Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/166018081/Millikan-v-Thomas-Jefferson-School-of-Law-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-03-30 12:15:15
Document Index: 481164544

Matched Legal Cases: ['§94367', '§17500', '§1714', '§94367', '§ 94367', '§17500', '§ 17500', '§17500']

Millikan v. Thomas Jefferson School of Law, et al. | Damages | Complaint
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JACKSON MILLIKAN Pro Se Representation 3532 Meade Ave. #39 San Diego, CA 92116 360.888.2335 Millikan-v-TJSL@outlook.com SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Jackson E. Millikan, ) ) Plaintiff, ~ ) vs. ) ) Thomas Jefferson School of Law, Kay H e n l e y , ~ Justin Cruz, Priscilla Vargas-Wrosch, and ) DOES 1-10, ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ~ ) ) ) ) ~ ) ) ~ ) ) ) ) ____________________________ ) CASE NO.: ------
REFEREE: __________ _ Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages and or Restitution Possibly to Exceed $25,000, Injunction and Declaratory Relief 1 1. Violation of common law Fair Procedure Doctrine: Defendants TJSL, Henley, DOEs 1-10. 2. Negligence in administering Business Associations exam: Defendants T JSL Henley, DOEs 1-10. 3. Intentional or, alternatively, negligent misrepresentation in breach of contract and in tort: Defendants TJSL, Vargas, DOEs 1-
10. 4. Material breach of contract term: anonymous grading: Defendants TJSL, Henley, DOEs 1-10. 5. Preliminary injunction: Defendants TJSL, Henley, DOEs 1-10. 6. California education code §94367 as a cause of action: Defendants TJSL, Henley, DOEs 1-10. 7. Bait and switch misrepresentation of housing subsidy award: Defendants TJSL, Cruz, DOEs 1-10. 8. Violation of Business and Professions Code §17500 et seq. Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, Inj unction, and Declaratory Relief 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1. Pro Se Plaintiff Jackson Millikan hereby files the following complaint against defendant THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL OF LAW et al. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 2. Plaintiff Jackson Millikan is a United States citizen and a citizen of Washington State living in San Diego, California. Plaintiff is in his third year of studies at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. 3. Defendant THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL OF LAW (hereinafter TJSL) is private California non-profit corporation operating a law school at 1155 Island Dr. San Diego, CA 9210 I. The forgoing address is TJSL's principal place of business. 4. Diego, CA. 5. Defendant Priscilla Vargas-Wrosch is a professor at TJSL and resident of Sa Defendants Kay Henley and DOEs 1-10 are administrators or staff at TJS believed to reside in San Diego, CA. 6. Defendant Justin Cruz is an administrator at TJSL believed to reside m Sa 1
8 Diego, CA. 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. Plaintiff alleges no federal causes of action. ALLEGATIONS OF FACT 8. Mr. Millikan matriculated at TJSL over three other admissions offers because of particular professor and the belief that the new school building was a sign of rising status. Buyer's remorse began even before the first class when Mr. Millikan got no response to hi query about how recently-begun litigation against TJSL would affect his experience and th 2 Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 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 2 6 27 28 status of the school. Mr. Millikan would later realize silence is the standard response by TJSL t any question of its integrity. 9. Mr. Millikan was given two award letters. The first included a substantia housing subsidy which was absent from the second despite administrators' assurances that Mr. Millikan would not be restricted to using those funds in the TJSL condominium complex know as Entrada. Mr. Millikan could not afford to live in Entrada even with the subsidy and, as a unsophisticated party, felt it too late in the game to resist Defendant' s bait and switch tactics. Mr. Millikan' s suspicions about the character of TJSL were further heightened in the orientatio week. The administration was hard-selling a particular brand of laptop computer to the student at a purported discount. Mr. Millkan' s former career required that he own high quality laptop capable of drafting blueprints. He was keenly aware that TJSL was peddling an inferior produc to his own at a higher price and calling it a discount. 10. It was also during orientation week that Mr. Millikan first heard of the polic whereby TJSL defers to the professors as to whether the Socratic Method is used. Thoug initially disappointed, Mr. Millikan fatefully rationalized that this must be a cutting edge polic consistent with the cutting edge architecture of the TJSL building in which he then sat. 11. Aside from the administrative bungling and aura of vague impropriety, Mr Millikan soon came to relish the academic experience. He devoured the reading and enjoyed th classes, though disgusted by the almost universal lack of preparedness of other students and mos professors' willingness to coddle them as they stammered through the canned briefs that Ia blatantly in front of them instead, or on top, of the casebook. Mr. Millikan was shocked the nex 3 Plaintifr s Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Rel ief 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 year when the thinning of the herd so starkly revealed the attrition of almost the entire smal group of students who were actually prepared in class. 12. During the Contracts final in fall of his 1 L year, Mr. Millikan used the restroo and was locked out upon his return. The twelve foot tall, solid oak doors had locked themselves. Mr. Millikan had to kick the doors repeatedly in order to get them swaying enough to break th lock mechanism. Ironically, after a thorough scolding by the proctor, Mr. Millikan sat bac down and completed his first A exam. The Contracts professor was one of the elite few who did not tolerate canned briefs in her class and adhered to the Socratic Method, thorough! embarrassing the ill-prepared, and allowing her small portion of the TJSL universe to function a a real law school. 13. During the winter holiday break, Mr. Millikan went home to Washington. home, he asked a friend with two law degrees and over a decade in practice to read his Legal Writing final exam paper. She assured him that it would be somewhere between a Band A. On month later, when grades were finally posted, Mr. Millikan was awarded the lowest possibl numerical equivalent of an F grade (.7). Upon the assurance of his friend, Mr. Millika challenged the grade. He knew that he was not liked by the Defendant Vargas-Wrosch and tha anonymity is very dubious in a writing class. However, given the mediocrity of his other grades, Mr. Millikan decided to consider a return to home construction. He met with a dean who offered to refund his tuition but also mentioned that she and others would read his final exam paper. No wanting to seem disrespectful, Mr. Millikan asked that the dean refrain from doing so until h himself had a chance to see the graded copy. 4 Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 26 27 28 14. Mr. Millikan found nothing in Defendant Vargas-Wrosch's marks that could hav amounted to a failing grade. He then requested the promised reading. By now, he had been handed off to another dean who claimed -in a TJSL signature dodge- that such practices are no allowed. Five days later, Mr. Millikan began to hear other students talking about having thei grades bumped up by tenths of a per cent. That afternoon, he received an email from th professor stating that a clerical error had occurred and his grade had been miraculously adjuste the exact amount necessary, 1.3, to avoid retaking Legal Writing. 15. At the time of this writing, Mr. Millikan's transcripts are unavailable becaus Defendant TJSL persists in keeping his account frozen, so Mr. Millikan states these facts from memory and belief. To the best of Mr. Millikan' s recollection, the second semester of his l year was his first A+ grade, which came in a notoriously difficult property class taught by aver professional expert with a reputation for challenging the students and for intolerance of canned briefs. That semester also resulted in the D grade in Civil Procedure II which gave rise to on subject of this complaint. 16. The following summer, the Washington State Attorney General' s Office, in apparent disagreement with TJSL writing professors, uploaded Mr. Milli kan's research pape onto its trial strategy database where it remains as secondary authority. The next semester, fall ofMr. Millikan's 2L year, he perfected his exam technique and made the Honor Roll. During final exam in Business Associations, Mr. Millikan had to stand up and approach the procto because the two large exam rooms full of students had been given t he answer key instead of th exam. Although the students had had between five and ten minutes with the answer key befor the sole individual, Mr. Millikan, finally stood up, the administration decided to simply collec 5 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Reli ef 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 them and then pass them out again without the answers circled. Mr. Millikan, nonetheless_ managed a B grade. 17. Before beginning the following spring semester, Defendant notified Mr. Millika that he must retake Civil Procedure II or risk not graduating. Having finally caught up in exam procedure with the majority of students - those who used canned briefs and were able to devot much more time to practicing exams- Mr. Millikan decided to hold off on retaking the class. Th next semester, his grades soared into the top ten per cent of his class, landing him on th Distinguished Honor Roll. 18. The summer following his 2L year, Mr. Millikan acquired the sole clerkship fo the Labor and Industries division of the Tumwater, Washington Attorney General's Office. H practiced under the authority of a supervising assistant AG and Washington State Ba Association rule 9. He wrote briefs, motions, and memos all summer and was finally given jury trial. Mr. Millikan was told not to expect victory, as this particular species of trial - a appeal of administrative order argued before a jury- was almost always lost by the license attorneys general. Mr. Millikan won that trial. 19. Given Mr. Millikan's successes in both academics and the practice of law, he too the familiar TJSL silence to mean acquiescence in suspending the reenrollment policy. He bega registering for 3L classes. Since class registration occurs on the internet, the process is ongoin with strategic registration and wait-listing, then dropping and reregistering, etc.... The proces can last until a full week after class has already begun. Mr. Millikan was automaticall reenrolled in the Civil Procedure class. It did not fit the schedule he had already begun to build. Moreover, he had been enrolled with the same professor. Because of some nerve damage from 6 Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Reli ef 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 his years building homes, Mr. Millikan is one of a very small, shrinking minority who still take exams by hand. He saw no possibility of maintaining anonymity in the same class with the sam professor using the same handwriting. He dropped the class, which prompted Defendant t reenroll him and freeze his account so that he cannot continue the registration process or acces his transcripts. The sham process of reviewing his appeal gives rise to a complaint below. 20. As a result of the foregoing acts and omissions of the defendant, Mr. Millikan ha suffered reputational harm, loss of future earnings and expected benefits of his education, loss o the educational experience for which he contracted and paid, and the attendant emotiona distress. CAUSES OF ACTION 1. Defendant's Policy as Applied Violates Plaintiff's Common Law Right to Fair Procedure 21. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of thi Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full. Plaintiff further alleges that he wa afforded unfair procedure in Defendants TJSL, Kay Henley, and an indeterminate number o DOEs 1-10's decision to censure him and force him to retake Civil Procedure ll. 22. In California, though private associations are not state actors and not bound t afford their members due process, they may be required to comply with the common law right t fair procedure. See Pinsker v. Pac. Coast Soc. of Orthodontists, 12 Cal. 3d 541, 550 n.7 (Cal 1974). "The purpose of the common law right to fair procedure is to protect, in certain situations, against arbitrary decisions by private organizations. As [the supreme] court has held, this means that, when the right to fair procedure applies, the decision making ' must be bot substantively rational and procedurally fair."' Potvin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 22 Cal. 4th 1060 7 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 1 8 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1066 (Cal. 2000) (quoting Pinsker, 12 Cal. 3d at 550). The goal is "protecting individuals from arbitrary exclusion or expulsion from private organizations which control important economi interests" or "when the organization involved is one affected with a public interest....'· Applebaum v. Board of Directors, 104 Cal. App. 3d 648, 6 5 6 ~ 5 7 (Cal. App. I 980). 23. The fair procedure doctrine has been continually broadened since its inception. See Elizabeth L. Crooke, Applicability ofThe Fair Procedure Doctrine, 32-JUN L.A. Law. 18 (2009). It first pertained only to expulsion, then exclusion, and more recently censure, by sue private associations. See Dougherty v. Haag, 165 Cal. App. 4th 315, 336-341 (Cal. App. 2008). 24. Some private groups bound by the fair procedure doctrine are called "gatekeepe organizations" because they "wield substantial power that si gnificantly impairs the affected individuals' ability to work in a particular field." Sound Appraisal v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A._ 717 F. Supp. 2d 940, 946 (N.D. Cal. 201 0). Others are called "quasi-public": The impm1ant products or services which these enterprises provide, their express or implied representations to the public concerning their products or services, their superior bargaining power, legislative recognition of their public aspect, or a combination of these factors, lead courts to impose on these enterprises obligations to the public and the individuals with whom they deal, reflecting the role which they have assumed, apart from and in some cases despite the existence of a contract. " Potvin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 22 Cal. 4th 1060, 1070 (Cal. 2000) (quoting Tobriner & Grodin. The Individual and the Public Service Enterprise in the New Industrial State, 55 Cal. L.Rev. 1247, 1253 (1 967)). 8 Pl aintiff's Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 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 25. Law schools are both gatekeepers and quasi-public institutions. Except for an infinitesimally minute group, bar members must have graduated from a law school in order t ply their trade. If law schools are allowed to arbitrarily exclude, expel, or censure students many of whom are already practicing under provisional licensure- those students will b effectively barred from their emergent careers, suffering substantial damages in the form o wasted tuition, loss of future earnings, and mental and physical anguish. Fortunately law school are uniquely equipped to avoid arbitrary and capricious actions. 26. Law schools also provide important products and services -the future leaders o society interpreting, arguing, administering, enforcing, and even making, the law. Law school make express and implied representations to the public concerning their students and graduate in the form of clinics, media publications, and reports of employment figures to U.S. News and World Reports, inter alia. The bargaining power of a law school in relation to its students i absolutel y superior, and even more so over the unsophisticated admission offeree. Legislativ recognition of the law profession from top to bottom is evident in the abundance of Californi Code dedicated thereto. 27. As both gatekeepers and quasi-public institutions, law schools should be bound b the fair procedure doctrine. Mr. Millikan was in the top of his class when Defendant arbitraril rejected his appeal and froze Mr. Millikan's student account such that he is now cut off from registering for classes and continuing an externship that would likely have culminated in a jo offer. This was a decision to censure Mr. Millikan with the further threat of preventing hi graduation, which would amount to expulsion of Mr. Millikan from his chosen profession. decision was substantively irrational and procedurally unfair. 