Don’t see your website contact, sales contacts, company contact, or your email contact? Maybe you need to contact us at [email protected]

from www.triblocal.com – In the latest court filing in a case against adult-film star Jenna Jameson, the defense has filed a motion seeking to disqualify a lawyer representing the theater.

In a motion filed earlier this month, Naperville-based attorney Paul Nordini asks a lawyer representing the theater be disqualified from the case so he can become a witness if the case goes to trial.

The suit, filed by Hollywood Palms Cinema LLC, alleges Jameson breached a contract when she failed to show up for showings of “Zombie Strippers!” at Hollywood Boulevard and Hollywood Palms Cinemas in late March.

In the motion, Nordini references an e-mail sent by attorney Joshua Heidelman that states the theater was no longer willing to re-schedule the event, and instead asked for monetary compensation of $50,000. Nordini is asking the attorney be disqualified from the case so he can testify about the e-mail if the case goes to trial.

“What I am proving is that they breached the agreement,” Nordini said, adding that the contract states the appearance would be rescheduled if Jenna Jameson, named in the suit as Jenna Marie Massoli, was unable to attend because of a medical issue.

Additionally, Nordini’s motion answers claims by the theater that allege Massoli attended a birthday party for celebrity blogger Perez Hilton the weekend after the scheduled event in Naperville and Woodridge. The original suit claims her doctor’s order that she not travel was insufficient, and references pictures and video posted online of her at the event.

“Readily available online are videos of (Massoli) on the evening of March 26, 2011, which shows her ill, unwilling to speak, accompanied by a nurse, and having assistance to walk and stand; the condition excusing her from traveling to Chicago pursuant to the terms of the alleged ‘contract’ is evident, open and obvious,” Nordini’s motion states.

Nordini added he also plans to file a motion next week to dismiss the case entirely, on the basis that the original contract was too vague.

“The contract is simply unenforceable the way it is written,” he said. “The reality of it is, it is not spelled out very well.”

When reached by telephone, Heidelman said he had no comment on the motion.