CJ-2026-12 - Anthony Rodriguez and Dalton Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of Oklahoma Harvest Health, LLC, Harvest Health Extracts, LLC, and TKR Enterprise, LLC v. Isaiah N. Brydie, individually, and Brydie & Associates, PLLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t your average “my lawyer forgot to file the paperwork” story. No, this is the legal equivalent of a slow-motion car crash—except the car is on fire, the driver is texting, and the passengers are watching their entire business empire go up in smoke while being told, “Don’t worry, everything’s fine.” Anthony and Dalton Rodriguez, two Oklahoma cannabis entrepreneurs trying to play by the rules in one of the most heavily regulated industries on the planet, claim their attorney didn’t just drop the ball—he lit it on fire, tossed it into a federal raid, and then billed them for the lighter.

So who are we talking about here? Meet Anthony and Dalton Rodriguez, brothers-in-business if not by blood, running a small but legitimate cannabis operation under the umbrella of three LLCs: Oklahoma Harvest Health, Harvest Health Extracts, and TKR Enterprise. These aren’t back-alley pot peddlers. They’re the kind of guys who wear lanyards at dispensary conferences, keep binders full of compliance checklists, and probably have a framed OMMA license on the wall next to a motivational cat poster. They were operating two dispensaries—one in downtown Tulsa at 4th and Sheridan, another in Sand Springs—and running a grow and extraction facility, all with state-issued licenses. In other words, they were doing everything right. Until they hired Isaiah N. Brydie.

Brydie, an attorney based in Tulsa and running his own firm, Brydie & Associates, PLLC, allegedly presented himself as a cannabis law specialist—the guy who speaks fluent OMMA, dreams in regulatory deadlines, and knows which form to file when the Bureau of Narcotics sneezes. The Rodriguezes, reasonably assuming they were hiring an expert, handed over the keys to their legal fate. On January 23, 2025, they retained Brydie to handle everything from dispensary licenses to OBNDD manufacturing registrations, ownership changes, and ongoing compliance. Translation: “Please keep us legal, so we don’t get raided or arrested.” A simple ask, really.

But then the wheels came off. According to the lawsuit, Brydie didn’t just miss a few deadlines—he allegedly ignored entire regulatory universes. The Sand Springs dispensary license? It expired on May 10 or 11, 2025, because Brydie failed to file the renewal. Worse, OMMA had sent notices. Repeated ones. But instead of sounding the alarm, Brydie allegedly told the Rodriguezes everything was under control. Then, in a move that can only be described as “panic chess,” he advised them to transfer their still-active Tulsa dispensary license to the Sand Springs location as a “fix.” So they did. And just like that—two dispensaries, zero licenses. Poof.

But wait, it gets juicier. While the dispensary mess was unfolding, Brydie was also supposed to be maintaining the OBNDD manufacturing registration at the grow and extraction site. Except he didn’t. That registration lapsed on March 6, 2025. And instead of saying, “Hey, we’ve got a problem,” Brydie allegedly told the Rodriguezes the registration was “active.” They believed him. Why wouldn’t they? He was the lawyer. So they kept growing, extracting, selling—operating a business they thought was fully compliant. Then came the knock on the door. A regulatory raid. Agents swarmed the facility. Thousands of cannabis plants, hundreds of pounds of product—seized. Criminal charges? Filed. Felony exposure? Yep, for both Rodriguezes. All because the guy they paid to keep them legal told them they were legal when they weren’t.

Now, let’s talk about why they’re in court. The Rodriguezes aren’t just mad—they’re suing on four fronts. First, legal malpractice: Brydie allegedly failed to do the basic things every lawyer is supposed to do—file on time, monitor deadlines, give accurate advice. Second, breach of fiduciary duty: as their attorney, he owed them loyalty, honesty, and transparency. Instead, they say he lied, concealed problems, and put them in legal jeopardy. Third, fraud: this is the big one. They’re claiming Brydie didn’t just make mistakes—he knew the licenses were lapsed and still told them they were fine. That’s not malpractice. That’s intentional deception. And fourth, they’re asking for punitive damages, not because they necessarily expect to win them, but to send a message: attorneys can’t play fast and loose with clients’ livelihoods, especially in an industry where one missed form can land you in jail.

