Winter v. Am. Inst. of Med. Scis. & Educ.

• Citation: 242 F.Supp.3d 206
• Decision Date: 17 March 2017
• Docket Number: No. 15 CV 7538 (NSR),15 CV 7538 (NSR)
• Parties: Petrus J. WINTER, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & EDUCATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

242 F.Supp.3d 206

Petrus J. WINTER, Plaintiff,

v.AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & EDUCATION, Defendant.

No. 15 CV 7538 (NSR)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed March 17, 2017

Kenneth David Romer, Pro Hac Vice, Law Office of Kenneth D. Romer, Avon, CT, for Plaintiff.

Michael Harris Freeman, Greenberg, Dauber, Epstein & Tucker, Newark, NJ, for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Petrus J. Winter ("Winter" or "Plaintiff") brings this action against American Institute of Medical Sciences & Education ("AIMS" or "Defendant"), a private health training school that offers certificate degree programs. In October 2014, Winter graduated from AIMS Education with a certificate in magnetic resonance imaging technology ("MRI Tech"). Shortly after graduating, Winter sat for and passed the national examination administered by the American Registry for Magnetic Resonance Imagining Technologists ("ARMRIT"), a certifying board that lists successful examinees in its registry. Upon being certified in magnetic resonance imaging, Winter started to apply for positions as an MRI Technologist, but despite his "active [ ] and diligent[ ]" efforts, he has not received a single job offer.

Asserting that he is "legally unemployable as an MRI Technologist," Winter is now suing AIMS Education. (Compl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 1.) Specifically, Winter alleges that AIMS (1) breached a quasi or implied-in-law contract; (2) engaged in fraud and misrepresentation; and (3) engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices. AIMS moves to dismiss the action and argues that (1) Winter's entire suit is barred by the educational malpractice doctrine; (2) the breach of contract claim fails because Winter signed an express enrollment contract with AIMS Education; and (3) the fraud claim fails because Plaintiff failed to plead the elements with the specificity required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Def's Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def's Mot. to Dismiss ("Def.'s Mem.") at 1–2, ECF No. 15.) Alternatively, AIMS moved to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1404(a). (Def.'s Mem. at 22.) For the reasons explained below, Defendant's motion to transfer is DENIED in its entirety and Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

The following facts—which are taken from the Complaint, documents it incorporates, and matters of which the court may take judicial notice—are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See, e.g., Kleinman v. Elan Corp. , 706 F.3d 145, 152 (2d Cir. 2013) ; LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2009) ; Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc., 426 F.3d 635, 638 (2d Cir. 2005).

The relevant facts are relatively straightforward. AIMS Education is a private, allied health training school organized and existing under the laws of New Jersey with its principal place of business in Piscataway, New Jersey. (See Def.'s Mem. at 3.) The school is approved by the U.S. Department of Education and State of New Jersey Department of Education, and its MRI certificate program is accredited by ARMRIT. (Id. )

Winter, who is domiciled in New York, is seeking to be employed as an MRI Technologist and despite having graduated from AIMS Education and obtained his certificate from ARMRIT, he has not received a single job offer. (Compl. ¶ 20.) The Complaint alleges that AIMS Education improperly induced Plaintiff to enroll in its MRI program and, accordingly, failed to properly train him with certain skills required by "almost every available employment opportunity for an MRI Technologist." (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff reasons that because "it is impossible for [him] to find employment as an MRI technologist" Defendant's program is "absolutely worthless." (Compl. ¶ 20.)

On or about December 2011, Winter first learned about MRI certificate program offered at AIMS from the school's website, which advertised that "(t)he number of MRI job opportunities is growing faster than the availability of qualified MRI Technologists," "result(ing) in tremendous career opportunities for all of our graduates." (Compl. ¶ 6.) The same website represented the "minimum requirements" to enroll in the MRI Tech program as a "High School Diploma or GED." (Id. ) The same further represented that the school offered a "[c]omprehensive education and training" course that included, inter alia , "IV [intra-venous] therapy." (Id. )

