[brief] Notably, Defendant failed to address the numerous misrepresentations by [...] staff that Plaintiff was able to select and/or opt-in to the dual degree program at a time after the end of Plaintiff’s first year.  Defendant also failed to address the August 1, 2024 internal emails between [...], [...], [...] School of Pharmacy Dean, and [...] (“[...]”), University Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, which demonstrate a student was able to matriculate into the master’s pathway at times other than after the end of their first year, and that Plaintiff was authorized to take master’s track courses once he got off academic probation.  More importantly, Defendant failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff was provided with any program or course related material indicating that he was only able to select or opt-out of the master’s pathway at the end of his first academic year, and could not select the pathway when his GPA rose above a 3.0, whenever that occurred.  Plaintiff was not afforded the “opportunity” to pursue degrees in both the Pharmacy and master’s program (the “dual degree program”, a unique program which initially led him to enroll at the school, and therefore, the Defendant failed to provide what it promised in line with what was advertised and set forth in [...]’s course materials provided to the inaugural class.  Before and after Plaintiff’s enrollment at [...], Defendant misrepresented the requirements of the dual degree program, including its GPA requirements and the selection/opt-out period for the dual degree program.  Subsequently, Defendant fraudulently induced Plaintiff to remain at [...], based upon the multiple misrepresentations that he would be able to opt-in the dual degree program at any time after his first year in the Pharm.D program.  It was not until August 29, 2016 that Plaintiff learned he was not able to opt-in to the dual degree program, when Dr. Avaltroni advised Plaintiff that he was allegedly required to have achieved a 3.00 GPA at the end of his first academic year of Pharmacy courses to have opted in to the dual degree program and could not opt-in at any time thereafter.  This was contrary to the representations from [...] staff that Plaintiff was able to opt-in to the program upon achieving a 3.0 GPA, whenever that occurred.  Thus, this was a severe deviation from Defendant’s own rules and regulations.  Defendant relies on the Accreditation Counsel for Pharmacy Education’s (“[...]”) condition that the 3.0 GPA requirement be added to permit the dual degree offering by [...], yet fails to explain why the guideline requirements, set forth in an internal proposed Concurrent Degree Enrollment Program Guidelines and Overview packet, were not provided to its inaugural class.  There is no evidence that this admission requirement was set forth in any course materials provided to students.  This was a significant omission of material fact by [...].  Nor does Defendant explain why the GPA requirement, which was added to the [...] website after Plaintiff commenced classes, was not immediately made known to the inaugural class.  It was not until Plaintiff utilized the “Wayback” machine years later that he first saw the [...] website was changed.  Plaintiff did not see the change at the time it occurred.  Plaintiff was not afforded the opportunity to achieve a master’s degree upon reaching the requisite GPA requirements, and therefore breached its contract with Plaintiff.  Defendant misrepresented that Plaintiff was able to opt-in to the program after his first year upon achieving a 3.0 GPA, and thereby fraudulently induced Plaintiff into remaining at [...].  STATEMENT OF FACTS