PC being sued for $1+ million

I wonder what these law suits will actually achieve - other than terminating the pyramid. Toppling it over will only expose a hollow interior.

But I guess it needs to be put to an end.

quote:

Originally posted by on the wine:
I wonder what these law suits will actually achieve - other than terminating the pyramid. Toppling it over will only expose a hollow interior.

But I guess it needs to be put to an end.

very true- which is why it is good to be at the front of the line. first to file, and you aren't left with nothing but bones on the carcass.

I'm so excited to go to WB and watch Paul strut around for a victory lap.

quote:

Originally posted by jburman82:
I'm so excited to go to WB and watch Paul strut around for a victory lap.

Won't happen- Todd banned me for life last night for likening him to Roger Goodell. Even blocked my IP address from accessing the site as a lurker. And he wonders why I questioned his leadership?

quote:

Originally posted by TPEwinedrinker:

quote:

Originally posted by jburman82:
I'm so excited to go to WB and watch Paul strut around for a victory lap.

Won't happen- Todd banned me for life last night for likening him to Roger Goodell. Even blocked my IP address from accessing the site as a lurker. And he wonders why I questioned his leadership?

hahahahahahaha . . . . breath . . . . hahahahahaha

That's great. What thread was it in?

On the plus side, I am saving $25 by not making a voluntary donation that is apparently mandatory, so at least I am happy about that.

quote:

Originally posted by TPEwinedrinker:

quote:

Originally posted by jburman82:
I'm so excited to go to WB and watch Paul strut around for a victory lap.

Won't happen- Todd banned me for life last night for likening him to Roger Goodell. Even blocked my IP address from accessing the site as a lurker. And he wonders why I questioned his leadership?

Their loss. I don't visit the site, but I did enjoy getting banned by VinoCellar.

quote:

Originally posted by TPEwinedrinker:
Won't happen- Todd banned me for life last night for likening him to Roger Goodell. Even blocked my IP address from accessing the site as a lurker. And he wonders why I questioned his leadership?

LMAO. You effing troublemaker.

anyone who wants me to email them the case, just shoot me a note at tpewinedrinker at yahoo dot com and i will cut and paste as you need a paid account with lexusnexis to access

quote:

Originally posted by wineismylife:

quote:

Originally posted by TPEwinedrinker:
Won't happen- Todd banned me for life last night for likening him to Roger Goodell. Even blocked my IP address from accessing the site as a lurker. And he wonders why I questioned his leadership?

LMAO. You effing troublemaker.

the greatest irony of all WIML- i got banned for saying there is no way i would make a voluntary donation of $25, but the same posters who were calling me a "cheapskate," "freeloader," "lousy neighbor," etc, have exposure to PC and won't pay the THREE FU**ING DOLLARS it takes to access the case!!! Truly hilarious.

They are perfectly content with their heads buried in the sand, and then when the plane crashes into the mountain, they are left wondering at the moment of impact, "why wasn't i warned?" despite the fact they were handed a parachute when the plane began descending.

double post by accident (edit)

A shame that they banned you.

Thanks for posting this information.

quote:

Originally posted by AML:
A shame that they banned you.

Thanks for posting this information.

their loss really... i am such a horrible member of the community and lousy neighbor, that i only offered to drive 80 miles roundtrip and pick up anyone's pre-arrival orders that they converted to in stock credit and ship to them.

I have a couple of bottles that are in stock. I was waiting until this fall for cooler temps to ship them to me. Should I be getting them immediately, to get everything off board before the ship sinks?

quote:

Originally posted by smittyscook:
I have a couple of bottles that are in stock. I was waiting until this fall for cooler temps to ship them to me. Should I be getting them immediately, to get everything off board before the ship sinks?

i think temps should be okay in most parts of the country, especially pacific NW, that i would probably try to get my wine once it came in from PC, although i don't think PC will really rupture its hull until next year.

TPE is correct. If PC is a hussle, this lawsuit outta flush out the BS.

here ya go for your reading pleasure. i have edited it from the online version- unfortunately i can't edit it to show the exhibits which are of the plaintiff's order history- 1600 bottles including 1000 bottles of 09 and 10 bdx- multiple cases of 2010 le pin- just eye watering orders.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAWRENCE WAI-MAN HUI, Plaintiff,
v.
FOX ORTEGA ENTERPRISES d/b/a PREMIER CRU, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.
COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
page1image14488page1image15080
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Fox Ortega Enterprises d/b/a Premier Cru (“Premier Cru”) states on its website: “We source the world’s finest wines at extremely competitive prices to provide exceptional experiences for collectors, connoisseurs, and everyday wine lovers.” That has not been true for Plaintiff Lawrence Wai-Man Hui (“Hui”) and, apparently, many other Premier Cru customers. This case is about Premier Cru’s failure to fulfill its contractual obligations to deliver wine to Hui, and its wrongful conduct in inducing Hui to order additional wine when it knew it would not or could not deliver the wine in a reasonably timely manner. As a result of its wrongful conduct, Premier Cru has had the benefit of almost one million dollars of Hui’s money while Hui has received essentially nothing in return.

PARTIES
Hui is an individual residing in Hong Kong.
Premier Cru is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Berkeley, California.

Hui is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 1-10, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Hui will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Hui is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of such fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner or status for the acts and omissions described herein and that his loss as herein alleged was proximately caused by defendants’ acts.

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) because Hui is a citizen of Hong Kong and Premier Cru is incorporated in California, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Venue is proper in this district because a substantial part of the acts and omissions giving rise to this case took place in Berkeley, California.

Intradistrict assignment is proper in the San Francisco or Oakland Division of this Court pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(d) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this case occurred in Berkeley, California, which is located in Alameda County.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Between August 2011 and October 2014, Hui purchased wine and “wine futures” from Premier Cru for various types of French wine. Wine futures are a method of purchasing wines early while a vintage is still in a barrel, offering the customer the opportunity to invest in a particular wine before it is bottled. The wine producers (or “chateaus”) generally deal with bulk wine buyer/importers like Premier Cru. In turn, those bulk buyers/importers sell wine in advance to individuals and other customers at a predetermined price.

In total, Mr. Hui purchased $981,642 worth of wine, most of it futures, from
Premier Cru, representing 1,591 bottles of futures for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 vintages from various chateaus. A summary of Hui’s purchases of wine and wine futures from Premier Cru, as printed from Premier Cru’s website, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. An itemized list of his purchase orders, as printed from Premier Cru’s website, is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Each time Hui ordered wine from Premier Cru, he sent Premier Cru money in the exact amount of the purchase price. Of those purchases, far fewer than 100 bottles have arrived. Under California Commercial Code section 2309(1), “the time for shipment or delivery or any other action under a contract if not provided in this division or agreed upon shall be a reasonable time.”

Hui purchased wine and wine futures from Premier Cru because Premier Cru held itself out as a reputable dealer of wine and wine futures with secure relationships with chateaus.

Hui was understandably wary of sending so much money to a company overseas to secure wine that had not yet been released. On August 18, 2011, before Hui placed his first order, a Premier Cru employee named James Gillerman sent Hui a reassuring email in which he stated that “we do deliver the wines we sell.” Premier Cru has not delivered the wines Mr. Hui bought, and this statement is false. This statement induced Hui to make purchases through Premier Cru.

In a June 6, 2012 email, after Hui had ordered and paid for over $500,000 worth of wine and asked when his wines would be delivered, Gillerman wrote: “I do suspect that a large amount of your bottles will be here in time for a pickup of shipment in December January of this year/next year [i.e., December 2012 or January 2013].” This statement was false, yet it induced Hui to make many additional purchases through Premier Cru.

After Hui raised concerns about non-delivery of his wine, on September 9, 2014, Gillerman reiterated to Hui in an email: “We do deliver the wines we sell, and you will get everything you ordered.” Gillerman further stated that “I fully expect that MANY of more of your wines will be here by the end of 2014.... again I would expect you will see a whole lot more 2009 and 2010 Bordeaux here by the end of the year.... By the end of the year, or early next if you prefer, you should see a very large number of your bottles are here.” These statements were false as well, yet they induced Hui to make further purchases and to forbear from taking action against Premier Cru.

Despite Hui’s requests, Premier Cru has provided little meaningful information on the status of his 2009 and 2010 futures orders, has not provided any satisfactory answer for where his 2011 and 2012 bottles are or when he can reasonably expect them.

