I discussed yesterday a lawsuit against In-N-Out Burger. Today, Justice Miller issued this opinion, the first line of which is: "David Bustamante (the victim) was shot and killed in the parking lot of an In-N-Out restaurant on Christmas Day in 2015." This leads me to the tentative conclusion that, in a creative (but fairly shocking) use of guerilla marketing, In-N-Out Burger is now the official sponsor of the opinions in the California Appellate Reports.
I might add that the first couple of sentences of the opinion were perhaps slightly confusing. They read: "David Bustamante (the victim) was shot and killed in the parking lot of an In-N-Out restaurant on Christmas Day in 2015. The victim was giving a tattoo to Nancy A.
when he told her he had to go out to meet a friend, who he was going to give tamales that
his mother had made." Which led me to say to myself: "Wait. Why was someone giving a tattoo to someone in the In-N-Out parking lot?"
As I read further, I finally understood that, oh, he was giving her a tattoo in his home, and then later drove with her to the In-N-Out, where he was shot.
Which makes sense. I mean, you could give someone a tattoo in the In-N-Out parking lot. Sort of like a prison tattoo. But that's not what was going down here.
Before the murder, anyway.
