26 F. Supp. 3d 1002
S.D. Cal.2014Background
- Makaeff attended Trump University programs Aug 2008–Jun 2009, spending about $60,000.
- Her experiences allegedly included shorter programs, lack of mentorship, and unhelpful advisors.
- She alleges staff pressured higher credit to buy Trump Gold Elite ($34,995) toward real estate goals.
- In Sept. 2009 she complained to Bank of America accusing Trump University of grand larceny, identity theft, and trickery.
- She filed a class action; Trump University counterclaimed for defamation; court granted Makaeff’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike.
- Ninth Circuit remanded to determine actual malice; court now analyzes malice and grants motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Makaeff’s statements meet actual malice standard | Makaeff acted without malice; statements reflect her personal experiences | Makaeff fabricated crimes or knew falsity or acted with reckless disregard | No actual malice; anti-SLAPP motion granted |
| Whether statements to Bank of America were knowingly false | Statements tied to personal experiences; not fabricated | Statements fabricated or knowingly false based on admission | Not proven by clear and convincing evidence of fabrication |
| Whether failure to investigate supports malice | Plaintiff relied on personal experiences and investigations | Failure to investigate indicates recklessness | Insufficient to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether Makaeff’s conduct was protected by anti-SLAPP | Statements were protected expression about public issues | Counterclaim seeks to chill protected speech | Granted: anti-SLAPP motion to strike the counterclaim |
| Attorney’s fees eligibility under anti-SLAPP | Prevailing party may recover fees | Fees only if not frivolous | Fees to be determined via bill of costs; prevailing party entitled |
Key Cases Cited
- Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc., 63 F.Supp.2d 1127 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (initial burden shift in anti-SLAPP inquiry)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (two-step anti-SLAPP framework; prima facie showing required)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (actual malice standard for public figure defamation)
- Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989) (reckless disregard requires high probability of falsity)
- Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, 148 Cal.App.4th 71 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can show malice; must show high probability)
- Reader's Digest Ass'n v. Superior Court, 208 Cal.Rptr. 137 (Cal. 1984) (circumstantial evidence admissible to show malice)
- Nguyen-Lam v. Cao, 171 Cal.App.4th 858 (Cal. App. 2009) (fabrication and reliance on unverified sources can indicate malice)
- Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC, 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013) (limited-purpose public figure; remand for actual malice inquiry)