Suggestions
Jeff Augustini
Owner, Law Office of Jeff Augustini
Jeff Augustini is the owner of the Law Office of Jeff Augustini, a legal practice located in Irvine, California.14 He specializes in business litigation, focusing on cases involving breach of contract and business torts.2
Practice Areas
Augustini's law office primarily handles:
- Business and commercial litigation matters
- Contract disputes
- Real estate and licensing litigation
- Wage and hour defense cases35
Professional Background
As the owner of his own law firm, Jeff Augustini represents both companies and individuals in various legal matters.3 His expertise in business litigation allows him to assist clients with complex commercial disputes and contractual issues.
Location and Contact Information
The Law Office of Jeff Augustini is situated in Irvine, California. The firm's address is 9160 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618.14 Clients can reach the office by phone at (949) 336-7847 or via email at jeff@augustinilaw.com.1
Jeff Augustini's professional profile can be found on LinkedIn under the username jeff-augustini-70650319, where more details about his legal career and expertise may be available.
Highlights
I have read Glass House's press release "explaining" its reasoning for unilaterally dismissing its defamation case against Catalyst, Elliot Lewis and several other defendants. It claims it was concerned, for instance, about its ability to collect a multi-million judgment (cart meet horse), that it had better and more productive things to do than finish prosecuting the action Glass House itself initiated, and that it dismissed the case because Catalyst was hell bent on harassing its customers by actually utilizing the information it was ordered by the Court to produce to defend itself in the litigation.
After a hearty laugh, my response is three-fold. First, I asked Kyle under oath to identify Plaintiffs' alleged damages. He could not intelligently articulate any, and Glass House itself never provided any evidence -- let alone "credible evidence" -- to support either the existence or amount of any alleged damages. So I am not sure how Kyle can claim Plaintiffs would have obtained a substantial judgment (if they in fact had won, which they didn't).
Second, Glass House claims to be a cannabis retailer, but apparently does not view Catalyst's 27 stores (and counting) as valuable assets for purposes of collection? Does that make sense to anyone?
Finally, if you truly want to know why Glass House dismissed the case, don't look to the over-lawyered yet still somehow nonsensical press release Glass House sent out yesterday for the answer. Instead look to Graham's own admissions in the attached article, wherein he freely discloses the truth (and in the process also discloses a host of attorney-client communications): If it wanted to continue to prosecute the defamation case, Glass House was told it "literally had no choice" but to produce the discovery it was ordered back in February 2024 to provide, so it dismissed the case specifically to avoid having to do so. And, according to Graham, he also was advised Glass House likely would not have to provide that same information in the second pending unfair business practices case.
On the latter comment, we sought much of the same type of discovery from Glass House in the second action, it again refused to provide it, and currently there is a motion pending to compel it to do so. So we should find out soon whether Graham's lawyers provided sage advice, or whether this is just another in a long series of delaying tactics. But if Glass House is again ordered to produce the information, it cannot simply dismiss the second case to evade the discovery -- since Catalyst is the plaintiff in that case.
As Glass House admits it dismissed the case to evade our discovery, everything else it has said or may say on the subject should be viewed as mere bloviation, flawed attempts at crisis management, ex post facto wishful thinking, and a bunch of blown smoke (and not the good kind).
Weed for the People!
Elliot Lewis; Damian A. Martin, Esq., M.B.A.; Anthony Almaz
After nearly a year of hard fought litigation, today Glass House Brands unilaterally (and without advanced notice) dismissed its defamation case against my clients Catalyst Cannabis and Elliot Lewis. This comes after a nearly year long discovery battle where Glass House refused to produce relevant documents bearing on the truth of the allegedly defamatory statements. To get to this day, we had to win nearly a half dozen discovery motions, defeat a motion for reconsideration, and file additional motions to compel compliance after Glass House continued to evade the discovery. But ultimately, when faced with the prospect of finally having to produce the ordered information, Glass House chose to dismiss the case entirely rather than produce the information.
The dispute is not over, as there is still another pending case where we are the plaintiff. But for my clients, the attached dismissal represents long awaited, hard-fought and well deserved vindication.
Elliot Lewis; Anthony Almaz; Damian A. Martin, Esq., M.B.A.
