Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01771/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01771-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, ex rel., Ronald

D. Irwin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Significant Education, Inc., a.k.a. Grand

Canyon Education, Inc., a Delaware

corporation doing business as Grand

Canyon University, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1771-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff-Relator Ronald Irwin brings this qui tam action against Defendant alleging

violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)-(2). Dkt. #11. Defendant has

filed a motion to dismiss all claims. Dkt. #23. For the reasons that follow, the Court will

deny the motion. 

I.

Irwin was hired by Grand Canyon University (GCU) on February 13, 2006 as an

enrollment counselor and promoted to National Corporate Liaison shortly thereafter.

Dkt. #11 ¶ 37. His job responsibilities included giving presentations, enrolling students, and

collecting leads that could be solicited by phone bank personnel. Id. ¶ 38. Irwin alleges that

GCU repeatedly violated the incentive compensation ban placed by the federal government

on schools receiving Title IV funds. Id. ¶ 42; see 20 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(20);

Case 2:07-cv-01771-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/10/09 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiff’s memorandum fails to comply with the font-size requirements of the

Court’s local rules. Plaintiff shall comply with these rules in all future filings. 

- 2 -

34 C.F.R. § 668.14(b)(22)(i). The incentive compensation ban prohibits schools that receive

Title IV funds from providing “any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based

directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or financial aid to any person or

entities engaged in any student recruiting or admission activities.” 20 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(20).

Irwin argues that GCU violated the False Claims Act by falsely certifying that it was

compliant with the incentive compensation ban in order to receive federal grants and student

loans. Dkt. #11 at 2. 

In the complaint, Irwin details more than twenty separate instances in which GCU

violated the incentive compensation ban by compensating enrollment counselors directly

based upon securing enrollments, ranking counselors against each other based upon the

number of enrollments they secured, and providing incentive trips, lunches, dinners, gift

certificates, and paid days off based upon the number of enrollments secured. Defendant

does not dispute that it certified that it was compliant with the incentive compensation ban

in order to receive the federal funds. Instead, Defendant seeks dismissal of all claims on the

grounds that: (1) GCU’s practices are lawful and do not violate Title IV, (2) student loan

funds were not paid to GCU directly by the government, and (3) Irwin failed to plead fraud

with sufficient particularity. Dkt. #23. The motion has been briefed fully. No party has

requested oral argument.1

II.

When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), “[a]ll

allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the

non-moving party.” Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1996). “To avoid a Rule

12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations; rather, it must

plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Clemens v.

Case 2:07-cv-01771-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/10/09 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendant’s exhibits B and C – DOE letters from 1997 and 1995 – suffer from the

same lack of support. 

- 3 -

DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007)). The court may not assume that the plaintiff can

prove facts different from those alleged in the complaint. See Associated Gen. Contractors

of Cal. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983); Jack Russell Terrier

Network of N. Cal. v. Am. Kennel Club, Inc., 407 F.3d 1027, 1035 (9th Cir. 2005). Similarly,

legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not given a presumption of truthfulness

and “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to defeat

a motion to dismiss.” Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998).

III.

Defendant contends that all claims should be dismissed because all of the alleged

wrongful practices are actually permissible under Title IV. Dkt. #23 at 4-9. Defendant first

argues that Irwin’s claims of termination threats, location transfers, promotions, and GCU’s

administration of the Family Medical Leave Act are personnel matters rather than

compensation and, therefore, are not covered by the Higher Education Act. In support,

Defendant relies on an unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum opinion and a 1999 letter

issued by the Department of Education (DOE). Id. at 4-5; United States ex rel. Bott v. Silicon

Valley Colleges, 262 Fed. Appx. 810, 810 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Defendant does not identify the source of the 1999 letter, does not assert that

Defendant relied upon it in developing Defendant’s personnel policies, and provides no basis

for concluding that it reflects current DOE policy. Defendant also fails to cite any legal

authority holding that ten-year-old letters issued by the DOE are controlling authority for this

Court.2

 Moreover, even assuming that personnel matters are not covered by the Higher

Education Act, these matters make up only a small part of Plaintiff’s complaint. 

Case 2:07-cv-01771-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/10/09 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

Defendant also asserts that Irwin’s claim that compensation was based on the number

of enrollments does not amount to a violation because the compensation adjustments were

not based solely on the number of students enrolled. Dkt. #23 at 5-6. Defendant points to

Irwin’s allegation that his 2007 performance review was adjusted based on his attendance,

work ethic, proper use of paid time off, integrity, and team and self-leadership qualities.

Dkt. #23 at 7; Dkt. #1 ¶ 46. Defendant fails to note that in the same paragraph Irwin calls

into question the veracity of this performance review because his managers rarely or never

took the time to observe his work. Irwin also notes that: (1) Mr. Tidwell stated that hitting

the enrollment goal is “the only way you will increase your personal income[,]” (2) Mr.

Chandler stated that a raise would never be approved with Irwin’s enrollment numbers

because “if we don’t get paid, you don’t get paid[,]” and (3) Mr. Mayhew sent an e-mail

stating “Remember, the more events you have the more opportunities you have to enroll

which equals a bigger check for each of you.” Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 51, 43, 52 (emphasis in original).

