N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M EDIFAST, INC
. , a

De l aware c orporation and SHIRL EY M AC DONALD, a s pe rsona l re pre se ntative of B ra d le y M a c Dona ld, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. B ARR Y M INKOW , a

n individual ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-55687 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-00382-JLS-B GS
AM ENDED M EM OR

ANDUM *

M EDIFAST, INC
. , a

De l aware c orporation and SHIRL EY M AC DONALD, a s pe rsona l re pre se ntative of B ra d le y M a c Dona ld, Plaintiffs - Appe lle e s,
v. B ARR Y M INKOW , a

n individual ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts, And No. 11-55699 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-00382-JLS-B GS



# FIL ED
JUL 14 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.R OB ER T L. FITZPATRIC K, a n individual, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Ja nis L. Sa m m artino, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d M arc h 5, 2013 ** Subm itte d M arc h

31, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PAEZ a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KENNELLY, Distric t Judge
. *** Pla intiffs M e d ifa st, Inc . a nd Shirle y

M a c Dona ld a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting De fe nda

nts (1) Tra c y C oe ne n

and Se q ue nc e , Inc .’ s (c o lle c tive ly ,

“ C oe ne n ” ), and (2) B arry M inkow a

nd Fra ud Disc ove ry

Institute , Inc
. (c olle c tive ly , “ M inkow” ) re spe c tive M otions to Strike Pla intiffs’ c om pla int unde r C a lifornia ’ s a

nti-SLAPP sta

tute , C a lifornia

C o de of C i vil Proc e dure se c tion 425.16. Pla intiffs a lso a

p p e a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gra nting De fe n da

nt R obe rt L. Fitz patric k’ s a

nti-SLAPP m otion a s to M a c Dona ld’ s libe l pe r se c a use of

*** The Honora

ble M atthe w F. Ke nne lly , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa t ion. -2-a c tion. 1 Fitz p atric k a ppe a l s the distric t

c o urt’ s de nia l of his a

nti-SLAPP m otion a s to M e difa st’ s libe l pe r se c a use of a c tion. W e a ffirm

in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd
va c ate in pa

rt. 2 1. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting De fe nda nts’ anti-SLAPP
m otions a s to M a c Dona ld. M a c Dona ld’ s c la im s we re prope rly dism isse d be c a

use the s tat e m e nts a

t issue do not re fe r to him
. Se e SDV/AC C I, Inc . v . AT & T C

orp. , 522 F.3d 955, 961 (9th C ir. 2008). 2. W e va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm inat ion tha t M e difa st is not a lim ite d public figure . In so c o nc luding, the distric t c ourt re lie d he avily on the distric t c o urt’ s opinion in Mak ae ff v . Trump Univ ., LLC , 10-C V-940-IEG(WVG), 2010 W L 3341638 (S.D. C a l. Aug. 23, 2010). W e subse que ntly re ve rse d Mak

ae ff
. Se e i d. , 715 F.3d 254 (9th C ir. 2013). W e the re fore re m and this issue to the distric t
c ourt for furthe r c o nside ra tion in light of our opinion in Mak ae ff
.

1 The distric t c ourt a lso gra nte d Fitz pat ric k’ s a n ti-SLAPP m otion a s to Pla i ntiffs’ c a

use s of a c tion for c ivil c onspira c y to de fam e , m arke t m anipula tion, and unfa ir c om

pe t ition la w . Pla intiffs do not a

p pe a l the distric t c ourt’ s ruling with re spe c t to the se c la im s.

2 W e have jurisdic tion ove r Pla intiffs’ a p p e a l of the distric t c o urt’ s orde r gran ting M inkow a

nd C oe ne n’ s m otions a

nd Fitz patric k ’ s m otion a s to M a c Dona ld unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e have jurisdic tion ove r Fitzp at ric k ’ s a p pe a l of the distric t c o urt’ s orde r de ny ing his m otion a s to M e d ifa st unde r the c olla te ra l orde r doc trine
. Se e DC

C omic s v . Pac . Pic ture

s C orp. , 706 F.3d 1009, 1014–15 (9th C ir. 2013). -3-3. As to Fitz patric k’ s a

nti-SLAPP m otion, Fitz

patric k’ s sta

te m e nts tha

t M e d ifa st’ s TSFL progra

m is a n “ ‘ e ndle ss c ha i n’ within the m e aning of C a l ifornia Pe na l C ode , C ha

pte r 9[] § 327” are libe l pe r se be c a u s e the y a c c u se M e d i fa st of ope ra t ing a

n ille g a l e nte rprise
. Se e W e inbe rg v . Fe ise l , 110 C a l. App. 4th 1122, 1135 (2003)

