9th Circuit Approves $25M Trump University Settlement
A federal appeals court has approved the $25 million Trump University settlement, striking down the claims of a high-profile objector who had threatened…
February 06, 2018 at 05:44 PM
6 minute read
A federal appeals court has approved the $25 million Trump University settlement, striking down the claims of a high-profile objector who had threatened to unravel the deal.
In an opinion handed down Tuesday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that objector Sherri Simpson, a personal bankruptcy attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, had standing to appeal the settlement, reached days after President Donald Trump was elected in 2016. But the panel disagreed with her that the language of the notice sent to class members one year earlier implied that she would have a second opportunity to opt out of the case should it settle.
“Here, reading the notice as a whole and in context, we conclude that it promised only one opportunity to opt out,” wrote Judge Jacqueline Nguyen.
“Among over eight thousand class members, Simpson is the only one advancing this understanding of the notice,” she added. “The absence of more voices to corroborate Simpson's reading supports our conclusion that no reasonable class member would have understood the notice to guarantee a second opt-out opportunity at the settlement stage.”
The panel's decision ends all challenges over the settlement. Objector attorney Deepak Gupta, of Gupta Wessler in Washington D.C., who has several legal actions against Trump, referred calls to another attorney representing Simpson, Gary B. Friedman, who is New York-based. Friedman said his client was disappointed that the facts surrounding the fraud would not get public attention and that Trump “won't ever be held fully and truly accountable.” Friedman added however that there was no plan to petition the Ninth Circuit for en banc review.
Sherri Simpson.
“If there's a silver lining, it's all the victims will receive payments without further delay,” he said. Under the deal, more than 8,000 class members would get up to 90 percent of what they paid in Trump University real estate courses.
“Both classes of plaintiffs would have faced significant hurdles had they proceeded to trial, including the difficulty of prevailing in a jury trial against either the President Elect (if the trial had proceeded as scheduled) or the sitting President (if the trial had been postponed, as Defendants requested),” Nguyen wrote in Tuesday's opinion. “Weighed against this was the fairness of the settlement as a whole, which the court estimated would provide class members with almost a full recovery. Under these challenging circumstances, the district court acted well within its discretion by approving the settlement.”
Joining her on the panel were fellow Obama appointees Andrew Hurwitz and U.S. District Judge Steven Logan, sitting by designation. They heard oral arguments in November.
Plaintiffs lawyer Patrick Coughlin of San Diego's Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd said he was “a little disappointed” in the panel's finding on standing, which was his firm's primary argument on appeal, but overall found the Ninth Circuit came out with a “good opinion.”
“We think it's right, of course, that the notice was clear enough to any reasonable person,” he said. “There was only one out of 8,000 people who interpreted it this way.”
The settlement included $21 million to resolve two nationwide class actions and $4 million to end a separate case that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had brought over Trump University. “Today's approval of the Trump University class action settlement by the Ninth Circuit means that victims of Donald Trump's fraudulent university will soon receive the $25 million in relief they deserve,” Schneiderman said in a statement.
Daniel Petrocelli, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers in Los Angeles, who represented Trump and Trump University, did not respond to a call for comment.
The case alleged that Trump University falsely promised Trump personally hand-picked the instructors and that the program was an “accredited university.” The settlement did not provide an opportunity to opt out, but Simpson, insisting that the settlement resolved claims for a “small fraction” of the potential award, had argued that the 2015 notice's language implied that she would have a second opportunity to do so. In particular, she focused on a portion of the notice that said if class members did not opt out “and the plaintiffs obtain money or benefits, either as a result of the trial or a settlement, you will be notified about how to obtain a share (or how to ask to be excluded from any settlement).” She also argued she had a due process right to opt out of the settlement.
U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who Trump criticized on the campaign trail over his handling of the case and his Mexican heritage, despite the judge being born in Indiana, approved the deal in March 2017. He found that Simpson lacked standing because she had not opted out at the time of the 2015 notice, and she had filled out a settlement claim form, under which she waived her right to sue.
In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with Curiel on his standing decision. As to the notice, the panel found that Simpson's “reading is not wholly unreasonable” and that “the language could have been clearer,” but that the “correct inquiry here is what an average class member would have understood the notice to guarantee.”
The panel also found Simpson did not have a due process right to a second opt-out opportunity, citing its 1982 decision in Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Commission. In a footnote, the panel addressed claims by Robbins Geller attorneys that the objection was “attorney-manufactured.”
“The timeline and evolution of her objection support that assertion, but our court would have little work to do without creative arguments 'manufactured' by zealous attorney advocates,” Nguyen wrote.
Friedman, whose client had the support of two dozen law professors and several notice experts, agreed. And he had this advice for class action lawyers who write notices to class members: “The drafters of class notice would be well advised to make their intentions known.”
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 AllJudge Pauses Landmark $2.75B NCAA Settlement Proposal, Parties to Hash Out More Details
6 minute readHagens Berman, Winston & Strawn Lead Student-Athletes to $2.75B NCAA Settlement Over NIL Compensation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5Partner Cuts: The Grim Reality of Post-Merger Integration
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
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