Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02519/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02519-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ART COHEN, Individually and on

Behalf of All Others Similarly

Situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-cv-2519-GPC-WVG

Related Case: 10-cv-0940-GPC-WVG

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF

CLASS NOTICE AND DIRECTING

CLASS NOTICE PROCEDURES

[ECF No. 61]

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, 

 

Defendant.

On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff Art Cohen filed a Motion for Approval of Class

Notice and Directing Class Notice Procedures. (ECF No. 61.) The motion has been

fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 68, 71.)

A hearing was held on May 22, 2015. Following careful consideration of the

parties’ oral arguments, legal briefings and applicable law, and for the reasons set forth

below, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s

motion for approval of class notice and directing class notice procedures.

BACKGROUND

On October 27, 2014, this Court certified a nationwide class in this case. (ECF

No. 53.) The class consists of:

All persons who purchased Live Events from Trump University

throughout the United States from January 1, 2007 to the present.

- 1 - 13cv2519-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG Document 130 Filed 09/21/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Excluded from the Class are Trump University, its affiliates, employees,

officers and directors, persons or entities that distribute or sell Trump

University products or programs, the Judge(s) assigned to this case, and

the attorneys of record in the case. 

(Id. at 22-23.) Defendant Donald Trump appealed this ruling to the Ninth Circuit,

which denied permission to appeal on February 2, 2015. (ECF No. 59.) 

On February 21, 2014, this Court had previously certified a class of Trump

University, LLC (“TU”) students in the related case of Makaeff, et al. v. Trump Univ.,

LLC., et al., 10cv0940-GPC(WVG). (See 10cv0940-GPC(WVG), ECF No. 298.) On

March 10, 2014, Defendants TU and Donald Trump (“Defendants”) sought permission

to appeal the grant of certification to the Ninth Circuit. (10cv0940-GPC(WVG), ECF

No. 307.) On April 10, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied permission to appeal the ruling

on timeliness grounds. (10cv0940-GPC(WVG), ECF No. 318). On February 19,

2015, Defendants moved to decertify. (10cv0940-GPC(WVG), ECF No. 380). On

September 18, 2015, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion.1

(10cv0940-GPC(WVG), ECF No. 418). The class consists of the following class and

subclasses: 

All persons who purchased a Trump University three-day live

“Fulfillment” workshop and/or a “Elite” program(“Live Events”) in

California, New York and Florida, and have not received a full refund,

divided into the following five subclasses: 

(1) a California UCL/CLRA/Misleading Advertisement subclass of

purchasers of the Trump University Fulfillment and Elite Seminars who

purchased the program in California within the applicable statute of

limitations;

(2) a California Financial Elder Abuse subclass of purchasers of the

Trump University Fulfillment and Elite Seminars who were over the age

of 65 years of age when they purchased the program in California within

the applicable statute of limitations; 

(3) a New York General Business Law § 349 subclass of purchasers of the

Trump University Fulfillment and Elite Seminars who purchased the

program in New York within the applicable statute of limitations; 

(4) a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act

(FDUTPA)/Misleading Advertising Law subclass of purchasers of the

Trump University Fulfillment and Elite Seminars who purchased the

program in Florida within the applicable statute of limitations; and

The Court denied Defendants’ motion to decertify on liability issues and granted the motion 1

on damages issues, bifurcating the damages issues to follow trial on the liability phase. (10cv0940-

GPC(WVG), ECF No. 418 at 2).

- 2 - 13cv2519-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG Document 130 Filed 09/21/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(5) a Florida Financial Elder Abuse subclass of purchasers of the Trump

University Fulfillment and Elite Seminars who were over the age of 6o

years of age when they purchased the program in Florida within the

applicable statute of limitations.

Excluded from the class are Defendants, their officers and directors,

families and legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns and any

entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, any Judge assigned

to this case and their immediate families.

(Id. at 21.) 

On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff in this case and Plaintiffs in the Makaeff case

filed motions in their respective casesseeking permission to serve a single class notice

to all putative class membersin both cases. (ECF No. 61, 10cv0940-GPC(WVG), ECF

No. 381.)

LEGAL STANDARD

For classes certified under Rule 23(b)(3) ofthe FederalRules ofCivil Procedure,

the court “must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the

circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified

through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The Federal Rules further

provide that:

Thenoticemust clearlyandconciselystate inplain,easilyunderstoodlanguage:

(i) the nature of the action;

(ii) the definition of the class certified;

(iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses;

(iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if

the member so desires;

(v)thatthecourtwillexcludefromtheclassanymemberwhorequests exclusion;

(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and

(vii)the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(i - vii). Notice provides an opportunity for class members to

participate in the litigation, to opt-out of the litigation, to monitor the performance of

class representatives and class counsel, and to ensure that predictions of adequate

- 3 - 13cv2519-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG Document 130 Filed 09/21/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

representation are fulfilled. Manual For Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.13 (2004).

