Las Vegas Sun

January 31, 2015

Currently: 55° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Woman seeks $62,814 from ex-fiance after Las Vegas ‘hook up’ ends wedding plans

A Chicago woman sued her ex-fiance on Friday, charging their marriage plans fell apart after she found text messages showing he "hooked up" with a woman he met during his Las Vegas bachelor party.

Lauren Serafin filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Robert Leighton, alleging he has failed to reimburse her the $62,814 she spent preparing for the wedding and honeymoon.

Serafin, an attorney, alleges she dated Leighton, also an attorney, for two years and that after he proposed to her, they had planned to marry on Aug. 21, 2010.

But the lawsuit says she discovered through text messages on his cell phone that on July 17, while in Las Vegas with friends for his bachelor party, he met a woman named Danielle and arranged to meet her at a nightclub that night.

The suit says that after meeting the woman at the club, they had sex in Leighton's hotel room.

On July 24, after returning to Chicago, Leighton attended a wedding shower with Serafin and acted as if nothing had happened, the lawsuit said.

Serafin found the text messages on July 28 and confronted Leighton, the suit says.

"Defendant, seemingly believing that 'what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas,' denied that anything happened between himself and Danielle in Las Vegas," the lawsuit charges.

Leighton finally admitted he "made out" with Danielle in Las Vegas and then informed Serafin he would not marry her, the suit charges.

Later, Leighton admitted he "hooked up" with Danielle and Danielle apologized to Serafin, "claiming defendant deceived her as well by not advising her that he was in Las Vegas attending his own bachelor party and that he was engaged to be married," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit, posted on the website, alleges breach of the promise to marry and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"Defendant had a fiduciary duty of implied fidelity to plaintiff," the lawsuit says, adding Serafin "suffered humiliation" by having to tell family members, friends and co-workers that the wedding was canceled and why.

Saying 170 people had planned to attend the wedding and reception, Serafin says in the suit she had reserved a banquet hall at the Ritz-Carlton Chicago and that this involved a cancellation penalty.

The suit says she made nonrefundable purchases of a wedding dress and veil, had reserved salon services, reserved a band, made a deposit with a florist, made nonrefundable purchases of dresses for bridesmaids and flower girls, spent money on invitations, made a deposit with a photographer, booked a hotel for a bachelorette party, booked a wedding shower at a restaurant and made nonrefundable reservations for airfare and a hotel for the honeymoon in Bora Bora.

Leighton declined comment when he was contacted by the Chicago Tribune on Friday, the Tribune reported.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 18 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. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. I think she should get the money, but be glad she got out of this before it was too late. Anyway it is degrading to her. Go Girl.

    The document is brutal--she even mentions the name of his law firm--can't buy that kind of publicity and I bet the partners appreciate it!)

    "That at all times relevant to this action and at the time of drafting the instant complaint' DEFENDANT was an attorney practicing law at the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP in Chicago, Illinois."

    "That DEFENDANT breached that duty when he engaged in sexual intercourse with a stranger while co-workers,friends and family members, all acquainted with PLAINTIFF, were present in an adjoining hotel room."

    "That on July 28, 2010, DEFENDANT admitted he hooked up,, with Danielle in Las Vegas, Nevada stated his actions were the fault of the PLANTIFF, and informed PLAINTIFF he no longer wanted to marry her."

  2. She is better off without him and will be better off still when she sees his $62,814.

    The pleading lists a number of items she is in this for including the banquet at the Ritz, the deposit for the band, the dress, honeymoon, etc.

  3. This is absurd, suing someone for behaving in a manner you wish they wouldn't. What's next, lawsuits for "he got a beer belly/she went from a size 7 to a size 14 two years after we were married?"


  4. As he was the one who cheated, and more importantly, called off the wedding, he should be responsible for the costs incurred for cancelling the said wedding.
    Turrialba has it correct- the document is brutal. But it does give a much better understanding of the plantiff's case.

  5. Is this the first time in history something like this happened at a bachelor party? It's long been known those parties are sometimes the last shindig before the people commit. Would it be better if he had married her and then cheated?

