Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC, 309 F.R.D. 631

Class action by purchasers of Trump University (TU) three-day "Fulfillment" seminars and "Elite" programs in CA, NY, and FL alleging fraudulent misrepresentations (e.g., that TU was an accredited university, instructors were hand-picked by Trump, and students would get one year of mentoring).
Court previously certified a multi-state class and five subclasses (California UCL/CLRA/FAL; California elder abuse; New York GBL §349; Florida FDUTPA/Misleading Advertising; Florida elder abuse).
Plaintiffs proposed a full-recovery (full-refund) damages model: return of amounts paid (plus interest) as restitution for alleged worthless product.
Defendants moved to decertify post-Comcast, arguing the full-refund model fails Comcast’s requirement that damages methodology be tied to the liability theory and must account for offsets/value actually received.
Court held liability issues remain classwide but found damages unsuitable for classwide resolution; it bifurcated liability and damages (denying decertification on liability; granting decertification on damages) and clarified the class definition.

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs’ full-refund damages model satisfies Comcast	Full-refund matches Plaintiffs’ liability theory that TU was worthless because core promises (Trump, hand-picked instructors, mentorship) were not delivered	Full-refund is arbitrary under Comcast because it ignores offsets for any value class members received	Plaintiffs’ full-refund model is consistent with their liability theory and not inherently arbitrary under Comcast (so class may proceed on liability)
Whether class certification remains appropriate for liability	Liability can be proven with common evidence across class	Class should be decertified because damages and individualized offsets predominate	Court denies decertification on liability — common issues predominate for liability phase
Whether damages phase can be decided classwide	Full-recovery provides workable baseline; defendants can raise offsets later	Damages require individual adjudication of value received, so classwide damages are unmanageable	Court grants decertification as to damages and orders bifurcation: liability trial first, individual or subsequent proceedings for damages/offsets
Adequacy of class counsel / procedural delays	Counsel acted reasonably and litigated actively; delay in notice was strategic and limited	Counsel’s delay and potential conflicts warrant decertification	Court finds counsel adequate and declines to decertify on that basis

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (requires a damages methodology at class certification that is consistent with the theory of liability and permits rigorous analysis)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (class certification requires rigorous analysis and defendants must be able to litigate individual statutory defenses)
Gen. Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (district courts may revisit class certification in light of subsequent developments)
Figgie Int’l, Inc. v. FTC, 994 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1993) (upheld full refunds where deceptive selling, not the value of the product, was the injury to be redressed)
Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (approves bifurcation of liability and damages to preserve defendant’s right to individual defenses)
Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013) (class certification acceptable where common liability issues exist even if damages vary; individual hearings can determine damages)
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003) (restitution aims to restore status quo by returning funds to which plaintiff has ownership interest)
In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 116 (2009) (recognizes difference between purchase price and value received as one measure of restitution)