N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

ALAN L. GALLAGHER , Attorne y ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,

v. C APELLA EDUC ATION C OM PANY; C APELLA UNIVER SITY,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 21-35188 D.C . No. 3:19-c v-01342-JR

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M a rc o A. He rna nde z , C h ie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2021 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N a nd B ADE, C i rc uit J

udge s, a nd FITZW ATER , *** Distric t Judge

. Pla intiff Ala

n L. Ga lla ghe r (“ G a l l a ghe r” ), proc e e ding pro se , a ppe a ls the distric t 

# FIL ED
DEC 20 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r op r i at e for public a tion a nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T h e p an el u n an i m o u sl y co n cl u d es t h i s cas e i s s u i tab l e for de c isio n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa t e r, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t J udge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.c ourt’ s judgm e n t d i sm issing h i s action a ga inst de fe nda nts C a pe lla Educ a tion C om pa ny a nd C a

pe ll a Unive rsity , Inc

. (c olle c tive ly , “ C a pe lla ” ) unde r R

ule 12(b)(6) of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure for fa i lure to s ta te a c la im on whic h re lie f c a n be gra nte d. W e ha ve jurisdic tion, 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd a ffirm

. W e re vie w the distric t c o urt’ s dism issa l for fa ilure t o s t a te a c la im de novo. C urtis v . Irw in Indus., Inc ., 913 F.3d 1146, 1 1 51 (9th C ir. 2019). T o s urvive C a pe lla ’ s

m otion to dism iss u nde r Ru l e 1 2 ( b)(6), Ga lla ghe r n e e de d to ple a d “ e nough fa c ts to sta te a c la im to re lie f tha t [wa s] pla usible on its fa c e .” Be ll Atl. C orp. v . Tw o mbly , 550 U.S. 544, 5 70 (2007). “ A c la im ha s fa c ia l pla usibility w he n the pla intiff ple a ds fa c t ua l c onte nt tha t a llows the c o urt to dra w t h e r easona ble infe re nc e tha t the de fe nda n t is lia ble for the m i sc onduc t a lle ge d.” A shc r oft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

. “ The pla

usibility sta

n da rd is not a k in to a ‘ proba bility re q uire m e nt,’ but i t

a sks for m ore t h an a s he e r p ossibility tha t a de fe nda nt ha s a c te d unla

wfully .” Id. (quoting Tw ombly , 550 U.S. a t 556 ) ; se e also Tw ombly , 550 U.S. a t 555 (“ Fa c tua l

a lle ga tions m

ust be e n ough to ra ise a right to re lie f a bove the spe c ula tive le ve l

. . . .” ).

“ [W] he re the we ll-ple a de d fa c ts do not pe rm it t he c o u rt to infe r m ore tha n the m e re p o s s i b ility of m i sc onduc t, the c om pla int ha s a lle ge d—

but i t ha s not ‘ shown’

— ‘ tha t the ple a de r is e n title d to re lie f.’ ” Iqbal , 556 U.S. a t 679 (a lte ra tion om itte d) (quoting

- 2 -Fe d. R

. C iv. P. 8(a )(2)). “ T hre a dba re re c ita ls of the e le m e nts of a c a use o f a c tion, supporte d by m e re c o nc l usory sta te m e nts, do not suffic e .” Id. a t 678. Ga lla ghe r’ s bre a c h of c o n t r act c l a im in p a rt re q uire s t he c ourt to re vie w

a c a dem i c d ec isions m a de by C a pe l la , inc luding the de c ision not to a pprove Ga lla ghe r’ s disse rta tion due t o la c k of c it ations a n d pla gia rism

. Unde r Ore gon la

w,

a c ourt c a n re vie w a unive rsity ’ s a c a d e m ic de c ision only if it w a s m a de a rbitra rily or in ba d fa ith. Tate v . N

. Pac

. C oll. , 140 P. 7 43, 746 (Or. 1914) (“ T he fa c ultie s of

c olle ge s . . . e xe rc ise qua si judic ia l func tio n s , an d the ir d e c isions a re c onc l usive , if the y a c t within the ir jurisdic tion, a n d in good fa ith, a

nd not a rbitra rily .” ). 1 Ga lla ghe r’ s a m e n d ed co m p la int doe s not p la

u sibly p le a d tha t C a

pe lla m a de

a rbitra ry or b a d-fa ith de c isions. G al la ghe r m a ke s the c onc lusory a sse rtion tha t C a pe lla ’ s c onduct i n v olve d “ ba d fa ith, m isc onduc t, a nd a rbitra

ry a c t ion.” Am

. C om pl. a t 8. B ut the a lle ge dly “ a rb itra ry ” de c isions he c h a lle nge s— C a pe lla ’ s
re quiring m ore c ita

tions for his disse

rta tion, re je c ting his disse

rta tion for pla gia

rism ,
a nd re quiring a s pe c ific m e thod in his disse rta tion— a re v a l id a c a d e m ic de c isions, not