    What did she think might happen when her fiance is in Vegas for his bachelor party? Is she naive,...or is he much better off without her anyway. Perhaps someone here overreacted? Perhaps somebody should have deleted text messages,...and while I'm at it, what was she doing poking around in his phone? They weren't married yet,...and even then what about each others privacy?

    Who's right,...who's wrong here? Its a good thing were dealing with lawyers,...that makes this kinda funny.

  6. "That at all times relevant to this action and at the time of drafting the instant complaint' DEFENDANT was an attorney practicing law at the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP in Chicago, Illinois."

    I think this guy's career was just torpedoed. No woman juror will take this guy seriously or his clients.

    I wouldn't be surprised to find that he will be seeking employment elsewhere, if he hasn't already been asked to leave after this hit the press.

  7. "Sidley is a global law firm, with approximately 1700 lawyers in 17 offices. We are privileged to serve clients across the entire spectrum of law, from complex transactions to "bet the company" litigation to cutting-edge regulatory issues."

    "We describe here, in detail, our practices, our industries and our community commitments that continue a tradition of more than 140 years and that define and distinguish our firm. "

    This dude is toast.
    Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned

    I don't think their clients will like this one.

  8. So she dropped 62k and he didn't pay anything into it? She should be happy to be rid of this freeloader. I imagine the suit will be settled for a smaller amount (assuming he has ANY money at all). Remember, what happens in tomorrow's headline.

  9. Here is the article, pictures and tidbits from "Above the Law". The "other woman" is pictured as well.

  10. oops. There is a counter suit (no surprise here). She kept the $45,000 3 karat engagement ring. He is suing.

  11. Turrialba, The second one you posted about the counter suit is another couple, not the ones involved in this case.

    Judges have normally ruled in the "womens" side when she has kept the ring if the man is the one that has broken the engagement. But don't matter in this case, there is no counter suit.

  12. Ms. Serafin should be aware of the inherent risk associated with any romantic relationship. Monetary expenses should be reviewed and split evenly.

  13. oops. My mistake on the link.

  14. I don't even know where to start. SHE SUED HIM? Give me a damned break. Also did she keep the engagement ring? I notice that isn't mentioned in any of the articles. Because if she's seriously claiming she had over 60K in expenses for this wedding and he put no money towards it, the first thing that should be done is that damn ring is sold to pay off some of these expenses.

    Also, what kind of a free loader was she set on marrying that she alleges 60K in expenses that only SHE contributed to?

    I find this entire lawyer lawsuit shenanigan to be kind of amusing - unfortunate situation aside. I feel bad that the entire wedding blew up - but better before than while she's walking down the aisle. No?

  15. Anyone who can afford $62,814 to PREPARE for a wedding doesn't know what a marriage is about in the first place.

    What was she really after - a Constitutional Amendment to go with the ring?

  16. What a hoot!! My guess is because the firm is Sidley & Austin - she will get at least half of her money back from Mr. Wonderful's savings account. It doesn't say what firm HE is at. I'm curious.

    Also, according to etiquette concerning cancelled weddings - she should give him the ring back. HE can get a refund for the ring if he purchsed it, she cannot. She will only be able to get a fraction of the cost of the ring if she eventually wants to sell it.

    Appears these two were not ready for marriage. If the groom screws around at his bachelor party, he has a problem and is definitely not ready to get married. She is lucky she dodged a bullet with this guy because if he did it then, he will do it again. And again. There was NO EXCUSE for him to do that in Vegas. The kid has a problem.

    A lesson learned for this young woman who thought she was in love. He is a born cheater. And she was "in love" with getting married.

  17. By the way - everyone should be VERY careful on what is on your cell phone - whether it is texts or telephone calls received and phone numbers called out. I busted my ex via his cell phone. Wondered who he was talking to and just waited until he was dead to the world sleeping...then checked his cell phone!! BINGO!! Right BEFORE a call to me, were calls to her - name and both phone numbers, home and cell. Stupid.

    Suspicious - check your mate's cell phone.

  18. I hope his Vegas hook up was worth it because his slighted would have been bride is pretty damn hot.

    Didn't Tiger teach us anything? If you're gonna be a scumbag and cheat - don't leave a paper trail! Why would this guy not delete his text messages? Better yet, get a disposable phone for the weekend and text away to your heart's content.