LOS ANGELES — A jury in Los Angeles County awarded $100,000 to Gary Franklin in a lawsuit against prominent attorney Mark Geragos, who was accused of participating in a scheme to extort Nike in 2018. The case centered around allegations that Geragos and the now-disbarred lawyer Michael Avenatti undermined a $1.5 million settlement that Franklin was entitled to receive for his youth basketball program.
Franklin, who ran a Los Angeles-based organization, claimed Geragos and Avenatti derailed his negotiations with Nike by demanding separate payments without his knowledge. While Geragos has denied any illegal actions or having an attorney-client relationship with Franklin, this verdict came after a swift deliberation by the jury, which took just a few hours to reach a decision.
Following the verdict, Geragos expressed a sense of relief, describing the outcome as close to vindication. His attorney, Sean E. Macias, expressed disappointment over the decision to award noneconomic damages while emphasizing the jury’s sentiment for Franklin. Macias indicated that a discrepancy in the jury’s verdict form contributed to the confusion during the trial.
Franklin’s attorney, Trent B. Copeland, highlighted that the jury’s findings recognized Geragos’ misconduct in assisting Avenatti. Copeland asserted that regardless of the award amount, a guilty verdict carries significant implications for Geragos’ reputation, as it suggests he failed to uphold his professional duties as an attorney.
The trial saw Judge Steve Cochran rebuke Franklin’s counsel for procedural errors, including the inappropriate presentation of evidence relating to a settlement that was previously excluded. Cochran was particularly critical of Copeland’s claim that the court’s time limits for testimony were unreasonable, asserting that they had permitted additional time for Franklin’s side.
The case stems from Franklin’s claims of extortion when he hired Avenatti after Nike opted not to renew a $72,000 sponsorship of his program. Franklin alleged that Avenatti had secretly brought Geragos into discussions, threatening to reveal damaging information about Nike. This alleged collusion culminated in an attempt to pressure Nike into paying tens of millions of dollars.
The jury ultimately decided not to grant Franklin economic damages, with Macias arguing that Franklin had not adequately demonstrated the financial harm he suffered from the alleged actions of Geragos and Avenatti. The case also included a cross-complaint from Geragos asserting that there was never a formal attorney-client relationship with Franklin.
During the proceedings, Macias pointed out that Franklin had previously stated a smaller settlement had covered his damages, raising questions about the validity of his claims. He also highlighted the involvement of Copeland, who was initially an associate of Franklin but declined to take the case.
In conclusion, the jury’s decision, coupled with the dynamics of the courtroom drama, suggests an ongoing struggle for accountability within the legal landscape. While Geragos may feel he was partially vindicated, the implications of the jury’s findings linger heavily, marking another chapter in the complex narrative surrounding both him and Avenatti.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Requests for retractions or corrections can be directed to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.