$78,000 for a Few Lousy Dates …

     LAS VEGAS (CN) – A woman claims in court that a matchmaking service charged her $78,000 and refused to give her a refund though it introduced her to just four men in a year, none of them satisfactory.
     Mary Davis, of the United Kingdom, sued Valenti International and Irene Valenti, in Clark County Court.
     Davis claims she wired $78,279.55 to the defendants the day after Valentine’s Day 2010, and that “defendants promised to match plaintiff with person with backgrounds, core values, upbringings and personalities most suitable to plaintiff’s criteria for a period of two years.”
     Part of the deal, Davis says, was that she had to “also execute a promissory note whereby plaintiff would agree to pay to defendants a ‘success fee’ in the amount of 50,000 British pounds when plaintiff either became married, engaged to be married, or entered into an exclusive, committed, or permanent relationship three months after defendant made the introduction.”
     But Davis says that in the first 9 months of their contract, the Clark County-based defendants “did not provide plaintiff with any of the introductions to men that met plaintiff’s criteria. In fact, defendants only introduced plaintiff to three men in that time period, only one of whom lived [in] Europe.”
     Davis says she met one of the men while she was vacationing in New York, but he man “was completely tied to his six children and ailing parents and unable to travel to the United Kingdom.”
     “Both plaintiff and the man to whom she was introduced were perplexed as to why they were introduced when neither met the other’s criteria,” Davis says in her complaint.
     She says she demanded a partial refund of her deposit in October 2010, “because defendants had not provided plaintiffs with any introductions for the past seven months that met her criteria as defendants promised.”
     In response, she says Valenti falsely told her she had found a London-based gentleman “that would be a great fit for plaintiff.”
     However, Davis says, “It appears that the ‘gentleman’ defendants referred to did not exist because after plaintiff agreed, defendants never arranged a meeting, and never informed plaintiff as to why the meeting never occurred.”
     By June 2011, Valenti had introduced her “to only four potential matches, and none since November 2010,” Davis says. “None of the potential matches were even close to matching plaintiff’s criteria, and only one of the men resided in Europe or even spent any time in Europe.”
     She says she again demanded a partial refund, but hasn’t heard from Valenti since June 2011.
     Davis seeks damages and punitive damages for fraud, conversion, gross negligence, breach of faith and breach of contract.
     She is represented by Jason Bach.

%d bloggers like this: