Posted on 03/14/2017 9:04:14 AM PDT by simpson96
Looks like President Trump might have another lawsuit on his hands. According to NPR, two restaurateurs in Washington, DC have sued the president and the Trump Old Post Office LLC, in a lawsuit filed in D.C. Superior Court for “unfair competition under local law.” The restaurateurs, Khalid Pitts and Diane Gross, who own Cork Wine Bar and Cork Market & Tasting Room, argue that it’s near impossible to compete with a “restaurant at President Donald Trump’s hotel down the road from the White House.”
As of right now the plaintiffs, who are represented by “business and government watchdog attorneys who say they are working for free,” aren’t seeking monetary damages. Rather, they would like the president to “remedy the unfair competition.” How? For starters they want him to resign and divest himself from the hotel, or close it down completely during the duration of his presidency.
So far there is no evidence that the accusations are politically motivated. However, Pitts has a history of being politically active and even ran as an independent for a seat on the D.C. Council back in 2014. Before that race, he was registered as a Democrat, and “did work for the Service Employees International Union.” Gross, on the other hand, is a lawyer who worked for “former Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat,” between 2003 and 2005.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalreader.com ...
This is a desperate attempt to get media exposure for a failing business...
... and it won’t work.
Half the country dislikes Trump.
= = = = = = = = = = =
NO...not really.
If you listen to the ‘people’ who are airing this ‘suit’ etc you would have to believe that the ENTIRE COUNTRY hates Trump.
He(this clown) would probably be better off just advertising that he is NOT Trump - providing the ‘press’ is correct.
Sorry, this guy don’t look bright enough to have come up with this idea, so some money sucking K St lawyer is probably coaching him.
‘Dewey, Screwum & Howe’ are probably behind this and when the publicity dies down and this guys ‘hole in the wall’ place goes out of business, DS&H will claim VICTORY for the little people while flooding the ad market as being the Company that had the ‘guts’ to sue Trump.
I would like to see his receipts and if he can PROVE these allegations.
There are ALWAYS reasons one restaurant gets more popular than another, and admittedly this one is a doozy...
But is it actionable?
He would do FAR FAR BETTER if he told Trump of his plight, tried to make lemonade out of lemons. This will get him even less business from the Trump supporters.
Maybe he’ll get lucky and all the Trump haters will go there. (Maybe WE will get that lucky too!)
Just imagine how many political “pay to play” organizations didn’t make it because of the Clintoonie Family Crime Foundation. PRESIDENT Trump needs to counter sue these two ‘RAT aholes just for being obnoxious political hacks.
What a surprise...they are both democRats!
https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Khalid+Pitts
https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Diane+Gross&cycle=&state=DC&zip=&employ=&cand=
Probably no merit to the case, and no mention whether the offerings of these two are in any way comparable to the Trump hotel. McDonald’s and Motel 6 are not competing with Trump and I doubt these two are.
You wouldn't expect facts in an article, would you? Lol.
I heard part of their complaint. The woman was saying something along the lines of "Why would someone come to our restaurant when they could go to a restaurant down the road and possibly get a glimpse of the President?"
Exactly. In DC, there would be many more people boycotting anything Trump than people going there because it's a restaurant in a Trump hotel.
This is such a laughable case. If the Trump restaurant is so popular, nearby restaurants should benefit from the overflow of patrons who can't get a reservation at the Trump restaurant.
Offer up a Trump sandwich and watch your business go crazy.
Or you can be a whiny little girl and hope all goes well. your choice.
Let us not look at the Hillary and Reid special deals with Russians pushing out bidding competition or the gazillion liberal ops funded by the feds
guilty x 2
If he's going to resign, why should he also have to divest himself? That amounts to the plaintiff having their cake and eating it, too.
Does anybody know any Democrat who is not constantly whining and bitching about something?
It sounds like they give free whine with every meal.
All snideness aside, I don’t understand how they can show that people aren’t going to their joint because they flat out don’t like it.
Wait now; is it fair to say that liberals outnumber conservatives substantially in those environs? And is it also fair to say that liberals will consciously avoid any establishment connected with president Trump? So is it fair to say that your liberal neighbors will be your primary patrons?
If the liberals do NOT patronize youir establishment, it may be an indication that your wine bar SUCKS!
This is unusually stupid even for bottom feeding lawyers and publicity-seeking plaintiffs. The Cork Wine Bar and Cork Market & Tasting Room aren’t even close to the Trump property. The Cork operations are over toward Logan Circle in the very hot and upcoming U Street corridor. They can’t compete with a place across town? Do they think every other restaurant in DC should close so as not to compete? Of course not; they’re just throwing a Trump fit and hoping for something crazy to happen.
(b) Representations to the Court.
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
(c) Sanctions.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.
(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).
(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
Trump should probably swing by their place and order something. Of course, Trump doesn’t drink, so maybe he could invite Chris Mathews along for the ride.
I guess the D.C. Skanks should have sued Clinton when he was pres given this theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.