Kenyan man sues over sex boycott 'stress'
ames Kimondo is seeking damages for anguish sustained during the ban, which was called by women's groups in a bid to force political leaders to put their rivalries aside to work for the common good.
"Since the women called for the sex boycott, my wife has denied me my conjugal rights. This has caused me anxiety and sleepless nights," he said.
"I have been suffering mental anguish, stress, back aches, lack of concentration," Mr Kimondo told reporters outside the Nairobi High Court, where he lodged his petition for damages.
The strike ended on Wednesday with the organisers claiming it had been a success.
The leaders of the G10, a coalition of women's groups, argued that the country's male leaders should not have time for matters of the flesh when the country is ensnared in economic and political turmoil.
President Mwai Kibaki and his rival Raila Odinga were pressured into a power-sharing deal by international mediators following violence which accompanied December 2007 polls, but lingering tensions have crippled the coalition government and fuelled widespread discontent.
The two, who have hardly met recently, held brief talks on Monday and held a cabinet meeting on Thursday, the first in a month.
Mr Odinga accused Mr Kibaki of stealing the presidential election, prompting protests that spiralled into a cycle of tribal violence and left around 1,500 people dead.
Parents sue GTHL after sons cut by team
Two sets of parents are suing the Greater Toronto Hockey League, one of its clubs and four coaches for $25,000 each because their sons were cut by the Avalanche Minor Sports Club midget junior A team during tryouts in April.
It’s the first time parents in the GTHL have ever taken legal action against the league or one of its teams for declining the services of their children, says league president John Gardner.
Even nationally, it’s a rare event.
“We have had very few lawsuits on ice time or (player) cuts,” said Hockey Canada's Glen McCurdie director of member services. “There are more threats than actual suits.”
Vito Valela and David Longo are both suing on behalf of their sons, Christopher and Daniel respectively. Besides the GTHL, Avalanche Minor Sports president Anthony Iantorno as well as team officials Doriano Pistarelli, Andy Vandenberk, Felice Guglielmi and Peter Posca are named as defendants in the action.
“Their direct actions have caused irreparable psychological damage to Daniel Longo’s self esteem as an impressionable teenager and demoralized Daniel as an athlete and team hockey player with his peers,” the Longo statement of claim reads. “The conduct by all defendants destroyed the dignity of my son, whom in good conscience gave his team nothing but his best efforts.”
Valela’s statement of claim states: “When Christopher was advised of his termination by my wife and I, he vowed never to play the game he loved since childhood. And, morevoer, his misguided group of defendants demoralized my wife and I, whom had gone well beyond the call of duty as parents in support of the Toronto Avalanche hockey team for two seasons.”
None of the claims have been proved in court.
Christopher has signed with Hillcrest Summits, the statement reads.
“Thank the good Lord that my son had the courage and strength to compose himself in his demoralized state,” reads the statement of claim.
A statement of defence from the defendants says more than 70 players tried out for the Avalanche Midget Jr. team.
“We were looking for 17 players. It was inevitable there were going to be players released. … All players attending try-outs from the Minor league level to the National League level (i.e. NHL and Canadian Olympic Team) realize that not making the team they are trying out for is a strong possibility and a lawsuit does not solve anything.”
Both teens had been with the Avalanche 2009-2010. Longo’s claim states that Daniel was never issued a permission to skate form — which allows a player to try out for another team — so he believed “Daniel was in fact on the team.”
Both complaints cite that coaches Guglielmi and Posca were suspended for a year by the GTHL for tampering on May 20, 2009 and therefore, the parents claim the men were not legitimately able to advertise themselves as coaches for 2010-2011 season, run the tryouts in April and ultimately cut their 15-year-old sons.
“They terminated my son and the GTHL supported that ‘illegal authority’,” Vito Valela told the Star.
“It wasn’t just that they (coaches) were under suspension,” Longo said. “It was the way they cut them and the method they used.”
However, GTHL executive director Scott Oakman confirmed although the coaches were under suspension, the rules permit any player or team official whose suspensions run past the conclusion of games played in a season to participate in tryouts .
