Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC
736 F.3d 1180
9th Cir.2013Background
- This is Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, in which the panel denied rehearing en banc on anti-SLAPP issues in a diversity/district court context.
- The majority reaffirmed Newsham v. Lockheed and Batzel v. Smith, holding California’s anti-SLAPP statute can apply in federal court without direct collision with the Federal Rules, and rejected overruling those decisions.
- California’s Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 and related provisions (anti-SLAPP) were analyzed against Rules 12 and 56, and the state statute was argued to supplement or conflict with federal procedure.
- The court applied Shady Grove’s framework to assess whether the state anti-SLAPP regime conflicts with federal rules, ultimately concluding no direct conflict that would require preemption of the state statute in federal court.
- The court discussed the Erie/Scholarly balance, concluding California’s anti-SLAPP provisions provide substantive rights and should be enforced rather than displaced in federal court, consistent with Newsham/Batzel.
- The dissent would have overruled Newsham and Batzel and sought en banc reconsideration; the majority refused, maintaining the existing circuit law and en banc denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California’s anti-SLAPP statute conflicts with Federal Rules 12/56 in federal court. | Makaeff argued Statute 425.16 conflicts with Rule 12/56 and cannot apply in federal court. | Trump Univ. contended anti-SLAPP supplements Rule 12/56 and does not conflict. | No direct collision; anti-SLAPP supplements, does not preempt. |
| Whether denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. | Denial resolves important rights and merits; should be appealable. | Denial is not separable from merits and fails collateral order requirements. | Not immediately appealable; collateral order doctrine does not apply. |
| Whether the en banc court should overrule Newsham and Batzel or align with dissenting views. | Overrule Newsham and Batzel to reject anti-SLAPP in federal court. | Maintain Newsham and Batzel; no inter-circuit split; uniform law. | Deny en banc review; Newsham and Batzel remain controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (conflict analysis between state rules and Federal Rules guided by textual analysis)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (Erie choice when a Federal Rule applies over state law)
- Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) (anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal court in diversity cases)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (denial of anti-SLAPP motion may be appealed under collateral order doctrine)
- Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013) (concurring opinions discuss conflicts with Rule 12/56 and collateral order doctrine)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (reframe of collateral order doctrine in light of public interests)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006) (collateral order doctrine requirements for reviewability)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (immunity decisions as distinct from merits for purposes of appeal)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (avoid immediate appeal when fact-bound and not separable from merits)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (state restrictions may supplement but not conflict with Rule 23/Rule framework)