Trump says 'immune' from 'Apprentice' contestant lawsuit, seeks delay

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

POLITICS MAY 23, 2018 / 7:41 AM / UPDATED 2 HOURS AGO

Trump says 'immune' from 'Apprentice' contestant lawsuit, seeks delay

Jonathan Stempel
3 MIN READ

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump has asked New York state’s highest court to delay a defamation lawsuit by a former contestant on his reality television show “The Apprentice” who said he sexually harassed her, claiming immunity and denying the allegations.

Trump is challenging a March 20 ruling by Justice Jennifer Schecter of State Supreme Court in Manhattan allowing the case to proceed. A preliminary conference before Schecter is scheduled for June 5, court records show.

In a filing on Monday, Trump told the state’s Court of Appeals that the lawsuit by Summer Zervos should be put on hold because a sitting U.S. president is immune from being sued in a state court during his term in the White House.

In another filing late Tuesday night, Trump formally answered the complaint, and again denied the allegations or said he did not have enough information to form a belief.

Saying “no one is above the law,” Schecter rejected Trump’s claim of immunity over private conduct predating his becoming president.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-apprentice-lawsuit/trump-says-immune-from-apprentice-contestant-lawsuit-seeks-delay-idUSKCN1IO1LT

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. That argument didn't work for Bill Clinton vs Paula Jones, IIRC.

[jberryhill]

4. That was a federal case

Clinton v. Jones expressly declined to address the question in the context of state courts.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. OK, you're right. I'd forgotten about that.

[unblock]

2. Uh, Jones v Clinton? Hello?

[jberryhill]

3. Hello. This is Clinton v. Jones, returning your call....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZO.html

First, because the claim of immunity is asserted in a federal court and relies heavily on the doctrine of separation of powers that restrains each of the three branches of the Federal Government from encroaching on the domain of the other two, see, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 122 (1976), it is not necessary to consider or decide whether a comparable claim might succeed in a state tribunal. If this case were being heard in a state forum, instead of advancing a separation of powers argument, petitioner would presumably rely on federalism and comity concerns, [n.13] as well as the interest in protecting federal officials from possible local prejudice that underlies the authority to remove certain cases brought against federal officers from a state to a federal court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a); Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 125-126 (1989). Whether those concerns would present a more compelling case for immunity is a question that is not before us.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. So, could they remove the case to federal court?

Is Spanky considered a resident of DC for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction? Mesa v. California was a federal question case involving the prosecution of federal employees for violating a state statute while at work, so it wouldn't really apply. If the federal court had diversity jurisdiction the case would be consistent with Clinton v. Jones.

[jberryhill]

8. If my aunt had a 6.4 liter V8 engine, she'd be a Dodge Charger

But, the immediate circumstances here are that it is a state court proceeding.

The Complaint states as follows:

14. Plaintiff Summer Zervos is an individual who resides in Orange County, California

15. Defendant Donald J. Trump is an individual who resides at 725 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022.

Why would Trump want to remove the case to federal court?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1446

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. OK, I got it ass-backwards.

I haven't been paying much attention to this one. For some reason I thought Trump had filed the case to enforce the NDA and she'd countersued for defamation. Maybe she should have sued in federal court in the first place?

[jberryhill]

12. "I haven't been paying much attention to this one"

Well, that's understandable, given that her attorney is not making regular television appearances to opine on the case, Trump in general, or the news of the day.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. So you aren't a huge fan of Mr. Avenatti?

I think he ought to buckle down and do his legal work. A little TV time is fine, and he's certainly drawn attention to the Trump/Cohen sleaze -- but he has a lawsuit to win, and no matter how gleeful we might be at the revelations he's produced, his TV audience isn't going to be deciding the case.

[jberryhill]

14. He's certainly good at what he does

I’m not generally a fan of any practicing lawyer who spends his or her time on television. It’s not specific to him.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Can't argue with that.

Cf. also Rudy Giuliani (media hog who digs holes for his client to fall into).

[unblock]

9. good point. maybe i forgot or never knew jones v. clinton was originally a federal case.

i knew the appeal was federal court, but i thought the trial was state level. i guess not.

i understand there are different legal issues, but it would still seem rather awkward to conclude the federal civil cases can proceed but state civil cases cannot.

imho, ultimately there shouldn't be blanket immunity during office, but that's not to dismiss the entire argument. i think a trial should be scheduled with reasonable consideration for a sitting president's schedule and duties. but "i'm busy for the next 8 years" is not reasonable.

[jberryhill]

10. I wasn't opinining on the merits of the appeal

I haven't seen the brief.

I was simply pointing out that Clinton v. Jones, by its own terms, is not conclusive on the question here.

[Gothmog]

7. Trump will lose this appeal