Lorona v. Arizona Summit Law School, LLC
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65527, 2016 WL 2893429, 188 F. Supp. 3d 927 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An educational institution's intentional reporting of deceptively incomplete enrollment statistics, by omitting data from a significant portion of its student body to create a misleadingly positive impression of its quality, can constitute actionable fraud or negligent misrepresentation.
Facts:
- Paula Lorona, a prospective law student, reviewed marketing materials from Arizona Summit Law School, including its 'Viewbook,' which reported a median LSAT score of 153 and a median undergraduate GPA of 3.18 for its students.
- The Law School's materials also represented high post-graduation employment rates and an 'Ultimate' bar pass rate of over 80%.
- Relying on this information, Lorona enrolled at the Law School in August 2009 and continued to rely on updated, stable statistics to remain enrolled, ultimately incurring over $200,000 in student loan debt.
- The Law School operated an 'Alternative' admissions program for students with lower academic qualifications who were not required to have LSAT scores or GPAs in the traditional range.
- The Law School did not include students from its 'Alternative' program, who constituted a majority of the student body during Lorona's enrollment, in its publicly reported median LSAT and GPA statistics.
- Unbeknownst to Lorona, the omission of 'Alternative' students artificially inflated the school's reported academic profile.
- After graduating in December 2014 and passing the bar exam, Lorona was unable to find employment at a law firm or in the public sector, which she attributed to the Law School's poor reputation resulting from low bar passage rates.
Procedural Posture:
- Paula Lorona filed a complaint in an Arizona state court against Arizona Summit Law School, LLC, and other defendants.
- After Lorona amended her complaint to include federal claims, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
- Lorona obtained counsel and filed a second amended complaint, from which the court dismissed several claims but granted leave to amend.
- Lorona filed a third amended complaint, alleging state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation against the Law School.
- Arizona Summit Law School then filed a Motion to Dismiss the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims in the third amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a law school's intentional reporting of enrollment statistics that omit a substantial portion of its student body with lower academic qualifications constitute actionable fraud or negligent misrepresentation when a student relies on these inflated statistics to their financial detriment?
Opinions:
Majority - Neil V. Wake
Yes, a law school's intentional and deceptive reporting of incomplete enrollment statistics can constitute actionable fraud. Lorona has plausibly stated a claim for fraud based on the allegation that Arizona Summit Law School knowingly omitted the LSAT scores and GPAs of its 'Alternative' admission students to report inflated statistics. This omission was material, as these metrics correlate with a law school's reputation and the value of its diploma. Lorona's reliance on these inflated statistics in deciding to enroll and remain at the school, resulting in significant debt for a degree worth less than advertised, is sufficient to allege damages. However, Lorona's other fraud claims based on the 'Ultimate' bar pass rate, manipulation of bar exam results, and general marketing statements are dismissed because those statements were not materially false, Lorona did not rely on them to her detriment, or they constituted non-actionable puffery.
Analysis:
This decision signifies that educational institutions can be held liable under fraud theories for presenting deceptively incomplete data to prospective students. It establishes that key metrics like median LSAT/GPA are material facts, not mere marketing puffery, upon which students can reasonably rely. The ruling draws a line between aspirational statements and actionable misrepresentations by omission, potentially increasing scrutiny on the transparency of for-profit and other schools' marketing statistics. This case provides a viable legal theory for students who believe they were induced to enroll based on misleadingly curated data about an institution's quality.
