Avenatti Argues Litigation Privilege Bars Prosecution on Nike Extortion Charges
Lawyers for Michael Avenatti on Monday asked a Manhattan federal judge to dismiss a criminal indictment accusing the embattled attorney of waging a multimillion-dollar extortion plot against athletic apparel company Nike Inc., saying their client had been acting in his legitimate capacity as an attorney.
August 19, 2019 at 04:40 PM
4 minute read
Lawyers for Michael Avenatti on Monday asked a Manhattan federal judge to dismiss a criminal indictment accusing the embattled attorney of waging a multimillion-dollar extortion plot against athletic apparel company Nike Inc., saying their client had been acting in his legitimate capacity as an attorney.
The filing, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, continued a multipronged attack from Avenatti’s Florida-based attorneys, Scott A. Srebnick and Jose M. Quinon, who last week accused federal prosecutors of carrying out a political witch hunt against their client.
Avenatti, who is best known for his representation of adult-film star Stormy Daniels, was arrested earlier this year on charges that he had threatened to go public with supposedly damaging information if Nike didn’t agree to pay his client a $22.5 million settlement or hire him and an unnamed co-conspirator to conduct an internal investigation of alleged wrongdoing at the company.
On Monday, Avenatti’s attorneys said he was trying to settle claims by his client, California basketball coach Gary Franklin Sr., who said he had evidence Nike had funneled money to college basketball recruits in violation of National Collegiate Athletic Association rules. Avenatti’s demand, his lawyers argued, was protected under the First Amendment because the information Avenatti threatened to release at a news conference was true and related to Franklin’s litigation claims.
“Courts have largely exempted such threats from the extortion statutes as a matter of law because, by its very nature, litigation is inherently threatening and poses a risk of economic loss to all parties,” the motion said.
“In light of this well-recognized carve-out for litigation threats, it plainly was acceptable (i.e., not extortion) for Mr. Avenatti to threaten to file a lawsuit against Nike in the public record, exposing the very same misconduct he threatened to first make public in a press conference, if Nike did not satisfy the two components of his settlement demand,” the attorneys wrote.
Last week, Avenatti said in a separate filing that his representation of Daniels, who had accused President Donald Trump of engaging in an extramarital affair with her (Trump has repeatedly denied having an affair with the adult entertainer), made him a target of malicious prosecution in the Southern District, and that prosecutors never investigated his claims against Nike.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York on Monday declined to comment on the filings. But U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman in March said the scheme amounted to an illegal “shakedown” of a public company.
“When lawyers use their law licenses as weapons, as a guise to extort payments for themselves, they are no longer acting as attorneys,” he said at the time.
In addition to the alleged extortion plot against Nike, Avenatti is also accused in Manhattan federal court of stealing $300,000 from Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, by diverting two payments she received on a book deal.
Meanwhile, Avenatti also faces charges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where he is accused of embezzling millions of dollars from other clients. An attorney for Avenatti had asked to have those two cases combined in federal court.
A status conference is set for Thursday afternoon in Avenatti’s extortion case.
Read More:
Transfer Motion Schedule Set in Case Accusing Avenatti of Stealing From Stormy Daniels
Citing Indictments, California State Bar Moves to Suspend Avenatti
Michael Avenatti Charged With Fraud, Stealing From Ex-Client Stormy Daniels in New Indictments
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
© 2025 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 AllPrivate Equity Giant KKR Refiles SDNY Countersuit in DOJ Premerger Filing Row
3 minute readSkadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Pro Hac Vice in Georgia: Rule Change for Nonresident Attorneys
- 2The Benefits of E-Filing for Affordable, Effortless and Equal Access to Justice
- 3AI and Social Media Fakes: Are You Protecting Your Brand?
- 4A Primer on Using Third-Party Depositions To Prove Your Case at Trial
- 5‘Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission’: Another Consequence of 'Hobby Lobby'?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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