Avenatti: case against Cohen returned to State Court:

[Leghorn21]

The Court just ordered the case we filed against Davidson and
Cohen returned to State Ct., finding that Cohen should have
never sent it to Federal Ct. More winning by Cohen and his attys.
So much winning! #Basta

Link to tweet

I don’t know what this means, really, but if it’s bad for Cohen & Co., well then
I’M ALL FOR IT

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Cohen tried to get the case removed to federal court, claiming the federal court

had jurisdiction and should hear the case instead of the California court. The federal court has now remanded it back to the state court, probably on the ground that it didn't have jurisdiction after all (the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and can hear only those cases where there's a question of federal law, or where the parties are residents of different states - and that determination can get complicated). I'd have to see the order for the actual details.

[jberryhill]

21. No

The case was filed as Clifford v. (Cohen and Davidson).

Cohen removed to federal court.

Davidson filed a counterclaim for defamation adding Avenatti and his firm as a party.

Avenatti, his firm, and Davidson are all California residents, hence federal diversity jurisdiction was lost when Avenatti and his firm were joined as counter-defendants.

So, duh, the case has to go back to state court.

Avenatti is claiming as some kind of "victory" here, the requisite consequences of him being named as a counter-defendant in a suit which he filed on behalf of his own client.

You can feel free to unpack that for the rest of the thread.

Oh, and, yeah, Otero threatened them all with sanctions because they habitually violate the meet-and-confer requirement:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.713222/gov.uscourts.cacd.713222.49.0.pdf

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. Ah, OK, that makes sense. I was a little puzzled about this because

I had originally thought there was federal jurisdiction because Cohen and Daniels were diverse parties - so of course Cohen could have removed the case to federal court. I either forgot or didn't know about the counterclaim, which, as you say, would have destroyed diversity. So... Davidson screwed up federal jurisdiction by filing the counterclaim, but Avenatti got the results he wanted (jurisdiction in CA) even though it meant he became a party. Have I got that right?

Sounds like a bit of a goat-fuck.

[jberryhill]

24. As far as the substance goes...

Whether the substantive claims are heard in state court or federal court is not a difference worth a bucket of warm spit.

I can't think of any engagement as an attorney in which "being named as a counter-defendant" equates to "the result I wanted" under any circumstance.

But given that Avenatti has lost damn near every motion he's filed in the related federal contract case, I can see where a drop-dead simple remand to state court on the basis of lack of diversity jurisdiction probably feels like a "win" of some bizarre kind.

If he was billing this hourly (as if), then as far as the claims against him are concerned, he's working on his own dime if he chooses to continue to represent himself.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. Well, he's spinning it as a win.

And depending on the jurisdiction (or at least some years ago when I was active as a lawyer), plaintiffs' lawyers in personal injury cases often preferred state to federal court because state court juries were perceived as being more likely to find for the plaintiff, or at least to be more generous in their awards, than federal juries; and the lawyers got to do the voir dire rather than the judge. So I did see some removal notices and IIRC they were always done by corporate defendants (on behalf of their actual client, the insurer). In Stormy Daniels' case it really might not make a difference - but if so, why did Cohen remove the case in the first place, except maybe to screw with Avenatti?

The more I see of Avenatti the less I want to see of him. His 15 minutes of fame should have expired awhile ago.

[jberryhill]

29. The likelihood of any of this getting to a jury is approximately nil

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. I agree - there will probably be some kind of confidential settlement

which Avenatti will claim as a win - unless he gets kicked out on a summary judgment motion, which just isn't spinnable.

[Wwcd]

2. Maybe it means Cohen can't expect a Fed pardon

Was this case originally in NY?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. This is the Stormy Daniels case, which is civil and not criminal.

It was commenced in a state court in CA and has no relevance to pardons or criminal prosecutions. If Cohen is charged with crimes (he hasn't yet) it will be in a federal court in NYC. The Stormy Daniels case has nothing to do with it.

[Wwcd]

13. I see. Thanks. I cannot keep up anymore...but yes, an Avennati case would be for Stormy Daniels

Tks

[samnsara]

3. maybe he was hoping for one lump pardon

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. See above. This is a civil case, nothing to do with pardons.

[dem4decades]

4. State time is hard time, Federal time is easy time.

Sorry Cohen, looks like hard time.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. You don't go to jail if you lose a civil case, which this is.

This is about the Stormy Daniels case, a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution.

[dem4decades]

12. Thanks. But do you think criminal charges could come from

Information they gain as part of this lawsuit?

I'm just hoping.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

33. That's theoretically possible, assuming the case proceeds far enough for discovery,

which normally takes many months. However, I suspect that the feds already have done such a thorough job of evidentiary proctology on Cohen that there's nothing new to find.

[oberliner]

8. Didn't Cohen flip?

I thought he was on the right side now.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. He hasn't flipped yet, though it looks like he will.

But this is about the Stormy Daniels civil case, nothing to do with possible criminal prosecution of Cohen in SDNY.

[Leghorn21]

10. Many thanks for sharing your knowledge here, Ocelot!!

Much appreciated!

[oberliner]

11. I know this is about the SD case, but it seemed like the OP was pro-things being "bad for Cohen"

I thought Cohen had crossed over to the light.

[Leghorn21]

15. Cohen, as of today, has not officially flipped, oberliner...if he ever officially does, what a great

moment that will be!!

But until he does, I’m all for him experiencing setbacks and disturbances and and heat and an unbearable pressure to TELL ALL

[oberliner]

16. Understood

I thought when Lanny Davis was brought on that it signaled the turn, but I guess not quite yet.

[jberryhill]

32. On himself? In a civil suit against him?

Having trouble even understanding the question.

Whether Cohen flips on Trump in the criminal investigations has utterly nothing to do with the civil suits against him.

[oberliner]

34. No, in terms of cooperating with Mueller

The OP wrote: "if it’s bad for Cohen & Co., well then I’M ALL FOR IT "

I thought that Cohen had flipped and was on the Good Guy team now.

That's why I was surprised the OP was in favor of bad things happening to him.

[George II]

14. Pardon proof! And you can bet your last dollar that Cuomo won't pardon him.

[oberliner]

17. Don't you mean Cynthia Nixon?

[George II]

18. .

[oberliner]

19. 36 points and closing in fast!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. See above. This civil case has nothing to do with any possible criminal charges

against Cohen in New York.

[YOHABLO]

20. There's so much unreported going on behind the scenes, might as well enjoy what's left of summer.

[jberryhill]

23. This is what it means, if you care to know

Federal courts have limited "subject matter jurisdiction". What this means is that federal courts primarily take two kinds of civil cases:

1. Suits which arise under federal law (like patent infringement, for example); or

2. Suits which arise under state law, but involve citizens of different states, and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000.

Suits of variety #2 are heard by federal courts only under a condition of "diversity". To maintain diversity, you cannot have a defendant and a plaintiff residing in the same state as that federal court.

This was a defamation case filed by Clifford against Cohen and Davidson. So the initial lineup of residence on both sides of the suit was:

Plaintiff / Defendant

Texas / New York, California

That suit was initially filed in state court. Cohen moved it to federal court, properly, because there was diversity.

Then, Davidson filed a counterclaim against Clifford for defamation. In Davidson's counterclaim he added Avenatti as a party, based on Avenatti's endless public statements about parties in his cases.

So, the lineup of parties became:

Plaintiff / Defendant

Texas, California / New York, California

Because Davidson is now additionally suing Avenatti in this action, there is no longer complete diversity of citizenship on both sides of the case, and the case has to go back to state court, since the federal court can no longer maintain diversity jurisdiction over this state law action.

This is, for real, the first month of first year civil procedure in law school.

Avenatti's tweet essentially amounts to cheering the fact that he's now being sued, which requires the case to go back to state court under basic rules of federal court subject matter jurisdiction.

[Leghorn21]

26. Thank you, jberryhill - much appreciated!! nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Nice civil procedure refresher!

If you get way down in the weeds with that stuff it's a whole damn semester.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

30. Thanks for de-spinning our heads, jberryhill. n/t

[panader0]

35. Wonderful to have smart lawyers on DU.

The intricate nature of most of this stuff goes over my head.
Thanks......