Aramark to sue USM in federal court - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 6, 2005

Aramark to sue USM in federal court

Date: Apr 6, 2005

And in unrelated news, USM students have announced a class action against Aramark for misrepresenting its products as "food"...

Date: Apr 6, 2005

Can a suit name an individual department? That doesn't sound right. The department couldn't be liable by itself, could it? I'd like to see something more definite before we jump on this rumor.

Date: Apr 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: spots
"Just heard that Aramark is about to initiate a lawsuit against USM in federal court over "misrepresentation" of the "on-campus market conditions". The IDV dept is supposedly going to be named along with administration. What do you guys make of this?"

Hot DOG!!!

Date: Apr 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: spots
Just heard that Aramark is about to initiate a lawsuit against USM in federal court over "misrepresentation"

If Aramark can sue USM over misrepresentration I would imagine there are quite a few of us who could do the same.

Date: Apr 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: spots
"Just heard that Aramark is about to initiate a lawsuit against USM in federal court over "misrepresentation" of the "on-campus market conditions". The IDV dept is supposedly going to be named along with administration. What do you guys make of this?"

I'd guess it has something to do with Shelboo skimming royalties from the USM-Aramark Polymeric Weiner sales revenue, or placing that little brand of his profile on the side of each weiner without Aramark approval, or possibly refusing to pay for the dozens of hot dogs he scams for his family. Who knows. We'll just have to wait for the case to come up on Court TV.

Date: Apr 6, 2005

I can assure you that this is just another basisly rumor, like most other information on this board, that has absolutely no validity. This will die right along with Lisa Mader taking a job in Jackson. . . . .oh, wait, that's Wesley this week . . . isn't it?

Date: Apr 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: spots
"Just heard that Aramark is about to initiate a lawsuit against USM in federal court over "misrepresentation" of the "on-campus market conditions". The IDV dept is supposedly going to be named along with administration. What do you guys make of this?"

I guess they can if IDV cooked up some logarithmic models that showed Aramark would make a gazillion $.

Date: Apr 6, 2005

sorry, I meant 'baseless' . . . d'oh

Date: Apr 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stasoft
"I guess they can if IDV cooked up some logarithmic models that showed Aramark would make a gazillion $."

What's IDV?

Date: Apr 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Want's to know
" What's IDV?"

a result of strange inter(net)course?

Date: Apr 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Oscar Meyer
"I'd guess it has something to do with Shelboo ... refusing to pay for the dozens of hot dogs he scams for his family. Who knows. We'll just have to wait for the case to come up on Court TV."

Could this suit be connected in some way to the recently disclosed medical condition from which Dr. Thames suffers, Chronic Explosive Flatulence? In taking his medical history, I was not made aware of his fondness for hot dogs. If not an agent of causation, excessive consumption of greasy weiners, polymer infused or not, would certainly exacerbate his condition.

Date: Apr 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: one who knows
"I can assure you that this is just another basisly rumor, like most other information on this board, that has absolutely no validity. This will die right along with Lisa Mader taking a job in Jackson. . . . .oh, wait, that's Wesley this week . . . isn't it?"

And that's why the regular posters have learned to take all this stuff with reservations. The technique called "FUD" is very familiar to us.

Date: Apr 6, 2005

Have you noticed that on slow news days people get bored and post rumors and lies to get everyone excited? During spring break there was a lot of this almost every day. Of course the person only "hears" that so-and-so is going to happen. They never give a source that can be checked. Finally, these threads are flooded with post from people using names never before posted here. I usually don't respond except to point out the deception.

Date: Apr 6, 2005

I too am skeptical about this rumor, although it would be ironic if true.

For one thing, I am not sure why a suit of this nature would be filed in federal court. If I remember, for an action to be brought in federal court, there generally has to be a question of federal law involved or diversity between the parties (plaintiff and defendant from different states). Because Aramark does business here in good ol' Mississippi, I think that would rule out diversity jurisdiction. I can't imagine why a contract dispute about "misrepresentation of market conditions" would give rise to a federal question, but it's been more than a year since I took civil procedure. Come to think of it, it's been more than twenty years.

That said, I do remember that the infamous memo from RM (risk manager or risk maker, you decide) Jack Hanbury was first publicly disclosed on this board. I thought that was so outrageous that it had to be fiction. I was wrong.

Date: Apr 6, 2005

The only federal lawsuit involving USM at this point is the Whiting lawsuit. That one is a given, not sure about this one. Anyone can look up the Whiting suit to know that it is indeed file and in progress.

Date: Apr 6, 2005

ram,

Without knowing anything about Aramark, I can tell you that simply doing business in MS will not bar you from federal court. Diversity jurisdiction also requires a claim of $75,000 or more. Furthermore, if this is in fact true, I am almost certain that Aramark will file in federal court to avoid home cooking by the judge and/or to get a more "talented" jury pool.

Date: Apr 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Alum
" . . . . . to avoid home cooking by the judge and/or to get a more "talented" jury pool."

What's thet you say son?

Date: Apr 6, 2005

Never forget the bs ploy that they tried to pull last year by actually naming a "noninvolved judge" who happened to represent USM in cases filed against them. Due to the FireSHelby website (as was cited), they had to go to another "judge" to oversee the Glamser/Stringer debacle. They are not afraid of playing really dirty. Never forget that. I won't.

Date: Apr 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Swan Song
"They are not afraid of playing really dirty. Never forget that. I won't."

What's thet you say son?