Ehren Jordan Wine Cellars Lawsuit, First-Citizens Bank’s $17.5 Million Claim and Foreclosure Request Over Failla Wines

Ehren Jordan Wine Cellars, the company behind Failla Wines, is being sued by its lender. On November 4, 2026, First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company filed suit in Napa County Superior Court against winemaker David Ehren Jordan and his company, claiming $17,535,567 in unpaid principal and interest as of November 3, 2026, with interest accruing at about $2,563 to $2,564 a day. The bank wants the court to authorize foreclosure on five properties in Napa and Sonoma counties and to appoint a receiver over pledged collateral.

These are the bank’s allegations. I could not verify any receiver appointment, foreclosure order, court-approved sale, settlement or bankruptcy filing. The company and Jordan had not publicly responded in the coverage I reviewed.

Ehren Jordan Wine Cellars Lawsuit Quick Facts (As of November 13, 2026)

Detail	Status
Plaintiff	First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company (successor to Silicon Valley Bank’s loan)
Defendants	David Ehren Jordan and Ehren Jordan Wine Cellars LLC
Court	Napa County Superior Court, California
Case number	26CV002247 (per public court index)
Filed	November 4, 2026
Amount claimed	$17,535,567 as of November 3, 2026
Daily interest alleged	About $2,563 to $2,564
Claims	Breach of loan agreements and repayment defaults
Relief requested	Judicial foreclosure on five properties, receiver, turnover of collateral, fees and costs
Receiver appointed	Not verified
Foreclosure ordered or sale held	Not verified
Bankruptcy filed	Not verified
Settlement	None verified

The filing details come from public court listings and news reports about the complaint (including Inc. and the Los Angeles Times). I did not obtain the full complaint from the court’s portal, so the financial details are the bank’s account, not findings.

Why Did First-Citizens Bank Sue Ehren Jordan Wine Cellars?

The bank says the winery defaulted on its loans and then failed to meet the conditions it was given to fix the problem.

According to the complaint as reported, the borrowers entered a Fifth Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank on April 27, 2022. The bank says the loan was amended about ten times, with default waivers along the way. In 2026, the amendments allegedly required two things:

• By April 30, 2026: an executed agreement to sell property or bring in an investor or buyer that would cut the real-estate debt by at least $8 million. This was a condition to reduce the existing debt, not an extra $8 million claim.
• By May 31, 2026: an acceptable plan to reduce the operating line of credit.

The bank alleges neither happened. It then, according to the complaint, sent a default notice on August 3 (with a cure deadline of August 13), accelerated the loans on August 14, and on September 1 demanded turnover of pledged personal-property collateral. It acknowledges receiving roughly $324,000 in payments in September and October, which it says is less than 2% of the accelerated balance.

A default allegation is not a finding of fraud or any crime. The defendants can dispute the default, the balance, the interest calculation and the remedies.

How Is the $17.5 Million Calculated?

The bank claims $17,535,567 owed as of November 3, plus daily interest of about $2,563.62. As a simple illustration, that daily rate over a year would add roughly $935,000 if the rate and balance never changed. That is arithmetic on the bank’s own figure, not a prediction of any award. The bank also seeks attorney’s fees and enforcement costs where the loan documents allow them, and any final figure would depend on payments, defenses and the court’s ruling.

Which Five Failla Properties Could Be Foreclosed?

Reports of the complaint identify five properties by short names:

Property name in complaint	County
Silverado	Napa
Fernfield	Sonoma
High Road	Sonoma
Olivet	Sonoma
Sebastopol	Sonoma

The short names alone do not verify each parcel’s address, owner or lien priority, so check the recorded deeds of trust and the complaint itself. The bank has asked the court to authorize foreclosure. It has not been shown that a court has ordered any property sold.

Is Failla Wines Closing? Is Ehren Jordan Wine Cellars Bankrupt?

No closure and no bankruptcy filing has been verified. A foreclosure of real estate would not automatically end the Failla label, its Oregon project or the Day Zinfandel label (which reporting ties to Jordan’s businesses), because what a buyer gets depends on who owns which assets. Possible paths include a negotiated restructuring, a voluntary sale of some properties, new investment, a court-ordered foreclosure or a bankruptcy filing. Anyone who has an order or a tasting reservation should confirm directly with the winery.

