Barchiesi et al v. Charlotte School of Law, Llc et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

W.D.N.C.March 20, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-00861 ROBERT C. BARCHIESI, and LEJLA HADZIC, Individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, INFILAW HOLDING, LLC, and INFILAW CORPORATION, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM OF DEFENDANTS CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, INFILAW HOLDING, LLC, AND INFILAW CORPORATION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants Charlotte School of Law (“CSL”), InfiLaw Holding, LLC (“Holding”), and InfiLaw Corporation (“InfiLaw”), and respectfully move this Court for an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (the “Barchiesi First Amended Complaint” or “BFAC”).1 The grounds for this Motion are set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion and exhibits thereto. 1 InfiLaw Holding, LLC appears for the purpose of this Motion only and for no other purpose and reserves all defenses and rights available to it, including without limitation the right to challenge personal jurisdiction. Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 3 2 This the 20th day of March, 2017. Respectfully submitted, Cooley LLP s/ David E. Mills David E. Mills (admitted pro hac vice) Michael D. Hays (admitted pro hac vice) 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel: (202) 776-2865 Fax: (202 842-7899 Email: dmills@cooley.com mhays@cooley.com Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP s/ Sarah Motley Stone Debbie W. Harden, NCSB No. 10576 Sarah Motley Stone, NCSB No. 34117 One Wells Fargo Center, Suite 3500 301 South College Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-6037 Tel: (704) 331-4943 Fax: (704) 338-7813 E-mail: dharden@wcsr.com sstone@wcsr.com Johnny M. Loper, NCSB No. 15533 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1100 PO Box 831 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Tel: (919) 755-2116 Fax: (919) 755-6056 E-mail: jloper@wcsr.com Attorneys for Defendants Charlotte School of Law, LLC, InfiLaw Corporation and InfiLaw Holding, LLC Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss of Charlotte School of Law, LLC, InfiLaw Holding, LLC, and InfiLaw Corporation was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of case activity to be generated and sent electronically by the Clerk of Court to the following parties registered to receive such service: H. Forest Horne, Jr. John Alan Jones Karl Joseph Amelchenko Steven D. Corriveau Martin & Jones 410 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27603 Email: hfh@m-j.com, jaj@m-j.com, kja@m-j.com, sdc@m-j.com Gary K. Shipman Kyle Joseph Nutt Shipman & Wright, LLP 575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106 Wilmington, NC 28405 Email: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com, knutt@shipmanlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs This the 20th day of March, 2017. /s/ Sarah Motley Stone Sarah Motley Stone Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-00861 ROBERT C. BARCHIESI, and LEJLA HADZIC, Individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, INFILAW HOLDING, LLC, and INFILAW CORPORATION, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM INTRODUCTION The Plaintiffs, two students at Charlotte School of Law (“CSL”), assert on behalf of a purported class that CSL should have disclosed the interim findings and conclusions of the American Bar Association, Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (“ABA” or “Council”) even as CSL was working its way through a lengthy internal review process over the past year and a half. They claim, based on those internal ABA findings, that the school has failed to provide a “rigorous curriculum” and adequate admissions standards, and that the school should have told students that it had these issues and might lose its accreditation, even before the ABA had completed its process or required any such disclosure under its own procedures. The Complaint lacks merit as a matter of law, and the claims should be dismissed. The determination of when disclosure of ABA findings must be made is squarely within the province Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 34 2 of the ABA itself under a well-established federal system of divided responsibility for overseeing the provision of higher education to students. The undisputable facts are that CSL has been and remains fully accredited by the ABA, that it is currently on a two-year period of probation working to satisfy the ABA conditions, and that it made the ABA-required disclosures at the proper time under the accreditor’s rules. In fact, the ABA process is, by its nature and by rule, confidential to ensure the candid exchange of information, fair evaluations, and the opportunity to address deficiencies; the ABA Rules state that such interim proceedings “shall be confidential” and not released to the public. CSL still has time while on probation to demonstrate compliance and has no reason to suppose its accreditation will be revoked, a sanction the ABA has not