Judge vacates $100K ruling against Mark Geragos in Nike conspiracy case

A $100,000 jury verdict against Mark Geragos has been vacated in a case alleging he conspired with convicted ex-lawyer Michael Avenatti to extort Nike, ultimately damaging the plaintiff's sponsorship deal.

A stipulated judgment entered Tuesday states that plaintiff Gary Franklin will recover nothing from Geragos, with each side responsible for its own legal fees and costs.

Geragos' attorney, Sean E. Macias of Macias Counsel Inc. in Glendale, celebrated the win in an emailed statement on Tuesday.

"Macias Counsel Inc. makes the impossible simply possible. One case at a time," Macias wrote.

"Geragos graciously agreed to all expense Maui trip for me and my guests-first class!"

Franklin is represented by Trent B. Copeland and Elizabeth J. Carpenter of Ellis George LLP in Los Angeles. They did not respond to phoned or emailed requests for comment by press time on Tuesday.

Franklin, who ran a Los Angeles-based youth basketball program, called California Supreme, claimed Geragos and Avenatti derailed a $1.5 million settlement offer by demanding their own payout from Nike.

Geragos denied wrongdoing, noting he never had an attorney-client relationship with Franklin and was never charged, though federal prosecutors identified him as an unindicted co-conspirator with Avenatti. Franklin v. Geragos, 20STCV37797 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 10, 2020).

The federal judge in Avenatti's case cited the fact that Geragos was not indicted as a factor in granting Avenatti a more lenient sentence.

The Los Angeles jury awarded Franklin $100,000 in noneconomic damages but declined to award him any economic damages -- a point Geragos' attorneys seized on in challenging the verdict.

The defense filed a pocket brief earlier this month asking for a new judgment, arguing that because the jury found no liability, the damages award should be thrown out.

In a Sept. 3 status conference, Judge Steve Cochran encouraged the parties to come to a settlement.

"Under certain circumstances, the court is required to report things. A judgment like this would be one of them," he told the parties.

Cochran did not elaborate further on what he meant during the hearing.

The case centered on Geragos' alleged involvement in a 2018 extortion scheme with Michael Avenatti, who was later sentenced to 2.5 years in prison for a threat to Nike executives in a New York meeting that the company's reputation would be ruined if Avenatti was not given a substantial retainer.

Franklin hired Avenatti after Nike declined to renew a $72,000 annual sponsorship for the plaintiff's youth basketball program.

Franklin claims that Avenatti secretly brought Geragos into the matter, saying Geragos had a "fantastic" relationship with Nike's legal team. According to the complaint, within a week, the two attorneys were in Geragos' New York office, allegedly threatening to expose damaging information about Nike unless the company paid tens of millions of dollars.    

The lawsuit further claimed Geragos and Avenatti derailed a $1.5 million settlement offer from Nike without Franklin's knowledge or consent.

In a cross-complaint, Geragos asserted that he never had an attorney-client relationship with Franklin, emphasizing that the two never met or communicated.  

Geragos also maintained that Nike's decision not to renew Franklin's contract had nothing to do with him or Avenatti in a joint statement of the case filed ahead of trial.