How open is the phrase “All-You-Can-Eat”? That’s what’s at the heart of a lawsuit filed by a man against a Studio City, CA, sushi restaurant.
The plaintiff went into the restaurant to take advantage of its $28 all-you-can-eat sushi offer. But when the man began only eating the raw fish and leaving the rice behind, the restaurant’s owner informed him that he’d have to eat the rice too, since sushi, by definition, always includes rice. Raw fish on its own is sashimi.
The diner replied that he can’t eat the rice because he has diabetes. The owner offered to sell him two orders of sashimi for $25, $3 less than the sushi deal, but the man declined.
Instead, he left after paying a la carte prices for the sushi he’d picked at.
Two weeks later, it was lawsuit time.
The man seeks at least $4,000 in damages for the “humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish” he claimed to have suffered after being discriminated against “on the basis of his disability.” The L.A. Times reports that he’s offered to drop the suit in return for a payment of $6,000.
The real issue is whether or not “all-you-can-eat” means you have to eat everything on your plate before you get more. The restaurant owner believes that, since the deal was for all-you-can-eat sushi — and not sashimi — he’s in the right on this one.
“The rice is part of the all-you-can-eat sushi,” he said. “If you only eat the fish, I would go broke.”