previously imposed. Indeed, the pertinent ABA accreditation committee determined that, based on the findings of the distinguished ABA inspection site team (the only ABA group to have visited the CSL campus from 2011 through 2016), CSL offered rigorous, challenging, and intellectually stimulating assignments, exams, and classes. To be sure, the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) in December took the unprecedented step to decline to recertify CSL for Title IV federal student aid funding based on the ABA’s interim conclusions, an exceptional action to take in the midst of a still-to-be- concluded ABA process. CSL could not reasonably have anticipated this extreme and politically charged action. It is indeed unfortunate that the Department took this unexpected action, particularly as CSL has been true to its mission of serving underserved populations seeking to break into the legal profession. CSL certainly takes the ABA’s concern and probationary actions very seriously and continues to undertake substantial efforts to raise the requisite metrics to the levels sought by the ABA. At the same time, however, the ABA’s finding of noncompliance and Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 34 3 probationary status did not materially impact CSL’s students. What has impacted students — in a most devastating way — was the Department’s unprecedented decision not to recertify CSL in the course of a pending accreditation review, thereby cutting off its students’ access to federal financial aid. It is in this factual context that Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“Complaint” or “BFAC”) asserts four causes of action, each of which fails as a matter of law for multiple reasons. Fundamentally, the suit is ill-founded because it seeks to stretch various legal theories (e.g., unjust enrichment) to cover what is, in essence, an “educational malpractice” claim, which North Carolina and most other states do not recognize as a proper judicial claim. McFadyen v. Duke Univ., 786 F. Supp. 2d 887, 982-83 (M.D.N.C. 2011), aff’d in relevant part, rev’d in part, dismissed in part sub nom. Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636 (4th Cir. 2012). Similarly, the breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud claims fail because North Carolina law is crystal clear that a fiduciary duty cannot exist in the “academic setting.” McCants v. NCAA, 201 F. Supp. 3d 732, 748-49 (M.D.N.C. 2016). And without a predicate of misconduct, the unfair trade practices claim fails as well. For these reasons and others, Plaintiffs do not and cannot assert a plausible claim, and the Complaint must be dismissed.1 1 InfiLaw Holding, LLC, contemporaneously with this memorandum, is also filing a separate memorandum in support of its Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. InfiLaw Holding, LLC appears for the purpose of these Motions only and for no other purpose and reserves all defenses and rights available to it, including without limitation the right to challenge personal jurisdiction. Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 34 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS2 I. Background of Charlotte School of Law. CSL was founded in 2006. It is one of three law schools owned by InfiLaw Corporation (“InfiLaw”), a private, non-tax exempt entity. InfiLaw, in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of InfiLaw Holding, LLC (“Holding”). (BFAC ¶¶ 5-6.) From its founding, CSL has envisioned a unique mission with respect to underrepresented populations, striving to advance “inclusive excellence” by “creat[ing] an environment for persons of all backgrounds and life experiences.”3 CSL has been recognized by the National Jurist as “one of the nation’s most diverse law schools,” a recognition that “attests to the importance” CSL places on diversity and its “commitment to providing an experience and environment that aligns with the future rather than the past.”4 CSL has succeeded in its goal of increasing the representation of minorities enrolled. For example, 57 percent of students enrolled at CSL at the beginning of the 2016-17 academic year were from minority populations.5 2 This Statement of Facts is based on the Complaint’s allegations (accepted solely for purposes of this motion) and other documents that the Court may consider on a motion to dismiss, which include: (i) federal filings, including documents attached to complaint (In re Wachovia Corp. ERISA Litig., No. 09-cv-262, 2010 WL 3081359, at *2 n.4 (W.D.N.C. 2010)); (ii) “matters of public record” (Sec’y of State For Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007)); (iii) “information publicly announced on a party’s website” and “factual information found on the world wide web” (Jeandron v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Md., 510 F. App’x 223, 227 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted)); and (iv) documents “not attached to or expressly incorporated in a complaint, so long as the document was integral to the complaint and there is not dispute about the document’s authenticity” (Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016)). 