Avenatti Says Cohen's Push to Keep Him Out of SDNY Is 'Devoid of Merit'
In a filing in support of his pro hac vice application, Stormy Daniels' attorney said he had a First Amendment right to publish financial information about Michael Cohen.
May 15, 2018 at 02:22 PM
4 minute read
Michael Avenatti, attorney for Stormy Daniels, leaves the Daniel P. Moynihan Courthouse in Manhattan after a hearing in front of Judge Kimba Wood regarding a search warrant that was executed at the home, hotel and office of Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen. (Photo by David Handschuh/NYLJ)
An attempt by attorneys for Michael Cohen to keep Michael Avenatti, counsel for adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, out of the legal proceedings around the government's raid on Cohen's offices and home last month are legally unsubstantiated and should be denied, according to a filing by Avenatti late Monday.
The memorandum of law in support of Avenatti's pro hac vice application called the request by McDermott Will & Emery partner Stephen Ryan “completely devoid of merit.”
In his filing last week, Ryan cited Avenatti's disclosure of information about his client's dealings with numerous companies shortly after President Donald Trump's election last year as “extremely troubling” behavior that should lead U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District of New York to deny the pro hac request.
“Mr. Avenatti has … deliberately distorted information from the records which appear to be in his possession for the purpose of creating a toxic mix of misinformation,” Ryan said in his letter to the court.
Avenatti previously released a report that allegedly detailed millions of dollars' worth of payments by companies, both U.S.-based and foreign, to Cohen, utilizing a shell company account that Cohen allegedly used to pay hush money to Avenatti's client, who goes by the stage name Stormy Daniels.
In his filing Monday, Avenatti said that almost all of the information that was released about Cohen ended up being confirmed either by the very companies involved or through public reporting by news outlets. One of those companies, AT&T, had gone so far as to acknowledge the hiring of Cohen was “a big mistake,” Avenatti noted.
“That Mr. Cohen may be dismayed that these damaging revelations have come to light and have been proven true does not come remotely close to justifying a denial of Mr. Avenatti's right to appear before this court,” the filing Monday stated.
Avenatti went on to argue that he had a First Amendment right to make public information about Cohen, himself a public figure, in matters “that are, without dispute, of the utmost public concern.” Furthermore, questions raised by Cohen about the legality of both the possession and distribution of the information about Cohen were moot, Avenatti said, because the laws restricting such disclosures do not apply to third parties.
This isn't the first time Avenatti has requested to be admitted to practice in the district, the filing noted. His application to appear in a class action over KPMG tax shelter sales in Arnold V. KPMG was approved by U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty in 2007.
Avenatti argues that Cohen's opposition ultimately doesn't suggest why the application for admission requirements haven't been satisfied.
“Given the dearth of legal or factual support relating to anything having to do with Mr. Avenatti's right to advocate on behalf of his client in this court, Mr. Cohen's argument's must be summarily rejected,” the memo stated.
During a hearing earlier this month, Avenatti told Wood he would seek to have Clifford intervene in the proceedings, stating that potentially privileged communications between her former attorney, Keith Davidson, and Cohen may be among those seized by the government.
The request has been held in abeyance by Wood at the request of prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, pending ongoing discussions between the office and Avenatti.
Cohen's attorneys did not respond to a request for comment on Avenatti's memo.
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 AllPatent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
Trade Fixtures in New York Eminent Domain Cases—What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
10 minute readAttorneys ‘On the Move’: Morrison Cohen Adds White Collar Partner; Corporate/Securities Partner Joins Olshan
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Weil Advances 18 to Partner, Largest Class Since 2021
- 2People and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
- 3Beef Between Two South Florida Law Firms Deepens With Suit Over Defamation
- 4Judge Skips Over Sanctions in Talc Bankruptcy: 'That’s A No'
- 5Hit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
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