Somewhere Mr. Pink is smiling. The Express-Times reports:

Moravian College senior Leslie Pope and John Wagner, a Lehigh University graduate student, were handcuffed and transported from the Lehigh Pub to Bethlehem police headquarters Oct. 23 after failing to pay a mandatory 18 percent gratuity.

Pope and Wagner, members of a party of eight during happy hour, refused to pay a $16.35 service charge on top of their $73.87 tab because of what they say was shoddy service as well as a surcharge that was nearly 5 percent higher than the 18 percent listed on the menu.

“Gratuity is thanking you for your service,” Pope, 22, said. “You can’t give us terrible, terrible service and expect a tip.”

These kids don’t have any idea about what they’re talking about. These people bust their ass. This is a hard job.

According to Pope and Wagner the service was really bad. After the jump, a tipster throws out some counterclaim ideas.

English couple Caroline and Steve Cartwright have a healthy sex life. But it doesn’t sound healthy. According to BBC News, their love-making sounds to neighbors like “murder” and has been described as “unnatural.” So prudish, those Brits.

Neighbors complained the noise kept them up all night, making them oversleep in the morning and arrive late to work.

Apparently Caroline Cartwright is the noisy one in the couple. She was convicted of “breaching a noise abatement notice.” She appealed the conviction:

She argued she had a right to “respect for her private and family life” under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

So do the British courts respect a woman’s right to be vocal about her pleasure?

We’ve mentioned Corri Fetman before, mainly because she’s a lawyer who has posed for Playboy. But today she’s making news that doesn’t have anything to do with her boobs. The Chicago Tribune reports:

The Chicago divorce lawyer who stirred up controversy with a racy billboard for her law firm and later bared it all for Playboy is now being sued by the magazine.

Playboy alleges in a suit filed Monday that Corri Fetman is trying to steal the phrase “Lawyer of Love” that it coined for an advice column Fetman briefly wrote for the magazine’s Web site.

Alright, today’s Corri Fetman’s news is tangentially related to her boobs.

Fetman isn’t one to receive service from Playboy lying down. In fact she fired the first shot at Playboy.

Details after the jump.

Poor Carl Levine. His wife has allegedly been having an affair with her psychiatrist since about 2000. And the psychiatrist allegedly had herpes. And allegedly gave Levine’s wife herpes. And now Levine has herpes.

We’ve heard of some off-the-wall psychiatric treatments but this one sounds quite unhealthy.

Now Levine is suing Dr. Robert Werboff for hiding his disease, for knowingly infecting Levine’s wife, for thus knowingly exposing Levine to herpes, and for just being a really bad doctor. According to Levine’s complaint [PDF], he has suffered “severe and permanent physical, emotional and mental distress” and “anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, and anxiety and has suffered permanent injuries and damages.”

We’re suffering similar emotions after having done a Google image search for “herpes.” Ick.

When ex-associates sue their former firms, a fun time is had by all — with the possible exception of the litigants. Dirty laundry is aired, often for the amusement of onlookers. Here are some classics:

• Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (gay associate who accused partner of directing him to “bend over”);

• Jennifer Braude v. Maron Marvel (allegations of lesbianic / girl-on-girl sexual harassment); and

• Charlene Morisseau v. DLA Piper (African-American female associate filed $250 million lawsuit against her former firm; firm accused plaintiff of rudeness and insubordination, e.g., throwing a partner out of her office).

Today’s Lawsuit of the Day, Alan Levy v. Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold LLP (PDF), is a similar suit. Alan Levy (pictured), a former associate at Sedgwick, alleges that his employment was terminated on the basis of disability — to wit, severe depression and a breakdown, brought on in part by the abusive treatment he received at the hands of a partner, Scott Haworth.

So, what was the alleged abuse inflicted upon Levy by Haworth?

