Anyone know the latest on the Stormy Daniels lawsuit?

[triron]

Last I hears Trump's attorneys trying to get it moved to federal court.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. They have removed it to federal court.

[Sherman A1]

2. Discovery should be

fun.

[MaryMagdaline]

3. Removal to federal court is automatic upon filing the removal

Papers in federal court. All you have to show is that no named defendant is a resident of the state where the initial action was filed (California) and the amount in controversy exceeds 75,000.00. Once petition is filed by defendant in federal court, state court automatically loses jurisdiction unless and until federal court remands case to state court. Plaintiff had 10? Days to contest federal diversity jurisdiction and if they cannot show lack of diversity, i.e. A single defendant who is a California resident, case stays in federal court.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Sort of but not exactly. One of the parties can be a resident of the federal district

where the case was filed, but no two parties can be residents of the same state. The case was originally filed in a CA state court because that's where the cause of action arose (where, according to the complaint, the contract was made and negotiated and where "many events giving rise to this action" occurred). http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/03/06/filed.complaint.pdf That's the only way that court, and by extension the federal court in CA, could get personal jurisdiction in the first place. But the removal notice says Daniels is a resident of TX, the LLC is a Delaware corporation, and Trump is a resident of NY and DC. So you have complete diversity on that account, but it would still exist if Daniels had been a CA resident. But the federal court would still have to apply California law because that's the way diversity jurisdiction works, and there is no federal common law of contracts.

On its face, the state court complaint would seem to support the defendant's removal of the matter to federal court. But here's an argument in favor of remand: A corporation is considered to be a resident of the state where it has its principle place of business. The LLC was created for the sole purpose of facilitating the agreement to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels - so the only business it ever did was in California. If the corporation never did any other business anywhere else, maybe one could argue that CA is its principle place of business. The Supreme Court recently held that a corporation's principle place of business is wherever its "nerve center," i.e., its actual center of direction, control, and coordination, is. This LLC exists in a file cabinet in Delaware, but is that its nerve center? Maybe a motion to remand is worth a try.

[MaryMagdaline]

5. Great argument for remand but is the nerve center Cohen's

Brain and where, if at all, is his brain domiciled?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Maybe his brain, such as it is. But that would work anyhow,

because the Supreme Court has held that a corporation can have only one principal place of business, and obviously Cohen can be in only one state at a time.

[ProudLib72]

6. Please explain to the non-lawyer what the difference in trying the case in federal court would be

Because from your description, CA law still applies. I haven't the slightest idea what I'm missing on this detail.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. One reason would be just to delay the proceedings and rack up more expenses.

The other is a perception that the federal court judges are more likely to order arbitration than state court judges. As I understand it, Stormy is claiming that the contract is invalid and is trying to get it rescinded. Trump wants it to go to arbitration, which tends to favor corporations, so they want the issue of whether the arbitration clause should be invoked to be decided by a federal judge. This is kind of a crapshoot because federal judges don't think in lockstep and they aren't all conservative - especially in CA. But that's why Trump is doing it. If the judge doesn't order arbitration the case would go to trial and be decided by a jury, just as in a state court case. And any appeal would go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the evil liberal court Trump loves to hate.

[Nevernose]

10. It was my understanding

That the move to federal court was predicated on the $20 million in damages, in which case California law would still be applied, even if the case is actually taken to bar at the federal level. And that, like you said, this is probably a delaying tactic, an effort to outspend Daniels, force arbitration, etc. A California judge is also more likely to rule the contractual penalties as unconscionable and just plain dumb.

At least that’s what my lawyer told me.

To be fair, I was hammered drunk at a Kenny Chesney concert during the explanation of jurisdiction, so I might be completely off base.

[ProudLib72]

11. Thanks VO! Ok, now I don't understand the arbitration

Doesn't this all hinge on whether or not the contract is valid? I thought that was the point of Stormy bringing this to court in the first place. Here is where I get stuck. The Don did not sign the contract, and I take that to be the biggest factor. Secondly, Cohen talked and thus invalidated the contract (had it even been signed). To my mind, the one mitigating feature that tRump and Cohen have going for them is Stormy's acceptance of the $130K. That seems like it can be construed as closure of an agreement. However, it was Cohen who paid through the LLC. In all respects, it seems like Cohen is the responsible party. Honestly, I would think it would come down to a judge deciding whether or not a valid agreement exists. That does not seem like something that would go to arbitration.

[Ms. Toad]

12. Pretty sure the contract has an arbitration provision.

That means (typically) that any dispute under the contract goes to arbitration exclusively (or at least before court).

Signing the contract is largely irrelevant. It will end up being an evidentiary matter - in the absence of a signature is there enough evidence to demonstrate Trump was a party to the agreement.

Nothing in the contract itself, that I can see, would seem to fall in the category that required the contract to be written in the first place. (promise in consideration of marriage, cannot be performed in under year, contract for the sale of land, a promise by the executor to pay the debts of an estate, sale of goods over $500, or a suretyship agreement). The copyright assignments would need to be in a signed writing, but that is a performance matter - it would not impact the existence of the contract (it is complete legal nonsense that the lack of a signature makes a contract void) or its enforceability (IF a contract falls within the statute of frauds it must be evidenced by a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.).

That last is actually another oddity. Daniels is essentially saying Court - please review the matter and confirm that I don't have to shut up. In other words, she is saying don't enforce the agreement against me. That means that if a signature is required, it would be her signature required and - so far as I know - she signed it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Here's an analysis from another thread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210371391#post31

[ProudLib72]

14. Got it. Contract is valid, and she is seeking release from the contract.

[MaryMagdaline]

9. I was pondering the same thing

I at first thought that the lack of cameras in federal court might be comforting to trump's lawyers. it might also be that federal judges keep tighter control over the participants (both lawyers better worry about that)(judges may issue gag orders). It could simply be that state judges are elected and may be perceived by Trump to be biased in favor of democrats whereas federal judges are in for life (unless trump campaigns to have them impeached).