P. 1
3L Sues Law School for Forcing Him to Retake CivPro

3L Sues Law School for Forcing Him to Retake CivPro

|Views: 2,330|Likes:
Published by FindLaw
A law student who failed Civil Procedure II has sued the Thomas Jefferson School of Law for making him retake the course.

The 24-page complaint is full of biting put-downs for the private, San Diego law school. Third-year law student Jackson Millikan's complaint (attached below) exalts his academic and legal accomplishments while mercilessly bashing Thomas Jefferson School of Law (TJSL). Some of the gems include:

"TJSL operated an abysmally substandard legal writing program."

"...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."

"As rankings and public persona make abundantly clear, one cannot go much lower than TJSL."

The school apparently is holding firm on its requirement that all students pass Civil Procedure II before graduating.

Hat tip to Above The Law for finding this memorable complaint.
A law student who failed Civil Procedure II has sued the Thomas Jefferson School of Law for making him retake the course.

The 24-page complaint is full of biting put-downs for the private, San Diego law school. Third-year law student Jackson Millikan's complaint (attached below) exalts his academic and legal accomplishments while mercilessly bashing Thomas Jefferson School of Law (TJSL). Some of the gems include:

"TJSL operated an abysmally substandard legal writing program."

"...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."

"As rankings and public persona make abundantly clear, one cannot go much lower than TJSL."

The school apparently is holding firm on its requirement that all students pass Civil Procedure II before graduating.

Hat tip to Above The Law for finding this memorable complaint.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: FindLaw on Sep 06, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/24/2013

pdf

text

original

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
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

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->