No Double D-eal


POSTED: Thursday, August 11, 2011 - 5:54pm

UPDATED: Friday, August 12, 2011 - 2:59am

The controversy over the Double D restaurant continued today, in the courtroom.
There was a hearing on the temporary restraining order on the restaurant, and It was expected to be a short hearing with a rumored settlement.
But it proved to be more contentious than anyone expected.
It was the Double D restaurant versus Toys R Us.
The land the Double D sits on is owned by the toy chain, and today in the 114th District Court, a Toys R Us representative said that the road house with its scantily clad waitresses would hurt their business.
And some concerned citizens were there as well.
But the question before Judge Christi Kennedy was, does the change from an El Chico Restaurant to the Double D violate the lease?
Ultimately the lawyer for the Double D, Robert Davis, said that they needed to see more evidence, evidence that the plaintiff’s didn’t have, so the hearing is postponed for two weeks.
The restraining order remains in effect.
So, we really didn’t get a resolution today to the burning question of bare midriffs versus Barbie dolls.
We’ll have to wait two weeks for that.

Comments News Comments

It's been my experience that when one side of a dispute is granted a recess to produce documentation, a resolution soon follows due to an inability to produce. It's difficult to conceive of a lease agreement that would be so specific in nature as to preclude this business from operation. Without nudity, the lease would have to state a specific dress code, and that seems highly unlikely. I would think any two-bit lawyer could overturn this injunction.

Post new Comment