VS.

ERICA BURCIAGA, CRYSTAL CHILDRESS, BRIDGETT GANN, FRED IBARRA, LUIS IBARRA, MONIQUE JARAMILLO, ROSE KING, MARTHA MEWBORN, MARY MOBLEY and STORMY MOORE

§ § § § § § § § § § §

TAYLOR COUNTY~ TEXAS

AMERICAN COMMERCIAL COLLEGE, INC.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAl) PETITION AND JURY DEMAND TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW, Erica Burciaga, Crystal Childress! Alma Gamboa, Bridgett Gann, Fred

Ibarra, Luis Ibarra, Monique Jaramillo, Rose King, Martha Mewborn, Mary Mobley and Stormy

Moore, Plaintiffs, complaining of American Commercial Colleges, Inc., Defendant, and for cause

of action would show the Court as follows:

It

DISCOVERY CONTROII PLAN

In accordance with Rule 190.1, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs will conduct

discovery in this civil actionunder Discovery Control Plan Level TI1!ee,

II.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Erica Burciaga (Burciaga) is all individual who resides in Abilene, Taylor County,

Texas. Plaintiff Crystal Childress (Childress) is an individual who resides in Hawley, Jones

County, Texas, Plaintiff Bridgett Gann (Gann) is an individual who resides in Abilene, Taylor

County, Texas, Plaintiff Fred Ibarra (Fred Ibarra) is an individual who resides in Abilene, Taylor

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND - PAGE 1

County, Texas. Plaintiff Luis Ibarra (Luis Ibarra) is an individual who resides in Abilene, Taylor

1 ·1

.,

I I ,!

County, Texas. Monique Jaramillo (Jaramillo) is an individual who resides in Abilene, Taylor

County, Texas. Plaintiff Rose King (King) is an individual who resides in Abilene, Taylor

County, Texas. Plaintiff Martha Mewborn (Mewborn) is an individual who resides in Coleman,

i

Coleman County, Texas. Plaintiff Mary Mobley (Mobley) is an individual who resides in San .

Angelo, Tom Green County, Texas. Plaintiff Stormy Moore (Moore) is an individual who resides

in Abilene, Taylor County, Texas.

Defendant Defendant American Commercial Colleges, Inc. ("ACe") is a corporation that

is organized under the laws of the State of Texas, ACe's principal office is located in Lubbock,

Texas. ACC may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process,

Brent Sheets, at 4412 74th Street, Suite EIOC Lubbock, Texas 76424.

JURISDICTION

III.

This court has personam jurisdiction over all Defendants since Plaintiffs' causes of action

arose in Texas ·and since Defendants are amenable to service by a Texas court. This Court has

IV.

subject matter jurisdiction because district courts are constitutional courts of general jurisdiction,

and the amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of the court,

VENUE

Venue is proper in Taylor County, Texas under TEX. Civ. PRAC. & REM. CODE

§§15.002(a)(1) and 15.003(a),

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETlTION AND JURY DEMAND - PAGE 2

V.

FACTS

Ace was founded in 1957. It is a privately-held proprietary college that awards caree]

.

diplomas and industry certifications in various career fields, including the career fields of ' 'Office

..

Technology," "Computerized Accounting," "Information Technology," "Data Entry," "Medical

Office Specialist," "Medical Assisting," "Medical Coding/Billing," and "Medical

Transcriptionist." ACC operates campuses in Lubbock Ddessa, Abilene, Wichita Falls, San

Angelo and Shreveport,

Plaintiffs were, at all times relevant herein, students enrolled at ACe's Abilene and San

Angelo campus, Plaintiffs Childress, Gann, Fred Ibarra, Luis Ibarra, Jaramillo, King, Mewborn

and Moore were enrolled at ACC's Abilene campus in the Medical Assisting program, Plaintiff

Plaintiff Mary Mobley was enrolled at ACe's San Angelo campus in the Medical Assisting

Burciaga was enrolled in the Medical Office Specialist program at ACe's Abilene campus.

program.

Ace would teach them the basic concepts and procedures needed to perform the tasks involved in

Defendants' agents and representatives made numerous promises to Plaintiffs to induce

them to enroll at ACe. Students enrolled in the ACe's Medical Assisting program were told that

medical assisting as well as gain the knowledge and education to be a certified medical assistant.

Plaintiffs were told that ACers programs were characterized by hands-on training that

would allow them to practice with the tools of their new careers, small classes which would offer

helpful instruction to students, and experienced and qualified instructors. Admissions personnel

specifically told Plaintiffs that ACe offered career placement services, which would help students

launch their new careers after graduation and that they would be placed in ajob after graduation.

Admissions personnel represented that the placement rate ranged from 80% to 95%.

Pl,AINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND -PAGE 3

The college specifically encouraged students to use their time at ACe as a "starting point"

for their post-secondary education. In fact, central to ACe's efforts to induce Plaintiffs to enroll at

Ace was the promise that their course credits would transfer to other four-year colleges or

.. ,

universities around the country. Plaintiff Childress was specifically told that her credits would be

transferable to an online L VN program. Plaintiff Mewborn entered ACe with the intention of

continuing her education and eventually obtaining a degree in nursing. After completing the'

program at ACe, she contacted three different schools to see about transferring her credits to a

registered nursing program. None of the three schools would accept her credits. In fact} their

course credits were not accepted by any institution of higher learning, leaving these students with

no options but to start over at great and duplicative expense, or simply abandon their educational

goals altogether.

Based on these and other representations made by Defendants' agents and representatives,

Plaintiffs enrolled in their respective programs. Their experience fell overwhelmingly short of

expectation. Students found that their classes were overcrowded and the faculty inexperienced.

Students found themselves sharing text books in class or unable to be seated in class due to the

overcrowding. They did not receive the hands on training that had been promised. Students

also learned that they would not be eligible to take either the certified medical assistant exam

offered by the AAMAI AMA or the registered medical exam offered by the AMT due to the fact

that Ace did not have the correct accreditation in order for them to take the exam.

While many students discontinued their studies at ACe) those Plaintiffs that did complete

their programs found themselves without any effective assistance from ACe's career placement

department. Predictably, 'With a worthless credential and no career placement services, Plaintiffs

have not foundjobs within their fields of study.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND - PAGE 4

., ....

VI.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count One - Deceptive Trade Practi~es Act

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing, as if those allegations were set forth

verbatim. Plaintiffs were consumers as defined by the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and

Consumer Protection. Act, TEX. Bus. & COM. CODE § 17.41 et. seq" and purchased education

services from Defendant. Defendant, and its agents, employees, servants and apparent agents,

while in the course and scope of their employment with Defendant, violated the following

provisions of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, TEX, BUS, &

COM, CODE§ 17.46(b):

(2) causing confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services;

(3) causing confusion 01' misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another;

(5) representing that goods 01' services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, 01' quantities they do not have;

(7) representing that goods 01' services are of a particular standard, quality 01' grade or that goods me of a particular style or model if they moe of another;

(9) advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised; and

(24) failing to disclose information about goods or services that was known at the time of the transaction if they failure to disclose was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction that the consumer would not have entered into had the mtormation been disclosed,

The representations by Defendant, its agents, employees, servants, and apparent agents;

while in the course and scope of their employment with Defendant, were false) misleading and

deceptive in that the goods or services did 110t have the sponsorship, approval, characteristics,

ingredients, uses, benefits or quantities as represented; were not of a particular standard, quality or

grade as represented; and did not confer or involve rights! remedies or obligations as represented. PLAINTIFIt'S' ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND-PAGE 5

Count Two - Fraud

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing, as if those allegations were set forth verbatim. Defendant made material misrepresentations about the quality of ACC's programs, (he qualifications and commitment of its faculty> the effectiveness of its career placement department, its job placement rates, and the ability to transfer course credits obtained at the institution.

Defendant made these misrepresentations with knowledge of'their falsity, or alternatively, made these misrepresentations recklessly without any knowledge of the truth of the statements.

Defendant made these misrepresentations with the intent that Plaintiffs would rely on these statements, and pay the school money in order to enroll in its Medical Assisting and Medical Office Specialist programs, even though the quality of these programs, and students' post-graduation career prospects, were severely lacking. Plaintiffs suffered significant financial injuries by actively and justifiably relying on Defendant's misstatements.

Count Three - Breach of Contract

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing, as if those allegations were set forth verbatim. Each Student was required to sign an "Enrollment Certificate. II Pursuant to the contract the student is obligated to make certain tuition payments in exchange for the school offering training in the student's chosen field. The contract provides specifically that their tuition would be refunded if lithe enrollment ofthe student was procured as the result of any misrepresentation in advertising, promotional materials of the school or college, or representations by the owner 01' representations of the school or college." All plaintiffs were entitled to a ref und under this provision, and none have been forthcoming. Defendant is consequently in breach of Plaintiffs' Enrollment Certificate.

PI,AINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND - PAGE 6

VII.

DAMAGES

Defendant's conduct as described above was' a producing cause of Plaintiffs' damages, As a'

result, Plaintiffs sustained economic damages including tuition and fees paid, interest accrued on student loans, diminished earning capacity, lost time for attending class, as well as mental anguish damages. The conduct of Defendant as described in this Petition was committed knowingly; that is> Defendant was actually aware of the falsity, deception, and unfairness of the conduct about which Plaintiffs complain. Accordingly, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for additional damages as provided by the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant's conduct as described in this Petition and the resulting damages and losses to Plaintiffs has necessitated Plaintiffs retaining the undersigned attorney. Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to recover from Defendant an additional sum to compensate Plaintiffs for reasonable fees for such attorney's services in the preparation and prosecution of ibis action, as well as a reasonable fee for any and all appeals to other courts.

The conduct of Defendant, as set forth herein, is of such a character as to make Defendant liable for fraudulent conduct, malicious intent or gross negligence. The actions of Defendant involve such an entire want of care as could only have resulted from actual conscious indifference to the rights, safety or welfare of Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs hereby sue for exemplary damages in an amount fat in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.

VIII.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs request that all ultimate fact issues be submitted to a jury for determination in accordance with Texas law, They have paid the jury fee,

PLAINTlFFS' ORIGINAL PETlTION AND JURY DEMAND ~ PAGE 7

IX.

REQUEST FOR DISGLOSURES

•

Pursuant to TEX, R, CW, P. 194, Defendant herein is requested to disclose, within 50 days

of the service of this Petition and request, the information and/or material described in Rule,194.2,

I

x.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that Defendant

PRAYER

be cited to appeal' and answer herein, and that on trial of this cause of action Plaintiffs shall have

judgment against Defendants for the following relief:

1.

Judgment against Defendant for a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court;

minimum

3, Judgment against Defendant for exemplary damages in an amount far in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court;

2. Further damages by reason of Defendant knowing misconduct in accordance with the provisions of §17.S0(b)(l) of the Business and Commerce Code;

4. Prejudgment interest as provided by law;

5. Attorney's fees;

6. Post judgment interest as provided by law;

8, Such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.

7. Costs of suit; and

PLArNTIFFS~ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND - PAGE 8

., ,

Respectfully submitted)

LAW OFFICE OF JULIE JOHNSON) PLLC

3100 Monticello, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75205

(214) 265~7600

Fax: (214) 265~7626

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND -PAGE 9