# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 21 24

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ahm ed So ue id an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

St . Lou is Uni ve rs it y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

17 , 20 19 Fi le d: Ju ne 14 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Ahm ed So ue id an ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r di sm is s i n g hi s 1
Mi ss ou ri st at e-l aw cl ai m s fo r br each of co nt ract , b reac h of th e im pl ie d co ve na nt of

go od fai th an d fai r de al in g, an d frau du le nt m is rep res en ta ti on ag ai ns t S t. Lou is

The Hon or ab le Ro nn ie L. W hi te , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.Uni ve rs it y (SLU). So ue id an arg ue s th at th e di st ric t cou rt erro ne ou sl y di sm is se d th e cla im s und er th e ed uc at io na l m al pr act ic e do ct rin e an d fo r fai lu re to pr ov e th e req ui red
el em en ts

. He fu rth er as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s req ue st fo r le av e to am en d h is co m

pl ai nt . W e aff

irm.

I. Bac kg ro un d 2
So ue id an en ro ll ed as a do c t o r a l s t ud en t at SLU in th e Park s Co ll eg e of Eng in eeri ng , Avi at io n an d Tech no lo gy in 20 12

. SLU rep res en te d to So ue id an th at he

wou ld ob ta in hi s Ph .D. in m ech an ic al an d aero sp ace en gi ne eri ng in fo ur y ears

. In Aug us t 20 12
, So ue id an m et wit h th e de pa rtment ch ai r to di sc us s a pl an of st ud y

. The
de pa rtment ch ai r dr aft ed a pl an fo r So ue id an to gr ad ua te wit h hi s do ct or al de gr ee in
fo ur y ears . Sou ei da n b eg an fol lo win g t he pl an an d e nr ol le d i n c ou rs ewo rk

.

So ue id an att em

pt ed to fin d a Ph.D. ad vi so r to su pe rv is e h is gra du at e st ud ie s, bu t he was u na bl e to fin d a nyon e wil li ng an d ab le to acce pt ne w g rad ua te st ud en ts

. One pr of es so r ev en to ld So ue id an th at he “ sh ou ld no t be in th is pr og ram .” Co m pl

. at
2
, ¶ 1 0
, So ue id

an v. St . L ou is Uni v. , No . 4 :1 7- cv -0 27 77 (E.D. M o. Nov . 2 7, 20 1 7 )
, ECF No. 1. As a res ul t, So ue id a n c om pl et ed hi s fir st th ree se m es te rs wit ho ut an ad vi so r.

In Decem be r 20 13
, Pro fes so r Raym on d Leb eau ag reed to se rv e as So ue id an ’s
ad v i s o r

. Le be au in di cat ed th at he co ul d ge t So ue id an th ro ug h th e pr og ram in two

m o r e y ears , ev en th ou gh Leb eau ha d no res earc h or fu nd in g fo r So ue id an

. Leb eau

was un cert ai n ab ou t th e req ui si te qu al ifyin g e xa m in at io n fo r So ue id an . As a res ul t, So ue id an refe rred t o t h e SLU Grad ua te St ud en t Han db oo k (“ Han db oo k” ) fo r

In rev ie win g th e gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s, we reci te th e fact s as al le ge d in 2 S o u e i d a n ’s co m

pl ai nt an d as su m e th em to be tru e. Se e Zi nk v. Lo mba rd i
, 78 3 F.3 d 10 89
, 10 98 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (en ba nc ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ W e a s s u me al l fact s in th e

co m pl ai nt to be tru e, an d [we] dr aw al l reas on ab l e i n f e ren ces in fav or of th e no nm ov in g p art y .”).

-2

-g u id an ce. Bu t Leb eau ad vi se d So ue id an to di sr eg ard th e Han db oo k’s gu id el in es

.

Leb eau to ld So ue id a n t h a t t he y wou ld “ do it ou r way ” an d th at So ue id an was “ a
gu in ea p ig for th is pro gr am .” Co m pl . at 3 , ¶ 13

.

In Aug us t 20 14
, th e gr ad ua te co or d i n a to r, gr ad ua te pr og ram s as si st an t, de pa rtment ch ai r, an d se ve ral pr of es so rs in th e de pa rtment si m ul ta ne ou sl y le ft SLU. By Aug us t 20 15
, th e gr ad ua te pr og ram s as si st a n t a n d t h e Dean of th e Co ll eg e of 3 Eng in eeri ng le ft th ei r po si ti on s. By th at ti m e, So ue id an ha d co m pl et ed te n gr ad ua te

l e ve l co ur se s to ward sa ti sf y in g th e co ur se cred it s req ui rem en t fo r hi s P h

. D

. i n

acco rd an ce wi th th e Han db oo k.

