Stormy Daniels Must Pay More to Trump’s Lawyers, Court Says
(Bloomberg) -- At roughly the same time that former President Donald Trump plead not guilty to criminal charges Tuesday afternoon in a Manhattan courtroom, he notched a win in a federal appeals court in California against the adult film star at the heart of the New York indictment.
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued a six-page order directing Stormy Daniels to pay nearly $122,000 in legal fees to Trump's attorneys. That sum is in addition to the more than $293,000 that Daniels had been ordered to pay after losing a libel case against the former president in federal district court and $245,000 for unsuccessfully pursuing an earlier appeal.
The New York and California cases aren't directly related, but the timing was striking since they involve the same underlying events: Daniels' claim that she had an affair with Trump — which he has denied — and efforts by Trump's former longtime lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen to stop her story from becoming public ahead of the 2016 presidential election by orchestrating a $130,000 hush-money payment.
Trump pleaded not guilty on Tuesday in Manhattan state court to a 34-count indictment that accuses him of falsifying business records in order to hide reimbursement payments to Cohen and influence the election. The Manhattan district attorney's office has alleged that Trump falsified records to further other crimes, including violating state and federal election laws.

Prosecutor Chris Conroy told the New York judge during Tuesday's arraignment that Daniels might be a witness in the case as it moves forward.
The California case dates back to 2018. Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, had sued Trump over a tweet in which he accused her of a “total con job” after she said she'd been threatened in order to keep quiet about her claim of having an affair. A judge ruled in late 2018 that Trump's tweet was “rhetorical hyperbole” protected under the First Amendment, and then ordered Daniels to pay nearly $292,000 in legal fees plus a $1,000 sanction.
Daniels appealed, and after losing the first round, in March 2022 was ordered to pay more than $245,000 in fees. The 9th Circuit then rejected Daniels' appeal of the district judge's original attorney fee award, finding she had waited too long to present it. Daniels had acknowledged she was responsible for paying fees as the losing party, but argued the fee request by Trump's lawyers for $128,000 was “excessive.” A special commissioner tasked with evaluating Trump's request denied part of it because the lawyers hadn't submitted an itemized task log, but approved the bulk of it.
Daniels' attorneys didn't immediately return a request for comment.

Trump's attorney Harmeet Dhillon provided a statement saying that they were “gratified that the 9th Circuit awarded the vast majority of fees incurred in the final stage of this litigation that never should have taken a moment of the court's time. In total, the court awarded our client over $600,000 in fees in this dispute that Ms. Clifford initiated. We are glad to have brought this matter to a successful conclusion for our client.”
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P.
-
The Economic Imperative: Analysing The Material Driving Force Behind India-Canada Strategic Reset
This economic complementarity is further reinforced by deep institutional investment ties and talent mobility, which form the bedrock of the bilateral framework.
-
Medicine Pricing: Where Must Profit Stop?
India must confront excessive margins, hidden incentives and regulatory gaps that threaten the integrity of medicine.
-
Why Amazon And Flipkart Are Struggling To Beat Meesho In India's Smaller Cities
With 274 million users and lowest-cost logistics, Meesho is defending its value commerce crown against giants like Amazon and Flipkart.
-
High US Salaries, No Green Card Certainty: The Financial Calculation Facing Indian H-1B Families
The suspension of PERM processing at eight technology employers does not cancel existing H-1B visas. What it does is force a question many Indian families have been avoiding: is the US salary worth tying your career and family plans to one employer?
-
Swiggy vs Eternal: Food Delivery's Two Rivals Are No Longer In The Same Race
Eternal is building a private AI assistant, dark.ai. Swiggy is still working out how to make Instamart pay, with an operating loss of Rs 895 crore in the July-September quarter while Blinkit stayed profitable.
-
Where You Live Shapes How You Get To Work | The Reason Why
Two-wheelers are the most popular way to get to work in India, accounting for nearly 43% of workplace commutes.
-
Unhedged Position: Can India See An Indonesia-Style Time Correction?
The Nifty is trading below levels it first clocked in 2024. Is there, then, as I have suggested in the headline, potential that the current time correction drags on painfully for the next three-five, even ten years?
-
Navigating Friction And Energy Realities: An Analysis Of Marco Rubio's October Visit To India
Occurring at a critical juncture marked by stalled trade negotiations and escalating geopolitical pressures over global energy supplies, the visit offers a profound window into modern US-India relations.
-
India Exports Capital. Why Not Export Trusteeship?
The big question, then, is whether India can build an institution that global borrowers, investors, banks, and lawyers can trust, even without an Indian connection.
-
France's Economy & Politics Are In Crisis | The Reason Why
Let's look at how the French economy and politics evolved under Nicolas Sarkozy, Franois Hollande and Emmanuel Macron.