Judge in Erika Jayne Lawyer Case Calls Out 'Sensatio...

By Jenni Fink

Senior Editor, Politics

ShareNewsweek is a Trust Project member

A federal judge in Florida dismissed a lawsuit brought by fashion designers Marco Morante and Chris Psaila against prominent attorney James L. Wilkes II, criticizing the complaint for relying on “sensational” allegations centered on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Erika Jayne and her ex-husband, Tom Girardi.

Newsweek reached out to Psaila and Morante’s attorney via email for comment.

Why It Matters

Psaila and Morante allege they were falsely implicated in a fraud scheme tied to Girardi’s misuse of client funds. Girardi, who rose to fame defending Erin Brockovich, was sentenced to over seven years in prison in 2024 after being found guilty of multiple counts of wire fraud. Prosecutors said he stole settlement money from clients to help pay for his lavish lifestyle with Jayne.

But the judge found their complaint, spanning more than 30 pages, deficient in substance and overloaded with irrelevant claims about the Girardis’ personal lives and Wilkes' alleged involvement in their bankruptcy defenses.

What To Know

The order, issued November 28 by U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell, dismissed the complaint without prejudice and sharply rebuked the plaintiffs for filing what the court described as a “shotgun pleading” that failed to adequately allege jurisdiction and obscured their legal claims beneath tabloid-style narratives.

“The majority of the allegations in the preceding 29 pages recount, in sensational fashion, the rich and famous opulent lifestyle of Real Housewife of Beverly Hills’ cast member Erikah Jayne Girardi and her decades-older ex-husband, disbarred California attorney Tom Girardi ...” Honeywell wrote.

...

The plaintiffs—Morante, Psaila, and their company, Marcosquared, LLC—filed suit against Wilkes in November, accusing him of abuse of process and conspiracy to commit abuse of process. They alleged that Wilkes, as a friend and legal adviser to Jayne, orchestrated legal strategies to delay bankruptcy proceedings and discredit anyone challenging her role in Girardi’s financial misconduct.

The plaintiffs also accused Wilkes of funding Jayne’s legal battles with improperly obtained Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans during the COVID-19 pandemic. They wrote in the complaint that Wilkes “substantially” overstated the number of employees he had and falsely claimed that his employees lost their salaries during the pandemic.

In their complaint, Morante and Psaila alleged that Girardi directed Jayne to call American Express and accuse them of nearly $800,000 in credit card fraud. Charges against Psaila were dropped after he produced photos of Jayne wearing the costumes she said she never received.

Honeywell found the complaint legally insufficient on two grounds. First, it failed to properly establish the court's jurisdiction by failing to disclose the citizenship of all LLC members, a necessary step under federal diversity jurisdiction rules. Second, she deemed the complaint a “shotgun pleading,” a term in federal law for cases that are overly vague, convoluted, or filled with irrelevant allegations that prevent the defendant from reasonably responding.

The court order described the complaint as “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action,” and said it prioritized “tabloid headlines” over a clear legal claim.

The judge gave the plaintiffs 21 days to file an amended complaint that cures both the jurisdictional issues and the shotgun pleading deficiencies.

What People Are Saying

The plaintiffs wrote in their complaint: “Wilkes urged TG and EJ to separate and to devise a story that would protect EJ from financial ruin or even criminal prosecution in the event that TG could not extract himself from the many lawsuits filed against TG.”

Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell said in her ruling: “Very few actual facts are pleaded regarding the Defendant’s conduct as it relates to the claims of abuse of process and any harm allegedly suffered by these Plaintiffs as a result.”

What Happens Next

While the judge’s ruling does not end the case outright, it puts the burden on the plaintiffs to revise their complaint and meet federal pleading standards. Should they fail to do so within the court’s deadline, the case will be dismissed entirely.

If the plaintiffs refile, the court will review whether their updated claims provide a legally sufficient basis to move forward, potentially reopening the door to litigation over Wilkes' alleged conduct during the Girardi bankruptcy fallout.

Request Reprint & LicensingSubmit CorrectionView Editorial & AI Guidelines