Fashionista Says Courtney|Love Defamed Her

LOS ANGELES (CN) – Courtney Love defamed a Texas-based fashion designer on Howard Stern’s radio show by accusing her of being a thief and a prostitute, the woman claims in court.
     Dawn Simorangkir aka Dawn Younger-Smith sued Courtney Michelle Love in Superior Court. Howard Stern is not a party to the complaint. In fact, Simorangkir claims, Sterns warned Love that she could not “just blurt things out” on his show.
     “Simorangkir, an up and coming fashion designer, was previously the victim of Courtney Love’s vicious, repulsive and conspicuously defamatory rants in multiple public forums such as Twitter, online marketplaces where Simorangkir conducted business, and to Simorangkir’s clients and others in the fashion industry,” the Austin-based designer claims in the lawsuit.
     She claims that Love “became infatuated with Simorangkir” in 2008 after discovering her “Boudoir Queen” fashion line on, an online marketplace for independent designers.
     Simorangkir claims Love flew her to “completely chaotic” Malibu home in January 2009 to discuss custom-made pieces, and gave her several bags of clothing remnants with which to make them.
     Simorangkir claims she sent Love an invoice for her first custom dress in February 2009, and told Love’s assistant that “until we have the go ahead to do more, we have stopped working on her items for the time being.”
     In March 2009, Simorangkir claims, she began communicating with Love’s through Love’s attorneys, (nonparties) Jonathon Gardner and Bradley Garrett, of Los Angeles.
     Love allegedly complained about Simorangkir’s prices, and that she was making only one or two pieces at a time.
     “Love claimed that she could not afford Simorangkir’s prices and that Simorangkir should give Live a discount because of who she was,” according to the complaint.
     Simorangkir claims that Love emailed her on March 10, 2009: “i can’t afford your prices on line and jg [attorney Jonathan Gardner] mentioned the piece for piece thing i kinda went apeshit as I gave you over 100 items, and they are over 300,000 dollars worth of clothing and my best finest.”
     Simorangkir claims she sent attorney Garrett an invoice on March 14, 2009, and that “Apparently, this invoice further enraged Love.”
     The next day, Simorangkir claims, “Love left Simorangkir several long and rambling voicemails. In particular, one of Love’s messages went on for over three minutes. Love stated that ‘she had not slept,’ was ‘insanely angry,’ and that she was going to ‘blacklist’ Simorangkir. Finally, Love demanded that Simorangkir send Love two dresses a day for the next ten days. In another long and rambling voicemail, Love expressly said that ‘I don’t want my shit back.’ Again, Love demanded that Simorangkir provide Love with sewn garments within the next ten days.”
     Simorangkir claims she told Love she would return the remnants to her, but Love “mounted a malicious campaign to not only terrorize Simorangkir, but to ruin and destroy her reputation and livelihood. Several years later, Love is as persistent as ever.”
     Finally, Simorangkir claims: “To try to put an end to Love’s sociopathic conduct, Simorangkir was forced to bring legal action against her. Love did little to defend herself. At most, Love hired an addiction psychiatrist to try to assert a so-called insanity defense. Recognizing her obvious wrongdoing, Love ultimately not only apologized, but agreed to pay Simorangkir $430,000 so that Simorangkir could try to rebuild her life.
     “Two years later, Simorangkir wants nothing more than to move past her devastating encounter with Love. Love, however, is relentless in making sure that never happens. On May 30, 2013, Love appeared on the Howard Stern Show, a popular talk show that is broadcast to millions. When Stern questioned Love about Simorangkir’s prior lawsuit, Love claimed that she ‘learned her lesson.’ Ironically, in the same breath, Love blatantly defamed Simorangkir by falsely accusing her of stealing from Love and claiming that this purported theft was captured on closed circuit television videos. Love even went as far as to falsely claim that Simorangkir had engaged in prostitution. Love’s reckless comments and flippant attitude seemed to shock even Stern, who admonished Love for ‘lashing out.’ Significantly, Stern warned Love that ‘You can’t just blurt things out.'”
     Now, the designer claims in her lawsuit, “Simorangkir has again found herself to be a target of Love’s obsessive behavior, this time on Pinterest, a popular social media website. Again, Love is insistent on publicly defaming Simorangkir by falsely claiming that Simorangkir stole various garments from her and that this purported theft was captured on closed circuit television videos. Perhaps forgetful of the past, Love has made her intentions clear. Love seeks to use her fame, influence and celebrity, in particular in fashion circles, to undermine Simorangkir’s efforts to rebuild. In narcissistic fashion, Love flagrantly taunted Simorangkir about Love’s power and influence: ‘oh wait i have 5500 followers. You have what? a few hundred on pinterest, hmmm, dawn, wonder why, oh right, i’m me.’ Clearly, Love has not learned her lesson.”
     Simorangkir seeks punitive damages for defamation.
     She is represented by Bryan J. Freedman with Freedman & Taitleman.

%d bloggers like this: