Lengerich v. Columbia College

• Decision Date: 22 June 2009
• Docket Number: No. 07 C 1595.,07 C 1595.
• Citation: 633 F.Supp.2d 599
• Parties: M. Angela LENGERICH, Aubrey M. Tokarz, Executor of the Estate of Stephen P. Ehrenfried and Devin A. Ehrenfried, Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA COLLEGE, and the United States Department of Education, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

633 F.Supp.2d 599

M. Angela LENGERICH, Aubrey M. Tokarz, Executor of the Estate of Stephen P. Ehrenfried and Devin A. Ehrenfried, Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA COLLEGE, and the United States Department of Education, Defendants.

No. 07 C 1595.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

June 22, 2009.

David A. Epstein, Attorney at Law, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.

Barry Francis Macentee, Renee O'Neill Kelly, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Ann L. Wallace, AUSA, United States Attorney's Office, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

CHARLES R. NORGLE, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant Columbia College's (the "College") motion to dismiss Counts IV, V and VI of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, which alleges that the College and the United States Department of Education (the "Department") violated several sections of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, et seq. The College also moved for sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel, arguing that the Amended Complaint is frivolous and that Plaintiffs filed the complaint in violation of FED. R.CIV.P. 11. Also before the Court is the Department's motion to dismiss Counts I, II and III of the Amended Complaint. Because both motions to dismiss involve similar issues and arise from the same underlying events, the Court shall decide them concurrently. For the following reasons, the College's motion to dismiss is granted with prejudice, the Department's motion to dismiss is granted with prejudice and the College's motion for sanctions is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

A. FACTS

The Court takes the following facts from the Amended Complaint. At all relevant times Devin A. Ehrenfried ("Devin") was a full-time student at Columbia College in Chicago. Am. Compl. ¶ 3. Her parents are M. Angela Lengerich ("Lengerich") and Stephen P. Ehrenfried ("Ehrenfried"), who is deceased and thus represented by the executor of his estate, Aubrey M. Tokarz (the "Executor"), who is also a named Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 4-6.

In 2004 and 2005 Devin applied for and received federal financial aid to finance her education at Columbia. Id. ¶ 11. As part of the financial aid process, Devin was required to complete a Free Application for Federal Student Aid ("FAFSA"), which the Department designed to determine how much financial support a student's parents are able to contribute toward the student's education. Id. ¶ 12. To do so, the FAFSA requires the student's parents to provide certain financial information from the prior tax year. Id. ¶¶ 12-13, 18. The resulting amount is called the Expected Family Contribution, or EFC. See Def. U.S.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 1, FAFSA [hereinafter, "FAFSA"] at 6. The student's financial need, then, is the difference between the student's EFC and the school's cost of attendance. FAFSA at 6.

To receive federal aid during the 2006-2007 school year, Devin requested that her father, Ehrenfried, complete the relevant portions of her FAFSA. Id. ¶ 13. Unfortunately, while in the process of completing the forms, Devin's father was hospitalized and died unexpectedly from an aortic tear. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. Devin therefore turned to her mother, Lengerich, for assistance with her FAFSA. Lengerich contacted the Department's help line to determine what information was necessary to complete Devin's FAFSA. Id. ¶ 18. As alleged, an official with the Department informed Lengerich that for Devin to receive funding for the 2006-2007 school year, she would have to supply her father's financial information since during the prior tax year Devin was only a dependent of her father. Id. So, using her father's financial information, Devin completed and filed her FAFSA in May 2006. Id. ¶ 19. In July 2006, she received an award letter from the College announcing that she would receive a financial aid package that covered nearly all of her tuition for the 2006-2007 year. Id. ¶ 20.

That same month, the College's Financial Aid Office began to verify the information that Devin reported on her FAFSA. The College assigned Pearl Natali ("Natali") to head the process. Id. ¶ 21. As part of the verification process, Natali requested from the Executor copies of Ehrenfried's tax returns and driver's license. Id. ¶ 22. The Executor complied with Natali's request sometime in August 2006. Id. In September 2006 Devin inquired about the status of her financial aid award, and the Financial Aid Office assured Devin that they would apply the federal funds to her College account. Id. ¶ 23. But a few months later, in November 2006, the College notified Devin that she would not be allowed to register for the Spring semester because the Financial Aid Office had placed a hold on her account. Id. ¶ 24.

