KARMA? Michael Avenatti Ordered to Pay a Former Associate 4.85 Million And Then He Gets Evicted


Monday was a miserable day for creepy lawyer, Michael Avenatti. First, he loses a lawsuit brought against him by a former associated and he was ordered to pay 4.85 million dollars to him. Then in another court, his landlord won his case and Avenatti was ordered to vacate his offices for non payment of rent for four months.

Look for him to file for bankruptcy just as soon as all of the lawsuits against him are settled. I’m not sure that he can write off any court case where a judgement mandated by the court. Every state’s laws are different.

From The Gateway Pundit

Avenatti was sued by his former law partner Jason Frank for unpaid debt.

Los Angeles Times reporter, Michael Finnegan reported Monday that not only was Avenatti hit with a multi-million dollar personal judgement, but the law firm was evicted from its Newport Beach, California offices for nonpayment of 4 months rent.

FINNEGAN: Breaking: Michael Avenatti hit by CA judge with $4.85 million personal judgment for unpaid debt to ex-colleague Jason Frank. His firm Eagan Avenatti facing possible eviction in trial today in OC.

Law & Crime reported:

Frank claimed that when he worked with Avenatti’s former firm Eagan Avenatti, he had an independent contractor arrangement that said he would receive 25% of the firm’s annual profits and 20% of his client’s fees. Frank said he was also supposed to get copies of the firm’s tax returns and other financial records. His lawsuit, filed in May of this year, alleged that the firm didn’t provide the records, misstated what their profits were, and didn’t pay him the amount due to him. In February 2016 he filed a demand to go to arbitration and resigned from the firm months later.

The two sides eventually reached a settlement agreement, whereby the firm would pay Frank $4.85 million, but Frank sued when he did not receive any payment by the deadline set in the agreement.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, Avenatti told Law&Crime that it was “Frivolous and baseless.”

Apparently, the court did not agree.

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author of the article and not necessarily shared or endorsed by SteadfastAndLoyal.com
Show / Hide comments ()