3 CSL Website, “Why Charlotte School of Law: A Community You Are a Part Of,” available at http://www.charlottelaw.edu/why-charlotte-school-of-law.html. 4 Id. 5 See CSL’s ABA Standard 509 Information Reports (“509 Reports”), J.D. Enrollment and Ethnicity Charts, “Total Minority” category. In accordance with its mission, CSL’s “Total Minority” population has grown substantially over the last five years, from 26.5% in 2011 to 57% in 2016. See CSL’s 509 Report for 2016, available at http://www.charlottelaw.edu/userfiles/files/2016%20Charlotte%20Std509InfoReport_12.15.2016 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 4 of 34 5 Providing broader access to legal education to underrepresented groups is a goal the ABA has strongly encouraged,6 although very few schools have undertaken the challenges this goal represents. Nonetheless, despite these challenges, for the entire period since its full accreditation in 2011, CSL has complied with ABA Standard 316, which provides the objective, quantitative measure of sufficient bar passage rates.7 II. ABA Accreditation Procedures. The ABA Council and its “Accreditation Committee” (“Committee”) constitute the only accrediting body specifically recognized by the Department for accreditation of programs leading to the J.D. degree. (BFAC ¶ 14.) Under the ABA Standards and Rules, after a law school has demonstrated to the Council that it is in full compliance with each of the Standards, the Council grants “full approval” to the institution. ABA Standard 103(a). A law school granted full approval “remains approved unless the Council withdraws that approval.” ABA Standard 103(b). The ABA Council provisionally accredited CSL in 2008, and then (once the ABA’s mandatory two-year provisional accreditation period had passed) fully accredited CSL in 2011. CSL remains fully accredited to this day.8 (BFAC ¶¶ 15, 21.) .pdf and CSL’s 509 Reports for 2011 through 2015, each available at http://www.abarequireddisclosures.org/ (together submitted as Ex. 1). 6 See ABA Standard 206(a), ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools (“ABA Standards and Rules”) (relevant excerpts submitted as Ex. 2) (“a law school shall demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion by providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by members of underrepresented groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities”). The ABA Standards and Rules cited herein are from the 2016-2017 version, and are generally consistent with those in editions published since August 2014. 7 None of the ABA decisions alleged that CSL had violated Standard 316. 8 See ABA Website, “ABA-Approved Law Schools by Year,” available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/aba_approved_law_schools/by_y ear_approved.html (excerpt submitted as Ex. 3). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 5 of 34 6 The ABA Rules provide that (except for certain circumstances not relevant here) “site evaluation and fact finding reports” and “decisions and recommendations of the Committee and Council shall be kept confidential” and not released to the public. ABA Rules 51(a) and 52(a). Only under certain conditions (and after a decision by the Committee or the Council) may the Managing Director of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education publicly provide notice of the decision or recommendation. See ABA Rule 53. CSL had no reason to expect that the ABA’s limited findings of non-compliance would result in severe consequences for enrolled students, much less that the Department inexplicably would use interim findings within an ongoing accreditation process to deny recertification to participate in federal student loan programs. It is standard practice amongst accrediting agencies to engage in lengthy confidential review of institutions. The purpose of such review is to identify concerns and deficiencies and allow institutions to respond and correct inaccuracies and to fix operational issues. In fact, the ABA accreditation review process, while often identifying noncompliance with one or more standards, has not resulted in the revocation of any law school’s accreditation.9 Indeed, according to ABA representatives, the ABA has never “denied accreditation” to a school “for low [bar] pass rates alone,” and has never withdrawn accreditation from a law school for any reason.10 Rather, the ABA’s review and probation processes are designed to improve law schools’ performance and bring them into compliance with ABA Standards, which is 9 ABA Website, “Accreditation Archives,” available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/accreditation/accreditation_archives.html (submitted as Ex. 4). 10 U.S. Dep’t of Ed., National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Transcript of Hearing on June 22, 2016 (“NACIQI Trans.”), at 182-83, available at https://sites.ed.gov/naciqi/archive-of-meetings/ (excerpt submitted as Ex. 5). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 6 of 34 7 consistent with accrediting agencies’ fundamental goal of institutional improvement.11 Thus, it is not surprising that Plaintiffs have failed to allege that the Department has revoked any law school’s Title IV eligibility because the ABA placed the law school on probation. Furthermore, candid communications and negotiations between accreditor and school are a common occurrence at every accredited institution. To allow this confidential peer review and continual improvement process to become the basis of litigation on a finding-by-finding basis, ignoring the accreditor’s authority and responsibility to determine when public notice should be required, would undermine the federally-established process of confidential evaluation by accreditors and put every institution at risk for constant lawsuits each time the school’s accreditor identifies an area for improvement. III. CSL’s Accreditation Review Proceedings. A. The Site Team’s 2014 Visit and Committee Review. ABA procedures require periodic review of the accreditation status of law schools. As part of the commencement of this routine process, in March 2014, an ABA Site Team visited CSL. (BFAC ¶ 25.) The Site Team met with “numerous CSL administrators, . . . CSL faculty, CSL staff, and CSL students.” Id. In addition, members of the Site Team “also visited a significant majority of the classes taught during the visit.” Id. The ABA advised CSL that the Site Team “Inspection Report would function as the basis for determining whether CSL was operating in compliance with ABA Standards.” (BFAC ¶ 26.) The Site Team is the only ABA group to have evaluated CSL in person from 2011 through 2016. 11 See, e.g., Rule ABA Rule 18(c) (“If a law school . . . demonstrates compliance with the Standards by the end of the period fixed for probation, then the Committee shall recommend to the Council that probationary status be removed.”). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 7 of 34 8 On February 24, 2015, in its first review of CSL after the Site Team visit, the Committee found (consistent with the Site Team’s evaluation), that CSL offered rigorous, challenging, and intellectually stimulating assignments, exams, and classes. (BFAC ¶¶ 25-27.) Nonetheless, despite these findings, it requested that CSL provide further information demonstrating the rigor of its program of legal education. (BFAC ¶ 27.) B. The Committee and Council’s 2016 Findings and CSL’s Appeal. Throughout 2015, the ABA made no finding that CSL failed to comply with any ABA Standard. However, as communicated to CSL by letter on February 3, 2016, despite CSL’s extensive submissions (and the Committee’s own factual findings), the Committee for the first time found that CSL was not in full compliance with a few ABA Standards and again requested that CSL submit additional information. (BFAC ¶ 30.) This decision did not place CSL on probation or include any directive to issue a notice to its students or the public. After a further attempt by CSL to satisfy the Committee’s inquiries, on July 21, 2016, the Committee advised CSL that it believed CSL was still not in compliance. (BFAC ¶ 37.) It ordered certain remedial action, including, for the first time, providing notice to CSL students of the Committee action, but it did not withdraw approval. (BFAC ¶ 38.) Under the ABA Standards and Rules, a law school granted full approval “remains approved unless the Council withdraws that approval” (ABA Standard 103(b)); the two-year period for CSL to demonstrate compliance with the Standards commenced on February 3, 2016, and (absent a permissible extension) expires on February 2, 2018 (ABA Rule 14(b)-(c)); and CSL had the right to appeal the decision within 30 days from the date of the Committee letter (ABA Rule 23(a)). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 8 of 34 9 In August 2016, CSL appealed the Committee decision to the Council, which suspended the remedial action that the Committee had ordered, including notice to the students.12 (BFAC ¶ 40.) In a closed meeting in October 2016, the Council affirmed the Committee’s decision. On November 14, 2016, the Council advised CSL of this action at which point it became final and binding on the school. Among other things, the Council ordered CSL to provide notice to students by November 21, 2016. (BFAC ¶ 43-44.) CSL complied with this requirement. (BFAC ¶ 47.) IV. Background Regarding Plaintiffs’ Admission and Attendance. Contrary to their allegations, Plaintiffs had access to information—prior to and during their enrollment at CSL—to make fully informed decisions to attend CSL. For example, since the ABA adopted new website disclosure requirements in 2012, CSL has published a document on its website called the Standard 509 Information Report (“509 Report”). This 509 Report, presented in an ABA-required template and using ABA-prescribed formulas, provides detailed data regarding, among other things, CSL’s first-time bar passage and attrition rates, matriculant undergraduate grade point averages (“UGPAs”), and Law School Admissions Test (“LSAT”) scores.13 The ABA publishes compilations of every accredited law school’s 509 Report data in one place online, allowing for easy comparison among law schools.14 This is the type of information that prospective law students use to determine whether to attend 12 See ABA Rule 13(c) (“The approval status of a law school is not affected while an appeal from, or review of, a decision or recommendation of the Committee or Council is pending.”). Thus, the Committee’s July 2016 Letter directing CSL to make various disclosures never became effective, and CSL was not required to advise the public of that information. Indeed, the ABA Managing Director confirmed in writing to CSL that it was not required to disclose the findings of non-compliance and remedial action while the appeal was pending. See Email from Barry Currier to CSL dated July 24, 2015 (submitted as Ex. 6). 