NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK

STUDENT DEFENSE WORKS TO ADVANCE STUDENTS' RIGHTS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND ENSURE THAT HIGHER EDUCATION PROVIDES A LAUNCHING POINT FOR ECONOMIC MOBILITY. WE USE LITIGATION AND ADVOCACY TO PROTECT STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN DEFRAUDED BY PREDATORY COLLEGES, LOAN SERVICERS, AND OTHERS. OUR TEAM WORKS TO ENHANCE OVERSIGHT BY STATE AGENCIES, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND HIGHER EDUCATION ACCREDITORS AND TO HOLD ENTITIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, FOR OVERSIGHT FAILURES, AND FOR ROLLBACKS OF POLICIES DESIGNED TO PROTECT STUDENTS AND STUDENT LOAN BORROWERS. WE ALSO WORK TO ENSURE THAT STRONG CONSUMERS PROTECTIONS FOR STUDENTS AND THAT STUDENTS AND BORROWERS ARE ABLE TO ACCESS BENEFITS DESIGNED TO IMPROVE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING. WE WORK TO ENHANCE OVERSIGHT, AND INCREASE TRANSPARENCY, OF STATE AGENCIES, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND HIGHER EDUCATION ACCREDITORS.PURSUANT TO REV PROC. 92-59, 1992-C C.B.411, THE ORGANIZATION IS PROVIDING A LIST OF CASES LITIGATED DURING 2023.DURING 2023, THE ORGANIZATION LITIGATED SEVEN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PURSAUNT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. 552, ET SEQ., COVERING THIRTY-FOUR REQUESTS SUBMITTED UNDER FOIA. AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, THE ORGANIZATION SEEKS A "FEE WAIVER" FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH EACH REQUEST, ESTABLISHING THAT THE REQUESTED DISCLOSURE UNDER FOIA IS "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST." SEE 5 U.S.C. 552(A)(4)(A)(III). THE ORGANIZATION HAS NEVER BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY FEES IN CONNECTION WITH ANY REQUEST. DURING 2023, THE ORGANIZATION LITIGATED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL MATTERS, THE SELECTION OF WHICH WAS NOT MADE WITH A CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPECTATION OR POSSIBILITY OF A FEE AWARD. (1) BALTEZAR V. CARDONA & U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, N.D. CAL.). THIS IS A CHALLENGE UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S 2019 REPEAL OF THE GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT RULE, WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT STUDENTS FROM CAREER-ORIENTED HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDED LIMITED VALUE COMENSURATE TO STUDENT DEBT BURDENS INCURRED. (2) DUNAGAN V. ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF ART (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, N.D. ILL.). THIS IS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION AGAINST AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION THAT MISLED STUDENTS ABOUT ITS STATUS AS AN ACCREDITED INSTITUTION. THE SUIT SEEKS TO HOLD RESPONSIBLE BOTH THE INSTITUTION AND THE OWNERS AND EXECUTIVES WHO PLAYED AN INSTRUMENTAL ROLE IN THE DECEPTION. THIS IS PART THE ORGANIZATION'S EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUAL WRONGDOERS ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR PREDATORY CONDUCT BY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.(3) DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLC V. SOUTH UNIVERSITY OF OHIO ET AL. (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, N.D. OHIO). THIS IS A FEDERAL COURT RECIEVERSHIP PROCEEDING INVOLVING CERTAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THE DUNAGAN MATTER DESCRIBED ABOVE. IN 2022, STUDENT DEFENSE REPRESENTED STUDENTS TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHTS, AND THE RIGHTS OF OTHER STUDENTS, AGAINST RECIEVERSHIP ENTITIES. (4) DETMER ET AL. V. LA'JAMES COLLEGE OF HAIRSTYLING, INC. ET AL (IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY). THIS IS A CERTIFIED CLASS ACTION AGAINST AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION THAT DELAYED DISBURSEMENT OF STUDENT CREDIT BALANCES, IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL REGULATION AND STATE LAW. (5) CARROLL ET AL. V. WALDEN UNIVERSITY ET AL (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, D. MARYLAND). THIS IS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF TITLE IV OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, THE EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT, AND STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THE CASE SEEKS TO AFFIRM THE USE OF CORE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL STUDENT LENDING.