In the News

Haeggquist & Eck has promoted attorney Aaron Olsen, who earlier this year served as co-lead class counsel in litigation against Donald Trump and Trump University, to partner, the firm has announced. The promotion took effect January 1, 2017.

A graduate of California Western School of Law, Olsen has spent the last seven years of his practice as an associate in ZHE’s employment law and consumer litigation departments. He focuses his practice on representing employees in all aspects of labor and employment litigation in federal and state courts and is experienced in prosecuting complex class action suits, including consumer fraud actions, product defect cases, wage and hour actions, and unfair competition and false advertising claims, among others. Late last year, Olsen was part of a multi-lawyer team that negotiated a $25 million settlement on behalf of students who attended Donald Trump’s Trump University. He was the first lawyer to field the phone call from and investigate the claims of Tarla Makaeff, who would eventually become the class representative in the case, and was instrumental in prosecuting the nearly seven-year litigation against Trump and his company.

Olsen has obtained millions of dollars in damages for his individual employee clients and has negotiated hundreds of settlements in labor and employment cases for causes of action including wrongful termination, harassment, retaliation, and misclassification. His work has also resulted in significant changes to employers’ labor practice across California, which has had a ripple effect in positively changing the lives of thousands of workers throughout the state.

Over the past few years, Olsen served as co-lead counsel for a nationwide consumer class of purchasers of an allegedly defective power adapter in a consumer product defect class action against Apple, Inc. In re MagSafe Apple Power Adapter Litig., Case No. C 09-01911 JW.  He also served as co-lead counsel for a nationwide consumer class action against Sony Electronics, Inc., which alleged fundamental flaws in the design and/or manufacturing process in the company’s VAIO Touchpad Notebooks. In Re Sony Vaio Computer Notebook Trackpad Litigation, Case No. 09-CV-02109-AJB-MDD (S.D. Cal.).

In 2011, Olsen and Haeggquist & Eck Managing Partner Alreen Haeggquist obtained a successful trial verdict on behalf of clients in a wage and hour, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract action. In addition to the trial verdict, ZHE persuaded the Court to find that the opposing party brought the action in bad faith, resulting in a substantial damages and attorney fee award for the firm’s clients. The judgment was affirmed in full on appeal.

Olsen was selected in 2015, 2016 and 2017 as a Super Lawyers Rising Star, an honor received by less than 2.5 percent of attorneys in California each year. He was also nominated as one of San Diego’s Outstanding Young Attorneys in 2011 and 2012.

“Aaron is a tremendous asset to the firm, and the partnership promotion rewards his incredible dedication and hard work,” Haeggquist said.

Olsen is a 2008 graduate of California Western School of Law, where she served as editor-in-chief of California Western School of Law Commentary and was an Executive Board Member of the Student Bar Association. He holds a B.A. in Business Finance from the University of Utah. Prior to joining ZHE, he was an attorney at Nicholas Boylan, APC, and served as a law clerk at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and the San Diego County Office of the Public Defender.

To schedule your free initial evaluation, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today!

San Diego (November 27, 2013) – On April 17, 2013, the 9th Circuit issued an Order reversing the district court’s denial of an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike a defamation counterclaim filed by plaintiff Tarla Makaeff against Trump University, and today the 9th Circuit issued an Order denying Trump University’s motion for en banc review.

In April 2010, plaintiffs’ counsel Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd filed a consumer class action against Trump University in federal court, alleging that Trump University made false and misleading statements in its advertising and real estate seminars in violation of state and federal laws.  In response, Trump University attempted to intimidate plaintiff Tarla Makaeff into dropping her lawsuit by filing a defamation counterclaim against her. In the defamation action, Trump University claimed that Ms. Makaeff defamed Trump University by lodging complaints with the Better Business Bureau and other government agencies and on an Internet consumer website about the marketing and sale of its real estate seminars.

In response, plaintiffs filed an Anti-SLAPP motion, asking the court to dismiss the defamation claim because the lawsuit was brought in retaliation for Ms. Makaeff exercising her right to free speech.  In August 2010, the district court denied Plaintiffs’ Anti-SLAPP motion, and plaintiffs appealed.

