Low v. Trump University, LLC et al

RESPONSE re Request for Judicial Notice [Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority and Request for Judicial Notice]

S.D. Cal.February 3, 2014

912982_1 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 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP JASON A. FORGE (181542) jforge@rgrdlaw.com RACHEL L. JENSEN (211456) rjensen@rgrdlaw.com THOMAS R. MERRICK (177987) tmerrick@rgrdlaw.com 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP AMBER L. ECK (177882) ambere@zhlaw.com HELEN I. ZELDES (220051) helenz@zhlaw.com ALREEN HAEGGQUIST (221858) alreenh@zhlaw.com AARON M. OLSEN (259923) aarono@zhlaw.com 625 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/342-8000 619/342-7878 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TARLA MAKAEFF, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG) CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 288 Filed 02/03/14 Page 1 of 6 912982_1 - 1 - 3:10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG) 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 Plaintiffs John Brown, J.R. Everett, Sonny Low, Tarla Makaeff, and Ed Oberkrom (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this response to Defendants Trump University, LLC and Donald J. Trump’s (“Defendants”) Notice of Supplemental Authority and Request for Judicial Notice, filed on January 31, 2014. See Dkt. No. 287. Though styled as a notice of supplemental authority and request for judicial notice in opposition to the pending motion for class certification, Defendants supply no “authority” on the issues before the Court and identify no facts of the sort that are eligible for judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(a) (“This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.”) and (b) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute . . . .”). The New York Supreme Court’s order, which Defendants submit as Ex. A to their notice, granted in part and denied in part defendants’1 motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. See Dkt. No. 287-1. The implications of this mixed ruling in the NY AG action are so far from the stuff of judicial notice that both sides to that case are claiming the order as a victory. See, e.g., http://origin.ny1.com/content/news/202888/judge-rules-in-state-ag-case-against- trump-university (last visited on Feb. 3, 2014) (Trump describing ruling as “a terrific opinion today, so we’re very happy by [sic] the victory”). As for the NY AG’s action itself, Plaintiffs are fully prepared to explain why it should not at all influence the Court’s class-certification decision. For example, none of the proposed class members here is party to that case, and they would have no way of preventing the NY AG from dropping the case or resolving it through some agreed- upon equitable relief. Either way, such an outcome would leave all victims without 1 Defendants in the New York Attorney General (“NY AG”) action include: The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC f/k/a Trump University LLC, DJT Entrepreneur Member LLC f/k/a DJT University Member LLC, DJT Entrepreneur Managing Member LLC f/k/a DJT University Managing Member LLC, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization LLC, Donald J. Trump, and Michael Sexton. Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 288 Filed 02/03/14 Page 2 of 6 912982_1 - 2 - 3:10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG) 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 any recovery and potentially vulnerable to a statute-of-limitations defense if they later attempted to recover their damages. See, e.g., Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he weight of authority and California’s interest in managing its own judicial system counsel us not to import the doctrine of cross- jurisdictional tolling into California law. The rule of American Pipe [& Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974)] – which allows tolling within the federal court system in federal question class actions – does not mandate cross-jurisdictional tolling as a matter of state procedure.”). Similarly, the NY AG’s case is just beginning, which is a situation that the Ninth Circuit expressly distinguished from the one presented in Kamm v. California City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1975), which Defendants cite As the Court in Kamm stated, “unlike Amalgamated Workers, the court here is not simply considering ‘possible administrative relief,’ but rather a remedy which, has already been instituted.” Id. at 211. The foregoing points are merely a cursory preview of the many reasons why Plaintiffs believe the NY AG’s action should not in any way undermine class certification here. This Court previously denied Defendants’ request to provide supplemental briefing on this topic (see Dkt. No. 274), so Plaintiffs will not burden the Court with more briefing, unless and until the Court indicates that it wants more because the Court has concerns as to whether the NY AG’s action may undermine class certification here. Otherwise, Plaintiffs simply and respectfully submit that the Court should deny Defendants’ request for judicial notice. DATED: February 3, 2014 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP JASON A. FORGE RACHEL L. JENSEN THOMAS R. MERRICK s/ Jason A. Forge JASON A. FORGE Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 288 Filed 02/03/14 Page 3 of 6 912982_1 - 3 - 3:10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG) 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 28 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP AMBER L. ECK HELEN I. ZELDES ALREEN HAEGGQUIST AARON M. OLSEN 625 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/342-8000 619/342-7878 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 288 Filed 02/03/14 Page 4 of 6 912982_1 3:10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG) 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 3, 2014, I authorized the electronic filing of the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I caused to be mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 3, 2014. s/ Jason A. Forge JASON A. FORGE ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) E-mail:jforge@rgrdlaw.com Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 288 Filed 02/03/14 Page 5 of 6 Mailing Information for a Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC et al Electronic Mail Notice List The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case. Amber Lee Eck ambere@zhlaw.com,winkyc@zhlaw.com,robyns@zhlaw.com Jason A Forge jforge@rgrdlaw.com,tholindrake@rgrdlaw.com,e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com Rachel L Jensen rjensen@rgrdlaw.com,llendzion@rgrdlaw.com,mbacci@rgrdlaw.com,e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com Jill Ann Martin jmartin@trumpnational.com,lvincent@trumpnational.com Thomas R. Merrick tmerrick@rgrdlaw.com Aaron M. Olsen aarono@zhlaw.com,winkyc@zhlaw.com David Keith Schneider dks@yslaw.com,ewb@yslaw.com Stephen F Yunker sfy@yslaw.com,ewb@yslaw.com Manual Notice List The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore require manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing program in order to create notices or labels for these recipients. (No manual recipients) Page 1 of 1CM/ECF - casd- 2/3/2014https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?116710772896244-L_1_0-1 Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 288 Filed 02/03/14 Page 6 of 6