## Facts

- Purchasers of Trump University real-estate seminars brought a putative class action alleging deceptive marketing practices in selling a three-day “fulfillment” seminar and “Trump Elite” programs.
- Plaintiffs alleged Defendants used uniform advertising and promotions to induce purchases through three central representations: (1) Trump University was an “accredited university”; (2) instruction would come from real-estate “experts, professors and mentors” hand-selected by Donald J. Trump; and (3) students would receive one year of expert support and mentoring.
- The court previously certified a class and subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3) based on those alleged common misrepresentations.
- Defendants moved to decertify, arguing that, under Comcast, Plaintiffs’ proposed “full-refund/full-recovery” damages approach failed to match the liability theory and made the case unmanageable for class treatment.
- Plaintiffs filed an unopposed request asking the court to clarify the scope of the earlier certification order, including the class/subclass contours and the misrepresentations at issue.

## Issues

1. Whether the class should remain certified as to liability notwithstanding a Comcast-based challenge focused on damages methodology.
2. Whether the class should remain certified as to damages where Plaintiffs sought classwide recovery using a full-refund model.
3. Whether the court should clarify the scope of the prior certification order concerning the class/subclasses and the misrepresentations to be tried on a class basis.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to decertify as to liability, holding that common questions predominate on whether Defendants made uniform, actionable misrepresentations.
- The court granted the motion to decertify as to damages, concluding Plaintiffs’ full-refund model did not satisfy Comcast and that damages would require individualized determinations.
- The court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed application to clarify the class certification order, restating the certified class/subclasses and the uniform representations defining the liability case.

## Legal Principles

- A Rule 23(b)(3) class may remain certified for liability where alleged misrepresentations are standardized and liability can be resolved using common evidence, even if damages present individualized questions.
- Under Comcast, a class seeking damages must present a methodology consistent with the liability theory and capable of classwide measurement; a model that risks awarding amounts untethered to the alleged wrongdoing is insufficient.
- A full-refund damages theory may fail predominance where class members may have received varying value from the product or service, making restitution or damages dependent on individualized valuation and experience.

## Conclusion

The court preserved class treatment for adjudicating whether Defendants’ alleged uniform misrepresentations were unlawful, but decertified the class for damages because Plaintiffs’ proposed classwide full-refund model did not reliably measure only harm attributable to the challenged conduct and would require individualized valuation inquiries.


Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 309 F.R.D. 631 (S.D. Cal. 2015)