Many of the wines Hui ordered from Premier Cru are now widely available from other vendors at prices lower than what Mr. Hui paid Premier Cru up front. For example, in August 2011 Hui pre-ordered 18 bottles of 2009 Cheval Blanc for $995 per bottle. This wine is immediately available for purchase online for less than what Hui paid. As another example, in March 2012 Hui ordered 24 bottles of 2009 Mouton Rothschild for $799 per bottle. This wine is available online for far less than Hui’s price from Premier Cru. None of these wines has been delivered to Hui nor has he been advised by Premier Cru that they are otherwise available.

Hui has requested rescission of his purchase contracts with Premier Cru and an unconditional return of his money. Premier Cru has ignored his requests.

Hui’s experience is not unique. A Google search yields multiple complaints by other purchasers of Premier Cru’s futures who have not received the goods they bargained for.

Several of those complaints are summarized in the New York Times article entitled “No Wine (Really, Not One Bottle) Before Its Time,” dated June 6, 2015, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/your-money/no-wine-really-not-one-bottle-before-its-time.html>. In that article, John Fox, a principal of Premier Cru, is quoted as follows: “We’ve been working on getting our staff to give people correct information about when their wine is going to show up.... Not false estimates because they want to get off the phone. It’s been a transition.” (emphasis added). Fox’s statement suggests that Premier Cru’s staff is “transitioning” from giving “false estimates”—such as the false estimates given to Hui.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Each time Hui purchased wine or wine futures from Premier Cru (i.e. with each order attached hereto as Exhibit B), Premier Cru made a promise that it would timely deliver Hui’s wine to him.

On information and belief, at the time Premier Cru made each promise, it had no intention of performing it, and it knew that it could not or would not timely deliver Hui’s wine to him.

The promises were made by Premier Cru with the intent to induce Hui to send Premier Cru money.

Hui, at the time the promises were made and at the time he sent money to Premier Cru, was ignorant of the defendant’s secret intention not to perform and could not, in exercising reasonable diligence, determine that Premier Cru had no intention to perform. Hui lives overseas and communicated with Premier Cru by email. By email, Premier Cru assured Hui that he would get his wine. If Hui had known Premier Cru’s actual intentions, he would never have sent Premier Cru money.

Premier Cru failed to abide by its promise to deliver Hui’s wine.

As a direct and proximate result of these false promises, Hui has been damaged in
an amount no less than $981,642.

Premier Cru’s promises with no intention to perform were intentional misrepresentations and deceits, with the intention of depriving Hui of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and were despicable conduct that subjected the Hui to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of his rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
On August 18, 2011, a Premier Cru employee named James Gillerman sent Hui a
reassuring email in which he stated that “we do deliver the wines we sell.” Premier has not delivered the wines Mr. Hui bought, and this statement was false. This statement induced Hui to make purchases through Premier Cru.

In June 6, 2012 email, after Hui asked when his wines would be delivered, Gillerman wrote: “I do suspect that a large amount of your bottles will be here in time for a pickup of shipment in December January of this year/next year [i.e., December 2012 or January 2013].” This statement was false, yet it induced Hui to make many additional purchases through Premier Cru.
30. After Hui raised concerns about non-delivery of his wine, on September 9, 2014, Gillerman reiterated to Hui in an email: “We do deliver the wines we sell, and you will get everything you ordered.” Gillerman further stated that “I fully expect that MANY of more of your wines will be here by the end of 2014.... again I would expect you will see a whole lot more 2009 and 2010 Bordeaux here by the end of the year.... By the end of the year, or early next if you prefer, you should see a very large number of your bottles are here.” These statements are false, yet they induced Hui to make further purchases and to forbear from taking action against Premier Cru.

On information and belief, the statements set forth above were false when they were made. John Fox’s admission in the New York Times that “[w]e’ve been working on getting our staff to give people correct information about when their wine is going to show up.... Not false estimates because they want to get off the phone. It’s been a transition....” suggests that Premier Cru’s staff is “transitioning” from giving “false estimates”—such as the false estimates given to Hui.

When Premier Cru’s employee made these false statements, he knew them to be false and made these statements with the intent of inducing Hui to order wine through Premier Cru, to send Premier Cru money, and/or to forbear from taking action against Premier Cru.

Hui reasonably relied on these false statements. At the time the statements were made and at the time he sent money to Premier Cru, Hui was ignorant of the falsity of these representations and could not, in exercising reasonable diligence, determine that these statements
were false. Hui lives overseas and communicated with Premier Cru by email. By email, Premier
Cru assured Hui that he would get his wine. If Hui had known that Premier Cru was making false representations about when his wine would be available, he would never have sent Premier Cru money.

