Courts:

Judge bars sale of dog business to Heidi Fleiss

Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2009 | 1:46 p.m.

Heidi Fleiss

Heidi Fleiss, porn star sued over Vegas business purchase (9-3-2009)

Heidi Fleiss won't be getting into the dog business just yet.

The former Hollywood madam had paid about $10,000 toward a Las Vegas dog grooming business with a friend, former porn star Kendra Rossi, and named the shop Dirty Dogs.

However, the woman who was selling the business was in the midst of a divorce and was prohibited by a Family Court order from selling any property jointly owned with her husband.

Clark County District Court Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez issued a preliminary injunction today barring the sale.

Gonzalez said based on testimony given today by the seller, Nickol Marvian, Fleiss "apparently" knew the couple was in divorce proceedings and conspired with the seller to deprive her husband of the proceeds from the sale.

Marvian testified that she told Fleiss and another associate with her on Aug. 11 that she wasn't allowed to sell the business because of the divorce but Fleiss gave her a down payment of $3,000 in cash. Fleiss also paid $7,000 in late rent payments on the business to the landlord, Marvian said.

Marvian said that was the first time she had met Fleiss because she had been dealing with Fleiss' associate until that point.

Marvian represented herself at the hearing and said she knew she couldn't sell the business but didn't think transferring the business license and lease would constitute a sale. She admitted trying to hide the transaction from her husband, Jeff Marvian.

The couple opened Little Buddy Bath, 3720 E. Sunset Road, four years ago after taking out a second mortgage on their home.

Jeff Marvian said his wife primarily ran the business because he drives a truck, but said he occasionally would work in the store. Jeff Marvian filed for divorce on March 19, the same day the Family Court joint preliminary injunction was issued.

Shelley Lubritz, attorney for Jeff Marvian, filed the request for an injunction, claiming the defendants committed fraud and conspiracy. The complaint also claims Fleiss and Rossi were buying the business to try and use it for a reality show.

Attorney Robert Hill, who represented Fleiss and Rossi, said Fleiss' name is not on the contract, which had been worked out before her direct involvement.

"There had already been an agreement to transfer it prior to anything coming out about her going through a divorce or anything along the lines of the injunction," Hill said. "What we have here is Ms. Fleiss trying to keep her name out of it until she was forced to so she wouldn't get taken advantage of."

The Family Court will decide the future of the business but Fleiss has the option to seek permission from the court to run it, Lubritz said.

"We have a strong public policy that you don't get rewarded for having unclean hands and certainly Ms. Fleiss' hands were as dirty as the name she wants to put on the business," Lubritz said.

Fleiss did not testify during the hearing and Rossi was not present.

Lubritz said she plans to drop Rossi from the lawsuit.

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

By tvegas

Sept. 30, 2009

2:40 p.m.

Comment removed by staff.
By niftyname

Sept. 30, 2009

3:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

I noticed the staff removed a comment from tvegas. It made me wonder what could possibly be more offensive than the photo of Fleiss that you run with every story you run about her.
By tvegas

Sept. 30, 2009

3:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

I told them that they were slanting the story ...that the judge blocked the sale by the owner, not the purchase by Fleiss.

Evidently they didn't like the name I called the writer.
By jlb101

Sept. 30, 2009

4:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

It looks like Heidi has had a pretty rough life.
By Mike123

Sept. 30, 2009

6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

That photo has to be straight from "Faces of Meth".

YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!
By cgines

Oct. 1, 2009

11:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

A divorce is a very tough time for all involved. Nickol dedicated her heart and soul for the last four years to that business with little help! when the divorce was filed Nickol still tried to run the business without any assistance. The fact of the matter is that the greed by the husband is what set the business in a downfall. Nickol wanted out of the business months ago, but her hands were tied! In the end she did what she thought was best. It may not have been the right decision but she did what she could! She looked at every possible solution that she could to get rid of the business fairly for both parties. In the end Jeff is suing for the business that he had no part in. Nickol is the one that worked 60 hours a week to get the business where it was. She gave everything for that business to be successful, and she ended up loosing it all. Now she is a single mom with no income trying to take care of her daughter on her own. A controlling ex husband would rather waste his money on attourney fees than help support his daughter!