FREE! Subscribe to News Fetch, THE daily wine industry briefing - Click Here


Sponsored by:
Banner_Xpur_160x600---Wine-Industry-Insight[63]
InnoVint_WII_ad_portrait

Bryant Family Vineyards tries last ditch legal ploy to keep consultant’s case in California – Updated Nov. 1

October 31, 2019 | Filed under Featured Articles | Posted by

This is a 10/31/19 UPDATE to: Bryant Family Vineyards case against financial consultant booted out of San Francisco, transferred to NY

 

Attorneys for Bryant Family Vineyards played their last cards in a last ditch attempt to keep their lawsuit against consultant Lauren Ridenhour from being transferred to New York.

 

The Bryant attorneys have asked the San Francisco Federal District Court to delay the transfer until after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York makes a decision on whether or not to allow Ridenhour’s lawsuit to proceed against Donald L. Bryant Jr., and his wife, Bettina Sulser Bryant.

 

UPDATED November 1  — The following comments were received from a subscriber who had read the article as previously published.

Harassment action?

“This looks like a harassment action, something designed to increase the financial pain on the consultant,” said an attorney with a major San Francisco law firm who familiar with the case. The attorney spoke on background to Wine Industry Insight because his firm had not cleared an on-the-record response.

 

Bryant Trust New York attorneys would be Ridenhour’s best witnesses

The San Francisco attorney said that, “if this stayed here, [San Francisco District Court] and I was working for the consultant, the first thing I would do is subpoena the Bryant attorneys in the New York action to testify here and ask them to tell the court why they did not consider the documents in evidence [Ridenhour’s New York legal  filings] sensitive, worthy of filing under seal, or otherwise confidential in nature.”

Outcome in New York Irrelevant

The outcome of Ridenhour’s New York litigation is irrelevant, according to the San Francisco attorney: “Regardless of whether the court in New York dismisses the case or not, the filings have established that the attorneys defending the Bryant Trust in that action clearly did not consider information in the consultant’s legal filings to be of a nature meriting a filing under seal.”

 

The attorney said that the Bryant request to avoid transferring the case to New York, “looks like a client-driven grudge case.”

Full legal filings for Wine Executive News Premium Subscribers are here:

 

  • Proposed Order Granting Application to Stay
  • Declaration of Lori Sambol Brody ISO Application for Stay

Premium Subscribers Log-In Here:

Previous Wine Industry Insight coverage:

Not a Wine Executive News Subscriber?

Subscribe to Wine Executive News now, and get the rest of this original article along with everything else on the site every day, including original documents, spreadsheets,and source materials for just $29.99 per month or $209 per year

30 more full Ridenhour and Bryant litigation court documents for premium subscribers

  • San Francisco Federal Judge’s order granting Ridenhour’s motion to transfer
  • San Francisco Federal Judge’s order granting Ridenhour’s motion to transfer
  • Ridenhour complaint-032219
  • Ridenhour complaint-Amended-042219
  • Ridenhour complaint-Amended-Exhibit-042219
  • Response to defendant srequest for premotion conference-060619
  • Bryant-V-Ridenhour-Complaint- 073019
  • Bryant-V-Ridenhour-Complaint-Exhibita-073019
  • Second amended complaint-Ridenhour-073119
  • Complaint amended-Exhibita-073119
  • Complaint amended-Exhibitb-073119
  • Complaint amended-Exhibitc-073119
  • Complaint amended-Exhibitd-073119
  • Complaint amended-Exhibite-073119
  • Declaration Of Bettina Sulser Bryant In Support Of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application For (1) Temporary Restraining Order And (2) Order To Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction-081919
  • Request For Judicial Notice In Support Of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application For (1) Temporary Restraining Order And (2) Order To Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction-081919
  • Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application For (1) Temporary Restraining Order And (2) Order To Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction-081919
  • [Proposed] (1) Temporary Restraining Order And (2) Order To Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction 1322660.1-081919
  • Declaration Of Keith J. Wesley In Support Of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application For (1) Temporary Restraining Order And (2) Order To Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction-081919
  • Order Re Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application For Temporary Restraining Order-081920
  • Defendant-Ridenhour-Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Plaintiff-Application For A Tro-08/21/19
  • Judge order-Ex parte application for TRO-082319
  • Stipulation-On-Confidential-Information-09-03-19
  • Plaintiff’s-Bryant-Ex-Parte -Application-Etc-091119
  • Plaintiff ridenhour-Memorandum-Of-Law-In-Opposition-To-Defendantbryant-Motion-To-Dismiss-09/13/19
  • Second-Amended-Complaint-Exhibits-Ridenhour-Opposition-To-Dismissal-09/13/19
  • Order-Denying-Plaintiff-Ex-Parte-Application-091319
  • Declaration-Of-Bettina-Sulser-Bryant-Opposition-To-Defendant-Lauren-Ridenhour-Motion-To-Dismiss-Complaint-09/20/19
  • Declaration Of Pearl Zuchlewski In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Application For A Tro- 09/20/19
  • Defendant Ridenhour Reply Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss The Second Amended Complaint-092719
  • Defendant-Bryant-Reply Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion To Dismiss The Second Amended Complaint-092719