Yesterday’s Lawsuit of the Day — Jones v. Minkin, a $44 million lawsuit against yours truly, Above the Law publisher David Minkin, and Dead Horse Media (now known as Breaking Media) — has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, University of Miami law professor Donald Jones.

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)(B), the dismissal is without prejudice. If Professor Jones wants to refile, he should note the statute of limitations (which had already run as to most of our posts about him by the time his complaint was filed).

There was NO SETTLEMENT in this case. Above the Law has made no changes to our prior posts, and we have paid no money to Professor Jones. The case was dismissed by the plaintiff without anything from our side, except a letter from our lawyer.

UPDATE (3:35 PM): We have offered Professor Jones a guest post on Above the Law in which to provide his side of the story, about either the lawsuit or the underlying facts. We have offered to keep the comments on that post closed or open, depending on his preference. (And we would have done this in the first place, had he made such a request.)

A huge thanks to our counsel, Marc Randazza.

Comment from Randazza, plus links to the notice of voluntary dismissal and other news outlets and blogs — we will UPDATE continually, so do check back for fresh links — after the jump.

For the first time in over three years of operation, Above the Law has been sued. We feel the lawsuit has no merit, but we will not comment further on this ongoing litigation. To access the pro se complaint, coverage by other news outlets and blogs, and ATL’s prior posts about Professor Donald Jones, click on the links collected after the jump.

Please note that we have closed comments on this post, out of respect for the judicial process. Thank you.

UPDATE: We will be continually updating this post with links to news and blogosphere coverage. We have already added new links from the ABA Journal, the WSJ Law Blog, and the Volokh Conspiracy, among other sources.

The fresh links will appear AFTER THE JUMP, so check them out there. Thanks.

A high school principal in Indiana doesn’t want slutty-seeming students playing sports, reports Courthouse News Service.

Two sophomores attended a summer slumber party with other girls from Churubusco High School. They did what all high school girls do at slumber parties (at least in the imagination of high school boys). From their complaint [PDF]:

During the sleepover the girls took pictures of themselves pretending to kiss or lick a large multi-colored novelty lollipop shaped phallus that they had purchased as well as pictures of themselves in lingerie with dollar bills stuck in their clothes as well as other pictures.

Ed. note: See this comment. Should that read “phallus-shaped lollipop”?

The girls later posted these photos on MySpace. Someone among their MySpace “friends” printed the pics and gave them to the principal. The principal decided the girls had violated the school’s code of conduct and suspended them from all extracurricular activities, including athletics, for the entire school year.

The ACLU thinks the principal is a sucker, and has stepped in to help the girls sue their school.

Chris Rock said that the primary job of a father was to keep his daughter off of the stripper pole. The father of ReAnna M. Hedrick must be very sad today. Not only did his daughter stray onto the pole, she managed to injure herself while dancing. The Arizona Republic reports:

An ill-fated stint as an amateur pole dancer left a woman bleeding at an East Mesa sports bar and the owners of a Famous Sam’s facing a lawsuit.

While attending a “Ladies Night” on Sept. 3, 2008, ReAnna M. Hedrick of Mesa watched other women take a spin around a dance pole that had been installed for the event and decided to give it a whirl.

The last thing Hedrick, 28, expected was that the pole would collapse, causing her to crash to the floor, according to a lawsuit filed on Oct. 16 in Maricopa County Superior Court.

One would think that Hedrick would be so ashamed that she wouldn’t want to memorialize her erotic failure in a lawsuit. But she hurt her finger, and now she needs money from the club. Boy, I hope she didn’t break a nail.

Details after the jump.

The dispute between Tremayne Durham and Rob Chambers started so innocently. Durham wanted to sell ice cream. Chambers makes ice cream trucks. Durham asked Chambers to make him an ice cream truck. Yay. Who wants a Bomb Pop?

But Durham changed his mind. He asked Chambers to refund him the $18,000 he paid to Chambers for the truck. Chambers demurred. Now Durham is suing Chambers for the money.

