SAN DIEGO (CN) - While barrels of ink have been spilled over Donald Trump's racially inged attack on a federal judge, little air time and newspaper print has been devoted to the legal underpinning of the two cases against Trump University now moving through federal court in San Diego.
The first question raised by the two cases is why there are two, and not one, since both cases are class actions naming the likely Republican presidential candidate as principal defendant.
University of California, San Diego Law Professor Sean Martin said there is time to consolidate both cases should either of those classes desire to do so, but slight differences in the plaintiffs and the claims have caused the bifurcation.
The first case, Low v. Trump, is a class action suit involving Trump University students in three states, New York, California and Florida,. Whereas the second case, Cohen v. Trump, filed three years after, involves a much larger, nationwide class and a more complex set of claims that include racketeering.
The older Low case centers on rather traditional claims of false advertising although it also includes elder abuse claims that contain more legal elements while the newer Cohen case claims Trump University violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
The Low case is expected to be the first to come to trial. It is also the simpler, more straightforward of the two, said law professor Martin.
Essentially, the plaintiffs are claiming customers made purchases based on one of the three following assertions made by Trump University, which turned out to be deceptive.
The first claim relates to the use of the word "university" in the title Trump University.
The claim is that use of that designation led reasonable consumers to believe Trump University was an institution of higher education with professors, degrees, accreditation etc. when in fact Trump University possessed none of those things and instead consisted of three-day real estate seminars in various hotel rooms.
The second claim of false advertising centers on the university's promise that its classes would be taught by experts hand-selected by Donald Trump himself. The plaintiffs claim the teachers often had zero or very little experience in real estate and were not qualified experts.
Trump admits he had little involvement in the selection of any of the instructors or mentors beyond glancing at resumes, according to depositions conducted by Jason Forge, lead plaintiff attorney in the Cohen case, recorded in two sessions around the holidays.
"I would see some resumes, but I told him, you know, I want very good people," Trump said during the deposition.
In the same series of depositions, the former president of Trump University, Michael Sexton, contradicts that assertion, saying Trump had practically no involvement in the selection of any of the organization's personnel.
The final claim in the Low case relates to Trump University mentors, which the university claimed would assist attendees who purchased a $35,000 upgrade, for at least a year. The mentors often had zero interaction with students beyond the initial three-day seminar, the plaintiffs claim in the suit.
While Martin said the atmospherics of the case are bad — encouraging people to pay $1,500 to attend a three-day seminar at which attendees are pressured to spend an additional $35,000 — the law professor said the case if far from a slam dunk.