“There is no indication they have violated any rules that I am aware of at this time,” Oakman said and added that neither parent has requested a hearing as required when players are aggrieved.
College Grad Sues Father to Recoup Tuition Costs
It's not news that some children, especially as they hit their teenage and college years, don't get along with their parents. But even experienced attorneys say it's rare when the disagreements grow to a point where litigation is required.
So consider the odd case of Dana Soderberg, who went to court to force her father to live up to a deal to pay her tuition at Southern Connecticut State University. Hamden family lawyer Renee C. Berman handled the lawsuit for Soderberg.
"Nothing that I've researched has shown any cases like this and hopefully there won't be anymore because it's a sad situation," said Berman.
Dana came from what is perhaps an all-too-typical family situation. Her parents, Howard and Deborah Soderberg, of Stratford divorced in 2004. Upon splitting, they agreed that Howard, a property developer, would be responsible for the education costs for their three children, Dana, Amanda and Erik.
Dana's experience had evidently taught her that her father had a tendency not to follow through with paying for things. So she persuaded him the following year to enter into a written contract obligating him to pay her college tuition until she was 25, along with other school expenses such as textbooks, and her car insurance.
As part of the agreement, Dana would make an effort to apply for student loans and Howard Soderberg would pay off those loans. Co-signing the agreement was Howard's sister, Patricia.
Howard delivered on his word through March 24, 2007. But when it came time for Dana to begin her senior year at Southern Connecticut, Howard Soderberg refused to pay the bills. And so Dana got a $20,000 loan to pay for her last year of college, with her mother co-signing.
Dana finished up school and then filed a breach of contract lawsuit in New Haven Superior Court against her father for failing to pay for her senior year of college.
The father represented himself in a two-day trial. He argued that Dana breached their agreement by not making reasonable efforts to apply for student loans, by failing to attend classes full time and by not providing him with receipts for tuition and other school-related expenses.
Howard Soderberg also filed a counterclaim alleging that his daughter dropped courses and pocketed the refunds. He also said she spent money that was supposed to go toward textbooks on personal items.
Attorney Berman said Dana was an art major and needed expensive art supplies for her classes. She said her father was typically late in making tuition payments, which often forced Dana to drop out of certain classes.
Judge Trial Referee William L. Hadden Jr. issued a written opinion earlier this month, ruling that father and daughter had a legitimate contract, that Dana proved to be the more credible party in the lawsuit, and that the father had breached the agreement.
"The plaintiff has proven that she has performed all of her obligations as set forth …" wrote Hadden. "The defendants have failed to prove the claims set forth in their special defenses and in Howard's counterclaim."
Berman said damages totaled around $47,000, including the loan, interest, attorney fees and missed car insurance payments. Berman did not anticipate an appeal.
"They just don't have a relationship," Berman said of Dana and her father. "It has to be weak to begin with if you enter into that agreement.
Berman was struck by Howard Soderberg's emotions -- or lack thereof. "Here his daughter's bringing him to court and there's no sadness, no remorse that his daughter was in this situation having to sue him."
Berman said Dana's father still maintains "somewhat" of a relationship with his other children and has paid for their education.
Family lawyer Thomas D. Colin, of Schoonmaker, George & Colin, P.C. in Greenwich doesn't foresee a rash of young students suing their parents in light of this opinion.
"I've never seen that at all," said Colin. "I don't know how many kids can get their parents to sign contracts with them so I don't know how much that would show up."
Berman, whose client is now a teacher, agreed with that assessment.
"I think this is just a limited situation," Berman said. "This was her way of assuring college would get paid. I think it's a very unique situation. It's not a typical relationship."
Group may sue over Happy Meal toys
Group may sue over Happy Meal toys
Calls it deceptive marketing that violates consumer laws
Business Wire / AP file
WASHINGTON - A Washington-based consumer advocacy group threatened to file a lawsuit against McDonald's Tuesday, charging that the fast food chain 'unfairly and deceptively' markets toys to children through its Happy Meals.
"McDonald's marketing has the effect of conscripting America's children into an unpaid drone army of word-of-mouth marketers, causing them to nag their parents to bring them to McDonald's," Stephen Gardner of the Center for Science in the Public Interest wrote to the heads of the chain in a letter announcing the lawsuit.