1 Ore gon ha s not t e rm e d this rule the “ e duc a tiona l m a lpra c tic e ” doc trine , but c ourts t

ha t ap p ly s im i l a r de fe re nc e to unive rsitie s re fe r to it a s s uc h. S e e , e .g. , Gillis v . Princ ipia C

orp ., 832 F.3d 865, 872 (8th C ir. 2016) (holding tha t a “ bre a c h-ofc ontra c t c la im tha t ra ise s que stions c oncer ning the re a sona ble ne s s of the e duc a tor’ s c onduc t in providing e duc a tiona l se rvic e s . . . is one of e duc a tiona l m a lpra c tic e ” a n d is n ot c ogniz a

ble unde r M issouri la

w (a lte ra tion i n origina l) (inte rna l quota t ion m a rks om i tte d)). - 3 -a rbitra

ry one s. Se e Tate , 140 P. a t 744 (“ [C olle ge fa c ultie s ha ve ] powe r to m a ke rule s

a nd re gula

tions for t he gove rnm e nt of [the ir] stude nts, in the m a nne r a nd me thods of

s t ud y . . . .” (e m

pha sis a dde d)). Dism issa l of Ga lla ghe r’ s bre a c h o f c o ntra c t c la im pre d ic a te d on a c a de m ic de c i sions m a de by C a pe lla wa s the re fore wa

rra nte d. To the e xte nt Ga lla ghe r a lle ge s a bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im tha t is not ba se d on

a n unre vie w a

ble a c a de m ic de c ision, he ha s fa ile d to pla u s ibly ple a d t

ha t C a pe lla b r each ed a s pe c i fic prom ise

. Se e Iqbal , 556 U.S. a t 678; Slov e r v . Or. S tate Bd. of C linic al Soc

. W

ork e rs , 927 P.2d 1098, 1101 (Or. App. 19 9 6 ) ( re c iting the e le m e nts of a bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im unde r Ore gon la w). W e find from our re a ding of the

a m e nde d c om

pla int fe w spe c ific prom ise s tha t Ga lla ghe r a lle ge s C a pe l la broke

. The prom i s e o n whic h the a m e nde d c om pla int a n d ope n ing brie f prim a rily foc us— “ to provide the a c a de m ic de gre e of Ph.D. whe n [Ga lla ghe r] c om ple te d the re quire m e nts

se t forth in the C a

pe lla c a ta l og a nd othe r m a te ria l s,” Am

. C o m pl. a t 2— fa ils be c a

use Ga lla ghe r pla inly ha d not c om ple te d those re quire m e n ts. Se e Slov e r , 9 27 P.2d a t 1101 (e xpla ining tha t a pla intiff a sse rting a bre a c h o f c ontra c t c la i m m ust a lle g e tha t it fully pe rform e d the c on t r act ) ; A m C om pl. a t 5 (“ This a

pprova l, M ile stone 1 1, wa s not gra n te d.” ). A nd C a

pe l la ’ s re je c tion of his disse rta tion (the de c ision tha t l e d t o his fa ilure to c om

ple t e the re quire m e nts) is an aca de m ic d e c i sion tha t is unre vie wa ble unle ss m a de a rbitra

rily or in ba d fa i th, whic h Ga lla ghe r ha s not pla usibly ple a de d.
- 4 -Othe r “ pe rsona l a n d e xplic it prom ise s ” tha t Ga lla g he r m e ntions a ppe a r to re fe r to C a pe lla ’ s pro m i s es t h a t it “ c ould a nd would unique ly provide se rvic e s a nd a

m e thod t o a ssure he would obta in the de gre e .” Am

. C om pl. a t 2. B ut Ga lla ghe r doe s not pla usibly ple a d how C a

pe lla broke this prom i se . In fa c t, the a m e nde d c om pla int

a c knowle dge s tha t C a

pe lla p rovide d its unique m e ntor progra m a nd m ile stone progra m to he lp Ga l la ghe r obta in a de gre e . 2 Se e Slov e r , 927 P.2d a t 1101 (e xpla ining tha t a pla intiff m

ust a ll eg e, am o n g othe r things, a de fe nda nt’ s bre a c h to sta

te a pla u sible bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im ). W e do no t c onside r the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of Ga lla ghe r’ s unjust

e nric hm e nt c la im b e c a

use he m a ke s no a rgum e nt pe rta ining to t his c a use o f a c tion o n

a ppeal

. S ee Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ [O] n a ppe a l,

a rgum e nts not ra ise d by a pa rty in its ope ning brie f a re de e m e d wa i ve d.” ).

2 And e ve n a ssum i ng a rgue ndo tha t C a pe l la ’ s prom i se s in t h e c a ta log, m a nua l, a nd ha

ndbook a pply , Ga lla ghe r ha s not pla usibly ple a de d a n e xplic it prom ise tha t C a pe lla m a de a nd broke

. - 5 -W e the re fore a ffirm the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt. 3 AFFIRM E D

.

3 On De c e m

be r 8, 2021, with o u t l e a ve o f this c ourt, Ga lla g he r file d a doc um e nt c a

ptione d “ Pla intiff’ s Ora l Argum e nt.” [Dkt. N o . 26] B e c a use we ha ve c onc lude d t

ha t this a ppe a l c a n be de c ide d on the brie fs a nd re c ord on a ppe a l, without ora l a rgum e nt, we de c l ine to c onside r this doc um e n t
. - 6 -