Taylor Leighton is an associate at Akin Gump, working in the corporate restructuring department but he’s using his legal acumen for something decidedly more personal. He’s filed a lawsuit in New York State Court against his ex — Winson & Strawn litigation associate Nathan Greess — over the ownership of their mini poodle, Raven. (Yes, named after Raven-Symoné, per the court filing, “I chose the name Raven because she was black in color like the bird and because my favorite actor as a child was Raven-Symoné from Disney Channel’s That’s So Raven.”)
In the filing, Leighton speaks passionately about his love for the dog.
“Raven is more than a dog to me. I consider her to be my child. As an illustration to this Court of my love for Raven, I planned an extravagant first birthday party for her in the apartment. I spent several days planning and decorating, including blowing up hundreds of balloons and placing decals on the wall to give Raven a special day. Defendant, of course, participated in the festivities but it was me who took the lead on all planning and implementation.”
Leighton accuses Greess of dognapping Raven and refusing to let Leighton see the dog. He argues Greess is using the dog as a tool to specifically hurt Leighton, “While I believe I have approached this situation from a position of love for Raven, Defendant has used her to hurt me. I do not believe he is acting out of love for her. I know it is in Raven’s best interests to be with me. I can support her financially and provide her with a loving and nurturing environment. She should come back home.”
As a result, Leighton is seeking $100,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress, $100,000 for negligent infliction of emotional distress, an additional $7,791 for the purchase of Raven and the cost of her care, and attorney’s fees.
Greess’s attorney Emily Pollock told The Daily Beast, “Mr. Greess has not been served with any filing relating to his dog, Raven, and does not wish to litigate this personal matter in the media. But he strongly disputes that Mr. Leighton has superior possessory or ownership rights to Raven or that it would be best for Raven to live with Mr. Leighton instead of Mr. Greess, particularly in light of Mr. Leighton’s conduct throughout the parties’ relationship. Should Mr. Leighton pursue his claims, we are confident that Mr. Greess will prevail and Raven will remain with him.”
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon