DALLAS (CN) - A woman who says she spent more than $1 million at Neiman Marcus while its sales associate was cavorting with her husband filed a motion for summary judgment.
Patricia Walker, of Garland, sued the Dallas-based luxury retailer and employee Favi Lo in 2010 for fraud, conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty. Walker said Lo was her personal shopper for several years and that she would pay the resulting bills from "substantial purchases."
"Lo and Walker had a close personal relationship of trust and confidence," according to the complaint in Dallas County Court. "Unbeknownst to Walker, Lo was carrying an extramarital relationship with Walker's spouse, Bobby Tennison. Lo was making large sales to Tennison. Lo and Tennison, in fact, conspired on these purchases to both enable Tennison to live a lavish lifestyle that he could not afford on his own and permit Lo to receive large commissions and/or wages."
Walker says she wants to return all of her Neiman purchases, but that the retailer has refused, in spite of its long-standing, generous return policy.
After Lo and Neiman Marcus asserted seven affirmative defenses, Walker filed a motion for a no-evidence summary judgment.
"Defendants' nonsensical response is no evidence that there are any specific acts by Walker that caused or contributed to Walker's alleged injuries," according to the Nov. 7 motion authored by attorney Mark Ticer. "Defendants have no evidence that would satisfy any basis that one, some, or all of plaintiff's own acts or ommissions caused her injuries.
"Defendants have not identified one single act connected to any of Walker's injuries or damages that would preclude her recovery in whole or in part," Ticer added.
The seven-page motion attacks each affirmative defenses, which claim that Walker waived her right to return the merchandise because she used her Neiman account to make the purchases.
"There is no evidence of any intent of relinquishment of a known right or any demonstration of intentional conduct that is inconsistent with claiming a known right," Ticer wrote.
A justification defense furthermore does not apply because there is no evidence Neiman has a privilege to interfere existing in the parties' contracts, he added.
Judge Ken Molberg is presiding over the case.