#RHOA Phaedra Parks Survives Angela Stanton’s Motion For Summary Judgment – Now What?

Posted on Apr 23 2015 - 6:15am by Stacy Slotnick, Esq.

phaedra-parks-angela-stanton-sit-another-deposition-defamation-case-apollo-nida-rhoa-pp-sl1

On April 20, 2015 Angela Stanton’s attorney, James Radford tweeted: “Receiving questions re hearing in Parks v. Stanton today. Judge heard argument, denied motion for summary judgment, sets case up for trial.” Should court watchers anticipate vibrant and spectacular fireworks in the courtroom? Not so fast.

All About The Tea_James Radford Angela Stanton Phaedra Parks tweet

The Gwinnett County State Court heard arguments on April 20, 2015 and reviewed Defendant Angela Stanton’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Phaedra Parks’ defamation lawsuit. (Click here to read my in-depth analysis of Angela’s motion in my blog posted March 16, 2015). Now that the Court rejected Angela’s motion, the value of Phaedra’s defamation case has increased considerably.

READ: Does Angela Stanton’s Summary Judgment Motion Sink RHOA’s Phaedra Parks’ Defamation Lawsuit? 

Summary judgment in litigation tips the scales first in favor of the defendant and then, if denied, in favor of the plaintiff. The mere filing of a summary judgment motion allows defendant to delay recovery and increase plaintiffs’ legal expenses. The denial of summary judgment, on the other hand, typically serves as the catalyst for a defendant to decide it is better to settle rather than risk an adverse ruling at trial. 

In 2008, The New York Times described a Journal of Empirical Legal Studies report that found most of the plaintiffs who decided to pass up a settlement offer and went to trial ended up getting less money than if they had taken the offer.  Lady Justice has spoken.

READ: Judge Denies Phaedra Parks’ Motion To Dismiss & Motion For Summary Judgment In Angela Stanton Case

A quick refresher on Phaedra’s lawsuit against her ex-best friend Angela Stanton: Phaedra sued Angela for defamation, after Stanton wrote and published a book, “Lies of a Real Housewife: Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil,” in which she portrayed Phaedra as being engaged in criminal activity. Many “Real Housewives of Atlanta” fans are eager to see if Plaintiff Parks will testify at trial and what kind of sheath dress she will wear. I am sorry to dash your champagne wishes and caviar dreams but the likelihood of a trial is pretty infinitesimal.

In another tweet from April 20, Terry (@Terrolsf) tweeted @JamesRadfordJr “Will Parks be compelled to testify or can she just decide to abandon the case and settle out of court?” Mr. Radford responded, “the parties can always settle, but it looks like we are going to trial.” 

All About The Tea_James Radford Angela Stanton Phaedra Parks tweet

I am all for strategic moves based on legal predictions because it provides us lawyers with a plan of attack for our clients, but there is no substitute for evaluating the future based on statistics. Nearly 90% of all civil cases settle. Settlement dominates the outcomes of civil litigation in the United States. Trials represent a diminishing fraction of case dispositions. Therefore, lawyers must be prepared to engage in settlement talks. The chances of Phaedra C. Parks v. Angela Stanton, 12-C-06313-S3 settling is good. Summary judgment denials make settlement objects in the mirror closer than they appear.

What happens after a motion for summary judgment is denied? The summary judgment tool seeks to eliminate groundless and burdensome litigation. By extension, the court ruling in favor of Phaedra says to Angela that Phaedra’s case is winnable, or at least not unfounded.  When a judge denies summary judgment because there are factual issues for a jury to resolve, the case progresses until settlement or trial. In the majority of cases, a denial of summary judgment produces a new opportunity for the parties to settle.

Many things can happen between the denial of summary judgment and a trial, such as gathering more evidence through additional depositions, mediation, and settlement conferences.

I know what you are thinking: There is no way two women who have such obvious resentment towards one another could sit down and negotiate nicely. But hotly contested and highly impassioned disputes are resolved frequently. Moreover it is likely that the lawyers – rather than the parties – will be at the majority of settlement conferences. That should remove some passion and allow the lawyers to focus on justifying their respective settlement demands. 

There can be informal or formal face-to-face negotiation between attorneys only, face-to-face negotiation with attorneys and parties, and judicial settlement conferences. Negotiated settlements can be reached with or without judicial assistance.  Based on my experience litigating cases since 2009, I would venture to speculate that most lawyers welcome having judicial involvement.

The parties here have a sincere interest in seeking a negotiated resolution now that there has been a ruling on a dispositive motion. The judiciary may actively urge litigants to settle their claims as they are called for trial on the calendar.  Some judges consider it their duty to encourage rather than to discourage parties to compromise as a way to resolve conflict. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 16) even provide that the court can direct/order parties and attorneys engaged in civil litigation to appear before a conference facilitating the settlement of the case.

Settlement conferences are a wonderfully helpful tool to move along the discussion because a neutral judge with personal knowledge of the case can give the lawyers clues and cues as to how a jury might view the evidence.  I have seen time and again lawyers have an epiphany while listening to a judge talk about the merits of the case. It is not unusual for a lawyer to walk into one of these conferences and say, “My client is not settling. I have no authority to resolve this case.”  Then, after the obstinate attorney hears the judge’s impartial reflection of the merits he/she magically obtains authority to settle.

Now there is the possibility that the parties in Parks v. Stanton do not have enough information from which to make informed settlement decisions or engage in hardy settlement discussions. It has been Angela’s position from the get-go that Phaedra stonewalled the discovery process and failed to answer questions.  But judicial civil case settlement conferences can be conducted to maximize their usefulness without seriously threatening the impartial role of the judiciary as lawyers are asked to go back to the drawing board and try and work out a deal.

The rules in each jurisdiction differ but generally there are instances prior to trial in which settlement of the action shall be discussed at a conference and times where disposition of the action must be on the agenda. Since there is no limit to the number of conferences that the judge may elect to order, the judge can effectively order a settlement conference at virtually any time from filing of the request for judicial intervention until the trial itself.  (Cases even settle after jury selection.)

I want to leave you with one final thought from media personality Wendy Williams, who offered up the following words of wisdom on The Wendy Williams Show this week: “Apollo actually gives you [Phaedra] a storyline.” Does the mother of Mr. President and Mr. Vice President want to take this case to trial? Grab your gavel, join the conversation, and let us know what you think will happen in Parks v. Stanton.

 

“Like” us on Facebook  “Follow” us on Twitter and on Instagram 

About the Author

Stacy Slotnick, a.k.a. The Foxy Jurist, holds a J.D., cum laude, from Touro Law Center and a B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Massachusetts Amherst Commonwealth Honors College. Stacy is the recipient of the Honors Deans Award; Simon and Satenig Ermonian Memorial Scholarship; College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Opportunity Scholarship; and College of Humanities and Fine Arts Scholarship. She is also a William F. Field Alumni Scholar, an honor bestowed upon the most academically distinguished students. In law school, Stacy won two CALI Excellence For The Future Awards® and received an Achievement Scholarship. She is a member of the New York Bar. As an entertainment lawyer, Stacy counsels clients on contracts, branding, and public relations strategy. She negotiates with agents, producers, production companies, and lawyers to secure rights to projects on behalf of high-profile clients. Her clever, spirited, no holds barred legal analysis can be found in articles for The Huffington Post. * Facebook   * LinkedIn   * Twitter

  • MidwestMiddie

    Thanks for the excellent read………until the end where you quoted Wendy Williams.
    If I remember correctly, Wendy’s opinion about this case is exactly like Angela Stanton’s.
    : )

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Ha! You are welcome. Do you not think Wendy Williams makes a valid case for what is Phaedra’s main role on the show? Does this case — the publicity of it — give Phaedra additional storyline and relevancy? The publicity machine works in mysterious ways.

      • MidwestMiddie

        The publicity of this case may give Phaedra’s presence on Bravo’s
        show more relevancy but to the best of my knowledge this case has
        never been mentioned on the show. ( I didn’t watch much of this past season so I may be wrong.)
        Honestly if Bravo viewers watch the show but don’t read reality sites like
        AATT or watch the Wendy Williams show would they even know the name, Angela Stanton?
        IMO, Phaedra’s primary story line is being a mother to her cute sons , divorcing Apollo and embarking on her career in the Funeral business.
        My guess – the publicity machine is serving Phaedra well.
        When this case is over Phaedra will still be on the RHOA and very little will
        be discussed or written about Angela, who???

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Thank you for your thoughts, MidwestMiddie. I think viewers are taken aback that this case wasn’t addressed on the show because it is a pretty big offensive attack. What is at stake is whether Angela correctly identified Phaedra as being involved in a criminal ring. You have definitely given examples of the role Phaedra fills on the show. I just think that people want to see this case go to trial so that Phaedra will have to answer questions relating to her defamation suit that necessarily include whether she engaged in illegal activities with Apollo and Angela.

          • MidwestMiddie

            IMO, Bravo isn’t the right place for such important matters.
            I disagree with the way Bravo paraded and supported the Guidice Felons for many years. It’s all about the $$$$$$.
            Why are the Richard Sisters on Bravo? Their long history of family troubles and personal medical issues equal profits for Bravo.
            In fact the only clear Reality in Bravo’s shows is their profit margin.
            : )

          • Anne Green

            Very well stated MedwestMiddie!! Your response is exactly why I know longer watch Bravo. The drama, violence, disrespect and the hatred which is the basis of these shows was just not something I was interested in viewing any longer. I do, however, follow Bravo criminals….they are plentiful!!!!

          • MidwestMiddie

            Spot On!!
            : )

        • Bad Barbie

          Just goes to show the manipulation of “reality” with these shows. This IS happening. In real time and real life. Should def be part of the show. I believe Kenya brought it up at one of the reunions and it was said that she even had Angela in her dressing room.

          • honeybunny

            Kenya and Nene have mentioned Angela Stanton. I think RHOA put a gag order on them to protect their resident theiving attorney cast member

        • honeybunny

          I dont’ plan on watching RHOA next season, and if they don’t bring the AS case on the show, I definitely won’t watch.

      • honeybunny

        it gives her a storyline but it is ruining her reputation in other areas such as the legal and mortuary fields. I would let her tough my legal case or my dead body with a 100 ft pole!!

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Love your imagery, and I agree with your points. Having a husband who is an admitted felon and being unable to shake off the accusations from Angela isn’t what a lawyer wants to face. That will certainly factor into whether she decides to settle.

  • Tami

    Stacy was the denial for summary judgment on Angela’s counterclaims or Phaedra’s initial suit? I think this case will ultimately settle. Phaedra would be a fool to try and take this to trial. I am disappointed that the judge denied Angela’s motion. I wonder what tipped the scale in Phaedra’s favor given that Angela had won all of the prior motions?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Your opinion that this case will ultimately settle is well-founded. The court denied Angela’s summary judgment motion on April 20. Summary judgment motions are not easily granted. Angela had an uphill battle in winning hers. Summary judgment should be granted only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. A material fact is a fact that could affect the outcome of the case. An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence would justify a verdict for the party opposing the summary judgment motion. All inferences drawn from the evidence presented must be resolved in favor of Phaedra who opposes the summary judgment motion. The burden for Angela was indeed very high.

  • Anne Green

    Excellent update Stacy!!! I imagine that Angela could not be “forced” to settle, only “encouraged to settle. I could be wrong. I’m curious if Angela becomes adamant about going to trial, obviously Phaedra must testify. What would happen if under oath, Phaedra encounters irrefutable evidence that she did in fact participate in criminal activities? Could this become criminal for Phaedra? I imagine also, that much of Phaedra defense is not “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. If Angela is stating the truth and has the necessary evidence to back up those claims, wouldn’t it be to her benefit to push for trial?

    • MidwestMiddie

      I’m not sure where the “truth” is in this case.

