Posted on 05/09/2023 6:03:45 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The California woman suing Subway for claiming its tuna products contain ingredients other than tuna wants to end her lawsuit because she is pregnant, prompting Subway to demand her lawyers be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous case.
Nilima Amin said her "severe" morning sickness and "debilitating" conditions as she prepares for a third child have left her "unable to proceed with the obligations as plaintiff," and require her to focus on her health and family.
Amin wants to dismiss the case in San Francisco federal court without prejudice, which would let her sue again when she feels better. In a May 4 filing, Subway said Amin’s excuse flunked the "straight-face" test, and her lawyers likely realised it would not "simply pay the windfall settlement that they hoped to get by constructing a high-profile shakedown."
(Excerpt) Read more at asiaone.com ...
She has seven lawyers on her team. She wants the case dismissed without prejudice so she can sue again when she feels better. Subway wants her lawyers to pay $810,000 of Subway’s legal bills for this suit.
I’m on Subway’s side for this. There are some people who make a comfortable living by suing. In the end, we, the working people, pay.
Sue the woman and her crooked lawyers.
She probably found out that Subway would not settle out of court.
Didn’t Subway get caught using non tuna n there tuna?
A dose every once in a while of “f around and find out” in these high profile bogus lawsuits would help tamp down these cases that just cost consumers and make the economy less efficient
No that is what she is claiming but it is not true and Subway can prove it.
I am guessing this theater is part of the settlement.
‘Didn’t Subway get caught using non tuna n there tuna?’
No, that was her lie.
This is why Subway is pissed, and winning.
I agree with Subway. If I could say what I feel about this subject I would but the moderators would wipe me out.
“ Didn’t Subway get caught using non tuna n there tuna?”
Yeah. Mayonnaise.
Sorry, Charlie....
Some of the franchisees were not using provided supplies - was not a Subway corporate issue. Subway provided tuna, the franchisee decided to use something else.
good for Subway standing up to this clumsy shakedown
btw, I think California law also allows for the fraud’s lawyers to be sanctioned too, if it can be proven that the case was frivolous
I would be on the side of Subway, but about 2 years ago I had a Subway tuna sandwich and it was horrible. I used to love their tuna sandwiches. Haven’t been back since.
Tuna doesn’t taste right since they took the dolphin out of it.
Weemsco Tuna!
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.