Sneaker Reseller Sues Nike and LAPD After Raid Devastated His Business

31 January 2026

In a legal battle that has escalated into a dramatic courtroom conflict, luxury sneaker and fashion reseller Andre Ljustina has filed a lawsuit against Nike and the Los Angeles Police Department, alleging that a warehouse raid in early 2024 decimated his once-booming $12 million-a-year business, Project Blitz. The case, lodged in federal court in California, paints a vivid picture of how quickly reputation, partnerships and inventory can vanish when law enforcement and corporate forces collide, underscoring broader questions about policing, brand protection and the plight of independent sellers in the high-stakes world of rare and collectible fashion.

Ljustina, 46, launched Project Blitz from his passion for sports memorabilia and luxury streetwear, turning it into a sought-after source for rare pieces from global brands like Gucci, Chanel, Louis Vuitton and Nike that drew attention from high-profile clients including Drake, Beyoncé and Morgan Wallen. The company’s curated inventory and celebrity clientele helped it grow to an annual sales figure of roughly $12 million, turning the once-hobbyist collector into a respected entrepreneur in Los Angeles’ vibrant fashion resale scene.

Everything changed on January 27, 2024, when Los Angeles police, in concert with Nike investigators, executed coordinated raids on two of Project Blitz’s warehouses in the city. According to Ljustina’s lawsuit, the authorities were acting on information tied to a separate investigation into alleged theft and diversion of Nike merchandise from a Tennessee warehouse to a suspect in the Los Angeles area. But rather than targeting stolen goods connected to that case alone, the lawsuit claims agents swept up the entirety of Ljustina’s inventory more than 5,000 items including what he asserts were legitimately acquired products. Among the seized items were pairs of autographed Nike sneakers, including editions signed by the late NBA legend Kobe Bryant, a detail Ljustina says proves the goods were lawfully sourced before the alleged theft scheme even began.

Ljustina’s filing argues that the raid was not only unlawful but disastrous in its fallout. He asserts Nike and the LAPD publicised the operation before the company had the chance to inspect the merchandise, a move that triggered immediate damage to Project Blitz’s reputation. Business partners, concerned about association with alleged stolen goods, abruptly severed ties, leaving Ljustina’s operations effectively frozen. Clients cancelled orders and suppliers balked at future collaboration, leaving the reseller in a business limbo from which it has struggled to recover.

Central to his complaint is the accusation that he was “effectively blacklisted” by both brands and clients simply by virtue of having inventory seized in what he believes was a misdirected law enforcement action. Most of the seized items remain unreturned, and those that have been returned have reportedly been damaged or stripped of original packaging, further eroding their value and depriving Project Blitz of critical capital. According to Ljustina’s attorneys, Nike and the LAPD have traded blame over the possession and disposition of the seized goods, with neither entity taking responsibility for their return or restitution.

Nike has declined to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit. The Los Angeles Police Department and the city attorney’s office likewise did not respond to requests for public comment on the record about the litigation or the underlying investigation that triggered the raids. The criminal case tied to the Tennessee merchandise diversion, involving defendant Roy Lee Harvey Jr., continues to move through the court system, with Harvey having pleaded not guilty to numerous charges related to receiving stolen property.

Ljustina’s lawyer, J. Alejandro Barrientos, described the raid and its aftermath as “wrongful” and “devastating,” arguing that the defensive posture taken by Nike and the LAPD unfairly punished his client and extinguished the goodwill and momentum he had built over decades. “Nike and the LAPD wrongfully destroyed Andre’s livelihood by taking essentially the entirety of his Nike collection without legal justification,” Barrientos said in a statement. “Andre intends to get the justice he deserves.”

Supporters of Ljustina’s position have pointed to the high-profile nature of the seized items to underline the damage inflicted on his business. Limited-edition sneakers and rare autographed pieces can command tens of thousands of dollars each on the resale market, and the loss of thousands of such pieces represents not just a financial blow but the erasure of hundreds of curated relationships that had been formed with collectors, investors and fashion aficionados.

Observers note that the case highlights ongoing tensions in the intersection of law enforcement and branded goods protection, especially as partnerships between corporate entities and police departments become more common in efforts to disrupt theft rings. While Nike and similar companies invest heavily in protecting their intellectual property and product pipelines, independent sellers like Ljustina say they often bear the brunt of aggressive enforcement when investigations sweep up legally owned inventory. Legal experts suggest the outcome of this lawsuit could set important precedent for how brands and police coordinate raids and how liability is apportioned when innocent third parties are caught in the crosshairs.

For Ljustina, the stakes are deeply personal. The company he built from a childhood passion he first fell in love with sneakers and fashion as a young boy, when his parents bought him a vintage Michael Jordan jersey has been reduced to a cautionary tale about what can happen when authority is applied without sufficient nuance. He has argued that Project Blitz was merely collateral damage in an attempt to shut down an alleged theft operation and that no credible evidence tied his legitimate business to criminality.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and aims to force accountability from both Nike and the LAPD, while shedding light on what Ljustina’s legal team describes as a reckless conflation of enforcement and corporate interest. As the case progresses, it will be watched by other resellers, legal advocates and industry insiders as a barometer for how the justice system navigates disputes at the intersection of fashion, celebrity culture and policing in the digital age.