Settlement talks possible in Trump University lawsuit

The uncertainty of how the Trump University lawsuit will proceed now that the case’s central figure has been elected America’s next president was on display in a San Diego courtroom Thursday, where attorneys discussed everything from postponing the trial to reviving settlement talks.

“We’re in uncharted territory,” said Donald Trump’s attorney, Daniel Petrocelli. “We need a little bit of a timeout.”

Petrocelli said Trump’s “monumental” obligations as president-elect offered “compelling justification” for the Nov. 28 trial to be put off until after his Jan. 20 inauguration.

The request, which is expected to be filed in the next few days, seems unlikely to be granted.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing the trial, has been reluctant to delay it . Trump has accused the judge of being unfair to him because of his “Mexican” heritage — Curiel was born in Indiana to parents who were Mexican immigrants.

The lawsuit accuses the president-elect and his Trump University of misleading students who signed up for seminars to learn inside secrets of real estate investing. Thursday’s hearing was scheduled to resolve disputes over evidence.

Curiel used the opportunity to urge both sides to try to settle. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller has offered to act as a mediator, and Curiel encouraged the attorneys to consider it.

“I’m all ears, your honor,” Petrocelli said.

According to the lawsuit filed in 2010, Trump University students said they encouraged to max out credit cards in order to pay for higher levels of education. The “elite” membership cost $35,000 and included a year of personal mentoring. But, the students claim, they didn’t learn useful tips and weren’t mentored.

The first part of the trial is to focus narrowly on whether Trump misled students by advertising that the instructors were “handpicked” by him and whether the term “university” was inappropriately used.

Trump University was not accredited, and New York authorities forced the school to drop “university” from its name. The second phase, if necessary, would determine how each eligible class member was damaged and how much each is owed.

There are as many as 7,000-plus potential class members in California, Florida and New York.

On Thursday, Curiel heard arguments about what evidence may and may not be admissible at trial. One dealt with how much politics would be allowed to enter into the case.

In one motion, Trump’s lawyers asked to ban any mention of statements made by the then-candidate — including on Twitter, in debates or in media interviews — from the trial, arguing that campaign statements would not be relevant and would unfairly prejudice the jury.

That could include public statements Trump made about Curiel.

The judge ruled that he would not issue a blanket ban on such evidence because the request was too vague. But Curiel invited Trump’s lawyers to bring more specific requests in this area at trial if it comes up.

The judge also declined to ban media coverage of Trump University from being admitted at trial, again saying the request was too vague.

In one opinion issued Thursday, Curiel said that witnesses’ political affiliations, voting preferences or political contributions would not be admissible because they had “no apparent relevance and may be unduly inflammatory.”

He also ruled that Trump’s lawyers would not be allowed to put on evidence of “success stories” that came out of the seminars during the liability phase of the trial. Nor will they be able to present evidence that students allegedly gave Trump University 98% approval ratings.

Outside the courtroom after the 2½-hour hearing, plaintiff attorney Patrick Coughlin said: “We have never been close to a settlement.” And postponing the trial into the start of Trump’s presidency, he said, “would only make things more complicated.”

“Now’s the time to do the trial. Our clients have waited 6½ years.”

kristina.davis@sduniontribune.com

Davis writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune