SAN DIEGO â€” U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel is once again reflecting on his second-oldest case â€” a nearly seven-year-old lawsuit alleging that Donald Trump defrauded students of the now-defunct Trump University before he was president.
The filings fill millions of pages. There were 65 depositions, including three of Trump.
After praising a proposed $25 million settlement for giving an “extraordinary amount” of money back to former customers, Curiel stopped short Thursday of approving the agreement, which would effectively end the president’s legal exposure from the venture that dogged the Republican businessman throughout his campaign.
Curiel said at the end of an hour-long hearing that he would rule at a later time on final approval to settle two class-action lawsuits before him and a civil lawsuit by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
The only holdup appeared to be a Florida woman’s claim that she should be allowed to opt out of the settlement and sue the president on her own â€” a move that would likely scuttle the entire agreement.
Attorneys for former customers said that their clients would get at least 90 per cent of their money back under the deal, based on the roughly 3,730 claims submitted. The attorneys waived their fees and Schneiderman agreed to forego $1.6 million of his $4 million portion of the settlement, raising individual payments.
Curiel said the high payments weighed in favour of approval and he noted that only two of about 7,000 eligible class-action members objected to the terms. He directed many of his questions to an attorney for Sherri Simpson, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, woman who said she should have been given more opportunity to opt out.
Attorneys for Trump and those suing him said the firm deadline to opt out was in November 2015 and that Simpson missed her chance. Simpson’s attorney, Gary Friedman, argued that language in a 2015 opt-out notice suggested that former customers would have another opportunity.
Friedman called the language ambiguous and said constitutional rights to due process required more clarity.
“It’s not constitutionally adequate notice,” he told the judge.
Attorneys for the former customers noted that Simpson was the only one to express confusion. They appeared confident after the hearing that Curiel would rule in their favour.
“I don’t want to predict, but he made a number of statements that were strongly in favour of the fairness of the deal,” said Rachel Jensen, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
Trump’s attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, didn’t address reporters as he left the courthouse.
The lawsuits contend that Trump University gave nationwide seminars that were like infomercials, constantly pressuring people to spend more and, in the end, failing to deliver on its promises.
Trump repeatedly assailed Curiel, insinuating that the Indiana-born judge’s Mexican heritage exposed a bias.
When attorneys reached the deal shortly after Trump was elected, Curiel said he hoped it would be part of “a healing process that this country very sorely needs.” A month later, he granted preliminary approval of the settlement.
His final approval would bring closure to the trio of lawsuits, the first of which was filed in 2010.
Trump vowed never to settle but said after the election that he didn’t have time for a trial, even though he believed he would have prevailed. Under terms of the settlement, he admits no wrongdoing.
Elliot Spagat, The Associated Press