Most Ridiculous Lawsuit of the Month: The "Coffee or Tea?" Edition

Tim Gilmore
|
Posted: Jul 13, 2011 8:00 AM

We all have our own preference for coffee.  Some of us are happy with a simple cup of joe, while others can’t wake up without a 7-pump soy hazelnut macchiato (or something like that) or have made the jump to Keurig coffee makers.  One Illinois woman who made the latter switch isn’t happy about it – and she’s going to court because of it.

She has filed a potential class action lawsuit against the makers of the ‘K-cup’ pods for her machine over their claim that they deliver a “fresh, hot, and delicious” cup of coffee.  The plaintiff alleges that the pods contain instant coffee as opposed to fresh coffee, and it tasted “absolutely horrible.”  In a later interview, she went on gripe to a reporter that “if you shake the cup, they hardly have any coffee in them.”  So she has two complaints: (1) the coffee is terrible, and (2) there’s not enough of it.

Well at least she got the order right (that is, buy a product based on alleged false advertising, then hire a lawyer, then file a lawsuit).  The same cannot be said for another false advertising lawsuit filed in New Jersey against AriZona Beverage Company.  The plaintiff in the case says that she purchased some AriZona drinks in early 2008 based on claims that they are “All Natural.”  When she realized the drinks actually contained high-fructose corn syrup, she naturally hired a lawyer to file suit. 

However, AriZona’s lawyers found that she had an agreement with the law firm dating from 2007, months before she actually made the purchases.  Some might call it a minor detail, but not the judge overseeing the case.  He rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to have the case certified as a class action, calling the agreement “evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel are too careless about key facts to effectively represent the interests of a class of potentially tens of thousands of absent class members.”

So are either of these cases the most ridiculous lawsuit of the month?  Or should it be one of these?

  • the couple suing an animal rescue center because they haven’t removed a group of free-ranging peacocks;
  • the man suing a grocer for $15,000 after he pricked his finger on a rose’s thorn; or
  • the Arkansas couple claiming that seismic activity was caused by fracking process.

Vote at FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org.