But suing Chambers wasn’t Durham’s first effort to recover his losses.

No, Durham’s first plan to get the $18,000 back involved kidnapping Chambers and his friend Adam Calbreath, holding Chambers hostage, and shooting Calbreath to death.

The lawsuit represents “Plan B.” KATU in Portland reports:

Durham still wants his money back, all $18,000 - even after he confessed to murdering Adam Calbreath. Calbreath was someone Chambers considered as a loyal friend. …

Durham is serving 30 years for murdering Calbreath and taking Chambers hostage while shoving a gun in his stomach.

“He had said, ‘Look at what you made me do,’” Chambers recounts. “He said, ‘I’ve been robbing and killing people to get to you.’”

Can you imagine if this guy had actually gone through with his plan to sell frozen treats to children? How would he handle a kid who stiffed him a quarter? “Look what you made me do, I had to bury your mother alive while I was looking for her purse.”

It’d be as if Mr. Softee were suddenly replaced by Pennywise.

This isn’t the first time Durham’s made news. Details after the jump.

Let’s get the boring stuff out of the way. Albert Freed (pictured) won a trip to Hawaii (not pictured). As part of the vacation celebration, Mrs. Freed bought her husband some new Hanes brand briefs. But Mr. Freed is a husky gentleman, and apparently the new trunks couldn’t contain all of his junk. He sued Hanes, claiming they made “defective” underwear.

Let me turn it over to Escambia County (FL) Judge Pat Kinsey:

A question for the guys out there: How long would it take you to correct a problem involving sandpaper and your penis? Don’t you think penis chafing is something that requires immediate attention and decisive action?

And while we’re here, how long does it take for you to notice your stuff hanging out where it is not supposed to be?

Check out Albert’s excuse after the jump.

I know that I am not alone in having a fear of robots. Trust me now or believe me later, but when we are all slaves to the terminators we create, I’ll be the old guy hiding out on a secluded farm future heroes will seek out.

Given my (some would call it “irrational”) wisdom, I am all for using the courts to prevent the future subjugation of the human race. So I’m pretty happy with this lawsuit I read about on Mass Lawyers Weekly. Here is the full complaint:

Statement of the Issues Presented

The main issue presented. We as people have a serious issue in the Commonwealth and United States. Involved with crimes of spray chemicals dust and using powerful chemicals liquid form or chemical gases. To seriously inure citizen of America. Plus most serious crime America has ever had to face. Use of Mini Robots and other acts with robots. To climb in American Bodies and Poison, Operate on there property “THEIR BODY”. Or to use these robots to climb in tree or in vent of our public building to spray chemicals on Americans to seriously injure Americans.

Oh, you don’t think this kind of thing happens? Open your eyes! Robots are venting on you right now!

The appellant, pro se litigant Jay Mellen, is suing the former Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly. But it’s a shame that Mellen is going this alone. I’m sure Sam Waterston would have been willing to take his case:

SJC case aims to prevent crimes by ‘Mini Robots’ [Mass Lawyers Weekly]

The legal issues swirling around the Miss California pageant are as messy and troubling as the state’s budget problems. Carrie Prejean was crowned Miss California 2009, and was first runner up in Donald Trump’s Miss USA 2009 contest. But her beauty has not been able to distract from controversy.

Topless photos of her emerged on the Internet. She told Miss USA celebrity judge Perez Hilton that she didn’t believe in same-sex marriage during the contest in April. And pageant officials dethroned her in June, giving the Miss California crown to the 2009 runner-up.

Prejean sued the Miss California USA organization in August. She has accused them of religious discrimination — claiming they fired her because of her beliefs about same-sex marriage — and invasion of privacy — for revealing to reporters that her breasts were fake.

Now the organization is firing back with a countersuit, reports CNN. The organization lent Prejean $5,200 for her breast enhancement, and they want their money back. They also deny invading her privacy:

The truth about Prejean’s breasts “ceased being private during the swimsuit competition of the nationally televised Miss USA pageant, in which Ms. Prejean walked the stage in a bikini,” pageant lawyers said.

We present exhibit A — before and after photos — after the jump.

Have you ever considered the possibility of getting sued for not being able to dance? That’s the reality now facing James Graeber, who allegedly flung a hedge fund employee right off of a dance floor at a New Jersey wedding. The New York Post reports:

An Upper West Side woman is suing a rowdy reveler who drunkenly clobbered her on the dance floor at his sister’s reception last year.

Christine Mancision said she was grooving after dinner at the Hyatt Morristown in New Jersey when, “all of a sudden, I turn and I’m grabbed by this really tall individual.”

“I had no idea who he was. And he grabbed my arm and spun me around to dance with me and then just flung me off to the side of the dance floor, and I went flying to the floor,” the petite 27-year-old recalled.

Turn around, bright eyes
Every now and then I fall apart
Turn around, bright eyes
F***in every now and then I fall apart
And I need you now tonight
I f***in need you more than ever.

In related news, people who can dance do not go to weddings in New Jersey.

Mancision suffered a broken wrist and is suing James Graeber. But she’s also suing the Hyatt, for reasons passing understanding.

Details and updates after the jump.

The big decisional news out of New York today is the guilty verdict in the Brooke Astor trial. Anthony Marshall, the son of the late socialite and philanthropist, was convicted in a scheme to defraud Mrs. Astor.

But we also have news of another notable ruling. Longtime readers of Above the Law will recall the case of Jeremy Pitcock, the successful intellectual-property litigator who was fired from Kasowitz Benson in December 2007. The firm issued an unusual statement saying that Pitcock had engaged in “extremely inappropriate personal conduct.”

Pitcock sued Kasowitz for defamation. Kasowitz turned around and sued Pitcock, alleging in its complaint that he “subject[e]d at least twelve of the firm’s female employees…. to a pattern of unwelcome sexual advances.”

Now a judge has ruled in both of the cases. From Nate Raymond of the New York Law Journal:

A nearly two year-long public brawl between Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman and a former partner it fired for sexual harassment could be quieting down now that a Manhattan Supreme Court judge has dismissed both parties’ lawsuits.

Justice Martin Shulman (See Profile) last week found “unavailing” and “unpersuasive” the arguments made against the firm by intellectual property lawyer Jeremy Pitcock, who sued for defamation, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

The judge also found Kasowitz Benson failed to show how Mr. Pitcock had damaged the firm.

Executive summary (or West headnote): “A pox on both your houses.”

On the media website Mediaite, we are erroneously listed as having an affiliation with the Late Show with David Letterman. We wish! If that were the case, then maybe we’d have inside dirt on one of the juiciest media scandals to come along in a while.

And it’s a media scandal with a legal angle — several, in fact. Last Friday, we named the woman at the eye of the storm, Stephanie Birkitt, our Lawyer of the Day. Birkitt — the former Letterman paramour whose ex-boyfriend, Robert “Joe” Halderman, stands accused of trying to extort David Letterman — is a lawyer. The blonde hottie is a graduate of Cardozo Law School, and she passed the bar exam twice — in New York and Connecticut. Very impressive, Ms. Birkitt!

Alas, Stephanie Birkitt may be a two-timer in more than one sense of the word. We previously stated, relying on other sources, that Birkitt’s sexual relationship with her former boss ended in 2003. Now we’re hearing otherwise, from the New York Post:

Pretty former “Late Show” staffer Stephanie Birkitt revealed in her diary that she continued having sex with boss David Letterman even after moving in with her CBS-producer boyfriend, who later allegedly tried to extort him over the affair, sources told The Post yesterday.

Letterman and Birkitt enjoyed romantic hikes last fall at his sprawling ranch in eastern Montana — where he was married in March — while her boyfriend, “48 Hours Mystery” producer Robert “Joe” Halderman, stayed home in Connecticut, the sources said.

At the time, Birkitt, 34, insisted to Halderman that she and the 62-year-old Letterman had just “a platonic relationship,” a source said.

“I’m his best friend,” Birkitt told the worried 51-year-old Halderman, the source said.

A friend with benefits? Like free law school tuition? Speaking of which, according to our reader poll, almost two-thirds of ATL readers would sleep with David Letterman in exchange for free law school tuition.

UPDATE: According to Maureen Dowd (gavel bang: commenter), Letterman’s company loaned Birkitt the money for law school, which she paid back. If true, this is disappointing. What’s the point of sleeping with the boss if you can’t get paid for it?

More law-related Letterman links, after the jump.

Here’s a strange little story that we meant to cover during the week but missed. From the Philadelphia Daily News:

Ever heard the one about the exploding toilet? Well, an Olney woman could tell you all about it, from firsthand experience….

It happened on Oct. 30, 2007, according to the lawsuit, when a toilet the woman was using “exploded” in an eighth-floor ladies’ room at the 1900 Market Street building.

“Excess water pressure caused a toilet to explode causing plaintiff to be thrown from the bathroom stall, thereby causing her severe and permanent injuries,” the suit said.

And then they tried to charge her for an enema. The nerve!

So what injuries does plaintiff claim as a result of sitting on Old Faithful?

When we were little, our parents let us eat Lucky Charms, Golden Grahams, and Chocolate Rice Krispies for breakfast. When we wanted to be ‘healthier’, we might eat Froot Loops. Over time, we came to realize that Toucan Sam did not offer any more nutritional value than Lucky the Leprechaun. (Now when we want morning fruit, we add bananas or blueberries to our oatmeal.)

Apparently, there are people in the world who didn’t have the same breakfast epiphany on the way to adulthood. They like to file lawsuits against breakfast companies for false advertising. The latest of these fruity lawsuit hails from San Francisco.

From San Francisco Weekly:

[Roy] Werbel recently filed a lawsuit in San Francisco federal court alleging that he bought and ate boxes of Froot Loops based on his mistaken belief the cereal contained fruit.

Kellogg’s intentionally deceived consumers into buying Froot Loops by misleadingly using the word “froot” in the title, Werbel alleges. He demands unspecified punitive and actual damages, to be paid to all consumers who have mistakenly bought Froot Loops cereal. Had Werbel known that “Froot Loops contained no fruit, he would not have purchased it,” his suit alleges.

After being misled by Froot Loops, Werbel turned to Cap’n Crunch Crunchberries. To his shock and surprise, they have no real berries. So he filed a second lawsuit against the Cap’n. Apparently, he didn’t hear the crunch of fellow Californians’ identical similar suits getting dismissed earlier this summer.

All of these easily-deceived Californians fail to get points for creativity. The original fruity suit snap-crackle-and-popped way back in 1983. See Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v.General Foods Corp. [PDF]. That one was also filed in the golden state.

This leads us to wonder what’s in the milk in California… besides fake fruit.

‘Froot’ Is Not Fruit, San Francisco Lawsuit Alleges [San Francisco Weekly]
Froot Loops and Cap’n Crunch False Advertising Claims Rejected [Martindale]
Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v.General Foods Corp [PDF]

Could the nomination of Judge Denny Chin (S.D.N.Y.) to the Second Circuit be derailed by his ruling in Chiscolm v. Bank of America?

Click on the link below to read about this lawsuit filed by an irate customer (or purported customer) of the banking giant.

Area Man Has One Month To Prove Why Bank Of America Owes Him 1,784 Billion, Trillion Dollars [Dealbreaker]

Here at Above the Law, we’ve reviewed a lot of employment discrimination complaints over the years. But this one is special.

The firm (like it matters):

Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson.

The plaintiff:

Jennifer Braude.

Why you care:

Do I have your attention? Click after the jump for more details, plus Maron Marvel’s response.