“It’s Just Lunch,” which bills itself as “The World’s #1 Personalized Matchmaking Service,” purports to match lovelorn professionals on simple, low-stress lunch dates. If the lunch goes well, the parties meet up again, if it doesn’t, oh well… “it’s just lunch.” Isn’t that so damn clever?
I don’t know if the company’s slogan is backed up by any empirical evidence, but a plaintiff alleged that It’s Just Lunch is “The World’s #1 STD Service,” after a 2011 date went a little too well and she ended up taking home Herpes II for her effort.
Yente never had these problems.
Chrometa: Turning Time Into Billable Value For Modern Lawyers
Adoption of Chrometa represents more than a technological upgrade; it reflects a professional philosophy that values accuracy, transparency, and efficiency.
On June 27, 2012, plaintiff filed suit against defendant, [Norman] Weinzweig, and IJL Will Do, LLC, d/b/a It’s Just Lunch (IJL), a matchmaking service. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that she met defendant during a dinner date arranged by IJL. The parties went on another date on or about July 3, 2011. Plaintiff alleged that at one point during the evening, she and defendant both “affirmed that neither had any sexually transmitted diseases.” In reliance on defendant’s representation that he was “disease free,” she agreed to have sexual relations with him.
Go for that deep pocket, Missy. As you might imagine, It’s Just Lunch responded by pointing out that it wasn’t the proximate cause of the plaintiff boning a guy she just met. It’s Just Lunch isn’t like breeding animals where just putting two in the same room absolutely guarantees they’ll have sex — that’s what Tinder’s for.
The court agreed, tossing the complaint against It’s Just Lunch and leaving poor Norman here to answer these claims from this Jane Doe. And that isn’t an amazingly coincidental name, the Illinois court allows women (and, presumably, men) suing over contracting sexually transmitted diseases to launch their suits anonymously. The policy seems suspect. On the one hand, anonymity encourages afflicted partners to seek redress when they otherwise might feel too embarrassed to pursue the case. On the other hand, if STDs are so embarrassing that Illinois creates a policy exception for them, why are plaintiffs allowed to publicly brand defendants with STD accusations? It seems if we’re going down Anonymity Road the defendant should enjoy the same protection, at least until found liable.
Anyway, this case would’ve languished under our radar had it not inspired an appellate opinion a tipster happened to stumble across. The defendant argued that he couldn’t infect her, citing that medical screening conducted a few months before his Not-So-Just Lunch declared his whistle “clean as a whistle.” Unfortunately, he didn’t argue below that he “didn’t infect her,” a subtle distinction that spurred the court to order a physical examination to determine if the defendant has herpes now, regardless of whether or not he had it in 2011.
Stand With Survivors: Legal Tools To Make A Real Difference This DVAM
Enhance your legal skills to advocate for survivors of intimate partner violence.
Oops.
Because if he didn’t infect Jane Doe in 2011, then she probably gave it to him.
(The full opinion appears on the next page…)