SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A nonprofit organization said Thursday that it sued the U.S. National Park Service over a plan to remove Puerto Rico’s famous stray cats from a historic district in the U.S. territory.
The lawsuit filed by Maryland-based Alley Cat Allies comes four months after the federal agency announced it would contract an animal welfare organization to remove an estimated 200 cats that live in an area surrounding a historic seaside fortress in Old San Juan.
The organization would decide whether the trapped cats would be adopted, placed in foster homes, kept in a shelter or face other options. It wasn’t immediately clear if an organization has been hired.
At the time, the National Park Service said it would hire a removal agency if the organization it contracted failed to remove the cats within six months.
The agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Tourists and locals have long considered the cats both a delight and a nuisance, with the National Park Service stating in 2022 that the population had grown too much as it noted the smell of urine and feces in the area.
Activists have decried the plan, saying six months is insufficient time to remove so many cats and worried they would be killed.
In its lawsuit, Alley Cat Allies requested additional environmental statements from the federal agency and asked that a judge find its actions allegedly violate acts including the National Environmental Protection Act.
In 2016, as the stress of wedding planning bore down on Joseph Sinclair, he got into an argument with his parents and told them something that sent his family into a tailspin: As a child, he said, he was sexually abused by a neighbor they had hired to babysit him.
The revelation wreaked havoc on the family, which sought years of therapy to heal. But now they say they are being forced to relive the trauma.
Maureen Sartain, the babysitter Sinclair has accused of abusing him, has filed a lawsuit against Sinclair’s mother, saying in court documents that Marie Sinclair intentionally caused her emotional distress by telling others about the alleged abuse. The case is scheduled to go to trial next month in New York.
“It keeps me up at night,” Marie Sinclair said of the thought of her son being called to testify in the trial. “Because of this ridiculous lawsuit, he’s being forced to confront some painful memories. It is so unfair.”
Sartain declined a request for an interview through her attorney, Scott Mishkin, who referred NBC News to her deposition from last year. In it, Sartain denied abusing Joseph Sinclair. She is not suing for defamation and some legal experts have expressed surprise that the case is scheduled to go to trial.
“What she’s trying to do is get around the truth test by reframing the case,” said Richard Epstein, a professor at New York University School of Law. “It’s an effort to repackage a defamation case as an emotional distress case to avoid the truth test.”
Unlike in a suit for emotional distress, the plaintiff in a defamation case has to prove that the statement in question was false.
Sartain’s attorney did not return a request for comment about the nature of the suit.
The Sinclair family avoided Sartain for years after they learned of the alleged abuse, Marie Sinclair said.
“Me and my husband, Jimmy, wanted to kill her,” she said of the babysitter, who lived on the same Smithtown street as the couple until they moved last year. But a therapist told them it wouldn’t be good for Joseph Sinclair’s therapy if they confronted her. “He needed to heal. He needed to get over the guilt and the shame of it, and confronting her would only harm him,” Marie Sinclair said the therapist told them.
She followed that advice for three years. Then, on Nov. 2, 2020, she changed course.
“I see you are friends with Maureen Grennan Sartain on Facebook,” she wrote in direct messages sent to at least a dozen people on the social network, according to the lawsuit, a transcript of her deposition and screenshots of messages Sinclair provided to NBC News. “I want you to know she is a pedophile and raped my child when he was 8 years old. She has never been prosecuted for this crime. If anything I can warn you, your family and your children.”
Marie Sinclair
She also sent the message to Sartain, adding: “I sent this to your friends. I hope someday you pay for your sick crimes.”
The messages, which were sent to Sartain’s friends and family and to the parents of children she may have cared for, are at the center of a lawsuit Sartain filed against Sinclair alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sartain’s attorney says in the lawsuit that she was “devastated to see that she was being accused of such conduct and was even more mortified over the fact that this false allegation was being sent to her friends and family.”
