throbber
Case: 1:19-cv-00134-SNLJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/12/19 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
`
`) Case No.
`L&F BRANDS, INC.,
`)
`
`
`
`) Judge:
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`v.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`)
`CROWN VALLEY WINERY, INC.,
`)
`
`
`
`)
`Serve:
`Joe H. Scott, Sr.
`
`
`1065 Executive Pkwy. Ste. 300 )
`
`
`St. Louis, MO 63141 )
`
`)
` Defendant.
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Comes now Plaintiff, by and through its legal counsel, and for its Complaint with Jury
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Demand, alleges and avers as follows:
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`1. Plaintiff L&F Brands, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “L&F”) is a Nevada for-profit
`
`corporation, with its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas, engaging in business
`
`activities throughout various states across the United States, including the State of Missouri.
`
`2. Defendant Crown Valley Winery, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Crown Valley”) is a
`
`Missouri for-profit corporation engaging in business activities with its principal place of business
`
`in Missouri and its registered agent in St. Louis County, Missouri.
`
`3. The amount in controversy between the parties herein exceeds $75,000, and diversity
`
`jurisdiction applies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 given the fact that L&F is a Nevada corporation
`
`and Crown Valley is a Missouri corporation.
`
`4. L&F and Crown Valley entered into a Manufacturing Agreement (attached as Exhibit 1)
`
`which states that the parties agree that the exclusive venue for any action in any way relating to
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-00134-SNLJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/12/19 Page: 2 of 10 PageID #: 2
`
`the Agreement shall be the State or Federal Courts having jurisdiction over Ste. Genevieve,
`
`Missouri. See Exhibit 1 at 8.
`
`FACTS
`
`5. L&F was formed in order to operate, market, sell, and distribute adult beverages or
`
`alcohol products, with its primary products being chocolate and cream based wine blends and
`
`later a cream and coffee based alcohol blend. These products have been marketed under various
`
`names, including “CV,” “Els Iced Chocolate,” “Els Iced Chocolate Mint,” and “Els Iced Coffee.”
`
`6. These products are produced, batched, blended, and bottled by Crown Valley, and then
`
`distributed to wholesale distributors for purposes of ultimate distribution to the general public.
`
`7. On March 28, 2018, the parties entered into a Manufacturing Agreement that sets forth
`
`specific terms and conditions, including the requirement that Crown Valley produce each L&F
`
`product in strict compliance with formulas registered and approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco
`
`Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”). See Exhibit 1.
`
`8. Section 5(b) of the Manufacturing Agreement prohibits Crown Valley from substituting
`
`Client Bulk supplies for the production of the product. See Exhibit 1 at 2.
`
`9. Section 5(e) of the Agreement requires Crown Valley to blend the product based on a
`
`specific recipe given to Crown Valley by L&F. See Exhibit 1 at 2.
`
`10. Section 11(b) of the Agreement states that Crown Valley “represents, warrants and
`
`covenants that . . . (ii) all Products will be produced and packaged in material accordance with
`
`the Client’s specifications.” See Exhibit 1 at 4.
`
`11. Section 15 of the Agreement requires Crown Valley to comply with all applicable laws as
`
`it relates to the production of the product. See Exhibit 1 at 5.
`
`12. Section 21(b) of the Agreement requires Crown Valley to defend, indemnify, reimburse,
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-00134-SNLJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/12/19 Page: 3 of 10 PageID #: 3
`
`and hold L&F harmless from any and all losses, claims, demands, damages, liability, or
`
`expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, resulting from any third party claims arising out of
`
`any act or omission, or failure to act by Crown Valley, or resulting from any violation of State or
`
`Federal Law, any act of willful misconduct, or negligence of Crown Valley. See Exhibit 1 at 8.
`
`13. Section 26 of the Agreement allows recoupment of reasonable attorney fees and costs
`
`from the “prevailing party.” See Exhibit 1.
`
`14. In July 2018, Crown Valley produced 3,136 cases of Els Iced Coffee at the request of
`
`L&F.
`
`15. In mid-August 2018, L&F discovered that Crown Valley had used the wrong ingredients
`
`in producing this batch and that Crown Valley tried to add an additional ingredient after the
`
`batch was completed, causing an improper PH level which ultimately led to product failure.
`
`16. Despite having knowledge of its mistakes, Crown Valley, by and through its
`
`agents/employees, hid and concealed this information from L&F and engaged in willful, wanton,
`
`and illegal deceptive practices to cover up its mistakes.
`
`17. At the time this conduct was discovered by L&F, it had already distributed over half of
`
`the cases to various markets throughout the United States, and L&F was notified by its clients
`
`that the product they received was defective.
`
`18. In addition to the costs and expenses paid to Crown Valley for the production of this
`
`batch, L&F incurred additional costs and expenses to retrieve the defective product from its
`
`distributors, to reimburse its clients for costs paid, and to destroy the defective product.
