[sureLoss]

Bankruptcy judge rules Kane must face discovery in abortion for pay lawsuit

https://theathletic.com/news/judge-r...t/6eUxPR75fBSZ

A federal bankruptcy judge gave the go-ahead for discovery in a lawsuit filed by Hope Parker, who alleges Kane reneged on a promise to pay her at least $2 million if she aborted their pregnancy.

That means Parker, who first sued in 2018 in California state court, can begin seeking testimony and electronic correspondence from Kane, who says he changed his mind about paying Parker before she sent him proof of the abortion. That argument did not win over bankruptcy judge Stephen Johnson.

“Plaintiff (Parker) was unwilling to terminate the third pregnancy until Defendant (Kane) offered her two to three million dollars to do so,” Johnson wrote. (According to bankruptcy court documents, Parker allegedly aborted a fetus conceived with the hockey player twice before, and Kane paid her $125,000 for the second abortion.) “Then, on June 13, 2018, Plaintiff sent Defendant a text message of her lab results, which confirmed she had terminated the third pregnancy. When Plaintiff requested Defendant update her on the status of her payment, Defendant, for the first time, told (Plaintiff) he was not going to pay her, stating: ‘I’ll have my lawyer contact you I’m not dealing with this any further then.’

“I can infer from the complaint that Plaintiff falsely said he would pay … to abort the third pregnancy, and that he did so to deceive (her) into actually undergoing that abortion.”

Parker’s case in California was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and then stayed since Kane’s January bankruptcy filing. A status conference scheduled earlier this month was pushed into next year. That leaves Parker’s complaint within the bankruptcy process. She has filed a separate case within Chapter 7 seeking to ensure that if Kane is allowed to walk away from his debts, her debt would be treated differently.

Bankruptcy law does not allow a debt to be waived if it is obtained under false pretenses. Johnson OK’d that argument to proceed. It doesn’t mean the court is ruling in Parker’s favor, but that it sees enough reason for the case to move forward.