Nava

www.courthousenews.com

1 ON41112009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK NAVA SHEENA, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

Plaintiff designates

COUNTY OF NEW YORK As the place of trial

V.

IJ

3 r 0 4 .J 5

Index No.: The basis of the venue is DEFENDANTS’ PLACE OF BUSINESS

ce

FUKON ASSOCIATES, LLC, d/b/a SHOSHANNA’S MATCHES; Defendants.

rv i

To the above named defendants:

ew

s

Se

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 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 answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.

N

Dated: Garden City, New York March 20,2009

Rikon Associates, LLC d/b/a Shoshanna’s Matches

C

TO:

ou rth

ou

se

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff VALLI KANE & VAGNXNI, LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 5 19 Garden City, NY 11530 516-203-7180

S a w y n Kane

www.courthousenews.com

VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP Attorneys for Plainttff 600 OLD COUNTRY ROAD,Suite 519 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 (516) 203-7180 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF N E W YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK NAVA SHEENA, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

4 3 dE- b

CLASS C O M & h @

(,

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

Associate, LLC d/b/a Shoshanna’s Matches (“Defendants” or “Shoshanna’s Matches”): 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 Q394(c), New York’s Dating Services Law. 2.

Defendant is a company offering “social referral services” in

York as defined in §394(c)(l)(a) to “include any service for a fee providing V

members of the opposite sex . , .for the purpose of dating and general social contact.”

?ii

- ..

3,

.

.

. . . www.courthousenews.com ~

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

minimum number of referrals. 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

violation ofthe Dating Service Law. 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.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10.

Venue is proper in this county under CPLR $503.

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

service within the County and State ofNew York.

PARTIES 13.

Plaintiff, Nava Sheena, (“Sheena” or “Plaintiff”), is a resident of New York State.

14.

Defendant Rikon Associates, LLP d/b/a Shoshanna’s Matches, is a business

organized under the laws of the State of New York with a principle placc of business located at

521 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. BACKGROUND FACTS 15.

According to her own website, Shoshanna’s Matches claims to specialize in

traditional matchmaking services for Jewish professional men and women in the New York TriState area. Shoshanna’s Matches is owned and operated by Shoshanna Rikon (“Shoshanna”) who claims to be New York City’s #1 Jewish Matchmaker. 16.

Shoshanna’s Matches offers personalized matchmaking services where

Shoshanna claims on her website to devote herself to helping her clientele cut down on the time

and stress involved in finding their ideal life partners. 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 very own office. 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

herself on her website. They are lies.

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 her for help in the most personal aspects of their lives. 2 1.

Shoshanna’s Matches operates a scheme to defraud and prey upon thousands of

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 for “the one.” 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

involvement, is ever truly carried out. 25.

In furtherance of this scheme, Shoshanna’s Matches has routinely and

systematically overcharged its clients for its matchmaking services, charging any amount they feel you can afford based on your income and profession.

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: All individuals who entered into a contract for dating services with Rikon Associates, LLP d/b/a Shoshanna’s Matches from March 15, 2003 to the present and who paid in excess of $25 for the services provided.

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 violation of the New York Dating Service Law

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 33.

Plaintiff is a single parent of limited financial means.

34.

In or about August 2008, Plaintiff and a friend met with a representative of

Shoshanna’s Matches at their office located in New York City.

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, larger fee because he was “more established and affluent.”

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 she would not be eligible to join in the future. 38 .

Plaintiff felt pressured to sign right then and there.

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 in which these dates must be provided to Plaintiff. 41.

The contract states in bold, “THERE ARE NO REFUNDS” in two parts of the

contract. It further states that the contract may not be cancelled.

www.courthousenews.com

42.

Plaintiff quickly learned that Defendant made many misrepresentations including

the amount of staff they had and Shoshanna Rikon’s involvement.

43.

Plaintiff repeatedly contacted Defendant by phone and email to try to

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 criteria and Plaintiff refused to meet them on these grounds. 45.

At this point, Plaintiff began to inquire about a refund of her fee. She was told no

refunds were permitted.

46.

In December 2008, Plaintiff attempted to dispute the fees which were charged on

her credit cards. 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

Plaintiff to arrange any further introductions.

www.courthousenews.com

CAUSE OF ACTION AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS' CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE DATING SERVICE LAW 50.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs above,

as if flully set forth herein. 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 minimum number of introductions per month. 52.

Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff and others wherein Defendant

charged in excess of $1000 per year for social referral services.

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

failed to provide Plaintiff and other with a right to refund. 55,

Because Defendant has entered into such contracts with Plaintif€ and others, they

have violated the New York State Dating Service Law §394(c). 56.

Plaintiffs requests for relief are set forth below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 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

58.

A judgment declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and in

violation of the New York State Dating Service Law §394(c); 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 by Defendant from the date paid to Defendant;

61.

Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Defendant’s

ability and so as to deter future malicious, reckless, and/or intentional conduct; 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;

63.

Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and

64.

Granting Plaintiff and the Class other and further relief as this Court finds

necessary and proper. Dated: March 20,2009 Respectfully submitted, VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 600 Old Country Road, Suite 5 19 Garden City, New York 11 530 Tel: (516) 203-7180 Fax: ( 5 16) 706-0248

By:

L

Sara Wyn

I

.

www.courthousenews.com

Jndcx No.:-

2009

.

SIJPREME C'OIJRT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COIJNTY OF NEW YORK NAVA SHEKNA, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situatcd, Plaintiff, V.

KIKON ASSOCIATES, I,I,C, d/b/a SHOSHANNA'S MA'I'CHfI:S;

Defendants.

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT VAI,LIKANII VAGNINI LLP Attorneys For Plaintiff 600 Old Country Road, Suite 5 19 Garden City, New York 11530 5 16-203-7180

Signature pursuant to Rule 130- I . 1 a

n