As a direct and proximate result of these false promises, Hui has been damaged in an amount no less than $981,642.

Premier Cru’s false statements were intentional misrepresentations and deceits, with the intention of depriving Hui of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and were despicable conduct that subjected the Hui to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of his rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligent Misrepresentation)
Hui alleges the following in the alternative to the Second Claim for Relief.
Paragraphs 1-36 are incorporated herein by reference.

The statements set forth in Paragraphs 11-13 and 28-30 above were not true.

Although Premier Cru’s employee may have honestly believed that the statements were true when he made them, he had no reasonable ground for such belief given that Premier Cru was having widespread problems delivering wine and wine futures on time—a fact surely known to Premier Cru and its employees.

Premier Cru intended that Hui rely on these statements.

Hui reasonably relied on these false statements. At the time the statements were made and at the time he sent money to Premier Cru, Hui was ignorant of the falsity of these representations and could not, in exercising reasonable diligence, determine that these statements were false. Hui lives overseas and communicated with Premier Cru by email. By email, Premier Cru assured Hui that he would get his wine. If Hui had known that Premier Cru was making false representations about when his wine would be available, he would never have sent Premier Cru money.

As a direct and proximate result of these false promises, Hui has been damaged in an amount no less than $981,642.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Contract)
Each time Hui purchased wine or wine futures from Premier Cru (i.e. with each order attached hereto as Exhibit B), Premier Cru made a promise that it would timely deliver Hui’s wine to him.

Hui has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on his part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contracts or has been excused from such performance.

Premier Cru has breached each purchase contract by failing to deliver Hui’s wine within a reasonable time.

As a direct and proximate result of Premier Cru’s breaches, Hui has been damaged in an amount no less than $981,642.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Rescission Based on Misrepresentation [Cal. Civ. Code § 1689(b)(2])
Plaintiff alleges the following in the alternative to the Fourth Claim for Relief.
Paragraphs 1-47 are incorporated herein by reference.

Premier Cru made the misrepresentations to Hui set forth in paragraphs 11-13 and 28-30 above.

On information and belief, the statements set forth above were false when they were made. John Fox’s admissions in the New York Times that “[w]e’ve been working on getting our staff to give people correct information about when their wine is going to show up.... Not false estimates because they want to get off the phone. It’s been a transition....” suggests that Premier Cru’s staff is “transitioning” from giving “false estimates”—such as the false estimates given to Hui.

When Premier Cru’s employee made these false statements, he knew them to be false and made these statements with the intent of inducing Hui to order wine through Premier Cru, to send Premier Cru money, and/or to forbear from taking action against Premier Cru.

Hui reasonably relied on these false statements. At the time the promises were made and at the time he sent money to Premier Cru, Hui was ignorant of the falsity of these representations and could not, in exercising reasonable diligence, determine that these statements were false. Hui lives overseas and communicated with Premier Cru by email. By email, Premier Cru assured Hui that he would get his wine. If Hui had known that Premier Cru was making false representations about when his wine would be available, he would never have sent Premier Cru money.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unfair Business Practices [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.])

Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code prohibits “fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s],” which are acts or practices likely to deceive members of the public.

As set forth above, Premier Cru has and had a business practice of representing that it can and will secure wine for its customers when it lacks the intention and/or the ability to do so. Accordingly, Premier Cry’s representations are false.

As set forth above, Hui was induced to order wine from Premier Cru and to refrain from action against it by Premier Cru’s false promises and representations regarding its ability to deliver wine to him. These representations were material to Hui and he would not have given money to Premier Cru without them.

