300 at 10 n.5.) According to Trump University, notice was given to Makaeff in the form on a handout in a binder provided to her eight or nine months before she posted the signs.

294 at 8.)ġ Trump University argues it specifically instructed Makaeff to seek local legal counsel to ensure that the signs are permissible in her community before she posts them. 1 at 18.) On June 18, 2009, Makaeff received a letter from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office informing her that posting bandit signs in California without lawful permission could subject her to fines, a misdemeanor charge, and up to six months in jail. 1 at 17.)Īdditionally, Makaeff alleges Trump University instructed her to engage in illegal real estate practices, such as posting advertising “bandit signs” on the sides of roadways.1 (Dkt. 1 at 9.) Makaeff also claims she was told by Trump University staff that her first real estate transaction after signing up for the Trump Gold Elite program would earn her approximately the amount she spent on the Trump Gold Elite program, which it did not. In addition, Makaeff alleges she was told by Trump University staff to raise her credit card limits to purchase real estate, but once she did, she was pressured by Trump University staff to instead use her elevated credit to purchase the Trump Gold Elite seminar for $34,995. 14-1 at 10), and her Trump University mentors were largely unavailable and offered no practical advice when she did speak with them, (Dkt. 14-1 at 10-11), she was provided only a toll-free telephone number instead of a one-year mentorship of “expert, interactive support,” (Dkt. 14-1 at 10-11.) Specifically, Makaeff alleges the programs were shorter than advertised, (Dkt. 4 at 7-8), Makaeff states the Trump University programs she attended were unsatisfactory. 4 at 9 14-1 at 11.)Īlthough Trump University asserts Makaeff was satisfied with the services Trump University provided to her, noting that Makaeff frequently provided excellent reviews of the programs, (Dkt. 14.)īetween August 2008 and June 2009, Makaeff attended approximately seven real estate investing and finance seminars, workshops, and classes hosted by Trump University and spent a total of approximately $60,000 on the programs. 282), the Parties’ submissions, oral argument by counsel, the applicable law, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Makaeff’s special motion to strike Trump University’s counterclaim. Having considered the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, (Dkt. appeared on behalf of defamation Plaintiff Trump University, LLC. appeared on behalf of the moving party, defamation Defendant Tarla Makaeff, who was present in court. 294 300 312.) The Court held a hearing on the matter on June 13, 2014. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/COUNTER DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT/ COUNTERCLAIMANT’S DEFAMATION COUNTERCLAIM īefore the Court is Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Tarla Makaeff’s (“Makaeff”) and Defendant/Counterclaimant Trump University, LLC’s (“Trump University”) supplemental briefing regarding Makaeff’s special motion to strike Trump University’s counterclaim, (Dkt. United States District Court for the Southern District of California TARLA MAKAEFF, and ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, Counter Defendant. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, Counterclaimant, vs. TRUMP, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, (aka Trump Entrepreneur Initiative) a New York Limited Liability Company, DONALD J.

TARLA MAKAEFF, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Stroud | Attorney Liable for Bad Faith Action Target Corporation – Use of Alternative Motions Hallmark Cards – Matters of Public Interest Defined Sletten - Anti-SLAPP Based on Statutorily Protected Activity Northern Inyo County Local Hospital | Peer Review is “Official Proceeding” Under SLAPP Law

In re Episcopal Church Cases – Action Must Arise From Protected Activity for Anti-SLAPP Motion to Succeed.

Mauro | SLAPP Law Does Not Apply to Illegal Speech Consumer Cause – Intent to Chill Speech Need Not be Shown on Anti-SLAPP Motion

Club Members for an Honest Election v.

ECHO – Public Significance Need Not be Shown for Speech at an Authorized Official Proceeding Rosenthal – Defamation Republication Protected by Communications Decency Act Fox News – Anti-SLAPP Motion Limitations on Discovery

Actual malice