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 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.

Not Just a Case of the Mondays: Parisian Man Sues Employer Over Boring Job

A Parisian man who claims his job made him suffer from crushing boredom is now sticking that company with a big, not-boring lawsuit.

Frederic Desnard claims that the dull job caused him to suffer a “bore out” that led to other significant health problems, including clinical depression, and a car accident linked to an epileptic seizure.  He’s seeking 360,000 euros ($415,000) for his suffering and distress.

Desnard’s lawyer went so far as to call the overly boring job a form of “harassment.”

His former employer, Interparfums, disputes Desnard’s claims of a boring job, as well as the accusations he was made to do office chores, pick up co-workers’ children from sports practices, and was frequently referred to as “the boy.”  No word on whether he also had to fill out any TPS Reports.

A decision in this ridiculous lawsuit is expected in late July.

‘Raisin Order’ At Heart of Supreme Court Case Over Government Overreach

Would it surprise you that the government can legally take half a farmer’s crop without any compensation?

No, we aren’t talking about the Soviet-era government. We’re talking about the modern-day U.S. Federal Government.

The law is called the Raisin Marketing Order, and it was created during the Great Depression in an attempt to guarantee stable prices and availability of raisins. It is still in place nearly a century later and has caused a major controversy that will soon be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

At issue is whether the government can forcibly take part of a farmer’s crop without fair compensation.

The case involves Laura and Marvin Horne, fifth generation California farmers. They are fighting the government’s attempt to take nearly half their crop without payment.

The Horne’s legal battle began thirteen years ago, when the government raided their farm — “commando-style” — to seize their raisins when they didn’t cooperate.

“We were just dying on the vine. Had no place to go,” said Marvin. “This is America. We want to sell our own product.”

Not only did the government not pay the Hornes, they fined them $650,000.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments last April. Some justices are skeptical of the government’s position.

“Justice Kagan said this is probably the most out-of-date program in the world, and she’s absolutely right,” said Andrew Grossman, an attorney at BakerHostetler.

Grossman specializes in constitutional law. He says the government’s ability to take private property for little or no compensation is unconstitutional.

Justice Alito also questioned the government’s reasoning, saying: “Could the government say to a manufacturer of cell phones: ‘You can sell cellphones; however, every fifth one you have to give to us?’”

The Hornes’ case is the latest example of what some experts see as the growing attempt by government to prosecute private citizens and businesses for everyday activities.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule early this summer. If the Hornes lose, the total fine against the family could grow to as much as $1.5 million.

Watch the full video above to learn more about this story.
Screen Shot 2015-03-30 at 12.09.20 PM

Women Sustain “Scratches” in NYC Explosion, File $40 Million Lawsuit

A gas explosion that leveled a building in New York City’s East Village killed two people and left 22 other people injured.

As local resident Jeremiah Moss told the New York Post, people “lost their lives, lost their homes, their families, their pets, all of their belongings. People who aren’t going to be able to have a home after this.”

But those people, Moss points out, don’t include two East Village women who filed a $40 million lawsuit over the blast, despite their building reopening days after the blast and claiming only minimal injuries.

Lucie Bauermeister, age 23, and Anna Ramatowska, age 26, filed the suit in Bronx Supreme Court, claiming they were “severely injured, both physically and mentally.”

But the New York Post reports that “Ramatowska said she got “like, five or six scratches’ when she went outside to inspect the blast site. Bauermeister didn’t suffer any physical injuries — but did say she is seeing a $175-an-hour psychologist to deal with the trauma.”

Many local residents are incensed at the lawsuit. Matt Ninneman, who lives a block from the explosion, told the Post: “It sounds like someone who’s been looking for an excuse for a long time to make some cash and found it.”

The blowback against the lawsuit has even resulted in an online crowd-funding campaign to “raise money to buy two one-way bus tickets out of the Big Apple for the ‘heartless’” women who filed the lawsuit.

Titled, “Evict Fire Victim Bilkers from NYC”, the crowd funding campaign lists as its goal to “bring attention to their personal plight, their awful nature, and implore the unproductive wastes of space to please leave New York City and NEVER COME BACK.”

What do you think: Is the “beach babies'” lawsuit legitimate, or are New Yorkers justified in their anger?

Bite Over Bark: Frivolous Lawsuit Costs Neighbor $500K

Could a dog’s bark be louder than thunder, and nearly akin to the decibel level of a military jet taking off?

That’s the claim made in a 36-page, $500,000 lawsuit filed by a Seattle man, Woodrow Thompson, against his neighbor, who claim’s the bark of the neighbor’s dog, Cawper, caused “profound emotional distress.”

While a noisy neighborhood can be a nuisance, this video clip from the local ABC affiliate in Seattle mostly features Cawper lounging on the couch.

Think the lawsuit is ridiculous? You may be shocked to find out that Woodrow actually won the case.

It turns out that the defendants thought the case was so ridiculous that they didn’t even show up to court, thinking it was a hoax.  That’s how Thompson won the case.

While the defendants are now seeking to reverse the court’s decision, they are racking up steep legal bills and are in danger of losing their home.

Unfortunately, it looks like Thompson’s bite will be much larger than Cawper’s bark.