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!

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.

Lawsuit: Fifty Shades of Grey Gel Misses the Big O

February 11th, 2015. By LucyC

Spent but not exhausted… Far from it in fact, if plaintiff Tania Warchol is correct. She’s filed  a lawsuit—are you ready—against the author of “Fifty Shades of Grey” and a British sex toy retailer for promoting Fifty Shades of Grey Sex Gel that does not live up to its promise of providing a “…a draining, soulgrabbing orgasm that leaves me spent and exhausted.” A quote apparently taken from the book.

Of course, it goes without saying that there could be several other reasons why Warchol failed to achieve the orgasm of lifetime (a widespread failing, I’m told), but we won’t go there, will we?

The consumer fraud lawsuit claims that author E.L. James and Lovehoney Ltd, among others, are peddling snake oil, essentially, and its subsidiaries are in violation of California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws by making misleadingly claims. (hey—everyone knows that writers never embellish).

The lawsuit also claims that the defendants use purported consumer endorsements as well as portions of James’ book to coax consumers into buying the product under false pretenses. Specifically, advertising for the over-the-counter “Fifty Shades of Grey Come Alive Pleasure Gel for Her”, claims to have beneficial and aphrodisiac properties to increase pleasure and enhance orgasms. According to Warchol, not so much. None of the ingredients in the product provide those benefits.

“Defendants prominently label the product as an ‘Intimate Arousal Gel,’ expressly and impliedly conveying to consumers that the product’s ingredients will help a user to experience heightened stimulation, pleasure and orgasm, despite that the product fails to be effective as an aphrodisiac,” the suit states. How are they defining aphrodisiac? I’ve always found a good red wine very helpful, taken orally, of course. A good lover is also helpful, but, in a pinch, not absolutely necessary.

While Warchol contends that the gel contains small amounts of extracts from organic substances including herbs and roots, some of which the defendants claim have an effect on the human body, it appears that not only are none of the ingredients effective as an aphrodisiac, but they may also cause an allergic reaction to genital areas. Oh, this is so going from bad to worse.

Even the FDA gets a mention, with Warchol claiming that Lovehoney didn’t seek US Food and Drug Administration premarket clearance required for patient lubricants that are used as accessories to condoms, Lovehoney is illegally marketing and selling the product at issue as “latex compatible.” No comment.

Warchol’s story is that she bought the pleasure gel at least twice in August 2014 at an Adam and Eve adult store owned by PHE Inc., another named defendant. While she relied on the defendants’ advertising, the product turned out to be “unsatisfactory,” she said. And that’s not subjective?

In case you’re interested in putting this stuff to the test personally, the “pleasure gel”, according to the complaint, is sold online and through retail stores for about $15. It is part of a larger group of products called the “Fifty Shades of Grey: The Official Pleasure Collection Approved by E.L. James.”

Bottom line, the truth really is stranger than fiction.

Daytripping, yeah…Hikers Saved and Sued by Rescuer

February 6th, 2015. By LucyC

If you go down to the woods today—be sure to tell someone where you’re going, dress appropriately, and carry some water and a well charged cell phone—oh—and don’t forget the methamphetamine, because you may need help finding your way home. Savvy?

Two kids—i.e. 18-year-old Kyndall Jack and 19-year-old Nicholas Cendoya from California went “hiking” (open to interpretation as you’ll see) in Trabuco Canyon in Cleveland National Forest, which, interestingly, is located just an hour outside of San Diego(?). They were carrying drugs and a cell phone—of course—I can see the selfies now. Guess they didn’t get the memo. Not surprisingly, they got lost, managed to make one emergency phone call before the cell died, and subsequently spent 4 nights in the canyon until they were rescued by some very well-intentioned folks. BUT—you knew there was a “but”—one of rescuers fell off a 110 foot cliff while searching for the “hikers.”

Volunteer rescuer Nick Papageorge’s (not sure if the apostrophe and the “s” are accurate as different media outlets are spelling the surname differently…I digress) fractured his spine, which required surgery to implant two titanium rods and 11 metal screws in his back, the Orange County Weekly reported.

Papageorge’s was looking for Kyndall Jack when he fell in April 2013. Apparently, Cendoya was found weak and dehydrated on his fourth night in the canyon, but Papageorge’s fell over the cliff before Jack was discovered the following morning, not surprisingly in a similar condition to her friend.

Papageorge’s medical bills were off the chart, so he sued Cendoya and Jack, claiming that they “headed out unprepared and unqualified to a remote and dangerous mountain area with the intent to take hallucinogenic drugs, knowing the likelihood of becoming disoriented, lost and requiring the subject rescue.” The lawsuit states that the hike wasn’t so much a “hike” as a “trip into the woods to smoke meth.” Ya think?

Papageorge’s sued under something called the Rescue Doctrine, which is a part of tort law that states if a person places herself in a situation where she needs to be rescued, and that situation is potentially dangerous, then that person is liable for any harm that befalls any rescuers. Good to know.

Poor Mr. Papageorge’s certainly suffered harm. The lawsuit stated that the teenagers’ actions were more than just negligent: Jack’s “willful conduct of placing herself in a recklessly dangerous situation caused the subject injury and devastation to plaintiff,” the suit alleged. Papageorge’s sued for in excess of $500,000 in medical bills.

FYI—Police later found methamphetamine in Cendoya’s car, which was still in the park’s parking lot. Cendoya pleaded guilty to possession of 500 milligrams of methamphetamine, according to Los Angeles’ KABC-TV.

According to the LA Times, Papageorge’s settled his suit with Jack for $100,000, which came from Jack’s mother’s homeowner’s insurance (bet she was pleased!). Cendoya had apparently already settled for an undisclosed sum.

Crazy stuff. But a happy PS—according to Papageorge’s attorney, Eric Dubin, Papageorge’s is “fully recovered and feeling great.”

Lawsuit: Serum did not Rub on Bigger Breasts

January 29th, 2015. By LucyC

Remember the tooth fairy? When you lose a tooth, if you put it under your pillow, a fairy will come in the night and replace your tooth with some money—you remember, right? Well, apparently, if you want bigger breasts, there’s a cream that you can use that will make them larger and firmer. And then all your problems will go away. If it doesn’t work—you can file a consumer fraud lawsuit and make more money than you spent buying the dodgy product in the first place. Note—if you got a nickel from the tooth fairy and she was a no show—there was no such recourse. But hey—times have changed.

US-based Talika is being sued by a women who claims the company’s breast enhancing cream did not live up to its advertising claims, and as a result, she wasted $60. Really?

Raisbel Pena who lives in the Bronx, not that that should have anything to do with her decision-making process, has filed a lawsuit in Manhattan against Talika—the maker of Bust Serum 2.0 for $5 million (that’s some exchange rate—spend $60 get $5M…) claiming that in her month and a half of use (I’m presuming she would have followed the instructions religiously) she did not see any progress. So, she’s suing for damages alleging she could have purchased a less expensive bust serum. No comment.

It’s false advertising and unfair trading—business as usual. According to Pena’s lawsuit, Talika’s “misleading marketing campaign begins with its “deceptive product claim” that after six weeks of use breasts will grow a cup size and also experience “push up effect” and be 70 percent firmer.

Ok—who’s on drugs here? Think about it, there’s a reason plastic surgeons live well.

“Both [claims] imply that the product is not just cosmetic in nature, but will actually cause physical alterations to breasts, including increased breast volume,” the lawsuit states. “[The] defendant’s exhaustive advertising campaign builds on this deception.”

According to Pena, she bought the product in 2014 and used it for long enough that she should have noticed the promised results, that is, if the cream did what the advertising claimed it could do, regardless of how well you followed the instructions. In any event, not surprisingly, Talika USA has yet to respond to the lawsuit.

I can’t help wondering what would happen if the cream actually did work…

Here’s the YouTube promo….