# Rocco DiSpiritu



## benrias (May 2, 2003)

Anyone know the outcome of the suit and countersuit filed between Rocco DiSpiritu and China Grill Managment LLC? The last info I can find is that Rocco was fired, locked out, and must now get a court order to enter the restaurant. 

Did this settle, is it ongoing? Anyone know any more?

Thanks!


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

I wonder as well. Moving this to Late Night Cafe.


----------



## boosehound (Jul 17, 2006)

one of my oners went to BU with him and talks to him on his cell every so often ill ask him whats up see if i can get the scoop


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

Oh good gracious, I read that as "talks to him in his cell" and that really got my imagination going.  

Anyway, I'm kind of curious too.


----------



## boosehound (Jul 17, 2006)

sorry, cell phone.......


----------



## foodnfoto (Jan 1, 2001)

'Scuse me, but what is a "oner?"


----------



## boosehound (Jul 17, 2006)

sorry ..........................OWNER what can i say i suck at spelling sometimes!


----------



## benrias (May 2, 2003)

That's OK Boosehound...after a couple of beers, your writing made absolute sense to me. :beer:


----------



## boosehound (Jul 17, 2006)

actually im on medication at the moment so no beers for me for almost a week or 2 more, so you sir can go to **** :roll::suprise:


----------



## aurora (Jan 25, 2006)

This site has the outcome of some of the litigation:

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/r...anned-2781.php


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

"As part of his argument, China Grill's lawyer Lawrence Kaiser claimed that the reason that a partnership agreement was never signed between China Grill and Spirit Media was that Chodorow insisted on full control rights, including the right to sell or close Rocco's on 22nd Street without consulting Rocco, and so he should have that right. Apparently the documents weren't signed in part because Rocco refused to give Chodorow that right. " (from the site link given)

Uh oh, no meeting of the minds means no contract. No contract means that public policy on the issue overides any agreement they thought they had. Public policy says they're equal partners and Rocco cannot be excluded. Hmm.... perhaps this judge's decision will be overturned.


----------



## chrose (Nov 20, 2000)

That's very interesting. This could be a great civics lesson!


----------



## benrias (May 2, 2003)

True, BUT EVEN IF they are considered 50/50 partners the situation is still pretty ugly for Rocco. IIIIFFFF the court finds them 50/50 partners, they are both equally responsible for any outstanding debts. That could be a pretty penny for a guy whose contributions to the "partnership" was non-monetary. AND if his contributions were non-monetary (e.g. managing the restaurant responsibly, and cooking acceptable food) AND he did not perform, then that creates a strong case for China Grill's claims.

IMHO, I think the court will appoint a receiver who will sell off assets, pay off debts, and thus officially terminate the partnership. But if the facts, as presented, are an indicator I think China Grill has a strong case for getting some damages out of Rocco due to his apparent poor managment or perhaps a cut from Rocco's side-deals with the media and such. 

I still think China Grill was ridiculously stupid for not getting that operating agreement signed before starting business, but that doesn't mean that they alone will be forced to take a $3.6 million dollar hit from this venture-- Especially since Rocco was the only one that made any money off the partnership's business by using it as a self-promoting vehicle.


----------

