When I find a Sidebar-worthy piece in the newspapers, I clip it out. But before clipping, I naturally look at the flip side of the page just to make sure I’m not carving up something I want to read.<\/p>\n
Today with the Daily News, I did just that. And found that on the flip side of one lawsuit news was another lawsuit piece, exactly the same size, in exactly the same place. So here they both are, complete with puns:<\/p>\n
The painful tooth about a thrill ride<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n A Brooklyn mother is suing operators of Coney Island’s famed Cyclone, claiming the rickety roller coaster left her son with chipped teeth and a bloody mouth.<\/em><\/p>\n Maria Merino-Breder alleged the safety bar struck her 13-year-old son right in his chompers during a ride on August 2011.<\/em><\/p>\n “He was full of blood,” she said. “He still complains of neck pains.”<\/em><\/p>\n The Marine Park woman is asking for unspecified damages in a lawsuit filed in Brooklyn Supreme Court. She asked not to name her son, who’s now 15.<\/em><\/p>\n The boy got hit by the loose bar midride, she said, hurting his chin and jaw and chipping two front teeth.<\/em><\/p>\n My comment: Not the Cyclone! I mean, how many times have I ridden it? No way the safety bar hit the kid’s mouth. Is she claiming the bar got loose, rose up and hit the kid? I don’t think so. That’s not what her remarks suggest. And that bar is padded and tightly fitted against the rider’s body. And how come it took her two years to sue?<\/p>\n So to the reverse:<\/p>\n Boss wanted a sextra for a bonus: suit<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n A junior lawyer was pressured to have sex with her boss after he threatened to not recommend her for a year-end bonus, a new lawsuit charges.<\/em><\/p>\n In court papers filed Wednesday, Alexandra Marchuk says she was subjected to a barrage of improper and unwanted sexual advances after she became a first-year litigator at the Manhattan law firm Faruqi & Faruqi in 2011.<\/em><\/p>\n She is suing the firm and her alleged tormenter\u2014the firm’s senior partner, Juan Monteverde\u2014for $2 million in Manhattan Federal Court.<\/em><\/p>\n Marchuk resigned days later and contacted an attorney.<\/em><\/p>\n “These claims are completely without merit brought by a disgruntled former employee,” said Lubna Faruqi, managing partner, Faruqi & Faruqi. “We look forward to aggressively defending our reputation in court and have every confidence we will be vindicated.”<\/em><\/p>\n My comment: Yeah yeah you’re always going to be “vindicated.” With all these three letter texting shorthand things, like OMG and BTW, ETC., shouldn’t someone come up with a short form for “a disgruntled former employee”? Because how often is it used by companies who are being sued? And some sociologist or legal researcher might do a study investigating the percentage of firms that use that term and lose the lawsuits. I’m interested.<\/p>\n So it’s ADFE. And you can even pronounce it.<\/p>\n P.S. Ms. Marchuk also took two years to sue. I’m assuming this is the statute of limitations but am still wondering why some people wait almost until the limitation is up before filing that lawsuit.<\/p>\n P.P.S. Doesn’t this sound like a teleplay for “Suits”?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When I find a Sidebar-worthy piece in the newspapers, I clip it out. But before clipping, I naturally look at the flip side of the page just to make sure I’m not carving up something I want to read. Today … Continue reading