Courts

Trump Benchslapped In E. Jean Carroll Defamation Suit

Is this his kink? Because he sure does this A LOT.

By  
on

Benchslapped-01Trumpland lawyer Alina Habba faced a chilly reception from US District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan two weeks ago when she attempted to persuade the court to allow the former president to file a countersuit against columnist E. Jean Carroll, who accused the former president of rape and sued him for defamation when he called her a scammer.

Habba is routinely dispatched to tilt at windmills on Trump’s behalf, most famously sending a demand letter to the Pulitzer Committee insisting that it retract prizes for the New York Times and Washington Post or else. In the instant case, which was filed in 2019, she was in the unenviable position of arguing that New York’s anti-SLAPP law entitles her client to file a counterclaim and postpone discovery with another round of motions. She further had to convince the court that the claim was in good faith and not dilatory, even though the law was amended in 2020 and her client failed to invoke it for 14 months.

“Isn’t it true that every court has ruled that this law as amended is inapplicable in federal court?” asked Judge Kaplan at the hearing, repeatedly citing a Second Circuit case holding that the additional pleading standard imposed by the state law conflicts with Rule 11 and thus cannot be used in federal court.

And so it was hardly surprising that the court found that amendment would not only be futile, because nothing Trump could allege would suffice as an affirmative defense, but also that amendment is affirmatively barred under FRCP.

“[R]ejection of defendant’s position is not warranted only by logic. His position simply is wrong,” Judge Kaplan wrote.

Which would have been a loss, but not a humiliating one. But then came the section on “Undue Delay, Dilatory Motive, Bad Faith, and Prejudice.”

Safe to say that Judge Kaplan is still pissed that Habba tried to tell him at the hearing that it’s illegal to sue a sitting president, and thus the case was effectively on hold through 2020. And he was really not down with the argument that she just recently entered an appearance, and thus there was no undue delay in the 14 months between when the legislature passed the law and when Trump tried claim it as an affirmative defense.

Sponsored

“[T]hat is not a satisfactory explanation, especially in view of the fact that the defendant previously was represented in this action for two full years by a very large and prominent law firm,” he wrote, going on to describe a pattern of “frivolous motions practice” by Trump and his counsel, both current and prior.

“Defendants motion, in his personal capacity, for leave to amend is denied on the grounds that the proposed amendment would be futile. In the alternative, it is denied in the exercise of discretion on the ground that the defendant delayed unduly in seeking leave to amend, that the motion for leave is made at least in part for a dilatory purpose and is at least in part in bad faith, and that granting the motion would prejudice the plaintiff unduly,” the court held.

Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan responded to today’s order in a statement to ATL:

As the Court said in its opinion today:  a ‘characterization of [Donald Trump’s] previous and threatened future actions as dilatory, in bad faith or unduly prejudicial would be a bootless exercise.  They are, in varying degrees, all three.’ Judge Kaplan further noted that this case ‘could have been tried and decided – one way or the other – long ago.’  My client E. Jean Carroll and I could not agree more.

So, does this mean that Carroll will finally get to take that cheek swab from Trump and match it to the male DNA found on the dress she wore the day of the alleged attack? Or will Trump file an emergency motion to the Supreme Court insisting that this is a gross violation of his First, Fourth, and hell, maybe Second Amendment rights?

Sponsored

Only Alina Habba knows, and we’ll have to wait for her next Newsmax hit to find out.

Carroll v. Trump [Docket via Court Listener]

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Topics

, , , ,