as well, but clearly Garrett is willing to accept any side effects there.

Garrett claims that the French Press coffee is the only beverage Peet’s sells by specific volume. Everything else is sold by general sizes such as small, medium and large. 32 ounces would, I feel safe in saying, constitute super-sized large. In fact, it’s up there in Big Gulp territory (quick factoid: the original BG debuted at 32 oz back in 1976).

FYI—Garrett states that he buys his Peet’s coffee at the chain’s store at 817 Elm Street, Winnetka. (Is there no store manager he could have spoken with about this?) He believes there are thousands of others who ordered Peet’s Press Pot coffee at the chain’s nearly 250 locations nationwide who could join his lawsuit, should the court allow it to proceed as a class action. Well, it is a pressing matter—ha ha—pardon the pun but I couldn’t resist.

According to the potential class action, Peet’s actions have violated state consumer fraud laws, and constituted breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Garrett has asked the court to award unspecified compensatory damages and fees for himself and other members of the putative class.

What about coffee for life? Bring your own cup…

Posted in Class Action, Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | No Comments »