Stormy Daniels is trying to cash a big payday, but it looks like she is going to have to wait just a little more time.
After making a request to have her case pushed to the front of the docket, a federal judge told Daniels the request was premature and she is just going to have to wait her turn.
Ms. Daniels and her attorney had filed for an expedited jury trial and limited discovery.
If the motion had been allowed the judge, both Trump and his attorney would have been forced to sit down for a deposition with Daniels’ attorney.
President Trump’s attorneys have already stated they wanted to compel the case to arbitration.
Since they have not yet filed those motions, the judge currently presiding over the matter was more or less obligated to deny Daniels’ motion.
The Judge’s Ruling
Judge Otero wrote, “While [Essential Consultants (Cohen, Trump’s attorney)] and Mr. Trump have stated their intention to file a petition to compel arbitration, they have not yet done so.”
“If such a petition were filed, a number of the questions raised in the plaintiff’s motion may be answered in the petition, thus limiting the need for discovery on these issues.”
“If such a petition is never filed, plaintiff’s motion is moot. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is premature and must be denied,” Ortero concluded.
First Things First
Before anything moves forward, there is the matter of the nondisclosure agreement.
The fact Daniels accepted $130,000 to sign the nondisclosure agreement is not being argued.
What Daniels’ attorney is saying is that because Trump did not sign the agreement, it should be considered null and void.
There are two things working against Daniels on this, though.
First, the fact that she accepted the cash may constitute the activation of the agreement even if Trump did not sign it.
Second, depending on the language of the agreement, Trump’s signing may not have even been needed.
Daniels is now having her case tried not only in the courts, but also with public opinion.
After her interview on “60 Minutes” had been aired, her authenticity was immediately challenged, and not just from Trump and members of his legal team.
Surprisingly, Daniels’ “version” of the story was also challenged by her former attorney, Keith Davidson, who stated the interview was not a “fair and accurate description of the situation.”