David
05-27-2010, 05:47 PM
As you may recall (I've brought it up often enough), Sugawara was the California consumer-fraud case in which the plaintiff alleged she had purchased "Cap'n Crunch with Crunch Berries" because she believed it contained real fruit. Federal judge Morrison England, Jr. of California's Central District tossed that case out in May of last year. See "Reasonable Consumer Would Know 'Crunch Berries' Are Not Real, Judge Rules," Lowering the Bar (June 2, 2009); see also "UPDATE and Comment on the Crunch Berry Litigation," Lowering the Bar (June 12, 2009). He also noted that the same attorneys had previously filed and lost a similar claim against the makers of "Froot Loops," and that he was not giving Sugawara another try in his courtroom. "The survival of the instant case," he wrote, "would require this Court to ignore all concepts of personal responsibility and common sense. The Court has no intention of allowing that to happen."
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2010/05/appeal-of-crunch-berries-case-dismissed.html
The plaintiff is obviously doubly stupid... not only is he/she unaware that "Crunch Berries" are not real fruit, he/she then went and admitted that ignorance in court, on the record.
One wonders if another lawsuit will be pending if he/she finds out that there is no "Cap'n Crunch."
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2010/05/appeal-of-crunch-berries-case-dismissed.html
The plaintiff is obviously doubly stupid... not only is he/she unaware that "Crunch Berries" are not real fruit, he/she then went and admitted that ignorance in court, on the record.
One wonders if another lawsuit will be pending if he/she finds out that there is no "Cap'n Crunch."