      IMO, Angela’s goal has always been about the money. If Phaedra was not
      on Bravo’s show, I doubt Angela would have pursued this matter and taken
      it to court.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Thanks Anne Green! I know it sounds counterintuitive, but it IS Angela who would want to settle at this juncture now that the judge has ruled Phaedra presented enough evidence to go to trial. Remember, Phaedra is the plaintiff who initiated litigation. It is Phaedra who wants to go to trial and theoretically Angela who wants to settle. Yes, Phaedra will have to testify to prove her case unless she has documentation to support her defamation claims but someone with personal knowledge of the facts has to lay the groundwork for why that evidence is relevant and legit. Lying under oath is indeed perjury — even in civil cases because it derails the basic function of litigation and truth-finding necessary for our court system to function. It can result in having to spend time in jail, probation, or paying fines to the court.

      • Anne Green

        Thanks for responding Stacy. I understand completely what you were saying in terms of benefits to each of the parties. What evidence might have Phaedra presented in dispute of Angela’s claim’s in the Motion? I can’t imagine that Phaedra would want to go to trial just based off her deposition alone. I think there are a lot a skeletons Phaedra wouldn’t want unearthed. I guess that I’m having a hard time understanding why Angela would settle if she truly was telling the truth in the interview and book and had the evidence to back it up. Maybe she really doesn’t have the evidence and that’s where I’m stumped. Anyway, thanks again, Stacy for the incite.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Absolutely, Anne Green. Anytime! In Georgia, the elements of a defamation claim are:

          1. a false statement about the plaintiff;
          2. communication of the statement to a third party in the absence of a special privilege to do so;
          3. fault of the defendant amounting at least to negligence; and
          4. harm to the plaintiff, unless the statement amounts to per se defamation.

          Therefore, the evidence that Phaedra might have presented to overcome Angela’s claims in her motion for summary judgment would go to the fact Phaedra may have presented issues that are triable like the statements Angela made were false. I also think Angela’s motion for summary judgment put added emphasis on Phaedra’s noncompliance and lack of complete disclosure when answering questions at a deposition. Those are relevant — for sure — but they don’t really go to whether Phaedra has made out a triable issue of fact with regard to the false statements Angela allegedly made. Instead, those remarks just paint Phaedra in a bad light.

          • Anne Green

            Thank you, Stacy. In other words, if Phaedra can show that just one (or more) of Angela’s statements or written words are more likely than not..false, she prevails? This is why it would behoove Angela to settle?

          • Stacy Slotnick

            If Phaedra can prove Angela made a false, unprivileged statement about her, which attacks her professional character or standing (as this one does because Angela has said Phaedra was involved in criminal activities), she may prevail. The judge denying Angela summary judgment says that there are issues of fact and Angela’s documents do not prove necessarily that what she wrote was true.

            Phaedra is in a better position now that Angela’s motion for summary judgment has been denied. It means there are triable issues such as the falsity of Angela’s statements. Think about it this way: Before the motion was denied, Phaedra would have been concerned that if the judge granted defendant’s motion, her case is essentially thrown out. Now, Phaedra has a case. Does this make sense?

          • Anne Green

            Yes, it does make perfect sense, Stacy. Thanks again for taking the time to reply in such a detailed manner that my “aging” brain can comprehend. lol

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Fantastic. Glad I could help and based on your thoughtful questions and comments, you do not have an “aging” brain.

      • Bad Barbie

        and ultimately be disbarred.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          It depends on the state. In some states, it is impossible to get disbarred by committing perjury and it will only happen if “a lawyer really works at it” meaning he/she made multiple false statements under oath and the sworn testimony was material. However, generally speaking, a lawyer can be disbarred after pleading guilty to perjury.

  • MidwestMiddie

    Stacy, if this does go to trial will it be done by Judge or Jury?
    Thanks.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      It appears that Phaedra has demanded a trial by jury along with $5 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages.

