Starbucks Corp has been sued by a customer who allegedly suffered second-degree burns after being served tea that was too hot.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff Zeynep Inanli was served tea that was "unreasonably hot, in containers which were not safe," at a Starbucks store at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan.

As a result of Starbucks' negligence, the plaintiff suffered "great physical pain and mental anguish," including the burns, the complaint said.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.

Starbucks, based in Seattle, did not immediately return requests for comment. The plaintiff's lawyer did not immediately return a call for comment.

Retailers periodically face lawsuits for serving beverages at temperatures that customers say are too high.

In one well-known case, a jury in 1994 ordered McDonald's Corp to pay $2.86 million to Stella Liebeck, an Albuquerque, New Mexico woman who claimed she scalded herself with the restaurant's coffee. The parties later settled.

In a speech in West Palm Beach on Friday, Justice Anthony Kennedy said lawmakers should not try to figure out how high court nominee Elena Kagan would rule on specific questions.

He said they should instead look at whether her temperament, commitment and character make her suitable for the job.

Kennedy declined to offer Kagan any advice. He joked that if you ask him what makes a good judge, "you're going to get an autobiography."

Kagan, the nation's solicitor general, was tapped by President Barack Obama to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Procter & Gamble Co is being sued by parents claiming new Pampers diapers have caused severe rashes and other skin conditions on their children, court documents showed, assertions the company has called "completely false."

The action, filed by the law firm of Keller Rohrback, comes on the heels of parents' complaints that updated Pampers Swaddlers and Cruisers diapers with P&G's new Dry Max technology appear to have caused rashes and burns on their children. A number of parents have voiced concern in Internet forums such as Facebook.

"While we have great empathy for any parent dealing with diaper rash - a common and sometimes severe condition - the claims made in this lawsuit are completely false," P&G said in a statement. "We have every confidence that we will prevail in this meritless lawsuit."

According to documents, the lawsuit wants the court to require P&G to ensure that Pampers will not cause severe rashes, blisters, welts, chemical burns and other skin ailments and to regularly test the product. It also wants parents to be reimbursed for the diapers and compensated for treatment of skin ailments in their children they say were caused by the diapers.

Last week, Pampers dismissed reports that the diapers were causing skin irritations after the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada said they were investigating the products.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by Pfizer Inc. that sought to thwart a securities lawsuit alleging the drugmaker misrepresented the safety profile of the blockbuster pain drug Celebrex.

The plaintiffs alleged that Pfizer's Pharmacia unit deliberately withheld the full results of a medical study that showed no safety advantage to using Celebrex over less expensive anti-inflammatory drugs.

Pfizer argued that investors missed a two-year statute of limitations to bring the lawsuit. The investors said there was no evidence of a possible fraud until the Washington Post published an article about missing Celebrex data in August 2001, meaning their April 2003 lawsuit was within two years of that development.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled last year that the lawsuit was not filed too late. The Supreme Court let that ruling stand without comment.

The high court's denial of Pfizer's appeal comes a week after the justices ruled unanimously that investors didn't wait too long to file securities lawsuits alleging that Merck & Co. misrepresented the safety of painkiller drug Vioxx. Pfizer's appeal had been on hold pending the outcome of the Merck case.

The case has been closely watched by environmentalists and agribusiness. A federal judge in San Francisco barred the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa nationwide until the government could adequately study the crop's potential impact on organic and conventional varieties.

St. Louis-based Monsanto is arguing that the ban was too broad and was based on the assumption that their products were harmful. Opponents of the use of genetically engineered seeds say they can contaminate conventional crops, but Monsanto says such cross-pollination is unlikely.

Organic groups and farmers exporting to Europe, where genetically modified crops are unpopular, have staunchly opposed the development of such seeds.