Bankruptcy Trustee Sues Erika Jayne for $25 Million Over Alleged Receipt of Stolen Client Funds, Fashion Designer Seeks $18 Million in Separate Malicious Prosecution Suit

Erika Girardi — known professionally as Erika Jayne, star of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills — faces two active civil lawsuits seeking a combined $43 million. The principal lawsuit, filed by bankruptcy trustee Elissa D. Miller in April 2022 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, alleges that Girardi’s company EJ Global received $25,592,261.26 in payments from the now-defunct law firm Girardi Keese — money the trustee contends belonged to the firm’s defrauded clients. 

A second lawsuit, filed by fashion designer Christopher Psaila in August 2023, alleges malicious prosecution and a conspiracy involving American Express and Secret Service agents. Both cases remain active. The jury trial in the trustee’s $25 million case is now set for May 19, 2026, with no further continuances permitted.

Quick Case Snapshot

Case 1 — Trustee’s $25 Million Lawsuit

Case 2 — Designer’s $18.2 Million Lawsuit

Background: The Girardi Keese Collapse

To understand both lawsuits, the Girardi Keese bankruptcy is essential context.

Erika Jayne — real name Erika Girardi — is a singer and longtime cast member of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. She came onto RHOBH as the wife of respected attorney Tom Girardi, who was 33 years her senior. In November 2020 she filed for divorce from Tom. That’s when everything unraveled — because Tom’s law firm collapsed at almost exactly the same time, and investigators started asking questions about where the money went.

In June 2025, Tom was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison for wire fraud after embezzling millions from vulnerable clients, including widows and orphans. Erika Jayne has never been charged with any crime in connection with this matter.

As part of the bankruptcy proceedings, a Chapter 7 trustee was appointed to investigate Girardi Keese’s finances and recover assets for the firm’s creditors — the defrauded clients. That trustee, Elissa D. Miller, then turned her attention to Erika Girardi.

Case 1: What the Trustee’s Lawsuit Alleges

The Fraudulent Conveyance Claim

The lawsuit alleges that Girardi’s law firm used client money to pay personal bills, including over $25 million spent on Jayne’s company EJ Global over a 12-year period. The trustee believes Jayne should pay the entire amount back so the money can be used to pay Girardi’s creditors and the victims he defrauded.

The firm allegedly paid EJ Global’s credit card bills, glam costs, and various other expenses. The suit alleged that “Defendants received jewelry and other luxury items purchased using the Debtor’s funds.”

The trustee further stated that “the over $14,000,000 in American Express charges were made by Erika on a card issued to her. The other $11,000,000 or so in vendor payments were made for Defendant Erika’s benefit only.”

The Legal Theory: Knowledge Is Not Required

This is a critical distinction that shapes the entire case. Attorney Ronald Richards explained the legal theory at stake: “The defense of ‘Girardi kept the books and she didn’t know about the ledger or the account was named to her LLC so she gets a pass’ is a loser. She received $25 million for nothing. Funds received like this get clawed back in a bankruptcy case. Her state of mind is irrelevant.”

In plain terms: a fraudulent conveyance claim in bankruptcy court does not require proving that the recipient knew the funds were stolen. The trustee needs only to demonstrate that value was transferred out of the bankruptcy estate for less than reasonably equivalent value — here, the argument is that Girardi Keese paid Erika’s personal expenses but received nothing of equivalent value in return.

The Settlement Breakdown

Settlement talks have broken down completely between Erika Jayne and the trustee. A motion was also filed to gut any remaining defenses she had due to admissions in the Psaila case.

On February 2, 2026, attorney Ronald Richards announced: “Erika Girardi is desperately trying to hold off the trial. She has gotten the Trustee to agree to a continuance to April 14, 2026. She is providing documents relative to her finances. The parties have told the court this is the last continuance. Any settlement may be opposed by any creditor in the bankruptcy court.”

Court documents confirm the jury trial is now set for May 19, 2026. The filing states plainly: “No further continuances will be requested.”

Case 2: What the Designer’s Lawsuit Alleges

The Costume Dispute

According to Psaila’s lawsuit, Jayne gave him full permission to charge her American Express card for designing and creating costumes for her performances, dating back to 2014. Their working relationship continued until December 2016, when Jayne disputed the charges.

Psaila submitted text messages, emails, receipts, sketches, and social media posts to prove Jayne did, in fact, wear his designs. Their working relationship continued until December 2016, when Jayne questioned the charges and accused Psaila of overcharging her.

The charges against Psaila were ultimately dismissed in September 2021 without “any fair or reasonable investigation,” after he produced photos of Jayne wearing the costumes she claimed she never received.

The Secret Service and Bribery Allegations

The $18.2 million lawsuit alleges Jayne, along with her assistants Laia Ribatallada and Michael Minden, as well as American Express employee Peter Grimm, all agreed to conspire against Psaila and prosecute him for alleged wire fraud and identity theft, claiming he defrauded Jayne by charging her American Express card with false charges of $800,000 to $900,000.

Psaila alleged that Tom Girardi paid a $7,500 bribe to a Secret Service agent — his friend Robert Savage, then-head of the Secret Service’s Los Angeles office — to open a criminal investigation into Psaila. The lawsuit also alleged that American Express accepted Jayne’s false statements of unauthorized charges and refunded the Girardis over $787,000 without giving the designer an opportunity to dispute the claims.

Psaila alleged that because Jayne, Girardi, and his firm were going through financial difficulties toward the end of 2016, they schemed with the government and American Express to pursue the designer in order to avoid recouping the costume payments. “Tom Girardi was going bankrupt, and used client settlement funds from his law firm, Girardi Keese, to pay for his and Erika Girardi’s extravagant lifestyle and personal bills. Thus, both Erika Girardi and Tom Girardi had a compelling reason to illegally claim that Chris Psaila and Marco Marco had defrauded them,” the lawsuit stated.

Procedural Status of the Designer Case

Erika Jayne reportedly lost her SLAPP appeal in the Psaila case. Attorney Ronald Richards announced in October 2025: “In the lawsuit against her in California by Marco Marco / Christopher Psaila, it was being stalled because Erika appealed the denial of her SLAPP motion. Now, the 9th Circuit has ruled — those are no longer appealable before trial.” The case is now proceeding toward oral arguments and potential trial.

Defendant’s Response

Response to the Trustee’s Lawsuit

Erika’s lawyer, Evan Borges, stated: “In November 2020, Erika filed for divorce and separated from Tom Girardi, moving into a rental. Erika has been trying to build an independent life for herself since that time. There is no evidence — because it did not happen — that Erika, an entertainer who never worked at [Girardi’s law firm], knew about or participated in any of the misconduct of Tom Girardi or his law firm toward their legal clients.”

Borges added: “It is undisputed that Erika never received even a penny from the transactions at issue. In circumstances where Erika did not receive any of the money at issue and her biggest mistake was putting trust in her then-husband, the Trustee’s lawsuit amounts to senseless bullying and piling on.”

Borges also pointed out that at Girardi’s criminal trial, the government never claimed Jayne did anything wrong, and that “neither the government nor the defense, at any time during the trial, tried to call or called [Jayne] as a witness.”

Response to the Designer’s Lawsuit

Borges denied the Psaila allegations and said the suit seemed “calculated” to coincide with favorable coverage of Jayne’s Las Vegas residency. “Independent federal prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s Office made the decision to charge plaintiff with crimes, no one else,” Borges said. “The notion that Erika controlled the U.S. Government, or for that matter a Fortune 100 company such as American Express, is fantasy.”

Legal Context

Fraudulent Conveyance Law

Under federal bankruptcy law, a trustee may recover transfers of assets made within certain time periods before a bankruptcy filing if those transfers were made for less than reasonably equivalent value while the debtor was insolvent. Crucially, the recipient’s knowledge or intent is generally not required for recovery — making Erika Jayne’s stated defense that she “didn’t know” about the financial misconduct legally insufficient on its own to defeat the trustee’s claims.

Malicious Prosecution

To prevail on a malicious prosecution claim, Psaila must prove that Jayne and the other defendants initiated criminal proceedings against him, that those proceedings were resolved in his favor, that there was no probable cause for the prosecution, and that the prosecution was motivated by malice. A federal judge found Psaila showed enough evidence — including emails, texts, and social media posts — to potentially convince a jury, allowing the malicious prosecution claims against Jayne to survive dismissal.

Bankruptcy’s Complicating Role

Any settlement Erika reaches with the trustee may be opposed by any creditor in the bankruptcy court. This means even if Erika and the trustee agreed on a reduced settlement figure, individual creditors — the defrauded Girardi Keese clients — could formally object to terms they consider inadequate.

Current Status and What Happens Next

Trustee’s $25 Million Case — Timeline

• Final pretrial conference: April 29, 2026
• Jury trial begins: May 19, 2026
• Duration: Expected 7–10 days
• Further continuances: Explicitly prohibited by court order
• Settlement possibility: Remains open but creditor opposition is a complicating factor

Designer’s $18.2 Million Case

• 9th Circuit SLAPP ruling: Issued October 2025 — appeal dismissed, case moves forward
• Oral arguments: Pending scheduling
• Trial: TBD — no date yet set

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Erika Jayne lawsuit about? 

There are two separate active civil lawsuits. The primary case involves the bankruptcy trustee of Girardi Keese alleging that Erika Jayne’s company received over $25 million in law firm funds that should have gone to defrauded clients. A second lawsuit from fashion designer Christopher Psaila alleges she conspired with American Express and Secret Service agents to falsely prosecute him for credit card fraud.

Is Erika Jayne facing criminal charges? 

No. Erika Jayne has never been charged with any crime. This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case. Jail is not on the table. The worst outcome for Erika would be a court order to repay the $25 million.

Does Erika Jayne have to prove she didn’t know about the stolen money? 

Her legal team has argued she had no knowledge of her husband’s wrongdoing. However, the fraudulent conveyance claim does not legally require proof of knowledge. Attorney Richards explained: “You just have to prove that she didn’t give anything for the money. Her state of mind is irrelevant.”

When is the trial? 

The jury trial in the trustee’s $25 million case is now set for May 19, 2026. Court documents confirm that no further continuances will be requested. The Psaila designer case does not yet have a trial date.

What happened to Tom Girardi? 

Tom Girardi was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison in June 2025 for wire fraud, after embezzling millions from vulnerable clients including widows and orphans. He is currently serving that sentence and is not named as a defendant in either active lawsuit against Erika Jayne.

Could Erika Jayne settle before trial? 

Settlement remains legally possible but has proven difficult. Any settlement may be opposed by creditors in the bankruptcy court, and a source told The US Sun that Erika was “never going to settle” and would stand trial to clear her name.

Last Updated: March 4, 2026. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Allegations in a complaint are not findings of fact. All parties are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise in court.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah