Andrew Watters

Update August 6, 2025: The deposition of Dominic is finally happening at the Perry Law offices in Santa Rosa this week. We are currently on day three. I need to update this page with some corrections and new information to the below material, which I expect to have time to do in the next couple of weeks. Thanks.

February 14, 2025

There was no debate in my mind over whether to post this Hall of Shame web page. It had to be done. This law firm is the most toxic collection of evil people I have ever run across in nineteen years of law practice. It started in 2008 when attorney John Johnson escaped his client from a Family Code 271 sanctions award, that otherwise surely would have been made, by blaming me for writing aggressive letters. A crazy judge named Cerena Wong believed the ridiculous theory that because of my unpleasant letters, John's client was excused from destroying evidence and lying about it, among other misdeeds. The basic problem is that the other party and the attorney never said "because you are being rude to us, we cannot comply with the law." In any case, this is the published Marriage of Davenport case in the Court of Appeal that stems from a series of letters I wrote to John's client before John was even involved in the case-- letters in my first year of practice in 2006 that were all approved by my then-supervisor, my Uncle Mike Watters (I worked at O'Brien Watters & Davis at that time). In any event, my client was sanctioned and the award of $100,000 was affirmed on appeal. If you ask anyone at Perry Law now, it ended there-- but it didn't end there. In an Uno Reverse Card-type move, the case went to trial for 73 days in 2009-2010 before a retired Court of Appeal justice, Mike Hanlon. I testified for two days of the trial, including cross examination by John. The lengthy decision, and subsequent award of attorney fees, found that everything I accused Mr. Davenport of was true, including destroying records and lying under oath about it. John's client was sanctioned more than $2 million in attorney fees, although the decision doesn't apportion this between 271 and 2030. The point is that the representation that the initial Court of Appeal decision is the last word on Davenport is untrue-- and the Perry Law firm attorneys proved that they don't care about the truth when they circulated the Court of Appeal decision in our current case together, without disclosing the effective reversal of the 2008 271 result (the award against my client was offset against the award against Mr. Davenport, for a net award of around $2 million in my client's favor). At this point, the trial decision in Davenport is an embarrassment to John Johnson, and I had no reason to put him in my Hall of Shame until realizing on January 30, 2025 that he probably concealed the decision from other attorneys in his law firm and is leaving that part out of what he tells people about that case, or me.

This brings me to our current cases together: Doe 7017 v. Foppoli, Does 1-7 v. Foppoli, and Abraham v. Foppoli, which the above-noted attorneys Traci and Nicole are handling. I represent defendant Dominic Foppoli individually. Dom and I go way back, to the same 2006-2009 time frame in which I was working on the Davenport matter in Santa Rosa. Dom and I were in the 20-30 club together, which is how I know him and several other folks associated with Christopher Creek Winery. Let me break it down for you: from interacting with Dominic and everyone else for several years at 20-30 events, parties, after-parties, and other occasions, I don't believe any of the claims made in the lawsuits filed by Perry Law. These cases are an attempt to trash the reputation of a then-promising young political figure, which is malicious. Don't get me wrong: I don't necessarily agree with Dom's style of dating (I'm also a little jealous of his success during that time period), but it's okay to feel conflicted, and you don't have to endorse everything about someone in order to advocate for them-- or believe them. I think it was at the point we produced the Cellebrite forensic report of 160,000 pages of material with nothing withheld and no redactions that I felt the tide had turned in our favor. The other side doesn't want the information that would have been gained at Dom's deposition, because they know he is going to do well on the video I would have done. This shows, consistent with my views expressed herein, that the law firm doesn't want the truth. And when we speak inconvenient truths, they get angry.

I started representing Dom in mid-2024 in these matters. From the beginning, I have been nothing but polite yet firm with the other side, even though I disagree with the basic concept of their claims and their representation. There is no better demonstration of the toxic, manipulative, and downright evil behavior of this law firm than their unilateral cancellation of Dom's deposition around 8 p.m. the evening before the deposition. Here is what I had to say about that in a recent motion filing:

"After substantial meet-and-confer discussions in October 2024 and November 2024, during which Plaintiffs’ counsel rigidly insisted on requiring an in-person deposition, Defendant’s deposition was properly noticed and scheduled for January 30, 2025, in full compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2025.210 and 2025.220. Relying on this notice, Defendant and his wife, Maura, whom he married in 2024, traveled from their residence in Italy to California specifically for this deposition. Given the significance of the proceeding, Defendant’s spouse accompanied him for emotional support, as well as to spend time together during what was intended to be a structured, week-long trip. To ensure his attendance at the deposition, Defendant canceled business commitments in Italy and incurred significant expenses for airfare, lodging, transportation, and related travel costs. Additionally, Defendant’s legal team dedicated substantial time and resources preparing for the deposition to ensure compliance with discovery obligations. This included obtaining, reviewing, and producing a 160,000-page forensic analysis of Defendant’s mobile phone, which is a complete record of his communications and life since at least 2009 when he started using an iPhone and iCloud. Nothing was withheld or redacted. Despite these extensive preparations, the first indication that Plaintiffs’ counsel would not proceed with the deposition was on the Tuesday evening before the Thursday deposition, when Plaintiffs’ counsel questioned Defendant’s right to record the deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel then used as an excuse the document production, claiming it was too voluminous to proceed with the deposition. Despite Defendant’s offer to proceed and leave the deposition open for a second session once Plaintiffs’ counsel completed their document review, Plaintiffs’ counsel unilaterally canceled the deposition at the last minute, providing no reasonable justification for the abrupt change. The cancellation was communicated through email, without prior coordination or any attempt to mitigate the resulting inconvenience and financial impact on Defendant, all of which was communicated to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Below is the summary of key events, all which are shown in the emails attached to the Watters declaration:

October 9, 2024 - Plaintiffs’ counsel served deposition notices, including a notice for Defendant Dominic Foppoli.
October 17, 2024 - Defense counsel, Andrew Watters, responded, informing opposing counsel that Defendant was overseas and unavailable for an in-person deposition until late January 2025. He offered to conduct the deposition remotely via Zoom at an earlier date, but opposing counsel refused and insisted on an in-person deposition.
October 24, 2024 - Defense counsel reiterated the offer for a Zoom deposition, stating that it would be more practical given Defendant’s international travel schedule. Plaintiffs’ counsel continued to demand in-person testimony.
November 6, 2024 - Plaintiffs’ counsel followed up on outstanding discovery requests, and defense counsel confirmed that discovery responses and relevant documents would be provided before the scheduled deposition.
November 8, 2024 - Defense counsel confirmed that a Zoom deposition would be possible before January and proposed an in-person deposition in the U.S. if the Defendant was going to be in U.S. at that time.
November 24, 2024 - Defense counsel confirmed that discovery responses and documents would be provided prior to Defendant’s deposition.
December 14, 2024 - Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an email stating that they expected the deposition to proceed in person as planned in Santa Rosa, California.
January 10, 2025 - Plaintiffs’ counsel formally confirmed the deposition of Defendant Foppoli for January 30, 2025, in Santa Rosa.
January 20, 2025 - Defendant and his wife made arrangements to travel from Italy to California, canceling business obligations in Europe to ensure his attendance at the in-person deposition.
January 25, 2025 - Defense counsel sought final confirmation from opposing counsel regarding logistical details for the deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed the deposition was proceeding on the 30th.
January 28, 2025 - Defense counsel provided advance notice of his intent to video-record and audiot- record the deposition with his own equipment. For the first time, Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated she had a problem with the recording even though her own notice stated that recording would take place.
January 29, 2025 - On the evening before the scheduled deposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel unilaterally canceled the deposition, citing the volume of recent discovery production as a justification.
January 30, 2025 - Defendant, who had already traveled from Italy, was ready and available for the deposition. Another attorney representing a related party traveled to Santa Rosa, only to find out upon arrival that the deposition had been canceled because no one at the Perry Law firm told them.
January 31, 2025 - Defense counsel requested clarification and rescheduling options, proposing that the deposition proceed remotely to avoid further unnecessary expenses and logistical complications. Defense counsel informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that Defendant would be traveling back to Italy that Sunday, but could stay an extra day with a costly last- minute fare change. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded belatedly stating that February 6 would work, knowing that this was after Defendant’s return to Italy. Counsel exchanged a flurry of emails, each accusing the other of incivility or other breaches. These all occurred after the cancellation by Plaintiffs, therefore incivility could not be a reason for the cancellation of the deposition.
February 2, 2025 - Plaintiffs’ counsel refused to confirm a Zoom deposition and provided no reasonable alternative, demonstrating a pattern of delay and bad faith. This motion followed. Following the cancellation by Plaintiffs’ counsel, they failed to make any meaningful effort to reschedule the deposition in good faith. Rather than proposing a reasonable alternative, such as a remote deposition, Plaintiffs have instead insisted on an in-person deposition proceeding without offering any assurance that future cancellations will not occur. This refusal to accommodate a virtual alternative or to work collaboratively toward rescheduling has further exacerbated the burden on Defendant, and resulted in the accompanying motion for protective order calling for a Zoom deposition.

As a direct result of Plaintiffs’ conduct, Defendant suffered substantial and unnecessary financial losses, including non-refundable travel expenses, lost time, and attorney fees incurred in preparation for a deposition that never took place. The failure of Plaintiffs to act in good faith has resulted in undue prejudice to Defendant, necessitating the present motion for sanctions."

We are seeking about $23,000 in monetary sanctions on this motion for recoverable costs plus attorney fees. Hearing date to be set (the motion was just filed recently).