These representations caused Hui to suffer harm in that he sent money to Premier Cru to secure wines that Premier Cru had no intention of delivering to him, PRAYER WHEREFORE, Hui prays for judgment as follows:

For compensatory damages in amount according to proof pursuant to California Commercial Code §§ 2712-2715;

For prejudgment interest at the legal rate of 10%; For punitive damages in amount appropriate to punish Premier Cru and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct; For restitution;
For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief;
For attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and For any further relief which the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: August 6, 2015
SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP
/s/ Arthur J. Shartsis
By: ARTHUR J. SHARTSIS
Attorneys for Plaintiff LAWRENCE WAI-MAN HUI
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PC's response to complaint. Outside of the sixteenth affirmative defense, I disagree with their analysis and they are throwing the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary in asserting their other affirmative defenses. Will be interesting to see if this ends up going to a jury trial- I don't think PC would want to take that chance:

LAWRENCE WAI-MAN HUI, Plaintiff,
v.
FOX ORTEGA ENTERPRISES d/b/a PREMIER CRU, and DOES 1-10 inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:15-cv-03615-MEJ
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Defendants FOX ORTEGA ENTERPRISES d/b/a/ PREMIER CRU (“Defendants”) answering Plaintiff LAWRENCE WAI-MAN HUI’s (“HUI”) Complaint in accordance with the numbered paragraphs herein:

Responding to Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendants admit its website said “We source the world’s finest wines at extremely competitive prices to provide exceptional experiences for collectors, connoisseurs, and everyday wine lovers.” As to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1, Defendants deny the allegations set forth therein.

Responding to Paragraph 2, Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and therefore denies the allegation set forth therein.

Responding to Paragraph 3, Defendants admit the allegation contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 4, Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint and deny the allegations set forth therein.

Responding to Paragraph 5, Defendants admit the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 6, Defendants admit the allegation contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 7, Defendants admit the allegations contained therein. Responding to Paragraph 8, Defendants admit the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 9, Defendants lack information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 and therefore denies the allegations set forth therein. Defendants admit Exhibits A and B show Hui’s orders. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 9.

Responding to Paragraph 10, Defendants lack sufficient information or to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the and therefore deny those allegations set forth therein.

Responding to Paragraph 11, Defendants lack sufficient information or to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the and therefore deny those allegations set forth therein.

Responding to Paragraph 12, Defendants admit James Gillerman wrote “I do suspect that a large amount of your bottles will be here in time for a pickup of shipment in December January of this year/next year [i.e. December 2012 or January 2013].” . As to the remainder of Paragraph 12, Defendants deny the allegation set forth therein.

Responding to Paragraph 13, Defendants admit the first two sentences of Paragraph 13 and denies the remaining allegations.

Responding to Paragraph 14, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 15, Defendants admit in August 2011 Hui pre-ordered 18 bottles of 2009 Cheval Blanc for $995 per bottle. Defendants admit in March 2012 Hui ordered 24 bottles of 2009 Mouton Rothschild for $799.99 per bottle. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 15.

Responding to Paragraph 16, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 17, Defendants admit the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 18, Defendants admit the allegations contained therein except for the last sentence.

Responding to Paragraph 19, Defendants admit “Paragraphs 1-18 are incorporated herein by reference.’

Responding to Paragraph 20, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 21, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 22, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 23, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 24, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 25, Defendants lack sufficient information or to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the and therefore deny the allegations set forth therein.

Responding to Paragraph 26, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 27, Defendants admit “Paragraphs 1-26 are incorporated herein by reference.”

Responding to Paragraph 28, Defendants admit employee James Gillerman sent to Hui on August 18, 2011 stated “we do deliver the wines we sell.” Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.

Responding to Paragraph 29, Defendants admit in June 6, 2012 employee James Gillerman wrote “I do suspect that a large amount of your bottles will be here in time for a pickup of shipment in December January of this year/next year [i.e. December 2012 or January 2013].” Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 29.

Responding to Paragraph 30, Defendants admit the allegations contained therein except for the allegation by Plaintiff that “These statements are false, yet they induced Hui to make further purchases and to forbear from taking action against Premier Cru.”

Responding to Paragraph 31, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 32, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 33, Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34, and therefore deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 34, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 35, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 36, Defendants admit the allegation contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 37, Defendants admit “Paragraph 1-36 are incorporated herein by reference"

Responding to Paragraph 38, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 39, Defendants admit “Premier Cru’s employee may have honestly believed that the statements were true when he made them,” and denies the remainder of Paragraph 39.

Responding to Paragraph 40, Defendants deny the allegation contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 41, Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to what Hui’s beliefs were at the time, and therefore deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph

Responding to Paragraph 42, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 43, Defendants admit "Paragraphs 1-42 are incorporated herein by reference."

Responding to Paragraph 44, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 45, Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of the and therefore deny the allegations set forth therein.

