Order On Plaintiffs Motion To Dismiss Amended Counterclaim: Fill & Download for Free

For criminal activity one needs look no further than his Trump University that cost the public many thousands. The people ripped off were among the most vulnerable such as seniors who lost their retirement in the Wall Street collapse.In 2005, the New York State Department of Education sent Trump, Sexton, and Trump University a letter saying that they were violating state law by using the word "university" when in fact Trump University was not actually chartered as one and did not have the required license to offer live instruction or training. Although Sexton promised that the organization would stop instructing students in New York State, the New York Attorney General alleged that such instruction continued.A March 2010 letter sent by the Deputy Commissioner for Higher Education, Joseph Frey, to Trump stated: "Use of the word 'university' by your corporation is misleading and violates New York Education Law and the Rules of the Board of Regents." In June 2010, "Trump University" changed its name to "The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative."On August 24, 2013, the State of New York filed a $40 million civil suit against Trump University alleging illegal business practices and false claims made by the company. Donald Trump denied the allegations, claiming the school had a 98% approval rating (But according to some former students, Trump University employees pressured students to offer favorable reviews, told them they had to fill out the forms in order to obtain graduation certificates, and did not undertake procedures often used to ensure that surveys were filled out objectively.), and said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was "a political hack looking to get publicity". Trump filed a complaint alleging that the state Attorney General's investigation was accompanied by a campaign donation shakedown; the complaint was investigated by a New York ethics board and dismissed in August 2015. Because of strict confidentiality laws, it is unknown whether the complaint was dismissed because Trump's claims were untrue, or because Schneiderman's alleged actions did not contravene any ethical rules.Schneiderman described Trump University as a bait-and-switch scheme and pointed to the fact that the organization was not a university. He accused Trump of misleading more than 5,000 people to pay up to $35,000 to learn his real estate investment techniques.In October 2014, a New York judge found Trump personally liable for operating the company without the required business license.Makaeff is an example of a victim:Tarla Makaeff, who paid nearly $60,000 to Trump University in 2008, brought a class action lawsuit against Trump University on April 30, 2010, in U.S. District Court for Southern California. The suit, Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC, sought refunds for Makaeff and other former clients of Trump University, as well as punitive damages for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and bad faith. It did not originally name Donald Trump as a defendant, but did so in a later amended complaint. In February 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel denied recognition to the nationwide class the plaintiffs had requested and recognized the suit as class-action on the part of Trump University clients in three states – California, Florida, and New York – based on specific alleged violations of the consumer protection laws of those states. He also narrowed the case to five of the plaintiffs' original fourteen charges.On May 26, 2010, Trump University filed a counterclaim alleging Makaeff had made defamatory statements about Trump University, "including many completely spurious accusations of actual crimes", that had caused Trump University losses of more than $1 million. On June 30, 2010, Makaeff countered that Trump University's defamation claim was an attempt to intimidate her, known as a SLAPP suit (a strategic lawsuit against public participation), and that because Trump University is a "public figure" the defamation claim required proof that she "acted with actual malice" when speaking and writing about Trump University. By invoking California's anti-SLAPP statute, Makaeff triggered procedures that hastened consideration of the defamation claim without further discovery.On August 23, 2010, U.S. District Judge Irma E. Gonzalez ruled that Trump University was not a public figure, did not need to show malice on Makaeff's part, and could proceed with its defamation claim. Makaeff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel ruled unanimously on April 17, 2013, that Trump University is a "limited-purpose public figure" and that Trump University must demonstrate malice on Makaeff's part to establish defamation; it returned the case to the district court to consider the defamation claim against that standard. After additional briefing, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel ruled in Makaeff's favor on June 16, 2014, and dismissed the defamation claim. Makaeff then, at the court's invitation, presented evidence of her legal costs and fees in connection with the defamation litigation. She asked for $1.3 million, and on April 20, 2015 Curiel ordered Trump University to reimburse Makaeff $798,000 in legal fees and costs.In November 2015, the district court ruled on Trump's motion for summary judgment. In a 44-page opinion, the court denied Trump's motion for summary judgment on most of the claims, finding that there was a genuine issue of fact on plaintiffs' claims of deceptive practices and misrepresentation in advertisements in violation of California, Florida, and New York consumer protection and business law and therefore letting these claims proceed to trial. The court did grant summary judgment in Trump's favor on plaintiffs' request for an injunction, because Trump University stopped enrolling students in July 2010 and no longer sold the same seminars or other programs. Trump University - WikipediaExposing Trump University and making fun of TrumpFormer studentFormer “instructor” comes clean

