Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, Civ. A. No. 91-782 (CRR).

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Citation788 F. Supp. 1233
Decision Date26 March 1992
PartiesMichael JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CULINARY SCHOOL OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 91-782 (CRR).

788 F. Supp. 1233

Michael JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CULINARY SCHOOL OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 91-782 (CRR).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

March 26, 1992.


788 F. Supp. 1234
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
788 F. Supp. 1235
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
788 F. Supp. 1236
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
788 F. Supp. 1237
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
788 F. Supp. 1238
Paul Fiscella, Northern Virginia Legal Services with whom Clare L. McCulla, Alexandria, Va., was on the brief, for plaintiffs

Mark E. Shure, McDermott, Will & Emery with whom Amy E. Hancock, Chicago, Ill., was on the brief, for defendant Higher Educ. Assistance Foundation.

Virginia W. Powell, Hunton & Williams with whom Mark B. Bierbower, Richmond, Va., was on the brief, for defendant Crestar Bank.

Laurie J. Pangle, Toledo, Ohio, Fifth Third Bank of Toledo, N.A., for defendant Fifth Third Bank of Toledo, N.A.

Richard D. George, Great Lakes Higher Educ. Ass'n, Madison, Wis., with whom Michael R. Hatcher, Israel & Raley, Chartered, Washington, D.C., and David J. Hanson and Ann Ustad Smith, Michael, Best & Friedrich, Madison, Wis., were on the brief, for defendant Great Lakes Higher Educ. Ass'n.

Saul L. Moskowitz, Clohan & Dean, Washington, D.C., and W. Scott Davis, Bruckner, O'Gara, Keating, Sievers & Hendry, Lincoln, Neb., with whom Paul R. Dean and Douglas K. Spaulding, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay and John E. Dean, Clohan & Dean, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for defendants Nebraska Student Loan Program and Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Program.

Leslie H. Wiesenfelder, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Washington, D.C., for defendant Ohio Student Loan Com'n.

Richard L. Brusca, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Washington, D.C., for defendant Student Loan Marketing Ass'n.

Fred E. Haynes, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom were Jay B. Stephens, U.S. Atty., John D. Bates, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Fred Marinucci, of Office of Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Educ., on the brief, for defendant Secretary of Educ.

Richard C. Kast, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom was Mary Sue Terry, Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., on the brief, for defendant Virginia State Educ. Assistance Authority.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
                 I. Introduction and Analysis ........................................................... 1239-1240
                 II. The Secretary's Motion to Dismiss Shall be Granted in Part and Denied
                 in Part
                 A. Given the Secretary's Own Policy Statements, Plaintiffs May Defend
                 Against Collection by the Secretary on the Basis of an
                 Alleged Origination Relationship Between the Lenders and CSW 1241
                 B. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Alleged an Estoppel Against the Secretary
                 Due to the Alleged Agency Relationship Between the Secretary
                 and CSW ........................................................................ 1241-1244
                 C. The Higher Education Act Does Not Wholly Preempt State Law
                 Governing the Enforceability of Student Loan Promissory Notes 1244-1246
                 1. Plaintiffs Have Stated a Cause of Action Under D.C.Code § 28-3809(a)(3)
                 and the Secretary's Motion to Dismiss This Claim
                 Shall Be Denied ............................................................. 1246-1248
                 2. Although the FTC Holder Rule Does Not Provide Plaintiffs
                 Relief as a Matter of Federal Law, Plaintiffs Have Stated a
                 Claim for Failure to Include the Notice of Defenses Clause
                 Pursuant to D.C.Code § 28-3904 and the Motions to Dismiss
                 Shall Be Denied ............................................................. 1248-1253
                 3. Plaintiffs Have Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can
                 be Granted With Respect to D.C.Code § 28-3808 and the
                 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Shall Be Granted .............................. 1253-1255
                 4. Plaintiffs Have Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can
                 be Granted Under D.C.Code § 28-3807 and the Defendants'
                 Motions to Dismiss these Claims Shall Be Granted ............................. 1255
                

788 F. Supp. 1239
5. Plaintiffs Have Failed to State a Cause of Action Pursuant to the D.C. Licensing Regulations for Proprietary Schools and the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss these Claims Shall Be Granted ....................................................................... 1255-1256 D. Because Plaintiffs Do Not Have a Private Cause of Action Under the Higher Education Act as a Matter of Law, These Claims Against the Secretary Shall Be Dismissed ........................................ 1256-1259 E. Plaintiffs Cannot Assert Claims Against the Secretary on the Basis of an Ultimate Lender Theory .................................................... 1259 III. The Guaranty Agencies' Motions to Dismiss Shall be Granted in Part and Denied in Part A. Plaintiffs Do Not Have a Private Right of Action Against the Guaranty Agencies Under the HEA ................................................ 1260 B. Because Plaintiffs Cannot Assert Claims Against the Guaranty Agencies on the Basis of an Origination Relationship, the Court Shall Dismiss these Counts of the Complaint with Respect to the Guaranty Agencies .............................................................. 1260-1263 IV. The Lenders' Motions to Dismiss Shall Be Granted in Part and Denied in Part ............................................................................... 1263-1264 V. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court Shall Dismiss the Complaint Against Sallie Mae, Without Prejudice ............................................ 1264-1265 VI. Conclusion ......................................................................... 1265-1266

OPINION

CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS

This is a putative class action1 in which Plaintiffs, former students at the now-defunct Culinary School of Washington (hereinafter, "CSW" or "the school"), seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of Education ("Secretary"), Crestar Bank, First National Bank of Toledo, certain State and private Guaranty Agencies2 and the Student Loan Marketing Association ("Sallie Mae").3 Plaintiffs contend that the school not only promised educational training in the culinary arts but employment opportunities thereafter for its students. According to the Plaintiffs, the school fraudulently misrepresented its facilities and the strength of its educational program, and thereby fraudulently induced the students to take out GSLs.4 Complaint

788 F. Supp. 1240
at 25, ¶ 59. Plaintiffs are now in default on these student loans. In this action, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief such that their student loans would be null and void and subject to various federal and state law claims and defenses. At bottom, the Plaintiffs contend that the Court should prevent the Secretary, the Guaranty Agencies, the lenders and Sallie Mae from collecting on these loans because the GSLs were extended to the students herein despite the fact that "the Secretary, the guaranty agencies and the banks all knew or had reason to know that CSW was ineligible for the GSL program." Complaint at 43, ¶ 158

The Court has been inundated with papers by all parties. In view of the importance and complexity of these issues, this is not surprising. The Plaintiffs' 102-page Complaint asserts numerous causes of action and is hardly the model of clarity. The Secretary of Education, the Guaranty Agencies, the lenders and Sallie Mae have predictably filed voluminous Motions to Dismiss the various and sundry claims. Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "streamlines litigation by dispensing with needless discovery and factfinding." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1832, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). In particular, "Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law." Id. However, in determining whether the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim as a matter of law, the Court must construe the Complaint liberally, granting the Plaintiffs "the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged." Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C.Cir.1979) (quoting Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 1848, 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969)).

Prior to evaluating the Defendants' respective Motions to Dismiss, it is important to outline the basic structure of the GSL program in which the Plaintiffs participated. A student meeting the prescribed needs test may obtain a GSL. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1087kk-1087uu (1986). However, GSLs are available only if the student attends an "eligible institution" as defined by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1085(a)-(c). CSW was deemed an eligible institution and entered into a program participation agreement with the Secretary. Pursuant to the GSL program, Plaintiffs executed promissory notes with private lenders, such as the Defendants Crestar and First National Bank of Toledo. Non-profit Guaranty Agencies and the Secretary subsidized the program by guaranteeing payment to the private lenders in the event of a student's default on the loan. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1078, 1087. In the event of default, the private lender may assign the loan to the Guaranty Agency and the Guaranty Agency could begin collection efforts against the student. Pursuant to the Secretary of Education's contractual reinsurance agreements with the Guaranty Agencies, the Secretary could receive an assignment of the loan and could then undertake collection efforts upon reimbursing the Guaranty Agencies for any losses incurred on the defaulted loan. See 20 U.S.C. § 1078; 34 C.F.R. § 682.410(b)(4). In this action, the Plaintiffs seek to halt the collection efforts of the lenders, the Guaranty Agencies and the Secretary under a variety of theories. In evaluating the Defendants' respective Motions to Dismiss, the Court must determine whether the Plaintiffs have stated a basis upon which to defend against the collection of their student loans.

II. THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS SHALL GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • McCulloch v. Pnc Bank Inc., No. 02-10058 Non-Argument Calendar.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • July 17, 2002
    ...Sept.21, 1995)], Moy v. Adelphi Institute, Inc., 866 F.Supp. 696, 705 (E.D.N.Y.1994); Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, 788 F.Supp. 1233, 1256-60 (D.D.C.1992), remanded on other grounds, 27 F.3d 573 (D.C.Cir.1994), vacated on other grounds, 515 U.S. 1139, 115 S.Ct. 2573, 132 L.Ed.2d......
  • Morgan v. Markerdowne Corp., Civ. No. 96-1910(DRD).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • September 5, 1997
    ...(1982), and the FTC expressly exempted student loans from Regulation Z soon thereafter." Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, 788 F.Supp. 1233, 1249 (D.D.C.1992) (Jackson I) (citing 12 C.F.R. § 226.3(f) (1983)). Hence, based on these statutory and regulatory amendments, the non-school ......
  • Johnson v. Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2001-4, No. CIV.A 05-0644(CKK).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 4, 2006
    ...Thus, D.C.Code § 28-3809 does not allow any derivative claims against Washington Mutual. See also Jackson v. Culinary School of Wash., 788 F.Supp. 1233, 1249 (D.D.C.1992), remanded by 27 F.3d 573 (D.C.Cir.1994), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds by 515 U.S. 1139, 115 S.Ct. 25......
  • Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, Ltd., No. 93-5083
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 24, 1994
    ...holders of notes in violation of this provision subject to buyers' claims and defenses. See Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, 788 F.Supp. 1233, 1246-48, 1255 (D.D.C.1992) ("Jackson I Turning to appellants' claims based on the FTC Holder Rule, the district court agreed that GSLP loan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • McCulloch v. Pnc Bank Inc., No. 02-10058 Non-Argument Calendar.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • July 17, 2002
    ...Sept.21, 1995)], Moy v. Adelphi Institute, Inc., 866 F.Supp. 696, 705 (E.D.N.Y.1994); Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, 788 F.Supp. 1233, 1256-60 (D.D.C.1992), remanded on other grounds, 27 F.3d 573 (D.C.Cir.1994), vacated on other grounds, 515 U.S. 1139, 115 S.Ct. 2573, 132 L.Ed.2d......
  • Morgan v. Markerdowne Corp., Civ. No. 96-1910(DRD).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • September 5, 1997
    ...(1982), and the FTC expressly exempted student loans from Regulation Z soon thereafter." Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, 788 F.Supp. 1233, 1249 (D.D.C.1992) (Jackson I) (citing 12 C.F.R. § 226.3(f) (1983)). Hence, based on these statutory and regulatory amendments, the non-school ......
  • Johnson v. Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2001-4, No. CIV.A 05-0644(CKK).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 4, 2006
    ...Thus, D.C.Code § 28-3809 does not allow any derivative claims against Washington Mutual. See also Jackson v. Culinary School of Wash., 788 F.Supp. 1233, 1249 (D.D.C.1992), remanded by 27 F.3d 573 (D.C.Cir.1994), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds by 515 U.S. 1139, 115 S.Ct. 25......
  • Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, Ltd., No. 93-5083
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 24, 1994
    ...holders of notes in violation of this provision subject to buyers' claims and defenses. See Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, 788 F.Supp. 1233, 1246-48, 1255 (D.D.C.1992) ("Jackson I Turning to appellants' claims based on the FTC Holder Rule, the district court agreed that GSLP loan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT