Page Six (Richard Johnson. Corynne Steindler, Neel Shah)

COURTNEY Love is striking back at Dawn Simorangkir, the Austin, Texas, fashion designer whom Love once called a "nasty lying hosebag thief" on Twitter.

Simorangkir, who runs the Boudoir Queen label, sued Kurt Cobain's widow for libel last May, after Love called the designer a prostitute and a drug addict on her Twitter and MySpace pages, as well as in the comments section of online marketplace Etsy.com. Simorangkir claimed Love slimed her because she charged Love for clothes the rocker thought she was getting for free.

This week, Love's lawyer filed a motion in LA Superior Court to toss Simorangkir's suit. Love claims in court papers that Simorangkir actually stole two bags of clothing from her while visiting Love at the Chateau Marmont, and sold off to third parties "hundreds of thousands of dollars" worth of raw materials Love had provided her.

Love claims Simorangkir "repeatedly" asked her to "partake in and procure cocaine" with her, and that she told Love she'd once worked as a call girl in California.

Love's lawyer, Keith Fink, defended Love's online rants to Page Six, saying, "Alternative mediums such as Twitter and personal Web blogs enjoy the same First Amendment protection as do newspapers, television and radio. It is important that this cherished right not be marginalized when speech is communicated via the Internet. Ms. Cobain enjoys using Twitter and expressing her views . . . to her fans and those who are interested in following what she has to say."

A lawyer for Simorangkir told us, "If you know Courtney, you know what's going on here. It certainly doesn't behoove her to engage in a credibility battle. Quite frankly, I cannot wait to get this case in front of a jury. This motion is a loser.

Exclusive - Courtney Love Cobain files Special Motion to Strike - SLAPP against designer.

Keith Fink, attorney for Courtney Love, has filed a Special motion to Strike, known as a SLAPP suit in California against Dawn Simorangkir a designer who sued Courtney in March 2009.

Fink explained, “The anti-SLAPP statute which is the basis for the motion filed by Ms. Cobain was enacted to dispense with lawsuits where the conduct that gives rise to the lawsuit is based on the rights to free speech or petition.”

The lawsuit against Courtney hinges on Courtney’s right to free speech. Courtney used her myspace and twitter accounts to warn fellow celebrities, the public and customers about Simorangkir’s pattern of bad faith conduct.

Fink continued, “Ms. Cobain enjoys communicating with her fans and the public through the internet. Many people communicate with her through her blog on myspace and in real time via twitter.   Ms. Simorangkir’s lawsuit is based entirely on her displeasure with Ms. Cobain informing the public that as consumer she found Ms. Simorangkir’s business practices to be illegal.”

Fink said that the suit “strikes at the very heart of what the First Amendment protects.” He also explained that Courtney would be filing her own complaint against Simorangkir. “Our complaint against Ms. Simorangkir is for overcharging Ms. Cobain, not returning Ms. Cobain’s garments and other unfair business practices.”

Courtney had initially hired Simorangkir to refashion and design clothing from Courtney’s extensive closet full of expensive one-of-a-kind pieces of vintage clothing that she has been collecting for decades. The clothing would be “re-worked” or “up-cycled” and mixed with new and different textiles to form an unusual and unique design. Courtney agreed to give Simorangkir bags of clothing and textiles for her to design with and that any unused clothing and materials would be returned. After some time Courtney received an invoice for the first pieces designed by Simorangkir and the amounts were higher than originally agreed. Instead of returning Courtney’s clothing and reworking the invoice, Simorangkir threatened to keep all of Courtney’s items unless she paid.

Courtney later found out that Simorangkir sold the designs that Courtney had given Simorangkir the raw materials for, and were to be her own her commissioned designs, to third parties.

Courtney chose to warn the public about Simorangkir, and that is when Courtney was sued.

Link

Courtney Love was never served says Atty Keith Fink

 Courtney Love, 45, who formerly fronted the band Hole, was married to Cobain from 1991 until the singer’s suicide in 1994.  She was sued by Dawn Simorangker for “using Twitter to disseminate malicious libel.” The merits of the lawsuit will not be in question until proof of service has been established.

The hearing on Love’s challenge to the validity of the claim of service is scheduled for Aug. 17 before Judge Aurelio Munoz.

Courtney Love’s lawyer, Keith Fink, says, “she was not personally handed a libel lawsuit filed by her onetime fashion designer while the singer was sunbathing topless, contradicting the sworn statement of a process server.”

The process server, Yvonne Thomson, says she served Love two months ago and is absolutely sure it was her, but Love’s lawyer Fink, rejects the assertion.  “The process server’s certainty she served Ms. Cobain is as credible as Rafael Palmeiro’s insistence before Congress that he did not take steroids,” said attorney Keith A. Fink.

It may be hard to prove Courney was served since she was not living at the address where Thomson said she served her.

Courtney denies in her own sworn declaration that she lived at the St. Ives Drive address when the process server claims to have brought the legal papers. “I have not and have never been personally served with the summons and complaint in this action,” Courtney stated. “I have not lived at the St. Ives address since approximately May 13…”

Love denies in her own sworn declaration that she lived at the St. Ives Drive address when the process server claims to have brought the legal papers. "I have not and have never been personally served with the summons and complaint in this action,'' Love stated. "I have not lived at the St. Ives address since approximately May 13...'' Love says she moved after that date to the Chateau Marmont hotel in West Hollywood. Fink said that the St. Ives Drive home was a place the singer had rented in the past. The lawyer said he is preparing to file a motion to dismiss Simorangkir's suit and bring a countersuit against the plaintiff for breach of contract. It will allege that the designer sold Love's clothes without permission. A hearing on Love's challenge to the validity of the claim of service is scheduled for Aug. 17 before Judge Aurelio Munoz.Courtney says that she moved to the Chateau Marmont hotel in West Hollywood.  And Fink further explained that the St. Ives Drive home was a place the singer had rented in the past.

In court papers filed Monday by Simorangkir, the process server, Thomson states she gave copies of a summons and Simorangkir’s complaint to Love at a Hollywood Hills home on June 7. Love was lying on a lawn chair at about 2:50 p.m. with her bikini top pulled down when Thomson approached her, according to the process server’s declaration.

Thomson says that when she called Love by name, the singer replied by “opening up her eyes, pulling up her bikini top and saying,  ’Yeah?”’ The process server says she then handed Love the legal papers, told her “You’ve been served” and walked away.

“I am certain … that the woman was Ms. Love,” Thomson stated, saying she recognized the singer from seeing her on television, the Internet and in magazines.

This dispute began when Courtney hired Simorangkir to create clothing for her and flew her out to Los Angeles, but then balked when she was invoiced for the designer’s work in February and March, according to the lawsuit.

When Simorangkir suspended her work for Love, according to the court documents, the singer began “exhibiting an intense level of animosity towards  Simorangkir that has gone well beyond what any reasonable person would consider acceptable behavior.”   According to Dawn Simorangkir’s suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on March 26, Love used Twitter to disseminate malicious libel as part of “an obsessive and delusional crusade’‘ against the entertainer. Simorangkir also claims Love, widow of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, defamed her on MySpace.

Fink said that “he is preparing to file a motion to dismiss Simorangkir’s suit and bring a countersuit against the plaintiff for breach of contract.  It will allege that the designer sold Love’s clothes without permission.”

Link

Restaurant Squabble: Lawyer for Ex-Madonna Flame Seeks Woman's Business Financial Records

   LOS ANGELES (CNS) - A lawyer for a former boyfriend of Madonna today
chastised a West Hollywood businesswoman who he alleges may have used his
client's money from a $600,000 loan for reasons outside their original
agreement.
   The attorney, Keith A. Fink, filed court papers Monday seeking a review
of financial documents from three of four businesses Sandy Sachs co-owns with
Robin Gans to see whether Chris Paciello's funds were used only for
improvements at the Murano restaurant as he intended.
   Paciello dated Madonna in the early 1990s. He also has been romantically
linked to actresses Jennifer Lopez and Sofia Vergara, former MTV host Daisy
Fuentes and models Niki Taylor and Naomi Campbell. Sachs and Gans are long-time
stalwarts of the West Hollywood gay business community.
   Valerie F. Horn, Sachs' attorney, maintains in her court papers that the
request for the documents is too extensive and is an invasion of her client's
privacy. So, Fink is asking a judge to rule in Paciello's favor and a hearing
is scheduled July 13.
   "The explanation is simple: Ms. Sachs is trying to hide the financial
records of her other establishments because she knows she (allegedly) diverted
the money Mr. Paciello loaned Murano to these other places,'' Fink said.
   Sachs' other restaurants are The Factory nightclub, Girl Bar and the
Fitness Factory gym.
   "It is alleged and believed by Mr. Paciello that Ms. Sachs ... has used
the proceeds of the loan made to her by Mr. Paciello towards the operations
of those entities without his consent,'' Fink's court papers state.
   Horn was not immediately available for comment.
   Sachs and Gans started the litigation between themselves and Paciello
with a lawsuit filed Dec. 26. According to the women's court papers, Paciello --
whose real name is Christian Ludwigsen -- told them last June that he was
interested in investing $600,000 in the restaurant, Murano, in exchange for
receiving 50 percent of the company's common stock.
   A snag occurred when Sachs and Gans learned that as a convicted felon,
Paciello could not own stock in their enterprise because of California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control licensing rules, their suit states.
   Paciello spent seven years in prison after pleading guilty to murder and
armed robbery in October 2000 for being the getaway driver in a home-invasion
robbery in which Staten Island, N.Y. housewife Judith Shemtov was shot to death
by a Paciello cohort in 1993.
   Finally, Paciello verbally agreed to lend Gans and Sachs the $600,000 if
they agreed to remodel Murano and re-open by Labor Day with a chef picked by
him, according to the plaintiffs.
   "(Paciello) promised to bring such entertainment clientele into the
restaurant such as Madonna, Jennifer Lopez and and Leonardo DiCaprio'' and that
(Murano) "would become the hot spot in Los Angeles,'' the suit states.
   Although Gans and Sachs completed the improvements, Paciello only loaned
them $350,240, claiming he could not provide the rest because he was
"broke,'' according to their court papers.
   Paciello, 37, filed his own lawsuit Jan. 15 in Los Angeles Superior
Court against Sachs, Gans and their business venture, Murano Ristorante
Partners Inc. The complaint has been consolidated with the Sachs-Gans suit.
   Paciello alleges 11 causes of action, including fraud and deceit, breach
of a written contract and both intentional and negligent misrepresentation.
   Paciello's suit states that he provided the women with two-thirds of the
$600,000 loan -- $400,000 -- and that they promised to make him the "front
man'' at Murano with a management fee distribution of half of Murano's profits.
   Instead, Sachs "exerted control over every aspect of the restaurant,
most of the time detrimentally interfering with management and operation,'' he
alleges.
   Paciello has not been repaid the $400,000, according to his suit.
   Paciello is a former owner of the nightclubs Liquid and Bar Room in the
South Beach area of Miami Beach, Fla.
 

