Preview
1 John S. Rueppel (SBN: 267467)
Evan D. Winet (SBN: 289643)
2 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
3 San Francisco, California 94104
4 Telephone: (415) 693-0550
Facsimile: (415) 693-0500
5 Email: john@jkzllp.com
evan@jkzllp.com
6
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
8 Lisa Keith
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
IN THE COUNTY OF NAPA
11
LISA KEITH, CASE NO: 22CV001269
12
13 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LISA
14 v. KEITH’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS, CELESTE WHITE,
15 CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT ROBERT WHITE, AND THE VALLEY
WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK ROCK FOUNDATION’S NOTICE OF
16 FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 MOTION AND SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP
17 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, and MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S
DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, COMPLAINT
18
Defendants. Date: 02/01/2023
19 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: B
20 Judge: Hon. Scott R.L. Young
21
Complaint Filed: 10/25/2022
22 Trial Date: Not Set
23 I, John S. Rueppel, declare as follows:
24 1. I am a partner with the firm Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP, who serves as counsel for
25 Plaintiff, Lisa Keith, in the above-entitled matter.
26 2. This declaration is in support of Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s Opposition to Defendants, Celeste
27 White, Robert White, and The Valley Rock Foundation’s Notice of Motion and Special Anti-SLAPP
28 1
DECLARATION OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL IN SUPPOT OF PLAINPLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint.
2 3. In the prior action, Plaintiff brought a suit against Defendant Celeste White, and others
3 regarding breaches of trust and seeking an accounting, regarding their father’s trust, the Edward A. Keith
4 Declaration of Trust.
5 4. The Agreement was approved by the Court in its August 20, 2020 Order. Because
6 Plaintiff was very concerned that her sister would attempt to smear her name later in some way, she
7 required a robust Non-Disparagement Clause be included in the Agreement. That clause barred not only
8 defamatory language, but also “any remark, comment, message, information, declaration,
9 communication or other statement of any kind that might reasonably be construed to be derogatory or
10 critical of, or negative toward any other Party.”
11 5. The penalty for breach of the provision was set at $10,000 for each communication.
12 Defendants agreed to this extraordinarily broad non-disparagement provision in return for the release of
13 claims against them, and agreed to pay Plaintiff almost $1,300,000 in damages.
14 6. A few months later, as Plaintiff had feared, Defendants began to disseminate false
15 statements about the litigation, itsresult, and the judge’s ruling, which implied Plaintiff’s claims had
16 been frivolous, casting her in a negative light and clearly breaching the Agreement.
17 7. The statements (the “Press Releases”) were not about any issue of public policy, in
18 support of any cause or belief, and involved no issues of public interest; they were pure puffery, a mix
19 of fact and falsehood designed only to glorify Defendants and disparage Plaintiff. Given the nature of
20 the non-disparagement clause, it was an act of sheer arrogance to issue press releases that in any way
21 impugned Plaintiff and her case against Defendants.
22 8. In the Shakespeare play, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony is ordered to give a public speech
23 in which he says nothing negative about Brutus and Cassius. Mark Antony continues to praise Brutus
24 and Cassius, but his words are eventually seen to be damning of them and their assassination. In pertinent
25 part, his speech reads:
26 Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.
27 I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
28 2
DECLARATION OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL IN SUPPOT OF PLAINPLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 The evil that men do lives after them;
2 The good is oft interrèd with their bones.
3 So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
4 Hath told you Caesar was ambitious.
5 If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
6 And grievously hath Caesar answered it.
7 Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest
8 (For Brutus is an honorable man;
9 So are they all, all honorable men),
10 Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
11 He was my friend, faithful and just to me,
12 But Brutus says he was ambitious,
13 And Brutus is an honorable man.
14 He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
15 Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.
16 Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
17 When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept;
18 Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
19 Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
20 And Brutus is an honorable man.
21 You all did see that on the Lupercal
22 I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
23 Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?
24 Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
25 And sure he is an honorable man.
26 I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
27 But here I am to speak what I do know.
28 3
DECLARATION OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL IN SUPPOT OF PLAINPLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1
2 9. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint, including the exhibits, is attached to the
3 Opposition as Exhibit A.
4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
5 true and correct.
6 Respectfully submitted,
7 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP
8
9 Dated: January 19, 2023 By:
John S. Rueppel, Esq.