Irwin alleges elsewhere in the complaint that sales performance – the number of enrollments

obtained – was the key to financial success in Defendant’s employ. Id. ¶¶ 19, 21. Accepting

these allegations as true and construing them in the light most favorable to Irwin, the Court

cannot conclude that Irwin has failed to allege a violation of the incentive compensation ban.

IV.

Defendant argues that Irwin’s claims involving student loan funds are barred by the

United States Supreme Court case of Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders,

128 S. Ct. 2123 (2008), because Irwin cannot allege that GCU received FFELP or FDLP

funds directly from the government. Dkt. #23 at 9-11. Section 3729(a)(2) imposes civil

liability on any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false

record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government.”

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2). In Allison Engine, the Supreme Court held that “a plaintiff asserting

a [section] 3729(a)(2) claim must prove that the defendant intended that the false record or

statement be material to the Government’s decision to pay or approve the false claim.”

Case 2:07-cv-01771-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/10/09 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Defendant argues in its reply brief that section 3729(a)(2) does not apply because the

lender, not the government, provided the government-insured funds to GCU. Dkt. #30 at 10.

The Court will not dismiss Irwin’s claim on the basis of an argument raised for the first time

in the reply brief. 

- 5 -

128 S. Ct. at 2126. It is not sufficient that government funds were simply used to pay the

claim. Id. at 2128 (noting that imposing liability anytime government funds are used would

create an almost boundless reach). 

Defendant’s argument that funds must be transferred directly from the government to

Defendant misses the mark. The issue is not whether the payment was directly transmitted

from the government to Defendant, but whether the Defendant made a false statement or

record to get the government to pay or approve the claim. Even in Allison Engine, the Court

noted that section 3729(a)(2) applies to payments made to a subcontractor through a prime

contractor so long as the subcontractor submitted a false statement to the prime contractor

“intending for the statement to be used by the prime contractor to get the Government to pay

its claim.” Id. at 2130. Irwin alleges that Defendant falsely certified that it complied with

the incentive compensation ban with the intent that the government pay or approve the claim

for student loan funds, including but not limited to FFELP funds. Dkt. #11 ¶¶ 32-33.3

 

V.

Defendant contends that Irwin has failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity.

Dkt. #23 at 11. Certain elements of fraud claims carry a higher standard of pleading under

the Federal Rules Civil Procedure: “In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances

constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge,

and other condition of the mind of a person may be averred generally.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

“While statements of the time, place and nature of the alleged fraudulent activities are

sufficient, mere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient.” Moore v. Kayport Package

Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 540 (9th Cir. 1989).

Case 2:07-cv-01771-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/10/09 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 6 -

In the motion to dismiss, Defendant cites carefully selected statements from among

the many detailed allegations of wrongdoing in Plaintiff’s complaint. In addition to

numerous allegations of specific violations of the incentive compensation ban containing

both the date and name of the GCU employee involved, Dkt. #11 ¶¶ 39-63, Irwin provides

detailed descriptions of how GCU management officials falsely certified to the government

that GCU complied with the incentive compensation ban in order to receive Title IV funding.

See e.g. ¶¶ 24 (GCU’s management officials every year “falsely certify to the DOE

compliance with the incentive compensation ban in the PPA and federal regulations”

including in “GCU’s May 2005 PPA submitted to DOE and in its March 2008 application

for recertification.”); 25 (GCU’s management officials “every year also falsely assert

compliance with the incentive compensation ban in ‘management assertion letters’ written

by GCU management for annual compliance audit”); 26 (“GCU annually certifies in a

management assertion letter that it has ‘not paid to any persons or entities any commission,

bonus or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing

enrollments . . . for each year at issue’”); 27 (“GCU deliberately conceals from DOE its

continual and ongoing practices that intentionally violate the HEA incentive compensation

ban as part of GCU’s protracted fraudulent conduct to falsely obtain Title IV funds from the

DOE”); 31 (“GCU’s claims for Pell Grant funds are fraudulent. When GCU requests,

receives, and retains the Pell Grant funds, GCU knows it is ineligible to receive those funds

because of its intentional violations of the HEA incentive compensation ban.”); 32 (GCU

falsely certifies that the students applying for Title IV funds are eligible even though GCU

“knows that this claim for funds is false when made because GCU knows its students are not

eligible under the Title IV program due to GCU’s violations of the HEA incentive

compensation ban.”); 33 (“When GCU requests, receives and retains the government insured

loan funds, GCU knows it is ineligible for those funds because of its intentional violations

of the HEA incentive compensation ban.”). The Court concludes that these allegations

Case 2:07-cv-01771-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/10/09 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

In a footnote, Defendant argues that although Irwin states that GCU made false

claims to the government from 2001 to present, Irwin fails to allege any specific false

statements dated earlier than May 2005. Dkt. #23 at 3 n.1. As discussed above, the Court

finds that Irwin has sufficiently stated a claim for fraud under Rule 9(b). Limiting the claim

to 2005 and later is best suited to a motion for summary judgment. 

- 7 -

sufficiently apprise Defendant of the allegedly fraudulent statements. Irwin has pled fraud

with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b).4

 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. #23) is denied.

2. The Court will set a Rule 16 case management conference by a separate order.

DATED this 10th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-01771-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/10/09 Page 7 of 7