In Ju ne 20 15
, Leb eau ad vi se d So ue id an th at he ne ed ed to at te nd a co nf eren ce
to pr ep are fo r th e qu al ifyin g ex am in at io n. In Ja nu ary 20 16
, th ey at te nd ed th e AIAA
Sci Tech 20 16 co nf

eren ce i n S a n Dieg o, Cal ifo rn ia

. At th at co nf eren ce, So ue id an
pr es en te d h is th es is work . Sou ei da n p ai d fo r al l o f hi s co nf eren ce ex pe ns es

.

In May 20 16
, So ue id an m et wit h Leb eau an d th e g r a d u a te co or di na to r to di sc us s th e ti m in g o f S ou ei da n’s qu al ifyin g ex am in at io n. The reaf te r, Leb eau

reco m m en de d th at So ue id an do a pr act ic e ex am in pr ep arat io n fo r th e act ua l ex am

. Fo ll owi ng So ue id an ’s pr act ic e ex am in at io n, Leb eau to ld S ou ei da n th at two of th e

co m m i t t e e m em

be rs sa id So ue id an wou ld no t pa ss hi s ex am in at io n. Bu t, Leb eau

no te d, a th ird co mm it te e m em be r sa id he wou ld ha ve pa ss ed So ue id an

. Leb eau rel ay ed th is in fo rm at io n to So ue id an be fo re th e act ua l ex am so “ bu ll et s wou ld n’t go flyin g.” Id . at 4 , ¶ 16

.

So ue id an av erre d th at th e “ gr ad ua te pr og ram s as si st an t” le ft SLU “ [i]n Augu st 3 2 0 1 4
, ” bu t he al so av erre d th at th e “ gr ad ua te pr og ram s as si st an t” le ft “ [o ]n e ye a r la te r, in 20 15 .” Id

. at 3, ¶ 14

. The co m pl a i n t d o e s no t ex pl ai n if a ne w gr ad ua te

as si st an t was hi red aft er Au gu st 20 14 an d d ep art ed by A ug us t 2 01 5.

-3

-In Aug us t 20 16
, at th e st art of hi s fif th y ear at SLU, So ue id an to ok th e
qu al ifyin g ex am in at io n. One co m m it te e m em

be r in fo rm ed So u e i da n pr io r to th e

ex am in at io n th at So ue id an di d no t fo ll ow th e gu id el in es fo r writ in g hi s pa pe r an d

qu es ti on ed hi s pr ep ared ne ss fo r th e ex am in at io n. Afte r th e ex am in at io n, Leb eau to ld
So ue id an th at he “ sh ou ld no t ha ve be en le t in he re” be cau se Leb eau was “ no t in te res te d i n n ew id eas ” an d was “ afra id of pu tt in g Mr. So ue id an ou t th ere be cau se M r

. Le ab eau di dn ’t kn ow wha t Mr. Leb eau was do in g an d di dn ’t wan t to be ar t h a t

res po ns ib il it y .” Id . at 4 , ¶ 17 (br ack et s o m it te d)

.

Afte r no t pa ss in g th e qu al ifyin g ex am in at io n, So ue id an was in st ru ct ed to ta ke

an ot he r writ te n ex am in at io n an d pe rfo rm ad di ti on al co ur se wor k. Not ab ly, So ue id an ha d su gg es te d to Leb eau y ears pri or th at he tak e th is same writt en ex am . Th e ex am is n o r mal l y t a ke n wit hi n th e fir st y ear of Ph .D. st ud ie s. So ue id an di d en ro ll in th e

reco m m en de d ad di ti on al co ur se

. He al so m et an ad di ti on al t i me w i t h th e gr ad ua te

co or di na to r an d Leb eau to di sc us s h is pro gr es s.

In th e fal l of 20 16
, aft er ov er fo ur y ears , So ue id an le ft th e Ph .D. pr og ram an d
do wng rad ed to a Mas te r’s de gr ee. Bu t, in a fin al at te m pt to ob ta in hi s Ph .D., So ue id an
sp ok e wit h th e SLU Pro vo st of Acad em ic Affa i r s ab ou t hi s si tu at io n. The Pro vo st in it ia ll y ad vi se d S ou ei da n t o l eav e SLU to joi n a ne w pro gr am an d t ha t t he Pro vo st

wou ld he lp hi m ge t hi s di ss ert at io n cred it s refu nd ed

. Late r, aft er sp eak in g wit h th e Dean of th e Co ll eg e of Eng in eeri ng , th e Pro vo st ad vi se d So ue id an to fin d an

es ta bl is he d re se arch pro

ject. So ue id an was u na bl e to fin d o ne

.

In Feb ru ary 20 17 , at th e Pro vo st ’s be he st , So ue id an ren ewed hi s rela ti on sh ip
wit h Leb eau

. Leb eau , ho wev er, st il l sh owe d un ce r t a i nt y ad vi si ng So ue id an go in g fo rward

. Leb eau di rect ed So ue id an to th e Han db oo k’s gu id e l i n e s

. Leb eau to ld
S o u e i d an , “ W e do it th e way SLU do es it .” Id

. at 5, ¶ 25

. Nev ert he le ss , Leb ea u

rem ai ne d un fam il ia r w i t h th e ex am fo rm at an d pr oc ed ur es

. At th is po in t, So ue id an de ci de d t o e arn hi s Ph .D. by be gi nn in g a ne w at a d iff eren t u ni ve rs it y

.

-4

-So ue id an fil ed su it ag ai ns t SLU, al le gi ng Mi ss ou ri st at e-l aw cl ai m s fo r br each

of co nt ract , br each of th e im pl ie d co ve na nt of go od fai th a n d fai r de al in g, an d
frau du le nt m is rep res en ta ti on . I n su pp or t of hi s cl ai m s, So ue id an refe rred to sev eral

se ct io ns of th e Han db oo k th at he cl ai m ed SLU fai le d to fo ll ow du rin g hi s ti m e in th e Ph .D. p ro gr am . Ac co rd in g to So ue id an , S LU’ s fai lu r e t o “ m eet th ei r ob li ga ti on [s ]”

se t fo rth in th e Han db oo k “ m ad e it ve ry un li ke ly fro m th e be gi nn in g th at [h e] wou ld
be ab le to ach ie v e hi s Ph .D. de gr ee at SLU.” Id

. at 6, ¶ 30

. Fi rs t, th e Han db oo k

pr ov id ed th at “ [y ]ou sh ou ld ha ve an ad vi so r as s i g n e d w i t hi n th e fir st few week s of
cl as se s st art in g.” Id

. at 6, ¶ 27 (q uo ti ng Han db oo k at 9)

. So ue id an al le ge d th at “ SLU
di d no t as si gn an ad vi so r to [h im ]” wit hi n th e fir st few week s o f th e pr og ram

. Id

. In st ead
, So ue id an was wit ho ut an ad vi so r un ti l Decem be r 20 13
, “a ye a r an d a ha lf
aft er [h e] beg an th e Ph .D. pro gr am .” Id . at 6 , ¶ 28

.

Seco nd
, th e Han db oo k “ in di cat e[d ] th at st ud en ts are to m eet wit h th ei r ad vi so r in Ja nu ary to co m

pl et e th ei r Ann ua l St ud en t Rev ie w.” Id

. at 6, ¶ 29 (ci ti ng Han db oo k

at 9)

. So ue id an al le ge d th at he was de pr iv ed of th is rev ie w, whi ch “ wou ld ha ve be en

an op po rtu ni ty fo r Mr. So ue id an to ‘hav e a rev ie w of [h is ] wor k co m pl et ed
, cr e a te
go al s fo r th e ne xt y ear of st ud ie s an d res earc h, an d en su re [h e wa s] st ay in g on tr ac k fo r g ra du at io n .’ ” Id . (bo ld om it te d) (fi rs t al te rat io n i n o rig in al ).

Thi rd
, th e Han db oo k st at ed th at “ ‘[f] or Eng in eeri ng st ud en ts , th e Qua li fy in g Exa m is sc he du le d aft er 2 se m es te rs ,’ an d th at ‘[t]he Qua li fy in g Exa m is de si gn ed to de te rm in e if th e st ud en t is pr ep a r e d t o c o nt in ue Ph .D. st ud ie s an d carr y on wit h

res earc h.’” Id

. at 6, ¶ 31 (s eco nd a l t e r a ti on in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Han db oo k at 12 ).
So ue id an al le ge d th at be cau se he was wit ho ut an ad vi so r a f t e r t w o se m es te rs , th e Qua li fy in g Exa m was no t sc he du le d an d he “ m is se d ou t on an ot he r op po rtu ni ty to

en su re he was on tra ck to ob ta in a Ph .D.” Id

. at 7, ¶ 31

. He no te d th at he di d no t ta ke
th e Qua li fy in g Exam “ un ti l Aug us t 20 16
, at th e st art of hi s fi ft h y ear at SLU.” Id

. at 7, ¶ 3 2 (b ol d o m it te d)

.

