|
War Erupts Over 'ESPYs' Pre-Party |
|
Saturday, 17 July 2010 |
|
ESPN is locked in a bitter standoff with a famous L.A. restaurant -- all over an "ESPY Awards Pre-Award Show Party" that's supposed to go down at the eatery ... tonight!
TMZ has learned ESPN sent a cease and desist letter to Cicada restaurant in downtown L.A. -- accusing them of violating its trademark by using the ESPN name to promote an event that's not officially endorsed by ESPN.
But the restaurant is serving up some legal smack talk of their own in a strongly-worded letter back to the network -- in which they rip into ESPN for being "arrogant," "narcissistic" and "out of step ... with its own assumed importance."
As for their legal defense, the restaurant claims it is not the one behind the party -- it is merely the venue ... but Cicada's attorney, Keith Fink, closed his letter with a particularly personal parting shot saying:
"This whole situation is more of farce than the 'King James' show aired by ESPN last week." |
|
|
ABC News: Did Ritz Honor 'Whites Only' Request? |
|
Monday, 26 April 2010 |
|
Did Ritz Honor 'Whites Only' Request?
The Ritz-Carlton, Naples Allegedly Granted a Guest's Desire Only To Be Served By White Staff
By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
  Luxury hotels aim to fulfill every guest's needs, dreams and desires. But what if that includes being served only by white employees who sound American?
One Florida beach resort allegedly granted just such a wish last month, entering into its computer system a guest's request that he and his family not be served by "people of color" or staff with "foreign accents," according to a federal lawsuit filed this week.
The posh Ritz-Carlton Naples is being sued by one of its current employees, a black man of Haitian descent who says the hotel discriminated against him by not allowing him to serve the family at its restaurant in March.
Wadner Tranchant, 40, says in the lawsuit obtained by ABC News that the upscale resort created a work environment that was "hostile or abusive." Tranchant still works at the resort, according to his lawyer Michel McDonnell, who would not comment on the suit, saying the complaint speaks for itself.
When reached on the phone by ABC News, Tranchant also refused to comment.
His suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Fort Myers, Fla., seeks more than $75,000 in punitive and compensatory damages.
"Obviously we can't comment on pending lawsuit, however it is the policy of the Ritz-Carlton hotel company to neither condone nor tolerate discrimination or harassment of any kind by either our employees or our guests," said Vivian A. Deuschl, spokeswoman for the hotel chain.
But the family has since been banned from all Ritz-Carlton hotels worldwide, Deuschl added.
Deuschl said Ritz-Carlton is investigating the facts underlying the lawsuit and is reminding all of its employees of the company's "strong non-discrimination policies."
Stay Up to Date on the Latest Travel Trends from ABC News on Twitter
Luxury brands like Ritz-Carlton, Four Seasons and Mandarin Oriental take service very seriously, said Steven A. Carvell, associate dean for academic affairs at Cornell University's School of Hotel Administration.
But, he said, there are some demands that just can't be met.
"I would presume that anybody at a management position at a luxury property in this country would understand that we do not accommodate requests based on racial bias because that would be an improper request," Carvell said. "It would also be improper to say: when you send my housekeeper up, send the pretty blond."
"The idea that the guest is always right has an asterisk attached to it which is: usually, but not always," added Bjorn Hanson, an associate professor of hospitality and tourism management at New York University.
California employment lawyer Keith A. Fink said blocking the waiter from working would violate civil rights laws.
"This Ritz single policy of a wholesale exclusion of a minority group or those with foreign accents from working in certain jobs in a place of public accommodations is so offensive I am sure the Ritz will settle this matter fast."
Ritz-Carlton Allegedly Agrees to Guest's Racist Request
According to the lawsuit, on Feb. 28, 2010, a British man and his family checked into the Ritz for a roughly two-week stay -- at a cost of at least $8,000 -- and told the hotel they preferred not be served by "people of color" or staff with "foreign accents."
Ritz-Carlton, like other upscale hotel chains, tries to meet guests' every need. The staff is known for bringing chilled water, fresh fruit and cooling damp towels to guests lounging at the pool and beach. In Naples, the Ritz rooms have all the amenities including Bulgari bath products and flat-screen televisions in the marble-clad bathrooms. Plush robes and slippers are in each room to help guests relax and each night the housekeeping staff again freshens up the room and prepare the bed for the guests sleep.
