Emerging Issues Archive

Mama Mia! It’s a Pasta War! Cipriani v. Cipriani

November 12th, 2014. By LucyC

David & Goliath go at it over Pasta—it could get Saucy!!

Two Italian food joints—one a high end chain in Manhattan—The Cipriani Group—which includes Harry Cipriani Fifth Avenue in Midtown and other Cipriani Group establishments, and a mom and pop operation in Chicago—Cipriani’s Pasta and Sauce of Chicago Heights—have taken the gloves off and intend to duke it out in court over trademark infringement.

Cipriani’s Pasta and Sauce of Chicago Heights, owned by Annette Johnson, got hit with the $1 million plus lawsuit by Cirpirani Group over allegations that the little tomato is trying to profit off the big tomato—so to speak—by using the same name. Johnson says, well—you can guess. She has filed a countersuit.

I love this stuff. Nothing like a good food fight!

The nuts and bolts—Johnson claims her food is better and it’s been around longer than Ciprianis in NYC. “The [Chicago] Ciprianis’ pasta was and continues to be made by hand and is air-dried naturally, which gives the pasta more character and flavor and results in a higher-quality product compared to commercial pasta which is heat-dried,” according to the lawsuit. She claims she has no desire to be associated with NYC outfit, and claims in her countersuit that the Cipriani Group’s trademarks dates only to 1985—“long after” Cipriani’s Pasta and Sauce opened a trademarked business. Her business began as a small Italian restaurant in Chicago Heights opened by John and Mary Cipriani in 1929, according to The New York Post. In 1955 the couple began selling  their homemade pasta and sauces in regional stores, expanding their business, and decades later, sales went online. Johnson bought the business in 2004.

For their part, the Cipriani Group, who got the whole thing rolling, claim that Johnson and her Chicago-based business are attempting to profit off the reputation of their restaurants by making “a concerted effort to associate their inferior,” cheaper products with their goods. FYI—the Cipriani Group counts A-listers  Kim Kardashian and Robert De Niro as customers.

It is a little confusing, however, that both businesses sell Cipriani-branded products in grocery stores, supermarkets and online.

It is just possible that the big guns may have bitten off more than can chew on this one. In her court filings, Johnson says that if anyone is deceiving customers, it’s the Cipriani Group — causing Midwesterners to believe its products are affiliated with her popular local enterprise. As the best defense is a good offense… she’s seeking a court order to stop the Cipriani Group from selling its products in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin—the heart of pasta-eating country (?). Since the Cipriani Group operates restaurants, banquet halls and other businesses around the world—maybe they could concede the Midwest—it wouldn’t be the end of the world. But there’s a principle at stake here!

Johnson also wants the Cipriani Group to stop “doing any other act likely to confuse, mislead or deceive others into believing that CGI or its products and services are affiliated with, connected with, sponsored by, approved by CP&S or its products,’’ according to the papers.

FYI—Harry Cipriani Fifth Avenue in Midtown and other Cipriani Group establishments are an offshoot of Harry’s Bar, a famous Venice, Italy, tavern opened in the 1930s by Giuseppe Cipriani.

Let the tomatoes fall where they will.

Posted in Emerging Issues, Totally Tortelicious | 3 Comments »

Eight-Legged Dream Home Tenants Create Nightmare for Homeowners

October 17th, 2014. By LucyC

When Winning Your Lawsuit Just Isn’t Enough…

Talk about Caveat Emptor. A couple who purchased an upscale home next to golf course in a suburb of St. Louise, MO, got more than the nest of their dreams—turns out it was also the dream home for some 6,000 brown recluse spiders—which, incidentally, are venomous.

The couple bought the house in 2007 for $450,000. Shortly after moving in they discovered the spider problem. After unsuccessfully trying to evict their unwanted tenants, through various strategies including interior and exterior pesticides, Brian and Susan Trost filed a claim with their insurer—State Farm, only to have it denied. So they sued the former owners for failure to disclose. They stated in their lawsuit that the spiders and their telltale webs were absent during the couple’s final walk-through.  However, shortly after moving in—ie the first day, the spider problem became apparent. In fact, Susan Trost stated that once when showering a spider fell from the ceiling and washed down the drain, narrowly missing her. Time to find a hotel!!!