Now, here’s the twist: they’re suing for $10,000. Yes, you read that right. Ten grand. In a case involving seized inventory, destroyed businesses, criminal charges, and total operational collapse, the damages sought are… modest. Almost insultingly so. Is $10,000 enough to cover the cost of a single lawyer’s retainer, let alone lost revenue or criminal defense fees? Probably not. But here’s the thing: in Oklahoma, filing in district court for more than $10,000 triggers a jury trial. The Rodriguezes didn’t demand a jury. So by staying just under—or possibly just over, given the “in excess of $10,000” language—they’re keeping this in front of a judge, avoiding the circus of a jury trial, and maybe even signaling they’re more interested in accountability than a windfall. Or maybe it’s a strategic move. Either way, it’s a stark contrast to the scale of the disaster they describe.

So what’s our take? Look, we’ve covered lawsuits over stolen chickens, ghost marriages, and backyard moat disputes. But this one takes the cake for sheer, jaw-dropping mismanagement. The most absurd part isn’t even the botched paperwork—it’s the audacity of the lies. “Don’t worry, it’s active.” “I resubmitted it.” “We’re fixing it.” These aren’t errors. These are conscious choices to keep a client in the dark while the regulatory noose tightens. And the fact that Brydie allegedly continued billing for services after the licenses lapsed? That’s not just negligence. That’s profiteering from failure.

We’re not saying every missed deadline deserves a lawsuit. But when your attorney becomes the single point of failure for a business operating in a legal minefield, and then actively misleads you about your exposure to criminal liability? That’s not a bad day at the office. That’s a betrayal. And while $10,000 might not rebuild a cannabis empire, it might just be enough to say: “You had one job.”

Case Overview

$10,000 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court in and for Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Jonathan M. Sutton

Sutton.law

Relief Sought

$10,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Anthony Rodriguez and Dalton Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of Oklahoma Harvest Health, LLC, Harvest Health Extracts, LLC, and TKR Enterprise, LLC individual|business|government
Rep: Jonathan M. Sutton

Defendants

Isaiah N. Brydie, individually, and Brydie & Associates, PLLC individual|business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Legal Malpractice	Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to timely file, monitor, correct, and accurately advise regarding critical regulatory licenses.
2	Breach of Fiduciary Duty	Plaintiffs claim that Defendants owed Plaintiffs fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, and full disclosure, which were breached by providing false assurances and failing to disclose license lapses.
3	Fraud	Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Brydie made specific, affirmative representations of material fact, which were false at the time they were made.
4	Punitive Damages	Plaintiffs seek punitive damages to punish Defendants, deter similar misconduct, and protect the public from attorneys who endanger clients through reckless misrepresentation.

Petition Text

1,804 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ and DALTON RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of OKLAHOMA HARVEST HEALTH, LLC, HARVEST HEALTH EXTRACTS, LLC, and TKR ENTERPRISE, LLC, Plaintiffs, vs. ISAIAH N. BRYDIE, individually, and BRYDIE & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Defendants. PETITION Comes now the Plaintiffs, Anthony Rodriguez, Dalton Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of Oklahoma Harvest Health, LLC, Harvest Health extracts, and TKR Enterprise, LLC, (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs") by and through their attorney of record, Jonathan M. Sutton, and for their causes of action against the Defendants does state as follows: 1. Plaintiff Anthony Rodriguez is a resident of Oklahoma and Tulsa County, and a principal owner and operator of the previously licensed Oklahoma medical marijuana businesses Oklahoma Harvest Health, LLC, Harvest Health extracts, and TKR Enterprise, LLC, 2. Plaintiff Dalton Rodriguez is a resident of Oklahoma and co-owner/operator of the LLC previously licensed Oklahoma medical marijuana businesses Oklahoma Harvest Health, LLC, Harvest Health extracts, and TKR Enterprise, LLC, 3. Plaintiffs Oklahoma Harvest Health, LLC, Harvest Health Extracts, LLC, and TKR Enterprise, LLC are Oklahoma limited liability companies engaged in the cannabis industry. 4. Said Plaintiffs Oklahoma Harvest Health, LLC, Harvest Health Extracts, LLC, and TKR Enterprise, LLC previously held licenses with the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority (hereinafter “OMMA”) until sometime after hiring Defendants. 5. Defendant Isaiah N. Brydie is an attorney licensed to practice law in Oklahoma. 6. Defendant Brydie & Associates, PLLC is an Oklahoma professional limited liability company with its principal office in Tulsa, Oklahoma. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. Jurisdiction is proper in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 7. Venue is proper because the acts and omissions occurred in Tulsa County and all parties are headquartered there and transact business there as well. BASIC FACTS 8. On or about January 23, 2025, Plaintiffs retained Defendant Isaiah N. Brydie, believed to be owner and employee of Defendant Brydie & Associates, PLLC (collectively “Defendants”) to provide comprehensive legal services related to OMMA dispensary licenses, Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs ("OBNDD") registrations, grow and processing/manufacturing permits, and ownership changes and regulatory compliance. 9. Plaintiffs owned licenses issued by the State of Oklahoma for the growing of cannabis, the extraction of cannabis, and two dispensary licenses: one utilized at 4th and Sheridan in Tulsa, the other in Sand Springs next to the grow operation. 10. Defendants represented themselves as having experience and expertise in these areas prior to accepting Plaintiffs as clients. 11. Plaintiffs relied on said representations and acted on same, retaining Defendants for said purposes. 12. Defendants expressly undertook responsibility for monitoring, filing, correcting, and timely responding to regulatory matters critical to Plaintiffs continued lawful operations. 13. An attorney-client relationship existed, giving rise to duties of competence, diligence, candor, and loyalty. 14. Defendants failed to timely cure a rejected OMMA application despite repeated notices of impending expiration. 15. Defendants failed to follow up after rejection and allowed the Sand Springs dispensary license to expire on May 10–11, 2025. 16. As a direct result, Plaintiffs were forced to shut down operations, destroy inventory, and lose substantial revenue. 17. Defendants advised Plaintiffs to transfer the Tulsa OMMA license to Sand Springs as a remedy for Defendants’ own failure. 18. This advice caused the Tulsa dispensary to close, compounding damages and necessitating replacement licenses and permits. 19. Defendants failed to properly maintain and renew OBNDd manufacturing registrations at the grow and extraction location. 20. Defendants affirmatively and incorrectly advised Plaintiffs that the manufacturing registrations were "active" when they were, in fact, inactive as of March 6, 2025. 21. Plaintiffs relied on this incorrect legal advice. 22. As a direct and foreseeable result, Plaintiffs' facility was raided, operations shut down, cannabis plants and product seized, and criminal charges filed. 23. Defendants were repeatedly placed on actual notice that Plaintiffs' OMMA and OBNDd licenses were rejected, expiring, or inactive, including written notices directly from regulatory agencies. 24. Despite that notice, Defendant Isaiah N. Brydie affirmatively represented to Plaintiffs that: said applications had been resubmitted when they had not, that manufacturing registrations were "active" when they were inactive as of March 6, 2025, and Plaintiffs could continue operating while Defendants "worked it out." 25. These representations were not mere negligence. They were made with reckless disregard for the truth and with knowledge that Plaintiffs' reliance would expose them to criminal liability, regulatory enforcement, seizure of property, and total business collapse. 26. Defendant Brydie held himself out as a specialist in Oklahoma cannabis regulatory law while failing to perform the most basic verification of license status in systems he claimed to be regularly monitoring. 27. Defendant Brydie’s conduct went beyond mistake or oversight and constituted a pattern of conscious indifference, including initially making and thereafter failing to correct known false statements, continuing to bill for services while licenses were lapsed and services not performed, attempting to shift blame to Plaintiffs after regulatory failures occurred, and advising actions that compounded the damages. 28. Defendant Brydie’s conduct directly resulted in the Plaintiffs headquarters being the subject of a regulatory raid, the subsequent seizure of thousands of plants and hundreds of pounds of cannabis, pending felony criminal charges against both Rodriguez Plaintiffs, and the permanent destruction of Plaintiffs’ businesses. 29. Defendants undertook responsibility for distinct regulatory tasks involving separate licenses, agencies, deadlines, properties, and business entities. 30. Each regulatory failure described below arose from separate acts, separate decisions, and separate misrepresentations, occurring on different dates and causing independent harms. 