13 See CSL 509 Reports (Ex. 1). 14 See ABA Required Disclosures, available at http://www.abarequireddisclosures.org. Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 9 of 34 10 an institution—not technical documents exchanged between a school and the ABA that are part of an ongoing process designed to enhance school quality and designated by the ABA as confidential. Plaintiffs do not and cannot deny that CSL published accurate 509 Reports on its websites (and that, consequently, the relevant data was readily available), or that students and prospective students rely on this ABA-mandated information in making attendance and transfer decisions. V. CSL’s Matriculation Procedures. If CSL accepts a student, it notifies the student of admittance, and, upon payment of tuition, the student enrolls and attends CSL. (BFAC ¶¶ 67-68, 75-76.) CSL has no contractual obligation with its students in which the school commits to remaining compliant at all times with the hundreds of ABA Standards, and the Complaint cites none. VI. Plaintiffs’ Claims. Notwithstanding the indisputable fact that CSL has been fully ABA-accredited at all times since 2011, Plaintiffs assert as the crux of their complaint that Defendants failed to provide “CSL students with information about CSL’s noncompliance with” ABA “standards for accreditation.” (BFAC ¶¶ 1, 98.) Plaintiffs’ claims are essentially four variations of this factual theme, and each of those four claims must be dismissed. ARGUMENT I. Applicable Standard. To avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain facts sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and to show that the claim is “plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible only “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged” – a standard that requires more than facts “that are ‘merely Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 10 of 34 11 consistent with’ a defendant’s liability.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. A court need not accept as true a plaintiff’s “unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). II. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty (Count 3). To state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under North Carolina law, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty of care; (2) the defendant violated that duty; and (3) the breach of duty proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.” Marketel Media Inc. v. Mediapotamus, Inc., Nos. 13-cv-427, 13-cv-693, 2015 WL 2401001, at *7-8 (E.D.N.C. May 19, 2015); see Green v. Freeman, 367 N.C. 136, 141-42, 749 S.E.2d 262, 268 (2013); Toomer v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 171 N.C. App. 58, 70, 614 S.E.2d 328, 337 (2005) (plaintiff must allege that the “fiduciary failed to ‘act in good faith and with due regard to [plaintiff's] interests’” (citation omitted)). Plaintiffs have wholly failed to meet this burden. A. Defendants Could Not Owe Plaintiffs a Fiduciary Duty as a Matter of Law. Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim must be dismissed because Plaintiffs do not and cannot plead its most fundamental element: the existence of a cognizable fiduciary relationship between themselves and Defendants. Courts applying North Carolina law have repeatedly rejected attempts to hold schools to a fiduciary standard vis-à-vis their students. See, e.g., Ryan v. Univ. of N.C. Hosps., 168 N.C. App. 729, *4, 609 S.E.2d 498, *4 (2005) (rejecting the imposition of a fiduciary duty in the “academic setting”); McCants, 201 F. Supp. 3d at 749 (finding no fiduciary relationship exists because “North Carolina courts have been reluctant to extend the concept of fiduciary relationships to the academic setting”); J.W. v. Johnston Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 5:11-CV-707-D, 2012 WL 4425439, at *14 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2012) (same). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 11 of 34 12 Our courts’ rationale for this holding that no fiduciary duty exists in an academic setting is both simple and unassailable: a school is required to protect diverse interests, such as those of the faculty, students, graduates, and the institution itself, such that it cannot act exclusively in the best interests of one without violating another’s. As stated in Ryan: Although defendants were plaintiff’s teachers and advisors, they also had to serve other interests. First, defendants had to serve the objectives of the institution by ensuring that its rules and regulations were followed. Second, defendants were required to protect the public by ensuring that only qualified doctors graduated from the program. Because defendants had divided loyalties, this case is unlike other fiduciary relationships in which the fiduciary must act primarily for the benefit of another. 