Neither Trump Nor Avenatti Gets Cut of Stormy Daniels' $450,000 Settlement, Federal Judge Rules
In an eight-page order, U.S. District Judge Michael Watson of the Southern District of Ohio denies Trump's notice of registered foreign judgment seeking $293,052 of Daniels' settlement and tosses aside Avenatti's attorney lien seeking allegedly unpaid attorney fees from unrelated representation of Daniels.
June 04, 2020 at 08:29 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Both President Donald Trump and prominent lawyer Michael Avenatti have been turned back, in one federal decision in Ohio, in their separate bids to grab chunks of a $450,000 settlement won by adult film actress Stormy Daniels in her 2018 false-arrest suit against the city of Columbus.
In an eight-page order, U.S. District Judge Michael Watson of the Southern District of Ohio denied Trump's notice of registered foreign judgment seeking $293,052 of Daniels' settlement, and tossed aside Avenatti's notice of attorney lien seeking allegedly unpaid attorney fees from his previous, unrelated representation of Daniels.
Watson, at the end of his order, also ruled that his clerk can now release the $450,000 to Daniels and her lawyers.
Trump entered the Ohio federal suit based on attorney fees he was awarded by a California federal judge in 2018 after he'd dismissed a Daniels-launched defamation suit against Trump.
In that suit, Daniels had sued Trump for defamation citing an April 2018 Trump tweet that labeled "a total con job" her statements about a man who allegedly threatened her and who she'd said was in some way linked to Trump, according to news reports and Watson's order. (Daniels' actual name is Stephanie Clifford.)
U.S. District Judge James Otero in California dismissed the suit on free-speech grounds and awarded the president $293,052 in attorney fees that haven't been paid, say news reports and Watson's opinion. Daniels has reportedly appealed attorney fees order in the California case.
But Watson, in his opinion handed down Tuesday, said Trump has no current interest in Daniels' $450,000 settlement because he was trying to collect based on an attorney fees award that has never been reduced to a final judgment. Moreover, Trump, represented by Beverly Hills-based attorney Charles Harder, was aware that Otero's clerk had attempted to make the award final and later realized that he was in error when doing so, said Watson.
"Trump argues that the 'clerk's conclusion [that he was in error] is erroneous,'" writes Watson, "and he has notified this court that he has moved to certify the attorney's fees order for registration in the underlying Central District of California case."
He also "seeks a stay in this court until his motion is resolved," Watson notes.
But "here, the plain language of the statute" that is relevant—which the judge said is 28 U.S.C. Section 1963, permitting a party to register certain federal judgments in other districts—"dictates the outcome," Watson says.
"Trump is glossing over a key requirement—how to register the foreign judgment in the first place," the judge also says, before adding that "because the Central District of California's Clerk of Court has rescinded its certification of judgment, there is no judgment to register under §1963."
Watson also denied Trump's motion for a stay.
On Thursday, Clark Brewster, Daniels' lawyer in the Ohio case, said in a phone interview that Trump "litigates aggressively in numerous venues and my discovery thus far"—he said, based on handling multiple matters involving Daniels and Trump—"is that that cases I've had involving him and Ms. Daniels are meritless."
"In this case," involving the attempt to collect money from Daniels' Columbus settlement, "if they [Trump and Harder] don't know the difference [between] what a judgment is or not, based on pretty simply black letter law, you can imagine how difficult it is where there is a complex case."
In turning back Avenatti's claim to part of Daniels' $450,000, Watson said Avenatti had withdrawn his notice of attorney lien in the Ohio case because he'd begun arbitrating with Daniels over his allegedly owed attorney fees. But, explained Watson, he still argues in Ohio for a stay of his claim in Watson's court until the arbitration is finished.
"Although Avenatti argues that he is entitled a portion of the settlement funds 'under California law,' he fails to cite to any legal support justifying his request for a stay of this case until he and plaintiff finish arbitration," Watson wrote.
Avenatti could not be reached for comment Thursday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Not A Kindergarten Teacher’: Judge Blasts Keller Postman, Jenner & Block, in Mass Arb Dispute
6 minute readSolana Labs Co-Founder Allegedly Pocketed Ex-Wife’s ‘Millions of Dollars’ of Crypto Gains
4 minute readInsurer Not Required to Cover $29M Wrongful Death Judgment, Appeals Court Rules
Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Trending Stories
- 1Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 2Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 3Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 4Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
- 5Foreign-Company Lobbyists Would Need to Register Under Proposed DOJ Regulation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250