-5

-In su pp or t of hi s cl ai m s, So ue id a n ad di ti on al ly ci te d th e 20 15 –2 01 6 SLU

Grad ua te Edu cat io n Cat al og (“ Cat al og ”). The Cat al og “ in di ca t e [d ] th at th e Park s Co ll eg e of Eng in eeri ng do es in f a c t h a v e a Ph .D. pr og ram .” Id

. at 7, ¶ 33 (ci ti ng Cat al og at 11 1)

. So ue id an al le ge d th at “ in pr act ic e, st ud en ts who reg is te r fo r th e SLU
Co ll eg e of Eng in eeri ng Ph .D. pr og ram are fac e d w i t h ” an in su ffi ci en t nu m be r of

“ pr of es so rs wit h fu nd in g or res earc h to se rv e as ad vi so rs to th es e Ph .D. St ud en ts .” Id

. at 7, ¶ 34 . S ou ei da n al le ge d th at “ [a]s a pr os pe ct iv e st ud en t, [h e] had a ri gh t t o rel y
up on th e Cat al og an d th at is wha t he di d whe n en ro ll in g in t h e Ph .D. pr og ram at SLU.” Id . at 7 , ¶ 35

.

So ue id an al le ge d th at SLU’ s fr a u d u l en t co nd uc t “ co st [h im ] ne arl y $2 00 ,00 0.0 0 i n t ui ti on pa y m en ts .” Id . at 7 , ¶ 36

.

SLU m ov ed to di sm is s So ue id an ’s co m pl ai nt , an d th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e

m ot io n. Fi rs t, th e co ur t de te rm in ed th at Mi ss ou ri’s ed uc at io na l m al pr act ic e do ct rin e
ap pl ie d to al l of So ue id an ’s cl ai m s an d req ui red di sm is sa l

. Acco rd in g to th e co ur t, So ue id an ’s cl ai m s wou ld im pe rm is si bl y req ui re it “ to de te rm in e whe th er SLU ti m el y

as si gn ed a Ph .D. ad vi so r, co nd uc te d a st ud en t revi ew, an d sch ed ul ed th e qu al ifyin g

ex am in at io n an d ho w th os e de ci si on s affe ct ed So ue id an ’s m at ric ul at io n.” So ue id an

v. Sa in t Lo ui s Uni v. , No. 4: 17 -cv -0 27 77
, 20 18 W L 19 97 28 7, at *3 (E.D. Mo

. Apr

. 27
, 20 18 ). His cl ai m s wou ld al so req ui re th e co ur t “ to an al y ze whe th er SLU br each ed it s

co nt r a c t b y ‘fail in g to award

. . . So ue id an th e Ph .D. de gr ee he was pr om is ed aft er

co m pl et in g al l di rect iv es an d 5 y ears of req ui si te co ur se wor k’” an d “ to ad dr es s no t

on ly th e qu al it y of th e Ph .D. p r o g r a m bu t al so whe th er So ue id an co m pr eh en si ve ly

an d ad eq ua te ly co m

pl et ed al l of hi s co ur se wor k.” Id

. (el li ps is in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Co m pl

. at 8, ¶ 39 ). The co ur t he ld th at m ak in g su ch de te rm in at io ns wou ld req ui re th e

co ur t to ex am in e SLU’ s ed uc at io na l pr oc es s. Thu s, th e ed uc a t io na l m al pr act ic e do ct rin e b arre d S ou ei da n’s cl ai m s.

-6

-Seco nd , t he di st ric t co ur t al te rn at iv el y he ld th at So ue id an ’s c l a i ms of br each

of co nt ract an d br each of th e co ve na nt of go od fai th an d fai r de al in g req ui re d
di sm is sa l “ ba se d up on th e ti m in g of th is act io n an d of th e al le ge d di sc ret e, co nt ract ua l

pr om is es rel ie d up on by So ue id an .” Id

. at *4

. Acco rd in g to th e co ur t, “ So ue id an was ad m it te d an d acce pt e d in to th e Ph .D. pr og ram in 20 12
, whi ch is whe n th e al le ge d

co nt ract wou ld ha ve be en fo rm ed .” Id

. Bu t So ue id an di d no t rece iv e th e al le ge d

pr om is es un ti l “ aft er hi s 20 12 co nt ract wit h SLU wa s fo rm ed .” Id . Th e c o u r t n ot ed
th at So ue id a n “ fir st rev ie wed th e Han db oo k in Decem be r 20 13 .” Id

. Fu rth erm or e, So ue id an ’s cl ai m s were al so pr em is ed on “ pr om is es co nt ai ne d in th e 20 15 –2 01 6
Cat al og [ ]. ” Id . “ Thu s,” t he co ur t co nc lu de d, “ So ue id an co ul d no t ha ve rel ie d up on th es e pr om is es in th e Han db oo k an d Cat al og whe n he e[n r]oll ed in th e Ph .D. pr og ram in 20 12 .” Id

. The co ur t h el d t ha t So ue id an ’s bre ach cla im s fa il ed be cau se So ue id an fai le d “ to id en ti fy an y pr om is es th at he rel ie d up on whe n he e[n r]oll ed in 20 12 .” Id

.

