Trump seeks arbitration in Stormy Daniels case

[groundloop]

Source: CBS News

President Donald Trump asked a federal judge on Monday to order private arbitration in a case brought by a porn actress who claimed she had an affair with him.

Mr. Trump and his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, filed papers in federal court in Los Angeles asking a judge to rule that Stormy Daniels' case involving a non-disclosure agreement must be heard by an arbitrator instead of a jury.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, has been seeking to invalidate the agreement she signed days before the 2016 presidential election. She has offered to return the $130,000 she was paid as she tries to "set the record straight."

In the Monday court filing, Cohen said Daniels had never raised any issues with the settlement agreement or suggested it was invalid or legally unenforceable before she filed her lawsuit last month.



Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-seeks-arbitration-in-stormy-daniels-case/

---

It sounds like 45* is hoping to keep this case out of the news.

[Botany]

1. Stormy's lawyer Michael Avenatti, is putting the squeeze on Trump for millions

Donny* is gonna be writing a very big check soon.


* or somebody

[PJMcK]

4. Michael Avenatti's intentions

There hasn't been anything in the Stormy Daniels story that suggests her lawyer is squeezing Trump for more money. In fact, because Mr. Avenatti has been a media sensation, any attempt to blackmail or coerce more money from Trump would fail spectacularly. That kind of behavior would only work in secrecy; once Mr. Avenatti went public, he lost that strategy if he ever wanted to employ it in the first place.

Given that Ms. Daniels has offered to return the $130,000, what prompted your impression that this is a squeeze play? I like your cynicism but in this case, it's misplaced, I think.

Oh, and by the way, if he did try something like that after having made court filings, he'd be in tremendous legal trouble.

[jberryhill]

8. That wouldn't be any problem at all

Civil suits settle all of the time. Most civil suits settle, and by "most" I mean the overwhelming majority of them. Actually going all the way to trial is unusual.

The parties can settle on whatever terms they agree, and the case can be withdrawn in a flash. The parties simply agree to whatever terms they like, and file a paper with the court saying that they have agreed to withdraw the case.

There hasn't been anything in the Stormy Daniels story that suggests her lawyer is squeezing Trump for more money.

Why would there be? Settlement discussions during litigation are confidential and privileged from disclosure.

But, certainly, there is always a settlement discussion in parallel with any litigation:

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/380622-stormy-daniels-attorney-we-would-consider-a-settlement

“If they came to you with a settlement in this case, would you accept it?” asked "CBS This Morning" co-anchor Anthony Mason.

“I think we would consider it, I would converse with my client. It would depend on the terms of a settlement,” Michael Avenatti replied.

What a dumb question and answer. First off, whether to accept a settlement is not up to Avenatti, so it is a stupid question to ask a lawyer. If the other side offered a settlement, Avenatti would be disbarred if he did not convey that to his client for a decision. It is a black-and-white ethical duty of an attorney to do so.

It's simply not Avenatti's decision to make.

[PJMcK]

12. Okay, of course you're right

Sorry I got carried away with my projections!

Still, I think that Mr. Avenatti's posture has been so aggressive that if his client were to settle with a new NDA, he'd lose his street cred. Of course, he'd get a nice payday! But my unsupported opinion is that he's in this for the fight as much as any other motive.

Concerning your final point, Mr. Avenatti did say, "I would converse with my client." So, while you're obviously correct that he can't act without informing his client, his statement doesn't suggest he would take such a step. But who knows? With this entire epic surrounding Trump, anything's possible.

[jberryhill]

14. His street cred...

I don't know what people think constitutes "street cred" among attorneys. He does good media appearances. That's not a particularly relevant legal skill.

His practice, apart from self-promotion, has been historically something of a shambles.

https://www.law360.com/articles/1023444/judge-oks-eagan-avenatti-s-exit-from-ch-11


Judge OKs Eagan Avenatti's Exit From Ch. 11
By Carolina Bolado

Law360 (March 19, 2018, 9:09 PM EDT) -- A California bankruptcy judge has approved a settlement ending the bankruptcy of defunct class action law firm Eagan Avenatti LLP — owned by the attorney representing Stormy Daniels in her legal battle against President Donald Trump — that allows a former partner to collect $4.85 million to resolve his claims of allegedly unpaid fees.

Apparently, something happened just this month that allowed him to finally pay off the partner he had stiffed. Gosh, I wonder what it could be?

His wife threw him out of the house a few months ago:

https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la23-storie-avenatti-lisa-vs-avenatti-michael-146016

He's being sued by Keurig, of all people, for stiffing them during his ownership of a chain of coffee shops they license:

https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/stormy-days-for-tullys-coffee/

and from which he was pocketing employee withholding taxes to the tune of some $5M:




I guess "street cred" depends on what streets one frequents.

But in a reality TV show world where what matters is shouting the loudest on TV and firing off impressive tweets, he's made to order, and certainly understands Trump's business practices.

[PJMcK]

16. What a character!

It's not surprising. His client in this case comes from a world that isn't really known for its transparency.

I get it: you don't think too much of Mr. Avenatti professionally. With your experience, I'll take your word for it.

[jberryhill]

17. Whoa whoa whoa....

"you don't think too much of Mr. Avenatti professionally"

I don't have an opinion of him professionally.

He has excellent PR skills. People here see someone on TV and decide they know something about that person.

Financially, he is in deep doo-doo. He has a variety of tax liens and lawsuits pending against him, on top of his divorce. I certainly wouldn't do business with him, since everyone he does business with ends up suing him over it.

I tend to prefer business associates who don't cheat their partners and who pay their taxes.

[PJMcK]

18. Okay

I'll accept your distinction. But I've reevaluated my own opinion of Mr. Avenatti based on the information and comments you've previously provided. Your last sentence above speaks volumes to me.

On the other hand, if Mr. Avenatti is causing trouble for Trump, it's all good to me!

[jberryhill]

19. if Mr. Avenatti is causing trouble for Trump, it's all good to me!

Which, yes, is an amusing spectacle. It doesn’t make a “noble cause” out of deciding in retrospect that $130k was too low, but it sure is fun to watch.

[Cosmocat]

21. Its absolutely about $$$

Daniels' motive to get out of the NDA, and drawing the media frenzy during her effort to do so, is to monetize her relationship with 45. There is a LOT of money she can make, book sales, speaking appearances, etc. from this.

Now, it is not likely that he would do so, but if 45 were to commit to a big enough check (which in her mind would be be equal to what she can get otherwise), she absolutely would agree to go back into the hole with this.

[Calista241]

20. If the existing agreement is determined to be legally valid

Then she has no case. Her only opportunity is to get the judge to throw out the existing agreement.

[marble falls]

2. I don't think he'll get the Stormy back into the bottle.

[machoneman]

3. I love how Trump's moves here give this story more legs than...the Energizer Bunny! n/m

n/m

[PJMcK]

5. Imagine the judge in the case

The judge must be scratching his head in bemusement at Cohen's position. Consider: they paid Ms. Daniels to keep quiet about an affair that Trump says didn't happen. There's a signed agreement that was unsigned by one of the parties to the affair. Logically, Trump would not have legal standing in the case. So why is he involved?

I imagine that there is a quiet back room somewhere where judges can privately talk with one another about their work. Trump must make them howl with laughter!

[Achilleaze]

6. Good question. Why is Dirty Donny* involved?

Since he is the exemplar, and role model, for republican family values, he should not be involved. Yet Dirty Donny* keeps turning up like a floating turd in the corrupt, ignoble, and treasonous republican Shithole-of-State.

* aka republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief

[jberryhill]

10. Trump isn't involved in this filing

Here's the brief:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4429429/4-2-18-Essential-Consultant-Motion-to-Compel.pdf

The motion was filed by Cohen's company. Trump is not a party to this motion.

[PJMcK]

13. Thanks for the link

It's very interesting for a legal layman, such as myself, to read legal documents. I have a lot of experience with contracts but that's only one slice of your legal world.

However, this is the OP's headline:
Trump seeks arbitration in Stormy Daniels case

Here is the lead paragraph from the CBS News report:

President Donald Trump asked a federal judge on Monday to order private arbitration in a case brought by a porn actress who claimed she had an affair with him.

I guess it's poor reporting by CBS.

[jberryhill]

15. Media reports on legal actions are generally atrocious

Reporters aren't hired for their ability to understand things.

But, yeah, you can look at the document yourself and see who filed it on behalf of whom, and Trump is not a party to this filing.

[Iliyah]

7. Jury Trial!

[duforsure]

9. After saying there's no connection

And its all lies.

[Bayard]

11. Lawrence O'Donnell covered this last night

He said that the way this brief was filed, they admit to the affair.