Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.courthousenews.com
V.
Plaintiff, As the place of trial
IJ 3 r 0 4 .J 5
FUKON ASSOCIATES, LLC, Index No.:
d/b/a SHOSHANNA’S MATCHES; The basis of the venue is
Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ PLACE OF
BUSINESS
ce
To the above named defendants:
i
rv
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
Se
appearance, on the Plaintiffs Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive
of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not
personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or to
s
answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
ew
Dated: Garden City, New York
March 20,2009
N
516-203-7180
rth
S a w y n Kane
ou
V.
Case No.
RIKON ASSOCIATES, LLC,
d/b/a SHOSHANNA’S MATCHES; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
Plaintiff, NAVA SHEENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, by and
through her attorneys, VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP, brings this action for damages and
other legal and equitable relief from the Defendants’ violation of New York State and City
Business and Consumer Protection laws, stating the following as Plaintiffs claims against Rikon
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated (the “Class”) for Defendants’ violation of New York State General Business La
3, Under the New York Dating Services Law, no contract for social referral services
may require a party to pay more than $1,000 per year. Furthermore, if the service cost is greater
than $25, the seller must provide the consumer with a minimum number of referrals per month.
If this is not done, the consumer has a right to cancel the contract and receive a full refund.
4. Moreover, all contracts for social referral services must allow the consumer to
cancel the service with three (3) business days with no cancellation fee.
5. Defendant charged Plaintiff $2,500.00 for referral services and provided her no
6. Furthermore, Defendant provided Plaintiff with a contract which violates the law
on numerous levels, including the failure to provide for a cancellation period or refunds as
required.
7. Defendant’s practices and contracts are uniform amongst all its clients, thus, none
of the clients were informed of their rights under the law in the contracts they were provided by
Defendant.
8. Defendant even charged clients far greater than $2,500 for their services in further
9. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated (the
“Class”) for a return of the fees charged and all other remedies available to her and the Class.
11. Defendants transact business in New York County and throughout the Tri-State
area. The course of conduct charged herein occurred in New York County.
www.courthousenews.com
12, Defendants are within the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendants operate a dating
PARTIES
13. Plaintiff, Nava Sheena, (“Sheena” or “Plaintiff”), is a resident of New York State.
organized under the laws of the State of New York with a principle placc of business located at
BACKGROUND FACTS
traditional matchmaking services for Jewish professional men and women in the New York Tri-
State area. Shoshanna’s Matches is owned and operated by Shoshanna Rikon (“Shoshanna”)
Shoshanna claims on her website to devote herself to helping her clientele cut down on the time
17. Shoshanna on her website states that she offers a very personal and hands-on
approach to her matchmaking service claiming she is personally responsible for every single
match made by her company. She ostensibly offers personal and privatc consultations in her
18. Shoshanna’s website claims that she works closely with each client in
determining what values, attributes and interests are most important to that client. She then
offers to do everything she can to help you meet that person who will make your heart sing.
www.courthousenews.com
19, However, her representations are as untruthful as the images she portrays of
20. Based upon her actions it is evident that Shoshanna’s only desire is to ascertain
peoples financial wherewithal in order to raid their wallet and take advantage of those coming to
Jewish singles. Many of these individuals are skeptical about using an internet/matchmaking
dating service as the thought of “paying” to meet someone can be a difficult one. Often, those
seeking Shoshanna’s services are corning out of marriages that have ended or years of searching
22. Yet, relying on Shoshanna’s representations these reservations are cast aside and
clients place their trust in Shoshanna Rikon and her company which markets itself as a reputable,
personalized dating service that will cater more specifically to the individual.
23. However, in a niassive scheme, singles who have paid Shoshanna’s Matches’
exorbitant and unlawful service fees, receive services that are grossly deficient in every aspect.
