Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10160
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1476

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:00 am

I did a very cursory look earlier, and it seems that it's possible in California to award fees on the basis of a contractual fee shifting provision even if the contract is fine to be invalid.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1477

Post by Res Ipsa » Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:23 pm

Reminder: today is the hearing on the motion to dismiss.... scheduled for 2PM for obsessive PACER button pushers....


Thanks pal.

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 3403
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1478

Post by Whip » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:55 pm

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ju ... en-n967171


Judge tosses Stormy Daniels lawsuit against Michael Cohen
A federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday formally dismissed porn actress Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former lawyer.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10160
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1479

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:21 pm

Whip wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:55 pm
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ju ... en-n967171


Judge tosses Stormy Daniels lawsuit against Michael Cohen
A federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday formally dismissed porn actress Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former lawyer.
I'd call the headline semi-accurate. The defamation claim against Cohen is gone, but it was part of the same case as the rest of the hush agreement stuff. So the claim has been dismissed, the lawsuit itself has not.

This is actually a huge win for Avanatti - at least to the extent that being permitted to undo a potentially catastrophic mistake that you had previously made can be classified as a "huge win." The judge held, because #reasons, he could allow Avenatti to drop the defamation claim after the anti-SLAPP claim had been filed without also awarding Cohen legal fees for the anti-SLAPP motion.

Fortunately for Avenatti, Cohen is on his way to prison and an appeal is unlikely. The #reasons that the anti-SLAPP was found to be moot are kind of inside-baseballish, but boil down to the application of something called the Erie doctrine, which says that federal courts apply state substantive law but federal procedural law, and that allowing Avenatti to amend his complaint (by dropping the defamation claim) was procedural law. But there really wasn't any reason (other than judicial efficiency) the anti-SLAPP couldn't have been dealt with at the same time. So while I wouldn't want to bet money on the outcome, I think there would be viable grounds to appeal that part of the decision. (But I'll be very interested to hear Popehat's take* on it when tomorrow's episode of All the President's Lawyers is released.)

At the same time, I'd also say that this doesn't bode particularly well for any future fees request Avenatti might make at the conclusion of the case. Because the order on this has kind of a GTFOOMCR feel to it.



*Popehat's view on why Judge Otero has been lucky enough to have this case, and the other Avenatti case, in his courtroom involves the possibility that Judge Otero, in a former life, ran over a nun, backed up, and did it again. Given that Otero has also had the pleasure of having Orly grace his courtroom at one point, I'm not going to discard that hypothesis.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1480

Post by Res Ipsa » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:01 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:21 pm
I'd call the headline semi-accurate. The defamation claim against Cohen is gone, but it was part of the same case as the rest of the hush agreement stuff. So the claim has been dismissed, the lawsuit itself has not.
You forgot to add "yet".

The remaining portion of the case is still pending decision on Defendant's motion to dismiss. Otero decided to decide the rest of it without a hearing, which had been set for February 4th.

Jan 29, 2019

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 Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Essential Consultants, LLC. [ECF #31] and the MOTION to AMEND Complaint filed by Plaintiff Stephanie Clifford. [ECF #91], set for hearing on February 4, 2019


Thanks pal.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1481

Post by Res Ipsa » Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:35 pm

Thrown out....

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 09.0_1.pdf

Defendants have given Plaintiff exactly what she asked for in the FAC. Defendants agree not to enforce or attempt to enforce the Agreement against Plaintiff. Instead of accepting victory, Plaintiff makes several arguments against this Court's holding that there is no caseor controversy before it. For almost all of these arguments, Plaintiff focuses on the remedy of "rescission," as Defendant EC does. (Opp'n. 13-16.) A rescission remedy, however,is irrelevant to the Court's holding here because the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's declaratory judgment actions based on the Covenants Not To Sue. Without subject matter jurisdiction, the Court cannot provide Plaintiff a specific remedy, whether it is rescission of the Agreement or anything else.

...


The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions and holds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the only remaining cause of action in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, the causeof action for declaratory relief. The Court therefore REMANDS this case to Los Angeles Superior Court.


In this context, "remand" means that this Court divests itself of jurisdiction and returns this case to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where Plaintiff first filed the lawsuit. (See ECFNo. 1.) This does not mean that the litigation continues in state court. The procedural stepof "remand" is necessary because Defendants removed this case to this Court from the Los Angeles Superior Court. See Polo v. Innoventions Int'l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1196(9th Cir. 2016).

Yep. It's just jealousy. Mad blinding jealousy that has kept any of the actual lawyers here - or practically anywhere else on the internet - from thinking that Daniels was going to get anything by trying to keep this turkey alive after the defendants conceded.


Thanks pal.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1482

Post by Res Ipsa » Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:49 pm

Throw another log on the "Avenatti's track record of predictions" fire:
Screen Shot 2019-03-07 at 6.41.16 PM.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Thanks pal.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10160
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1483

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:02 pm

In fairness it looks from the Judge Otero's decision like a lot of the IAALs here, me included, didn't nail how this decision was going to break. In our defense, that's because we got caught up in the questions around recission, as did the parties. Judge Otero simply disposed of the matter on jurisdictional grounds - there's no federal case or controversy, and no California case or controversy.

This is actually, although not a benchslap, more devastating for Clifford than I was expecting. Because there's no jurisdiction, the court is declining to reach the issue of attorney's fees at all. That means that she is still on the hook for Trump's fees in the SLAPP, but there's not going to be an offsetting fee recovery in this case.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

andersweinstein
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:34 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1484

Post by andersweinstein » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:44 am

In her favor, this decision does NOT require her to pay back the $130K. EC aimed to retain the right to sue for it in their covenants not to sue, so a suit for it may well be coming, but it's no part of this ruling.

I'm curious what knowledgeable folks think of the likelihood of her winding up having to repay it.



User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1485

Post by Res Ipsa » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:56 pm

Screen Shot 2019-03-08 at 1.51.35 PM.png
"Without her I never would have had a chance at it."

:doh:

Well, golly, yah, I guess it's tough to lose your opposition to a motion to dismiss without a client.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Thanks pal.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1486

Post by Res Ipsa » Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:13 pm

And he descends back to blocking lawyers on Twitter...
Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 9.27.57 AM.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Thanks pal.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1487

Post by Res Ipsa » Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:14 pm

I'm pretty sure that both Mike and I were using our real names when we were blocked by Avenaughty.


Thanks pal.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10160
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1488

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:21 pm

I was.

It's also interesting to see that he's throwing the same critique at lawyers on Twitter that got thrown at some of the lawyers who dislike his antics here.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 3403
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1489

Post by Whip » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:56 pm

I didn't realize stormy d wanted to pay 2 lawyer's fees. brilliant!



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10160
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1490

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:24 pm

He's got a hearing on his bad faith bankruptcy filing on Wednesday. I'm going to go way, way out on a limb and guess that the bankruptcy will be dismissed real soon now.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1491

Post by Res Ipsa » Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:17 pm

That one is going to be a doozy, but I'll update on the Avenatti thread.


Thanks pal.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10160
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1492

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:21 pm

Whoops. My bad. Forgot this wasn't the thread for the lawyer.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1493

Post by Res Ipsa » Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:10 pm

Guess who just figured out that she lost the last motion, owes Donald Trump $300k, and isn't going to be getting those millions of dollars in fees that Avenatti was promising:



Oh, oh, I know. She's just jealous that Avenatti is a more successful lawyer than she is. :rotflmao:


Thanks pal.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1494

Post by Res Ipsa » Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:14 pm

Screen Shot 2019-03-12 at 3.13.45 PM.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Thanks pal.


User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 11524
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1496

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:02 pm

So let me get this right, Stormy :got what she wanted" from the court and doesn't owe LaRump any money for the contract, she just owes a boatload for legal fees for winning????? Is that about it??


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1497

Post by Res Ipsa » Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:21 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:02 pm
So let me get this right, Stormy :got what she wanted" from the court and doesn't owe LaRump any money for the contract, she just owes a boatload for legal fees for winning????? Is that about it??
There were two cases:

1. The contract case. She came in with a $20M arbitration award against her, seeking to have the contract declared void. Realizing that doesn't get any money, she added a defamation claim against Cohen. Realizing that claim can backfire, she removed that claim. Meanwhile the Cohen/Trump parties said, "Okay, fine, the contract is void" and moved to have the case dismissed since there was no longer a controversy. She fought against that, because she believed she was entitled to millions in attorney fees. The court kicked the case out. So, in a sense, she got what she wanted, and no longer owes the $20M.

2. As part of the "contract case doesn't get damages" follies, she filed a defamation claim against Trump. It was meritless because, in a nutshell, Trump talks trash about everyone on Twitter. Hell, it's more of a badge of honor, and her whole "thing" has been trading on the dispute with Trump anyway. The case was so bad that the court awarded $293K in attorney fees against her.

So on balance:

A - she's out from under a $20M arbitration award,

B - she gets to keep the $130k,

C - she owes Trump $293k.

Avenatti says he quit on Feb. 19th, which is weird since he was tweeting about his "win" in the contract case just last week.

Meanwhile, in the Ninth Circus.....
Screen Shot 2019-03-12 at 6.20.54 PM.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Thanks pal.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10160
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1498

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:31 pm

I'm not sure A is correct.

An arbitrator issued an interim injunction against Daniels, but I don't recall seeing any damages order, and I don't think the arbitration proceeded after the declaratory judgment action was filed. IIRC, the 20 mil was what Cohen was talking about seeking, not something that had been awarded.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 11524
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1499

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:45 pm

Thanks. That was about what I thought, I didn't have the figures. Now that is what I call winning. :sarcasm:


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1500

Post by Res Ipsa » Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:29 pm

Good point.

She's out from under a potential $20M arbitration award.


Thanks pal.

Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”