`
`19.
`
`Further, and in addition to the monetary losses described above, L&F lost, and to
`
`date has been unable to recoup, sales in certain markets due to its delivery of the defective
`
`product.
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-00134-SNLJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/12/19 Page: 4 of 10 PageID #: 4
`
`20. In view of existing demand for the product in the marketplace, in October 2018, Crown
`
`Valley produced the last batch of Els Iced Coffee for L&F.
`
`21. By October 2018, L&F had discovered that many cases of this batch of Els Iced Coffee
`
`were contaminated with bacteria which ultimately leads to product failure.
`
`22. The bacterial contamination in these additional cases was caused by Crown Valley’s
`
`failure to produce the product in a clean, sanitary environment or otherwise using unsanitary
`
`production equipment. Due to the actual bacterial contamination or chance of contamination,
`
`L&F could not sell over 6000 cases of the Els Iced Coffee.
`
`23. L&F incurred additional expenses for the production cost and destruction of this
`
`additional defective product made by Crown Valley.
`
`24. In September 2018, Crown Valley told L&F that it had additional Coffee Cream that
`
`would be available for future product blending, and based on this information L&F agreed to
`
`purchase 12 “totes” of this ingredient from Crown Valley.
`
`25. Despite Crown Valley receiving payment in full for this ingredient, L&F discovered that
`
`Crown Valley never ordered, received, or utilized this ingredient in any L&F product.
`
`COUNT I
`Breach of Contract
`
`26. L&F re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 25 as though fully rewritten herein.
`
`27. Crown Valley had a written contractual duty to manufacture L&F’s product in
`
`accordance with specific formulas registered and approved by the TTB. See Exhibit 1.
`
`28. Crown Valley breached this duty by using the wrong ingredient to produce L&F’s
`
`product and by producing the product in a non-sterile environment, as well as failing to disclose
`
`such conduct.
`
`29. As a direct result of Crown Valley’s contractual breach, L&F suffered monetary damage
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-00134-SNLJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/12/19 Page: 5 of 10 PageID #: 5
`
`later described herein.
`
`COUNT II
`Breach of Express Warranty
`
`30. L&F re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully rewritten herein.
`
`31. Section 11(b) of the Manufacturing Agreement contains an express warranty by Crown
`
`Valley that it would produce all product in material accordance with L&F’s specifications. See
`
`Exhibit 1 at 4.
`
`32. Crown Valley breached this warranty by using ingredients not contained in the
`
`specifications furnished by L&F.
`
`33. As a direct and proximate cause of this breach, L&F sustained monetary damage as later
`
`described herein.
`
`COUNT III
`Breach of Implied Warranty of Good Faith
`
`34. L&F re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 as though fully rewritten herein.
`
`35. Section 1-304 of the Uniform Commercial Code imposes a legal duty or obligation on a
`
`contractual party to exercise good faith in carrying out the duties, obligations, and terms of a
`
`contractual agreement.
`
`36. Crown Valley breached that duty to L&F by manufacturing product utilizing incorrect
`
`ingredients, by manufacturing product in a non-sterile environment or otherwise using non-
`
`sterile equipment, by charging L&F for supplies or ingredients that Crown Valley never acquired
`
`on its behalf, and by engaging in willful, wanton, or deceptive practices in hiding its malfeasance
`
`from L&F.
`
`37. As a direct and proximate cause of these breaches, L&F sustained monetary damages
`
`later described herein.
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-00134-SNLJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/12/19 Page: 6 of 10 PageID #: 6
`
`COUNT IV
`Fraud
`
`38. L&F re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 37 as though fully rewritten herein.
`
`39. Crown Valley falsely represented to L&F that the product was manufactured with the
`
`correct ingredients and allowed the defective product to enter the marketplace and be distributed
`
`to L&F’s clients.
`
`40. Crown Valley knew or should have known that it had used incorrect ingredients in
`
`manufacturing product for L&F, yet it never informed L&F of these mistakes.
`
`41. Crown Valley additionally falsely represented that it could safely add an additional
`
`ingredient after the batch was completed to adjust the taste without causing or increasing the risk
`
`of an improper PH level.
`
`42. Crown Valley knew or should have known that it could not safely add an additional
`
`ingredient after the batch was completed to adjust the taste without causing or increasing the risk
`
`of an improper PH level.
`
`43. Crown Valley additionally falsely represented that it was producing the product in a
`
`clean, sanitary environment.
`
`44. Crown Valley knew or should have known that it was not producing the product in a
`
`clean, sanitary environment and that there was a high risk of bacterial contamination.
`
`45. Crown Valley further represented that L&F could purchase an additional ingredient from
`
`Crown Valley, but despite being paid in full by L&F for this ingredient, Crown Valley failed to
`
`order, receive, or utilize this ingredient in any L&F product.
`
`46. Crown Valley made such false representations to induce L&F’s reliance on the truth of
`
`the statements, and L&F relied on the statements with ignorance as to their falsity by (1) selling
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-00134-SNLJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/12/19 Page: 7 of 10 PageID #: 7
`
`and distributing the defective product in the marketplace and (2) paying Crown Valley in full to
`
`purchase the additional ingredient.
`
`47. L&F had the right to rely on the truth of statements by Crown Valley in the course of its
`
`business, and was consequently and proximately injured by the false statements in that they
`
`substantially interfered with L&F’s business of operating, marketing, selling, and distributing
`
`adult beverages or alcohol products and damaged L&F’s reputation.
`
`
`
`48. As a result of this willful, wanton, outrageous, and malicious behavior, L&F incurred
`
`monetary damage as later described herein, including the loss of sales and/or profit, and is
`
`entitled to punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees.
`
`COUNT V
`Unjust Enrichment
`
`49. L&F re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 48 as though fully rewritten herein.
`
`50. L&F paid Crown Valley in full for the additional ingredient which Crown Valley
`
`represented was available for purchase from one of its other customers.
`
`51. Crown Valley accepted the payment and, as Crown Valley failed to order, receive, or
`
`utilize this ingredient in any L&F product, it was thus enriched.
`
`52. It would be unjust to allow Crown Valley to retain the benefit of the payment because the
`
`money was never utilized to benefit L&F as promised, and L&F is entitled to reimbursement for
`
`the money paid for these goods.
`
`COUNT VI
`Money Had and Received
`
`53. L&F re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 52 as though fully rewritten herein.
`
`54. Crown Valley received money from L&F for the additional ingredient which Crown
`
`Valley represented was available for purchase from one of its other customers.
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-00134-SNLJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/12/19 Page: 8 of 10 PageID #: 8
`
`55. Crown Valley accepted and appreciated the benefit of the money yet failed to order,
`
`receive, or utilize this ingredient in any L&F product.
`
`56. Crown Valley’s acceptance and retention of L&F’s money for the purchase of the
`
`additional ingredient was unjust.
`
`COUNT VII
`Violation of Federal TTB laws
`
`57. L&F re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 56 as though fully rewritten herein.
`
`58. Section 5.26 and 5.27 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR §§ 5.26 and 5.27) require
`
`registration and approval of distilled spirits as well as strict compliance with approved formulas.
`
`59. Crown Valley violated federal law by using ingredients that deviate from the approved
`
`and registered formulas with TTB.
`
`60. Crown Valley had knowledge that it deviated from the approved formula and failed to
`
`disclose this fact to L&F.
`
`61. As a direct and proximate cause of these legal violations, L&F is now subject to possible
`
`federal fines/costs and incurred monetary damages as later described herein.
`
`COUNT VIII
`Indemnification
`
`62. L&F re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 61 as though fully rewritten herein.
`
`63. The Manufacturing Agreement states that Crown Valley shall indemnify and hold L&F
`
`harmless for any and all claims, losses, expenses, damages, and liabilities, including reasonable
`
`attorney fees and costs, for any act or omission or failure to act or for violation of State or
`
`Federal Law or for willful or wanton misconduct. See Exhibit 1 at 8.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-00134-SNLJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/12/19 Page: 9 of 10 PageID #: 9
`
`As and for Counts One, Two, Three, and Seven of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff prays
`
`for judgment against Defendant for a monetary amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus statutory
`
`interest from the date of judgment, reasonable attorney fees, costs of this action, and for any and
`
`all other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`As and for Count Four of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff prays for judgment against
`
`Defendant in the amount of $500,000.00, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees and
`
`costs, and for any and all other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`As and for Counts Five and Six of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff prays for judgment
`
`against Defendant in the amount of $38,000.00, and for any and all other relief as this Court
`
`deems just and proper.
`
`As and for Count Eight of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff prays for judgment against
`
`Defendant in the amount of $74,000.00, reasonable attorney fees and costs and for any and all
`
`other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Timothy W. Rudolph
`
`W. Dudley McCarter, #24939MO
`John P. Torbitzky, #65233MO
`Timothy W. Rudolph, #68361MO
`7777 Bonhomme, Ste. 1400
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`Phone: (314) 862-3800
`Fax: (314) 862-3953
`dmccarter@bmplaw.com
`jtorbitzky@bmplaw.com
`trudolph@bmplaw.com
` Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-00134-SNLJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/12/19 Page: 10 of 10 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joseph J. Solomon, #0021527OH
`Jones & Solomon
`Two Maritime Plaza 3rd Flr.
`Toledo, Ohio 43604
`Phone: (419) 246-2022
`Fax: (419) 243-8953
`jsattorneyslaw@gmail.com
`Attorney for Plaintiff, pending admission pro hac
`vice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket