Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See Archive

Guess Getting Arrested for Underage S*x is a Real Grind(r)

March 27th, 2015. By LucyC

A 52-year old man who was cruising through his hook-up app—Grindr—came across the love of your life (well, at least for the next 30 minutes), arranged a meet-up, and then found himself being arrested for engaging in an app-assisted sexual encounter with a 13-year-old boy. An app-assisted sexual encounter? How very 21^st century.

William F. Saponaro Jr., from New Jersey, got a little more than he bargained for—when he and another 24-year-old Grindr guy, who also met up with the boy, were arrested for having a “three party sexual liaison” with a minor. They were both charged with aggravated sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child.

Sapanaro’s response? Sue Grindr. He claims that because the child accepted Grindr’s terms of service somehow the company failed to ensure the boy was of age—or legal, let’s just call a spade a spade. The actual claim is negligence for allowing a minor to utilize the app. Uh? How do you stop that? What about personal common sense—or is that optional now?

For those dating app neophytes, Grindr works similarly to other hook-up apps like Tinder, which is also being sued—but over charging its users, not its users being charged, if you follow. Short version, Grindr uses a person’s smartphone’s geolocation capabilities to allows its users, particularly gay and bisexual men, to communicate with other similarly inclined folk in the local vicinity. Because the nature of the conversation and encounters that are facilitated through Grindr are adult in nature, the company restricts use of the app to those 18 and over. But in this case, the boy lied, the adults got busted and—the company gets off the lawsuit. Why?

Grindr owed Saponaro no “duty of care,” according to the court ruling, because it could not foresee Sapanaro becoming a victim, and therefore was and is not liable to Saponaro under New Jersey law. Caveat emptor baby! And, since Sapanaro communicated with a third member of the three-party tryst, and not directly with the boy, there really was no way Grindr could have known what was going down. If they could, you would wonder how, and that potential scenario is even more worrying.

Also interesting, the court barred Sapanaro’s claim under the Communications Decency Act. According to the CDA’s “Good Samaritan” clause, providers of interactive computer services are prevented from being treated as the publisher of the information disseminated on them. Think about it, Facebook, Twitter et al, responsible for the content of all their users’ posts? Never mind email service providers.

Perhaps what’s most disturbing is the lack of resonance around a 13-year old using the app. Gotta wonder what happened to him.

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

Billy was Lovin’ Tinder’s Cattle Call for Hookups until…

March 18th, 2015. By LucyC

…he found out love (even the meat market kind that’s based on, uh, appearances) ain’t cheap.

Here’s the deal: $2.99 for unlimited “Likes”—(I guess that means “Likes” are officially a currency now). Sounds like a great deal, right? Not if you’ve been getting if for free. The hook-up, sorry, dating app—Tinder.com is raising its rates—from free to $2.99 – and at least one user has his knickers in a knot over it.

California resident Billy Warner has filed a class action against Tinder alleging the social media company/app lures people into signing up by offering a free service. Then, when you’re hooked— BAMMO!! That’ll be $2.99 please! Less than your average moderate sized cappuccino—just to put it in perspective.

For those of us not familiar with the app– the short course on Tinder is that it enables you to find people within a certain radius of where you are located—using your phone. You look at complete strangers’ profiles and pictures which are uploaded from their Facebook accounts – with their permission – and qualify them, pretty much on the spot, presumably with the goal of hooking up – at some point and for some purpose. Qualifying them involves swiping to the right to “like” someone and to the left to pass on someone.

“A swipe can change your life” the website claims. No kidding.

So what’s the problem with paying for all that potential fun? Especially for such a nominal fee?  Well, the problem for Billy is, he’s hooked. Warner claims that he is “entrenched in the use” of the app and had he known that Tinder would charge for it, he would not have downloaded it. Seriously?

He’s alleging a classic “bait and switch”. Oh – there is a principal involved…?

According to the Tinder class action lawsuit, “Tinder has, up until now, allowed users to enjoy unlimited free swipes and has been a free app,” Warner contends. “Tinder has never advertised, represented, or otherwise indicated to its customers, including plaintiff, that the use of its services will require any form or payment.”

“Defendant offered these free services with the goal in mind of enlisting a user base of tens or hundreds of millions of users, with the ultimate goal of later changing the rules of participation and deceptively and forcibly migrating a substantially percentage of its user base to a paid subscription model,” the complaint states. That certainly has the potential to generate serious amounts of cash.