The first trial set is Doe 7017 v. Foppoli in July 2025, followed by Does 1-7 v. Foppoli in September 2025. We have a few hearings coming up, including on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings seeking to knock out Does 1-3 because their claims are beyond the statute of limitations.

Here is my client's statement on the recent Press Democrat article, which left out a number of important facts I gave to the author, such as that Doe 7017 recorded a video of herself that she sent to Dom, which shows her touching herself and calling his name shortly after the supposed rapes:

Ms. Windsor,
There are a tremendous amount of factual inaccuracies in your story. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t reach out to me directly for comment or input before writing another tabloid style untrue story about me and my family. 

First and foremost, you are hurting the lives of Mitch Cuadros and Elisa Cuadros Lawson by continually printing factual falsehoods about them. 

They are not and have never been owners of Christopher Creek. People keep approaching them about ownership decisions that they have nothing to do with because of your stories. The only thing they are guilty of is working tremendously hard, like the rest of the core Christopher Creek winery team that is still there, through a difficult situation created in large part by your paper over the last 4 years. 

 I would like you to immediately print a retraction and update the digital version of your story about Mitch and Elisa.

As far as the rest of the story it’s far from the the truth as well. My wife and I are back in Windsor all of the time and still consider it one of our two homes. 
We still have the same house that I’ve owned for almost 15 years. I have been clear from Day one that there is no truth to any of these stories. We have nothing to hide from. We have been spending a lot of our time in Italy because my wife’s family is currently here and my wife still has her principal work and business interests in Italy. 

You portray me as a spoiled rich kid who got away with something, which is far from the case on both counts. “Scion of a prominent wine industry family”. My aging parents live on a fairly small farm that they bought from a federal government sale in the mid 80’s because back then Sonoma county was one of the most affordable places in the region to raise your family if you wanted your kids to grow up in a rural farming environment. They have a small vineyard that would lose money every year if our family winery didn’t farm the grapes for them to help them out. 

Everything I have is from a huge amount of hard work and entrepreneurial risk from me and the close family and friends I’m lucky enough to have as business partners. I worked my way through college and started my first wine brand from working at the Olive Garden and other restaurants as a waiter. Your portrayal of me having some huge amount of generational wealth is what helped convince these greedy money driven women to make up stories and launch lawsuits in the first place.

As far as the lavish lazy lifestyle you portray my wife and I living, thats also totally untrue. My wife is the hardest working woman I have ever met which is one of the things that made me fall in love with her. She also worked her way through fashion and design school waiting tables before being discovered as a model and becoming successful in the fashion and luxury hospitality/ real estate industries. The only reason we travel as much as we do is because it’s the only way I can get her to take days off and to see some of the world before we start having children in the next year or so. 

As far as the story about my brother. That is also totally inaccurate. I love him but he’s a troubled human being and I hope he’s gotten the help he needs.

There is a reason why the rest of the owners of the winery (which include his own parents, his sister, his brother in law, and what was his lawyer and close friend for many years) are still involved in ownership and/or are employed in the business after he was let go. It was not my decision alone to fire him, it was made by the vast majority of the ownership after giving Joe time after time to fix his issues and be better. The truth is Joe should have been fired years earlier if not for the fact that we gave him chance after chance because he’s family. 

As far as the other lawsuits, I was sent what was essentially an extortion demand to pay millions of dollars before the lawsuits were launched in order to not have some of these made up stories come out.

 I refused and continue to refuse to give them a single penny. If I have any decision in the matter, I will never authorize me or the insurance company representing the winery to pay any settlement to any of these terrible false accusers. I look forward to my days in civil court and after winning, to probably filing lawsuits against them and their lawyers for malicious and frivolous prosecution along with slander and defamation. 

By making up stories for financial and personal gain they are hurting real victims out there and making it more challenging for people who have actual problems to come forward and there needs to be consequences. 

I’m happy to sit down in person next time we are in Sonoma County for a full interview if you pledge to finally write an unbiased truthful story.

There you go, this is a well-written email and his complaints about the Press Democrat are 100% justified. So are my complaints about Perry Law. The above examples are a small slice of what Dom and I have been dealing with for the last several months. The principal issue is that these #MeToo claims are baseless and detract from the weight of real #MeToo claims. This bandwagon and their attorney enablers should be ashamed of themselves for bringing claims beyond the statute of limitations and because these claims are false and baseless. Doe #7, for example, was a political figure in the community and there is a video of her endorsing Dom for Mayor that's a week after her alleged rape, which she claims occurred at her house while her husband and daughter were home. That is the tip of the iceberg on these outrageous, malicious claims, and I look forward to sharing as much information as I legally can under ethical rules and other constraints. With that, here are the case materials filed to date in each of these matters, along with my summary and comments.

Doe 7017 v. Foppoli

Does 1-7 v. Foppoli

Abraham v. Foppoli

To be freaking continued.

Back to Hall of Shame.