(6) ARBITRATIONS AGAINST LAMBDA, INC. D/B/A/ LAMBDA SCHOOL OR BLOOM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. IN 2023, THE ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED FIVE INDIVIDUALS SEPARATELY PURSUING ARBITRATIONS AGAINST THE LAMBDA SCHOOL FOR MISREPRESENTATIONS REGARDING STUDENT OUTCOMES. THE CASES NOT ONLY SOUGHT REDRESS FOR THE CLIENT, BUT ALSO SOUGHT TO HIGHLIGHT PROBLEMS WITH REGULATIONS REGARDING UNACCREDITED "BOOT CAMPS," THE USE OF "INCOME SHARE AGREEMENTS" TO FINANCE HIGHER EDUCATION. SEPARATELY, IN BRUNER V BLOOM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY D/B/A LAMBDA SCHOOL) AND AUTSTEN ALLRED, ET AL., THE ORGANIZATION LITIGATED A CLAIM AGAINST LAMBDA FOR SIMILAR MISCONDUCT. LIKEWISE, IN FULLER ET AL. V. BLOOM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY D/B/A LAMBDA SCHOOL) AND AUSTEN ALLRED, ET AL., THE ORGANIZATION LITIGATED A SIMILAR CLAIM AS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION AND TESTED THE EXTENT OF THE MANDATORY ARBITRATION CLAUSE THAT APPEARED IN THE "INCOME SHARE AGREEMENT." (7) DUNN ET AL. V. CARDONA & U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (D. MASS). THIS LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN APRIL 2022 TO CHALLENGE, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S UNREASONABLE DELAY IN FAILING TO ADJUDICATE A 2016 GROUP APPLICATION FOR STUDENT LOAN DISCHARGES SUBMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF FORMER STUDENTS AT KAPLAN CAREER INSTITUTE IN MASSACHUSETTS. IN AUGUST 2022, THE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCED THAT IT HAD GRANTED THE APPLICATION. (8) HEMPHILL ET AL. V. CARDONA & U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (D.D.C.) THIS LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN MAY 2022 TO CHALLENGE, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S UNREASONABLE DELAY IN FAILING TO ADJUDICATE A 2016 GROUP APPLICATION FOR STUDENT LOAN DISCHARGES SUBMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF FORMER STUDENTS AT WESTWOOD COLLEGE IN ILLINOIS. IN AUGUST 2022, THE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD BE PROVIDING $1.5 BILLION IN STUDENT LOAN DISCHARGES TO 79,000 BORROWERS WHO ATTENDED WESTWOOD COLLEGE BETWEEN JANUARY 2002 AND ITS CLOSURE IN 2016. (9) FAVELL ET AL. V. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. (SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY). THIS IS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION FOR DEFRAUDING STUDENTS BY USING MISLEADING COLLEGE RANKINGS REGARDING THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THE CASE SEEKS TO HIGHLIGHT THE PERNICIOUS EFFECTS AND ILLEGALITY OF "REVENUE SHARE" AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLEGES AND THIRD-PARTY ENTITIES THAT PROVIDE BOTH RECRUITING AND ONLINE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES. (10) IN RE DODSON (U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, W.D. WASHINGTON). THIS IS AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING AGAINST THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEEKING THE DISCHARGE OF MS. DODSON'S STUDENT LOANS. THE CASE IS AMONG THE FIRST IN THE NATION TO TEST THE EFFICACY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S 2022 GUIDANCE REGARDING THE DISCHARGE OF FEDERAL STUDENT LOANS IN BANKRUPTCY. (11) NATALIA ORTIZ V. SABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE & R3 EDUCATION, INC. (D. MASS). THIS WAS FILED AS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF MASSACHUSETTS LAW WITH RESPECT TO MARKETING AND ADVERTISING BY SABA UNIVERSITY. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THE CASE SEEKS TO HIGHLIGHT HOW INSTITUTIONS CAN MANIPULATE ADVERTISEMENTS OF STUDENT OUTCOMES THROUGH DECEPTIVE USE OF STATISTICAL REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING SUCCESS ON LICENSURE EXAMINATIONS.(12) ELVA LOPEZ V. CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SIMPLILEARN AMERICAS, INC (SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO). THIS WAS FILED AS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKETING AND ADVERTISING OF A SHORT-TERM BOOTCAMP BY THE DEFENDANTS. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THE CASE SEEKS TO HIGHLIGHT HOW CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS CONTRACT WITH THIRD-PARTIES TO DESIGN AND PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL OFFERINGS, WITHOUT ADEQUATELY DISCLOSING TO STUDENTS THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE PROGRAMS.SHOULD THE ORGANIZATION RECOVER ATTORNEYS FEES, SUCH FEES WILL BE PAID TO THE ORGANIZATION AND NOT TO INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEYS WHOSE COMPENSATION IS DETERMINED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO FEES RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH CASES HANDLED.