Responding to Paragraph 46, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 47, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 48, Defendants admit “Plaintiff alleges the following in the alternative to the Fourth Claim for Relief.”

Responding to Paragraph 49, Defendants admit “Paragraphs 1-47 are incorporated
herein by reference.”

Responding to Paragraph 50, Defendants deny the statements were “misrepresentations,” but admit the statements were made.

Responding to Paragraph 51, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 52, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 53, Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge as to Hui's beliefs and therefore deny the allegations in Paragraph 53.

Responding to Paragraph 54, Defendants admit “Paragraphs 1-53 are incorporated herein by reference.

Responding to Paragraph 55, Defendants admit.

Responding to Paragraph 56, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

Responding to Paragraph 57, Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 57, and therefore deny the allegations set forth therein.

Responding to Paragraph 58, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendants allege the following as further and separate affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action therein, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations stated in Part Two, Title II, Chapter 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, sections 337, 337(1), 337(2), 337(3), 337a, 338(a), 338(c), 338(d), 339, 339(1), 339(3), and 343.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff was negligent and/or careless in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint, and to the extent said negligence and/or carelessness caused and/or contributed to injuries and/or damages, if any, Plaintiff’s recovery should be barred or proportionately reduced.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that other persons were careless and/or negligent, and/or committed intentional acts, and that this carelessness and negligence or these intentional acts proximately contributed to the happening of the incidents referred to in the Complaint.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege, upon information and belief, that other persons or entities and each of them, named and unnamed in the Complaint were guilty of negligence, or other acts or omissions in the matters set forth in the Complaint, which proximately caused or contributed to the damages or loss complained of, if any, and that Defendants are liable, if at all, only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to fault, and that the court is requested to determine and allocate the percentage of negligence attributable to each of the other persons or entities at fault.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff’s actions constituted a full release by Plaintiff of any and all claims which they may have had against Defendants.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff, by his acts, conduct and/or omissions, has ratified, consented to and approved the acts, conduct and omissions, if any, of Defendants.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff failed and neglected to use reasonable care to protect himself and to mitigate and/or minimize the losses and damages complained of, if any there were.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and/or retraxit.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver.

TWELTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel due to Plaintiff’s own acts or omissions.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative and/or judicial remedies.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of frauds.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that Plaintiff is not entitled to injunction relief under California Code of Civil Procedure section 526. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive or other equitable relief is also barred because Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that Plaintiff is not entitled to Specific Performance because he has failed to allege the required elements: (1) the inadequacy of legal remedy, (2) that the contract at issue is both reasonable and supported by adequate consideration, (3) the existence of mutuality of remedies, (4) contractual terms which are sufficiently definite, and (5) a substantial similarity of the requested performance to that promised in the contract.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages because none of the Defendants engaged in oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct towards Plaintiff. Cal. Civ. Code Sect. 3294. Punitive damages are not available for breach of contract.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that Defendants’ actions were based on good, sufficient, and legal cause, upon reasonable grounds for belief in their justification, and were taken in good faith and without malice.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that Plaintiff has failed to state facts or statutory authority sufficient to entitle them to recover attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under any statute.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants allege that they currently have insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to whether they may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendants have not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable affirmative defenses and reserve the right to amend this Answer and assert additional affirmative defenses to supplement, alter, or change the Answer and defenses upon revelation of more definitive facts, and upon undertaking of discovery and investigation in this matter.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray as follows:
1. That Plaintiff take nothing from Defendants by this Complaint;
2. That Defendants be awarded judgment in this action;
3. For costs of suit herein; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Case No. 3:15-cv-03615 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


Dated: August 31, 2015
WOOD ROBBINS, LLP
/s/ Gregory J. Wood
GREGORY J. WOOD
WOOD ROBBINS, LLP
Attorney for Defendants
FOX ORTEGA ENTERPRISES d/b/a/ PREMIER CRU

So what happens if they simply give him back his $ to make the case go away? I get a precedent will have been set, but if it doesn't go to trial then isn't there a good chance they will simply continue with their business model?

quote:

Originally posted by snipes:
So what happens if they simply give him back his $ to make the case go away? I get a precedent will have been set, but if it doesn't go to trial then isn't there a good chance they will simply continue with their business model?

i'd sue for time / value lost too on top of price paid.

I wonder if they will charge him the 15 dollar per bottle reshelving fee.

