This was taken from the Huffington Post.
Woman sues millionaire matchmakers, Kelleher & Associates, who she paid $45k to ‘set her up with convicted criminals, a man looking for friends with benefits, a sexually promiscuous Internet sex toy purveyor and an animal hater’
By Rachel Quigley
PUBLISHED: 08:10 EST, 20 September 2012 | UPDATED: 08:14 EST, 20 September 2012
A 59-year-old woman is suing a millionaire matchmaking company who she claims set her up with countless unsuitable matches despite the fact she paid the mother-daughter duo $45,000 to find her someone who fit her profile.
In 2008, Joan E. Cooke, from Florida, hired premier matchmaking firm Kelleher & Associates, run by former Hollywood actresses Amber Kelleher and her daughter Jill – who boasted clients who were Grammy award-winning singers, producers and actors.
But this was far from what Ms Cooke – an executive at two healthcare firms – was matched with. In fact in some cases, they were almost the antithesis of what she requested in a suitable partner.
Florida woman: Joan Cooke is suing a pair of mother-daughter millionaire matchmakers after she paid their firm $45,000 for dating services and was set up with suitors who didn’t match her tastes
Cupid: In 2008, Joan E. Cooke hired the firm Kelleher & Associates, a premier matchmaking service run by Amber Kelleher and her daughter Jill, both former Hollywood actresses
According to the law suit, of the 13 men she was matched with;
One was a sexually promiscuous internet sex toy purveyor, despite her profile stating she was seeking family, fidelity and intellectual sophistication.
A Google search on another showed that he had criminal convictions for fraud ‘as long as a very long arm’ dating back to the 1970s.
Stating that she was a Democrat and fairly liberal in all areas, she was twice matched with Republicans, with the excuse given by Kelleher that ‘opposites attract’.
On two other occasions, the men she went on a date with informed her they were not looking for a monogamous relationship, despite the fact she specifically requested this in her profile. One man told her he wanted only ‘friends with benefits’.
Despite the fact Joan Cooke, left, said she was an animal lover, one of the suitors said she would have to put her cats, right, outside if he ever visited
She later found that both men were not paying members of the site.
Another man told her she would have to put her cats outside if he came to visit as he didn’t like animals. In her profile, Cooke expressed a love of animals and desire to keep more.
The law suit states: ‘Cook’s purportedly personalized search yielded 13 matches, the backgrounds, personalities, interests and behavior of these matches reveal very clearly that Kelleher had not used reasonable good faith efforts to find a suitor based on her profile.’
‘There is absolutely nothing in Cooke’s profile to suggest that she would be compatible with a sexually promiscuous internet sex toy purveyor and aficionado,’ reads the complaint, filed in California Supreme Court last week.
Cooke is demanding restitution from the firm along with at least $25,000 in damages.
A Kelleher & Associates spokesman told the Huffington Post in an email that the lawsuit was baseless, adding that the 25-year-old company had never before been sued.
They said in a 2010 interview they have had 400 marriages to come from their matchmaking.
WHO KELLEHER & ASSOCIATES DEEMED SUITABLE PARTNERS FOR JOAN
Suitor A: Ms Cooke specifically stated she did not want a ‘semi-retired individual who wishes to spend time with their grandchildren’ and desired someone athletic and active. Suitor A was a ‘sedentary semi-retired individual who wished to spend time with his grandchildren’.
Suitor B: A sexually promiscuous internet sex toy purveyor, despite Ms Cooke’s profile stating she was seeking family, fidelity and intellectual sophistication.
Suitor C: Ms Cooke loves animals and stated in her profile that she has aspirations to own dogs and horses along with her cats. Suitor C hates animals and told her the cats would have to be placed outside if he ever visited.
Suitor D: A former Republican whip who had a criminal conviction for driving so drunk, other vehicles had to veer off the road to avoid colliding with his car.
Suitor E: A Google search showed that suitor E had criminal convictions for fraud dating back to the 1970s in Manhattan, with a judge saying he has a ‘record of convictions as long as his arm, and it’s a long arm’.
Suitor F: Told Ms Cooke he was not a paying client of Kelleher Associates, was only interested in ‘friends with benefits’ and had a list of beautiful women he could ‘bed’.
Suitor G: Stating that she was a Democrat and fairly liberal in all areas, she was matched with a very conservative Republican, with the excuse given by Kelleher that ‘opposites attract’.
Suitor H: Despite stating she was looking for a long-term monogamous relationship, this man told her from the outset he was not interested in monogamy
Suitor I: One of the top three priorities Ms Cooke listed was career and income as she wanted to travel frequently with her new partner. This suitor had to re-enter the workforce after retirement to ‘make ends meet’.
There’s not much I can add to that…