This is a state-court debt and foreclosure case. If a bankruptcy were filed, 11 U.S.C. § 362 would generally impose an automatic stay on collection and foreclosure, and under 11 U.S.C. § 543 a receiver or other custodian would generally have to turn property over to the bankruptcy estate. Creditors can seek relief from the stay, and a filing does not guarantee a business survives. Another California wine business, Calistoga Vintner Services, reportedly filed Chapter 11 in October 2026 days before scheduled foreclosure auctions, which shows how that route can work, but it says nothing about Failla’s plans.

What Does a Receiver Mean for Ehren Jordan and Failla?

A receiver is a neutral person the court appoints to take possession of and manage specified property under court supervision. In a foreclosure case, California Code of Civil Procedure § 564 lets a court appoint one in listed circumstances, including when the property is in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured, or is probably insufficient to cover the debt, and when the loan documents provide for it. Receivership requests are governed by procedural rules too, including California Rules of Court 3.1175 and following.

A receiver could collect income, protect and manage assets and report to the court, but the exact powers come from the appointment order. A receiver limits the owner’s control of the named property without necessarily transferring title to the entire business. No receiver has been verified in this case.

Can First-Citizens Legally Foreclose on the Winery Properties?

California lets a secured lender enforce a deed of trust by judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure. This bank chose a lawsuit.

• Code of Civil Procedure § 725a allows a mortgagee or deed-of-trust beneficiary to bring a judicial foreclosure action.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 726 is California’s “one form of action” and security-first rule. In general, a lender must proceed against real-property security before collecting any leftover debt, and the deficiency rules and fair-value limits (see also § 580a) can affect what the bank can still collect after a sale.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 729.010 and following governs redemption after a judicial foreclosure sale. Generally, a borrower has three months to redeem if the sale proceeds cover the debt, and one year if they do not (§ 729.030).

The bank must prove it holds the right to enforce the loan and security. The defendants can raise defenses. A filed complaint alone does not set the value of the properties or how much a sale would bring.

Can the Bank Take Failla’s Wine Inventory and Equipment?

Only if that property is covered by a valid security interest. Business loans often secure equipment, inventory, receivables and other assets as well as real estate. Under California Commercial Code § 9609, a secured party can take possession of collateral after default, by court process or, in some cases, without it if there is no breach of the peace. Section 9610 requires that any disposition be commercially reasonable, and § 9601 states the secured party’s rights after default. The bank reportedly demanded turnover of personal-property collateral on September 1, but which inventory and equipment are covered has not been verified. Do not assume the bank already owns any bottle of Failla wine.

Is David Ehren Jordan Personally Liable for the Debt?

He is named as an individual defendant, which is a reason to take the question seriously but not an answer. An LLC is generally a separate legal entity, and its debts are not automatically its owner’s debts. A person can become personally liable through a guarantee or another enforceable obligation. California Civil Code § 2856 deals with a guarantor’s rights and waivers, including on obligations secured by real property, and a guarantee must be in writing under Civil Code § 2793. Whether Jordan is on the hook for the whole amount depends on the guarantees, loan documents and defenses, which I have not seen. Being named in the lawsuit does not by itself mean his personal assets can be taken for the full debt.

Why Is First-Citizens Suing Over a Silicon Valley Bank Loan?

Silicon Valley Bank failed in March 2023. On March 26, 2023, the FDIC announced that First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company would acquire the deposits and loans of Silicon Valley Bridge Bank. That is how many SVB borrower relationships ended up with First-Citizens, and the complaint reportedly identifies SVB as the original lender and First-Citizens as its successor. Jordan did not take out a new $17.5 million loan from First-Citizens in 2026; the dispute concerns the earlier lending relationship. The source for the FDIC transaction is the FDIC’s March 26, 2023 announcement.

What Is the Response Deadline in the Napa County Lawsuit?

In California, a defendant generally has 30 days after being served to respond to a complaint (Code of Civil Procedure § 412.20). Reports say defendants had been served, but I could not verify the service date or any response. The defendants could answer, challenge the complaint, dispute the debt and amounts, or negotiate with the bank. A receiver request is usually decided on a noticed motion, so a hearing date would appear on the docket if one has been set.

Does Ehren Jordan Face Other Lawsuits?

Public case indexes reportedly list two other contract cases. I could not independently confirm their details, and they are separate from the bank’s claim. They should not be added to the $17.5 million figure.

• Atlas Vineyard Management LLC v. Ehren Jordan Wine Cellars LLC (Napa County Superior Court, filed September 21, 2026): a breach-of-contract case reportedly about a vineyard-management agreement from 2022.
• George Bohan, d/b/a Bohan Ranch v. David Ehren Jordan, et al. (Sonoma County Superior Court, filed November 25, 2025): another contract dispute.

Multiple contract disputes do not establish insolvency, fraud or liability for any allegation.

Why Are California Wineries Under Financial Pressure?

Reporting on the case points to a weak market. One industry report cited by news coverage says U.S. wine case sales fell from 427 million in 2020 to 329 million in 2025. High borrowing costs and slower property sales have also hurt producers. Calistoga Vintner Services reportedly filed for Chapter 11 in October 2026 ahead of foreclosure auctions. These conditions are background. The First-Citizens complaint rests on the loan documents and the alleged missed conditions, not on market conditions.

For a different kind of foreclosure fight, see Gregory Brian Myers v. U.S. Bank, 11th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Naples Foreclosure Lawsuit. For an unrelated winery-closure story involving fraud allegations, see Ilhan Omar’s Husband Tim Mynett, eStCru Winery Closes Amid Fraud Claims, What the Records Show. That case involves different parties and has nothing to do with Failla.

What Happens Next in First-Citizens Bank v. Jordan?

The case is early. Expect the defendants’ response, possible motions on the receiver and foreclosure requests, and talks about a restructuring or sale. The court could appoint a receiver, authorize foreclosure, approve a negotiated outcome, or reject part of the bank’s request. You can check the docket in the Napa County Superior Court case lookup using case number 26CV002247.

Ehren Jordan Wine Cellars Lawsuit FAQ

Why is Ehren Jordan Wine Cellars being sued?

First-Citizens Bank alleges the company and Jordan defaulted on commercial loans after repeated amendments and waivers.

How much does the bank say is owed?

$17,535,567 as of November 3, 2026, with about $2,563 to $2,564 in daily interest, plus fees and costs the bank says it can recover.

Is Failla Wines going out of business?

No closure has been verified. A foreclosure request is not a closure order.

Has the bank foreclosed on the winery?

Not that I could verify. The bank has asked the court to authorize foreclosure on five properties.

Is Failla Wines bankrupt?

No bankruptcy filing was verified as of November 13, 2026.

Is Ehren Jordan personally responsible?

He is named individually. Liability depends on guarantees and other documents I have not seen.

Who started Failla?

Reports say Jordan and his wife, Anne-Marie Failla, founded it in 1998 as Failla Jordan.

Is there a settlement or claim form?

No. This is a private commercial dispute, not a consumer class action.

Bottom Line

First-Citizens Bank says Ehren Jordan Wine Cellars and David Ehren Jordan owe more than $17.5 million and wants foreclosure and a receiver. The defendants’ side is not yet public, nothing has been decided, and key points, including personal liability, which assets are pledged and what happens to the Failla brand, will turn on the loan documents and rulings that have not been issued.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against public Napa County case listings, news reports on the complaint (Inc., Los Angeles Times), the FDIC’s March 26, 2023 announcement, and the California Code of Civil Procedure, Commercial Code, Civil Code and 11 U.S.C., as of November 13, 2026. Last Updated: November 13, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.

Sources

• Napa County Superior Court case lookup
• Public case index, First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company v. David Ehren Jordan
• Inc., Failla $17.5 million suit coverage
• Los Angeles Times, November 10, 2026
• FDIC, March 26, 2023 announcement
• California Code of Civil Procedure § 564
• California Code of Civil Procedure § 725a
• California Code of Civil Procedure § 726
• California Commercial Code § 9609
• 11 U.S.C. § 362

Verification note: The filing date, parties and case number rest on public case listings, and the loan details come from reporting on the bank’s complaint. The complete complaint and any orders should be checked on the Napa County portal.