168 N.C. App. at *4, 609 S.E.2d at *4 (emphasis added); see McCants, 201 F. Supp. 3d at 748- 49 (concluding that divided loyalties preclude a fiduciary duty in “academic” context). Here, as in Ryan, CSL (and by extension, the other Defendants) could not possibly act exclusively for the benefit of Plaintiffs, because it simultaneously has loyalties to and must serve the interests and demands of many others, including the institution as a whole, the ABA, the North Carolina Board of Governors, and the public as an educator of individuals entering a licensed profession. Plaintiffs attempt to establish a fiduciary duty based on CSL’s Program Participation Agreement (“PPA”) with the Department (submitted as Ex. 7) (BFAC ¶¶ 118-20), but that theory fails as a matter of law. First, it fails under the above authority because no fiduciary duty can exist where there are divided loyalties. Second, Title IV of the Higher Education Act (“HEA”) and its associated regulations provide that the signatories to the PPA are the institution’s president or chief executive officer and the Secretary of Education or his or her designee — not students. The PPA covers only the institution’s eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs, and unambiguously does Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 12 of 34 13 not establish any fiduciary duties with respect to students. See Ex. 7 (PPA); 20 U.S.C. § 1094; 34 C.F.R. § 668.14. Third, the claimed fiduciary duty does not exist because the HEA creates no private right of action. As the court in McFadyen, 786 F. Supp. 2d 887, stated in addressing a similar issue: To the extent Plaintiffs are claiming the existence of a fiduciary relationship based on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), the Court notes that . . . FERPA does not establish a fiduciary relationship, and the Supreme Court has clearly held that there is no private right of action under FERPA. Therefore, the Court concludes that a violation of FERPA does not create a state tort claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Id. at 987 (emphasis added). Similarly, courts have repeatedly held that the HEA provides no private right of action to students because the Secretary alone is responsible for enforcing compliance with Title IV requirements. See, e.g., Prof’l Massage Training Ctr., Inc. v. Accreditation All. of Career Schs. & Colls., 781 F.3d 161, 169 (4th Cir. 2015) (stating that “nearly every court to consider the issue” in the last three decades has held no private right of action exists under the HEA). B. Plaintiffs Have Insufficiently Pled a Breach. Even if a fiduciary duty could exist, which it cannot, Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations of misrepresentations (and related omissions) concerning various ABA Standards fail to state a claim for the reasons set forth below. 1. Plaintiffs’ Vague and Conclusory Allegations Are Insufficient and Fail To Comply with Rule 9(b). As shown above, a complaint satisfies the “plausibility” requirement only “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Moreover, where, as here, a breach of fiduciary duty claim contains “averments of Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 13 of 34 14 fraud,” the allegations must comply with Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement.15 Rule 9(b) requires that Plaintiffs: at a minimum, describe the time, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby. Fernandez Cmty. Ctr. v. Toshiba Bus. Sols., No. 14-cv-692, 2015 WL 5054463, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs’ allegations fail these tests for multiple, independent reasons. First, at the outset, Plaintiffs have wholly failed to plead that these Defendants (CSL’s parent and grandparent, respectively) owed Plaintiffs any fiduciary duty, alleging such a duty with respect to only one Defendant, CSL. (BFAC ¶ 120.) Second, Plaintiffs assert no basis for their allegation that a fiduciary relationship existed between “prospective students” and CSL, and there is no plausible basis for such a claim. (BFAC ¶ 120.) Third, although Plaintiffs failed to allege that either InfiLaw or Holding owed Plaintiffs any fiduciary duty, they have also lumped together all the Defendants for other purposes, alleging, for example, that “Defendants’ misrepresentations and concealment of information” constituted a breach of fiduciary duty. (BFAC ¶ 122.) Nowhere does the complaint adequately specify, as Rule 9(b) requires, sufficient factual content to establish what each Defendant allegedly did.16 Moreover, while Plaintiffs’ “threadbare recitals” (Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678) on 15 Atwood v. Burlington Indus. Equity, Inc., No. 92-cv-716, 1994 WL 698314, at *10 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 1994) (in dismissing breach of fiduciary duty claim, court stated that “Rule 9(b) extends to all averments of fraud or mistake, whatever may be the theory of legal duty—statutory, common law, tort, contractual, or fiduciary” (citation omitted)); see also In Town Hotels Ltd. v. Marriott Int’l, 246 F. Supp. 2d 469, 486 (S.D. W.Va. 2003) (same). 