Huth sues Gerard for $3,200

URBANA — The owner of a local consulting firm has filed suit against the mayor of Champaign seeking more than $3,000.

On Wednesday, Do Good Consulting, whose owner is former Urbana alderwoman Laura Huth, filed a small claims case in Champaign County Circuit Court alleging that Don Gerard breached a contract.

A docket entry in the court case says the consulting firm is seeking damages of $3,233.75 from Gerard.

On Oct. 25, Huth asked a judge to issue an emergency order of protection against Gerard, which the judge declined to do. Attorneys for both Gerard and Huth agreed to continue the date for a hearing on a plenary order but no date has been set.

In the petition for the order of protection, Huth alleged that Gerard, with whom she had a personal relationship between April 2011 and July 2012, owed her money for consulting work she did for him.

Bruce Ratcliffe, who was representing Gerard in the order of protection case, said Gerard had not contacted him about the small claims case.

Michael Antoline, the attorney who filed the small claims case for Huth, could not be reached for comment Friday.

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 23, 2012 at 9:11 pm

Ahh.... come on!  Just kiss, and make up so this tawdry item can disappear from the media. Do it now before the National Enquirer gets involved.  Attend an event like spending a little time outside in the evening for the homeless.  Wear furry hats, and have your picture taken together as proof the spat is over.

millbo368 wrote on November 24, 2012 at 3:11 am

And?? What is the punchline? What does this matter that it end up in the paper? I could care less and hope most other readers would feel the same..

rsp wrote on November 24, 2012 at 5:11 am

Some people are puzzled by the conflict of being "afraid" of someone and refusing to walk away from them. Is it worth $3000 to keep making contact? I'm sure some think it's only about the money. A lot of people just don't know how to break up. How to let go and move on. Is there a real debt or a "perceived debt"? People do things for the people they are dating without expecting to be paid. Sometimes it's in a professional capacity. Sometimes it's just for a reduced fee. But usually they are clear about it up front when it concerns business with billing, etc. and not after the relationship ends.

This would especially be the case when it appears to involve campaign matters. As both have ran campaigns in the past both would be aware of the filing requirements for expenses and donations. If neither thought it was important to produce the paper trail at the time for reporting purposes, then it was nothing more than a someone helping out and supporting a person they were dating. Going back later to extract payment because that person did not value us or what we gave to the relationship will not make up for it. 

Of course, some people can be tone deaf. No matter how much you tell them or how you tell them they think they can buy you dinner or something and you'll forget. Maybe there is a paper trail which didn't get filed. Sometimes it's about the principal. 

Local Yocal wrote on November 24, 2012 at 6:11 am
Profile Picture

The rumor mill is circulating a much different story (an even more tawdry tale) than what we've been seeing here. If this lawsuit seems petty and inconsequential, it's because this may be more about revenge for issues the N-G hasn't published.

aantulov wrote on November 24, 2012 at 5:11 pm

Now if only the overtaxed citizens of champaign would wake up and sue him for the millions of decade long tax breaks he has given to all the new building, most recently the Marriott. Most don't even know they just got a tax hike in addition.


Seriously tax breaks without condition?  For every part time maid, cook and cleaner- not a student there is an additional cost to the tax payers for subsidizing rent and food.  These companies at the very least could send people on the clock over to the Times homeless if they don't have 8 hours straight where they need coverage.  This is where so many end up after companies don't pay into the local economy from the bottom up.  


So I wonder if the Mayor that shoved these tax breaks through be staying cost free in the penthouse of the Marriott with the next lady in line to sue him?  

bluegrass wrote on November 26, 2012 at 2:11 pm

Lets not jump off a cliff here aantulov.  Forgive me for interjecting a little reality into your ranting, but the mayor by himself can't just give businesses tax incentives, which is why we have a city council, and a long list of rules and regulations governing these actions.  While the mayor may have been in favor of bringing millions of dollars in construction and jobs and money to the downtown area, he doesn't operate in a vaccum.


Second, let's not throw mud when we don't even know what the situation is.  I've not been a fan of Mr. Gerard's politics, but the mud slinging at a local official over a domestic spat is a little over the top.

cretis16 wrote on November 24, 2012 at 11:11 am

Some interesting text messages from EL Mayor and Huth....hmmmmm. How do you give Mayor a pass on those...sounds pretty sleezy for a mayor to send text of this manner...just sayin?

EdRyan wrote on November 24, 2012 at 11:11 am

Is this "As Chambana Turns," or is it another episode of "Soap."??

wayward wrote on November 24, 2012 at 12:11 pm

It sounds like Huth's understanding was that Gerard had promised to pay her as soon as there was money in his campaign fund, and Larson recently made a substantial donation.

As far as the voicemails, I heard a couple of them.  Let's just say that they made Schweighart's birther comments seem brilliant in comparison.  Did Gerard realize that voicemails and emails don't just vanish after the recipient opens them -- they can be saved and forwarded? 

rsp wrote on November 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm

When I heard about these I wondered where the other half were. Usually those are part of a fight, not normal conversation. So for her to try to get points by sharing his half of a fight from when?, I think is disingenious of her. They would be clearly out of context. Distorted, even. People say things in a fight they wouldn't otherwise say. So why is she forwarding them if her claim is they make her so distraught? 

wayward wrote on November 24, 2012 at 5:11 pm

It sounds like there were some emails Gerard sent to other people about Huth and some of those were forwarded to her.

Marti Wilkinson wrote on November 24, 2012 at 10:11 pm

It may be that Gerard didn't consider that his former girlfriend would save and forward his private emails and voicemails. Huth likely had her own reasons for doing so, and it's a matter for the court to resolve at this point.

read the DI wrote on November 24, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Sounds like Huth is taking that line about how "a true lover always feels in debt to the one he loves" a little too seriously.

After the first judge told her to knock it off, you'd think she would have learned. This is not Lady Diana and Prince Charles and it's a shame she doesn't realize that.

 

C-U Townie wrote on November 24, 2012 at 2:11 pm

Why are people so surprised by this turn of events? Huth is a narcissist. She is oblivious about how unprofessional this is. She's essentially airing her dirty laundry. The first story the news station ran included how she's been fired... TWICE. To the point she had to start her own business to keep a job. That doesn't make her look good. Nor does it make her consulting company look good that Huth cannot manage either her personal life or her professional life (operating with no contract and then going after a client with a balance in the public eye). Yes, please. Can I hire her to help my business? 

Gerard borders on the same ambivalence towards most individuals in his life. Be his friend. Cater to his ego. But don't think of opposing him or he'll lash out. Again, another person in the spotlight showing how professional he can be. It's a good thing the mayor is not in complete control of our community. If Gerard made important decisions, versus Steve Clark being in charge, we might all be relocating to Mahomet. Gerard operates with the same delusion as Huth... what they do is alright because afterall they're important untouchables. No need to do damage control because something like this couldn't possibly change his image. (To those who know him this doesn't change his image, he's been this way all along). His text messages are pretty tame considering what he's capable of doing. 

Ego clashing with ego means a petty, trivial lawsuit and lashing out. He doesn't take it seriously, and she won't stop until she makes him look worse. Their true colors are pretty ugly. 

Can't wait until the next episode of this story that is only inflating their egos even more. 

wayward wrote on November 24, 2012 at 7:11 pm

I'm guessing that up until now, the attention that comes with being mayor has been fun.

Marti Wilkinson wrote on November 24, 2012 at 10:11 pm

The story reminds me of why it's important to maintain a degree of separation between ones personal life and professional life. It can be a challenge considering that proximity is often the predictor of interpersonal relationships. It's been a general observation of mine that when things go sour, the woman is the one who ends up being hurt professionally. This is regardless of who decides to end the relationship.

As a resident of Champaign, I simply hope that both individuals can find a resolution that works for both of them, and that any unsavory gossip isn't reported as news. Individually, I've met both Laura and Don, but don't know them well enough to really judge either person. Personally, I don't wish to see either party be hurt, or hurt more, as a result of the court case.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 27, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Gee.... rsp.  We must have struck a nerve with our comments.  I will take the blame since mine were the last before the comments were censored.  We did not curse, or use indecent speech.  Someone objected though.  Sort of like the comments disappearing on the Davis article. 

rsp wrote on November 27, 2012 at 12:11 pm

I think it was my joke, with the link. Someone must have complained. 

wayward wrote on November 27, 2012 at 12:11 pm

But your joke was just a pun.  I was wondering myself why the comments got taken down.

landoflincoln wrote on December 17, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Don't know Gerard, but I would advise the press to check into Huths background a bit more.  She tends to threaten to sue anyone who decides they no longer want to work with her.  I think this may be the 3rd or 4th lawsuit she may have been involved with. 

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 23, 2013 at 3:01 pm

Not sure where you're getting that, unless you're talking about out-of-county.