24. In fact, not one representation made, including Shoshanna Rikon’s personal
systematically overcharged its clients for its matchmaking services, charging any amount they
26. Plaintiff and the Class are forced to bring this action to recover the fees that they
have paid as a result of Shoshanna’s Matches’ fraudulent and unlawful conduct, and to compel
Shoshanna’s Matches to abide by the legal restrictions on fees she can charge for dating services.
www.courthousenews.com
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
27. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for dating services within the applicable
period of limitations prior to the commencement of this action. Plaintiff brings this case as a
class action pursuant to CPLR $901, et seq., on behalf of a class defined as follows:
28. Rased on the information obtained from Defendant’s website as well as personal
experience, Plaintiff believes there are at least 500 current and former clients of Shoshanna’s
Matches in the class and as such the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all
members is impractical.
29. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the Class members in that the Class
has been subjected to unlawful fees and contracts utilized by Defendant which are in direct
30. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class members.
Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex, class action litigation.
3 1. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of
similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously,
efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expenses that numerous individual actions
would entail. The Class is readily identifiable from the Defendant’s records.
32. Without a class action, Defendant will retain the benefit of its wrongdoing and
will continue a course of action, which will result in further damages to the Class and future
persons.
www.courthousenews.com
. I’
PLAINTIFF’S FACTS
34. In or about August 2008, Plaintiff and a friend met with a representative of
35. During the meeting, Plaintiff was told that a staff of eight (8) handled each match
made by Defendant. Plaintiff was also told that Shoshanna Rikon herself participated in this
matching process.
36. Plaintiff indicated she wished to think about it and determine whether she could
afford the Defendant’s fees. Plaintiff was told that the fee was $3,000.00 but because she was a
single parent they would reduce it to $2,500.00. The friend with Plaintiff was told a different,
37. Defendant’s representative stated that this was Plaintiffs opportunity to be part of
something “special” and if Plaintiff did not sign up then, they would tear up her application and
39. Plaintiff signed the iLcontract”for dating services that day. Plaintiff also
completed her profile questionnaire which included the criteria she was looking for in a date.
Plaintiff also explained verbally in great detail what she was looking for.
40. Plaintiff paid $2,500 at the time of signing the contract. The contract provided
that Plaintiff would receive twelve (12) dates to be arranged by Defendant, but specifies no time
41. The contract states in bold, “THERE ARE NO REFUNDS” in two parts of the
42. Plaintiff quickly learned that Defendant made many misrepresentations including
communicate with them, however, her calls and emails went unanswered.
44. Finally after reaching someone, Plaintiff learned that Defendant attempted to set
Plaintiff up on two dates, however, both prospective dates clearly did not match Plaintiffs
45. At this point, Plaintiff began to inquire about a refund of her fee. She was told no
46. In December 2008, Plaintiff attempted to dispute the fees which were charged on
47. In a response to one of the credit card companies, Shoshanna Rikon states that she
“normally” chargcs $3,000.00 for eight (8) introductions, but they reduced their fee and
increased the amount of introductions for Plaintiff because they wanted her to feel “spccial.’’
48. Shoshanna also repeatedly states that their contract provided for no refunds of any
kind and blames Plaintiff for the problems she was having with the two matches offered by
Defendant.
49. To this day, Defendant has not returned Plaintiffs fee, nor have they contacted
CAUSE OF ACTION
50. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs above,
5 1. Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff and others wherein Defendant
charged in excess of $25 for social referral services and did not provide Plaintiff' or others with a
52. Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff and others wherein Defendant
53. Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff and others wherein Defendant
failed to provide Plaintiff and others with a right to cancel the contract.
54. Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff and others wherein Defendant
55, Because Defendant has entered into such contracts with Plaintif€ and others, they
have violated the New York State Dating Service Law §394(c).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class demand judgment against Defendants as follows:
57. Preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendant and their officers,
owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert
with them, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, customs, and usages set
forth herein;
.- www.courthousenews.com
I I .
58. A judgment declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and in
59. All damages which Plaintiff and the Class have sustained as a result of
Defendant’s conduct, including but not limited to a return of their fees, plus interest from the
time paid;
60. An award to the Plaintiff and Class of pre-judgment interest at the highest level
rate, from and after the date of service of the initial complaint in this action on all fees received
62. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class their costs and disbursements incurred in
connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, and other
costs;
64. Granting Plaintiff and the Class other and further relief as this Court finds
Respectfully submitted,
By: L
Sara Wyn
www.courthousenews.com