In contrast to Plaintiffs’ narrowly tailored relief, JMLS asks this Court for the extraordinary relief of a findingthat students do not have standing to even bring a claim against their law school and that a law school, unlike other service providers, can never be liable for making misrepresentations, even when the information is in its sole control.JMLS asks this Court to find that it has no responsibility or duty to ensure that its disclosures are accurate andcomplete; that even if they are false or misleading no student is ever justified in relying on them; that as a matter of law no student can ever be damaged by such misrepresentations; and that, therefore, there is no remedy or deterrentfor such conduct by a law school.
Such a finding, immunizing law schools from a liability for injurious conduct that everyone else is subject to,would severely stretch customary and equitable legal principles. As stated in
Giammanco v. Giammanco
, 253Ill.App.3d 750, 763 (1993);
. 156 Ill.2d 552:[W]e are mindful of the fact that damages in fraud cases serve an admonitory function (seeRestatement (Second) of Torts [Sec.] 549, Comment I, at 115 (1977)) which would be severelyundermined if the harm which we have identified were held to be noncompensable as a matter of law. Such a holding would put those who conduct themselves honestly in such business dealingsat a distinct disadvantage.
Preliminarily, while there are “similar” law school cases pending around the country:(1) the Complaint in
case is not a “cookie-cutter” copy of the other complaints, as Defendant alleges;(2) the Plaintiffs
in this case
have made different allegations than those in other cases, and have not madeadmissions or concessions made in those cases;(3) the Employment Information published by
defendant, JMLS, is not the same as the informationpublished by each of the other law schools; and(4) the laws of the various states are different, and
Complaint is based solely on
statutes andcase law.Thus, the fact that Motions to Dismiss have been granted in two cases,
Gomez-Jiminez v. New York Law School,
943 N.Y.S.2d 834
Sup.Ct,, No. 652226/2011, March 21, 2012) in New York (hereinafter “
MacDonald v.Thomas M. Cooley Law School,
U.S.D.C. SD MI,
Case No. 1:11-CV-831 (July 20, 2012) in Michigan (hereinafter
The feasibility of an equitable remedy is evidenced by the University of Chicago’s School of Law Employment Disclosuresonline at
(copy attached as Exhibit B).