In the Rule 23(b)3 context, due process is satisfied “where a fully descriptive notice is

sent first-class mail to each class member, with an explanation of the right to ‘opt out,’”

within a reasonable time. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 812 (1985). 

DISCUSSION

I. Joint Notice 

The crux of the parties’ dispute regarding class notice is whether to send a single

joint notice that explains both the Cohen and Makaeff class actions or separate notices

for each set of class members. Plaintiffs contend that sending one notice is the least 2

confusing, most efficient, and most cost effective way to communicate with the class

members. (ECF No. 61-1 at 12.) First, Plaintiffs argue that the nearly 40% of all

3

putative class members of Cohen that are also putative class members in Makaeff

would otherwise “receive two separate, nearly-identical notices,” which might result

in recipients ignoring one or the other notice as a duplicate. (ECF No. 71 at 6). 

Second, Plaintiffs assert that the class member data provided by Defendant “does not

indicate where each individual purchased a Trump UniversityLive Event and thus does

not conclusively establish whether any particular Class Member belongs to one or both

Classes,” giving rise to the possible need for the Makaeff mailing to either also be

nationwide, or risk possible under-inclusiveness. (ECF No. 71 at 7-8). Third,

Plaintiffs argue that two separate notice plans would also require two separate notice

apparatuses, resulting in over $20,000 in additional costs. (Id. at 3).

Defendants counter that a joint notice would, in fact, invite confusion and is

inappropriate given that TU is not a defendant in both actions and the claims in the two

cases are distinct. (ECF No. 68 at 1.) First, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’

contention that two separate notices would create confusion is mere “speculation,” and

Defendants do not object to the general process proposed by Plaintiffs for distributing class 2

notice, as long as that process is done separately for each case. (ECF No. 408 at 3.)

Page number citations such as this one are to the page numbers reflected on the Court’s 3

CM/ECF system and not to page numbers assigned by the parties.

- 4 - 13cv2519-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG Document 130 Filed 09/21/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that in fact, confusion is more likely to result if Cohen class members “received notice

of a class action in which they are not a class member.” (Id. at 5.) Second, Defendants

argue thatsending separate noticesisthe best way to preserve the “individual identity”

of each case, given that there are different claims, class members, and defendants in

each. (Id. at 6.)

In the Rule 23(b)(3) context, “courts retain considerable discretion to tailor

notice to the relevant circumstances.” See Lee v. Enter. Leasing Co. W., 2014 WL

4801828, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 22, 2014) (citations omitted); see also Cohorst v. BRE

Properties, Inc., 2011 WL 7061923, at *6 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (noting that it is for the

court “to determine what amounts to reasonable efforts under the circumstances of each

case, the available information to the parties and possible methods of identification of

potential class members,” and that “[t]he hallmark of the notice inquiry . . . is

reasonableness”). Plaintiffs cite several cases where courts have approved joint notices

in varying contexts. Cf. Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., CV 05-6868 CAS,

ECF No. 167, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2007) (approving joint notice after certifying

a RICO nationwide class in two related cases and a California subclass in one of the

cases); In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., 2008 WL 927654 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 4, 2008)

(ordering joint notice to state-based class of state-based and national ERISA claims in

a single case). While neither case is squarely on all fours with the instant set of cases,

the Court finds that they provide support for the proposition that joint notices may be

approved where they are the most practicable vehicle for effecting notice upon the class

members.

Here, the Court finds that Defendants’ separate motion proposal does not

substantially reduce the likelihood of confusion for recipient class members, and in fact

poses some possibility of increasing it. Plaintiffs’ proposed joint notice repeatedly

specifies which individuals are members of each class. (See ECF No. 71-1 at 3, 5, 7-8).

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ proposed joint notice would be largely identical if divided into

separate notices for each case, giving rise to the possibility that the Makaeff class

- 5 - 13cv2519-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG Document 130 Filed 09/21/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

members might ignore or be confused by one or other of the notices. See In re FedEx

Ground Package Sys., 2008 WL 927654, at *3 (noting that “if absent class members

receive . . . two notices that are nearly identical, there is a strong possibility many

absent class members may ignore one notice or the other as a duplicate”). 

Defendants cite to In re FedEx to support their contention that the “individual

identity” of each case must be preserved. (ECF No. 68 at 6). But the In re FedEx court

was referring to the attempts of Plaintiffs in that case to make reference in the notice

to other lawsuits in multi-district litigation, not to the joint notice of the state-based

claims and the national ERISA claims in the Rule 23(b)(3) motion, which the court

approved. See 2008 WL 927654, at *3-4. The In re FedEx court was concerned that

a notice referencing all pending MDL cases gave the appearance ofsome kind of giant,

super class action, which was misleading given that the Court had denied several

motions to certify class actions in several MDL cases. Those concerns are absent here

where there are two cases that are being handled by this Court and certification has

been granted on the issue of liability in both cases. 

In addition, by alerting class members of the existence of both class actions in

one notice, the proposed notice increases the ability of class members to monitor both

cases to ensure that class counsel and class representatives are providing adequate

representation to the members of the classes.

For these reasons, the Court finds that the proposed notice provides an

opportunity for class members in both cases to participate in the litigation, to opt-out

of the litigation, to monitor the performance of class representatives and class counsel,

and to ensure that predictions of adequate representation are fulfilled. It does this with

reduced administrative burdens and costs that would be imposed upon Plaintiffs. The

Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to send a joint notice covering both cases and

orders Plaintiffs to serve a joint notice, pursuant to the terms set forth below.

II. Other Objections

a. Proposed Pre-paid Postcard

- 6 - 13cv2519-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG Document 130 Filed 09/21/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants object to the proposed pre-paid postcard (“Return Postcard”)

Plaintiff seeks to include in all mailed notices. (ECF No. 68 at 6) (referencing the

proposed postcard attached as Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Rachel L. Jensen, ECF

No. 61-2, Ex. 4.) Defendants argue that the Return Postcard improperly references the

class members’ current ages, as opposed to their ages when they purchased Trump

UniversityLive Events. (Id. at 7). Plaintiffs do not object to this proposedmodification. 

(ECF No. 71 at 9). 

As certified, the age of the class members at the time of purchase is the relevant

criteria under the California and Florida elder abuse laws. (10cv940, ECF No. 418). 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Plaintiffs to amend the Return Postcard to refer

to the ages of the class members at the time that they purchased Trump University Live

Events.

b. Proposed Pre-paid “Exclusion Request/Opt-Out” Postcard

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ notice must include “a pre-paid ‘Exclusion

Request/Opt-Out’ postcard” in order to eliminate a potential roadblock for individuals

who wish to exclude themselves. (ECF No. 68 at 7-8.) Contrary to Defendants’

assertion, pre-paid opt-out cards are far from “routine.” In fact, in one of the two cases

Defendants cited for this proposition, the court did not require enclosure of a pre-paid

envelope with the notice. Compare Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., 2007 WL 4166028, at *2

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2007) (requiring inclusion of prepaid opt-out form with notice)

with Cruz v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2009 WL 1974404, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2009)

(requiring opt-out form, but not pre-paid envelope), modified in part, 270 F.R.D. 499

(N.D. Cal. 2010). Rule 23 requires only that the class members receive notice that

explains in “plain, easily understood language . . . that the court will exclude from the

class any member who requests exclusion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). As one court

explained,

FRCP 23(b)(3) does not explicitly require an opt-out form be included as

part of the notice. Reviewing the Advisory Committee Notes included

with FRCP 23(c)(2)(B), in 2003 the Committee referred to illustrative

clear-notice forms provided by the Federal Judicial Center. See

- 7 - 13cv2519-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG Document 130 Filed 09/21/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B) advisory committee's note. The example notice

forms provided by the Federal Judicial Center merely includes language,

on the face of the notice, that a class member may decide to be excluded

from the class, and if they wish to do so, they may send a letter to a given

address. See http://www.fjc.gov/ (Class Action Notices Page). The notice

forms do not appear to contemplate the inclusion of an exclusion notice

form. Further, the Court finds that on balance, such a separate form will

“engender confusion” and may encourage class members to “unwittingly

opt out of the class.” Roberts v. Heim, 130 F.R.D. 416, 423

(N.D.Cal.1988).

Krzesniak v. CendantCorp., No. C 05-05156 MEJ, 2007 WL 4468678, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

Dec. 17, 2007). The Advisory Committee Notes also contain no discussion of

requiring pre-paid opt-out forms. 

On balance, this Court finds that Plaintiffs are not required to include a pre-paid

opt-out card. The notice Plaintiffs propose to mail clearly explains that (1) if a class

member does not wish to be included in the class, he or she must take affirmative steps

in order to be excluded, (2) the class member must opt out in writing (Plaintiff provides

the address to be used for exclusion requests), (3) the written request must contain the

class member’s name, address, and signature, and (4) an exclusion request form is

available at www.trumpuniversitylitigation.com. (ECF No. 61-2, Ex. 2). This satisfies

Rule 23's requirement of setting forth the class members’ rights in clear language and

the option of downloading an exclusion request form from the website eliminates the

burden of drafting a letter. Moreover, as the Krzesniak court highlighted, an opt-out

card included with the notice could very well be construed by many class members as

an opt-in card, resulting in class members unwittingly excluding themselves from the

litigation.

c. Defendants’ Request for Ten (10) Days Review of Class

Member List

Defendants request that the Court prescribe a ten (10) business day period from

receipt of the Class Notice Administrator (“Administrator”) of the compiled list of

names and addresses Plaintiffs are intending to use for class period, so asto ensure that

the Administrator’s list of potential class members is as complete and accurate as

- 8 - 13cv2519-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG Document 130 Filed 09/21/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

possible. (ECF No. 68 at 7). Plaintiffs reply that this period is no longer necessary,

since the Administrator sent the compiled list to Defendants as of May 1, 2015. (ECF

No. 71 at 9. Since Defendants have had several months to review Plaintiffs’ compiled

list, the Court will not adjust the class notice schedule to prescribe an additional review

period. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN

PART Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of class notice and directing class notice

procedures (ECF No. 61). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Class Notices (attached as ECF No. 71-1, Ex. A; ECF No.

61-2, Ex. 2, and ECF No. 61-2, Ex. 3) are approved for dissemination of

class notice. The parties are authorized to make non-substantive changes

to the notice, as long as they are acceptable to both parties, to reflect

deadlines, mailing addresses, and similar information or to format the

notice for printing.

2. Plaintiffs will submit an amended Return Postcard (attached as ECF No.

61-2, Ex. 4) that is consistent with this Order within seven (7) days of the

Order. 

3. Epiq Systems, Inc. is approved as “Notice Administrator” to supervise and

carry out the notice procedure.

4. The Notice Administrator is directed to compile a list of names and

addresses of purchasers of “Trump University” programs as they appear

in defendants’ records, and Defendants are directed to cooperate in

ensuring the list of potential Class Members is as complete and accurate

as possible.

5. The Notice Administrator is directed to establish and monitor a website

(www.trumpuniversitylitigation.com), making available copies of the

Long-Form Notice, this Court’s class certification orders, an address for

- 9 - 13cv2519-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG Document 130 Filed 09/21/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

mailing requests for exclusion or providing contact or age information,

and other helpful information. 

6. The Notice Administrator is directed to establish a toll-free telephone

number, (866) 841-7311, where Class Members may call for additional

information.

7. The Notice Administrator is ordered to send through U.S. first-class mail,

within ten (10) days ofthe Order (the “Notice Date”), the Mailed Notice,

substantially in the form attached as ECF No. 61-2, Ex. 3, to each

purchaser identified on the list informing them of both class actions.

Among other things, the Mailed Notice shall provide a website, address

and phone number, information as to how Class Members can obtain a

Long-Form Notice, substantially in the form attached as ECF No. 71-1,

Ex. A, which includes: (i) more detail about the litigation and answers to

frequently-asked questions; (ii) an address for sending requests for

exclusion from one or both of the Classes; and (iii) information as to how

Class Members can update their information and senior citizens to

indicate they may be members of an elder financial abuse subclass. 

Provided that the amended Return Postcard has been subsequently

approved by the Court, the Notice Administrator is authorized to include

it in the Mailed Notice.

8. The Notice Administrator is ordered to publish on one occasion in the

national edition of USA Today the Summary Notice, substantially in the

form attached as ECF No. 61-2, Ex. 3, not later than ten (10) days after

the Notice Date, which will give those who did not receive the notice by

mail an opportunity to request it and to protect any rights they may have.

9. The deadline for exclusion from the Class shall be forty-five (45) days

after the Notice Date (“Opt-Out Deadline”). Any Class Member who

does not send a completed, signed request for exclusion to the Notice

- 10 - 13cv2519-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG Document 130 Filed 09/21/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Administrator post-marked on or before the Opt-Out Deadline will be

deemed to be a Member of the Class for all purposes and bound by all

further orders and judgments of the Court. All opt outs shall not be so

bound, but also barred from sharing in any recovery.

10. The Notice Administrator is ordered to provide counsel for both parties

with a list of all timely requests for exclusion within seven (7) business

days after the Opt-Out Deadline. Plaintiffs are ordered to file such list

with the Court within three (3) days thereafter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 21, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 11 - 13cv2519-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG Document 130 Filed 09/21/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 11