On a side note, the banning was more a lynching.

Thanks for the details, TPE.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. As I mentioned last time we shared a glass of wine, I plan to pull out of the few pre-arrivals I have pending at PC (all '10 Brunello at this point).

quote:

For prejudgment interest at the legal rate of 10%; For PUNITIVE DAMAGES in amount appropriate to punish Premier Cru and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct; For restitution; For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; for attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and For any further relief which the Court deems just and proper.

Got sent an email with a quote from the other board by none other than the Honorable Andrew Kaufman: "I have never seen a complaint sounding in fraud that did not include punis and I have filed dozen myself and defended many." Amazing that a frickin judge can't read a complaint and see this jump out. No wonder the guy is so off base in all of his analysis.

quote:

Originally posted by wineismylife:

quote:

Originally posted by TPEwinedrinker:
Won't happen- Todd banned me for life last night for likening him to Roger Goodell. Even blocked my IP address from accessing the site as a lurker. And he wonders why I questioned his leadership?

LMAO. You effing troublemaker.

After reading the post, I can't believe they banned you.

I am not very familiar with WB, but it seems like a bunch of douche bags. Keep stirring the pot.

I am not sure how to find this out, but I did hear from others that there is a tax lien on the building that they own in Berkeley.

Dangerous times, if all is true.

http://rechart1.acgov.org/docd...Ya8ZfW5cDE1FO94bC8yM

For the record- TODD FRENCH IS A LIAR! I dare him to come on here and provide evidence that he personally requested me to tone it down. You NEVER personally requested anything. You would send me PM threats that you were going to ban me due to complaints from other forumites, and when I responded that you let other forumites continually insult and provoke until I would respond and would provide evidence of such, you would simply ignore it. You operate a kangaroo court that favors a select few. If they are not protected, they are ruled under your iron fist.

You had it out for me since I challenged you on the language at registration, which you ultimately deemed completely contradictory as you changed it, but you held it over me ever since in your role as Roger Goodell. You are a liar.

No way am I going to allow someone to tarnish my name when they were the reason for any sort of animosity in the first place.

Just get a VPN and sign up again. I use IPVanish...works great in these circumstances.

Better yet Todd- why don't you state for everyone your reason for banning me? What did I say in that thread that was worthy of banishment? You still haven't given an answer to anyone that asked. Try and state how you operated with impartiality. You want to bad-mouth me than back it up. After all, the PC apologists looking out for their own self interest wanted facts regarding PC's demise, and were given free reign to attack anyone who would say that PC's business model is on the verge of collapse, so give us the facts about why I was permanently banned.

what's ironic is that the single greatest source of discord between me and others on that forum was my warnings that PC was a house of cards, and finally people are seeing the huge cracks in their business model's foundation. i was vilified in the process, yet i was speaking from first hand accounts and facts, that others tried to silence me about. was nothing but a bunch of self-interested snakes more concerned with getting their own money out, than allowing the truth to get out.

quote:

Originally posted by AML:
http://rechart1.acgov.org/docd...Ya8ZfW5cDE1FO94bC8yM

i think that that may be sales tax related

state board of equalization filed the lien

funny that Todd French deleted the thread that got me banned. what- you want to erase any trace that shows how biased you are? just another way in which you are spineless. you really get your leadership skills from the goodell playbook on management. this must have come from chapter 7- "Destruction of the Spygate Videos."

It was just moved to "The Asylum", not deleted.

quote:

Originally posted by AML:
It was just moved to "The Asylum", not deleted.

thanks for the tidbit AML.

Someone posted this link on Berserkers:

http://www.bordeauxwineenthusi...=6018&p=46099#p46099

Apparently there are 4 lawsuits. Does anyone have access to these other complaints that were filed? Happy to chip in if fees are involved.

todd french: i don't judge people based on race, creed, color, or gender. i judge people based on spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.

based on the structure of your sentence at the time i originally registered on WB, you should therefore be judged as incompetent.

TPE gets credit for looking out for consumers and their risk using PC.

He is a friend of the average wino.

Glass raised.

Holy cow..I am reading the WB thread now. I am glad that PC is being sued, should be interesting to see how this plays out and if Posner is correct about a Lien, that makes things even more precarious.

mareff, I posted a link to the government record regarding the lien against PC right under Daniel's post.