In 2012, Mrs. Trost told St. Louis television station KMOV-TV the spiders “started bleeding out of the walls,” and at least two pest control companies were unable to eradicate the infestation. I see a movie script here…

In 2011, during a civil trial in St. Charles County, one of the county’s leading experts on brown recluse spiders, Jamel Sandidge, a professor of biology at University of Kansas,  estimated there were between 4,500 and 6,000 spiders in the home. Making matters worse, he said, those calculations were made in the winter when the spiders are least active. Really, really not what you want to hear.

The Trosts, not surprisingly, won their lawsuit against the previous home owners, but were unable to collect the judgement of $472,000, because, State Farm, the previous home owners’ insurers, claimed that the former owners’ policy lacked coverage and refused to pay. Then, the previous owners filed bankruptcy. Nice.

Although the Trosts have filed suit against State Farm for denying their original claim, they moved out of the house and allowed it to go into foreclosure. Because the previous owners filed bankruptcy—the Trosts, may never see their money.

According to the St. Louis Dispatch, the home, now owned by the Federal National Mortgage Association, was covered with nine tarps this week and workers filled it with a gas that permeated the walls to kill the spiders and their eggs. “There’ll be nothing alive in there after this,” said Tim McCarthy, president of the company hired to fix the problem once and for all.

I can’t help wondering about the neighbors—if I lived next door, I’d be really worried…

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

Facebook Fake Case Filed: How far can the Government go?

October 10th, 2014. By LucyC

In addition to being very creepy—the allegations made in a lawsuit brought by a woman whose identity was used by federal agents to create a bogus Facebook page, really brings home the question—does the end justify the means?

Apparently not, according to Sondra Arquiett, whose former identify—i.e. her maiden name, a photo and personal history—were used by federal agents as part of a sting against drug buyers.

The story goes, according to the lawsuit, that DEA Agent Timothy Sinnigen used information and personal photos stored on Sondra Arquiett’s cell phone, which had been confiscated in a drug bust in 2010. At that time, Sondra Arquiett, then 28, went under her married name of Sondra Price. She was charged, found guilty and given probation for her minor role in a cocaine ring.

Sinnigen used the data on Arquiett’s phone to make a remarkably accurate “Sondra Price” Facebook page, according to her federal lawsuit. In fact, the page had accurate information on where she went to high school, what car she drove and her nickname—“Sosa”. Information taken from her confiscated cell phone and posted as part of the bogus identity also included the fact that she had at least one child, according to Buzzfeed, which originally reported the story. First question on this—what gives the feds the right to do this? Second question—are they putting her and her children at risk?

Arquiett’s lawyer, Donald Kinsella, told The New York Post “Agents of the government should not should not be doing this. The ‘capital-G government’ did this.” He said his client is no longer on probation and has led a crime-free life since that 2010 bust. Arquiett is suing Sinnigen and the US government for punitive and compensatory damages totaling a half-million dollars. I should think so.

According to Arquiett’s lawsuit, she was arrested on July 15, 2010, and the Facebook page was created the next month. It was operated for at least three months by Agent Sinnigen, who accepted “Sondra Price’s” friend requests. “Sinnigen then utilized the Facebook page to initiate contact with dangerous individuals he was investigating with regard to an alleged narcotics distribution ring,” according to the lawsuit

“She suffered fear and great emotional distress because, by posing as her on Facebook, Sinnigen had created the appearance that [Arquiett] was willfully cooperating in his investigation of the narcotics trafficking ring, thereby placing her in danger,” the lawsuit contends. Her lawyer wouldn’t say whether or not Arquiettt had faced any threats or had to deal with dodgy characters as a result of the FB page. And, it isn’t clear whether or not the page actually led to any arrests.

Kinsella declined to say whether his client ever met any shady characters or faced a threat because of it.

