Cherdak v. Act, Inc.
Decision Date | 04 February 2020 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. TDC-19-1513 |
Citation | 437 F.Supp.3d 442 |
Parties | Harrison Morgan Cottone CHERDAK and Erik B. Cherdak, Plaintiffs, v. ACT, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Erik B. Cherdak, Gaithersburg, MD, pro se.
Harrison Morgan Cottone Cherdak, Gaithersburg, MD, pro se.
Barry J. Reingold, Robert A. Burgoyne, Pro Hac Vice, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
PlaintiffsHarrison Morgan Cottone Cherdak and Erik B. Cherdak(collectively "the Cherdaks") have filed a civil action against Defendant ACT, Inc. ("ACT"), in which they allege that ACT wrongfully decided to cancel Harrison Cherdak's April 2018 test score on the ACT standardized college admission test.Following removal of the case to federal court, ACT filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in which ACT contends that the dispute must be resolved in arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.In turn, the Cherdaks have filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction seeking to prevent ACT from canceling the April 2018 test score before the resolution of this case.Having reviewed the submitted materials, the Court finds that no hearing is necessary.SeeD. Md. LocalR. 105.6.For the reasons set forth below, ACT's Motion will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction will be DENIED.
Harrison Cherdak is a 2019 graduate of a high school in Montgomery County, Maryland.His father, Erik Cherdak, is a Maryland resident and joins in this action as a co-Plaintiff.The Cherdaks are both self-represented.ACT is a non-profit educational organization based in Iowa City, Iowa that prepares and administers the national ACT standardized test used by many colleges and universities in their undergraduate admissions process.The ACT is intended to measure students' abilities across various educational subjects, and the overall results of the test are provided to test takers in a Composite score.The highest possible Composite score is 36.
In December 2017, as a high school junior, Harrison Cherdak took the ACT for the first time and earned a Composite score of 24 out of 36.He then took a test preparation tutorial program and registered for the April 2018 administration of the test using ACT's online registration process.Students who register online must agree to a set of terms and conditions in order to complete the registration process.While registering for the April 2018 test, Harrison Cherdak agreed to ACT's 2017-2018 Terms and Conditions: Testing Rules and Policies for the ACT® Test ("Terms and Conditions").When Harrison Cherdak sat for the April 2018 test in Montgomery County, Maryland, he was also required to affirm in writing on his answer sheet that he agreed to comply with and be bound by the same Terms and Conditions provided during his registration process.Harrison Cherdak received a composite score of 32 out of 36 on the April 2018 administration of the test.
The 2017-2018 Terms and Conditions are contained in a document that states, in relevant part, that by "registering for and/or taking the ACT test," the test taker agrees "to be bound by, and will comply with, these Terms and Conditions and other ACT policies for the ACT test[.]"Terms and Conditions ("T & C") at 4, First Amended Complaint Ex. 1, ECFNo. 19-1.The Terms and Conditions provide that the ACT may conduct an "Individual Score Review" if it suspects a reason to invalidate a test score and may, in fact, cancel the test taker's score.Id. at 6.The terms relating to Individual Score Reviews ("the ISR Provision") provide that:
Id.Included in the ISR Provision is a clause requiring that any dispute relating to the ISR be resolved through binding arbitration ("the ISR Arbitration Clause"):
For Individual Score Reviews, the final and exclusive remedy available for you to appeal or otherwise challenge a decision by ACT to cancel your test score is binding arbitration.The arbitration will be conducted through written submissions to the American Arbitration Association("AAA"), unless both you and ACT agree to submit the matter to an alternative arbitration forum.By agreeing to arbitration in accordance with these Terms and Conditions, you are waiving your right to have your dispute heard by a judge or jury.If you choose to appeal a decision by ACT to cancel your test scores by exercising your right to seek arbitration of that decision, you must pay a nonrefundable filing fee of $200 to the AAA (or alternate forum) as your share of the filing fee, and ACT will pay the remainder of the filing fee.Your share of the filing fee is payable in full when a request for arbitration is filed with the AAA, but will be reimbursed by ACT if you prevail in arbitration and your scores are not cancelled.The only issue for arbitration will be whether ACT acted reasonably and in good faith in deciding to cancel the scores.No damages may be awarded by the arbitrator and each party is responsible for its own fees and expenses, including attorneys' fees, except as otherwise expressly provided in these Terms and Conditions.No arbitration involving the outcome of an Individual Score Review may be maintained as a class action, and the arbitrator shall not have the authority to combine or aggregate the disputes of more than one individual, conduct any class proceeding, make any class award, or make an award to any person or entity not a party to the arbitration.
Id.Within the Terms and Conditions, a second arbitration provision ("the General Arbitration Clause") governs all other disputes that do not involve Individual Score Reviews:
Id. at 7.Finally, the Terms and Conditions state that they are "subject to change until 48 hours prior to your test date."Id.Registrants are instructed: "You agree to check (www.act.org/the-act/terms.html) for revised Terms and Conditions at that time, and if you do not agree to the applicable terms, to notify ACT prior to the test of your intent to cancel your registration pursuant to this provision."Id.
On September 28, 2018, ACT notified Harrison Cherdak by letter that it was instituting an Individual Score Review ("ISR") pursuant to the Terms and Conditions due to apparent irregularities with his April 2018 test.Specifically, ACT stated that the increase in his subject matter and overall composite scores was greater than it typically observes, and that there were an unusually high number of identical responses and identical incorrect responses on his answer sheet when compared with another examinee's answer sheet.ACT informed Harrison Cherdak that he could opt either to: (1) cancel his April 2018 score; (2) take a private retest at ACT's expense, for the purpose of confirming the validity of the April 2018 score; or (3) provide certain documentation to ACT's Test Security Review Panel("Review Panel") to help establish the validity of the April 2018 score.The letter further stated that if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. Prosper Marketplace, Inc.
...in the same Employee Manual, with general applicability to the entire agreement.” Coady, 2020 WL 6785352, at *5; but see Cherdak, 437 F.Supp.3d at 458 (finding because “the modification provision in the Terms and Conditions is outside of the Arbitration Clauses and not specifically directed......
-
Malamatis v. ATI Holdings, LLC
... ... Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 ... U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. (Count I); ... retaliation, in violation ... Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc ., 545 ... U.S. 546, 552 (2005). “A court is to presume, ... therefore, that a case ... Md. Aug. 18, 2016). See also Cherdak v. ACT, Inc. , ... 437 F.Supp.3d 442, 456 (D. Md. 2020) (looking to ... Cheek and ... ...
-
Gray v. Schmidt Baking Co.
... ERIC GRAY, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 22-cv-00463-LKG United States District Court, D. Maryland ... matter pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ... (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16. ECF No. 27; ... see also ECF No. 27-1. The ... summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. See, ... e.g. , Cherdak v. ACT, Inc ., 437 F.Supp.3d 442, ... 454 (D ... Md. 2020) (holding that “[t]reating ... ...
-
Devine v. Bethesda Softworks, LLC
...when he entered into the ZeniMax TOS, the Court must decide his defense of capacity to contract. Resp. 23-24 (citing Cherdak v. ACT, Inc., 437 F. Supp. 3d 442 (D. Md. 2020)). Under Maryland law, minors have the capacity to contract, but they "may void contracts other than those for life nec......
-
B. [§ 3.8] Cases and Facts Not Constituting Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
...and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'") (quoting Lasater, Md. App. at 448); see also, e.g., Cherdak v. ACT, Inc., 437 F. Supp. 3d 442, 467 (D. Md. 2020), appeal dismissed sub nom. Harrison Morgan Cottone Cherdak v. Act, Inc., No. 20-1335, 2020 WL 5543720 (4th Cir. July 2, 2020)......
-
D. [§ 2.8] Consideration
...636, 640 (1971). "Consideration may take the form of '[f]orbearance to exercise a right or pursue a claim.'" Cherdak v. ACT, Inc., 437 F. Supp. 3d 442, 455 (D. Md. 2020), appeal dismissed sub nom. Harrison Morgan Cottone Cherdak v. Act, Inc., No. 20-1335, 2020 WL 5543720 (4th Cir. July 2, 2......