Thi rd
, th e co ur t he ld th at So ue i d a n ’s frau du le nt m is rep res en ta ti on cl ai m
req ui red di sm is sa l be cau se “ So ue id an

. . . fai le d to al le ge a frau d th at is in de pe nd en t of hi s co nt ract act io n. Rat he r, hi s frau d cl ai m is ba se d up on t he sa m e pr om is es an d

act io ns th at he all eg ed to su pp or t h is bre ach of c on tra ct cla im .” Id

.

Fi na ll y , th e di st ric t co ur t “ de ni e[d ] So ue id an ’s req ue st to fil e an am en de d

co m pl ai nt be cau se he

. . . fai le d to pr ov id e a pr op os ed am en dm en t al on g wit h hi s
req ue st .” Id . at * 5.

II. Dis cu ss io n On ap pe al
, So ue id an arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y di sm is se d hi s Mi ss ou ri st at e-l aw cl ai m s fo r br each of co nt ract , br each of th e co ve na nt of go od fai th

an d fa ir d eal in g, an d frau du le nt m is rep res en ta ti on

. Sp eci fic al ly, So ue id an co nt en ds
he pr ov id ed su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of al l th e req ui red ele m en ts in each cau se of act io n

an d th at th e co ur t sh ou ld no t ha ve ap pl ie d Mi ss ou ri’s ed uc at io na l m al pr act ic e

-7

-d oc tri ne

. He fu rth er as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s req ue st f o r le av e to am en d h is co m

pl ai nt

.

A. Edu ca ti on al

Mal pr ac ti ce Do ct ri ne W e rev i e w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s. BNS F Ry.
Co

. v. Se at

s, In c ., 90 0 F.3 d 54 5, 54 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). To su rv iv e a m ot io n to di sm is s, th e pl ai nt iff m

us t sh ow th at he “ is en ti tl ed to rel ie f, by al l e g i n g su ffi ci en t fact ua l

m at te r , acce pt ed as tru e, to st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on it s face .” Id

. (q uo ti ng In re Pre- Fil le d Pro pa ne Ta nk Ant it ru st L i t ig

. , 86 0 F.3 d 10 59
, 10 63 (8 th
Ci r. 20 17 ) (en ba nc )).

The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e ed uc at io na l m al pr act ic e do ct rin e ba rs al l
of So ue id an ’s cla im s. We agr ee.

In ed uc at io na l m al pr act ic e c a se s, a pl ai nt iff su es hi s or he r acad em ic in st it ut io n fo r to rti ou sl y fai li ng to pr ov id e ad eq ua te ed uc at io na l

se rv ic es

. If a ne gl i g e nc e cl ai m rai se s qu es ti on s co nc ern in g th e

reas on ab le ne ss of th e e d u cat or ’s co nd uc t in pr ov id in g ed uc at io na l

se rv ic es , th en th e cl ai m is on e of ed uc at io na l m al pr act ic e. Si m il arl y , if th e cl ai m req ui res an an al y si s of th e q u a l it y of ed uc at io n rece iv ed an d in m ak in g th at an al y si s th e fact -fi nd er m us t co ns id er pr in ci pl es of du ty, st an da rd s of care , an d th e r e a s on ab le ne ss of th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t, th en th e cl ai m is on e o f e d u cat io na l m al pr act ic e. If th e du ty al le ge d to ha ve be en br each e d i s t he du ty t o ed uc at e effe ct iv el y , t he cl ai m is on e of ed uc at io na l m al pr act ic e. A cl ai m th at ed uc at io na l serv ic es pr ov id ed

were in ad eq ua te , su bs ta nd ard
, or in effe ct iv e c o n st it ut es a cl ai m of ed uc at io na l m al pr act ic e. W he re th e co ur t is as ke d to ev al ua te th e co ur se of in st ru ct io n or th e so un dn es s of th e m et ho d of te ach in g th at ha s be en ad op t e d by an ed uc at io na l in st it ut io n, th e cl ai m is on e of ed uc at io na l

m al pr act ic e.

Dal la s Air mot iv e, In c. v. Fli gh tS af et y In t’l

, In c ., 27 7 S.W .3d 69 6, 70 0 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 08 ) (cl ean ed up ).

-8

-“ Gen eral ly, co u r ts ha ve refr ai ne d fro m reco gn iz in g ed uc at io na l m al pr act ic e

cl ai m s, ei th er in to rt or co nt ract , on th e pr em is e th at ‘[u]niv ers it ie s m us t be al lo wed
th e fle xi bi li t y t o man ag e th em se lv es an d co rrec t th ei r own m is ta ke s.’” Lu cer o v. Cu ra to rs of Uni v. of

Mo.
, 40 0 S.W .3d 1, 8 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 13 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Mil le r v. Lo

yo la Uni v. of

New Orl ea ns , 82 9 So .2d 10 57
, 10 61 (La. Ct

. App

. 2 0 0 2 )). Mi ss ou ri co ur ts ha ve “ refu se [d ] to reco gn iz e a cl ai m fo r ed uc at io na l

m al pr act ic e” be cau se it is no t th e ro le of co ur ts “ to m ic ro m an ag e a un iv ers it y ’s da il y
op erat io n s

. ” Id

. (ci ti ng Dal la s Air mot iv e, In c. , 27 7 S.W .3d at 70 0 (“ [C]ou rts ha ve refu se d to be co m e th e ov ers eers of bo th th e da y -to -d ay op erat io n of [th e] ed uc at io na l

pr oc es s as well as th e fo rm ul at io n of it s go ve rn in g po li ci es ” (s eco nd al t e r a t i o n in

or ig in al ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) )).

In th e pr es en t cas e, So ue id an rel ie s on th e Cat al og an d Han db oo k in su pp or t of hi s co nt ract an d frau du le nt m is rep res en ta ti on cl a i ms

. B ut al l of th e st at em en ts

pr ov id ed in th es e so ur ces are “ as pi rat io na l in na tu re.” Id

. at 6. Fi rs t, th e Han db oo k’s

st at em en t t ha t “ [y ]ou sh ou ld ha ve an ad vi so r as si gn ed wit hi n t he fir st few week s o f
cl as se s st art in g,” Co m

pl

. at 6, ¶ 27 (q uo ti ng Han db oo k at 9) (em ph as is ad de d)
, do es

no t creat e an ob li ga ti on on th e pa rt of SLU to as si gn So ue id an an ad vi so r. Not on ly
do es th e Han db oo k fai l t o s pe ci fy wh o as si gn s t he ad vi so r, bu t i t al so us es th e te rm

“ sh ou ld ,” no t “ m

us t” or “ sh al l.” Cf

. Olms te ad v. L.C. ex rel

. Zi mri ng , 52 7 U.S. 58 1,
59 9 (1 99 9) ( “ The Dev el op m en ta ll y Dis ab le d Ass is ta nc e an d Bi ll of Ri gh ts Act, a 19 75 m eas ur e, st at ed in as pi ra ti on al te rms t h a t ‘[ t ]he tre at m en t, se rv ic es , an d
ha bi li ta ti on fo r a pe rs on wit h de ve lo pm en ta l di sa bi li ti es

. . . sh ou ld be pr ov id ed in th e

se tt in g th at is le as t r e s t ric ti ve of th e pe rs on ’s pe rs on al li be rty.’ ” (fi rs t em ph as is
ad de d) (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ); Gut ie rr ez de Mart ine z v. La m agno , 51 5 U.S. 41 7, 43 2 n.9 (1 99 5) (“ Tho ug h ‘sha ll ’ ge ne ral ly m ean s ‘m us t,’ le ga l writ ers

s o m et im es us e, or m is us e, ‘sha ll ’ to m ean ‘sho ul d,’ ‘wil l,’ o r ev en ‘m ay .’” ) ; U n i o n Elec

. Co

. v. Co ns ol id

at io n Co al Co

. , 18 8 F.3 d 99 8, 10 01 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (“ The pa rti es

co ul d eas il y ha ve m ad e th e GIC ob li ga to ry by us in g m an d a t or y la ng ua ge , su ch as ‘m us t an d s ha ll ’ rat he r th an ‘ m ay an d s ho ul d.’”).

-9

-Seco nd
, So ue id an ’s al le ga ti on th at th e Han db oo k pro vi de d th at “ st ud en ts are

to m eet wit h th ei r ad v i s or in Ja nu ary to co m pl et e th ei r Ann ua l St ud en t Rev ie w,”
Co m pl

. at 6, ¶ 29 (ci ti ng Han db oo k at 9)
, crea te s no ob li ga ti on on SLU’ s be ha lf. Thi s al le ge d pr om is e is de pe nd en t on th e Han db oo k’s p r i or st at em en t th at th e st ud en t

“ sh ou ld ha ve an ad vi so r as si gn ed

. ” Id

. at 6, ¶ 27 (q uo ti ng Han db oo k at 9)

. Fu rth erm or e, So ue id an ha s no t al le ge d th at th e Han db oo k sa y s th at th e ad vi so rs

“ m us t” or “ sh al l” m eet wit h th e st ud en ts ; in st ead
, he al le ge s th at th e Han db oo k pl aces th e o n u s on th e st ud en ts to m eet wit h th ei r ad vi so r. The refo re, th e Han db oo k 4
la ng ua ge , a s So u e i d a n a l l e ge s th at it read s, in di cat es m or e of a reco m m en da ti on or
go al an d i s “ as pi rat io na l i n n at ur e.” Se e Lu cer o , 40 0 S .W .3d at 6

.

