E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)

[sterngard friegen]

Chancery are correct that New York state law, which differs from the Restatement 2d Judgments, controls even though this is a Federal diversity action. If so, full speed ahead to Ms. Carroll!

[Greatgrey]

Two bits sez he asks for more time.

[bob]

[chancery]

Mueller, She Wrote is being a little too excited.


I don't read the letter as signaling a change of position by the government. The need to reconsider the prior Westfall Act certification is pretty much automatic whenever a complaint is amended.

Also, the D.C. Circuit's ruling that whether Trump was acting within the scope of his employment is an issue that must be left to the fact-finder in the litigation suggests that the government won't be able to make a definitive certification right now.

[Dr. Ken]

[Suranis]

Apparently this guy has been losing in court for some time, ever since he Lost a case against Judge Judy's Son and could not accept it. He's branching out.

[northland10]

He has been a busy beaver...

Defendants request double costs and damages under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. They note that the District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) has already deemed Brady a serial litigant. See Brady v. Berman, 18-cv-8459, 2019 WL 4546535, at *1, (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2019).

Brady has unsuccessfully sued the judge who presided over his original state court trial and two judges on the New York Court of Appeals alleging that they conspired against him to sabotage the state court litigation. See Brady v. Ostrager, No. 19-cv-7122 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2019), aff'd 834 Fed.Appx. 616 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order); Brady v. DiFiore, No. 19-cv-04380 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019). He has also sued former U.S. Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. Geoffrey Berman for failing to protect him from this alleged conspiracy. See Brady v. Berman, No. 18-cv-08459 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2019), aff'd 837 Fed.Appx. 70 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order). Further, Brady has sued IGS Realty itself, and sought a declaratory judgment that there had never been an enforceable judgment in the state court litigation, that the personal guarantees were void, and that the counterclaims should have been decided in his favor. See Brady v. IGS Realty Co. L.P., No. 19-cv-10142 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2020), aff'd No. 20-3512, 2021 WL 4302737 (2d Cir. Sept. 22, 2021) (summary order). After that lawsuit, the District Court for the S.D.N.Y. imposed a filing injunction barring Brady "from filing any new action in the Southern District of New York that relates in any way to the IGS Lease Agreements, the Personal Guarantees associated therewith, or Brady's businesses' occupation of space in IGS-owned buildings, including any actions concerning the conduct of any attorney, judicial officer, government official, or other third party in relation to the IGS Lease Agreements, or any collateral actions arising from those agreements." Opinion and Order, Brady v. IGS Realty Co. L.P., No. 19-cv-10142 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2020), ECF No. 65.

https://casetext.com/case/brady-v-sheindlin-3

In this case, he sued Sheindlin because Sheindlin and his firm moved to collect the awarded damages and attorney fees in a state court case.

[northland10]

The motion to intervene did not last long:

MEMO ENDORSED ORDER denying 161 Motion to Intervene. ENDORSEMENT: There are only two bases on which one may intervene in a civil action. The first is intervention as of right, which is available only to one who "is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute" or "claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless the existing parties adequately represent that interest." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). The second is intervention by permission of the court, which in an appropriate case may be granted if the putative intervenor "is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute" or "has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Mr. Brady does not satisfy any of these criteria. Accordingly, this motion is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 6/1/23) (yv)

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Yeah, this was definitely a Flubber motion.

[Dave from down under]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/ ... /102459494

Donald Trump on Thursday has asked for a new trial in the civil case brought by E Jean Carroll, in which a jury in Manhattan last month found the former US president liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer and awarded her $US5 million ($7.5 million) in damages.

Key points:

A jury found Donald Trump liable for sexual abuse of writer E Jean Carroll in the 1990s, but not rape
Mr Trump's lawyers say the millions awarded to Ms Carroll were "excessive"
Ms Carroll's lawyer says Mr Trump's arguments are "frivolous"

In a filing in federal court in Manhattan, Mr Trump's lawyers said the jury's $2.98 million award for the sexual abuse portion of the verdict was "excessive" because the jury had found that Ms Carroll was not raped, and that the conduct she alleged did not cause any diagnosed mental injury.

They also said the $4.02 million award for the defamation claim was "based upon pure speculation".

A lawyer for Ms Carroll, Roberta Kaplan, said in a statement that Mr Trump's arguments were "frivolous".

[Sam the Centipede]

C'mon lawyaz, whatya think of Trump's chances with the new trial request etc.?

[RVInit]

Wasn't it "sexual battery"? I understand it was abusive, but I think he was found liable for "sexual battery".

[Maybenaut]

C'mon lawyaz, whatya think of Trump's chances with the new trial request etc.?

0.

[RTH10260]

"asked for a new trial"

Wouldn't he have to go first thru the motions of an appeal?

[bob]

"asked for a new trial"

Wouldn't he have to go first thru the motions of an appeal?

No; the opposite, actually.

Asking for a new trial often is the final step before filing on appeal.

On the off-chance the trial court agrees, and can foresee the inevitably of a reversal on appeal.

[RTH10260]

H/T @bob

[Sam the Centipede]

On the off-chance the trial court agrees, and can foresee the inevitably of a reversal on appeal.

Not sure if I'm following your explanation bob, coz I not lawya and I don't understand the infield fly rule.

Are you saying that the trial court might agree to a new trial (retrial? - is that different?) if the trial court judge believes that a refusal to grant that new trial would be reversed when the movant goes to the appeal court and screeches "waaah! not fair! want new trial?" Or would the appeal be "pliz Mr Appeel Judg, overturn unjust trial court verdict"

[bob]

Are you saying that the trial court might agree to a new trial (retrial? - is that different?) if the trial court judge believes that a refusal to grant that new trial would be reversed when the movant goes to the appeal court and screeches "waaah! not fair! want new trial?" Or would the appeal be "pliz Mr Appeel Judg, overturn unjust trial court verdict"

A new trial would allow for a retrial, yes.

A new-trial motion usually tries to argue the judge made a reversible mistake. Or, occasionally, tries to bring in new facts not directly related to the trial, like juror misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel. Or, rarely, new evidence (relevant to the trial) that was literally just discovered.

In a new-trial motion, the loser would argue, "Hey, judge, you forgot that Tuesdays are double objection days." And the judge would review the law and the record and think: (1) no, you're wrong; (2) you might be right, but the appellate court won't reverse in any event; or (3) you are probably right, so let's save the taxpayers the expense of an appeal, and do the trial again.

[Sam the Centipede]

Thanks bob, I always appreciate your wisdom correcting my wasdumb.

[Gregg]

"asked for a new trial"

Wouldn't he have to go first thru the motions of an appeal?

No; the opposite, actually.

Asking for a new trial often is the final step before filing on appeal.

On the off-chance the trial court agrees, and can foresee the inevitably of a reversal on appeal.

At what point is it appropriate to ask for a pony?

[bob]

At what point is it appropriate to ask for a pony?

The new-trial motion usually is the best place list all grievances and unfulfilled desires.

Not that you'll get anything. Just a nice, neat list for the appeals court to also deny.

[Phoenix520]

But it does slow things down a bit. That’s all that matters to him. He figures with enough time he’ll find a way to get out of it. It’s always worked for him before.

[bob]

[Reality Check]

This ruling is not the case that completed trial and judgment in May (Carroll II). This is her original defamation case filed against Trump in 2019 aka, Carroll I. Carroll I got held up in several appeals over whether Trump made the defamatory statements while acting as a government employee. I believe the the DC CoA punted back to district court the issue as to whether the US should be substituted as the defendant in place of Trump. It is interesting that Judge Kaplan has now allowed Carroll to amend her complaint to add statements made by Trump after he was no president any longer. As far as I know the US motion to substitute itself as defendant is still out there.

[Foggy]

This is interesting because is there going to be a second trial? How does she prove her case, and how does he defend? Do the amendments require a jury, or just the judge?

This thing is looking like a fustercluck, but I have no experience with anything like this.