Court of Public Opinion: Dunkin Donuts Coffee Lawsuit is B.S.

June 6th, 2011. By AbiK

Have you ever gotten food at a QSR and not gotten exactly what you ordered? QSR, for those who don’t give much thought to restaurant classifications, stands for “Quick Serve Restaurant” and includes such fine establishments as McDonald’s, Subway, Burger King, Taco Bell, Wendy’s, Starbucks and…Dunkin Donuts, which we’ll get to in a minute.

My guess is that you have. It’s the type of industry that makes process improvement experts giddy with glee—so much opportunity to play hero. After all, the ‘defects per million opportunities’ (DPMO) are seemingly countless.

The reason I bring this up is that, given that tidbit of knowledge or supposition, you go into a QSR—or drive thru one—expecting a less than 100% delivery on your expectations. Not that you can’t be satisfied with what you’ve ordered—it just may not be exactly what you ordered. Lettuce is limp. Ketchup’s missing. You said “French” dressing and got “Ranch”. So it’s like the saying goes, “forewarned is forearmed”.

You do things like checking your takeout bag before leaving the place. Count the number of straws. Repeat the order back to the order taker. Say that it’s the orange-colored dressing, not the white one. You’re on guard. And that’s for you or me—the average Joe without any medical condition that might otherwise have us on super high alert when ordering fast food.

Now, back to Dunkin Donuts. So Danielle Jordan—who by now everyone knows is 47 and lives Read the rest of this entry »

Asbestos News Roundup: 5.26.11

May 26th, 2011. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of asbestos hot spots from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Asbestos Lawsuits

St. Clair, IL: A new asbestos claim has been filed in St. Clair County, by Richard and Barbara Jacobs, who allege that the 42 named defendants in their suit are responsible for Richard Jacobs developing lung cancer.

In their complaint, the Jacobs claim that Richard developed lung cancer following his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career. Mr. Jacobs worked as a foreman at TRW Inc. Metals Division from 1957 until 1971, as a melting supervisor at Advance Casting from 1972 until 1973, as a foundry foreman from 1973 until 1974 and as a laborer at Teledyne Cast Products from 1974 until 1999.

The Jacobs claim that the defendants should have been aware of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for Richard Jacobs’s safety.

According to their complaint, Mr. Jacobs’ asbestos-related disease has left him disabled and disfigured. Further, the illness has resulted in the Jacobs’ incurring medical costs and Mr. Jacobs suffering great physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint states. Mr. Jacobs has also been prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to him, which, the suit claims, is a result of his asbestos-related illness.

Because of her husband’s disease, Barbara Jacobs claims she has lost her spouse’s companionship, society and services.

The Jacobs are seeking a judgment of more than $200,000, plus punitive and exemplary damages Read the rest of this entry »

8 Questions for Quack who filed Chuck E. Cheese Gambling Lawsuit

May 25th, 2011. By AbiK

Never thought “Chuck E. Cheese’s” and “Gambling Addiction” would live in the same sentence—or headline—but this, I believe, is what happens when someone who claims, in court documents, to have taken her children (ages 3 and 5) to Chuck E. Cheese’s numerous—got that? NUMEROUS—times finally wakes up and realizes what a fool she’s been, and subsequently, what to do? Many of us would just lay low for a while by sitting a sort of self-imposed shiva-for-shame (with all due respect for those of the Jewish faith out there)—you know, cancel a few playdates, that sort of thing. Not so Denise Keller. Her way to deal with self-loathing and mortification? Sue the source of it all: Chuck E. Cheese’s of course. So here we are…

The Defendant: Chuck E. Cheese’s restaurants (I use the term loosely—they do serve food).

The Allegations: Some of the games at Chuck E. Cheese’s are actually illegal gambling devices and could foster addictive behavior in children. (At least that’s what Denise Keller, a mom and local real estate agent from San Diego, who’s sued CEC Entertainment—owners of Chuck E. Cheese’s—thinks.)

The Questions: As a mom—and one who’s been to a Chuck E. Cheese’s birthday party or two—I have some questions about this lawsuit. Particularly if I’m going to need to line up some psych assessments for my kids in about fifteen years—was Chuck E. Cheese’s the root of all evil in their lives?

See, it’s not like there’s been a causal relationship established between Chuck E. Cheese’s and gambling compulsion—like with Mirapex. And even though I was not a proponent of the Kill the Happy Meal lawsuit, I get it. There’s real harm if a lax parent feeds a child a steady diet of Happy Meals. So I’ve got some serious questions—8 of ’em for Ms. Keller regarding this lawsuit. Here they are:

1. How often do you take your kid to Chuck E. Cheese’s?

Please define “numerous”. My kids have gotten several birthday invitations for parties there. We’ve gone to two. One would’ve been enough. And for damn sure it wouldn’t have been because Read the rest of this entry »

Lawyer Wall of Heroes: 26 Stories You Really Should Read

May 25th, 2011. By AbiK

Chances are, none of the lawyers shown above is really comfortable with the title “hero”. And we usually reserve the honor for caped crusaders in tights or, joking aside, those who’ve shown incredibly selfless acts of courage in the face of devastating events. But for the individuals who were extended a helping hand during their own personal hour of need—often when everyone else had turned their backs on them—these attorneys are indeed truly heroes.

In each of our interviews with these attorneys, the majority shared this one quote with our senior legal correspondent, Brenda: “It’s the right thing to do.” If you’re wondering what that ‘thing’ is for each of them, click on their images above to find out. The legal practice areas they’ve chosen to champion and the causes they’ve chosen to support are as diverse as can be imagined—from Hurricane Katrina to children with special needs to the transgender community and even one that combines practicing with preaching.

We continue to be inspired by the pro bono stories we share in our Lawyers Giving Back columns. We hope you are, too.

If you know an attorney who ‘gives back’, let us know—we’d love to share their story as well. Drop us a line at .

Fracking Racking up Lawsuits (#Fracking #NIMBY)

May 23rd, 2011. By AbiK

This time we leave the Marcellus Shale region and set our sights a bit southwest, to Clinton—er, former Clinton—territory: Little Rock, AR. Seems folks there aren’t convinced that fracking’s the way to go to drill for natural gas—at least not in their backyard. Also seems like fracking’s become the NIMBY hot-button issue of the day, reminiscent of the tenor that swept the nation when the Three Mile Island core meltdown was hot and heavy in the news. NIMBY indeed.

The backyard in question here, however, happens to be government-owned land—namely the Ozark National Forest, and also Greers Ferry Lake. The plaintiffs, which are a collective of environmental groups and concerned citizens, are calling for three US government agencies (US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service and the US Army Corps of Engineers) to stop drilling operations from going forward until proper studies are done that show that fracking is not harmful to the environment.

Hydraulic fracturing (aka “fracking”) has been getting a fair amount of attention in the press lately—thanks in large part to the work that Public Citizenand other consumer advocacy groups have been doing. The issue with fracking is that the drilling process calls for massive amounts of water combined with chemicals—chemicals that have not fully been disclosed yet to the public by the oil companies—to be forced into the ground in order to facilitate (ie, by helping to “fracture” the underground) the release of the natural gas below.

Environmental groups, farmers and homeowners alike who live in areas where fracking is going on are concerned for the safety of their drinking water, their land—their very health. The EPA is conducting a study to assess the overall impact on water quality and human health—but those results are not available yet, and of course, there are plenty of oil-industry-backed or -initiated studies proclaiming the merits and safety of fracking. So bottom line, until the EPA study is available, anecdotal information—such as that of flammable tap water—doesn’t have too many folks grabbing a glass of their local water well’s finest with much confidence.

It’s that lack of information and lack of confidence that forms the backdrop to the current charges of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs’ allegations state that the number of wells in which drilling is already going on in the region surpasses the number that were estimated in 2005 by the BLM—and its the agencies listed as defendants in the lawsuit that are responsible for leasing the gas and issuing drilling licenses on land owned by the government. (thesuntimes.com)