HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The actual ruling in the ...

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 05:38 PM

The actual ruling in the Stormy Daniel's case, if you are interested


This is the actual ruling on the 90 day stay. As reporters tend to often fail to report the basis of a decision, or sort of miss the point of where a particular ruling falls into the procedural landscape of the proceeding, you may want to have a look at it yourself:


https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250.53.0.pdf

" It is also quite possible that the
outcome of the criminal inves
tigation will benefit the parties
and the Court by streamlining the
issues and questions presented in this action.
Accordingly, the interests of judicial efficiency
weigh in favor of a temporary stay. "

The point being that this is not to say the entire criminal proceeding needs to run its course. It is more along the lines of "let's have a look-see when we know what Cohen winds up being indicted for, specifically" in order to decide whether the scope of probable discovery or testimony in this case is relevant to the contract claims being litigated.

It may also be, as it often is, that a suspect under indictment such as Cohen, may negotiate the terms of that indictment, in the event he becomes cooperative.

But given the relatively more consequential criminal case, compared to a civil suit over a contract, the judge most probably doesn't want anything to happen in this proceeding that is going to potentially throw a curveball into the mix during the process of vetting the evidence and finally charging Cohen with something in the SDNY.

17 replies, 1517 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply The actual ruling in the Stormy Daniel's case, if you are interested (Original post)
jberryhill Apr 2018 OP
Eliot Rosewater Apr 2018 #1
manor321 Apr 2018 #2
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2018 #5
jberryhill Apr 2018 #7
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2018 #9
jberryhill Apr 2018 #11
EffieBlack Apr 2018 #13
jberryhill Apr 2018 #16
EffieBlack Apr 2018 #17
hlthe2b Apr 2018 #3
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2018 #4
jberryhill Apr 2018 #12
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2018 #14
jberryhill Apr 2018 #15
blogslut Apr 2018 #6
jberryhill Apr 2018 #8
blogslut Apr 2018 #10

Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 05:43 PM

1. Imagine Flynn, Manafort, Cohen,

Pruitt, Carson, and the rest, the crimes, the treason, the emoluments violations, imagine if ANY democrat let alone Hillary was doing any of this and these were people associated with ANY democrat or her.

Imagine if HER close legal associate was being investigate the way Flynn, Cohen, Manafort and the 20 others are.

Would the media or the GOP or for that matter even the DNC tolerate it for a YEAR and a HALF? No, not a week and a half.

Fucking hypocrites

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 05:44 PM

2. Blah

 

Only in the upside-down legal world is delaying this by three months referred to as "streamlining".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to manor321 (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 05:52 PM

5. Believe me, when you have the kind of documentary evidence

and the factual and legal complexities that are being presented here, three months is pretty fast. There is an enormous amount of work involved in just reviewing documents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 06:08 PM

7. There are still some pending motions


The SLAPP motion on the defamation claim can probably go forward on the admitted facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 06:20 PM

9. I just read Cohen's memorandum.

Seems to me he has a shot at winning that motion. It's scheduled for May 7. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Depose-Trump-Cohen-RESPONSE.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 30, 2018, 09:15 AM

11. Oh, I didn't notice how Avenatti shot himself in the foot


The court WAS going to simply stay the contract action, and let the defamation/SLAPP part go forward, but Avenatti screwed himself there. Footnote 4:


The Court had originally considered denying the stay with respect to the second cause of action for defamation. However, Defendants have requested a stay of the entire proceedings and Plaintiff argued during the hearing that the Court's ability to hear the defamation claim relies upon the validity of the Agreement's arbitration provision and is thus inseverable from the first cause of action. (See Tr. 36:11-38:09.) The Court interprets Plaintiff's argument as indicating that if a stay is warranted, it should be granted as to the entire action, and rules accordingly.

Why on earth Avenatti would argue that the defamation claim hinges on the validity of the arbitration agreement is a stumper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to manor321 (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 30, 2018, 09:22 AM

13. This is not upside-down at all - it IS streamlining

Having two cases hanging on overlapping facts is cumbersome and counter-productive. One court stepping back and letting the more urgent matter play itself out is very efficient. Among other things, because the burden of proof is fpdifferent in the two cases, itís possible and even likely that they could end up with different results on the same question on the same facts. THATís inefficient.

Once the criminal court resolves various matters - using a higher standard of proof that will allow the civil court to summarily dispose of several questions without trying them all over again - the civil case can move forward much more expeditiously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 30, 2018, 10:33 AM

16. Except for Avenatti putting the defamation/SLAPP claims on ice

Footnote 4:

The Court had originally considered denying the stay with respect to the second cause of action for defamation. However, Defendants have requested a stay of the entire proceedings and Plaintiff argued during the hearing that the Court's ability to hear the defamation claim relies upon the validity of the Agreement's arbitration provision and is thus inseverable from the first cause of action. (See Tr. 36:11-38:09.) The Court interprets Plaintiff's argument as indicating that if a stay is warranted, it should be granted as to the entire action, and rules accordingly.

Pro-tip 1 - If you have two causes of action, and the other side wants to stay one of them, don't argue that the other one relies on the one sought to be stayed.

Pro-tip 2 - Don't tweet that you are going to appeal a non-appealable 90-day interim stay, unless you are counting on your audience to have short memories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 30, 2018, 10:55 AM

17. Irrelevant to my point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 05:44 PM

3. Avenatti is appealing this ruling, but I don't really see him prevailing on this unless it goes

beyond 90 days.... Do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 05:50 PM

4. Criminal matters normally get the fast track, as they should.

Makes total sense to me, and I doubt Avenatti will succeed with an appeal. There's a pretty delicate balance going on here, and I don't think the courts are going to do anything that could arguably infringe Cohen's Fifth Amendment rights, or affect in any way how the criminal case will proceed. Cohen hasn't even been charged yet, so it's reasonable to at least let the indictments come out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 30, 2018, 09:17 AM

12. A 90 day stay is not appealable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 30, 2018, 10:21 AM

14. I was wondering about that. Why is Avenatti saying he'll appeal?

Doesn't he know, or is he just talking for the TV?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 30, 2018, 10:27 AM

15. Who flipping knows

Avenatti certainly should know that an interim order like this is not appealable.

He also should have known that (a) his initial order to expedite was untimely, and (b) using the previous 'meet and confer' requirement for the renewed motion was improper (and received a further order requiring a joint signoff on future motions).

He also should have known that putting the defamation claim in the same basket of claims subject to Cohen's motion was an unnecessary and dumb idea that has now delayed action on the defamation claim; and he should have known that entering an appearance in the NY action for no good purpose was only going to help Cohen's motion (indeed Cohen filed a motion for judicial notice of his appearance in that proceeding).

He has scored four own-goals so far. He's doing great on TV. In this litigation, not so much.

In other news, McDougal is already dusted and done with her action premised on the exact same type of agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 05:59 PM

6. So, to me, looks like Cohen is probably going to be indicted.

That's what I'm getting from this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blogslut (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 06:09 PM

8. Well, yes, that was Cohen's point


That observation - that Cohen is likely to be indicted - is what Cohen needed to argue in support of his motion for a stay.

The fact that he is likely to be indicted, in other words, helped him to prevail on this motion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 06:23 PM

10. Yeah, sorry.

Keeping up with allthismadness is getting pretty hard these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread