Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180330_0001136.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:15:17+00:00

Document:
DEVRY UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants.
On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff Abebe G. Negash (“Negash”), pro se, brought this action against Defendants DeVry University (“DeVry”) and the Department of Education (“DOE”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc # 1) Negash alleges Defendant DeVry is guilty of misrepresentation and/or misuse of federal funds in violation of Title IV of the Higher Education Act (“HEA”). Negash also alleges Defendant DOE should be held liable for a lack of accountability and oversight over DeVry's handing of federal funds in violation of HEA. Negash seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages for the alleged violations.
For the reasons set forth below, the claims against Defendants DeVry University and the Department of Education are DISMISSED.
In March 2010, Negash lived near Seattle, Washington. Around that time, he met a recruiter from DeVry University while at an unemployment office. (Doc # 1, Pg ID 6) Negash claims the recruiter made “promises of future employment.” (Id.) Negash claims he enrolled at DeVry based on statements made by the recruiter, information listed on DeVry's website, the number of students that graduate, and potential earnings after graduation. (Id.) DeVry had campuses in Lynwood, Washington and Federal Way, Washington at that time. (Doc # 18, Pg ID 67) From March 2010 to April 2011, Negash was enrolled in five classes at DeVry's Keller Graduate School of Management at the Federal Way, Washington campus. (Doc # 18, Pg ID 66) In order to pay for his graduate school tuition and cost of living, Negash borrowed $28, 875 in federal student loans. He used $11, 186 of his student loans to pay tuition to DeVry. (Doc # 18, Pg ID 67).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) provides for the dismissal of an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A Rule 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction can challenge the sufficiency of the pleading itself (facial attack) or the factual existence of subject matter jurisdiction (factual attack). Cartwright v. Garner, 751 F.3d 752, 759-60 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 1994). In the case of a facial attack, and the court takes the allegations of the complaint as true to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
In the case of a factual attack, a court has broad discretion with respect to what evidence to consider in deciding whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, including evidence outside of the pleadings, and has the power to weigh the evidence and determine the effect of that evidence on the court's authority to hear the case. Id. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists. DLX, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511, 516 (6th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff bears “the burden of establishing the district court's personal jurisdiction” over the Defendant. Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883, 887 (6th Cir. 2002). As there has been no evidentiary hearing on the matter, the court will “consider the pleadings and affidavits in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Compuserve, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257, 1262 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1458-59 (6th Cir. 1991). Granting a motion to dismiss is only proper “if all the specific facts which the plaintiff . . . alleges collectively fail to state a prima facie case for jurisdiction.” Id. (emphasis in original).
General jurisdiction is satisfied in a forum if the defendant's contacts within that forum are “so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home.” Diamler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 751 (2014) (citations omitted). “With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are paradigm bases for general jurisdiction.” Id. at 760. Alternatively, personal jurisdiction can be satisfied through specific jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction “grants jurisdiction only to the extent that a claim arises out of or relates to a defendant's contacts in the forum state.” Miller v. AXA Winterthur Ins. Co., 694 F.3d 675, 679 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Whether a defendant's claim arises out of contacts in the forum is determined applying three criteria. Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir. 1968). First, the defendant must “purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state . . . .” Id. Second, the “cause of action must arise from the defendant's activities there.” Id. Third, the acts of the defendant must demonstrate a “substantial enough connection with the forum state . . . .” Id.
If venue is found to be improper, a district court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district . . . in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1406