Connection lost
Server error
Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, upholding prior circuit precedent that California’s anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal diversity cases and that denials of anti-SLAPP motions are immediately appealable, despite dissent arguing conflict with Federal Rules and appellate jurisdiction principles.
Legal Significance: This order and accompanying opinions highlight the ongoing jurisprudential tension regarding the application of state anti-SLAPP statutes in federal court under the Erie doctrine and the scope of the collateral order doctrine for immediate appealability of anti-SLAPP motion denials.
Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The underlying litigation involved Tarla Makaeff suing Trump University for deceptive business practices, to which Trump University filed a defamation counterclaim. Makaeff moved to strike the counterclaim under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16), which aims to protect against lawsuits intended to chill First Amendment rights. The district court denied Makaeff’s motion. A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court. Trump University petitioned for rehearing en banc. The full court denied the petition. The concurrence in the denial of rehearing en banc defended the circuit’s precedents, United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (holding California’s anti-SLAPP statute’s motion to strike and attorneys’ fees provisions apply in diversity cases) and Batzel v. Smith (holding denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine). The dissent argued these precedents were wrongly decided, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co., and that California’s anti-SLAPP statute conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56, and its denial does not meet the criteria for immediate appealability under the collateral order doctrine.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does existing Ninth Circuit precedent correctly hold that California’s anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal diversity cases without directly conflicting with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56, and that the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, thereby justifying the denial of rehearing en banc?
The petition for rehearing en banc was denied. The concurrence, upholding existing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris ni
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does existing Ninth Circuit precedent correctly hold that California’s anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal diversity cases without directly conflicting with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56, and that the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, thereby justifying the denial of rehearing en banc?
Conclusion
The denial of rehearing en banc reaffirmed the Ninth Circuit's position on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volup
Legal Rule
In diversity cases, federal courts apply state substantive law and federal procedural Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labo
Legal Analysis
The concurrence in the denial of rehearing en banc maintained that *Newsham* Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The court denied rehearing en banc, leaving in place precedents applying