Judge throws out Stormy Daniels's lawsuit against Trump

[7962]

Source: Washington Post

A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit from adult film actress Stormy Daniels in which she claimed that President Trump defamed her when he suggested her allegation that she was threatened to stay quiet about their relationship was a lie.

Federal District Judge S. James Otero had suggested during a late September hearing that he was skeptical of Daniels’s claim on First Amendment grounds. The ruling ordered Daniels, whose given name is Stephanie Clifford, to pay Trump’s legal fees.

“No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels,” Trump attorney Charles Harder said in an emailed statement.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-throws-out-stormy-danielss-lawsuit-against-trump/2018/10/15/402935e8-d0cc-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html?utm_term=.fbc0412b502e

[rockfordfile]

1. Another pos republican judge.

[MadDAsHell]

28. Do you really like the idea that defending yourself in public can be called "defamation"?

Whether Drumpf had a sexual relationship with SD is irrelevant. That’d be a terrifying precedent for a judge to rule that no one is allowed to even hint that accusations against her/him are untrue, because that’s somehow defaming your accuser. Are you sure you want that?

[Achilleaze]

2. Time for another Omarosa tape

bring it

[bearsfootball516]

6. Whatever happened to her?

Didn't she say she had hundreds of tapes or something?

[Rebl2]

10. Trumps

lawyers probably quietly paid her off.

[Jake Stern]

17. Everybody and their cousin supposedly has a video of Trump doing or saying something nasty

yet they never see fit to release them.

Until the alleged videos are released, I'm going to run with the assumption that folks claiming to have them are full of shit.

[7962]

40. And thats really the only way to look at it.

I've heard "This is it!!" so many times.

[Blue_Tires]

42. She had a book to hawk, so of course she'd say she had "hundreds"

I tried to tell folks not to put 10 seconds of belief in that "Omarosa has the goods to sink Donnie" bullshit...

[llmart]

7. No, it's time for Mueller.

When's he going to start indicting the Dump family?

[quakerboy]

16. Counting on a Righty

to take down a righty is a bad plan.

Mark my words: Mueller ain't doing anything to Trump unless he is forced to do so on pains of personal consequences. IE if a democratic senate has the goods and Mueller has the choice to be exposed as a hack, or bring a damning report, he brings the report. With full cover from the house, senate, white house, and SCOTUS, he will nibble away a few nobodies for show, and avoid doing anything of true consequence.

[llmart]

18. I have a sinking feeling that you are right.

[vlyons]

3. and who appointed that judge?

???

[OnlinePoker]

19. Bush in January 2003. n/t

[PSPS]

4. Read the order. It's a solid ruling fully supported by the law. The judge had to rule this way.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5002740-Clifford-v-Trump-Order-Granting-Anti-SLAPP-Motion.html

[jberryhill]

20. People here are not interested in the actual law

Daniels herself admitted in The View that the controversy with Trump was an economic boon to her.

Not really a smart position when you are suing someone for supposed damages caused by defamation.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. A ruling in favor of someone we dislike is always because the judge is a biased Republican - right?

This was a dumb lawsuit from the beginning and it never had a chance of going anywhere.

[spooky3]

5. Per Avenatti's tweet:

Several charges are going to proceed; they were not dismissed by this judge. And he plans to appeal the decision to throw out this one.

[AncientGeezer]

22. And he will lose again....it's his thing...losing.

[spooky3]

26. What lawyer besides Perry Mason wins every case?

Oh wait, Perry lost one.

[brush]

29. You call forcing Cohen's guilty plea and trump named an unindicted...

co-conspirator losing?

Enjoy your stay.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

60. Avenatti didn't force Cohen's guilty plea. The feds were investigating Cohen before

the Daniels case was filed. If anything, the feds wanted Avenatti to go away because he was interfering in their case.

[brush]

62. I know you're one of the anti-Avenattis here but he' the one who bought that case out into the...

open of trump violating election law by paying off his client to keep his adultery secret, which is why trump is an unidicted co-conspirator.

Give credit where credit is due.

[jmowreader]

8. Mr. Harder apparently doesn't realize...

that no matter the results of this suit, we still have a president who fucked a porn star while his wife was recovering from the birth of his son. And no amount of spin or nasty tweeting from Trump can truthfully characterize what he did as anything but the act of a worthless piece of crap.

Tell me again why fundamentalist Christians love this guy.

[Auggie]

9. +1

[FBaggins]

12. He replaced Kennedy with Kavanaugh

That alone "covers a multitude of sins"

[7962]

14. The "our guy" syndrome. nt

[sharedvalues]

11. Judge Otero is an ultra conservative apptd by GW Bush

Kavanaugh probably participated in Oteros confirmation.

Otero had to be nominated twice by Bush before he was confirmed.

[MadDAsHell]

27. This seems like good law regardless of the political leanings of the judge.

I don’t like the idea that defending yourself against accusations somehow becomes defamation of your accuser. That’s a slippery slope.

[sharedvalues]

43. Well, get used to it. Ultra-conservative judges' opinions are illegitimate

a good fraction of judges on the federal courts now are partisan, unqualified, ideologues purchased by billionaires.

Get used to checking for the political record of judges, because the facts on the ground have changed. The Federal courts are compromised. Good law is no longer the issue. We must fight the ideologues. Sorry, I wish we could focus on the law too. But Republicans blew up our courts.

[Azathoth]

13. Stormy needs a new lawyer

I cut Avenatti a lot of slack because these are unique circumstances and Trump's relentless efforts to misuse his elected office to poison the potential jury pool should not go unchecked. But once Avenatti started with the presidential bid nonsense, he stepped definitively over a line. This is a lawyer transparently using his client as nothing but a PR prop to advance his own political ambitions. It's unethical and a recipe for terrible representation, and Stormy is gonna be the one who ends up paying for it.

[7962]

15. I agree. I've been saying pretty much the same for some time, but it mostly falls on deaf ears.

I said long ago that this defamation case would be tossed and got blasted for it.
Avenatti has been promising so many different "bombshells" and has yet to deliver ONE.

[jberryhill]

21. The DVD was cool

[7962]

23. Yeah, that was back in APRIL I think. Haven't seen it since.

I think avenattis "BASTA" has become "fongool"

[jberryhill]

24. Didn't you like the info from the ICE whistleblowers?

You’re just hard to please...



Avenatti habitually fails to deliver. But because he talks tough on TV shows, people either don’t notice or don’t care.

[7962]

25. I think its a little of both!

Notice how often he uses "blow this wide open"?

[john657]

47. I know this is probably unpopular here,

but, AFAIC, Avenatti is nothing but a blowhard.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

52. Whatever happened to that DVD?

It seems to have fallen into the same oubliette as the project to help immigrant children.

[brush]

30. Are you anti-Avenatti posters forgetting that trump is an unindicted...

co-conspirator because of him?

[7962]

34. Not him, Mueller is the man who has brought the real heat re: Cohen. Avenatti is a hanger-on

Mueller is, and has been, the one to watch.
And even the accusation is legally a stretch since a grand jury hasnt named trump (yet) as an "unindicted co conspirator", nor has anyone with the legal capacity to do so.

[brush]

39. Without Avenatti going after trump no one knows about any of it.

Give credit where credit is due even if you don't like the guy.

[7962]

41. He does bring attention to it. Mueller isnt going to appear on TV to discuss any of it.

At least not yet. I dont know that he ever would, not sure of the rules for that sort of thing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. No, the reason is that the feds were investigating Cohen before the Daniels case

got started, in part because of his dodgy taxi and other businesses having little to do with Trump and in part because his name turned up in the Steele dossier. Mueller then referred Cohen's case to the SDNY. Avenatti was riding on the coattails of the federal investigations, not the other way around.

[RandiFan1290]

37. lol

[7962]

49. hey, it is what it is. All hat no cattle

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

61. I'm beginning to think she'd have been better off pro se.

[Polybius]

31. A George W. Bush appointed judge

I guess we know who's next on the short list of potential Justices.

[Gothmog]

32. Judge dismisses Stormy Daniels libel suit against Trump

I am not surprised by this ruling at all. Avanetti had a very weak defamation case against trump https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/15/stormy-daniels-trump-libel-suit-903152

The adult-film actress Stormy Daniels’ libel suit against President Donald Trump was thrown out Monday by a federal judge, who also ordered Daniels to pay Trump's legal fees in the case.

U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero in Los Angeles said Trump was engaged in “rhetorical hyperbole” in April when he sent a tweet casting doubt on threats that Daniels claimed to have received in 2011 as she debated whether to go public with her claim of a sexual encounter with Trump.

“A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the fake news media for fools (but they know it),” Trump wrote on Twitter.
In a 14-page order, Otero noted that the tweet was a one-time statement by Trump and said it failed to meet the standard of a clear factual claim that Daniels had lied.

[iluvtennis]

33. Am sure this isn't over. Doesn't Avenatti get to file an appeal?

[7962]

35. He does, and has said he will. And it will also go nowhere.

Daniels is a public figure, and the statements made by trump are hardly defamatory to her under the law. Its a high bar to get over to prove defamation and this isnt going to get over it, IMO.

[MichMan]

36. If Trump files to have his legal costs covered...

Who pays ?

Clifford, for being the plaintiff or Avenatti, for presenting a weak case ?

[7962]

46. The Plaintiff, Clifford, is responsible.

And I doubt Avenatti will make his 'work" pro bono.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

59. The client is responsible, although the client might also sue the lawyer for malpractice

if it appears the case was obviously so weak she was placed in jeopardy of having to pay legal costs for having filed it on the lawyer's recommendation.

[LanternWaste]

38. It's certainly going to turn the smug even more giddy.

However, as its merely one of numerous concurrent filings, I'll avoid the bench-prophecies as to what will or will not happen, and leave them to those who need it.

[onenote]

44. I'm curious as to how many of the posters suggesting the case was dismissed because the judge

was a Bush appointee and not because the case was lacking in factual and legal merit are lawyers. The DUers posting here that I know are lawyers (as am I) are in agreement -- this was a cold stone loser of a defamation case and the result would have been the same no matter who appointed the judge hearing the case.

[7962]

45. Thank u for a refreshing breath of honest objectivity.

I am in no way a lawyer, but every time I mentioned that this case would be a loser I would be slammed by some. Usually led by my own troll, who also posted on this link.
I'm glad to see someone actually trained in law explain it.
But the DU of old seems to have turned into an echo chamber.

[jberryhill]

48. I doubt most people even understood what this particular case was about

Incidentally, the motions to dismiss in the contract case have been filed:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250.87.0.pdf

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250.88.0.pdf

as per:

MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge S. James Otero.The Court indicates that issue before this court is whether there is a case in controversy that remains. The Court sets the following schedule: Defendants shall file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject jurisdiction by 10/8/2018; Opposition shall be due by Friday, 10/26/18; Reply shall be due by Wednesday, 11/07/18. Hearing shall be set for Monday, December 3, 2018 10:00 a.m. In re the Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Michael Cohen 31 the parties shall follow the same briefing schedule and hearing will be set for Monday, December 3, 2018 10:00 a.m. Court Reporter: Carol Zurborg. (lc) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

The opposition brief next week will be interesting. I'll place my bet after reading that brief.

[7962]

50. I just wish I understood what that paragraph meant!

[jberryhill]

54. Oh

That was the order from the last hearing they had in the contract case.

Here's what's happening in that case:

That case is about whether or not there was a contract for Daniels to stay quiet. It was filed in early March, because in late February Cohen had gotten an arbitration order against Daniels with a high monetary component. For a number of reasons, Daniels is suing for the right to pay back the $130K and rescind/void the contract.

The defendants (Cohen's company and Trump) had essentially said, "Okay, we agree, there was no contract. Game over" in the course of some routine scheduling filings, and had asked the judge to boot the case. They had also filed motions to strike portions of the suit for other reasons.

This order - the part that you are reading - is the judge saying, "If the defendants want to dismiss the case, they have to file briefs setting out the reasons why by October 8. Then, by October 26, Avenatti has to file his response to that, and by November 7 the defendants can rebut whatever Avenatti argues in his October 26 brief. I'm going to read that stuff and be here on December 3 to ask you all some questions and hear you out on this issue."

So, one of two things will happen on December 3. The judge could rule, right then and there, that there is no reason to keep the suit going, since the defendants have agreed to everything the plaintiffs were asking for anyway. Courts don't sit around resolving bar bets if there is no reason to do so (this is tied to the "case or controversy" language of Article III of the Constitution).

Alternatively, the judge could say, as often happens at motion hearings, "Thank you" and walk out, meaning that the motions are fully briefed and argued and the judge will enter a written order or decision whenever he feels like doing so. Many times, and particularly, on one that is as cut-and-dried as the issues are here, the judge will have a pre-written decision, and will simply use the hearing as a last chance dance to fill out some detail or give the parties some compelling argument as to why the judge should change that decision. But, there's really no way to tell.

Avenatti is upset by his client obtaining all of the relief the suit actually sought, because he wanted to have the theater of deposing Trump. So there's an interesting situation on that side of the room given that what he wants, and the best interests of his client in obtaining the relief sought, are not really the same things. One of the basis rules of lawyering is that when you've gotten everything your client wanted, you STFU. OTOH, keeping this case in the headlines - of any sort - help promote the book sales and appearances (which don't help the defamation claim any, but, whatever).

Bottom line - this one could be over as early as December 3. Hence, the only thing left is the malpractice suit against Davidson and Cohen for allegedly colluding on the contract itself. Once the contract claim goes away, however, what becomes of a malpractice suit over a contract that has been nullified is, again, a good question for any judge looking to trim their docket.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

57. Thank you for this clear explanation.

[7962]

58. Thank you for taking the time to make that so easy to understand!! Much appreciated.

And validates most of what I've been saying for months. I wondered what I was missing when the defendants agreed to the initial demands of Daniels but Avenatti kept the case going. As you said, you got what you asked for, so we're done here.
It will be interesting how it all plays out.
I agree with you.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

56. The responsive brief will be interesting, for sure.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. Exactly. The case was a loser from the beginning.

The fact that the judge was a Bush appointee is meaningless - the case was a turd and it just as certainly would have been dismissed by an Obama or Clinton appointee. I am also a lawyer (retired) and I think I know a crappy defamation case when I see one.