I am wondering what was going through this guys mind. He is married. He apparently has a good job. May even have a kid. And he wants to file a lawsuit for this:
Getting a lap dance.
I wonder if his attorney has had him really think through what the line of question may or may not include.
Apparently Mr. Chang was getting a lap dance at Manhattan's Hot Lap Dance Club (NSFW link here). While the unnamed dancer was working on his lap (minds out of the gutter please) she apparently did a maneuver which caused her to kick him in the head in some way with her heel.
Now, I suppose he is filing suit against the club on a premises liability theory. But I would guess he is probably also going to have to sue the stripper herself, since she may be an independent contractor.
I can just imagine the deposition of Chang, the dancer, an the club owner. I just can not think of way of putting it up here and not coming off completely crass. But in the end, if this goes to trial, Mr. Chang is going to have to stand up before a bunch of people (as many as 12 jurors, the judge, the other court room personnel and possibly a bunch of curious on lookers) and talk about going to a strip club and then later claiming he got more than he paid for (minds out of the gutter!). For now he is getting the benefit of the Spitzer fall-out that his employers might not notice whats going on...
Of course, this all brings to my mind visiting the locus in quo and how well that worked out for my favorite fictional barrister's some-times friend, Claude Erskine-Browne.