16 See Breeden v. Richmond Cmty. Coll., 171 F.R.D. 189, 197 (where there are multiple defendants, “the complaint should inform each defendant of the nature of his alleged Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 14 of 34 15 “information and belief” assert that InfiLaw and Holdings have exercised “substantial control over CSL,” including its “admission practices and curriculum” (BFAC ¶ 7), there is no factual content to these conclusory allegations. Fourth, Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that Defendants failed to “‘act in good faith and with due regard to [plaintiffs’] interests.’” Green, 367 N.C. at 141, 749 S.E.2D at 268 (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiffs’ allegations boil down to the fact that Defendants complied with the ABA Standards, which require that “decisions and recommendations of the Committee and Council must be kept confidential” and not released to the public. ABA Rule 52(a). It was not until after the Council resolved CSL’s appeal that any disclosure requirement could have arisen, and CSL complied at that time. Plaintiffs cannot plausibly claim that CSL was legally required to ignore the confidentiality of the ABA process, and they must be deemed to have consented to CSL’s obligation to abide by that process when they enrolled.17 Moreover, the deliberative process privilege protects the ABA’s internal process involving CSL’s accreditation status. This doctrine protects an agency’s pre-decisional opinions, recommendations, and deliberations in making final decisions and policies. See, e.g., Syron v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, No. 114MC359JEBJMF, 2014 WL 12623047, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 31, 2014).18 Here, as the ABA is a “quasi-public” institution, this doctrine should apply to protect participation in the fraud.”) (quoting Andrews v. Fitzgerald, 823 F. Supp. 356, 373 (M.D.N.C.1993); Superior Performers, Inc. v. Meaike, No. 13 Civ. 1149, 2015 WL 3823818, at *5 (M.D.N.C. June 19, 2015) (same). 17 See Battleground Veterinary Hosp. v. McGeough, No. 05cvs18918, 2007 WL 3071618, at ¶ 159 (N.C. Super Ct. Oct. 19, 2007) (no breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs “ratified” or “necessarily consented” to transactions) (citations omitted); Plasman v. Decca Furniture, No. 12 CVS 2832, 2016 WL 6208639, at *12 (N.C. Super Ct. Oct. 21, 2006) (same). 18 The policy behind this privilege is to protect “candid discussions within an agency,” prevent “public confusion from premature disclosure of agency opinions,” and protect “the integrity of an agency’s decision” so the public does not judge officials “based on information [the officials] Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 15 of 34 16 the ABA process involving CSL. Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch. v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 459 F.3d 705, 712 (6th Cir. 2006) (referring to the ABA as “quasi-public” because the ABA acts “on behalf of the Secretary [of Education] and wields the quasi-governmental power of deciding which law schools are eligible for federal funds”); see also Prof’l Massage Training Ctr., Inc., 781 F.3d at 169 (recognizing that accreditation associations are “quasi-public” in nature). 2. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Regarding Proximate Cause of Damages Fail. Plaintiffs must adequately and plausibly allege that the breach asserted in the complaint “proximately caused” their injuries. See, e.g., Marketel, 2015 WL 2401001, at *7-8.19 The Complaint does not allege any specific proximately-caused injuries, and there are none.20 Despite the ABA’s finding of noncompliance, CSL maintained full ABA accreditation, and no students were forced to transfer schools, delay their education, or retake classes. Indeed, CSL remains fully accredited to this day.21 For these reasons, the breach of fiduciary duty claim must be dismissed.22 may have considered prior to issuing their final decision.” Syron, 2014 WL 12623047, at *3 (internal quotations omitted). 19 See also Farndale Co. v. Gibellini, 682 S.E.2d 15, 20 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006) (holding fiduciary duty “claims require[ ] proof of an injury proximately caused by the breach of duty”). 20 The complaint merely conclusorily recites that “Defendants’ concealment proximately caused Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes substantial pecuniary damages.” (BFAC ¶ 125.) 