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
<a
href=“https://mastodon.social/