The center, which has filed dozens of lawsuits against food companies in recent years, is hoping the publicity and the threat of a lawsuit will force McDonald's to negotiate with them on the issue. The group announced the lawsuit in the letter to McDonald's 30 days before filing it with the hope that the company will agree to stop selling the toys before a suit is filed.McDonald's did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit, which CSPI says would be filed in state court.
The center has not settled on a state yet, but the group believes the toys in Happy Meals violate state consumer protection laws in Massachusetts, Texas, the Washington federal district, New Jersey and California.
The fast food company made a pledge in 2007 to advertise only two types of Happy Meals to children younger than 12: one with four Chicken McNuggets, apple dippers with caramel dip and low-fat white milk, or one with a hamburger, apple dippers and milk. They both meet the company-set requirement of less than 600 calories, and no more than 35 percent of calories from fat, 10 percent of calories from saturated fat or 35 percent total sugar by weight.
CSPI argues that even if those Happy Meals appear in advertisements, kids order the unhealthier meals most of the time.
The group is hoping its first lawsuit against the mega-chain will have a similar effect as its 2006 lawsuit against Kellogg that prompted the company to agree to a settlement raising the nutritional value of cereals and snacks it markets to children.
Still, some may accuse the group of extremism, arguing that it is the parents' responsibility to monitor what their children eat, not the restaurant's.Michael Jacobson, executive director of CSPI, says it's the parents responsibility too, but he equates the toy giveaways to a door to door salesman coming to a family's house every day and asking to privately speak with the children.
"At some point parents get worn down," Jacobson says. "They don't always want to be saying no to their children. We feel like an awful lot of parents would be relieved if this one pressure was removed from them."
Bolingbrook woman files lawsuit claiming Subway sandwich made her sick
A suburban Chicago woman who says she got sick after eating a Subway sandwich is suing the restaurant and the chain's parent company.
Forty-six-year-old Alicea Bush-Bailey of Bolingbrook claims Subway failed to prevent an outbreak of salmonella. She filed the lawsuit Monday in Will County court.
Bush-Bailey claims a sandwich she ate put her in the emergency room. The lawsuit doesn't specify a dollar amount in damages.
The Illinois Department of Public Health says 97 people got sick after eating at Subway restaurants in 28 counties.
Subway has apologized to customers and is cooperating with health officials in an investigation. The chain also removed produce in question and has been using new, fresh produce.
Suspect shot by cops sues
A drug suspect who was shot and critically wounded after he crashed his car into another vehicle and struck a police officer at the end of a chase in East Oakland is suing the city for $1.5 million.
The shooting happened June 5, 2008, as officers were conducting surveillance of possible drug deals on the 2300 block of 88th Avenue.
The officers saw an alleged deal taking place and tried to stop Tavares Cobb, 28, as he left in a 1997 Cadillac. Cobb refused to stop, leading police on a chase through several city blocks, investigators said.
As the driver headed east on Bancroft Avenue from 82nd Avenue, he collided with a car. The impact wedged the Cadillac and the other car against a curb. The driver of the second car was not seriously injured.
An officer ran up to the Cadillac, but Cobb threw the car into reverse, dragging the officer and just missing another officer, police said.
The officer who was hit wasn't injured. Two other officers, Christopher Cardona and Christophe Marie, opened fire on Cobb, hitting him in the chest, stomach, head, groin and both hands.
Despite being shot, Cobb hit the gas and tried to head west on Bancroft before finally running into a fence near St. Benedict's Catholic Church.
In a suit filed June 7 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Cobb said Cardona, who shot first, had opened fire "without warning or provocation," prompting Cobb to drive away because he was in "fear for his life."
No guns were found in the Cadillac, the suit said. But drugs were discovered in the car, and Cobb was later convicted of a drug-related crime.
Cobb, who is represented by Oakland attorneys John Burris and Adanté Pointer, said he suffered "physical disfigurement" and emotional distress and wants the city to pay him $1.5 million in damages.
The complaint names the city, then-Police Chief Wayne Tucker, Cardona and Marie as defendants. The city has not responded to the suit in court.