. W e a lso c onc lude tha t Fitz patric k ’ s sta

te m e nts a re a c tiona ble be c a use a “ re a sona b le jury ,” Mak

ae ff , 715 F.3d a

t 261, c ould find tha

t the fa c ts unde rly ing the sta

t e m e n t s a re fa lse , se e Milk

ov ic h v . Lorain J

ournal C o. , 497 U.S. 1, 18–19 (1990); Standing C omm. on Disc ipline of U.S. Dist. C ourt for C e nt. Dist. of C alifornia v. Yagman , 55 F.3d 1430, 1439 (9th C i r. 1995); Ov e r stoc k .c om, Inc
. v . Gradie nt Analy t ics, Inc
. , 151 C a l. App. 4th 688, 704–05 (2007). For e xam ple , a
re a s ona ble jury c ould find tha

t Fitz patric k fa lse ly sta

te d tha t: (1) M e difa s t re quire s buy ing TSFL produc t to pa rtic ipate in the progra

m ; (2) the only

fe a sible m e ans of
re a c hing theuppe r ranks in theTSFL progra m is to re c ruit ne w c oa c he s; a nd (3) M e d ifa st pa

y s c lie nt a ssist a

nd c lie n t a c quisition bonuse s m e re l y for re c ruiting. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of Fitz patric k’ s anti-SLAPP
m otion. Howe ve r, our a ffirm an c e is subje c t to thedistric t c ourt’ s de te rm i nation
re ga rding M e difa s t’ s lim ite d

public figure sta

tus. If the distric t c ourt de te rm ine s that M e difa st is a

lim ite d public figure , it m ust a lso de te rm ine whe t

he r M e difa st

-4-ha s a dduc e d suffic ie nt e v ide nc e to support the c onc lusion tha t Fitz p at ric k ’ s de fam at ory

sta te m e nts we re m a de with a c t ua l m a l ic e . Mak

a e ff , 715 F.3d a

t 261. 4. As to M inkow, we a ffirm in pa rt a nd re ve rse in pa

rt the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting M inkow’ s a nti-SLAPP m otion. W e a g re e tha t M e difa s t ha s fa ile d to show tha

t M inkow’ s individual sta te m e nts we re libe lous pe r se . M inkow m ay , howe v e r, be lia

ble for re -publishing Fitz

patric k’ s sta

te m e nts. On a

ppe a l, M inkow
a sse rts (for the first tim e ) that the C om m unic ations De c e nc y Ac t

(“ C DA” ), 47 U.S.C . § 230(c ), im

m uniz e s him

from lia bility for re -publishing Fitz

patric k ’ s sta te m e nts. The C DA, howe ve r, doe s not provide im m unity to “ i nform ation
c onte nt provide rs.” 47 U.S.C . § 230(f)(3). He re , M inkow m a de sta te m e nts tha

t indic ate he m ay

be “ re sponsible , . . . in pa rt, for the c re at ion or de ve l opm e nt” of Fitzpatric k’ s re ports. Id. For e xam ple , in a n “ Ope n Le tte r” to M a c Dona l d de fe nding Fitz

patric k’ s re ports a

nd FDI’ s public ation of those re ports, M inkow sta te s: “ W e re w e ‘ fa lse , m isle a ding or without m e rit’ whe n w e sta

te d tha t the founda tion of M e difa st’ s re c e nt stoc k surge . . . W e re w e ‘ fa lse , m isle a d ing or without m e rit’ whe n w e sta te d tha t the py ram id se lling sc he m e of M e difa st . . . .’ ” B e c a use M inkow fa ile d to ra ise this de fe nse be l ow, M inkow’ s de ve lope r/c re ator sta tus doe s not a

ppe ar to ha

ve be e n c onside re d by

the distric t c ourt. W e the re fore

-5-re m and to thedistric t c o urt for furthe r c onside ra tion of whe the r M inkow m ay be he ld lia ble for Fitzpatric k ’ s sta

t e m e nts. 5. Fina lly , we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting of C oe ne n’ s antiSLAPP m otion. C oe ne n’ s sta te m e nts we re e i the r not libe lous pe r se or we re re public ations for whic h she should bea fforde d im m unity unde r the C DA. 6. Appe lle e C oe ne n sha ll re c o ve r he r c o sts on a ppe a l. All the othe r pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l
. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and V ACAT E D in par t.

-6-