General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts) Thu Mar 7, 2019, 06:51 PM Mar 2019

Stormy Daniels' Case Thrown Out

Here's the judgment:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250.109.0_1.pdf

"Defendants have given Plaintiff exactly what she asked for in the FAC. Defendants agreenot to enforce or attempt to enforce the Agreement against Plaintiff. Instead of accepting victory, Plaintiff makes several arguments against this Court's holding that there is no caseor controversy before it. For almost all of these arguments, Plaintiff focuses on the remedy of "rescission," as Defendant EC does. (Opp'n. 13-16.) A rescission remedy, however,is irrelevant to the Court's holding here because the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's declaratory judgment actions based on the Covenants Not To Sue. Without subject matter jurisdiction, the Court cannot provide Plaintiff a specific remedy, whether it is rescission oft he Agreement or anything else."

So, the contract case (the initial case filed to annul the contract) has gotten her bupkus in terms of monetary damages or sanctions. It did get her out from the contract, which is what she was formally seeking. However, even when the defendants conceded the contract issue and moved to dismiss for mootness, Avenatti tried to keep the thing alive to get some kind of monetary damages that he kept promising he would get after losing the defamation case against Trump.

So the final score in the federal action is: Daniels owes Trump approximately $300,000 from the defamation case, and Trump/Cohen owe her nothing.

The remaining claim, over whether or not Daniels needs to pay back the $130k to Trump/Cohen to rescind the contract is remanded to state court.

However, as noted at the tail end of the decisions, the "remand" is likewise formal. While there is no cause of action under California law for the same reasons, this case came in as a result of being removed from state court in the first place. Since the federal court has determined it does not have jurisdiction over a moot claim, then the federal court's decision denying jurisdiction sends it back to California state court to die.

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Stormy Daniels' Case Thrown Out (Original Post) jberryhill Mar 2019 OP

"The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions and holds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction" PoliticAverse Mar 2019 #1

Yeah, read my updated notes jberryhill Mar 2019 #2

You left off the footnote jberryhill Mar 2019 #4

f**king grandstanding asshole avenatti. He has NOT severed his clients well at all, and left the still_one Mar 2019 #3

That's what con men are good at jberryhill Mar 2019 #5

You were onto him way before most of us. Appreciate the updates. still_one Mar 2019 #8

Yeah, always figured Avenatti was just another version of Trump... Wounded Bear Mar 2019 #12

Here's a DVD of his greatest hits jberryhill Mar 2019 #13

Whatever happened to that DVD? The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2019 #14

Avenatti's other motive for trying to keep this dud alive The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2019 #6

As you know, that is not a legitimate objective of litigation jberryhill Mar 2019 #7

But it had everything to do with Avenatti's propensity for grandstanding. The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2019 #9

But, but, but, look at his track record! jberryhill Mar 2019 #11

Will Avenatti become a synonym for grifter? Roland99 Mar 2019 #15

Oooo, "bupkus". I love learning words I didn't know. WheelWalker Mar 2019 #10

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)

1. "The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions and holds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction"

Reply to jberryhill (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2019, 07:01 PM

Mar 2019

"The Court therefore REMANDS this case to Los Angeles Superior Court."

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

2. Yeah, read my updated notes

Reply to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 7, 2019, 07:03 PM

Mar 2019

The remand is primarily a formality because of the way the case was originally removed to federal court from state court.

The only possible issue that could be litigated in the CA state court is whether she has to repay the $130k in recission. But the state action would be moot for the same reasons.

Like most of his losses so far, you can bet that Avenatti will be calling this one some kind of "victory". He was promising that the damages in the contract action would exceed the fees of $300k already awarded against her. If the defendants want to keep going in the state court, which is a questionable proposition whether anyone actually can, then it's simply a question of whether she goes $130k deeper into the hole.

On balance, though, getting dinged to the tune of $430k is a lot better than the $20M arbitration award against her that prompted this suit.

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

4. You left off the footnote

Reply to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 7, 2019, 07:08 PM

Mar 2019

In this context, "remand" means that this Court divests itself of jurisdiction and returns this case to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where Plaintiff first filed the lawsuit. (See ECFNo. 1.) This does not mean that the litigation continues in state court. The procedural step of "remand" is necessary because Defendants removed this case to this Court from the Los Angeles Superior Court. See Polo v. Innoventions Int'l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1196(9th Cir. 2016).

still_one

(92,217 posts)

3. f**king grandstanding asshole avenatti. He has NOT severed his clients well at all, and left the

Reply to jberryhill (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2019, 07:07 PM

Mar 2019

poor IRS agent on the hook for the privileged IRS information he gave him.

Months ago when Democratic members of Congress were telling us that Avenatti's grandstanding was hurting more than helping us, quite a few were being duped by that con man

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

5. That's what con men are good at

Reply to still_one (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 7, 2019, 07:11 PM

Mar 2019

It doesn't matter.

There will be people who will continue to believe - wrongly - that Avenatti was somehow "responsible" for the federal investigation into Cohen, when those wheels were in fact set in motion before Avenatti ever met Daniels.

So, yes, the IRS agent is going to jail, and the only thing that Avenatti had to say about that is that he (Avenatti) didn't violate any laws. That actually remains to be seen.

This case did get her out from under the $20M arbitration award, but she would have been much better served if he hadn't gone ahead with the dopey defamation claim.

still_one

(92,217 posts)

8. You were onto him way before most of us. Appreciate the updates.

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 7, 2019, 07:13 PM

Mar 2019

Wounded Bear

(58,666 posts)

12. Yeah, always figured Avenatti was just another version of Trump...

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 7, 2019, 08:00 PM

Mar 2019

grandstanding, promising the world, blah, blah, blah.

Ultimate ambulance chaser.

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

13. Here's a DVD of his greatest hits

Reply to Wounded Bear (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 7, 2019, 08:11 PM

Mar 2019

Remember this one:

And how everyone was excited that Avenatti must have pictures or videos of Trump?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210402530

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,732 posts)

14. Whatever happened to that DVD?

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #13)

Thu Mar 7, 2019, 08:49 PM

Mar 2019

Did he hide it in Al Capone's vault?

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,732 posts)

6. Avenatti's other motive for trying to keep this dud alive

Reply to jberryhill (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2019, 07:12 PM

Mar 2019

was that he wanted to take Trump's deposition, thereby placing himself back in the media spotlight and restoring his position as the Democrats' Shining Knight on a White Horse, which of course would be impossible if there's no case.