State v. Minn. Sch. of Bus., Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | A17-1740 |
| Citation | 915 N.W.2d 903 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. MINNESOTA SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, INC. d/b/a Minnesota School of Business, et al., Appellants |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Alan Gilbert, Jason Pleggenkuhle, Adam Welle, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Joseph W. Anthony, Brooke D. Anthony, Daniel R. Hall, Amelia Selvig Hartman, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellants)
Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Stauber, Judge.
For several years, appellants misled prospective students into believing appellants’ two-year and four-year criminal-justice programs provided the means to become police officers, and that enrolling in appellants’ two-year criminal-justice program was a means to become a probation officer. Following a bench trial, the district court determined that appellants violated the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA) and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), and ordered a restitution process for those students who were misled. On appeal, the appellants argue that the district court erred because the state failed to prove the necessary elements of an MCFA violation, the restitution order violated Minnesota law, and the determination that the appellants are jointly liable was improper. Because the state proved the necessary elements of an MCFA violation in respect to testifying students, we affirm in part. Because the restitution order’s presumption of injury and causal nexus was not authorized by law with respect to non-testifying students, we reverse in part.
Appellants Globe University and Minnesota School of Business ("the schools") are for-profit, post-secondary educational institutions. The schools have many separate campuses from one another, are separately accredited, and keep separate financial records. While the schools are separate legal entities, they have many overlapping qualities. Both schools are owned by the Myhre family; have the same corporate management team, which oversaw uniform operations of both campuses; and are Minnesota corporations that share a principal place of business in Woodbury. Credits at one school can be applied to a program at the other school, and both schools use joint course catalogs. The likenesses go further, as the schools share training materials, student-activity-record systems, instructors, and enrollment agreements. Both schools offer certificates, diplomas, associate’s degrees, bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, and doctoral degrees. This appeal is centered on the schools’ associate’s and bachelor’s degrees in criminal justice.
In July 2014, the state sued the schools, alleging that the schools violated both the MCFA and the UDTPA by making false, deceptive, and misleading statements.1 The misleading statements that are at issue on appeal involve promising prospective students career opportunities unattainable with the criminal-justice degree.2 The complaint requested injunctive and declaratory relief, civil penalties, restitution under the parens patriae doctrine for all persons injured, litigation costs, and attorney fees.
A bench trial was held in April 2016 on the MCFA and UDTPA claims. The trial lasted 17 days, and over 60 witnesses testified. The state argued that the schools misled prospective students to believe that the bachelor’s and associate’s degrees in criminal justice provided the means to become a police officer, even though the degrees did not satisfy any aspect of the education required to become a police officer.3 Similarly, the state argued that the schools misled prospective students that the associate’s degree in criminal justice provided the means to become a probation officer, even though the degree did not satisfy any aspect of the education required to become a probation officer.4
At trial, the state introduced numerous marketing and advertising exhibits to support its arguments that the schools misled prospective students to believe that their programs were means to become police officers or probation officers. Many of the materials used images of police officers, and the Minnesota School of Business’s blog website depicted stories of past students becoming police officers. The school had presentations by police officers and meet-and-greets with police officers. Numerous materials led students to believe the program was a means to become a police officer. For example, Globe University’s website stated,
Both schools’ program applications included an acknowledgment by applicants that stated, Other materials admitted into evidence instructed employees of the schools to provide applicants accurate disclosures and to avoid any misrepresentations.
Twenty-four students in the schools’ programs between 2008 and 2015 testified on behalf of the state.5 Many students testified that the schools misled them regarding the criminal-justice programs. The testimony of these students shared a common narrative: the prospective student would inform one of the schools of their intent to become a police officer, he would be encouraged by the school to enroll in a criminal-justice program, and he then enrolled in the program in reliance on the schools representations. Numerous school employees also testified, including a former admissions representative from the Minnesota School of Business, who testified that if an individual wanted to become a police officer, she was instructed to sell the program regardless of whether it realistically matched the applicant’s career goal.
The schools’ expert, Dr. Chiagouris, testified that the state relied on flawed evidence: testimony of select students was not a legitimate method to represent the actual student body. And another expert, Dr. Guryan, testified that the schools’ criminal-justice degrees provided substantial net-value earnings to their graduates.
The district court found the that students who testified on behalf of the state were credible, and also found that the testimony of the schools’ employee-witnesses, who stated they informed prospective students that they could not become police officers, credible as well. The court found the state’s anecdotal evidence regarding the criminal-justice programs persuasive, and it determined that the schools advertised their criminal-justice programs as a means to become a police officer, without disclosing the true requirements of becoming a police officer. It found that the schools’ online marketing was directed at prospective students interested in becoming police officers.
The district court found that the schools engaged in false and misleading practices in violation of the MCFA and the UDTPA in relation to their criminal-justice programs. It found that a causal connection existed between the schools’ advertising and promotion of the criminal-justice programs and harm to citizens of Minnesota based on the schools targeting prospective students interested in becoming police officers; advertising and suggesting that their programs could lead to becoming a police officer; having recruiters recommend the programs to students interested in becoming police officers; misleading prospective students into believing the two-year degree was sufficient to become a probation officer; and failing to disclose material facts. The district court determined the harm from these actions was both foreseeable and inevitable.
Next, the district court addressed relief. It determined that the schools were jointly liable as they never tried to legally separate themselves, were jointly operated, and were factually indistinguishable.
Although the state represented from the beginning of the case that it would not pursue relief on an individual level, it nonetheless sought restitution for the victims. The district court found that these positions were not incompatible and ordered restitution for not only the 15 students who testified, but also provided a system through which other potentially harmed students could seek relief. The restitution order set up a notice-and-claims process for the schools to provide relief to students who attended the criminal-justice programs and were misled into thinking that they could become police or probation officers. The restitution order required that the schools must notify potentially harmed students, and that eligible claimants have 45 days to complete a claim form. Then, any claimant who demonstrated that he or she enrolled in a criminal-justice program with the understanding he or she would be qualified to become a police officer or probation officer would receive a rebuttable presumption of harm and causation. The schools had the opportunity to request documentation and to dispute any claims. And if the parties cannot come to a resolution, then the schools have the opportunity to had a third party make a binding decision.
The schools appeal.
I. Did the district court err in determining that the state established a causal nexus between the schools’ conduct and the alleged harm to the 15 students who testified?
II. Did the district court err in determining that the state established a causal nexus between the schools’ conduct and the alleged harm to the students who did not testify?
III. Did the district court err by determining that both schools were jointly liable?
On appeal, the schools set forth numerous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Charps Welding & Fabricating, Inc.
...the defendant companies shared "the same corporate management team" or had "uniform operations." See State v. Minnesota Sch. of Bus., Inc. , 915 N.W.2d 903, 905 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018), rev’d in part on other grounds , 935 N.W.2d 124 (Minn. 2019). The Trustees do not meet their burden to show......
-
Johannessohn v. Polaris Indus., Inc.
...that the defendant school's conduct harmed them could be not used to presume a causal nexus for non-testifying students. 915 N.W.2d 903, 911–13 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018). But this holding was recently reversed in State v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. , 935 N.W.2d 124 (Minn. 2019). In its ......
-
State v. Minn. Sch. of Bus., Inc.
...harm identified by testifying students but failed to establish a causal nexus as to nontestifying students. State v. Minn. Sch. of Bus. , 915 N.W.2d 903, 910–13 (Minn. App. 2018). Accordingly, we must decide what the Attorney General must show to establish a causal nexus and whether the Att......