General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJudge Dismisses Stormy Daniels' Defamation Claim Against Cohen
The first of the two last dances from the Stormy Daniels lawsuit against Cohen and Trump is over.
Today, Avenatti actually won a motion, which may be a first for him in this case. The funny part is that it is Avenatti's own motion to dismiss the defamation claim against Cohen.
This case has two parts (a) a plea to have the hush agreement declared invalid, and (b) a defamation claim against Cohen. The defamation claim against Cohen was for saying "just because something is untrue, doesn't mean it isn't damaging" or something to that effect when asked why he paid $130k if Daniels didn't briefly boff Trump in Tahoe.
Avenatti had filed a separate defamation case against Trump which was thrown out a while back, and which landed Daniels $300k in the hole for what was essentially a frivolous case. As it turns out Trump says a lot of shit on Twitter which no one takes seriously. Quelle suprise.
After his client got nailed in the Trump defamation case, Avenatti moved to withdraw the defamation claim from the Cohen/Trump case. This is amusing in a couple of ways, because Avenatti had been bragging, in the wake of the $300k spanking, that he'd make it up in damages and fees in the Cohen/Trump case. His "logic" of course, failed to take into an account that an award of attorney fees in the Cohen/Trump case would not make up the $300k that Daniels herself is on the hook for in the Trump case. In other words, SHE doesn't benefit from an award of fees.
Be that as it may - AVENATTI WON A ROUND! He has successfully convinced a judge to allow him to withdraw the only claim in the lawsuit that was seeking monetary damages. This is remarkable in that (a) he'll probably already be tweeting about his "win", and (b) he has been fairly consistent in losing the overwhelming majority of motions in the case so far.
The ruling is here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250.108.0_1.pdf
There is one motion left in this case, however.
As noted above, the withdrawal of the defamation claim only leaves the declaratory judgment on the hush agreement remaining.
The problem there is that the defendants - Trump and Cohen - have already given up on that one and have agreed that the contract is void, invalid, unenforceable, and have submitted a covenant not to seek enforcement of the contract. Accordingly, Trump and Cohen have moved to dismiss the case because there is literally nothing left to argue about.
Avenatti, however, is fighting against that total win. He believes he can get attorney fees out of an odd theory that "they changed their mind to late" in so many words which, if you think about it, is pretty funny in view of the fact that he's been fighting to withdraw his own defamation claim for the last few weeks.
When I last checked, the hearing on the motion to dismiss the rest of the case was scheduled for February 4, 2019. That, however was changed, by an ominous order issued by the court on January 29, specifically:
Jan 29, 2019
CORRECTED SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge S. James Otero. The Court finds the following motions suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacates the hearing on the MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Michael Cohen. [ECF #31] and the MOTION to AMEND Complaint filed by Plaintiff Stephanie Clifford. [ECF #91], set for hearing on February 4, 2019.
What this means is that Judge Otero has decided he's had enough of these two yo-yo's arguing in his courtroom, and has also decided that the parties briefs on dismissal of the rest of the case are sufficient to decide the matter.
The upshot of all of this is that the last gasp of the Stormy Daniels litigation may drop at any time, if Otero decides he's had enough of this nonsense of Avenatti insisting to maintain a lawsuit against two people who have already conceded the entirety of the remaining point.
Stay tuned.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Although the last time I checked his PAC financials, he'd raised $12,000, the bulk of which was spent on advertising. Then he attempted to collect more money using Beto O'Rourke's name and this cockamamie explanation that he would give 50% of his donation to Beto, before ActBlue shut his shit down.
Interesting question. I'll have a quick look at the FEC filings.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)That was during the Avenatti 2020 movement. In fact, I bet if Jberry posted this during all that brouhaha, he would have been flame broiled like a Rump steak.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The fad was very brief.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)theboss
(10,491 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...and have been accused multiple times of being some sort of troll on account of it.
There is one longtime poster who got the the five-count by being critical of Avenatti back when he was the bee's knees. It was very similar to the Snowden, Assange or Manning phenomena here at DU - all of whom were beyond reproach or criticism for a time here.
No actual lawyer I know is impressed with Avenatti. He has screwed over every business and law partner he's ever had, his practice and personal finances are a shitshow, he couldn't keep up with the rent on his office or his girlfriend, he's made so many empty threats, promises and predictions thus far I've lost count.
The really obscene thing about him is his taking credit for the investigative work of others in the Cohen investigation. Let's be clear about that one more time. Cohen figured in the Steele dossier and was an obvious target a long ways back. The sex with Daniels was actually known prior to the election, because one of the other hostesses at the Tahoe event - the one who was invited to the room - knew about it, talked about it, and was excluded from the hush agreement. In the noise of the "pussy grabber" tape, the known and published facts about the Tahoe romp with Daniels simply didn't make much headway. So, Stormy collected an easy $130k - which if you read the SDNY filings SHE negotiated UP - to simply agree not to confirm the story.
But, in January 2018, the WSJ broke the story about the payment, and it was flagged as an illegal campaign contribution at the time. In fact, TWO complaints were filed by Public Citizen in January 2018 with the FEC and the DoJ over the hush money agreement.
That was all BEFORE Avenatti ever met Daniels. Avenatti didn't come into the picture until the beginning of March 2018, just after Cohen got the arbitration awards.
And, again, if you actually read the SDNY filings, Mueller had referred the Cohen investigative threads to the USAO-SDNY which started building the case for the Cohen searches many weeks before the searches were executed in April. If anything, Avenatti's unwanted grandstanding and interference (as the judge in NY pointed out) forced the USAO-SDNY to advance their schedule on the Cohen investigation.
But, the typical spectator not really paying much attention saw Avenatti grabbing headlines in March, and the Cohen raid in April, and unfortunately believes that post hoc ergo propter hoc - Avenatti was somehow riding shotgun with the FBI in NY. It's laughable. There is no way in hell the USAO-SDNY or the FBI wanted or needed any "help" from a grandstanding grifter like Avenatti.
To be clear - Avenatti contributed nothing to the Cohen investigation, search or arrest, and has certainly contributed nothing to moving Trump one micrometer closer to the White House exit door.
It's really simple, and it's not that hard to figure out. When you see an attorney all over TV talking about their client's case, that attorney is not serving their client. Think of any truly important cases in your lifetime and name the responsible attorney(s):
Brown v. Board of Education - Remember all the headlines and interviews with the attorneys for the plaintiffs?
Obergefell v. Hodges (marriage equality) - I'll bet there are not three DUers who could name ANY attorney involved in that case.
Commonwealth of PA v. Cosby - Can you name the prosecutor who convicted Cosby? No. Can you name the lawyer outside in front of the TV cameras and microphones who had NOTHING to do with the case at all? I'll bet you a red blazer you can.
Real legal work isn't done in front of TV cameras and microphones. It is done often with a fair amount of quiet personal sacrifice over a keyboard, before a jury, or in front of judges, arbitrators and public boards of various sorts. It is done for the client and only for the client. It involves a LOT more READING, LISTENING, and THINKING, than TALKING.
If you know more about a lawyer's taste in cars, suits and hairstyles than the actual legal issues in a case in which they represent a party, then there is a good chance you've found a very shitty lawyer at work.
Avenatti has been a grifter from day one. The worst thing that ever happened to him was that $450 million Kimberly Clark verdict. It got reduced to $20 million and then went up on appeal, but he started spending that money before he got it. Consequently, he's had to pull out every stop to keep up with his expensive lifestyle, and the walls are starting to close in on him hard.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)A lot of pertinent information.
PJMcK
(22,041 posts)Throughout L'affaire Stormy, you've provided excellent legal insight and commentary. Thanks. It has helped skim the hype off the news about Trump and his porno one-nighter.
Gothmog
(145,483 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Typically when the Plaintiff is looking to dismiss one of their own claims, its pretty much a no-brainer.
I don't expect the remaining contract claims to survive either, especially considering that the judge has decided that he's not going to waste time on a hearing.
True to form, Avenatti is shoveling the bullshit on Twitter:
A lot of misreporting going on relating to the recent decision. The Court sided with Stormy against Cohen on the motion. We did not lose anything. We won the motion and Cohen lost across the board. The NDA case continues and the likelihood of large attys fees for Stormy is high.
Yes, Michael, you won the motion to dismiss the claim that YOU brought in the first place, once you learned that you don't know jack shit about how choice of law applies to SLAPP motions in federal court, and you dodged the bullet that YOU fired at your own client in the first place.
Another way to avoid the entire issue would have been not to have foolishly amended the Complaint to ADD the defamation claim in the first place.
God, that guy is just fucking amazing in his estimation of how stupid everyone else is.
It's just infuriating to see him peddling his shit to people who don't know better.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Take a look at that tweet by Avenatti where he claims “likelihood of large attys fees for Stormy is high”
He’s outright lying now.
Clients don’t GET attorneys fees. If you prevail in a case and are awarded attorneys fees, that money goes to pay the reasonable fees of the attorney. It doesn’t go to the client.
He’s literally lying about the fact that there is no claim for damages in this case and Daniels isn’t going to get jack shit. He’s not going to get fees either, but that’s beside the point.
He used her, like the lying grifter he is, the way he has used everyone else in his life.
theboss
(10,491 posts)I've never understood from Day One what precisely Avenatti wanted from this entire extravaganza. It always seemed like he had convinced his client that she could keep the $130K AND win a sizable judgment for "something." He cleverly tied himself to the criminal matters involving Cohen to make it appear like he was driving the car there, which was laughable from the beginning.
In the end, it never struck me as likely that the public would care that much if Trump had sex with a porn star. It was clearly very on brand.