Warner contends that “Had Defendant warned Plaintiff that additional fees may apply, Plaintiff would have reconsidered Plaintiff’s use of Defendant’s app….Failure to disclose that additional fees may apply unfairly induced Plaintiff’s downloading of Defendant’s app, as he reasonably believed it to be a ‘free’ service.” So—why pay for the cow…right?

Poor old Billy discovered that he would have to pay $2.99 per month to continue using the app when he was notified that he was out of “likes” and that he could purchase unlimited “likes” for $2.99 per month. Out of Likes? That’s gotta take some doing (and let’s hope Billy didn’t blow one of those precious likes on Ava (25, from NYC…)

“[Tinder’s] abrupt policy change constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice, put into place to forcibly migrate users to paid subscription services, in order to receive the same services that had previously been provided and advertised free of charge,” the class action lawsuit states.

Maybe a bait and switch is going on and maybe it’s a problem for Billy and thousands of other users, but I’m betting it’s still one of the cheapest sources of booty going. And, if they’re not monetizing the app through registration fees, you have to like wonder what the options are.

Oh wait…the options are (drumroll) to charge more registration fees. As reported earlier this month, looks like Tinder is going to charge fees for premium features on a tiered fee basis. Tiered? Uh-huh…the fees are higher for the over-30 set (to cut those poor budget-constrained under-30 somethings a break). Sounds a bit discriminatory, eh? But then again, wasn’t it Crosby, Stills & Nash who said, “…and it gets harder as you get older…”

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

Hipster BKLYN Pizza Joint in Fight over Ownership Dough

March 10th, 2015. By LucyC

Is a lawsuit good for business? In this case, very possibly—ah—make that a yes. It would seem that the Michelin starred pizzeria in Brooklyn— Roberta’s—has never enjoyed such popularity/notoriety as now. It’s currently the subject of an ownership lawsuit. And yes, it’s all about the dough.

Celebs to have graced the eatery include the Clintons with Gloria Steinem and “The Big Lebowski” director Joel Coen, and Beyoncé—who apparently stomped out while fighting with hubby Jay Z (I wonder if there’s something in the food?)

So, the backstory, three owners—Brandon Hoy, Carlo Mirarchi and Chris Parachini—can’t agree on how to expand. What’s that old saying—two’s company three’s a crowd? So Hoy and Mirarchi fired co-founder Parachini—as you do. The firing led to buyout negotiations but the talks broke down when Parachini snubbed an offer of $2 million for his 25 percent share in the company. Parachini countered at $2.9, to include his share of Roberta’s and its spinoffs including another restaurant in the Rockaways and another $2.5 million for intellectual property (?). Wow. That’s a big piece of the pie!

His argument, according  to a letter he wrote in September 2014 to his now estranged business partners, is “Roberta’s has grown into a name representing quality and success that is synonymous with Brooklyn and recognized across the world.” Um. I know the world’s a small place, but… He was, apparently, referring to a pending deal in Asia and possibly the Ace Hotel chain.

So, the deal stalls, and four months after being a no show in the eatery, Parachini puts in an appearance only to have his partners call the cops, according to court documents.

“Our worst fears became a reality on Dec. 22, 2014, when Parachini appeared at the restaurant and began telling staff he was the ‘boss’ and ‘owner’ and they had to listen to him,” Hoy says in an affidavit.

“We are concerned that this will end in a physical altercation before the police will take any action, based on the prior history with Mr. Parachini and his erratic behavior,” Hoy says.

Wisely, the police didn’t get involved. So, Hoy and Mirarchi filed a lawsuit to keep Parachini away from the restaurant.

A judge granted the emergency order on December 31, but also said that Parachini should be paid a salary and given access to their books during the lawsuit. Sounds reasonable to me.

Parachini lobbed back in a written response to the allegations of physical violence and erratic behavior that, “I have no history of violence nor have I ever threatened any of my partners or employees. This is a total fabrication…presented to inflame the court.” He goes on to call the allegations  “malicious, unconscionable” and “an attempted theft of my ownership.” You know, I would say he does appear to be on the losing end of this one. But it ain’t over until the fat lady sings…

Parachini claims that things began to go sideways when he went to LA last summer to talk to the Ace Hotel chain about opening a restaurant in a new hotel that’s slated to open on the Lower East Side.

Court papers state that this is when Hoy went behind Parachini’s back to make changes to a new takeout counter next to Roberta’s.

The three amigos—who incidentally are in their mid 30s and early 40s—started the restaurant with something like $43,000. Now they’re headed to court to duke it out over millions. According to court papers filed by Parachini, his partners will net $10 million to $15 million over the next 10 years with the New York business alone.

And the irony in all this is that, according to Hoy and Mirarchi’s attorney, Kevin Sean O’Donoghue, Roberta’s has been “more successful than ever” since Parachini was fired. “His involvement is not a material need for the company,” he told The New York Post.

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

Naked Cowgirl Sues NYC

February 25th, 2015. By LucyC

What do you do when the city you love—the city you “rebuilt” arrests you? You sue, of course. Sandy Kane, the Naked Cowgirl of Times Square, is suing the city for wrongful arrest, to the tune of $2 million. Well, that should keep her off the streets for a while.

52-year old Kane is no shrinking violet. A bare-breasted busker, well actually she wears pasties—a cowboy hat and a guitar—or is that gittar—has been working Times Square for seven years. Long enough, she told a judge recently, to have “rebuilt Times Square . . . and made Manhattan and Times Square history.”

“I really feel that if there’s one thing I did in my life, I did that,” she told the New York Post. “All the Elmos and the Sponge Bobs, that wasn’t out there when I first came . . . I put a lot of people to work.” Um. So, what’s the problem? And why was she in court?

She was arrested for having an unattended package. Really. And the “package” was her guitar case. Ah, not my first guess.

Hmm. Kane acted as her own lawyer, and the judge, according to Kane, laughed while dismissing the charges against her. “I feel like I inspired Bloomberg” to turn Times Square into a pedestrian mall, she said. “I gave it to the people. I gave it to the tourists.” That defense would have been worth seeing.

All this took place last year. Cut to 2015 and Sandy is now suing the City of New York for wrongful arrest. It’s not illegal to go topless in New York, apparently, something worth noting if you’re planning on being in the Big Apple in August. So the guitar case does seem like a bit of a ruse, and New York’s finest have apparently been warned about making “controversial” arrests over public nudity. As well, there is no statute outlawing leaving a bag unattended, so, Sandy could have a slam dunk here. Well, I wish her luck and at the very least a new pair of pasties!

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

Lawsuit: My Left Shark…Your Left Shark? Or Katy Perry’s?

February 17th, 2015. By Admin

Costume capers and the dancing “Left Shark”—ringing any bells? Think Super Bowl XLIX…Kate Perry’s half time show…and those dancing sharks. What is it about Super Bowl half time shows? This year, apparently Perry’s sidekicks—the dancing sharks—weren’t groovin’ to the same tune, which led to some interesting choreography. The “Left Shark” decided to ad lib a bit—or maybe the valium had kicked in—who knows—but he/it did its own thing which reportedly went viral on the Internet. Of course. Shortly thereafter—as in days, I think, an enterprising designer from Florida, one Fernando Sosa, started selling models of the “Left Shark” on the 3-D marketplace Shapeways. And, Katie Perry’s lawyers thought this a little fishy.

While Sosa was not the only one capitalizing on the “Left Shark’s” 15 minutes of fame, he did find himself on the end of a cease and desist letter ordering him to remove the $24.99 shark from Shapeways. While Sosa complied, he is offering a 3-D pattern of the shark as a free download on MarketBot’s Thingiverse site.

According to my favorite news site—The New York Post—Sosa sold about 14 of his 3-D-printed Left Shark models within 24 hours, before they were taken down. All the money was returned, and production was halted, he told Marketwatch.

“I did propose licensing, but the lawyer turned me down saying they don’t have anything set up,” Sosa said. That was a bit slow on their end. Sosa said lawyers informed him that the beach balls and palm trees dancing alongside Perry were also off limits. Dancing palm trees… just how much Bud Light had people had by half time?

The issue is who owns the costume copyright. According to Eric Goldman, a law professor specializing in copyright issues at Santa Clara University, that’s not so clear. If the design of the costume is unique it can be copyrighted. There’s a dilemma just waiting for a court room.

“Just because [Perry] was dancing near the shark doesn’t give her ownership,” Goldman told MarketWatch. She would need to have registered her copyright for the shark costume or provide written proof that one of her employees designed it before she could move forward with a lawsuit, he said. (really?)

Whether Shapeways or Sosa could be held liable if a lawsuit were to be filed remains a gray area because it’s not clear whether Perry has filed copyright paperwork or if the costume was based on someone else’s design, Goldman said.

You know, this whole costume copyright thing has more potential than the dancing sharks that spawned it. I think there may be a bright future ahead for copyright attorneys.

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