For criminal activity one needs look no further than Trump. His Trump University cost the public many thousands. The people ripped off were among the most vulnerable such as seniors who lost retirement saving in the Wall Street crash or struggling single mothers.Personally I find it frightening how many predators inhabit Wall Street, the business world, and our political institutions.In 2005, the New York State Department of Education sent Trump, Sexton, and Trump University a letter saying that they were violating state law by using the word "university" when in fact Trump University was not actually chartered as one and did not have the required license to offer live instruction or training. Although Sexton promised that the organization would stop instructing students in New York State, the New York Attorney General alleged that such instruction continued.A March 2010 letter sent by the Deputy Commissioner for Higher Education, Joseph Frey, to Trump stated: "Use of the word 'university' by your corporation is misleading and violates New York Education Law and the Rules of the Board of Regents." In June 2010, "Trump University" changed its name to "The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative."On August 24, 2013, the State of New York filed a $40 million civil suit against Trump University alleging illegal business practices and false claims made by the company. Donald Trump denied the allegations, claiming the school had a 98% approval rating (But according to some former students, Trump University employees pressured students to offer favorable reviews, told them they had to fill out the forms in order to obtain graduation certificates, and did not undertake procedures often used to ensure that surveys were filled out objectively.), and said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was "a political hack looking to get publicity". Trump filed a complaint alleging that the state Attorney General's investigation was accompanied by a campaign donation shakedown; the complaint was investigated by a New York ethics board and dismissed in August 2015. Because of strict confidentiality laws, it is unknown whether the complaint was dismissed because Trump's claims were untrue, or because Schneiderman's alleged actions did not contravene any ethical rules.Schneiderman described Trump University as a bait-and-switch scheme and pointed to the fact that the organization was not a university. He accused Trump of misleading more than 5,000 people to pay up to $35,000 to learn his real estate investment techniques.In October 2014, a New York judge found Trump personally liable for operating the company without the required business license.Makaeff is a example of a victim:Tarla Makaeff, who paid nearly $60,000 to Trump University in 2008, brought a class action lawsuit against Trump University on April 30, 2010, in U.S. District Court for Southern California. The suit, Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC, sought refunds for Makaeff and other former clients of Trump University, as well as punitive damages for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and bad faith. It did not originally name Donald Trump as a defendant, but did so in a later amended complaint. In February 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel denied recognition to the nationwide class the plaintiffs had requested and recognized the suit as class-action on the part of Trump University clients in three states – California, Florida, and New York – based on specific alleged violations of the consumer protection laws of those states. He also narrowed the case to five of the plaintiffs' original fourteen charges.On May 26, 2010, Trump University filed a counterclaim alleging Makaeff had made defamatory statements about Trump University, "including many completely spurious accusations of actual crimes", that had caused Trump University losses of more than $1 million. On June 30, 2010, Makaeff countered that Trump University's defamation claim was an attempt to intimidate her, known as a SLAPP suit (a strategic lawsuit against public participation), and that because Trump University is a "public figure" the defamation claim required proof that she "acted with actual malice" when speaking and writing about Trump University. By invoking California's anti-SLAPP statute, Makaeff triggered procedures that hastened consideration of the defamation claim without further discovery.On August 23, 2010, U.S. District Judge Irma E. Gonzalez ruled that Trump University was not a public figure, did not need to show malice on Makaeff's part, and could proceed with its defamation claim. Makaeff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel ruled unanimously on April 17, 2013, that Trump University is a "limited-purpose public figure" and that Trump University must demonstrate malice on Makaeff's part to establish defamation; it returned the case to the district court to consider the defamation claim against that standard. After additional briefing, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel ruled in Makaeff's favor on June 16, 2014, and dismissed the defamation claim. Makaeff then, at the court's invitation, presented evidence of her legal costs and fees in connection with the defamation litigation. She asked for $1.3 million, and on April 20, 2015 Curiel ordered Trump University to reimburse Makaeff $798,000 in legal fees and costs.In November 2015, the district court ruled on Trump's motion for summary judgment. In a 44-page opinion, the court denied Trump's motion for summary judgment on most of the claims, finding that there was a genuine issue of fact on plaintiffs' claims of deceptive practices and misrepresentation in advertisements in violation of California, Florida, and New York consumer protection and business law and therefore letting these claims proceed to trial. The court did grant summary judgment in Trump's favor on plaintiffs' request for an injunction, because Trump University stopped enrolling students in July 2010 and no longer sold the same seminars or other programs. Trump University - WikipediaExposing Trump University and making fun of TrumpFormer victim tried to get her money back. Describes hard sell tactics.

In VirginiaVirginia Supreme CourtIt was amended a few times.COUNTERCLAIMSA defendant may, at that defendant's option, plead as a counterclaim any cause of action that the defendant has against the plaintiff or all plaintiffs jointly, whether or not it grows out of any transaction mentioned in the complaint, whether or not it is for liquidated damages, whether it is in tort or contract, and whether or not the amount demanded in the counterclaim is greater than the amount demanded in the complaint.TIME FOR INITIATIONA counterclaim shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 1:9, be filed within 21 days after service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant asserting the counterclaim, or if service of the summons has been timely waived on request, within 60 days after the date when the request for waiver was sent, or within 90 days after that date if the defendant was addressed outside the Commonwealth.If a demurrer, plea, motion to dismiss, or motion for a bill of particulars is filed within the period provided in subsection (b)(i) of this Rule, the defendant may file any counterclaim at any time up to 21 days after the entry of the court's order ruling upon all such motions, demurrers and other pleas, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may prescribe.RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIMThe plaintiff shall file pleadings in response to such counterclaim within 21 days after it is served.SEPARATE TRIALScourt in its discretion may order a separate trial of any cause of action asserted in a counterclaim.