Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Clifford v. Trump

Clifford v. Trump

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

February 4, 2020, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California; July 31, 2020, Filed

No. 18-56351

Opinion

 [*747]  MEMORANDUM1

Stephanie Clifford appeals the district court's dismissal of her defamation action against President Donald J. Trump.2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.

1. The district court correctly concluded under the Erie doctrine that the motion to dismiss procedures of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA)— Texas's version of an anti-SLAPP law—apply in federal court. ] We have long held that analogous procedures in California's anti-SLAPP law apply in federal court, United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963, 973 (9th Cir. 1999), and the TCPA is indistinguishable from California's law in all material respects, compare S & S Emergency Training Sols., Inc. v. Elliott, 564 S.W.3d 843, 847 (Tex. 2018) (describing the TCPA analysis), with Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811, 820, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256, 250 P.3d 1115 (2011) (describing California's anti-SLAPP analysis).

Though we recognize [**2]  the Fifth Circuit recently held that the TCPA does not apply in federal court, Klocke v. Watson, 936 F.3d 240, 244-47 (5th Cir. 2019), the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit's opinion cannot be reconciled with our circuit's anti-SLAPP precedent, compare Newsham, 190 F.3d at 972 ("[T]here is no indication that [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] 8, 12, and 56 were intended to 'occupy the field' with respect to pretrial procedures aimed at weeding out meritless claims."), with Klocke, 936 F.3d at 247 ("Rules 8, 12, and 56 provide a comprehensive framework governing pretrial dismissal and judgment." (cleaned up)). We are bound to follow our own precedent, which requires us to apply the TCPA.3 Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 892-93, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

] Because the TCPA motion in this case challenged the legal sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint, we "apply the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard and consider whether a claim is properly stated." Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 890 F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir. 2018).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

818 Fed. Appx. 746 *; 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 24196 **; 2020 WL 4384081

STEPHANIE CLIFFORD, AKA Stormy Daniels, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant-Appellee.

Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Subsequent History: US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Clifford v. Trump, 2021 U.S. LEXIS 874 (U.S., Feb. 22, 2021)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 2:18-cv-06893-SJO-FFM. S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding.

Clifford v. Trump, 339 F. Supp. 3d 915, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178688 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 15, 2018)

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

tweet, defamatory, sketch, defamation, allegations, magazine

Constitutional Law, Fundamental Freedoms, Freedom of Speech, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Appellate Briefs, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Torts, Defamation, Public Figures, Actual Malice, Defenses, Privileges, Constitutional Privileges, Fair Comment & Opinion, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Intentional Torts, Procedural Matters