31. Plaintiffs have been harmed by the loss of the licenses, seizure of plants and cannabis flower and products, and the loss of business revenue from said operations, in addition to the moneys paid to Defendants for services not rendered. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I - LEGAL MALPRACTICE 32. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-31. 33. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to exercise the degree of care, skill, and diligence ordinarily exercised by competent Oklahoma attorneys. 34. Defendants breached that duty by failing to timely file, monitor, correct, and accurately advice regarding critical regulatory licenses. 35. Defendants not only failed to properly advise and monitor said licenses, but actively took to providing Plaintiffs with false information relative to the status of these license renewals. 36. Defendants’ breaches were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ damages. 37. Wherefore on this, Plaintiff's First Cause, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants for damages sustained as a result of the actions and inactions of said Defendants, for a sum in excess of $10,000.00, for pre and post judgment interest and for Plaintiff’s costs and attorney’s fees herein expended, together with such exemplary or punitive damages as may be appropriate in the circumstances. COUNT II - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 38. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-37. 39. Defendants owed Plaintiffs fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, and full disclosure. 40. Defendants breached those duties by providing false assurances, failing to disclose license lapses, placing Plaintiffs at legal and criminal risk. 41. Wherefore on this, Plaintiff's Second Cause, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants for damages sustained as a result of the actions and inactions of said Defendants, for a sum in excess of $10,000.00, for pre and post judgment interest and for Plaintiff's costs and attorney's fees herein expended, together with such exemplary or punitive damages as may be appropriate in the circumstances. COUNT III - FRAUD 42. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-41. 43. Defendant Isaiah N. Brydie made specific, affirmative representations of material fact, including but not limited to that OMMA applications had been "resubmitted" when they had not; 44. That OBNDD manufacturing registrations were "active" when they were inactive; 45. That Plaintiffs could lawfully continue operations while Defendants "fixed" licensing failures. 46. That these representations were false at the time they were made. 47. That Defendant Brydie knew the representations were false, or made them recklessly without regard for their truth, while possessing exclusive access to the regulatory portals and information. 48. Defendant Brydie made these representations with the intent that Plaintiffs rely upon them, knowing reliance would delay corrective action and likely prevent Plaintiffs from seeking alternate counsel, 49. Further, that in so making these false and fraudulent statements, Brydie intended to conceal his own negligence, and maintain Defendants' billing and control of the matter. 50. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on these representations because they came from a person who represented he had skills and knowledge of these areas of law, maintaining himself to be a regulatory specialist, 51. Plaintiffs' reliance directly resulted in: the regulatory raids and seizures, criminal prosecution exposure, loss of all licenses, inventory, plants, and revenue, and permanent business destruction. 52. Defendant Brydie's conduct constitutes actual fraud and intentional deceit 53. Wherefore on this, Plaintiff's third Cause, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants for damages sustained as a result of the actions and inactions of said Defendants, for a sum in excess of $10,000.00, for pre and post judgment interest and for Plaintiff's costs and attorney's fees herein expended, together with such exemplary or punitive damages as may be appropriate in the circumstances. COUNT IV - PUNITIVE DAMAGES 37. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1–36. 38. Defendants acted with reckless disregard for the rights of others. 42. Defendants knew, or should have known, that their conduct created a high probability of severe harm, yet deliberately proceeded. 43. Defendants’ conduct demonstrates a conscious indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights, welfare and wellbeing, a willful failure to correct false information, and a reckless disregard for foreseeable consequences. 44. Defendant Brydie’s misconduct was personal, intentional, and outside any legitimate professional judgment, thereby exposing Defendants to individual punitive liability, and removing any shield of professional discretion. 45. Plaintiffs seek punitive damages to punish these Defendants, deter similar misconduct in other attorneys, protect the public from attorneys who endanger clients through reckless misrepresentation. 46. Plaintiffs suffered damages including, but not limited to loss of multiple OMMA licenses, loss of OBNDD registrations, seizure and destruction of inventory, loss of plants and harvested product, lost business revenue, criminal defense expenses, reputational harm, and emotional distress. 47. Wherefore on this, Plaintiff's fourth Cause, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants for damages sustained as a result of the actions and inactions of said Defendants, for a sum in excess of $10,000.00, for pre and post judgment interest and for Plaintiff’s costs and attorney’s fees herein expended Wherefore, on these various causes of action, Plaintiffs prays for judgment against Defendants for losses and damages sustained as a result of the various failures of Defendants for a sum of $10,000.00, for pre and post judgment interest and for Plaintiff’s costs and attorney’s fees herein expended, together with such exemplary or punitive damages as may be appropriate in the circumstances. Respectfully Submitted, Jonathan M. Sutton OBA #14968 4 NE 10th # 422 Oklahoma City, OK 73104 (918) 691-9977 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF TULSA ) ss. VERIFICATION I, Anthony Rodriguez, being of lawful age and sound mind, and having duly sworn, upon my oath state: I am the Plaintiff in this case; I have read this document, and know its contents, and hereby verify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements contained therein are true. Anthony Rodriguez Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of January, 2025. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: (Seal)