October 20, 20213 yr taylor_hill_243547449_639070550810589_3676551363707366249_n.mp4 taylor_hill_246631283_369645611517124_8131099600205377686_n.mp4
November 4, 20213 yr https://trellis.law/ruling/20STCV23868/TAYLOR-M-HILL-ET-AL-VS-MICHAEL-S-SHANK/202010216f130d
November 4, 20213 yr 12 hours ago, Vsliverforever said: https://trellis.law/ruling/20STCV23868/TAYLOR-M-HILL-ET-AL-VS-MICHAEL-S-SHANK/202010216f130d
November 4, 20213 yr Some interesting things I pulled. Her attorneys needed to file a better pleading than it did they seem but the court didn't fully dismiss the claims so hopefully she can come out successful. He sounds like a piece of shit and I'm glad she got out of that. Sucks it took so long. "Plaintiffs reasonably relied on these representations, considering Hill’s personal relationship with Shank and his abuse/manipulation. (Compl., ¶ 57.) Plaintiffs were not able to fully understand the abuses until June 2019, when Hill broke up with Shank" “Shank defrauded and embezzled monies and personal property from Plaintiffs’ in an amount that, upon information and belief, totals a specific and identifiable sum of nearly $1 million, if not more.” (Compl. ¶ 63.) Plaintiffs cite specific examples of Shank’s embezzlement. From 2017 through the first half of 2019, Shank racked up more than $700,000 in charges on Plaintiffs’ credit cards, “much” of which were justified by Shank as being professional expenses for Plaintiffs." "The Complaint alleges the parties were in an abusive relationship. Defendant was in a position of power over Hill due to their age difference and his position as her manager. (Compl., ¶¶ 3, 20-21.) With her livelihood dependent on physical appearance, Shank repeatedly criticized Hill’s looks to prey on her vulnerability. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 22.) He “regularly screamed at her, belittled her, insulted her, and called her horrible names.” (Compl. ¶ 22.) He obstructed Hill’s relationship with her family to isolate her. (Compl. ¶ 23.) He exploited her finances for his personal benefit. (See Compl., ¶¶ 26-34.) Following their breakup, Shank would repeatedly call Hill, show up at her house unannounced, send harassing communications to family and friends, and stalk her at public events. (Compl., ¶¶ 35-38.)"
November 4, 20213 yr He always seemed like a major douchebag so this does not come as a huge surprise. Both him and the manager she had when she first started out always appeared like creeps to me.
November 4, 20213 yr 24 minutes ago, TheDude2k said: Can anyone summarize the backstory in laymen's terms? TiA! So there's a list of Taylor's causes of action - 1) declaratory relief; 2) fraud; 3) conversion; 4) unjust enrichment; 5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and 6) negligent infliction of emotional distress law student here will try to break things down for you and anyone, feel free to ask more questions if something isn't clear! I will be referring to Taylor and Michael but obviously mean them and their attorneys in some situations. Firstly, the court is saying Michael and Taylor and their attorneys needed to "meet and confer" before Michael could file this and they didn't do that. They're saying they will still look at it but that if Michael f's up again they're not going to. This came from Michael filing demurrers for sufficiency which is asking whether Taylor's complaints were sufficient enough to meet the claims she is claiming. So she is suing for a few different things and the other plaintiff is Pinkelephant Inc. which is a Tennessee corporation so I'm assuming it's a company that she has for management of her work but I couldn't completely find more information on that online. She's suing Michael for money she is saying that he took from her fraudulently by acting as a consultant to her and as a manager. Additionally she's claiming that he intentionally inflicted emotional distress and negligently inflicted it so he purposefully caused her emotional distress and just sort of by accident/through his other actions caused her more emotional distress. Her attorneys didn't seem to state these all clearly and well in the complaint. There's a rule for the justice system when you are filing a complaint that you have to do it with particularity so you can't just say "This person caused me emotional distress" you have to say "This person caused me emotional distress on October 5, 2017 when he did _____. I have proof my emotional distress because i dealt with anxiety causing me to be physically sick and need to go to therapy or doctors for this long." This decision there in those statements is saying that the complaint didn't state things with enough particularity when it came to the fraud claim, conversion claim, unjust enrichment claim, and IIED claim. They didn't totally dismiss the claim because they see some standing to what she is saying and she he messed up and harmed her financially and perhaps monetarily but they're saying the attorneys need to bring more particular claims before these can be heard properly. As for the claims, Michael somehow defrauded her from what Taylor is saying is almost $1 million dollars. She is saying he used his position as older than her and as her manager to prey on her vulnerabilities of her looks and body when that is so important to her job. She is also saying they had an abusive relationship generally (see the lack of particularity here).
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.