SDNY Judge Clears Way for Class Action Alleging Trump Corporation Pushed Bad Investments
The ruling, from a district judge in the Southern District of New York, jettisoned federal racketeering claims from the suit.
July 24, 2019 at 05:44 PM
4 minute read
A Manhattan federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Trump Corp. will have to defend claims in a proposed class action that it had illegally profited from knowingly promoting doomed products and services to unsophisticated investors across the country.
The ruling, from U.S. Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the Southern District of New York, jettisoned federal racketeering claims from the suit, which alleged that members of President Donald Trump's family for years had operated a multilevel marketing scheme that cost consumers millions of dollars in investments.
The court, however, did have jurisdiction over state claims for negligent misrepresentations, common law fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices, Schofield said in the 26-page order.
The case is captioned Jane Doe v. Trump Corp. Named as defendants in the case were Donald Trump, his children, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump, and the Trump Corp., one of their business entities.
In October, the four unnamed plaintiffs in the suit claimed that Donald Trump and his three children oversaw a racketeering operation through both aligned outside businesses and Trump-branded ventures.
According to the complaint, Donald Trump lent his name to promote the businesses, knowing that there was little to no chance that the money unsavvy investors and others paid to participate in seminars and training opportunities would ever be recouped.
At the center of the allegations was Donald Trump's relationship with the multilevel marketing company ACN Inc. Prior media reports on Donald Trump's involvement of the company highlighted his endorsement of ACN, which included appearances on his former reality television program. The complaint claimed that working-class investors relied on statements he made in promotional material created by ACN in deciding to sign up with the company.
According to the complaint, Donald Trump claimed to have prior experience with the products ACN was pushing on investors, having done substantial research, and that he wasn't being paid for his endorsement.
“Not a word of this was true,” the complaint alleged.
On Wednesday, Schofield said the connection between Donald Trump's alleged misconduct and that injury asserted in the lawsuit was not strong enough to support civil claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the ruling, the plaintiff's lack of success in the program could have simply been the result of the inherent challenges that come along with multilevel marketing, their own limitations as salespeople or the local markets for ACN's products.
“The complaint fails to plead proximate causation because it does not allege a direct relation between defendants' conduct and plaintiffs' losses,” Schofield wrote.
As to the rest of the suit, however, Schofield said the plaintiffs had established a “reasonable probability” that the case met the minimum standards to confer federal jurisdiction over class actions alleging state law claims.
Specifically, she said, the suit claimed that the proposed class contained at least 100 members; that minimal diversity existed between the parties, and that the amount in controversy exceeded $500 million. The Trumps, on the other hand, had not demonstrated “to a legal certainty” that the plaintiffs would be not be able to recover the amount they sought.
Roberta Kaplan, who represents the plaintiffs, said in a statement that she was “pleased” the state law claims had survived the motion to dismiss.
“We now look forward to proceeding expeditiously with the case on the merits in order to obtain justice for the plaintiffs, and thousands of other working Americans just like them, who each lost hundreds or thousands of dollars as a result of the defendants' fraudulent scheme,” said Kaplan, founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink.
Counsel for the Trump Corp. and other defendants, meanwhile, claimed victory with regard to the racketeering allegations. In a statement, Joanna C. Hendon, a partner with Spears & Imes, said the RICO claims were “baseless and should never have been brought” in the first place.
“We look forward to dispensing with the rest of the suit,” she said.
Read More:
New Class Suit Claims Trump Lured Investors, Whose Loss Was His Gain
9th Circuit Approves $25M Trump University Settlement
This is a developing story.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250