In the case of Williams v. Burger King Corp, the plaintiffs are invited to amend their initial complaint if they so wish. However, their current claim against Burger King has been dismissed by a federal judge. The plaintiffs identify themselves as vegans who were led to believe that Burger King’s “Impossible Whopper” was specifically cooked on a separate grill, away from the chicken and beef products.
Landlords all across the country are fighting government orders that afford leniency to tenants and temporarily ban evictions. About nine states, including New York, Kentucky, Connecticut, Arizona, and Illinois, are entertaining lawsuits filed by suffering landlords. The argument in many of the lawsuits relates to the unconstitutional nature of the orders in regard to contract impairment. While many landlords have devised workable plans with their tenants, other landlords are dealing with tenants who are taking advantage of the opportunity to not pay rent. While current measures are protecting tenants, landlords are still expected to pay their mortgages.
In the current national state of uncertainty, one of the major topics of conversation includes the reopening of public schools. Online instruction has been implemented as a temporary solution in several states, and many find this option as the safest route to take during the pandemic. Despite this consensus, Florida officials have issued an emergency order, requiring schools to be opened to its prior capacity and the in-class structures that were in place before the initial closings in the Spring. Educators are not accepting the order and are expressing their frustrations in a court of law.
A California resident is taking legal action against a company that is based on the other side of the United States. In the resident’s claim, she states instances of deceptive business practices, committed by the New York Times. The lawsuit is on the level of a class action, as more people than just the California resident are affected. The resident, Maribel Moses, is concerned about two policies of the New York Times, one that involves automatic subscription renewals and the other that involves subscription cancellations.
Pending a federal lawsuit, the ownership of a dog named Max was up in the air for about five years. He was not allowed to be adopted or euthanized until a settlement was reached. Max has been described as a vicious dog who apparently attacked individuals who came to the home of his owner, to take him to the hospital. The emergency responders claimed the dog ran from the home after the alleged attack and was seen running around town. Although the owner, Charlie Holt, was admitted into the hospital, the shelter that picked up Max said Holt was too late in claiming him. Due to Holt’s stay in the hospital, it would have been impossible for him to come for the dog during the shelter’s five-day window. As a result, Holt filed a lawsuit in 2016.
