But the plot thickened. In a deposition related to this breach of contract, Katz ignited controversy with a blazing statement, asserting that the plaintiffs set their own warehouse alight, suggesting a sinister play of insurance fraud.
The Legal Dance Heats Up
But Rifkin Weiner was quick to retaliate. Waving the “absolute litigation privilege” flag, they asserted their statements were shielded, arguing that Katz’s fiery comments stemmed from genuine discovery documents, painting a possible arsonist image.
In a twist, the firm also posited that several plaintiffs – Jerry Lin, Zhu, and AJ Global – had no standing ground in this lawsuit, highlighting potential internal missteps and sharing of sensitive depositions, further muddying the waters.
Rifkin Weiner’s subsequent move, a notice for Rule 11 sanctions, turned up the heat, suggesting that evidence from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department supported their arson claims. The defense’s stance? The plaintiffs, sensing they were cornered, attempted one last intimidation tactic against their formidable opponents.
