IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF (COOK}COUNTY, ILLINOIS ‘COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION JONATHAN PHILLIPS, et al., MNRWUL-2 flu 22 Plaintiffs, Hy ‘Case No, 12-CH-03523 Judge Neil Cohen ei oa DEPAUL UNIVERSITY, a/k/a DEPAUL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, et al., Defendant. PLAINTIFFS? RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT Plaintiffs Jonathan Phillips, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, by and through their attomeys, The Clinton Law Firm, respond to Defendant” Combined Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs? First Amended Class Action Complaint (“MTD”) and Memorandum of Law in Support (‘DefMem.”), and Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendant” Motion. INTRODUCTION Although the Defendant are unusually prominent, this case is really no more than a classic, garden-variety consumer fraud case in which a business misrepresented itself in order to increase sales. Here, a law school misrepresented its graduates’ employment statistics in order to induce prospective students to enroll. As a result, Plaintiffs paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to that law school (DePaul University College of Law (“DePaul”)), frequently taking on a substantial amount of debt, investment and now have leamed that the odds of their obtaining legal positions adequate to justify thei ‘were much less than what had been represented to them when they chose to enroll at that particular law school. ‘The Plaintiffs are asking for narrowly tailored compensatory relief that is directly based upon Defendant’ own false and misleading employment numbers. Plaintiffs are also requesting that Defendant be enjoined from reporting false, misleading or incomplete employment data and ordered to provide full and honest disclosures to the public.of this equitable remedy is evidenced by the University of Chicago’s School of Law Employment Disclosures, online at http://www. law.uchicago.edu/prospective/employmentdata (copy attached as Exhil A). In contrast to Plaintiffs’ narrowly tailored relief, Defendant asks this Court for the extraordinary relief of a finding that a law school, unlike other service providers, can never be liable for making ‘misrepresentations, even when the information is in its sole control. Defendant asks this Court to find that they have no responsibility or duty to ensure that their disclosures are accurate and complete; that ven if their disclosures 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 deterrent for 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, 253 IM.App.34 750, 763 (1993); app.den. 156 Ill.2d 552: [W]e are mindful of the fact that damages in fraud cases serve an admonitory function (see Restatement (Second) of Torts [Sec.] 549, Comment I, at 115 (1977) which would be severely undermined 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 dealings at a distinct disadvantage. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs enrolled in DePaul University College of Law (“DePaul”) between 2003 and 2008 to obtain a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree which is a prerequisite for the practice of law. (Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (“AC”), $f 8, 77 attached hereto at Exhibit B). In seeking to induce prospective students to enroll in DePaul, the Defendant published Employment Information (AC 4] 35) which purported to give students the post-law school employment history of its recent graduates. Defendant understood that students would use this Employment Information, in comparison with that of alternative law schools, in making their decisions as to whether a degree from DePaul would give them better prospects for jobs as lawyers than degrees from the other law schools. The Employment Information published by DePaul was substantially misleading (e.g., AC { 36 - 40) and, as a consequence, led students to believe that theirprospects upon graduation were likely to be much greater than accurate non-misleading data would have indicated, and therefore to enroll in DePaul rather than elsewhere. (AC 40). This Court may take judicial notice, and expert testimony will confirm ~ that students do not go to law school just to debate theories of constitutional law and legal philosophy; they go to prepare for careers as lawyers. ~ that the imprimatur of a degree from a particular law can be a significant determinant in a sgraduate’s job prospects, immediately upon graduation and over the course ofa lifetime, -- that a key indicator of the value of that imprimatur compared to that of other law schools is the employment record of its graduates immediately following graduation. ~ that a law school whose grads have an immediate employment rate 20% or 10% or even 5% above those of a competing law school have a significant advantage in attracting students. ‘That is why law schools brag about their post-graduation employment rates. ‘That is why DePaul crafted and misrepresented its Employment Information — to fool applicants into thinking that their chances for post-graduation employment as lawyers were greater than full disclosure of all the relevant numbers would have shown. ARGUMENT I. _ DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMISS PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-615 SHOULD BE DENIED. ‘When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court accepts “as true all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts.” Simpkins v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2012 IL 110662, ¥ 13 (internal citations omitted). The allegations are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party or plaintiff. Jd. Most importantly, “{a] cause of action should not be dismissed pursuant to section 2-615 unless itis clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recovery.” Id. A. Plaintiffs Allege Sufficient Facts to State a Cause of Action Under the Illinois, Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 (the re