RSS FeedLawyer Fails to Buy Happiness, Reacts the Only Way a Lawyer Knows How
A lawyer in Manhattan is suing his dating service for failing to provide that special someone. John Friedland claims that he paid $10,000 for the services of Amy Laurent International (ALI), only to be set up with women who, according to his $100,000 claim, were already taken, weren’t “suitable” to his goals or wouldn’t consider “someone of plaintiff’s background”. (Because there’s no deal-breaker like finding out your date is a Manhattan lawyer willing to drop ten grand to meet you. Those of you studying for the New York bar exam over the next two months: take note.) ALI, the claim continues, “failed to perform even as good [sic] as a standard dating service”.1
Amy Laurent International bills itself as “a powerful personal headhunting agency for successful bachelors, individuals with demanding careers, and those with busy lifestyles that do not allow time for chance encounters with the right women they would consider for serious dating”. The service claims to headhunt attract eligible women “through high end social events and private parties and receives word of mouth referrals on a constant basis”. ALI contends that the company did all that was required of it, and that Mr. Friedland was himself responsible for dropping the ball on his dates.
Really? You’re telling us that a man who (a) would use an ultra-high-end “personal headhunting service” to find a mate, and (b) would then sue that headhunter for not hunting up sufficiently appealing heads, mightn’t be an irresistible charmer? There’s no hope for any of us.
1
Law is Cool wishes Mr. Friedland all the best in his efforts to sue his way to conjugal bliss but cautions that proper grammar and syntax are a must when biting the hand that feeds you a bevy of potential mates. To paraphrase Tracy Jordan from 30 Rock, Superman does good. Dating services do well.
Chuck Norris’ Tears Don’t Cure Cancer
So he claims, in a lawsuit against book publisher Penguin.
Chuck Norris is suing the publisher for releasing a book called The Truth About Chuck Norris: 400 facts about the World’s Greatest Human.
The book contains numerous allegedly “mythical” facts about Chuck Norris which were collected from the internet. The facts include:
- “Chuck Norris’s tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.”
- “When Chuck Norris does a push up, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.”
- “There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.”
- “Chuck Norris is not afraid of the dark. The dark is afraid of Chuck Norris.”
The lawsuit alleges that the book resulted in trademark infringement, unjust enrichment and misappropriation of personality.
You will note that Chuck Norris is not suing for defamation. I suspect that’s because truth is a defence.
What I can’t understand is why Chuck Norris is bothering to sue. We all know that Chuck Norris doesn’t step on toes. Chuck Norris steps on necks.
Employment Lawsuits Will Rise in Recession
In the current economic climate, companies big and small are feeling the stress of financial insecurity and reduced profits. As a result, more and more Canadians are finding themselves unemployed. This will likely lead to an increase in employment-related lawsuits.
To quote a recent article by CFO Publishing, “layoffs mean lawsuits.” In the United States, employment litigation has risen correspondingly to the decline of the country’s economic health.
In a case of being fired without just cause, a former employee can make a claim of wrongful dismissal; thus age-discrimination lawsuits and so forth have been on the rise recently.
But a business may collapse suddenly, still owing its employees wages and/or benefits. Take for example the case of a Saskatoon company that built trailers for the oilpatch. A slowdown in the tar sands led to its laying off all 270 employees, many of whom are owed outstanding wages. A group of the former employees is now considering a class-action suit.
The number of employment-related class-action suits has been on the rise, according to Toronto-based employment lawyer Daniel Lublin. This has led to what he calls “workplace law’s newest, and biggest, phenomenon: lawyers specializing in class action lawsuits.”
As companies like IBM and Air Canada let employees go, they will have to be careful to avoid class-action suits – especially since employees are becoming informed and asserting their rights.
Finally, even without firing employees, a company can become the target of a class-action suit. In the current case of CIBC, the bank is fighting employee claims of unpaid overtime. Since the ramifications of this case “could spill over into workrooms across the nation,” companies that scrimp and save in the face of economic uncertaintly may find themselves in the courtroom if they choose to do so at the expense of employee entitlements.
*****************************************************
UPDATE, 26 Feb 2009: Today as part of a series looking at the recession’s effects on people in Toronto, the Globe & Mail published an article about booming business at one employment law firm. The article references this survey of litigation trends, in which “Labour/employment” is by far the top type of legal dispute currently worrying Canadian firms.