In the Ninth Circuit’s April 17, 2013 ruling, the Court noted that statements by consumers, such as Ms. Makaeff, relate to an “issue of public interest” and are protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute because they are “a warning not to use [the company’s] services.”  The Court also found that Trump University was a limited purpose public figure because a “public controversy existed over Trump University’s educational and business practices when Makaeff made her statements about them.”  The court held that “large scale, aggressive advertising can inject a person or entity into a public controversy that arises from the subject of that advertising,” and that “Trump University conducted an aggressive advertising campaign in which it made controversial claims about its products and services,” and that there was a “direct relationship between Trump University’s promotional messages and Makaeff’s allegedly defamatory statements.”  The Ninth Circuit stated that: “[H]aving traded heavily on the name and fame of its founder and chairman, Trump University was in no position to complain if the public’s interest in Trump fueled the flames of the legitimate controversy that its business practices engendered.”

In regard to Trump University’s contention that Makaeff previously said positive things about Trump University, the court eloquently stated: “As the recent Ponzi-scheme scandals involving onetime financial luminaries like Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford demonstrate, victims of con artists often sing the praises of their victimizers until the moment they realize they have been fleeced.  Makaeff’s initial enthusiasm for Trump University’s program is not probative of whether she acted with actual malice.”

On November 27, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Trump University’s petition for rehearing in a lengthy order drafted by Judge Wardlaw and Callahan (joined by Judges Fletcher and Gould); there is also a lengthy dissent by Judge Watford (joined by Judges Kozinski, Paez and Bea). In its opinion, the Court noted that: “Every circuit that has considered the issue has agreed with our conclusion in Newsham that anti-SLAPP statutes like California’s confer substantive rights under Erie.”  The Court concluded that Newsham and Batzel were correctly decided, that the purpose of an Anti-SLAPP motion is to “determine whether the defendant is being forced to defend against a meritless claim,” and that if Anti-SLAPP motions were not permitted in federal court, it would “put the federal courts at risk of being swept away in a rising tide of frivolous state [defamation] actions that would be filed in our circuit’s federal courts.”

The Ninth Circuit stated that: “Trump University’s counterclaim was obviously designed to overwhelm Makaeff by making it more burdensome and expensive for her to pursue her deceptive business practices claims against Trump University. Makaeff’s motion to strike concerned the frivolity of Trump University’s allegation that her speech about its deceptive business practices was defamatory; its very purpose was to determine whether Trump University’s counterclaim was designed to chill Makaeff’s valid exercise of her First Amendment rights.”

To schedule your free initial consultation, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today!

The New York Daily News on Monday reported on the Trump University class-action lawsuit filed by Zeldes & Haeggquist LLP, as well as investigations by state attorneys general and complaints to the Better Business bureau involving Trump University.  According to the article by Doug Feiden, Trump University and Trump Institute have been deluged by complaints from more than 150 students in at least 22 states claiming they’ve been cheated out of tens of thousands of dollars.  These students include dozens of retirees, veterans, laid-off workers and seniors living on fixed incomes.

Trump University received a D-minus rating from the Better Business Bureau in January, which is under review after Trump University objected. Trump Institute got an F in early 2009.  After the New York Department of Education demanded Trump University stop calling itself a “university,” it changed its name to the “Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC” on Tuesday.

Zeldes & Haeggquist client and former New York teacher Patricia Murphy, who spent $15,000 on Trump seminars is quoted in the Daily News article stating:  ”I took out most of my life’s savings … maxed out my credit cards and badly damaged my credit rating.  What do I have to show for it? Big bills, interest payments, finance charges – an awful lot of stress.”

According to the investigation by the New York Daily News, attorneys general in six states and several Business Bureaus have received numerous complaints, and some are initiating investigations:

– In January, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott launched a probe of Trump University’s “possibly deceptive” advertising and business practices after getting two dozen complaints.

– Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum’s office is “reviewing” 20 complaints from people who paid up to $35,000 for various “Trump Elite” packages promising “priceless information” that never came.

