濮阳东方医院治早泄口碑好收费低濮阳东方看病专业吗,濮阳东方男科医院收费不贵,濮阳东方男科预约挂号,濮阳东方医院位置,濮阳东方医院看早泄口碑好很不错,濮阳东方医院治疗早泄收费透明,濮阳东方医院具体位置

CIRCLEVILLE, Ohio — Employees frustrated with the management of a Sonic Drive-In restaurant in Circleville, Ohio closed up shop and left one day during the last week of February, posting a note for customers that said, "due to terrible management, the whole store has quit."This didn't just happen in Circleville: Two other Ohio stores in neighboring cities with the same management joined — one in Grove City and one in Lancaster.The sign left at the Circleville store has foul language, but 510

Dollar Tree/Family Dollar and Dollar General will pay the State of New York .2 million as part of a settlement for selling expired drugs and obsolete motor oil, the N.Y. Attorney General announced on Monday.The Attorney General's Office said that investigators found over-the-counter drugs that were months beyond their expiration dates at Family Dollar, Dollar General and Dollar Tree locations as well as a number of motor oils that are not suitable for vehicles for engines made after 1988 at Dollar General. Investigators even found at multiple Dollar General locations a type of motor oil, DG SAE-30, which is not suitable for engines built after 1930. “It’s a tough pill for New Yorkers to swallow that the over-the-counter drugs they were buying may have been expired,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “New York consumers have a right to expect that products on store shelves are safe, fresh and suitable for their advertised use. "These settlements will ensure that Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Family Dollar will not only pay both a substantial fine and damages, but, more importantly, update their business practices to comply with the law so that no expired over-the-counter drugs are sold to a New York consumer again.”Dollar Tree and Family Dollar merged in 2015, but run separate operations.Dollar Tree/Family Dollar will pay a .1 million fine, and Dollar General will pay 0,000.The stores also agreed to do the following in New York:Maintaining and utilizing a system for electronically recording and tracking the expiration dates on merchandise delivered to their distribution centers,Maintaining and enforcing policies and procedures that require employees to rotate stock when restocking store shelves, as well as conducting weekly inspections of store shelves to remove any expired products,Conducting monthly audits of each retail store to check for expired products, andInstituting third-party audits of 10% of the chains’ New York stores for a period of at least oneyear to check for expired over-the-counter drugs. 2074

Carlton wants his dance back.Actor Alfonso Ribeiro is suing to stop two video game developers from selling a dance popularized by his "Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" character.In two lawsuits filed Monday, Ribeiro said the companies have "unfairly profited" from using his likeness and from exploiting his "protected creative expression." The suits name Fortnite developer Epic Games Inc., and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., creator of the NBA 2K series, and several of its subsidiaries.Epic Games declined to comment on the lawsuit. Take-Two subsidiary 2K Games did not respond to a request for comment.The lawsuits ask a California federal court to bar the game developers from using, selling or displaying the dance. The suits state that Ribeiro is in the process of copyrighting the dance.Ribeiro, best known as Carlton Banks from the 1990s "Fresh Prince" sitcom, says in the court filings that he is "inextricably linked" to the dance -- a joyous, arm-swinging boogie often performed to Tom Jones' "It's Not Unusual."The lawsuits say Ribeiro first performed the dance during the show's 1991 Christmas episode."Twenty-seven years later, The Dance remains distinctive, immediately recognizable, and inextricably linked to Ribeiro's identity, celebrity, and likeness," the lawsuits say.Ribeiro also performed his signature move during his 2014 run on "Dancing with the Stars."He is currently the host of "America's Funniest Home Videos."According to the suit, Ribeiro says Epic is faking endorsements. He is asking the court for damages and that both companies stop profiting from the dance.The games are among the most popular video games in the world. Epic recently announced that 78.3 million users logged in to play Fortnite in August. The NBA 2K series is critically acclaimed as one of the best sports games on the market.'Fortnite' calls it the 'Fresh'"Fortnite Battle Royale" is a game that pits up to 100 players against each other in a frenzied fight for survival, the last one standing wins.The game provides in-game purchases like dances called "emotes," which have become so popular that teens all over the world post videos of themselves doing the dances with the hashtag #fortnitedance or #fortnitevideos, according to the lawsuit against Epic. The game sells what Ribeiro claims is his dance under the emote name "Fresh.""Epic intentionally induces others to perform these dances and mark them with those hashtags, which give attribution to and endorse Fortnite the game," the lawsuit states. "Epic has consistently sought to exploit African-American talent, in particular in Fortnite, by copying their dances and movements and sell them through emotes."Similarly, the lawsuit against Take-Two Interactive says the basketball game NBA 2K sold the game many refer to as the "Carlton dance" as an in-game purchase. It was sold under the name "So Fresh."Ribeiro is not the first celebrity with a signature dance to sue the makers of the popular Fortnite game. Attorney David L. Hecht says he and his firm are also representing rapper 2 Milly and Russell Horning, also known as the "Backpack Kid," in lawsuits against Epic Games over Fortnite's use of their signature dances within the game. Horning created a dance called the "Floss" in 2016, while 2 Milly created the "Milly Rock" around 2015."More plaintiffs are coming out of the woodwork each day," Hecht said. 3390

