A Complete Victory at Summary Judgment: Michael Stoltzman Secures Dismissal in High-Profile Winery Class Action

We are proud to report a decisive and hard-fought victory for Michael Stoltzman in a putative consumer class action arising out of a winery tourism business disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a comprehensive ruling, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in full—disposing of every claim and bringing the case to a complete and favorable conclusion without the need for trial.

The lawsuit alleged a wide-ranging “safari tour” scheme tied to a Southern California winery, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and common-law conversion. The plaintiff sought to hold multiple defendants liable for allegedly advertising and selling experiences that were later curtailed, with refund demands following pandemic-related shutdowns.

Mr. Stoltzman, on behalf of The Ryan Firm and the named defendants, advanced a clear and disciplined strategy: demonstrate that our clients were not legally responsible for the challenged conduct. The Court agreed.

In a detailed, 14-page ruling, the Court found that the defendants had no involvement in the advertising, marketing, or operation of the wine tour business at issue. Instead, the evidence established that a separate entity operated the tours, while Mr. Stoltzman’s clients merely maintained a landlord-tenant relationship with that operator. Critically, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to impose liability through a “joint venture” theory, emphasizing the absence of essential elements such as shared profits and losses, joint control, or common ownership.  Notably, the motion was made and granted pre-certification—thus, avoiding the need to challenge certification, engage in post-certification discovery, etc. (which is often troublesome, invasive, and very expensive for clients).

The Court further held that:

• There was no evidence that defendants made any false or misleading statements to consumers;

• There was no basis to impute the operator’s conduct to defendants;

• There was no evidence defendants received or retained any customer payments; and

• Plaintiff’s evidence—largely hearsay—failed to create any triable issue of fact.

  
  

With each cause of action independently failing as a matter of law, the Court granted summary adjudication across the board, resulting in full summary judgment for the defense.

This ruling underscores the power of a well-developed factual record and precise legal framing at the summary judgment stage—particularly in complex, multi-party consumer class actions.  It also highlights an important principle for businesses navigating pandemic-era disputes: liability cannot be imposed absent actual participation in the challenged conduct or a legally cognizable basis to extend responsibility.

Congratulations to Michael Stoltzman on this outstanding result.