CHICAGO (Legal Newsline) - Buffalo Wild Wings says the man who sued it over its boneless "wings" was not actually shopping for food but for a lawsuit.
Calling plaintiff Aimen Halim a "serial consumer litigant," the company in court filings in August said reasonable minds could question his motives. Halim's lawsuit says BWW should be penalized for selling deep-fried chicken breast as "wings," alleging reasonable consumers would expect a real boneless wing to be a de-boned wing.
Halim has filed at least five other lawsuits and has been represented by a variety of class action lawyers.
"(O)ver the past two years he claims to have been deceived by 'High in Fiber' granola, mouthwash with a 'natural' minty flavor, 'recycling' bags, and even blankets," BWW's attorneys wrote Aug. 24.
"His next lawsuit very well could accuse hushpuppies of being too noisy... Reasonable minds may question whether Plaintiff is cynically shopping for lawsuits or sincerely believes himself to have been misled, and injured, by so many common commercial transactions."
The salvo is part of BWW's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, which drew attention from national media outlets when it was first filed. BWW has called the case ridiculous, mocking its theories by joking there's no popcorn in popcorn shrimp and no dog in hot dogs.
Cases of consumer deception boil down to whether a "reasonable consumer" would have been misled by the defendant. "The public's incredulous response" to the lawsuit shows plaintiff Halim is no reasonable consumer, a June motion to dismiss argues.
Halim, represented by Ruhandy Glezakos of Treehouse Law, said he bought boneless wings because he thought they would be actual wings de-boned, not deep-fried breast meat. He hails Domino's for calling its similar product "boneless chicken" and Papa John's for using the term "Chicken Poppers."
In opposing the motion to dismiss, Halim's lawyers wrote BWW's motive in naming the product "boneless wings" is profit.
"BWW sells 'Boneless Wings' because the cost of chicken breast is cheaper than the cost of chicken wings," the opposition says. "But a profit motive does not justify false advertising that puts the onus on consumers to ascertain whether the 'Boneless Wings' are actually boneless wings."
The two sides are arguing over whether Halim even has standing to sue, since he has not paid a "price premium" for breast meat that is cheaper than wings. But his lawyers say he has adequately alleged he would not have paid for the boneless wings or would have only been willing to pay less for them had he known they were not de-boned wings.
BWW is represented by Jason Rosenberg and other lawyers at Alston & Bird in Atlanta, as well as attorneys at Actuate Law in Chicago. Halim and the company await a ruling on the motion to dismiss in Chicago federal court.