      • honeybunny

        that’s because Phaedra is relying on fans to just side with her regardless of the facts

        • charma

          Uh huh. She thinks the jury will be as ah, dense, lol, as the fans.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Juries can be fickle with defamation suits and may side with defendants more so than in other tort suits because many jurors look inward and think, there are multiple times when people said something about me and I didn’t go sue him/her. What is different about defamation as a tort versus negligence or battery is that defamation doesn’t have a physical image associated with it, so jurors don’t always “buy” the “injury” to one’s reputation as a viable claim.

  • MidwestMiddie

    Bye all …… I’m in the middle of a big move.
    Catch up with you in a few weeks.
    Be Good!!!
    lol

    • Bye hon. Good luck with the move and chat with you soon.

    • DSS

      Good luck with the move!

  • WaWaWaWHAT!

    Well well well…sounds like Angela ‘may’ settle unless she held some groundbreaking evidence that she planned on slapping on the table…but actually that only happens on TV 😉

    They may settle…cause as I always felt, Angela only wrote this book cause Phaedra is now on tv…jmo

    Excellent post Stacy!!!

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Thank you!

      I agree that a settlement is imminent. There is just too much at stake for both sides should the case go to trial.

      • cait

        Angela has said, time and time again, that she has plenty of evidence to back up the “facts” in her book ! If this is true, I look forward to the trial !

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Good point. The only thing I think posters should pay attention to is that the judge would have reviewed this evidence that backs up the facts in Angela’s book as part of her motion for summary judgment. If there was no question Angela told the truth, then summary judgment would have been granted. It’s something to consider.

          • cait

            Then why did Phaedra try to withdraw her suit (refused) if she stands to get such a favourable outcome at mediation !

          • Stacy Slotnick

            There are countless reasons why a party may seek to withdraw one’s case, and they have nothing to do with the merits. Resources, legal fees, availability of evidence and witnesses, all play into decisions whether or not to pursue litigation. If you think about it, there are usually three sides to every story — yours, mine, and the truth. At mediation or settlement conferences, there is a give and take even if one party is clearly in the right because juries do strange things and one can never predict how a jury will find. It’s nearly impossible. So settlements are a way for judges to say to parties, “If you are willing to gamble, fine, but if you want to mediate or negotiate, you have the power to be a part of the final outcome.”

  • DSS

    I am not changing the subject at all just making a statement to the “abilities” of Ms Parks in the legal system. It is good (for her) she got decent representation because after loosing a round in court to a FOOTBALL player, she clearly is out of her element in a courtroom.
    I have no stake in this case and am sure Ms Stanton doesnt have 30 mill laying around in case she loses, but I want it to go to trial JUST IN CASE someone can get Ms Parks on the stand and see how she handles herself. Would the southern belle call Ms Stanton a THOT in court? Possible 🙂

    Hope your day is AWESOME everyone!!!!

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Thanks for your comments, DSS.

      The plaintiff must put on evidence in her case to prove defamation, and that may include Phaedra herself taking the stand. Plaintiff must prove the falsity of the statements by testifying that they were false and/or submitting records proving falsity. Someone has to authenticate documents and lay a foundation for their introduction. It seems to me like if Phaedra is telling the truth, it would be in her interest to testify to the falsity of Angela’s statements. It wouldn’t hurt, however, to have proof that she was not involved in a crime ring with Apollo and Angela.

      Do you think cooler heads will prevail and Phaedra and Angela will settle this dispute?

      • stacy

        Angela is not settling. In fact this is perfect for her. All her attorney needs to do is catch Phaedra in the lies that she told during her depositions. We have seen depo’s from some of Angela witnesses. We know pictures were submitted, because Phaedra was caught in a lie. Now what evidence have we seen from Phaedra other than her denial? Will that be enough for her to win this case? The reason for the summary judgment is because Phaedra didn’t submit any evidence during discovery and still hasn’t. Since she brought the case the burden of proof lies on her

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Absolutely. Phaedra must prove the falsity of Angela’s statements. The burden of proof can be the pivotal factor in the outcome of a defamation case in which the evidence of truth or falsity of a statement is ambiguous. If it is unclear whether the statements are true, Angela wins. P.S. I have a fondness for your name as you could probably tell.

          • undergroundrailroadtrain

            Off topic but is this the same thing Joanna Krupa has to go through with Brandi Granville?

          • Stacy Slotnick

            The tort (a civil wrong) of defamation is what both Joanna and Phaedra are suing Brandi and Angela, respectively, over. So in the sense that Joanna and Phaedra alleged that false and defamatory statements were made against them by others, yes, the two suits are similar.

      • DSS

        I forgot in my rushing to thank you for the great legal read for the layman.
        Sadly, Yes I think they will settle…..

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Aww, thanks DSS. I so appreciate the compliment and I’m glad the story interests you. I think there is a strong case to be made — as you can tell from my article — that this lawsuit will result in a settlement.

  • stacy

    Yet just a few weeks back the Judge denied Phaedra ‘ s motion to dismiss Angela case. So Angela must have some kind of evidence right Stacy?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Exactly. Good catch. The court — in denying both Phaedra’s motion to dismiss and Angela’s motion for summary judgment — is saying there are issues about who should be believed that are appropriately settled by a jury and not a judge. Essentially, issues of fact exist that a jury should decide.

  • undergroundrailroadtrain

    I know this is off topic but Phaedra’s makeup in the top headlining picture is near flawlesd

  • RedWhiteandBluegrass

    Y’all I can’t see Phaedra finna want her secrets to come out during a jury trial, but I also can’t see her finna appear guilty by settling with Angela. Well, my guess would have to be that she will go to a jury trial and do her squeaky whisper crying with no tears, and I’m a mother of two black sons BS act and hope that the jurors believe it. Sociopaths like her can be incredibly convincing when their black behinds are on the line of fire.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      I think so many posters like yourself want to see the evidence that is put forth at trial. A settlement would likely impair our ability to learn about the evidence from either side, although Angela’s attorney has been more forthcoming with posting legal documents in the case.

      • RedWhiteandBluegrass

        Very interesting as always Stacy. Yes, we would all like to see Angela’s evidence that’s for sure. So the judge has seen all of Angela’s evidence and dismissed the motion for summary judgement, so that means there’s a grey area in Angela’s story that can’t be 100% verified? I would think that when you are engaged in a criminal enterprise it would be customary to destroy whatever evidence you can to cover your tracks, so I would imagine that would make it even harder for Angela to state her case a decade or however long it is since the illegal acts occurred.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          I think you are correct that there are many ambiguities in this case. Many lawsuits are convoluted and do not fit into the nice package of win/lose. (The evidence usually falls somewhere down the middle between favorable to the plaintiff and favorable to the defendant.) When the defendant knows that it is going to have to pay something after trial, and the only issue is how much, the case usually settles.

  • RonnieIsBack

    I just believe the courts wants to see all parties perform their due dilligence and see how this plays out. Of course they had to follow the letter of the law and Shady Phae’s case wasn’t as groundless because she fronts like she is this clean lady. So on its face, the book is slanderous. Both parties will have the burden of proof (but more so on Shady Phae, not so much Angela Stanton. I’m sure her book wasn’t just all notes from her diary. She has the receipts. As long as she has solid evidence backing her claims in her books, she should be safe…Shady Phae will have to dig deep to prove she never really knew Angela, never conspired to commit crimes or set them up to commit them for her and that her hands were just clean.
    She’ll have a better chance to prove that she didn’t know she was pregnant before marriage, than to prove she is as pure as the driven snow. Good luck with that Shady.
    I just hope Angela’s legal team have their chit together…if they drop the ball in their defense, Angela is screwed.
    Start billing those hours peeps.

  • honeybunny

    Correct me if I’m wrong Stacy but isn’t Phaedra going to have to prove that AS book cost her financial losses and defamed her?…. How is she going to do that without proving that Apollo’s past and present crimes didnt have anything to do with it? Who’s to say that admitting on national television that she’s married to a repeat offender convicted of various money stealling schemes, didnt cost her clients to withdraw from doing business with her. In my opinion, that alone means she has lot her case. One has to seriously question why a lawyer would marry a repeat offender (he had multiple convictions when she married him).

    • cait

      Yeaahh ! But he had only some little stuff when she MET HIM ! Someone must have info on how she got a kid age 15/17 yrs and turned him into a super, mega white collar crim ! Maybe Angela is the one to unlock this story !

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Good question. A jury would have to piece apart which damages are attributable to Apollo’s actions and which were related to what Angela wrote in her book. Separating the two will not be easy, but Phaedra’s lawyers will probably establish which damages were attributable to Angela by using a timeline as a point of reference (when Angela made the statements v. when Apollo was sentenced to prison). Remember, a plaintiff in a defamation case is entitled to receive damages for any lost earnings, future lost earning capacity, and other lost business or economic opportunities that he/she suffered or is likely to suffer as a result of the defamatory statement. Angela made explicit allegations that Phaedra will attempt to show were not one and the same as any damage attributable to her marriage to Apollo. It will be tricky. There is no question Angela’s lawyers will say that any damages resulted from being married to a convicted felon.

  • honeybunny

    And I hope this goes to trial because if they settle, Phaedra will want a gag order and the records seal. That means we will never find out what was said or what the evidence was. We wouldnt even know how much the settlement was. To date, no one really has revealed how much the settlement with Vibe magazien was for, although I hear it was very little.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      You are correct, honeybunny. If this case settles, we will unlikely learn of the settlement terms and/or evidence. That is the beauty of settlements from the plaintiff and defendant’s perspectives — parties craft their own agreement and the public isn’t privy to what is inside. Phaedra could also demand that Angela never speak publicly about the matter. A settlement would mean the public would never know the truth.

  • honeybunny

    last comment then I’m gone 🙂 In the denial of AS summary judgement request, think the judge may have saw this as a her-word-against-hers and neither had enough material evidence to warrant a summary judgement….I don’t think this damages AS chances of prevailing. if anything Phaedra should be the one shaking in her boots because Radford is going to put some stinger questions on her that’s really going to show how evasive she was during teh deposition

  • misstc

    I really hope they don’t settle/or a gag order issued. I want to hear the whole story!

    • Stacy Slotnick

      You and everyone! People want to learn what the evidence is that supports Phaedra’s defamation claim against Angela about the latter allegedly making false statements about the former’s involvement in a crime ring.

  • TartLemon

    Thanks for the article, Stacy. I’ll be watching.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Thanks TartLemon. Posters definitely want to watch a trial unfold and see what evidence is presented and/or learn what Phaedra has to say when and if she testifies. Do you think there will be a trial even though the vast majority of civil cases settle?

  • Good work, Stacy! Thanks for the update.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Thanks Seusseroo! Glad you enjoyed the legal commentary. Will Phaedra and Angela settle based on the stats regarding civil actions or will James Radford’s predictions about this case “going to trial” be correct?

  • Elizabeth Fisher

    I’ve heard of this Angela Stanton, but haven’t really followed her. Does she have the financial resources to pay Phaedra a settlement or a potential jury award?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Not from what I can tell. How many Americans have $5 million lying around? That is a hefty asking price for defamation damages. The posters here on AATT can probably best respond to Angela’s financial predicament. Undoubtedly, that large number was proposed to allow the parties wiggle room to negotiate. But still, we aren’t talking about a deep-pocket defendant. Plaintiffs must be realistic when pleading damages, which is why some jurisdictions don’t even permit (or they discard) damage figures provided for in the Complaint. Thanks for the great question, Elizabeth!

      • Elizabeth Fisher

        We’ve had that for years in Louisiana. You can plead in your Complaint that your damages are whatever the minimum figure is to file in that particular court (so as to not wind up in small claims court), but you can’t allege your damages are worth $437,283.95. However, you can state your damages are worth at least $50,000 or whatever the minimum is to file in that particular Court.

  • Pingback: The Real Housewives of Atlanta - Page 466()