According to The Post, the DEA isn’t disputing the facts in the lawsuit, but insists Arquiett lost all rights to her cellphone data when her phone was confiscated. She “implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cellphone’’ and lost all control of how it was used, according to the feds’ legal papers. This sounds like identity hijacking—if you’ve got someone by the short and curlies—what choice do they have about surrendering their rights?

Apparently both sides have agreed on a mediator and hope to resolve the dispute instead of going to trial, Kinsella said.

In a way it would be good if this suit did go to court—it raises so many questions around the use of personal data in the digital age. Bottom line, not only is big brother watching—he’s using.

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

NYC Million Dollar Condos with a Side of Garlic? That’s a Lawsuit Cookin’!

October 9th, 2014. By LucyC

Tenants from hell?

Residents of a luxury New York apartment block on the upper east side  are suing their tenant, a ground-floor high-end greasy spoon—not for noise violations, not for late night closings—but for stinking the building out. There is such a thing as too much garlic, it seems.

Just for context, three bedroom condos in The Isis (maybe they should sue for a name change while they’re at it, eh?) on East 77th go for $2.8 million. Not exactly chump change. But included in that price, now, is eau du steak et frites avec garlic, eau du boeuf burger avec garlic, and eau du garlic avec garlic, courtesy of the French-Italian bistro, Vella, the alleged tenant-from-hell on the ground floor.

Members of the board of The Isis, apparently thought they were getting an odor-restrained wine bar when they rented out the unit in 2012. No cooking, just reheating with menu items that involve nothing more complicated than a hotplate (sounds like my kitchen). At least that’s what they’re claiming in their lawsuit.

The Vella started serving hamburgers, chicken and bacon without proper venting or fire-safety devices, the lawsuit states. Wonder if they’re serving fish…now that could get ugly.

According to the lawsuit, “The prohibited cooking is causing strong odors that permeate the entire Isis building and is a nuisance to the residential-unit owners of the condominium.” Dr. Yariv Houvras, 44, who lives with his wife and three children on the third floor, said the stink of garlic and roasted meat has saturated their apartment. “Imagine your closet full of clothes smelling like really, really pungent garlicky food,” he said. Oh yeah baby! Nothing like putting on your best suit and knocking people out with panache and the stale smells of yesterday’s blue plate.

Ben Ahn and his family, who live on the second floor of the Isis, said there is a “constant smell in our master bedroom, bathroom and closet space.” No comment.

Marc Landis, who represents the Isis residents, said, “The restaurant owner should not be allowed to conduct its business so irresponsibly. Our clients and their families have the right to enjoy their homes, free of noxious smells, unreasonable noise and risk of fire.” Oh yes—risk of fire—forgot about that one.

Stuart Shaw, an attorney for the commercial unit’s owner, 168 Madison Ave. LLC, said there are no violations and a study by the board found that there isn’t an actual odor issue. And the manager of Vella, Pavel Srbecky said, “We’re all up to code. We didn’t breach anything.” I’m not sure being up to code negates violating people’s air space with noxious fumes, but the judge hearing the suit turfed the Isis board’s emergency bid to shut down Vella’s kitchen. He did, however, leave the suit for $50,000 in damages against the restaurant and the commercial unit’s owner standing.

In case you’re in the area and fancy a nibble—or are just plain curious, The Yorkville eatery serves a $31 filet mignon with gratin potato and $24 braised short ribs with seasoned mixed vegetables.

 

Posted in Emerging Issues, Totally Tortelicious | No Comments »

Gender-Bending at the DMV: What would RuPaul do?

September 10th, 2014. By LucyC

Kinda hard to think about this case—which we all knew would be coming down the pike—without thinking of the likes of RuPaul. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

South Carolina’s DMV is being sued by a boy and his mother over the 16-year old’s right to wear his “everyday” makeup for his driver’s licence photo. In her lawsuit, Teresa Culpepper alleges the SCDMV told her son to remove his mascara for the photo. When he refused, the SCDMV refused to take the photo, citing a policy that a driver’s license applicant cannot “purposely alter his/her appearance so that the photo would misrepresent his/her identity.”

OK—so where does that leave all us lipstick-loving, hair-colored, false eyelash-wearing women?  And what about wigs—how does that work? And what about women who wear trousers?  Wow, what a can of worms…

The back story: earlier this year Chase Culpepper reportedly showed up for his DL photo wearing foundation, mascara, eye shadow, and lip gloss—you might have seen Chase’s pic splattered across the news at the time. Makeup’s everyday stuff for most women—part of the external persona. According to Chase’s mum, the makeup and androgynous gender performance are part of Chase’s identity. Although Chase was born male, he wears gender non-conforming clothes and makeup.

Teresa Culpepper states that her son passed his driving test and satisfied all other requirements for a license. The only obstacle was the interpretation of the SCDMV’s policy by an employee at the Anderson office of the DMV. Apparently, a DMV employee complimented Chase on his makeup, but said he would not be able to wear fake eyelashes in the picture. “C.C. [Chase Culpepper] and his mother informed her that his eye lashes were real,” Culpepper states in her complaint.

“The employee then said she needed to speak with a supervisor and left to do so. She returned and told C. C. that her supervisor had stated that he needed to ‘go home’ and ‘take off the makeup.’ C. C. and his mother informed the employee that C. C. wears makeup daily and that how he looked at the time is how he looks on a regular basis,” according to the complaint.

Tammy King, the manager of the SCDMV’s Anderson office and the named defendant, then allegedly told the Culpeppers that “C. C. could not take his driver’s license photograph while wearing his regular everyday makeup,” because “it was in her ‘discretion’ to not allow C. C. to have his driver’s license photo taken if she felt he was wearing a disguise.”

Wait a minute—hadn’t they just explained all this?

“C. C.’s mother asked defendant King if a female applicant seeking a driver’s license wearing makeup of the kind C. C. was wearing, i.e., foundation, mascara, eye shadow, and lip gloss, was required to remove her makeup prior to taking a photograph for a driver’s license.

“Defendant King did not respond to plaintiff’s question,” Culpepper says. No, probably because there is no answer.

Lots to ponder here, folks…If a woman wears makeup to look more feminine, it’s not gender-bending, right? But if a man wears makeup…? If RuPaul is highly established as a drag queen (ie, a man doing some gender-bending via cosmetics), which of his/her personas gets photographed at the DMV? Is it up to him/her? We’ve got a wealth of fodder right here for when you’re slow on conversation at your next cocktail party.

The complaint goes on: “There is no disputing, and the SCDMV has acknowledged, that C.C. wears makeup on a regular basis.

However, the SCDMV and its employees have interpreted the policy to prohibit a male applicant from wearing regular everyday makeup that they allow female applicants to wear under the same policy.”

Culpepper claims the defendants discriminated against her son because of “their preconceived notion of how males should and can look. This preconceived notion is a sex stereotype and does not constitute a legitimate state interest.” No shit Sherlock.

Predictably, I suppose, the SCDMV’s policy is vague and relies on an interpretation of what “misrepresenting his/her identity” means, leaving the interpretation up to the discretion to SCDMV employees, something that is not allowed in the private sector. So, you ask—what’s the exact policy? Well, there isn’t one. In their suit, the Culpeppers argue that the policy leaves applicants like Chase at the mercy of sex/gender discrimination and sex stereotyping.

As the complaint states: “Defendants impermissibly discriminated against C.C. based on his sex and their sex stereotype…They unconstitutionally restrained C. C.’s freedom of expression and compelled and continue to compel him to convey an ideological message of their design. And they deprived C.C. of his constitutionally protected liberty interest in his personal appearance. Moreover, defendants’ policy is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, enabling SCDMV personnel to make arbitrary and capricious decisions based on their perception of how a particular individual should look as male or female.” Amen to that.

So, Chase Culpepper, better put your best face on because could you could become the poster boy for DMV discrimination.

Gosh—I sure hope this doesn’t translate into a no make-up at all policy… passport photos are bad enough…

Tags: Chase Culpepper, Gender Discrimination, SCDMV
Posted in Emerging Issues, Totally Tortelicious | No Comments »