After a four-day trial, WG’s litigation team led by Shahrokh Sheik and Jamison Gilmore, secured a complete defense victory for their clients in a partnership dispute arising from a cannabis cultivation venture.
The Judge rejected every cause of action asserted against our clients, ordered that Plaintiffs take nothing, found us to be the prevailing parties, and directed us to submit an application for attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Award: a complete merits victory
Plaintiffs accused our clients of conversion, fraud, false promise, concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unauthorized distributions, books-and-records violations, and intentional interference with contract—twelve causes of action in all. They sought the return of their capital, alleged lost profits and distributions, disgorgement, punitive damages, a constructive trust over business assets and licenses, attorneys’ fees, and sweeping equitable relief.
The Judge rejected the core factual premises underlying those claims. He found that Plaintiffs were sophisticated investors who had negotiated the contract with counsel and served as equal managers of the venture.
The Judge further found that the business projections on which Plaintiffs relied were hypothetical and aspirational, and that there had been “no theft or misappropriation,” and that there had been no conversion of Plaintiffs’ investment.
Importantly, the Judge reached those conclusions under the ordinary preponderance-of-the-evidence standard—even though the contract imposed a higher clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for manager liability. In other words, the claims failed even under the lowest standard, which was an important strategic point we sought.
A streamlined dispute becomes a five-year test of endurance
The parties’ contract contemplated a streamlined dispute resolution process with limited discovery at minimal expense. What followed was the opposite.
The case continued for more than five years, through four different sets of counsel for Plaintiffs , repeated discovery disputes, extensive motion practice, depositions, and an unsuccessful effort to dismiss the case without prejudice and pursue substantially the same allegations in a separate lawsuit.
Plaintiffs knew our client had far fewer resources with which to defend the case. Each additional discovery demand, motion, substitution of counsel, and requested delay imposed a real burden on our client- a father of four who was already struggling to keep his business and family together.
We explored resolution throughout the case. But when resolution was not possible, our task became keeping the client in the fight without compromising the defense. At critical points, that included working with the client on billing and timing accommodations so that financial pressure alone would not determine the outcome.
When Plaintiffs’ latest counsel entered the case shortly before the trial date and renewed accusations of discovery misconduct while seeking additional time, we strongly opposed further delay. Preserving the hearing date was an important strategic victory. After five years, our client needed the evidence adjudicated—not another cycle of motions and expense.
The strategy: prove the true story, not merely a failure of proof
The central strategic decision was not to rely solely on the argument that Plaintiffs had failed to satisfy their burden.
In a partnership dispute involving competing personal accounts, merely showing that the other side lacks enough evidence can leave an impression that the truth is simply unknowable. Our objective was more ambitious: establish affirmatively what occurred, demonstrate that our account was consistent with the contemporaneous record, and show that the accusations could not be reconciled with the documents.
The defense was built around the contract and more than 1,000 pages of emails, text messages, meeting notes, receipts, financial records, and growers’ notebooks created before anyone contemplated litigation.
At the hearing, we used prior sworn testimony and contemporaneous communications to expose material inconsistencies on central issues—including the Plaintiffs’ management roles, their knowledge of licensing gaps, and their awareness of business activities they later characterized as secret. The Judge ultimately found that all parties knew the regulatory reality and expressly declined to believe Plaintiffs’ contrary testimony.
Why this victory matters
We do not ordinarily describe business cases in moral terms. But this was one of those cases in which we believed our client from the beginning—not because of instinct or personal loyalty alone, but because his account consistently matched the documents.
By the time of the hearing, the litigation had already imposed consequences that no award can entirely reverse. Our client testified that he had to sell assets just to defend himself over the five years. He also accumulated substantial debt, placed his remaining property on the market, and was barely remaining solvent. He also described the effect on his marriage, his children, his professional reputation, and his family’s mental health- including divorce and family therapy.
That is why this result is especially meaningful. Our client survived long enough to testify, to confront the accusations directly, and to have the documentary record evaluated on the merits. The verdict clears his name and creates a path toward recovering a substantial portion of the expense imposed on him.
We are now preparing a substantial application for attorneys’ fees and costs.
What business owners and investors should take away
Contemporaneous documents often decide credibility. Years later, memories change and litigation narratives harden. Ordinary-course emails, texts, contracts, invoices, and notes frequently become the most reliable witnesses in the case.
Discovery cannot substitute for a coherent theory of liability. More requests, more motions, and more accusations do not cure missing elements. A party ultimately must identify what was taken, what representation was false, what contractual provision was breached, and what legally recoverable damage resulted.
The hearing date can be strategically critical. Sometimes the most important pretrial victory is simply preventing another delay. A party with greater resources should not be permitted to turn endless process into the outcome.
The WG approach
This case reflects what trial readiness means to us.
It means seeking a rational business resolution when one is available. It also means recognizing when continued compromise will only encourage more pressure. It means mastering a sprawling factual record, making deliberate credibility decisions, resisting unnecessary delay, and structuring the representation so that a client can remain in the case long enough for the truth to be heard.
Trial readiness is not aggression for its own sake. It is disciplined preparation, strategic restraint, and the willingness to stand with a client through the point at which accusations finally have to be proven.
Congratulations to the WG trial team—and, most importantly, to our client for having the resolve to reach the merits hearing and obtain his complete vindication.
* Facts slightly modified for confidentiality purposes