Motivated by these representations, Plaintiff traveled to New Jersey on January 23, 2012, for an informational interview with the school's administrative director, Mr. Chirag Patel. (Compl. ¶ 7.) During this introductory meeting, Mr. Patel explained that the school's MRI program is accredited by ARMRIT and not the American Registry of Radiologic Technology ("ARRT"). (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 19.) The pleadings—read most liberally—suggest that employers favor technicians who are certified by ARRT.¹ (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 17.) Whereas both ARMRIT and ARRT require candidates to complete a board-accredited professional program,² such as AIMS's MRI certificate program, ARRT (referred to by Plaintiff as "the primary credentialing organization in the United States") seems to set a higher bar for entry.³ (Compl. ¶ 17.) For instance, ARRT technicians must have completed training in both MRI and radiology whereas ARMRIT certifies technicians competent in only MRI. Moreover, ARRT candidates must have earned the equivalent of a U.S. associate degree from an accredited institution, whereas ARMRIT will accept high school diplomas or GED. Concerned that employers would prefer technicians certified by ARRT, Winter asked Mr. Patel "about ARMRIT's level of acceptance" in the field during their initial interview. (Compl. ¶ 19.) Winter also explained that he had earned the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in the Netherlands. (Decl. Michael H. Freeman, Esq. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ("Freeman Decl."), ECF No. 16, Ex. 3 ("Initial Review Questionnaire").) Winter alleges that Mr. Patel "falsely and disingenuously" responded "that ARMRIT was accepted everywhere." (Compl. ¶ 19.) Relying on these guarantees, Winter enrolled in AIMS on January 23, 2012. (Compl. ¶¶ 7–9, 11.)

On January 23, 2012, Winter signed the two documents governing the agreement. First, Winter signed the "Enrollment Contract," a sparse one-page document that includes the following disclaimer:

No representative of AIMS EDUCATION has promised me employment or any specific starting salary. The student acknowledges that AIMS EDUCATION (i.e. the school) does not warrant or guarantee that successful completion by the student of the programs will result in the student obtaining employment in any field or profession.

(Freeman Decl., Ex. 4. ("Enrollment Contract").) This disclaimer appears at the bottom of the one-page contract, immediately preceding Winter's signature.

Second, Winter signed an "Employment / Registry Assistant Consent," with the principal understanding that "finding employment is a joint effort between the school and [Winter]." (Freeman Decl., Ex. 6 ("Employment Consent Form").) The one-page consent form also states, in relevant part, that "[t]he student acknowledges that AIMS EDUCATION (i.e., the school) does not warrant or guarantee that successful completion by the student of the programs will result in the student obtaining employment in any field or profession." Id. At the same time, Winter was also handed a single-page advertisement reiterating what Winter learned from the school's website: "[t]he availability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) job opportunities is growing faster than the number of qualified medical MRI technologists." (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Opp'n Mem.") at 3, ECF No. 18.)

After signing these two documents, AIMS Education mailed Winter published catalogs describing the MRI Certification Program as one "designed to prepare high school graduates to become MRI technologists and preparing them to sit for the ARMRIT Registry certification examination in Magnetic Resonance Imaging." (Freeman Decl., Ex. 2 ("Course Catalog"), at 59.) The Course Catalog also stated that students would be instructed for a total of "1980 clock hours," "75" of which were designated as "CPR, Venipuncture, Intra Venous Therapy Skills." (Id. at 60.)

Winter started his evening course on October 22, 2012. Between October 2012 and August 2014 (approximately twenty-two months), Winter traveled to New Jersey every weekday for instruction, and successfully completed the course requirements. By the time Winter graduated in August 2014, he had paid a total tuition of $29,550.00. (Compl. ¶ 8.)

In his exit graduation survey dated September 25, 2014, Winter "stated that he was completely satisfied with the quality of his education at AIMS Education." (Compl. ¶ 20.) Then in October 2014, Winter prepared for and passed ARMRIT's certification exam. Soon after obtaining his ARMRIT certificate, Winter "actively and diligently" applied for positions as an MRI Technologists. (Id. ) As of the Complaint's filing date, Winter had "not received a single offer of employment." (Id. )

Winter filed this lawsuit on September 23, 2015. (See ECF No. 1.) According to the Complaint, AIMS Education also made a series of false statements and representations that inflated the rigor of its training, the success of its graduates, and Winter's prospective employment opportunities. (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 19–20; respectively). Specifically, Winter alleges that (1) Defendant's fraudulent scheme induced him to enroll in a certificate degree program, (2) deprived him of essential skills required of almost every available job opportunity (i.e., intra-venous therapy skills), and (3) rendered him "legally unemployable as an MRI Technologist." (Compl. ¶ 12.) The Complaint alleges breach of implied or quasi contract (id. ¶¶ 21–26),...