LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Creepy Porn Lawyer slam dunked by Trump in Federal court
Source:
U.S. Dist Ct, Central Div, CA
URL Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/390 ... nti-SLAPP-Motion-and-Atty-Fees
Published: Oct 15, 2018
Author: nolu chan
Post Date: 2018-10-15 21:41:05 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 660
Comments: 3
Creepy Porn Lawyer slam dunked by Trump in Federal court Judge condemns "fishing expedition" and "circular" reasoning of CPL/Stormy, dismisses suit, and awards legal fees to Trump. nolu chan At 12-13: Having determined that Mr. Trump's tweet is non-actionable, the Court's analysis of the Special Motion ends. In the interest of completeness, the Court briefly addresses a few of the other arguments made by the parties in the briefing. The parties spend some time debating whether Mr. Trump acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" in issuing the tweet in question. Assuming that Plaintiff is a "public figure," Plaintiff would have to show that Defendant acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" to prevail on a cause of action for defamation. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 580. Plaintiff's focus on the actual malice argument comes as no surprise because Plaintiff stands on thin ice in asserting that Mr. Trump's tweet is an actionable statement. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to use her defamation action to engage in a "fishing expedition" concerning the conclusory allegations in the Complaint. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to exploit the legal process in this way. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she needs to conduct discovery to determine if Mr. Trump was involved in the 2011 threat against her or if he purposefully avoided learning about the 2011 threat. See Opposition at 11. Plaintiff believes that discovery pertaining to these issues will help her to establish that Mr. Trump acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (i.e. if Ms. Clifford can provide evidence showing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, then he tweeted a lie when he challenged Plaintiff's reporting of the 2011 threat). (See Transcript of Proceedings at 29:23-30:4.) However, Plaintiff's reasoning is entirely circular. She assumes that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, argues in her Complaint and her briefing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, and then asks this Court for discovery to prove that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat. In doing so, Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing how Mr. Trump knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place. Plaintiff must do this to sustain a cause of action for defamation. At 14: Having granted the Special Motion and denied Plaintiff leave to amend, the Court finally holds that Defendant is entitled to attorney's fees. Texas law is unambiguous that "the TCPA requires an award of 'reasonable attorney's fees' to the successful movant." Sullivan v. Abraham, 488 S.W.3d 294, 299 (Tex. 2016). "A 'reasonable' attorney's fee 'is one that is not excessive or extreme, but rather moderate or fair.'" Id. (quoting Garcia v. Gomez, 319 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tex.2010)). - - - - - - - - - -
15 Oct 2018 b. Actual Malice or Reckless Disregard For The Truth
E. Attorney's Fees
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nolu chan (#0)
More successful than you, counselor...
More successful than you, counselor... Opinions do vary. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/michael-avenatti-bad-porn-lawyer by Tiana Lowe So much for merely being a creepy porn lawyer. In a rather predictable 2018 plot twist, it turns out that Michael Avenatti is just a bad one. U.S. District Judge S. James Otero threw out Stormy Daniels' defamation case against President Trump today. Not only did Otero rule that Trump's tweet, accusing Daniels of orchestrating a "total con job," was protected under the First Amendment. Because Otero granted Trump's anti-SLAPP, or strategic lawsuits against public participation, motion, Daniels may also now have to pay for the president's attorney fees. In short, Daniels was out-lawyered, and Avenatti is to blame. Avenatti, who's represented Daniels in the courtroom and in near-daily CNN spots for most of 2018, responded on Twitter with the same heated drivel and demagoguery he's used to con his way to political ubiquity. "Daniels' other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected," wrote Avenatti. "Trump's contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance. We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal." From a legal perspective that last point is especially laughable. Trump's lawyer, Charles Harder, successfully argued that Trump's tweet in question addressed a public person and a matter of public interest, so Avenatti would have to establish that Trump made a defamatory "statement of fact," not nonactionable opinion. In other words, the odds are nil to none that any reasonable court could reverse the order. Avenatti failed, and Stormy was his victim. - - - - - - - - - - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/14/se-cupp-cuts-down-michael-avenatti-twitter/ By Victor Morton Stormy Daniels’ lawyer called conservative CNN commentator S.E. Cupp a shill for President Trump, prompting harsh guffaws from the internet and from the prominent #NeverTrump columnist. Ms. Cupp had written a column for the New York Daily News last week in which she said Democrats should stop “being stupid” and “recognize Michael Avenatti for what he is: a carnival barker who should be disavowed by every Democrat running for election anywhere.” Mr. Avenatti, who came to prominence as the attorney for the porn star whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, took to Twitter on Sunday to denounce “@secupp and other conservative hacks see me as a big threat to their beloved president. They are right… I am coming for Trump.” [snip] - - - - - - - - - - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Avenatti In 2018, Avenatti's law firm was subjected to a $10 million judgment in U.S. bankruptcy court. Avenatti has also defaulted on a $440,000 judgment in back taxes, penalties, and interest that he was personally obligated to pay under another bankruptcy settlement. The U.S. Attorney's office asserted in court that a motion seeking payment would soon be filed against Avenatti. Eagan Avenatti had been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and, in December 2017, had agreed to pay $4.8 million in unpaid fees to a former partner, $2 million in back taxes, and $1 million to other creditors. In June 2018, the former partner filed a motion in U.S. bankruptcy court asking for a lien on any and all legal fees Avenatti's firm might collect, up to $10 million, from clients in 54 cases including his representation of Stormy Daniels. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-avenatti-bankruptcy-20180522-story.html By Michael Finnegan A law firm of Stormy Daniels' attorney Michael Avenatti was hit with a $10-million judgment Tuesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court after he broke his promise to pay $2 million to a former colleague. Judge Catherine Bauer of U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Santa Ana ordered Eagan Avenatti to pay the $10 million to Jason Frank, a lawyer who used to work at the Newport Beach firm. [snip] Also reported is a $904,000 lien against all his personal property for unpaid taxes for 2009/2010, verified as still open per the Orange County clerk's office in April 2018.
Creepy Porn Lawyer
#2. To: Jameson (#1)
Creepy Porn Lawyer
Michael Avenatti, bad porn lawyer
Washington Examiner
October 15, 2018 08:56 PM S.E. Cupp cuts down 'carnival barker' Avenatti: 'No one is threatened by you, least of all Trump'
The Washington Times
Sunday, October 14, 2018 In 2017, a Florida man named Gerald Tobin alleged Avenatti failed to pay him $28,700 for private investigatory work. As a result, Avenatti's firm was abruptly forced into bankruptcy. In various news reports, including work done by CNN, Tobin was found to be an ex-con with four decades of convictions and jail time and not a licensed investigator. Tobin's claim forced Avenatti into bankruptcy which caused Avenatti to cancel a deposition in an unrelated lawsuit days later, raising the question of collusion between Avenatti and Tobin. The issue was resolved when the pair entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and Avenatti paid Tobin the $28,700.
Law firm of Stormy Daniels' attorney hit with $10-million judgment
LA Times
May 22, 2018 | 9:35 PM
#3. To: Jameson (#1)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]