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Lisa Keith
11
12 4892-3619-1051, v. 3
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 4
DECLARATION OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL IN SUPPOT OF PLAINPLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Preview
1 John S. Rueppel (SBN: 267467) Evan D. Winet (SBN: 289643) 2 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 3 San Francisco, California 94104 4 Telephone: (415) 693-0550 Facsimile: (415) 693-0500 5 Email: john@jkzllp.com evan@jkzllp.com 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 8 Lisa Keith 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN THE COUNTY OF NAPA 11 LISA KEITH, CASE NO: 22CV001269 12 13 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LISA 14 v. KEITH’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS, CELESTE WHITE, 15 CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT ROBERT WHITE, AND THE VALLEY WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK ROCK FOUNDATION’S NOTICE OF 16 FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 MOTION AND SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP 17 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, and MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, COMPLAINT 18 Defendants. Date: 02/01/2023 19 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: B 20 Judge: Hon. Scott R.L. Young 21 Complaint Filed: 10/25/2022 22 Trial Date: Not Set 23 I, John S. Rueppel, declare as follows: 24 1. I am a partner with the firm Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP, who serves as counsel for 25 Plaintiff, Lisa Keith, in the above-entitled matter. 26 2. This declaration is in support of Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s Opposition to Defendants, Celeste 27 White, Robert White, and The Valley Rock Foundation’s Notice of Motion and Special Anti-SLAPP 28 1 DECLARATION OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL IN SUPPOT OF PLAINPLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint. 2 3. In the prior action, Plaintiff brought a suit against Defendant Celeste White, and others 3 regarding breaches of trust and seeking an accounting, regarding their father’s trust, the Edward A. Keith 4 Declaration of Trust. 5 4. The Agreement was approved by the Court in its August 20, 2020 Order. Because 6 Plaintiff was very concerned that her sister would attempt to smear her name later in some way, she 7 required a robust Non-Disparagement Clause be included in the Agreement. That clause barred not only 8 defamatory language, but also “any remark, comment, message, information, declaration, 9 communication or other statement of any kind that might reasonably be construed to be derogatory or 10 critical of, or negative toward any other Party.” 11 5. The penalty for breach of the provision was set at $10,000 for each communication. 12 Defendants agreed to this extraordinarily broad non-disparagement provision in return for the release of 13 claims against them, and agreed to pay Plaintiff almost $1,300,000 in damages. 14 6. A few months later, as Plaintiff had feared, Defendants began to disseminate false 15 statements about the litigation, itsresult, and the judge’s ruling, which implied Plaintiff’s claims had 16 been frivolous, casting her in a negative light and clearly breaching the Agreement. 17 7. The statements (the “Press Releases”) were not about any issue of public policy, in 18 support of any cause or belief, and involved no issues of public interest; they were pure puffery, a mix 19 of fact and falsehood designed only to glorify Defendants and disparage Plaintiff. Given the nature of 20 the non-disparagement clause, it was an act of sheer arrogance to issue press releases that in any way 21 impugned Plaintiff and her case against Defendants. 22 8. In the Shakespeare play, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony is ordered to give a public speech 23 in which he says nothing negative about Brutus and Cassius. Mark Antony continues to praise Brutus 24 and Cassius, but his words are eventually seen to be damning of them and their assassination. In pertinent 25 part, his speech reads: 26 Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. 27 I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. 28 2 DECLARATION OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL IN SUPPOT OF PLAINPLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 The evil that men do lives after them; 2 The good is oft interrèd with their bones. 3 So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus 4 Hath told you Caesar was ambitious. 5 If it were so, it was a grievous fault, 6 And grievously hath Caesar answered it. 7 Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest 8 (For Brutus is an honorable man; 9 So are they all, all honorable men), 10 Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral. 11 He was my friend, faithful and just to me, 12 But Brutus says he was ambitious, 13 And Brutus is an honorable man. 14 He hath brought many captives home to Rome, 15 Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill. 16 Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? 17 When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept; 18 Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. 19 Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, 20 And Brutus is an honorable man. 21 You all did see that on the Lupercal 22 I thrice presented him a kingly crown, 23 Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition? 24 Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, 25 And sure he is an honorable man. 26 I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, 27 But here I am to speak what I do know. 28 3 DECLARATION OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL IN SUPPOT OF PLAINPLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 2 9. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint, including the exhibits, is attached to the 3 Opposition as Exhibit A. 4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 5 true and correct. 6 Respectfully submitted, 7 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP 8 9 Dated: January 19, 2023 By: John S. Rueppel, Esq. 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Lisa Keith 11 12 4892-3619-1051, v. 3 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DECLARATION OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL IN SUPPOT OF PLAINPLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT