Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Donald J. Trump v. Cyrus R. Vance and Mazras, USA, LLC
Date: 08-20-2020
Case Number: 19-CV-8694 (VM)
Judge: Virtor Marrero
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Alan Samuel Futerfas
Defendant's Attorney: Allen James Vickey
Description:
New York, NY - Donald J. Trump sued Cyrus R. Vance and Mazras, USA, LLC on a federal question theory seeking to get Vance from getting access to his tax returns via a grand jury subpoena. Mazars, USA, LLP is Trump's accounting firm.
Plaintiff Donald J. Trump ( the " President " ) this
action seeking to enjoin enforcement of a grand jury subpoena
(the " Mazars Subpoena " issued by Cyrus R. Vance , Jr. , in his
official capacity as the District Attorney of the County of
New York ( the " District Attorney ) , to the accounting firm
Mazars USA, LLP ( ) ( See Complaint, " Dkt. 1 ;
" Amended Complaint, " Dkt . No. 27. ) The President initially
based his claim for injunctiverelief on an allegedly absolute
immunity from criminal process while in office , which this
Court rejected by Decision and Order dated October 7 , 2019.
See Trump Vance, 395 F. Supp. 3d 283 ( S.D.N.Y. 2019) . On
appeal , both the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit and the United States Supreme Court agreed the
President was not entitled to an injunction based on his
Case 1: 19-cv-08694-VM Document71 Filed 08/20/20 Page 2 of 103
assertions of a
temporary absolute immunity from criminal
process . See Trump Vance,
941 F.3d 631 ( 2d Cir . 2019 ) ;
Trump Vance, 140 S. Ct 2412 ( 2020 ) .
The now returns to this Court on remand, pursuant
to the Supreme Court's guidance that the President may
challenge the validity of the Mazars Subpoena on specific
grounds apart from the categorical immunity considered
initially and on appeal. ( See Dkt. Nos. 47 , 54. ) In accordance
with the Supreme Court's Opinion, the President has filed a
Second Amended Complaint claiming that the Mazars Subpoena is
overbroad and issued in bad faith. ( See Second Amended)
Complaint ( SAC . No. 57. ) Now before the Court is the
District Attorney's motion to dismiss the SAC for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 ( b ) ( 6 )
( " Rule 12 (b ) ( 6 ) ) . ( See Motion , Dkt . 62.
* * *
New York, NY - Donald J. Trump sued Cyrus R. Vance and Mazras, USA, LLC on a federal question theory seeking to get Vance from getting access to his tax returns via a grand jury subpoena. Mazars, USA, LLP is Trump's accounting firm.
Plaintiff Donald J. Trump ( the " President " ) this
action seeking to enjoin enforcement of a grand jury subpoena
(the " Mazars Subpoena " issued by Cyrus R. Vance , Jr. , in his
official capacity as the District Attorney of the County of
New York ( the " District Attorney ) , to the accounting firm
Mazars USA, LLP ( ) ( See Complaint, " Dkt. 1 ;
" Amended Complaint, " Dkt . No. 27. ) The President initially
based his claim for injunctiverelief on an allegedly absolute
immunity from criminal process while in office , which this
Court rejected by Decision and Order dated October 7 , 2019.
See Trump Vance, 395 F. Supp. 3d 283 ( S.D.N.Y. 2019) . On
appeal , both the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit and the United States Supreme Court agreed the
President was not entitled to an injunction based on his
Case 1: 19-cv-08694-VM Document71 Filed 08/20/20 Page 2 of 103
assertions of a
temporary absolute immunity from criminal
process . See Trump Vance,
941 F.3d 631 ( 2d Cir . 2019 ) ;
Trump Vance, 140 S. Ct 2412 ( 2020 ) .
The now returns to this Court on remand, pursuant
to the Supreme Court's guidance that the President may
challenge the validity of the Mazars Subpoena on specific
grounds apart from the categorical immunity considered
initially and on appeal. ( See Dkt. Nos. 47 , 54. ) In accordance
with the Supreme Court's Opinion, the President has filed a
Second Amended Complaint claiming that the Mazars Subpoena is
overbroad and issued in bad faith. ( See Second Amended)
Complaint ( SAC . No. 57. ) Now before the Court is the
District Attorney's motion to dismiss the SAC for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 ( b ) ( 6 )
( " Rule 12 (b ) ( 6 ) ) . ( See Motion , Dkt . 62.
* * *
Outcome:
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the and dismisses the SAC with prejudice.
Download The Ruling
Download The Ruling
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Donald J. Trump v. Cyrus R. Vance and Mazras, USA, LLC?
The outcome was: For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the and dismisses the SAC with prejudice. Download The Ruling
Which court heard Donald J. Trump v. Cyrus R. Vance and Mazras, USA, LLC?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York County), NY. The presiding judge was Virtor Marrero.
Who were the attorneys in Donald J. Trump v. Cyrus R. Vance and Mazras, USA, LLC?
Plaintiff's attorney: Alan Samuel Futerfas. Defendant's attorney: Allen James Vickey.
When was Donald J. Trump v. Cyrus R. Vance and Mazras, USA, LLC decided?
This case was decided on August 20, 2020.