millikan v. thomas jefferson school of law, et al

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1 9

20

2 1

22

23

24

2 5

26

27

2 8

JACKSON MILLIKAN Pro Se Representation 3532 Meade Ave. #39 San Diego, CA 92116 360.888.2335 [email protected]

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

Jackson E. Millikan, ) )

Plaintiff, ~ )

vs. ) )

Thomas Jefferson School of Law, Kay Henley,~ 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, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

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


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 6

1 7

1 8

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


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1 8

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. Millikan'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 the 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 Relief

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


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 Re lief

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 6

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, 656~57 (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 significantly 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


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

absolutely 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


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 plummetin

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 ill~preparedness of

classmates, put their noses to the grindstone. 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


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

2 1

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. Millikan'~ 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, Jnjunction, and Declaratory Relief

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

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


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5

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 Declarato ry 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


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


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

21

22

23

24

2 5

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 judicia

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.


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


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1 7

1 8

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


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


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


Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full. It is further alleged 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, punitive damages, attorney fees,

refunded tuition, injunction, and or any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate.

5. Preliminary Injunctive Relief is Hereby Requested


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 reenrollmen

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


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


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1 3

1 4

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


1 7. Bait and Switch Misrepresentation of Housing Subsidy Award

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5

16

17

1 8

19

20

21

22

23

2 4

25

26

27

28


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.


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 indirectly to ... perform services, professional or

21


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

1 6 56. Law school education is universally designed to teach the doctrinal aspects ofth~

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 exam~

taking but then fail the bar at an alarming rate because they have not been sufficient!~ I

indoctrinated. Moreover, they have been induced to forgo the part of their education that is! 2 1

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


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

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


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

11

12

13

14

15

16

1 7

18

19

2 0

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, Injunction, and Declaratory Relief

millikan v. thomas jefferson school of law, et al

Documents