David Caruso’s ex-girlfriend, Liza Marquez, has sued the “CSI: Miami” star for damages based upon allegations of fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and six additional charges, according to court papers acquired by Access Hollywood.
RadarOnline was the first to break the story.
In the suit, Marquez, represented by high-powered attorney Debra Opri, also names 10 additional defendants, named as “Does 1 through 10,” who are allegedly connected to Caruso as targets of the suit.
The suit alleges that Marquez and Caruso began dating in April 2004 and that between then and July of that year, Caruso presented her with a ring and said he “wanted to provide for and support” her and that she should quit a position she was offered on “CSI: Miami.” They allegedly began living together in September 2004 and welcomed their first child in September 2005. Marquez gave birth to a second child in October 2007, at which point Caruso allegedly served her with a paternity action and a note from his attorney that read, “reconciliation is not an option,” thus ending their relationship.
The suit further alleged that the couple maintained a “marriage-like relationship” from September 2004 through September 2007, during which Marquez claimed to be the target of a barrage of “tirades” and “emotional and mental abuse” over her interactions with other men, including a false accusation that she was having an affair with his former assistant. During one such incident in New York, the suit alleged, Caruso falsely accused her of an indiscretion and “berated her for approximately 4 hours” before apologizing. In another, he allegedly “became enraged” that she had spoken with Greg Kinnear at a Jane Goodall event in Malibu, Calif., and had a similar response on a plane trip when she recognized Billy Dee Williams. During one argument, Caruso allegedly threw a remote control; his “tantrums began to escalate” and he raised a hand to her “several… times.”
Marquez alleged that she turned down job opportunities in LA, Turkey and Cambodia to be with Caruso; when she became pregnant with their first child, he allegedly “asked [her] to exercise her option not to continue with the pregnancy,” which she refused. During her pregnancy, he allegedly told her, “I guess for now you’ll just be a birthing cow” and would isolate himself from her in private to watch “Seinfeld” reruns.
After Caruso allegedly began spending time at a second residence, Marquez claimed to have discovered “significant amounts of pornographic materials,” including a “stash of 1970’s pornography.”
Upon hearing the news of her second pregnancy in 2007, he allegedly admitted to Marquez “fatherhood was not for him” and, in May of that year, told third parties that he did not think the baby was his. In late summer, he allegedly suggested to her she should have sex with a male prostitute and admitted that he “had been with another woman at his residence” while Marquez was out of town.
Later, while eight months pregnant, Marquez alleged she “confirmed” that Caruso had “commenced a relationship with another woman”; after she confronted him, he moved out of their shared residence. Two days after giving birth to their second child, she claims she was served with paternity documents and a note from his attorney that “resumption of your relationship is not an option.”
Finally, the suit alleged that Caruso agreed to pay her $1,000,000 plus attorney’s fees as a settlement , but after some 15 revisions to a proposed paternity agreement, refused to pay. In the suit, Marquez states that she will “amend this Complaint after she ascertains the full amount of her damages.”
In a statement to Access on Thursday, a rep for Caruso responded to the claims.
“Last month David became concerned about the welfare of his children and sought court assistance to redefine David’s and Liza’s custodial schedules,” the rep said in the statement. “It now appears that Liza has decided to retaliate by raising false claims against David, which David finds unfortunate since these claims will divert the parties’ and the court’s attention away from the best interests of the children.”