– Better Business Bureaus have tracked at least 70 allegations of deceptive practices from Brooklyn to Honolulu. Those include complaints by students that they were pressured to max out credit cards.

“The complaint alleges, and the facts will show that the purpose of each seminar is not to teach students about real estate investing, but to convince them to buy additional Trump seminars,” said Amber Eck, a partner in the San Diego-based law firm Zeldes & Haeggquist LLP.

Here is a link to the New York Daily News article – http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/05/31/2010-05-31_trump_u_flunks_students_complaints_pile_up_from_those_who_paid_up_to_30g_say_the.html

To schedule your free initial consultation, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today!

April 30, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

San Diego, April 30, 2010 – Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP on April 30, 2010, filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit against Trump University, on behalf of consumers who purchased Trump University real estate investing seminars.

Trump University markets itself as a University driven by the mission to “train, educate and mentor entrepreneurs on achieving financial independence through real estate investing.” It is anything but. Indeed, in January 2010, the Better Business Bureau gave Trump University a D-minus rating, and the New York Department of Education recently demanded that Trump University remove “University” from its title, insisting that the “use of the word ‘university’ by your corporation is misleading and violates New York Education Law and the Rules of the Board of Regents.”

The class-action lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleges that Trump University made materially misleading misstatements in its advertising and in its real estate seminars, in violation of federal and state law. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff and class members who attended Trump University’s real estate investing classes were promised a “complete real estate education,” a “one-year apprenticeship,” a one-on-one mentorship, practical and fail-safe real estate techniques, a “power team” consisting of real estate agents, lenders, personal finance managers, property managers and contractors, and were assured that although the seminars cost as much as $35,000, they would make the money back in their first real estate deal, and could make up to tens of thousands of dollars per month or more. Plaintiff and class members did not receive what they bargained for.

The Complaint alleges that instead of receiving a “complete real estate education,” each seminar was merely an “infomercial” to up-sell the student to purchase an additional Trump Seminar. The “one-year apprenticeship” consumers were promised was actually just a 3-day seminar; the one-on-one year-long mentorship consisted of a 2-1/2 day excursion to view properties, and “mentors” recommended real estate deals in which they stood to financially benefit, and then quickly disappeared and failed to return calls.

“One of the most disturbing practices Trump University engaged in during these seminars was to tell students to raise their credit card limit ‘4 times’ during the break, presumably to make real estate purchases,” said Plaintiff’s attorney, Amber Eck of Haeggquist & Eck, LLP. “In fact, after students had raised their credit card limits, Trump University representatives told the students to use their newly increased credit limit — not to purchase real estate – but to purchase the next Trump “Gold” seminar – for $35,000.”

“It’s really disappointing in this economy to see the lengths that Trump will go to play on the fears of seniors – cajoling, ‘How many of you lost a lot of your 401k investment in the market? How many of you are retired? How many of you want to leave a legacy or property to your kids?” said Helen Zeldes of Haeggquist & Eck, LLP. “Praying on people’s fears to sell them empty promises is not just wrong, it’s illegal.”

• May 25, 2011 – CNN, “Is Trump University a Scam?“
• May 7, 2011 – Forbes, “Trump University’s Unhappy Students.”
• May 6, 2011 – The Huffington Post, “Trump’s ‘University’ Accused of Scamming Customers.”
• May 5, 2011 – San Francisco Chronicle, “Trump’s Real Estate Courses Didn’t Deliver, Lawsuit Says.”
• April 26, 2011 – The Trump University lawsuit was featured on NPR’s “These Days” with Alison St. John and KPBS Legal Analyst Dan Eaton.
• April 19, 2011 – NBC Nightly News airs a story on Donald Trump, mentioning Trump University.
• On October 12, 2010, the Southern District of California issued an Order upholding our first amended class action complaint against Trump University as to nearly all claims, including claims for breach of contract, false advertising, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (finding Plaintiffs stated a claim that Trump University’s conduct was unlawful, unfair and… fraudulent) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), with leave to amend as to the other claims. A Second Amended Complaint was filed on December 16, 2010.

If you wish to discuss or participate in this action or have any questions concerning your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Amber Eck at (619) 342-8000 or click here.