Brad Pitt's most recently amended lawsuit against former wife Angelina Jolie, in which he claims that she wrongfully sold her shares in the business to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler without his consent, will have to be shored up on some causes of action, according to a judge who also dismissed two allegations.
Jolie's lawyers had maintained that Pitt's allegations "went from bad to worse" in the revised complaint and sought to have the part of the complaint against their client dismissed. But on Friday, Judge Lia Martin, having taken Jolie's dismissal motion under submission, issued a mixed ruling, leaving some claims intact, dismissing others and finding that still others must be clarified for them to remain part of the case. She gave Pitt 20 days to file an amended complaint.
The judge overruled Jolie's bid to dismiss two of Pitt's contract claims, but said he will have to clarify his causes of action for intentional Interference with contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with prospective business relations. Martin dismissed Pitt's claims for constructive trust and abuse of rights under the Luxembourg Civil Code.
Chateau Miraval is the 1,300-acre country estate the former couple bought in 2008 and where they married in 2014. In his most updated suit filed in June, Pitt, 60, contends that by 2016 he had funded roughly 70% of the couple's investment, while Jolie, 48, had put up the remaining 30%. Pitt originally sued in February 2022.
Nouvel LLC, which Jolie formed as a vehicle for holding shares in Chateau Miraval, is a co-defendant in Pitt's lawsuit. Before her alleged sale of Nouvel to the Stoli Group in 2021, Jolie was the sole member of the company and held 100% of its membership interest.
Shefler owns SPI Group, which produces Stolichnaya vodka.
In their motion, Jolie's attorneys disputed Pitt's argument that she needed her ex-husband's permission to sell her winery shares.
Want to get caught up on what's happening in SoCal every weekday afternoon? Click to follow The L.A. Local wherever you get podcasts.
"The mere fact that Pitt and Jolie jointly purchased and maintained Chateau Miraval as their family home does not objectively reflect an offer to give Pitt a specific consent right in Jolie's share of the property, especially given Pitt's written rejection of any buyout term just days before the purchase," Jolie's lawyers maintain in their court papers.
Moreover, Pitt does not allege that he and Jolie had any agreement dictating how their contributions would be treated, let alone that Jolie accepting her "intimate partner's financial contributions amounted to an offer to give him everlasting rights in her separate property," Jolie's attorneys further contended in their court papers.
While a valid written contract by law must be formed at a specific point in time, Pitt never alleges or explains when an implied agreement occurred, according to Jolie's attorneys' court papers.
Follow KNX News 97.1 FM
Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | TikTok