 Ida Ljungqvist 2009 Playboy Playmate turns to Keith Fink to Defend against unjust attack by Wife in Divorce Battle.

On May 3, 2009, Ida Ljungqvist received the honor from Hugh Hefner of becoming the 2009 Playboy Playmate of the year.  Within weeks of receiving this honor, Ms. Ljundgqvist was drawn into a heated divorce battle by Katrina Kantner, who is divorcing her husband Doug Kantner, in Ohio.

Mrs. Kantner has publicly accused Ida of conspiring with Katrina’s husband Doug,  to steal money from their marital estate and the Kantner’s own children.

Ida’s Attorney Keith Fink explained to me, “All of the allegations are pure fiction.  Ida never has had anything but a platonic relationship relationship with Mr. Kantner and has never received a single gift of money from him nor incurred charges on his credit card.”

Fink continued, “What is most infuriating is the false allegations made in the complaint that are intended to inflame the public against Mr. Kantner and Ms. Ljungqvist by stating ‘the Kantner children are being hurt by a diversion of money’.  I am upset that these outrageous allegations will besmirch Ms. Ljungqvist good name and reputation and as a result may damage her long standing charity work and fund raising efforts which she has been doing years before she was a Playmate.  I have always believed like Frost, that ‘a lie spreads half way round the world before the truth catches up with it.’ “

Fink elaborated on Ida’s deep commitment to charity work: “Ms. Ljungqvist has used her celebrity status as a Playmate and now as the 2009 Playmate of the Year for the betterment of those less fortunate. She has helped raise funds for charities and benevolent organizations that develop and provide supplements for severely malnourished children worldwide, an orphanage in Africa, a scholarship program that directly funds K-12 education and medical care for HIV positive children in Tanzania, and an HIV cure research program.”

Mrs. Kantner chose to disparage Ida, purely because she is a high-profile celebrity who met her husband Mr. Kantner through his business affiliation as a client of Playboy.

Ms. Ljungqvist met Mr. Kantner at Playboy Party’s and has been hired by Mr. Kantner as a professional host at trade shows for his business.  Ms. Ljungqvist considers Mr. Kantner a business acquaintance and friend. The false lurid allegations are a desperate attempt to to extort monies in the pending divorce proceedings.

Mrs. Kantner and her children are far from starving and continue to live an opulent life.  Mrs. Kantner has a cook, maid and gardener to care for her home, and recently vacationed in Cancun, Mexico.

Fink concluded, “we live in an age where many people reach conclusions based on what appears as the first google search article.  An entirely baseless complaint like this instant one may lead someone who simply reads the unconfirmed first story that covers this specious suit and decide not to contribute to a charity that Ida sponsors. He continued, “That really is a tragedy given the amazing eleemosynary endeavors she is involved in. Ida as the 50th Playmate of the Year will continue to use this honor to better the lives of others. As for this lawsuit she will take no prisoners. After she prevails in this litigation we will sue Ms. Kantner and her attorney for this malicious lawsuit”

Link