Rates at the Naples hotel during the peak winter weeks that the British family visited start at $600 a night for the smallest room and climb to $1,900 for a suite or $5,000 a night for the presidential suite. Other times of year rates can start around $230 a night.
For that price, the hotel prides itself in knowing what guests want. Everything from the way guests like their eggs cooked, or the type of newspaper they read is entered into the chain's computer system. If a Ritz guest likes to have chilled San Pellegrino in the room, that will be noted in the system and the sparkling water will be there for waiting upon their next stay at any Ritz hotel.
When the guest told the hotel about his racial preferences, that too was allegedly entered into the hotel's computer system at the direction of the hotel's managing director and vice president Edward V. Staros, according to court documents.
The note said "as per Mr. Staros this couple is very very prejudice and do like like ppl of color or foreign accents."
Staros declined to comment, referring all questions about the suit to the hotel's public relations team.
Sherie Brezina, director of Florida Gulf Coast University's Hospitality Management program, told the Naples News-Press that Staros is an ethics authority for the Ritz-Carlton chain, and travels to other hotels to train staff.
Discrimination at the Ritz-Carlton in Naples?
On March 12, 2010, the family came for dinner at the hotel's Grill Restaurant. Tranchant was working there but was prevented by immediate supervisors that night from serving the family dinner, the suit says.
Tranchant said in the suit that he "was humiliated, embarrassed, frightened, intimidated, subject to undeserved shame and suffered severe emotional distress." Tranchant says in his suit that he has sought medical and psychological treatment. He declined to comment.
New York University's Hanson said that generally the goal of luxury brands is to exceed guest expectations.
"The challenge is that achieving that goal can lead to sometimes impossible expectations," he said.
Some chains have daily staff meetings to review all arriving and departing guests for that day and whatever special needs they might have.
But sometimes a request is just either impossible, illegal or immoral, Hanson said.
In such cases, hotel staffers should repeat and acknowledge the request to show they are listening, apologize for not being able to fulfill it and then offer a substitute option, he added.
"I was a general manager early in my career, and my position at the time, which I think is the most common policy, is that employees are no less important than guests," Hanson said.
While he wouldn't comment on the specific Ritz-Carlton case, Hanson said that if he ever got such a request, he would tell the guest: "Our employees are all well-trained and are prepared to and look forward to serving all guests. We really aren't able or willing to compromise our service by granting that request."
"If the guest chooses to stay elsewhere," Hanson added, "it is actually is positive because word gets around to the employees that they are truly valued."
With reports from ABC News' Desiree Adib
Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures
|
|
|
ABC News: Sexual Harassment Claims by Men Growing but Not Equal |
|
Sunday, 28 March 2010 |
|
Sexual Harassment Claims by Men Growing but Not Equal
Critics Say Sexual Harassment Claims by Men Still Harder to Pursue
By ALICE GOMSTYN
ABC NEWS Business Unit
After Jed Lorenzen won his sexual harassment lawsuit, he bought himself a new suit.
"It's my power suit to remind me that's what you get when you stand up for yourself," the 33-year-old Los Angeles, Calif. man said.
When it comes to alleged sexual harassment, more men are standing up for themselves these days. Of the nearly 12,700 sexual harassment complaints filed with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission in the 2009 fiscal year, 16 percent -- some 2,030 -- came from men. That's up from 9.9 percent, or roughly 1,430, a decade-and-half earlier. The number of complaints from men increased even as the number of overall cases have declined.
"It's not really clear whether more men are being subjected to harassment or more men are willing to come forward," said Ernest Haffner, a senior attorney adviser at the EEOC. "There are more decisions in the courts dealing with sexual harassment by men -- it could be that just more men are aware of their rights as they speak to attorneys."
But just because more men are filing claims, it doesn't mean male victims have achieved parity with their female counterparts -- at least not in the public eye, some experts say.
Attorney Keith Fink, who represented Lorenzen and his twin brother Wyatt in a complaint the two filed against a restaurant, says men still face a stigma in speaking out about sexual harassment. That's true for both male and female-instigated harassment, he said.
"People either are homophobic or they think men can weather the storm of verbal barrage better than a female, or they're just not as empathetic as a female (victim)," he said.
In the Lorenzens' case, a jury awarded the brothers $1,000 each in damages, a figure Fink suspects would have been much higher had his clients been women.
Jed Lorenzen agrees.
"I thought the monetary amount was quite ridiculous, but I think it was because we weren't women up there on the stand, breaking down and crying and looking, I guess, 'more weak.'"
"I don' t consider women weak," he added, "(but) I think because we are men, our case wasn't taken as seriously."
Fink said that the potential for lower awards -- and hence, lower attorney's fees -- is one reason why some attorneys may decline to pursue sexual harassment complaints.
Not all claims are resolved with small awards, however. Some male sexual harassment cases have resulted in payments of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, including a lawsuit filed by the EEOC against the restaurant chain, The Cheesecake Factory. A settlement reached between the EEOC and the chain last November stipulated that The Cheesecake Factory pay $345,000 to six male employees who claimed they had been subject to "sexually abusive behavior" such as "simulated rape" at a Cheesecake Factory restaurant in Chandler, Ariz., according to an EEOC statement and court documents.
In court documents filed in response to the lawsuit, The Cheesecake Factory argued that the employees had not been "subjected to unlawful sexual harassment." After the settlement was announced, the chain released a statement to the press saying that it had agreed to the settlement to prevent continued litigation and continued to deny wrongdoing.
Twin Brothers Claim Unwanted Touching
In their claim, the Lorenzen brothers alleged that, in 2006, the two male owners of Los-Angeles-based Vermont Restaurant touched them in inappropriate ways, including one instance in which one of the owners inserted his finger into Wyatt Lorenzen's buttocks. The brothers, who worked as waiters at the restaurant, also accused the owners of making sexual comments, including one owner's claims that he masturbated to photographs of the brothers.
The restaurant owners, Michael Gelzhiser and Manuel Nesta, have maintained that the brothers' allegations were false. In court documents, the owners -- who have since sold the restaurant -- argued that the brothers themselves engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior toward co-workers and customers. (Lorenzen denies the allegation.)
Gelzhiiser and Nesta's attorney, Jonathon Kaplan, said that though the jury awarded the brothers $1,000 each in general damages, the jury denied to award punitive damages -- an important point, he said.
"Punitive or exemplary damages are awarded in order to make an example of an egregiously acting defendant or to punish a defendant," he said. The jury did not find "the requisite behavior or outrageous conduct by defendants in order to impose" such awards.
With respect to male-against-male sexual harassment or same-gender harassment in particular, Los Angeles-based career strategist Cynthia Shapiro said victims often find frustration in trying to appeal for help within their own companies. Companies may feel uncomfortable pursuing complaints against gay or lesbian managers because they fear being labeled homophobic.
"The gay population is very well protected right now," she said. "Companies are sometimes really caught in the middle & The protected class can rise up very strongly and they have the law on their side and I think companies are too scared" to take action against them.
Explaining the Increase
Experts have several theories as to why more men are filing complaints. One is that more men felt comfortable filing complaints against fellow male co-workers after the landmark 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case, "Oncale v. Sundowner," in which an oil rig worker levied charges of sexual harassment against male co-workers and a supervisor. The court ruled unanimously that federal civil rights laws that ban sex discrimination also apply to same-gender sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment by women against men, meanwhile, took on a cultural resonance in the 1990s after the release of the 1994 film "Disclosure," starring Michael Douglas and Demi Moore. In the film, Moore starred as Douglas' sexually aggressive boss.
"I think that's what really brought awareness to the forefront -- that's when training started to include awareness on both sides," Shapiro said.
The increase may also stem from a recession that's seen many more men lose their jobs than women. Fink said that sexual harassment claims often begin as wage and hour claims -- complaints over unpaid overtime, for instance -- by fired employees.
Questions about sexual harassment will arise as lawyers seek to discern whether there are other claims to be filed against their clients' former employers.
"Lawyers will try to twist your arm, see if there's any other claims because there's a finite amount of money involved in wage and hour claims," Fink said.
Discrimination claims can net more money, especially when businesses have employment practice liability insurance, which covers companies for discrimination lawsuits, he said. Such insurance is less common, Fink said, for wage and hour claims.
|
|
|
Talent Agency Sexual Harassment |
|
Wednesday, 10 February 2010 |
|
By BILL HETHERMAN
LOS ANGELES (CNS) - A woman who alleges she was sexually harassed and
fired by the Hollywood agent who helped Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie get $15
million for photos of their twins can take most of her case to trial, a judge
ruled today.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Holly E. Kendig found there were
triable issues in Heather Devlin's case against Todd Shemarya, except for her
claims for unpaid overtime and denial of rest and meal breaks. Those were
thrown out on grounds that, as a talent agent, her job had only limited
supervision and she was therefore a salaried employee.