In December 2006, as alleged, an unidentified individual in the College's Financial Aid Office notified the Executor that Ehrenfried's financial information was no longer valid, and thus Lengerich would have to provide her financial information on Devin's FAFSA. Id. ¶ 27. The Executor asked the College to explain this new request, but received no response. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. The Executor then spoke with an alleged supervisor in the Financial Aid Office, who reiterated that Lengerich would have to provide her financial information on Devin's FAFSA to finalize the application process. Id. ¶¶ 33-34. Lengerich therefore consulted with her attorneys and eventually agreed to provide the Financial Aid Office with copies of her 2005 federal income tax return and Illinois driver's license; though, for an unstated reason, Lengerich provided these documents in redacted form. Id. ¶ 37. Devin filed in the Financial Aid Office a new FAFSA, with her mother's redacted financial information, on December 8, 2006. Id. ¶ 38.

On December 12, 2006 Natali contacted the Executor and told her that the Financial Aid Office could not accept Lengerich's financial information in redacted form. Id. ¶ 40. Two days later, on December 14, 2006, Natali again contacted the Executor and explained that she would return Devin's FAFSA so that Lengerich could provide her complete financial information and resubmit the forms by January 12, 2007. Id. ¶ 41. Lengerich received the incomplete forms only a few days before the January 12, 2007 deadline, but nevertheless complied with Natali's request. Id. ¶¶ 43-47. On the same day, however, a supervisor at the Financial Aid Office contacted the Executor and explained that he would be returning to the Department the financial aid award that Devin previously received. Id. ¶ 47.

Given the situation, Lengerich attempted to contact several College officials, but received no response. Id. ¶¶ 51-52. The Executor contacted the College's general counsel, but the general counsel refused to meet with the Executor. Id. ¶¶ 53-54. Lengerich next contacted the Department's help-line, through which an unknown representative allegedly told Lengerich to submit Devin's FAFSA as soon as possible. Id. ¶ 56. Lengerich filed an updated FAFSA directly with the Department in January 2007. Id. ¶ 58. In the end, Devin was not provided federal financial aid for the 2006-2007 academic year. Despite having no federal aid, the College allowed Devin to register for classes and treated her tuition as unpaid debt. Id. ¶¶ 61. The College, recognizing the unpaid debt, allegedly referred Devin's account to a collection agency, which injured her credit rating. Id. ¶ 62.

Devin completed the 2006-2007 academic year and, eventually, earned enough academic credits to qualify for a Bachelor of Arts degree from the College. To finance the Fall semester of the 2007-2008 academic school year, which she spent in Florence, Italy, Devin and her mother completed and filed an additional FAFSA. Id. ¶ 64. She qualified for a federal financial aid award, but because the College listed Devin as not in good standing, the Financial Aid Office refused to issue Devin her federal funds. Id. Lengerich took out private loans to cover Devin's tuition for the 2007-2008 school year. Id. ¶ 65. And, despite her completion of the required academic credits, the College refused to grant Devin a bachelor's degree since her 2006-2007 tuition remained unpaid and outstanding. Id. ¶ 66.

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs originally operated pro se and filed this case on March 22, 2007, alleging fourteen violations of the Privacy Act against the College, Natali, the President of the College, the Vice President of Campus Environment at the College, the General Counsel of the College, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the College and the Executive Director of the Financial Aid Office at the College. The case was originally assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark Filip.

Two weeks later, on April 6, 2007, citing a slew of cases, Judge Filip gave Plaintiffs fifteen days to show cause why their case should not be dismissed as a matter of law because federal courts typically had been unwilling to treat corporations or other private entities as federal agencies for purposes of the Privacy Act. Judge Filip noted that "Plaintiffs have not alleged that Columbia College nor any of its employees are `agencies' for the purposes of Section 552a ..." and thus "Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants appear to be materially improper in a way that cannot be cured by additional pleadings, at least not seemingly within the confines of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11." See Filip Minute Order of April 6, 2007 at 2. On April 23, 2007 Plaintiffs filed a brief in response, thereby complying with Judge Filip's order to show cause.

On April 25, 2007, after considering Plaintiffs' response, Judge Filip dismissed with prejudice all claims against the individual defendants, making the College the only remaining defendant in the case. See Filip Minute Order of May 1, 2007 at 1-2. Thereafter, the College moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint, citing Judge Filip's April 6, 2007 order and arguing that the College was not a governmental "agency" that fell within the Privacy Act's purview. Despite having doubts as to...