Times Up! Shreve & Co. sued for $500k, man spends over $220k for chance to buy Patek

[spacebjorn]

Originally Posted by MikeHoncho

Curious.. can ADs even afford to fight these? It's not hard to imagine that the clientele in Silicon Valley could have more resources at their disposal than a brick and mortar store.

There's a lot of room for plausible deniability here. For instance, the AD can claim the sales associate acted in bad faith, and that they never forced the buyer to commit to spending anything, and there was never a promise of getting the PP he wanted...

[dlmocdm]

Originally Posted by spacebjorn

There's a lot of room for plausible deniability here. For instance, the AD can claim the sales associate acted in bad faith, and that they never forced the buyer to commit to spending anything, and there was never a promise of getting the PP he wanted...

Maybe, but it appears so many people have had these experiences with them, with different SAs, over a long period of time. If they were to start calling the clients in their Patek lists, I would imagine they would confirm this.

[codecow]

Originally Posted by dlmocdm

Maybe, but it appears so many people have had these experiences with them, with different SAs, over a long period of time. If they were to start calling the clients in their Patek lists, I would imagine they would confirm this.

I have been their customer for many many years and they never played these games with me. I just bought what I wanted over a long period of time and made sure to do all my purchases in their brands through their stores.

[dlmocdm]

Originally Posted by codecow

I have been their customer for many many years and they never played these games with me. I just bought what I wanted over a long period of time and made sure to do all my purchases in their brands through their stores.

Glad you had a great experience with them... my experience was drastically different. But going to the previous comment, if they can invoke plausible deniability and deny knowledge of the actions/tactics of a rogue SA, I find it unlikely if several people have had these experiences with several SAs over a long time horizon. So potentially you could get hold of their Patek lists and ask those clients.

And that's why I think they will want to settle. It could get embarrassing if it gets public :)

[PatekSF]

My guess is that it’s a departed rogue SA, and management will deny any knowledge of his/her empty promises.

Then again, in defense of the SA, the client may be completely embellishing and fabricating so called “promises” made to him. Many clients are complete entitled prima donnas, looked upon by the SA as a**holes.

[mooty]

^ no, Shreve clearly told me that if I buy $500k in diamonds, it will OPEN DOORS....
so did CH Premier
so did many other AD

[JR16]

Lots written on this in the Patek section


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by mooty

^ no, Shreve clearly told me that if I buy $500k in diamonds, it will OPEN DOORS....
so did CH Premier
so did many other AD

Did you do it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bluestreak]

Discovery will be very interesting if it gets that far.

[rockysw]

anyone has update on what is happening. I am for one glad, AD is being called out immoral and unethical practice.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by PatekSF

My guess is that it’s a departed rogue SA, and management will deny any knowledge of his/her empty promises.

Then again, in defense of the SA, the client may be completely embellishing and fabricating so called “promises” made to him. Many clients are complete entitled prima donnas, looked upon by the SA as a**holes.

Or SA was in the dark as well…

[Gebbeth]

This will settle. This has all the hallmarks of a suit that will not go to trial.

Plaintiff will look like an idiot if he goes through with it.

AD will have to open up their books and records and emails and texts, and we all know nothing good comes out of that.

No one wants any of that. AD will agree to pay customer some undisclosed amount in exchange for a return of the jewelry that he said he didn't really want.

Case closed and outcome subject to strict confidentiality.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Gebbeth

This will settle. This has all the hallmarks of a suit that will not go to trial.

Plaintiff will look like an idiot if he goes through with it.

AD will have to open up their books and records and emails and texts, and we all know nothing good comes out of that.

No one wants any of that. AD will agree to pay customer some undisclosed amount in exchange for a return of the jewelry that he said he didn't really want.

Case closed and outcome subject to strict confidentiality.

That isn’t how it works in civil proceedings. Discovery is limited by the Judge if it even gets that far.

The plaintiff’s counsel will need to provide an answer and/or evidence to the inevitable defendant’s motion to dismiss. Or even a demurrer that there is no legal basis for the claim to proceed.

The defendant doesn’t need to disclose any records or evidence other than the precedents to make an argument that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

I don’t see the plaintiff getting anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[bay_area_kid]

Case Number: CGC23606973
Title: ALI REZAEI VS. SHREVE & CO. JEWELERS, LTD., A CALIFORNIA ET AL
Cause of Action: CONTRACT/WARRANTY

JURY TRIAL SET FOR SEP-09-2024 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPT. 206

case information

[Watchdoyouwant?]

Originally Posted by bay_area_kid

case information

No MSJ yet per that docket. That’ll be the interesting development.

[Bmats]

Originally Posted by Watchdoyouwant?

No MSJ yet per that docket. That’ll be the interesting development.

Will be interesting to see if there are unredacted expert declarations when filed too.

[johnsonsxusfrt]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

Flipping doesn’t work if you’re paying $200k to buy a $75k watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^^^This.

[dauster]

Originally Posted by johnsonsxusfrt

^^^This.

Plus legal cost now :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[russ86]

I know even crazier stories that those two

[Watchguynyc8300]

Bizarre everyone is attacking the guy for building a purchase history at the AD, when everyone in the AP thread is out there yapping that one should “appreciate CODES” and the right to buy an AP is a such a lucky favor etc.

Not sure what the guy did wrong. Also the idea of “rogue” SAs is hilarious, because usually the SAs pickup that behavior at the job. It’s not like the owners / managers of these jewelers are totally clueless as to what’s going on. I have to assume at most big places they are clearly aware and profiting off it quietly.

[1William]

This is a settlement right out of the gate. They will stretch it out as much as possible but in the end, no discovery, depositions, etc. This will never see trail and it is not in the AD's or manufacturers interest to have certain information in the public domain.

[sampelligrino]

Just reinforces to me why I go grey.. pay to play premium but pretty much everything else simpler & easier and very well defined.. only thing I definitely miss out on are the sponsored factory tours if I could have ever been so lucky to receive an invite!

[bay_area_kid]

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 100219840)

case information

[Coolcamden]

Originally Posted by bay_area_kid

case information

Why? What happened?

[dauster]

Originally Posted by Coolcamden

Why? What happened?

Exactly please explain in English without the legal blah blah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uniqueMR]

Originally Posted by Coolcamden

Why? What happened?

A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can't be brought back to court.

[fsprow]

Originally Posted by dauster

Exactly please explain in English without the legal blah blah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This means that the dismissal is final. The petitioner requested that the case be dismissed and it was. It may have been settled out of court or abandoned.

[Watchdoyouwant?]

My guess is settled. Would have at least seen a demurrer or MSJ otherwise.

VERY interesting.

[bay_area_kid]

Not sure if I'm reading it correctly, but it looks like the request for dismissal came from the plaintiff side and with prejudice (cannot be re-filed ever again).

It's curious the plaintiff side filed it instead of the defense so it's likely both sides reached an agreement and part of the settlement terms was to ensure the plaintiff can't ever file the same suit against Shreve & Co. ever again.

Any attorneys here, please correct my limited understanding.

[Watchdoyouwant?]

Originally Posted by bay_area_kid

Not sure if I'm reading it correctly, but it looks like the request for dismissal came from the plaintiff side and with prejudice (cannot be re-filed ever again).

It's curious the plaintiff side filed it instead of the defense so it's likely both sides reached an agreement and part of the settlement terms was to ensure the plaintiff can't ever file the same suit against Shreve & Co. ever again.

Any attorneys here, please correct my limited understanding.

This is what happens when there is a settlement.