ARTICLES

 

A lawsuit claiming fraud on behalf of a class of Dunkin' Donuts customers is charged as "ridiculous" by the ILR - an arm of the US Chamber of Commerce responsible for relentlessly criticizing the Plaintiff's bar with fake news distributed via social media.  Here's what they published:

"MASSACHUSETTS MAN FILES CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OVER ‘FAKE BUTTER’

If a restaurant provided you with so-called “fake butter” on your bagel after you ordered real butter — would you simply ask for new bagel, or would you file a costly lawsuit? That’s the very choice that faced Jan Polanik of Worcester, MA after he ordered a bagel with real butter at Dunkin Donuts. Polanik, however, chose to file two lawsuits — accusing more than 20 Dunkin Donuts franchises in the state of “putting a butter substitute on his (sic) bagels when he ordered real butter.”

Interestingly, Polanik’s own attorney hinted at the ridiculousness of Polanik’s decision, telling the Boston Globe that, “Candidly, it seems like a really minor thing, and we thought twice or three times about whether to bring a lawsuit or not.” But that didn’t stop them from suing the businesses, dragging them into costly litigation.

The class-action suits represented any customer who “ordered a baked product, such as a bagel, with butter, but instead received margarine or butter substitute between June 24, 2012, and June 24, 2016.” The franchises and Polanik have reportedly reached a settlement, but details of that deal have not been reported."

___________________________

Comment:  The case charged the defendant corporation with fraud and deception - a common occurence in the corporate retail food industry but one that usually goes unchallenged. ILR asserts ridiculousness on three grounds:

  1. most people can't tell the difference between butter and margarine, or don't care;

  2. the lawsuits dragged this huge corporation into "costly litigation;" and

  3. most people wouldn't bother to complain.

The case obviously had merit, as the defendant settled for almost $4000, and accepted an injunction against continuing to perpetrate the fraud. Thanks to Mr. Polanic and his lawyer, Tom Shapiro, for going to the trouble of filing this modest but obviously meritorious claim. If anything's ridiculous it's the ILR's lame argument and its misleading manner of reporting the case facts.

 

 

 

An investigation by North Carolina authorities shows that guards at a county jail failed to properly check on a teen shortly before she hanged herself. The News & Observer of Raleigh, citing the state Department of Health and Human Services, reports that Durham County jail officers failed to check on 17-year-old Uniece Fennell regularly and did not report a tip from another inmate that the girl was a threat to herself. The girl was found hanged March 23. The Office of the Medical Examiner ruled Fennell's death a suicide. She had been in jail since last July on a murder charge. She had been accused of being involved in a drive-by shooting.

New Durham jail director Col. Anthony Prignano said he's implemented new policies to make sure officers are checking on inmates in accordance with state regulations.

- ABC News/Raleigh News & Observer

MADISON, Wis. (CN) – A Wisconsin appeals court ruled July 5, 2017 that the state’s $750,000 cap on medical malpractice damages is unconstitutional because it imposes an unequal disadvantage for catastrophically injured patients.

- Courthouse News Service

 

 

the city of Vallejo’s attempt Wednesday to halt a defamation lawsuit stemming from its handling of a peculiar 2015 kidnapping case that garnered national attention. "Persons of interest" (a trendy euphemism for what used to be called "suspects" -- used to skirt constitutional restrictions on police behavior)  in a criminal investigation sue the police department for defaming them with public accusations of "hoax" during the investigation. The judge refuses to dismiss the case-  ruling the plaintiffs have the right to a jury trial

CNS

 

 

PROPOSALS FOR $270 MILLION COURTHOUSE IN OLD CHARITY HOSPITAL - OPPOSED BY ALL - READ FOR DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS BACK IN 2013.

 

Group proposes construction of modern, hi-tech privately owned  courtrooms for the trial of  lengthy civil cases in Orleans and Jefferson parishes.  Leased and paid for by lawyers, their clients and insurors, private courts speed up the resolution of cases, more effectively present  the evidence, eliminate the huge backload of pending cases, create jobs, reward investors -- and save taxpayers millions of dollars.

As civil courthouses age and decay, governments run out of money, courtroom technology becomes essential and trial backlogs escalate, is it time to build modern, hi-tech, privately  financed "Private Courts"?

 

The decision could set back the Trump administration’s broad legal strategy for rolling back regulations put into place during the Obama White House. It also underscores the extent to which activists are turning to the courts to block policy shifts.

By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson

Washington Post   4 july 2017