You know you’re in big trouble if the post-trial decision in a lawsuit you filed begins like this:
“The court finds the plaintiff, Rowen Seibel, not credible. This is primarily because it appears he fabricated evidence and then compounded that fabrication by using the same evidence to lie to this court.”
That was the inauspicious start for Seibel to a Decision After Trial issued two weeks ago by Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Melissa A. Crane in a litigation between celebrity chef Gordan Ramsay and Ramsay’s former business partner.
Ramsay and Seibel were 50% / 50% owners of a California limited liability company, The Fat Cow, LLC, formed the same day as a Delaware limited partnership, FCLA, LP (an acronym for “Fat Cow Los Angeles”), of which Ramsay and Seibel were 49% / 49% limited partners and The Fat Cow the 2% general partner, to develop, own, and operate a restaurant of the same name in Los Angeles, California. The entities had written operating and limited partnership agreements, the former governed by California law, the latter by Delaware law.
The two-week bench trial preceding Justice Crane’s interesting post-trial decision was of two lawsuits consolidated for trial.
The first lawsuit Seibel commenced against Ramsay alleged a mix of direct and derivative claims on behalf of The Fat Cow and FCLA. In an earlier decision, retired Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Marcy S. Friedman dismissed most of Seibel’s complaint, allowing to...
Moore has faced scrutiny for making false claims about his academic, military, and family backgrounds Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore has embarked on a preemptive media campaign attacking his st...