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

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43514
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#1201

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:25 pm

Cohen and Trump file their opposition and objections to plaintiff's evidence.

Bottom line: they* did an excellent job. There is no doubt in my mind Avenatti's motion will be denied. It's not even close.

Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.


A sample:
The instant motion by plaintiff Stephanie Clifford (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Clifford”) improperly seeks to re-litigate the same issues the Court decided against her in its order staying this action (the “Stay Order”). The “new” facts relied upon by Plaintiff do nothing to change the Court’s conclusion in the Stay Order regarding defendant Michael Cohen’s (“Mr. Cohen”) critical importance to this case. The Court held: “…as the alleged mastermind behind the Agreement and the person with the most direct knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding its formation, [Mr. Cohen’s] testimony would be indispensable to the disposition of this action.” [Stay Order, p. 7, ECF No. 53.] (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiff’s “new” facts consist entirely of out-of-court statements by defendant Donald J. Trump (“Mr. Trump”) and his attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, pertaining to events that occurred well after execution of the Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the “Agreement”). These statements have no bearing on the facts and circumstances surrounding the formation of the Agreement. Thus, Plaintiff’s “new” facts are irrelevant to the Court’s findings in the Stay Order and do not warrant its reconsideration.
ECF 57, p. 4 (p. 1 from internal numbering).

Defense counsel also commented on Avenatti's publicity tour, but Judge Otero won't care.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



NMgirl
Posts: 3108
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

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

#1202

Post by NMgirl » Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:27 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:25 pm
Cohen and Trump file their opposition and objections to plaintiff's evidence.

Bottom line: they* did an excellent job. There is no doubt in my mind Avenatti's motion will be denied. It's not even close.

:snippity:
As always, docs are much appreciated. :thumbs:



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43514
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#1203

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:47 pm

Avenatti has filed his reply in support of his motion to reconsider the order granting a stay, and a response to the evidentiary objections to his evidentiary submission. Unimpressive.

As to the reply, Avenatti ignores the fact that Trump has said he needs to take Cohen's deposition. Avenatti just trundles ahead explaining why he won't need to take Cohen's deposition to pursue the first cause of action. In other words, the motion is doomed and Avenatti doesn't have the guts (or integrity) to withdraw it. But I will enjoy the slap down. I expect it will be more gentle than is warranted.

As to the response to the evidentiary objections, there may be some relevance to the statements, but who really cares. The statements don't obviate Trump's argument that he needs Cohen's testimony. And that Cohen ain't talking.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14652
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

#1204

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:57 pm

Thanks much for the documents Stern.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43514
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#1205

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:08 pm

I do it for the children the schadenfreude. And in this case there is plenty to go around, including for Avenatti. (It's like rooting for a 0-0 tie with lots of injuries in a football game of two teams you really dislike.)



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43514
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#1206

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:25 pm

The Court's order, ECF 55, states: "The hearing on the Motion shall be set for Thursday, June 21, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. The parties are advised that due to potential conflicts with the Court’s calendar the hearing may be advanced to an earlier day that same week."

The motion Avenatti filed is so insubstantial that I wouldn't be surprised if Judge Otero took it off calendar and decided on the papers. I don't see what's left to argue beyond what the parties put in their papers. Except maybe to ask Cohen's attorneys on the 21st if he's changed his mind.



User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2271
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

#1207

Post by Res Ipsa » Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:44 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:25 pm
The motion Avenatti filed is so insubstantial that I wouldn't be surprised if Judge Otero took it off calendar and decided on the papers.
You literally took the words right out of my mouth. Unless Otero has something else to say to counsel, I can't see why a hearing is needed on this one.


Thanks pal.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43514
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#1208

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:38 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:25 pm
The Court's order, ECF 55, states: "The hearing on the Motion shall be set for Thursday, June 21, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. The parties are advised that due to potential conflicts with the Court’s calendar the hearing may be advanced to an earlier day that same week."

The motion Avenatti filed is so insubstantial that I wouldn't be surprised if Judge Otero took it off calendar and decided on the papers. I don't see what's left to argue beyond what the parties put in their papers. Except maybe to ask Cohen's attorneys on the 21st if he's changed his mind.
Judge Otero seems to agree:
62

Jun 18, 2018

The Court finds the following motion suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacates the hearing on the MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Stay Case, 53 filed by Plaintiff Stephanie Clifford [ECF #56], set for June 21, 2018. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). No appearance is required. The briefing schedule remains as set by Local Rule. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vcr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/18/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Text Only Scheduling Notice



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43514
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#1209

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:14 pm

Reconsideration denined.

Hold me, Martha!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

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

#1210

Post by Dan1100 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:17 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:14 pm
Reconsideration denined.

Hold me, Martha!
Failure Is the Only Option

A series premise that allows the heroes or the villains to win minor battles along the way but prevents them from ever truly winning their overall "war" and achieving the Series Goal without ending or completely changing the series. They can't win, because then, of course, it would end the series.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... OnlyOption


"Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, 'I forgot armed robbery was illegal.' "

-Steve Martin

SLQ
Posts: 2038
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

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

#1211

Post by SLQ » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:19 pm

Dan1100 wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:17 pm
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:14 pm
Reconsideration denined.

Hold me, Martha!
Failure Is the Only Option

A series premise that allows the heroes or the villains to win minor battles along the way but prevents them from ever truly winning their overall "war" and achieving the Series Goal without ending or completely changing the series. They can't win, because then, of course, it would end the series.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... OnlyOption
Gillian’s island



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43514
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#1212

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:22 pm

Summary of ruling: Not even close.

And this wrist slap:
In closing, the Court again counsels against the unjustified use of "extraordinary" procedural mechanisms to advance the case. Absent a compelling showing of good cause, the Court will not permit the parties to displace other litigants or violate the Court's rules. While the Court is cognizant of the amount of media attention in this case, this alone is insufficient to create the exigency required for extraordinary relief. If anything, the heightened scrutiny on this action requires that the Court ensure that the rules are scrupulously followed and that justice is administered properly and with due regard to the rights of all parties involved.
ECF 63, p. 5.



User avatar
tek
Posts: 2185
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

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

#1213

Post by tek » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:09 pm

Stormy's comin' to town!
https://www.masslive.com/expo/life_and_ ... niels.html
Q: What will the Mardi Gras shows be like?
A: It's a strip bar. And she's a porn star.
This is not a show for children or those offended by nudity.


You can't go on
Thinking nothing's wrong
Who's gonna drive you home
Tonight

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2271
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

#1214

Post by Res Ipsa » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:34 pm

The Court held that while it "is undeniable that Plaintiff has a valid interest in the prompt resolution of her claims,"
Plaintiff "has not established that she has actually been deterred from speaking, or that a delay in
proceedings would cause undue prejudice."
Who does that Judge think he is?

This poor woman has only been able to do an Anderson Cooper interview, a Saturday Night Live appearance, and numerous live shows. She must be allowed to speak personally with every American door-to-door!


Thanks pal.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43514
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#1215

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:37 pm

Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:34 pm
The Court held that while it "is undeniable that Plaintiff has a valid interest in the prompt resolution of her claims,"
Plaintiff "has not established that she has actually been deterred from speaking, or that a delay in
proceedings would cause undue prejudice."
Who does that Judge think he is?

This poor woman has only been able to do an Anderson Cooper interview, a Saturday Night Live appearance, and numerous live shows. She must be allowed to speak personally with every American door-to-door!
Or bedroom to bedroom.

Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.



Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”