But despite Devlin's overall victory in court today, the judge said she
saw problems ahead for the woman's suit, which is set for trial on March 8.
``It is not going to be an easy case for either side to try in front of
a jury,'' Kendig said.
Kendig also turned away a request by Shemarya's attorneys to impose
sanctions of more than $500,000 on Devlin's lawyers. They maintained the suit
was filed to harass their client.
Devlin's lawyer, Keith A. Fink, said he was pleased with today's rulings.
``The First Amendment's protection for freedom of speech doesn't give an
employer the right to sexually harass a woman in the workplace,'' Fink said.
``Defense counsel's argument in his motion that a boss can denigrate a woman
with demeaning and degrading sexual comments is one that has no basis in the
law and is an affront to important civil rights principles set forth in anti-
discrimination legislation.''
Devlin filed her suit in November 2008 against Shemarya and his company,
Todd Shemarya Artists Inc., alleging sexual harassment, wrongful termination,
gender discrimination and retaliation. She alleges he fired her as his personal
assistant to make way for his former gay lover, Parke Steiger.
Shemarya, whose clientele also includes Matthew McConaughey and
Christina Aguilera, is alleged by Devlin to have subjected her to a barrage of
offensive sexual comments.
But in court papers contained within more than 1,000 pages of documents
submitted in support of his motion to dismiss the case, Shemarya attorney Adam
Levin said it was ``undisputed'' that Devlin regularly used crude language.
Levin's court papers say Devlin is a ``self-described fag hag'' -- a
name given to a woman who associates mainly with gay or bisexual men -- who
often dined with Shemarya and referred to him as ``sweetness,'' ``doll,''
``sunshine'' and ``a wonderful man.''
Another Devlin lawyer, Olaf J. Muller, said his client and Shemarya were
no longer friends at the time of her firing.
Shemarya maintains Devlin was fired in part for not getting work for his
clients and says she managed to get one of his more famous ones angry at her.
``In or about 2006, Jennifer Aniston called me (sounding) very unhappy
and complained about Heather having called Jennifer's assistant to gossip,''
Shemarya says. ``I spoke with Heather about Jennifer's complaint, and she
denied having done anything wrong.''
Denying any gender discrimination, the agent also says he replaced
Devlin with a woman and that his relationship with the Steiger ended two years
before the man began working with him.
Unlike agents who help famous clients get film deals, brand agents like
Shemarya help celebrities take advantage of their fame by arranging contracts
that result in free luxury goods and designer brands.
According to Devlin's suit, she was forced to hear jokes by Shemarya at
work about Pitt, McConaughey, Djimon Hounsou and singer k.d. lang, all centered
on their sexuality or private parts.
Devlin also alleges she was present while Shemarya engaged in vulgar
telephone conversations in the office with his female friends, including
Aniston, producer Constance Schwartz and longtime Pitt rep Cynthia Pett-Dante.
When Shemarya fired Devlin from her $125,000-a-year job, she sought
revenge and ``filed (her lawsuit) filled with scandalous allegations involving
celebrities represented by (Shemarya),'' according to the agent's court papers.
|
|
|
Nightclub Kingpin Assaulted |
|
Tuesday, 09 February 2010 |
|
Former club king Chris Paciello was arrested on a charge of assault with a deadly weapon after a nightclub brawl at Voyeur in West Hollywood. Paciello, a mobbed-up former Miami nightclub owner who dated Madonna and Sophia Vergara, was imprisoned in 2000 for six years for his role in a Staten Island robbery and murder. On Feb. 2 at 3 a.m., Paciello was busted following a fight with club security. A rep for the LA County Sheriff's Department told Page Six that Paciello was released later that day on a $30,000 bond. Paciello's lawyer, Keith Fink, insisted to us: "There was no weapon involved. The only weapon was his hands. The bouncers were pushing a number of people outside Voyeur, and a number of fights broke out. Chris pushed back, and then three or four bouncers jumped on him and kicked the [bleep] out of him. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He is contemplating civil action against the bouncers."
|
|
|
Lawyer Claims Success in Serving Jennifer Aniston With Depo Subpoena |
|
Thursday, 17 December 2009 |
|
By Bill Hetherman
LOS ANGELES (CNS) - A lawyer for a woman suing a Hollywood agent for
alleged sexual harassment is claiming success in serving one of the defendant's
celebrity clients, Jennifer Aniston, with legal papers asking her to testify in
a deposition.
Published reports show the legal documents regarding Heather Devlin's
lawsuit being placed on the windshield of Aniston's sport-utility vehicle
outside the Sunset Tower hotel on Thursday night, then being picked up by her
bodyguard.
Keith A. Fink, Devlin's lawyer, said the resistance of celebrity
witnesses in the case to accept subpoenas has forced his office to wait for
them outside fashionable establishments alongside the paparazzi.
``It is unfortunate that we had to waste time and money trying to serve
Ms. Aniston, but this was necessitated by defendants' game of hide-and-seek,''
Fink said. ``Every witness in this case who is a celebrity, the defendants
refuse to voluntarily produce or give us contact information.''
Devlin's attorneys want to take testimony from the former ``Friends''
star as well as Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and Rachel Zoe -- star of the Bravo
network reality television show ``The Rachel Zoe Project'' -- concerning a
lawsuit against the plaintiff's former boss, Todd Shemarya.
Shemarya helped Pitt and Jolie get $15 million for photos of their
twins. His clientele also includes Matthew McConaughey and Christina Aguilera.
Unlike agents who help famous clients get film deals, brand agents like
Shemarya help celebrities take advantage of their fame by arranging contracts
that result in free luxury goods and designer brands.
Devlin filed her sexual harassment and wrongful dismissal suit against
Shemarya and his company, Todd Shemarya Artists Inc., in Los Angeles Superior
Court in November 2008 alleging he made vulgar jokes in the workplace about
celebrities.
Shemarya is alleged by Devlin to have subjected her to a barrage of
offensive sexual comments.
According to Devlin's suit, she was forced to hear jokes by Shemarya at
work about Pitt, McConaughey, actor Djimon Hounsou and singer k.d. lang, all
centered on their sexuality or private parts.
Devlin also alleges she was present while Shemarya engaged in vulgar
telephone conversations in the office with his female friends, including
Aniston, producer Constance Schwartz and longtime Pitt rep Cynthia Pett-Dante.
She also maintains Shemarya fired her as his assistant to make way for
his former gay lover, Parke Steiger.
Devlin's attorneys say information obtained in the depositions will help
them prepare their opposition to Shemarya's motion to throw out the case,
scheduled for Feb. 2.
Another hearing is scheduled Dec. 22 on whether Devlin's lawyers are
entitled to the addresses of all four celebrities, although the service of
papers on Aniston may make the hearing regarding her moot.
Devlin's attorneys say Pitt and Jolie could have crucial information and
that the privacy rights of the pair are not absolute. They point to their
client's deposition regarding alleged misappropriation of expensive merchandise
by Shemarya.
``(Devlin) testified that (Shemarya) had ordered her to commit fraud by
requesting products from various high-end labels on behalf of Mr. Pitt and Ms.
Angelina Jolie when, in fact, the products were for (Shemarya's) own use and
were ordered without Mr. Pitt's knowledge,'' according to the plaintiff's court
papers.
Devlin's lawyers say they want to depose Aniston and Zoe based on a
sworn declaration by Shemarya in which he says both women told him they had
problems with Devlin.
``In or about 2006, Jennifer Aniston called me (sounding) very unhappy
and complained about Heather having called Jennifer's assistant to gossip,''
Shemarya's declaration states. ``I spoke with Heather about Jennifer's
complaint, and she denied having done anything wrong.''
In the Zoe example, Shemarya says Devlin was not a reliable travel planner.
``In ... 2006 ... Zoe called me very upset and complained that Heather
had booked her to travel on the wrong date, had not given her information she
needed for the job and had not followed through with her,'' Shemarya stated.
Zoe told Shemarya she did not want to work any longer with Devlin, so he
had to remove her from the stylist's account, he says.
``I confronted Heather with Zoe's complaints and she denied that she had
done anything wrong and sought to blame others,'' Shemarya stated.
The agent also says he replaced Devlin with a woman, and that his
relationship with Steiger ended two years before the man began working with
him.
Shemarya's lawyer, Adam Levin, states in his own sworn statement that
the motion by Devlin's attorneys ``implicates the fundamental privacy rights of
Pitt, Jolie and Aniston, non-parties to this litigation.'' Levin does not
mention Zoe.
Copies of letters from the law firm of Lavely & Singer -- attorneys for
Pitt, Jolie and Aniston -- objecting to the Devlin motion are contained within
court papers in the case. The letters state that all three celebrities
constantly deal with ``unwanted, harassing and/or even threatening intrusions
by overzealous fans, unbalanced or psychotic pursuers and even certain
paparazzi.''
|
|
|
Jon Voight Ordered to Pay Attorney Fees |
|
Friday, 06 November 2009 |
|
Jon Voight Ordered to Pay Attorney Fees
By Bill Hetherman
Actor Jon Voight and the parents of his manager must reimburse $100,000 in attorney fees in a lawsuit they filed against two New Zealand producers who had sued the three claiming they steered them wrong on movie projects.
Daybreak Pacific Ltd. producers Paul and Mark Huljich sued Voight, along with Hank and Dorothy Paul, and others, in federal court in February 2006, claiming fraud and breach of contract and seeking millions of dollars over failed business investments.
The Huljiches maintained they would not have invested in film projects with Steven Paul but for Voight's alleged assertions that members of the Paul family were people of integrity.
The Pauls, who are in their 70s, are the parents of Voight's manager, Steven Paul.
The Huljiches on June 26 were awarded a $630,000 judgment in the federal court suit, but the judgment was against defendants in the case other than Voight and the Pauls.
After being found innocent, Voight and the Pauls alleged in a malicious prosecution complaint filed May 28 in Santa Monica Superior Court that the producers and their attorneys had no reasonable grounds for suing them.
Voight maintained the Huljiches sued him and his manager's parents solely to get a settlement from the manager.
The lawyers for the Huljiches filed motions to dismiss the parts of the Superior Court case against them on grounds it was brought to keep their clients from enforcing the $630,000 judgment, and on Aug. 10, Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Elizabeth A. Grimes dismissed the part of the case against attorney Peter J. Anderson, who represented the Huljiches for a short time, according to Anderson's lawyer, David J. Wilson.
Later that month, court papers were filed on behalf of Voight and the Pauls dropping their case against former Huljich attorneys Petty Tsay and David Rose. Tsay and her firm, Eisner Frank & Kahan, then filed a motion for attorneys' fees.
Grimes ruled that Voight and the Pauls must share in paying $100,000 in those fees.
And now, the attorneys who were sued for malicious prosecution may sue the actor for malicious prosecution.
"The suit against the ... law firm had no basis and was an attempt by the plaintiffs here to extort a reduction in the amount awarded in the underlying matter," Tsay attorney Keith A. Fink said. "While we are happy with the order ... this doesn't unscramble the negativity my clients had to endure from this baseless lawsuit. We will be filing a malicious prosecution action against Mr. Voight."
Attorney Joe Hariton, who represents all three plaintiffs, did not immediately return a call for comment on today's ruling.
Voight and the Pauls were never able to serve the Huljiches with the lawsuit, Fink said. |
|
|
Woman's Lawsuit Against Playboy Centerfold of the Year Dropped |
|
Friday, 06 November 2009 |
|
Playmate Victory: Woman's Lawsuit Against Playboy Centerfold of the Year Dropped
Playboy Playmate of the Year Ida Ljungqvist won a
round in court when a woman dropped a lawsuit alleging the centerfold teamed
with the plaintiff's estranged husband to take child support from her children.
A Santa Monica Superior Court minute order dated Monday stated that
Katrina Kantner's case was dismissed.
Ljungqvist's lawyer, Keith A. Fink, said Kantner decided not to pursue
her lawsuit after she and her new attorney were told they faced the likelihood
of a malicious prosecution action.
Kantner's lawyer, Robert E. Gentino, did not immediately return a call
for comment.
Kantner filed the lawsuit May 28. She alleged her husband, Doug Kantner,
gave Ljungqvist more than $90,000 in cash and gifts while failing to honor
his obligation to pay her $10,000 a month in child and spousal support.
Fink said his client was not engaged in any kind of amorous relationship
with Doug Kantner and that she was being targeted because she is a celebrity.
"The claims against Ms. Ljungqvist were entirely false and spun from
whole cloth by Ms. Kantner in an attempt to harm her ex-husband, who she is
still involved with in a nasty divorce," Fink alleged.
"The most maddening of the false allegations to me was that Ms. Kantner
wasn't paid in full by her husband for all child and marital support," he
said. "This was a lie and she was paid in full."
Ljungqvist, 28, is the first African-born Playmate. She has raised funds
for charities that help malnourished children and provide medical care to HIV-
positive children in her native Tanzania, Fink said. |
|
|
Press Center 