Thi rd
, th e Han db oo k’s st at em en t th at “ ‘[f] or Eng in eeri ng st ud en ts , th e Qua li fy in g Exa m is sc he du le d aft er 2 se m es te rs ,’ ” Co m pl

. a t 6
, ¶ 31 (q uo ti ng Han db oo k at 12 ), do es no t co ns ti tu te an ob li ga ti on th at SLU owed to So ue id an . As
wit h th e two pr io r pr ov is io ns , th e ci te d la ng ua ge co nt ai ns no m an da to ry la ng ua ge th at th e Qua li fy in g Exa m “ m

us t” or “ sh al l” be sc he du le d wit hi n two se m es te rs

. And
, th e
pr ov is io n d oe s n ot say wh o sch ed ul es th e Qua li fy in g Ex am

.

In ad di ti on to th e Han db oo k, So ue id an ’s co m pl ai nt al le ge s t h a t th e Cat al og

“ in di cat es th at th e Park s Co ll eg e of Eng in eeri ng do es in fact ha ve a Ph .D. pr og ram .”
Id

. at 7, ¶ 33 (ci ti ng Cat al og a t 1 1 1 )

. Lik e th e Han db oo k, th e Cat al og do es no t affi rm at iv el y se t fo rth an y o b l i ga ti on on be ha lf of SLU. So ue id an ha s ci te d no

m an da to ry la ng ua ge fro m th e Cat al og gu aran te ei ng th at So ue id an wil l earn hi s Ph .D.
de gr ee i n a cert ai n n um

be r of y ears or e arn th e d eg ree a t al l.

So ue id an ’s co m

pl ai nt di d no t di rect ly qu ot e th e act ua l la ng ua ge fro m th e 4 H an db oo k; ho wev er, no whe re do es he in di cat e th at th e Han db oo k us es m an d a t o r y la ng ua ge

.

-1 0-If we “ wad e[ d ] i n t o t he is su e of ho w cl os el y [SLU] op erat ed wit hi n th e

co ns tru ct s of th e

. . . as pi rat io na l [Han db oo k an d Cat al og ] pr ov is io ns ci te d by [So ue id an ], [we] wou ld be fo rced to en ga ge —wi th co m pl et e di sr eg ard fo r Mi ss ou ri
la w—i n an ed uc at io na l m al pr act ic e an al y si s rif e w i t h

. . . pr act ic al an d po li cy

co nc ern s.” Gil li s v. Pri nc ip ia Co rp

. , 11 1 F. Su pp

. 3d 97 8, 98 5 (E.D. Mo

. 20 15 ), af f’d
, 83 2 F.3 d 86 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). As th e di st ric t co ur t ap tl y ex pl ai ne d, So ue id an ’s cl ai m s

wou ld im pe rm is si bl y req ui re it “ to de te rm in e whe th er SLU ti m el y ass ig ne d a Ph .D.
ad vi so r, co nd uc te d a st ud en t revi ew, an d sch ed ul ed th e q ua li fy in g exa m in at io n and
ho w th os e de ci si on s affe ct ed So ue i d a n ’s m at ric ul at io n” ; “ to an al y ze whe th er SLU
br each ed it s co nt ract by ‘fail in g to award

. . . So ue id an t h e Ph .D. de gr ee he was
pr om is ed aft er co m

pl et in g al l di rect iv es an d 5 years o f req ui si te co ur se wor k’”; an d
“to ad dr es s no t on ly th e qu al it y of th e Ph .D. pr og ram bu t al so whe th er S o u e i d a n

co m pr eh en si ve ly an d ade qu at el y co m pl et ed al l of hi s co ur se wor k.” So ue id an , 20 18
W L 19 97 28 7, at *3 ( el li ps is in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Co m pl

. at 8, ¶ 39 ). Su ch

“ in te rv en ti on by th e co ur t wou ld am ou nt to jud ic ia l su pe rv is io n of [SLU’ s] in te rn al

pr oc ed ur es fo r m oni tor in g” th e pr og res s of it s do ct or al st ud en ts .” Lu cer o , 40 0 S.W .3d

at 8 (“ W it h th is pu rp os e in m in d, an y in te rv en ti on by th e c o u r t wou ld am ou nt to jud ic ia l su pe rv is io n of a un iv ers it y ’s in te rn al pr oc ed ur es fo r m on it or in g it s facu lt y .”).

Acco rd i n gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of So ue id an ’s cl ai m s ba se d o n t he ed uc at io na l m al pr act ic e d oc tri ne

.

B. Req ue st

fo r Le av e to Amend

Co mpl ai nt So ue id an al so ch al le ng es th e di st ric t cou rt’s den ia l of his req ue st fo r le av e to

am en d hi s co m

pl ai nt

. So ue id an co nd it io na ll y req ue st ed le av e to am en d hi s co m pl ai nt in hi s res po ns e to SLU’ s m ot io n to di sm is s. So ue id an di d no t di sc lo se wha t he wou ld
ch an ge in th e co m

pl ai nt , no r di d he at t a c h a p r op os ed am en de d pl ead in g or fil e a

se pa rat e m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d. Th e d is tri ct co ur t den ie d Sou ei da n’s re qu es t t o

-1 1-fil e an am en de d co m pl ai nt “ be cau se he

. . . fai le d to pr ov id e a pr op os ed am en dm en t al on g wi th hi s re qu es t.” So ue id an , 20 18 W L 19 97 28 7, at *5

.

So ue id an arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co u rt ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g hi s
req ue st fo r le av e to am en d hi s co m pl a i n t

. S e e W

ol gi n v. Si mon , 72 2 F.2 d 38 9, 39 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). W e ad dr es se d a su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar si tu at io n in W ol gi n

. In th at cas e, th e ap pe ll a n t , “ [i]n hi s br ie f in op po si ti on to th e ap

pe ll ees ’

mot io n to di smi ss , . . . co nc lu de d hi s arg um en t by re qu es ti ng le av e t o a m e n d t h e

c o m pl ai nt if th e co ur t gr an te d th e ap pe ll ees ’ m ot io n.” Id

. (em ph as es ad de d)

. The

ap pe ll an t co nt en de d th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ns tru e th e req ue st “ as a m ot io n fo r le av e
to am en d.” Id

. W e reject ed th e ap pe ll an t’s arg um en t ba se d on hi s fai lu re to pr es erv e th e rig ht to am en d by su bm it ti ng a pr op os ed am en dm en t wit h a m ot io n. Id

. at 39 4– 95

.

So ue id an att em

pt s t o d is ti ng ui sh W

ol gi n by argu in g t ha t th e ap pe ll an t i n t ha t

cas e fil ed a m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d pu rs ua nt to Fed eral R u l e o f Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 15 (a), whi le So ue id an di d no t fil e a Ru le 15 (a) m ot io n bu t rat he r on ly so ug ht

pe rm is si on to fil e a Ru le 15 m ot io n. Co nt rary to So ue id an ’s arg um en t, th e ap pe ll an t in W ol gi n di d pr eci se ly wha t So ue id an di d he r e —“ co nc lu de d hi s arg um en t [in hi s br ie f in op po si ti on ] by req ue st in g l eav e to am en d th e co m pl ai nt if th e co ur t gran te d
th e ap pe ll ees ’ m ot io n.” Id

. at 39 4. As a res ul t, W ol gi n is co nt ro ll in g. W e, th eref or e, ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g S ou ei da n l eav e to

am en d whe n So ue id an “ di d no t su bm it a pr op os ed am en dm en t to th e tri al co ur t, no r [in cl ud e] an y th in g in [h is ] br ie f to in di cat e wha t an am en de d co m pl ai nt wou ld ha ve

co nt ai ne d.” Id

. 5

Eve n i f S ou ei da n were al lo wed to am en d hi s co m pl ai nt , su ch am en dm en t 5

wou ld be fu ti le

. Plymo ut h Ct y., Io wa v. Mer

sc or p, In c. , 77 4 F.3 d 11 55
, 11 60 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ [A] pa rty is no t en ti tl ed to am en d a co m pl ai nt wit ho ut m ak in g a sh owi ng th at

su ch an am en dm en t wou ld be ab le to sa ve an ot he rwis e m eri tl es s cl ai m .”). So ue id an arg ue s hi s am en de d co m pl ai nt wou ld “ ad d an al le ga ti on th at he lo ok ed at th e

-1 2-III. Co nc lu si on

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Han db oo k at th e ti m e he en ro ll ed or th at th e Han db oo k te rm s were in ex is te nc e at th at ti m e” to rem ed y th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at So ue id an ’s co nt ract cl ai m s fai le d be cau se So ue id an c o ul d no t ha ve rel ie d up on al le ge d pr om is es se t fo rth in th e Han db oo k an d Cat a l o g th at he rece iv ed af te r he fo rm ed hi s al le ge d 20 12 co nt ract wit h SLU. Ap pe ll an t’s Br. at 31 . Ad di ti on al ly, h e as se rts he wou ld “ cl ari fy th at th e rep re s en ta ti on th at th ere is a Ph .D. pr og ram at al l, th ro ug h whi ch an y st ud en t can ob ta in a Ph .D., is di st in ct f r o m a pr om is e to pr ov id e a Ph .D. wit hi n a cert ai n ti m efra m e so lo ng as he fo ll owe d cert ai n st ep s, an d was a rep res en ta ti on m ad e at th e ti m e he ap pl ie d fo r th e pr og ram .” Id

. Bu t th es e am en dm en ts wou ld no t r e med y t he fact th at th e ed uc at io na l m al pr act ic e d oc tri ne ba rs So ue id an ’s cla im s.

-1 3-