Comments on: Lawsuit: eateries’ switch to service-included policy was price-fixing conspiracy

By: Alec Rawls

Alec Rawls — Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:54:36 +0000

Ha ha. These restaurants are now competing on the same basis as every other industry—they no longer have use the odd-ball tip-scheme for compensating some employees—and this is supposed to be unacceptable.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:15:14 +0000

In reply to MattS. Choice of law may not be an issue, but forum shopping sure is. I'm betting that the plaintiff's/plaintiffs' attorneys think they can get a more sympathetic judge in one of the California district courts.

By: cecil

cecil — Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:38:59 +0000

Maybe the complaint is airplane food?

By: MattS

MattS — Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:01:13 +0000

In reply to Carl Edman. The prices of my puns aren't broken, so I don't need to fix them.

By: MattS

MattS — Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:00:21 +0000

In reply to Fox2!. Price fixing is an anti-trust issue which is federal law. There might be friendlier local rules in the CA Federal District Court, but choice of state law is not a relevant issue.

By: Carl Edman

Carl Edman — Wed, 18 Oct 2017 01:49:09 +0000

Sadly missed opportunity for prix-fixe puns.

By: Fox2!

Fox2! — Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:41:30 +0000

The suit was probably files by/on behalf of a “customer” who was allegedly damaged by the price fixing conspiracy. Who just happened to live in California. And will try to have California choice of law in effect, even though the “injury” occurred across the continent.

By: My Dog Bites Better Than Yours

My Dog Bites Better Than Yours — Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:05:01 +0000

Did I read that right? A suit against New York restaurant owners was filed in California?