With the end of 2019 on the horizon, I think we've got a shoo-in for worst lawsuit of the year.

Because—news flash—money (or expensive handbags plus bracelets and trips to Europe) can't buy you love. And suing someone because they don't want to date you anymore is just sad. Also nasty. And unsupported by any legal precedent I could find. 

Yet Manatt Phelps & Phillips complex commercial litigation partner Kevin Dwight filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of Syed Husain, who is suing his ex-girlfriend Elina Todorov for $225,000.

Husain in his suit isn't seeking the return of gifts or property—Todorov in an email offered to return the purse and jewelry and he said no. Instead, he wants damages for breach of contract, promissory fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and unjust enrichment. 

The reason? Todorov supposedly promised to give their relationship a chance for a year but then broke up with him a few months later. 

As people do. Hearts are fickle. What's not normal is filing a lawsuit because you got dumped—and finding a Big Law litigator to take your case.

Dwight in an interview declined to comment on how he came to be retained or whether he had any reservations about bringing the suit. When pressed for favorable precedents, he cited only Marvin v. Marvin, a California Supreme Court case from 1976 that involved enforcement of a contract between an unmarried couple who lived together for seven years and fought over property and support payments when they separated. 

Husain and Todorov, who met in college in 2005, never lived together, nor were they engaged. Husain in his complaint says that they had a "close relationship" for 14 years. Todorov counters that while they were friends for years, they only actually dated for about four months.

Like many states, California has a longstanding "anti-heart balm" statute, which establishes "a public policy against litigation of the affairs of the heart," wrote the state's Fourth District Court of Appeals in a 1994 decision, Askew v. Askew. "The statute obviously prohibited (and still prohibits) lawsuits seeking contract damages for the emotional pain of a broken engagement."

"Plainly, these statutes not only preclude certain 'old fashioned' causes of action, but also embody a basic reluctance on the part of both the legislature and the judiciary to allow recovery for promises of love," the appeals court continued. "This reluctance stems, no doubt, from the sheer unseemliness of litigating tender matters of romantic or sexual emotion in courts of law."

Good call on the unseemliness—this case is excruciating. 

The plaintiff in court papers claims the anti-heart balm statute doesn't apply because there was no promise to marry, writing that "any reference to such statutes are irrelevant and appear to be nothing more than an attempt to try to persuade the court into thinking this is some sort of frivolous case."

Frivolous? Huh, you think?

Here's how Dwight in the complaint filed in August laid out Husain's version of events.

"Over the course of their 14-year relationship, plaintiff spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on defendant. He would frequently purchase for defendant fancy meals, airline tickets, luxury hotel accommodations, fine jewelry, designer handbags, high-end clothing, and more."

Dwight continued, "As the relationship evolved, defendant began to frequently disappear for extended periods of time. When defendant did make time to see plaintiff, it would only be because they planned to travel together, go to an expensive dinner, or engage in another activity that required plaintiff to spend substantial sums of money on defendant."

"As their relationship progressed, plaintiff began to feel that defendant was taking advantage of plaintiff's generosity and friendship."

OK, I get that. Other people in this situation might, say, stop paying for everything. But not Hussain. 

"On or about June 2016, plaintiff and defendant met for dinner. During the dinner, plaintiff expressed to defendant his frustration regarding defendant's frequent disappearances. Defendant acknowledged the issue, and after some discussion, agreed that she would stay in a relationship with plaintiff without disappearing, going silent, or otherwise breaking off the relationship," Dwight wrote. "Plaintiff documented defendant's agreement by taking a photo of plaintiff and defendant shaking hands."

But (shock) this didn't fix things. "Unfortunately, defendant regularly failed to perform under her agreement," Dwight wrote.

In 2018, Todorov allegedly asked Husain to buy her a Chanel handbag (which cost $5,146) and bracelet. Husain said yes, but only "if she guaranteed that she would give the relationship an honest effort for at least one year. Plaintiff further discussed with defendant that after one year of their relationship, they would agree either to get engaged or mutually end the relationship. But under no circumstances would either decision be made prior to the passing of one calendar year to fully and fairly evaluate the relationship and feasibility of moving forward together."

A few months later, she broke up with him.

(Gee I can't imagine why, he sounds great.)

Todorov, who is represented by San Francisco solo Joshua Davis, has not yet filed an answer to the complaint, but has asked that the case be transferred from Los Angeles to San Francisco, where she lives. 

According to her motion, Husain also lives in the Bay Area with his parents in Hillsborough—where the average home price is $3.25 million.

Husain says he sued in Los Angeles because that's where the "contract" to give the relationship a year was made (at a J.W. Marriott in Santa Monica). But Todorov argued that he filed in LA to make defending the suit that much harder for her.

"The prospect of a lawsuit is daunting in and of itself and a lawsuit in Los Angeles would be an extreme hardship for me, financially and due to the fact that I live and work in San Francisco," she wrote in a declaration.

She also suggests that the suit stems not from a "legitimate legal dispute" but to "harass me, crush me financially … or in a misguided attempt to force our relationship into continuing."

After the breakup, she said Husain sent her "many, many text messages, emails, letters, calls/voicemails, showing up uninvited at my home after being told not to, contacting my friend about our breakup, sending gifts to my place of work."

She emailed him asking him to cease all contact. Husain responded with a lengthy missive threatening litigation.

"Elina, a lawsuit is going to open the door to so many things including depositions of all your ex- boyfriends that my attorneys are planning to subpoena to prove your pattern," he allegedly wrote in an email Todorov attached as an exhibit. 

"It will involve a lengthy deposition of you that will require you by law to answer very private matters that will become public both relating to me and others. All of this will become a matter of public record. Many things you don't want the public to see since you are such a private person. I don't want that for you but again, I need closure and it seems that this is the only way since you don't want to sit down and talk."

He continued, "The defense will be very costly. Do you really want to spend tens of thousands of dollars rather than spending some time to sit down and work through what's bothering the both of us? I really urge you to take some time out of your schedule to sit down with me."

So, last time I checked, this is not why we have courts of law—to use as leverage by jilted ex-boyfriends whose ex-girlfriends won't take their calls.

Davis in a statement said, "This is an all too familiar story—whether it's in the boardroom, Hollywood, the soccer field or anywhere—of men using power and money to bully and intimidate women. And, it's been going on for too long. Here, it's the legal system and it's being used to crush this woman. This is not what we went to law school for. I've spent the last 12 years trying cases in the courtroom and I'm going to fight this case tooth and nail."