Porn star must pay Trump $293K, judge says

An unsuccessful defamation lawsuit adult film actress Stormy Daniels recently said she didn't want to file will cost her nearly $300,000, per a judge's order Tuesday.

Finding the proposed fees to be largely standard and acknowledging the exceptional nature of the case required significant work hours, U.S. District Judge James Otero in Los Angeles granted an award of $293,052 to Charles J. Harder and his firm, Harder LLP.

That's roughly 75 percent of the $389,403 they requested following their winning bid to dismiss the case on behalf of President Donald J. Trump in October, which Otero ultimately found "excessive."

Trump also requested sanctions against Daniels under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, claiming her lawsuit -- brought over an allegedly defamatory Trump tweet -- constituted an attempt to chill his free speech rights. While acknowledging some Texas courts have doubled fee awards in anti-SLAPP cases to deter frivolous filings, Otero declined the request, seeing the attorney fees granted as a significant enough deterrent to any unnecessary future filings.

Harder nonetheless called the result a "total victory" in an email, noting the court ordered Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, to pay an additional $1,000 for pursuing the frivolous claim. Clifford v. Trump, 18-cv-06893 (C.D. Cal., filed Apr. 30, 2018).

In an e-mail statement, Daniels' attorney, Michael J. Avenatti, claimed the amount granted was "less than one half what they asked for because the request was gross and excessive."

He said Daniels "will never half[sic] to pay a dime because they owe her over $1 million in attorney's fees and costs from the main NDA case," referencing ongoing litigation brought by Daniels over the enforceability of a non-disclosure agreement she says she reached with Trump.

Trump and his attorneys reversed course in that case in September, claiming the agreement was not enforceable as previously argued and asking Otero to dismiss the case. A hearing is scheduled next month on the request. Clifford v. Trump, 18-cv-02217 (C.D. Cal., filed March 16, 2018).

As far as anti-SLAPP fee motions go, Fox Rothschild LLP partner Lincoln Bandlow said the result was fairly standard. Even Otero's rationale for knocking the award down was typical.

"It's sort of a catch-22 because on the one hand you're trying to show how good you are to justify your rate, but then you have to justify the number of hours," Bandlow explained. "A judge will say, 'If you're so good, you shouldn't need this many hours.' So he gave it a haircut."

Though Daniels appeared supportive in response to Avenatti's statement on Otero's order on Twitter Tuesday, the result is particularly interesting given her other recent comments on the case. In a statement issued to The Daily Beast late last month critical of Avenatti, Daniels said the defamation claim was filed "against my wishes."

If she can prove it, Bandlow said that would be grounds for a malpractice claim against Avenatti. Though for now, he said, it might be in her best interests to wait it out and see what the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has to say.

Although the appellate court is largely in line with Otero's rationale, Bandlow said it has a few outliers opposed to the sovereignty of anti-SLAPP who might rule differently. As a result, Bandlow said an en banc hearing might give Avenatti better odds than a three-judge panel.

Avenatti declined to address a question regarding Daniels' claims about the defamation case. At least publicly, however, the attorney and his client appear to be back on the same page. Daniels said the two "have sorted shit out" in a tweet earlier this month.