The suit accuses Sinclair of having launched a “deliberate and malicious campaign of harassment” that was “intentional, reckless, extreme and outrageous.”
But for the Sinclairs, who believe Sartain to be an abuser, the pending jury trial has landed like a punch, adding insult to injuries they had worked to heal.
Joseph Sinclair, 28, was between the ages of 8 and about 13 when the alleged abuse occurred, he said in an interview with NBC News.
“It has affected every relationship I’ve had, in terms of trust, interpersonal communication,” he said. “I was manipulated, and it makes me feel terrible about myself. That I allowed it, or that I didn’t say anything.”
Not long after they learned about the alleged abuse, the Sinclairs also sought advice from the Suffolk County district attorney’s office in July 2017. In a copy of an email sent to the office that was shared with NBC News, they asked whether Sartain could be prosecuted and what the process would involve.
“How can we prevent her from abusing other children in her care,” the email concluded.
The Sinclairs said they never received a response. Marie Sinclair said she had also called the district attorney’s office with the same inquiry and was told that Joseph Sinclair could press charges but that it would be very difficult to win a criminal case against Sartain because the Sinclairs did not have footage or any other physical evidence of the alleged abuse.
A spokesperson for the district attorney’s office said in a statement: “We cannot comment on matters from the prior administration as those in leadership from that time period are no longer employed here.” The spokesperson said the office is willing to speak with the Sinclairs and provided a name and phone number for an investigator. The spokesperson declined to comment further, saying, “sexual assault victims cannot be outed without their consent.”
Joseph Sinclair said he never pursued criminal or civil action against Sartain because his focus has been on trying to heal.
“During my years of therapy, eventually, one of our goals was to come to that decision — whether or not I wanted to,” he said.
But now he plans to testify on his mother’s behalf, he said. Jury selection is scheduled to begin April 22 on Long Island.
“I want her to be held accountable,” he said of Sartain. “And I want her to be seen as the terrible person she is.”
In a deposition taken last year, Sartain testified that she babysat for a handful of other families from approximately 1990 to 2002. After Marie Sinclair told people about the alleged abuse, Sartain testified that she started having panic attacks every couple of days, would sometimes have trouble sleeping, had worsening jaw pain, and felt stressed.
“I don’t like going out,” she said, according to a transcript of the deposition. “I feel like neighbors have shunned me. People on Facebook have unfriended me.”
At Marie Sinclair’s deposition, Sartain’s attorney repeatedly asked Sinclair what her intention was in sending the messages and whether she cared at all about how they would affect Sartain. Sinclair responded that she wanted to warn people about who she believed Sartain to be and was concerned for any other potential victims.
“If she was upset by it, that’s on her,” Sinclair responded, according to a transcript of the deposition. “I was worried about the families that I was sending it to.”
About two weeks after she sent the messages, Sinclair received a cease-and-desist letter from Sartain’s attorney demanding, among other things, that she “immediately publish an apology for her false statements.” The lawsuit was filed three months later, in February 2021.
It is not uncommon, especially in the wake of the #MeToo movement, for people who come forward to allege sexual assault and harassment to be sued for defamation by their alleged perpetrators. But Sartain’s case differs from many of those in that, while she denies the allegations, she is not suing for defamation nor is she suing the person whom she is alleged to have abused.
Benjamin Zipursky, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York, described this approach as a “backdoor maneuver.”
“Sometimes, people try to take a kind of alternative lawsuit for a variety of reasons,” Zipursky said. “One of the most common reasons is they believe defamation law has been crafted by the courts, including the Supreme Court over the last many decades, to be very protective of speakers and to make it very hard for plaintiffs who have been defamed to prevail.”
Some attorneys who believe there may be too many defenses available to defendants for their client to win may shift to another category, Zipursky said, adding that one of the most common would be intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Zipursky, who specializes in tort law and defamation law, said the jury will have to decide whether Marie Sinclair’s conduct was extreme and outrageous.