Congressional Democrats have issued subpoenas to the Trump Organization and other Trump businesses tied to a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of profiting from foreign governments in violation of the Constitution, but the Justice Department is now asking an appeals court to step in and block the move.Democrats sent more than three-dozen subpoenas, demanding a response by July 29, seeking to collect evidence about the President's financial records, after a federal judge ruled last month that Democrats could proceed with the legal discovery process in their lawsuit.But the Justice Department, defending Trump in his presidential capacity, has requested that an appeals court Monday overrule the lower court's decision and prevent the subpoenas from going forward. If the Democratic members of Congress collected evidence in the emoluments lawsuit, DOJ wrote, Trump "is likely to suffer irreparable injury" because of "intrusive discovery into his personal finances based on the public office he holds."The escalating court fight represents a new front in Democrats' quest to obtain the President's financial records, a battle that's now playing out across multiple congressional committees and judicial jurisdictions.The new subpoenas come from the Constitutional Accountability Center, which is representing a group of House and Senate Democrats led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York, who are alleging Trump is violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution.The judge overseeing the suit, Emmet Sullivan of the US District Court in Washington, gave the Democrats permission to subpoena the documents and take depositions beginning June 28.The Justice Department asked in its filing Monday for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to hear their case before Sullivan finishes resolving it at the trial level. The department says Sullivan was wrong in his interpretation of congressional power and the constitutional clause that prohibits officials from receiving benefits from foreign powers.Sullivan previously told the Justice Department that it could not yet appeal his decisions that allowed the case to move forward into evidence-collection."If the district court's clearly erroneous orders are allowed to stand, this improper suit will proceed and the Members will commence discovery aimed at probing the President's personal financial affairs because he holds federal office," the Justice Department wrote to the DC Circuit on Monday.It's an extraordinary step for the Justice Department to go around a lower court's decision before a case is resolved. However, it's not unheard of. The Justice Department used the same maneuver in another case about emoluments, before the federal court in Maryland. The Fourth Circuit, which looks at appeals from Maryland, has not yet decided that case.The DC Circuit hasn't yet decided what it will do.The Democratic subpoenas seek the President's companies' tax returns and other financial information about Trump's business assets. They also request information about three Trump towers in New York, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, a San Francisco building, and the President's Palm Beach club Mar-a-Lago.Blumenthal said the subpoenas were intended to provide "information about foreign government payments accepted by six Trump properties, as well as trademarks granted to Trump businesses by foreign governments.""Unsurprisingly, the Trump Administration is still seeking to delay, delay, delay, but we are confident that the D.C. Circuit will recognize the well-reasoned logic of the District Court, and allow discovery to proceed," Blumenthal said in a statement.Democrats seek Trump finances through multiple channelsThe emoluments lawsuit has plodded along in the federal court since 2017, but the judge's decision on subpoenas gives Democrats a potential new avenue to obtain the President's financial records. While it's the earliest case where Democrats took the President to court, they now are also fighting Trump and his administration in additional court cases to obtain his tax returns and financial records from the Trump Organization's banks and accounting firms.The various cases may take several months -- if not much longer -- to be resolved. Democrats say they're seeking the financial information to conduct oversight of the Trump administration, but if they do obtain the records they're seeking, the documents could also provide them additional evidence beyond what was uncovered by special counsel Robert Mueller should they decide to pursue an impeachment inquiry into the President.Trump has repeatedly accused Democrats of "presidential harassment" in their efforts both to obtain his financial records and haul in his closest aides to testify. In this case, the Justice Department has argued in court that the Constitution's emoluments provision doesn't apply to Trump's business situation, and that any evidence collection for the legal challenge would be too distracting for the President. In other court cases, Trump's private legal team has argued that 5133

Credit reporting agency Equifax has reached a deal to pay up to 0 million to state and federal regulators to settle probes stemming from a data breach that 171