9 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 (a) Substantively irrational decision 28. Appendix L of the TJSL student handbook authorizes appeals where a studen "believes that an academic policy should not apply because of an extraordinary circumstance ... .' Mr. Millikan explained that his only mistakes on the exam for which he is now being censured (and for which he did not receive a failing grade) were procedural and did not warrant devotin an entire semester of his 3L year to repeating the course. He further explained the extraordinar circumstances that led to his delayed development of exam procedure, an explanation tha bestowed upon Defendant TJSL the added benefit of revealing the cause of its plummeti n reputation and bar statistics. When students are allowed to fake their way through class discussions by blatantly reading from canned briefs, the signal broadcast to all is one of tacit approval. With such permission, the vast majority of students chose to purchase the brief book, skip the case book, and reallocate the abundant freed time to 17 practice exams. Many even began to substitute BARBRI materials for the 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 curriculum. The older students and those not privy to the trends born within Entrada [student housing], upon witnessing the universal of classmates, put their noses to the gri ndstone. This was a grave miscalculation. Mr. Millikan had enough natural aptitude to survive, but most of the older students' attrition owed to their having worked too hard. Mr. Millikan and his minority ilk reasoned that the patent ineptitude of the majority was cause to truly master the curriculum, thereby competing within that elite minority. The harsh reality is that the majority won out and the supposed elite, diligent and studious 10 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 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 minority mostly flunked out. Few have what it takes to compete in the curve against students who do not read. When hours of case law reading are reduced to minutes of case brief perusal, the compounded affect creates a nearly insurmountable disadvantage to the diligent student. The handful of professors who actually command respect, demand performance, and thereby uphold a functioning pedagogical structure are derided as rude, spiteful, or outdated. It was under these professors that Mr. Millikan made his first high marks. These professors understand that 'smiley face' pedagogy undermines the entire system. If students are not afraid of cheating, they will do anything to get ahead. The diligent and respectful student is left with the choice of sacrificing the empirical part of legal training (developing legal synthesis skill by devouring case law) for nominal success or investing enormous amounts oftime to read while risking destruction in the curve. Naturally, the diligent student lags in exam-procedure development. Mr. Millikan lagged but he would not, even in retrospect, have sacrificed the implicit benefits of the process he chose. Mr. Millikan has worked alongside those who pursued the nominal success in the majority fashion and has seen firsthand their shabby product. Mr. work was published as secondary authority after his lL year in the Washington State Attorney General' s trial strategy database. He has since written countless briefs, motions, and memos as well as winning a jury trial. He will almost certainly serve as an Assistant Attorney General upon graduation. The only force opposing Mr. Millikan's success is and always has 11 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, Jnj unction, and Declaratory Relief 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 been TJSL policy. The policy that would require Mr. Millikan to retake Civ. Pro. accomplishes nothing but punishment. Pl.['s] Extraordinary Circumstances Pet. 3. 29. Mr. Millikan believes that Defendants made an irrational substantive decision b ignoring Mr. Millikan's stellar academic performance and accomplishments in the legal profession. Mr. Millikan believes that application of any rational analysis was suspende because it would have favored Mr. Millikan and -most importantly- amounted to an admissio that TJSL is currently an uncouth institution. 30. Defendant Henley' s response to Mr. Millikan' s attempted appeal was simply, "Your petition has been denied." Decision of Academic Policy Committee, August 14, 20I3. Above the signature line it said, "If you have questions, please feel free to contact me." Id. Upon request for information about the composition of the committee and the basis of it decision, Mr. Millikan was told "[t]he makeup ofthe committee is confidential." Email respons from Kay Henley to Jackson Millikan, August 15, 2013, II :00 AM. Since his second questio was not addressed, Mr. Millikan asked it again. Email response from Jackson Millikan to Ka Henley, August 15,2013, ll :15 AM. To this there has been no response. (b) Procedurally unfair decision 3I. When a gatekeeper or quasi-public organization excludes, expels, or censures a individual without any explanation, it violates the fair procedure doctrine. "In Pinsker II, fo example, an applicant to join a professional society was initially turned down for membershi and-reminiscent of the protagonist in Kafka's The Trial [sic]-literally not told the reasons fo the rejection.... No reason was given for the rejection, though it turned out that the local 12 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 secretary went to lunch with two local orthodontists who told him they were 'certain' that th applicant was still [out of compliance]." Dougherty v. Haag, 165 Cal. App. 4th at 336 (citin Pinsker II, 12 Cal. 3d at 547-8). ... Pinsker was not afforded any opportunity to respond to the charges raised against him. Although Pinsker contend[ed] that he had terminated [noncompliant behavior] nearly six months prior to the .. . [committee] meeting, he was given no chance to demonstrate such termination, and, indeed, was apparently unaware that anyone still questioned his qualifications. Under these circumstances, [the supreme court] conclude[d] that the procedure followed by the defendant association did not meet the minimum standards required under the common law. Pinsker 11, 12 Cal. 3d at 556. 32. Mr. Millikan was told after his 1 L year that he might not graduate if he did no retake his class. Inherent in this concept are the very poignant judgment day -graduation- and the existence of the possibility that excellent performance would nonetheless lead to hi graduation. Mr. Millikan elected to further test his theory as to why exam success in som classes was latent. He proved himself correct in the next two semesters, landing on both th Honor Roll and Distinguished Honor Roll. At the end of his summer clerkship, amidst th rigmarole of online class registration for his 3L year, Mr. Millikan was suddenly reenrolled and his class registration was frozen. Because this punitive measure incapacitated him as such, Mr. Millikan was compelled to seek out a procedure for appealing it. By branding Mr. Millika incapable of adequately utilizing bar review of Civil Procedure and by freezing his account, 13 Plaintiff' s Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 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 Defendant has already tarnished his reputation, frustrated his chances of continuing a civil right externship begun in the spring of his 2L year, and effectively censured him. 33. Like Dr. Pinsker, Mr. Millikan was afforded no opportunity to respond to th charges that he had a substantive misapprehension of the Civil Procedure II curriculum. Mr. Millikan indicated that the noncompliance had terminated long ago and was given no chance t demonstrate such termination -or, perhaps, no recognition that he already had terminated it Until recently, given his impeccable academic and professional credentials and the wording o the last comment from the Defendants on this matter, Mr. Millikan was completely unaware tha anyone still questioned his qualifications. 34. In Ezekiel v. Winkley, the plaintiff was offered the opportunity to complete hi residency training in Los Angeles, so he sold his San Diego home and moved his family north. 20 Cal.3d 267, 269 (Cal. 1977). Two years into his residency training, the plaintiff was expelle with "neither a hearing nor opportunity to respond .... " Id. The reputational harm would hav effectively "prevent[ed] plaintiffs acceptance in any other surgical residency program." Id. I expanding the fair procedure doctrine to include training programs, the court stated tha "residency training, like professional society membership and hospital staff membership forms vital link in the system of private regulation." Id at 274. In rejecting the defendants' argumen that its relationship with the plaintiff was contractually terminable at will, the court stated "tha the membership privileges, or the professional recognition which certain private institutions rna arbitrarily grant, deny, or withdraw are practical prerequisites to any effective employment in chosen field." ld. at 275. 14 Plai ntiffs Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 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 35. The defendants in Ezekial went on to argue that a trainee "knows in advance tha his performance .. .is subject to continuing evaluation ... [to] determine whether he is makin satisfactory process ... [and thus] has no legitimate claim of entitlement to his residency ... but on! a unilateral expectation that he will be successful." Id. at 276. To this the court replied, ... there is no reason why the fact of a continuing scrutiny of a physician's competence and progress in a residency program should bar application of "fair procedure" principles. Such evaluations inhere in all standards by which initial or continuing eligibility for professional privileges and benefits is measured, and courts have shown no reluctance to expand both administrative and judicial review of institutional decisions of this kind. Id (citations omitted). 36. Mr. Millikan similarly shut down his business in Washington State and moved t San Diego for legal training. Mr. Millikan was censured without a hearing or an opportunity t respond. The censure has already done reputational harm, and should it culminate in failure t graduate, will prevent Mr. Millikan's acceptance into any other law school. As rankings an public persona make abundantly clear, one cannot go much lower than TJSL. As does a medical residency to medicine, law school forms a ' vital link' in the system of regulation of the legal profession. It is a practical prerequisite to any effective employment in Mr. Mill ikan's chose field. 37. Mr. Millikan does not here assert the rights of those students who wer academically dismissed, as the TJSL Student Handbook provides a detailed process of review in apparent acknowledgment of the fair procedure doctrine. Student Handbook at 5-6. Yet a Ia 1 5 Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 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 student who has transcended the weed-out years, achieved honors, and plied the trade i subjected to arbitrary treatment by the school. Mr. Millikan is licensed under Washington Stat Bar Association rule 9 to practice law with a supervising attorney. He has indeed practiced law, even winning a jury trial. Preventing an upper level student with a career already arranged from graduating, or damaging his ability to assume a career through censure, amounts to expulsio from a professional association. 38. By affording Mr. Millikan a substantively irrational and procedurally unfai review of the circumstances of his censure, Defendant has committed a violation of Mr. Millikan' s common law right to fair procedure. Mr. Millikan respectfully requests j udicia review consistent with the fair procedure doctrine and any compensatory damages, punitiv damages, attorney fees, refunded tuition, injunction, or any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate thereby. 2. Negligence in Administering Business Associations Exam. 39. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of thi Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full. It is further alleged that Defendant Henley, an indeterminate number of DOEs 1- I 0, and TJSL breached their duty of care m administration ofProfessor Greenberg's Business Associations final exam, Fall2012. 40. According to California Civil Code §1714(a), "Everyone is responsible, not onl for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or he want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person . . . " 41. California instructs its juries as follows: 1 6 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 26 27 28 Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others. A person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act. A person is negligent if he or she does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation. CACI No. 401 (Basic Standard of Care). 42. The Business Associations exam had essay and multiple choice sections. Man students started on the essay section and were allowed to retain their writings affecting a five t ten minute head start. Moreover, the savvy student could have easily written or typed the entir list of multiple choice answers to be transferred to the new bubble sheet. Defendant chose to re administer the same exam and suspend the curve in grading. Mr. Millikan believes that his grad suffered because of all of the forgoing breaches of duty. Mr. Millikan fully expected one ofth highest grades in the class. Mr. Millikan had an absolute mastery of the curriculum and wa denied the attendant, duly earned grade and GPA increase. Mr. Millikan respectfully request compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, refunded tuition, and or any other relie the Court deems just and appropriate. 3. Intentional or, Alternatively, Negligent Misrepresentation in Breach of Contract and i Tort 43. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of thi Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full. It is hereby further alleged, o information and belief, that Defendant Vargas-Wrosch, aided by an indeterminate number o DOES 1-10 and TJSL, affirmatively misrepresented Mr. Millikan's grade in Legal Writin 17 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 1 causing him serious emotional, physical, and reputational harm. Given the results of th 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 independent review of Mr. Millikan's exam and his immediately subsequent publication a secondary authority, Defendants are hereby alleged to have had knowledge of the falsity ofthei spiteful misrepresentation when the original grade was fraudulently posted and when a sham clerical error was fabricated so as to fraudulently correct the grade. 44. Through existent evidence supplemented by discovery, Mr. Millikan wil demonstrate the facts underwritten by the mathematical impossibility of a 'clerical error' havin resulted in the exact deviation needed to quell a volatile situation in which Defendants sought t induce Mr. Millikan's reliance to his academic, financial, and professional ruination. 45. It is hereby further alleged that the 'clerical error' fix did not do justice b awarding Mr. Millikan his due grade, but merely deflected scrutiny away from the tortfeasors, who knew well enough that the small alleviation of Mr. Millikan's distress would keep him from fighting the larger battle. Mr. Millikan respectfully requests compensatory damages, punitiv damages, attorney fees, refunded tuition, and or any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate -including an independent review and administration of a new grade. 4. Material Breach of Contract Term: Anonymous Grading 46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of thi Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full. It is further all eged that Defendant Henley, TJSL, and an indeterminate number of DOES 1-10 breached the contract tenn o anonymous grading. 47. Mr. Millikan is one of a small percentage of students who do not use a computet for their exams. Mr. Millikan's former career building homes left him with unreliable typin 18 Plaintiff' s Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 1 fingers because of nerve damage. Defendant TJSL is requiring Mr. Millikan retake Civil 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Procedure II with the very same professor who already taught him. In a class this size, there are typically one to two students writing exams by hand. By forcing Mr. Millikan into a class wit the same professor, Defendant TJSL has breached the contractual term of anonymous grading. Mr. Millikan respectfully requests compensatory damages, puniti ve damages, attorney fees, refunded tuition, injunction, and or any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. 5. Preliminary Injunctive Relief is Hereby Requested 48. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of thi Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full. It is further al leged that the actions o TJSL, Henley, and an indeterminate number of DOEs 1-10 should immediately cease and desis as they violate Mr. Millikan's rights and irreparably harm him. 49. Because Mr. Millikan is likely to prevail in a judicial review consistent with th fair procedure sought in the first cause of action, and because retaking Civil Procedure will irreparably deprive him of the opportunity to participate in a civi l rights externship and th attendant potential for future employment, and will cause irreparable reputational harm, Mr. Millikan respectfully prays for a preliminary injunction against Defendant's forced reenroll men policy, for the immediate 'thawing' of his frozen student account, and for administrativ execution of the schedule for which Mr. Millikan has futilely attempted to register. 6. California Education Code §94367 as a Cause of Action 50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of thi Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full. Mr. Millikan further alleges that th irrational substantive process afforded him respecting the reenrollment policy addressed in th 1 9 Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 26 27 28 first cause of action was punishment for having asked too many questions about other pendin litigation against TJSL and about the misrepresentations alleged in the third cause of action. This punishment was meted out by TJSL, Henley, and an indeterminate number of DOEs 1-10 The relevant ' Leonard Law' states: No private postsecondary educational institution shall make or enforce a rule subjecting a student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside the campus or facility of a private postsecondary institution, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article I of the California Constitution. (b) A student enrolled in a private postsecondary institution at the time that the institution has made or enforced any rule in violation of subdivision (a) may commence a civil action to obtain appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief as determined by the court. Upon motion, a court may award attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action pursuant to this section. Cal Ed Code§ 94367 51. For the forgoing reasons and in the name of justice, Mr. Millikan requests declaration that, because of the unique nature of law school and the unforgiving curve, Defendants do a disservice to themselves, their students, and society generally when they tacit! approve cheating. Ill Ill 20 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 1 7. Bait and Switch Misrepresentation of Housing Subsidy Award 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 26 27 28 52. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of thi Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full. Mr. Millikan further allege misrepresentation by bait and switch committed by TJSL, Justin Cruz, and an indeterminat number of DOEs 1-10. 53. Mr. Millikan was initially awarded a housing subsidy fluctuating at or near six thousand dollars per semester. When Mr. Millikan indicated that he would not, even with th subsidy, be able to afford the TJSL-affiliated, Entrada condominium rates, Defendant Cru assured him the funding would be available no matter the facility in which Mr. Millikan chose t reside. However, a second award letter arrived in Mr. Millikan's mailbox shortly thereafter and approximately six thousand dollars lighter. Mr. Millikan respectfully requests compensator damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, refunded tuition, injunction, and or any other reliefth Court deems just and appropriate. 8. False Advertising in Violation of California Business and Professions Code §17500 et seq. 54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of thi Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full. Mr. Millikan further alleges that TJS disseminates information through the internet and typed brochures portraying it as consisten with, or better than, the current state of the art of legal academics, when in fact T JSL knowing! provides a vastly substandard service. 55. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 reads in pertinent pa1t: It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectl y to ... perform services, professional or 21 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 1 otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the public to enter 2 into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or 3 disseminated before the public ... any statement, concerning ... those services, 4 5 professional or otherwise, or concerning any circumstance or matter of fact 6 connected with the proposed performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue 7 or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care 8 should be known, to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, firm, or 9 10 corporation to so make or disseminate or cause to be so made or disseminated any 11 such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the intent not to sell...those 12 services, professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated therein, or as 13 so advertised. 14 §17500. 15 16 56. Law school education is universally designed to teach the doctrinal aspects I 17 law and the ability to extract and synthesize them from cases and statute. TJSL allows first year1 I 20 18 19 students to substitute commercial briefs for real case law. Students become proficient in taking but then fail the bar at an alarming rate because they have not been I indoctrinated. Moreover, they have been induced to forgo the part of their education that is! 21 22 designed to prepare them for actual work in the profession. 23 2 4 57. Legal writing education was, during Mr. Millikan's experience, also not that fot{ had Pal
.d to!= .
1 in reliance upon the advertisements. According which he 25 www.TJSL.edu/sites/default/files/publications/academics brochure-71220 I 3.pdf, 26 27 28 22 Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In the last decade, Thomas Jefferson School of Law has ranked as high as 16th in the nation in the U.S. News & World Report ranking of top legal writing programs. When our Legal Writing Program began in 1993, it was one of the first in the country to be taught primarily by tenured and tenure-track faculty members and to draw extensively on thinking, learning, writing and teaching methods from other disciplines. Today, the program incorporates best practices from benchmark legal writing programs, learning and teaching experts, and fields including rhetoric, composition, literature, education and psychology. For students, this means that you will engage in solving increasingly complex legal problems as you are introduced to and then begin to master the essential lawyering skills of analysis; reasoning by induction, deduction, and analogy; research; and written and oral communication and persuasion. Our legal writing curriculum is designed to help prepare our students to become accomplished and productive attorneys by equipping you with critical skills, acquainting you with social and ethical responsibilities, and introducing you to a range of practice settings. The program recognizes that our graduates will play diverse roles as they practice different kinds oflaw. 58. TJSL operated an abysmally substandard legal writing program. In Mr. Millikan's first course, the adjunct professor merely lectured for two hours each class, often contradicting the assigned readings, and never offered feedback. If there was a teaching assistant, we never met him or her. The only criticism of our actual work occurred at two 23 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 meetings with the professor lasting twelve to seventeen minutes, depending on the number of students the professor needed to fit in an allotted time frame. Most law schools require multiple submissions of papers and mandatory discourse between students and teaching assistants regarding the necessary corrections. Mr. Millikan taught himself legal writing with the help of mentors outside TJSL 59. The second semester of legal writing, Mr. Millikan was instructed by a young family law attorney, another adjunct professor, who would discuss basketball, his latest divorce case, and his favorite rock bands every day. Again, students got two short meetings with the professor that semester and no other feedback. 60. Mr. Millikan respectfully requests compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, refunded tuition, injunction, and or any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Mr. Millikan hereby respectfully demands trial by jury. 24 Plainti ff's Complaint for Damages, Inj unction, and Declaratory Relief More From This UserSkip carouselInsane Clown Posse LawsuitTruitt v. UnumAmicus Brief of the United States America (In reResponse to ABA Copyright DemandsEEOC v. Freeman [09-2573] Memorandum Opinion and Order 8.9.132013 08 09 Letter to Jacksonville Officials ReCorrespondenceCity Appl Brf HUDSON RIV ParkCity Appl Ltr HUDSON RIV ParkMontes ComplaintSen Grassley Letter to DC Circuit Dated May 24 2013IN REClass of 2016 Joint Degree InterviewsIn reChris Sevier Apple ComplaintFrank Lindh SpeechLetter to Frank LindhHandi-Van v. Broward CountyPop Up SuitAssociation for Molecular Pathology v. MyriadGlatt v. Fox SearchlightMcClintock v. TexasPenfield Response to Order to Show CauseVermont v Mphj Technologies Complaint
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulMillikan v. Thomas Jefferson School of Law, et al. by Joe Patrice0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionLaw student sues school for making him retake a class he failedLaw student sues school for making him retake a class he failedInterests: Types, Government & PoliticsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedOpinion Granting SJ Motion: Cooley Law v. Kurzon Straussby Staci ZaretskyResponse to ABA Copyright Demandsby Joe PatriceMotion For Class Certification: Alaburda v. Thomas Jefferson School of Lawby Staci ZaretskyOrder: Dismissal for Want of Prosecutionby Staci ZaretskyAlex Rodriguez Sues MLB Over 'Witch Hunt'by FindLawOhio Nurse Was Worked to Death, Lawsuit Claimsby FindLawCity Appl Brf HUDSON RIV Parkby Joe PatriceTruitt v. Unumby Joe PatriceOrder: Southern California Institute of Law v. Archie Biggers, et al.by Staci ZaretskyJurors Don't Need to Speak English: New Mexico Supreme Courtby FindLawJesus Portrait Removed From Ohio School District After ACLU Lawsuitby FindLawJon Vilma's Defamation Lawsuit Against Roger Goodell Dismissedby FindLawRakofsky v. Internet Amendedby Keith LeeNonhuman Rights Project v. Laverly - Habeas Petitionby FindLawThe Authors Guild v. Google, Petition For a Writ of Certiorariby FindLawUnited States v. Maloney Panel Decisionby Anonymous 2NUafApcVJustin Bieber Arrest Formby CityNewsTorontoNSA Sued by Churches, Gun and Digital Rights Groups Over Phone Surveillanceby FindLawOne Mighty Roar v Spin Master Would You Rather 13cv13241by One Mighty RoarDOJ Seized AP Journalists' Work, Home, Cell Phone Recordsby FindLawBennett v. State Farm Mutualby Anonymous 2NUafApcVAfter Boston Bombings 3 Friends Removed Backpack From Tsarnaev's Dorm FBIby FindLawAdam Holland, Pamela Holland and Bernard Holland v. Russell LaLevee, Dave Brown d/b/a Gigaherz, Inc., a/k/a Sign Generator, Cox Media Group d/b/a WHTP-FMby NashvilleLawUber Memo and Ordinanceby Robert WilonskyRakofsky v Internetby Mark W. BennettAlbert Pujols Jack Clark Settlement Letterby FindLawShaferby Frederick BartlettChris Sevier Apple Complaintby Joe PatriceSimilar To Millikan v. Thomas Jefferson School of Law, et al.Skip carouselOpinion Granting SJ MotionResponse to ABA Copyright DemandsMotion For Class CertificationOrderAlex Rodriguez Sues MLB Over 'Witch Hunt'Ohio Nurse Was Worked to Death, Lawsuit ClaimsCity Appl Brf HUDSON RIV ParkTruitt v. UnumOrderJurors Don't Need to Speak EnglishJesus Portrait Removed From Ohio School District After ACLU LawsuitJon Vilma's Defamation Lawsuit Against Roger Goodell DismissedRakofsky v. Internet AmendedNonhuman Rights Project v. Laverly - Habeas PetitionThe Authors Guild v. Google, Petition For a Writ of CertiorariUnited States v. Maloney Panel DecisionJustin Bieber Arrest FormNSA Sued by Churches, Gun and Digital Rights Groups Over Phone SurveillanceOne Mighty Roar v Spin Master Would You Rather 13cv13241DOJ Seized AP Journalists' Work, Home, Cell Phone RecordsBennett v. State Farm MutualAfter Boston Bombings 3 Friends Removed Backpack From Tsarnaev's Dorm FBIAdam Holland, Pamela Holland and Bernard Holland v. Russell LaLevee, Dave Brown d/b/a Gigaherz, Inc., a/k/a Sign Generator, Cox Media Group d/b/a WHTP-FMUber Memo and OrdinanceRakofsky v InternetAlbert Pujols Jack Clark Settlement LetterShaferChris Sevier Apple ComplaintCriminal Complaint Against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Filed in Federal (Not Military) CourtHesterMillikan v. Thomas Jefferson School of Law, et al.