“If this is what her boy told her had happened to him, then I don’t think that they’re going to think it was outrageous for her to say so,” he said.
Jimmy Donaldson, known as MrBeast to his 172 million subscribers on YouTube, is being sued by his food delivery service partner, Virtual Dining Concepts (VDC), over their MrBeast Burger agreement.
Donaldson filed a lawsuit against VDC last week, alleging the Florida-based “virtual dining” brand damaged Donaldson’s reputation by serving customers “low quality” and, occasionally, “inedible” food.
In their lawsuit, VDC and its subsidiary, Celebrity Virtual Dining, LLC, assert that Donaldson and his company, Beast Investments, failed to keep contractual obligations and are suing over intentional tortious interference.
“This case is about a social media celebrity who believes his fame means that his word does not matter, that the facts do not matter, and that he can renege and breach his contractual obligations without consequence,” the lawsuit, which was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York on Monday, states. “He is mistaken.”
The company says in the lawsuit that damages caused by Donaldson are in the “nine-figure range.”
An attorney for Donaldson declined to comment on Monday. An attorney for VDC said they had no additional comment.
Variety first reported news of the lawsuit.
Donaldson, famous for his expensive stunts and viral charity projects, and VDC first teamed up in December 2020 when they began selling branded burger-and-fries combos through restaurants and commercial kitchens across the nation.
Customers order through major food delivery service apps or via the MrBeastBurger website, which states menu items are available “for restaurants to prepare out of their existing kitchens as a way to generate a new revenue stream.”
Donaldson’s original suit cited social media posts in which customers called the burgers, “‘disgusting,’ ‘revolting,’ and ‘inedible.’”
VDC’s lawsuit also says that Donaldson leveraged his massive social media presence to make “disparaging comments” about VDC.
“In an effort to pressure Plaintiffs into transferring to him part of their interests in MrBeast Burger, Donaldson bullied Plaintiffs on social media and threatened to terminate the parties’ agreements if Plaintiffs did not accede to his demands,” the lawsuit states. “In so doing, he fabricated a number of purported “breaches” of the parties’ agreements, each of which was demonstrably false.”
Attorneys for VDC cited various social media posts from Donaldson, in which he wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, that he signed a “bad deal.”
In one post shown in the lawsuit, Donaldson wrote that “the company I partnered with won’t let me stop even though it’s terrible for my brand. Young beast signed a bad deal.” In another post shown in the lawsuit, which remains on Donaldson’s social media account, Donaldson wrote, “Yeah, the problem with Beast Burger is i can’t guarantee the quality of the order. When working with other restaurants it’s impossible to control it sadly.”
The lawsuit states that “Donaldson’s baseless and unlawful disparagement had the intended effect: MrBeast Burger’s reputation was materially damaged if not destroyed.”
VDC, which was co-founded by Robert Earl, the founder and CEO of Planet Hollywood, lists Mariah Carey’s “Mariah’s Cookies,” Bravo’s “The Real HouseBowls,” and baker Buddy V’s “Cake Slice” as some of its other ventures.
VDC’s “hard-won relationships with vendors, partners, and suppliers were shattered,” the lawsuit states.
Lawyers for VDC argue in the suit that “every restaurant gets periodic bad reviews and every company that sells product to the public has unsatisfied customers.”
“The reality is that the overwhelming majority of customers were highly satisfied, and the product was excellent,” according to the lawsuit.
In his original complaint, Donaldson said he is seeking to end his agreement with VDC, citing a lack of quality control and noting that his complaints “fell on deaf ears.” His suit states that MrBeast Burger generated “millions of dollars,” but adds that “MrBeast has not received a dime.”
The VDC lawsuit states that Donaldson is attempting to get out of his contract with VDC because he is seeking a “‘better,’ more lucrative deal” after the success of MrBeast Burger.
“Like any party to a contract, Donaldson must be held to his word,” the VDC lawsuit states, “and held accountable for his contractual breaches and other misconduct.”
A lawsuit involving two former Donda Academy teachers who sued Ye for what they said was wrongful termination from his now-shuttered private Christian school is scheduled for an April 2025 trial.
Cecilia Hailey and Chekarey Byers brought the civil lawsuit against Ye, formally known as Kanye West, in April. The suit painted a bizarre picture of the Simi Valley school: students who were served only sushi for lunch and had to sit on the floor to eat, doors locked from the outside, and classes being held only on the first floor because the rapper was “afraid of stairs.”
Hailey and Byers, who are mother and daughter, also alleged in the lawsuit that they were victims of racial discrimination by the rapper and were fired in retaliation for reporting code violations. The women are Black.
Ye as well as Hailey and Byers had sought a jury trial, according to a court filing on Friday. The other defendants in the suit, including Donda Academy, did not demand a jury trial. It is scheduled for April 9, 2025, at a Los Angeles courthouse, the filing states.
A representative for the rapper and an attorney for Hailey and Byers could not immediately be reached for comment on Saturday.
The Donda Academy in Simi Valley, Calif.Google Maps
Attorney Ron Zambrano, who is representing the two women, previously said that the lawsuit showed that the rapper “is clearly as bad at running a school as he is at managing his own personal and professional life.”
Zambrano accused Ye of enabling an illegal and unsafe school environment “that also discriminated against the plaintiffs based on their race.”
The lawsuit described how forks and other utensils were barred from the school, students had to sit on the floor during lunch, were fed only sushi, and lunch and recess were held indoors at the same time. It alleged that no cleaning services or school nurses were employed, medications on campus either were unsecured or had expired, and that crossword puzzles were not allowed.
There was to be no jewelry, no color or artwork on the walls, and students had to wear all black and dress only in clothing issued or designed by the rapper, according to the suit. Nike and Adidas were “forbidden,” it said.
Classes were held on the first floor because “he was reportedly afraid of stairs,” the suit said.
Byers said in a previous statement that she was disappointed and had considered working at the school a “huge honor and privilege.”
“I’m extremely sad about all of this,” she said. “I’m a huge Kanye fan. His first album was the first I ever purchased.”
Byers said Ye’s vision for the school looked “great on paper” but in reality, it was “pure chaos and mutiny.”
“It’s like a mental hospital being run by the patients,” she said in her statement.
A third former teacher, Timanii Meeks, also sued the rapper and school, alleging wrongful termination.
Meeks said she had alerted administrators to exposed electrical wiring in the building and other safety hazards as well as issues with bullying, according to an amended complaint. She was allegedly told that the school was “working on the kinks.”
She alleged that a few parents had sat in on her class and complained that there were no books, textbooks or educational materials, the suit said. The students were eventually given printouts of online worksheets and workbooks, but she was reprimanded because of the complaints, according to the lawsuit.
Meeks was later informed on Oct. 12 by the staffing agency that placed her at Donda Academy that the school did not want her to teach there, the suit stated. She said she was supposed to continue working at the school until at least the end of the year and no reason was given for her firing.
She is being represented by the same employment law firm as Hailey and Byers.
Donda Academy announced in October that it was closing amid fallout from antisemitic comments Ye made, however, records from California’s Education Department showed Saturday that the school is still active.
Diana Dasrath
Diana Dasrath is entertainment producer and senior reporter for NBC News covering all platforms.
Minyvonne Burke
Minyvonne Burke is a senior breaking news reporter for NBC News.
Weight loss drug makers sued over “stomach paralysis” – CBS News
Watch CBS News
The makers of Ozempic and Mounjaro, drugs used for both weight loss and diabetes management, are facing a lawsuit claiming the medications can cause “stomach paralysis.” Janet Shamlian reports.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
The drugmakers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly failed to adequately warn patients about the possible risk of severe stomach problems associated with their blockbuster drugs Ozempic and Mounjaro, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday.
The 26-page lawsuit, filed on behalf of a Louisiana woman who says she was “severely injured” after taking the two diabetes drugs, is the first to allege that they can cause gastrointestinal injuries.
Ozempic and Mounjaro — both part of a new class of medicines known as GLP-1 agonists — help people with Type 2 diabetes manage their blood sugar levels. They are also prescribed off-label for weight loss.
GLP-1 medications work, in part, by slowing how quickly food moves through the stomach, which can lead to a person feeling fuller longer. They can also, however, cause gastrointestinal issues, including abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, which have been well documented in clinical trials and are listed as potential side effects on drugs’ labels.
Jaclyn Bjorklund, 44, of Louisiana, is accusing the drugmakers of failing to disclose other health problems allegedly caused by the medications, including severe gastroparesis, also known as stomach paralysis, as well as “persistent” vomiting, Paul Pennock, an attorney, told reporters on a call Wednesday. Pennock is from the firm Morgan & Morgan, based in Orlando, Florida, which is representing Bjorklund.
Gastroparesis is a condition that slows or stops the movement of food out of the stomach and into the small intestines. It’s sometimes referred to as “delayed gastric emptying,” according to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The condition can be caused by underlying medical issues, and one of the more common causes of gastroparesis is diabetes, according to the American College of Gastroenterology. It can also result from infections or certain medications including narcotics and antidepressants.
While “gastroparesis” is not mentioned in the prescribing information for Ozempic or Mounjaro, “delays gastric emptying” is listed on both drugs’ labels, because it can affect how other medications are absorbed by the body.
The Food and Drug Administration declined to comment on the lawsuit. In a statement, Chanapa Tantibanchachai, a spokesperson for the agency, said it is unclear whether the GLP-1 medications contribute to the occurrence of gastroparesis.
A spokesperson for Eli Lilly did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. Natalia Salomao, a spokesperson for Novo Nordisk, said the company was not aware of the lawsuit as of Wednesday morning. However, Salomao noted that gastroparesis is a known risk for people with diabetes.
“Patient safety is of utmost importance to Novo Nordisk,” she said. “We recommend patients take these medications for their approved indications and under the supervision of a healthcare professional.”
About 400 people have come forward claiming to have gastrointestinal injuries caused by the diabetes medications, said Pennock, who stated that he ultimately expects to see “thousands of such cases.”
Bjorklund was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in 2017 and had been prescribed Ozempic before later switching to Mounjaro.
Bjorklund is claiming that she was “severely injured” by the medications and had to go to the emergency room multiple times due to stomach problems, according to the lawsuit. She vomited so violently that she lost teeth, the suit claims.
Bjorklund hasn’t yet been diagnosed with gastroparesis, Pennock said, although he claimed her symptoms are “indicative of” the condition and dismissed that the condition was caused by her diabetes.
She is seeking “very significant” compensation from the drugmakers, Pennock added, declining to state a specific amount.
Dr. Shauna Levy, a specialist in obesity medicine and the medical director of the Tulane Bariatric Center in New Orleans, said she was surprised by the lawsuit.
While the medications could cause gastroparesis, Levy, who is not involved with Bjorklund’s treatment, said that the problem could also be caused by another undiagnosed illness or by the patient’s diabetes, and then exacerbated by the medications.
“As a provider, I’m not worried about this being a common problem,” Levy said.
Tantibanchachai said the FDA will continue to monitor for any potential adverse events from the medications.
“If newly identified safety signals are identified, the FDA will determine what actions are appropriate after a thorough review of the body of evidence,” she said.
Berkeley Lovelace Jr. is a health and medical reporter for NBC News. He covers the Food and Drug Administration, with a special focus on Covid vaccines, prescription drug pricing and health care. He previously covered the biotech and pharmaceutical industry with CNBC.