21 Any loss that Plaintiffs allegedly suffered could have resulted only from the Department’s subsequent action refusing to recertify CSL’s Title IV eligibility. (BFAC ¶¶ 18-20.) However, the Complaint does not rely on allegations that Plaintiffs suffered any injuries arising from the Department’s decision. (BFAC ¶¶ 73, 80.) As noted above, the Department had never previously declined to recertify a law school based on ABA probation, and here the probationary period designed to allow CSL to come into compliance had not yet expired before the Department took action. 22 In addition to the above reasons, the specific allegations also fail to state a claim for the reasons set forth in Section IV addressing the unfair and deceptive practices act claim. See Seraph Garrison LLC v. Garrison, 787 S.E.2d 398, 408-09 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016) (applying fraud elements when fiduciary duty claim is based on misrepresentations and concealment). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 16 of 34 17 III. Plaintiffs’ Constructive Fraud Claim (Count 4) Must Be Dismissed. A. Elements of a Constructive Fraud Claim. “To establish constructive fraud, a plaintiff must show that defendant (1) owes plaintiff a fiduciary duty; (2) breached this fiduciary duty; and (3) sought to benefit himself in the transaction.” Crumley & Assocs., P.C. v. Charles Peed & Assocs., P.A., 219 N.C. App. 615, 620, 730 S.E.2d 763, 767 (2012); see Sterner v. Penn, 159 N.C. App. 626, 631, 583 S.E.2d 670, 674 (2003) (same). “The primary difference between pleading a claim for constructive fraud and one for breach of fiduciary duty is the constructive fraud requirement that the defendant benefit himself.” White v. Consol. Planning, Inc., 166 N.C. App. 283, 294, 603 S.E.2d 147, 156 (2004). Thus, Plaintiffs’ constructive fraud claim requires two of the same elements as a breach of fiduciary duty claim (existence of a duty and breach of that duty). Accordingly, it fails for the same reasons set forth above (and incorporated in this section by reference) that their breach of fiduciary duty claim fails, as well as for the additional reasons set forth below. B. Plaintiffs Do Not Allege That Defendants Took Advantage or Sought an Improper Benefit. Plaintiffs fail to plead a constructive fraud claim because they fail properly to allege that Defendants took advantage of Plaintiffs. To plead this element of a constructive fraud claim, Plaintiffs must allege that Defendants sought a “wrongful benefit” resulting from “transactions involving plaintiff’s funds.” White, 166 N.C. App. at 294-95, 603 S.E.2d at 156.23 The benefit sought must be “more than a continued relationship with the plaintiff or payment of a fee to a 23 See Barger v. McCoy Hillard & Parks, 346 N.C. 650, 666, 488 S.E.2d 215, 224 (1997) (“[P]laintiffs must show that they and defendants were in a relationship of trust and confidence . . . [which] led up to and surrounded the consummation of the transaction in which defendant is alleged to have taken advantage of his position of trust to the hurt of plaintiff.”) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 17 of 34 18 defendant for work it actually performed.” Id. (citing Sterner, 159 N.C. App. at 632, 583 S.E.2d at 674). For example, the court in Sterner held that an allegation that plaintiff paid defendant commissions on transactions was insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The commissions were for work actually performed and thus failed “to show that defendants sought to benefit themselves by taking unfair advantage of plaintiff, as our law requires.” Id., at 632, 583 S.E.2d at 674. Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants misrepresented and concealed certain facts “to realize financial benefit from the tuition and fees paid by Plaintiffs.” (BFAC ¶¶ 128-29.) These allegations assert no more than that Defendants obtained “a continued relationship with the plaintiff or payment of a fee to a defendant for work it actually performed,” which is insufficient to support constructive fraud as a matter of law. White, 166 N.C. App. at 295, 603 S.E.2d at 156; see Clay v. Monroe, 189 N.C. App. 482, 488-89, 658 S.E.2d 532, 537 (2008). C. Plaintiffs’ Conclusory Allegations Do Not Comply With Rule 9(b). Plaintiffs also fail to plead a claim for constructive fraud with the requisite specificity under Rule 9(b). “[C]onstructive fraud claims must comply with Rule 9(b),” although the pleading standard is less rigorous than with a typical fraud claim. Lawley v. Liberty Mut. Group, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-00106-RLV-DSC, 2012 WL 4513622, at 5 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2012). Nonetheless, “[t]he plaintiff must state more than mere conclusory allegations and must describe the facts and circumstances surrounding each element of constructive fraud.” Id.; see Holland v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., No. 14-cv-176, 2015 WL 1432458, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2015) (dismissing fraudulent concealment claim because “plaintiffs do not allege the time or place of the concealment or omission, or specifically allege which party concealed” the facts). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 18 of 34 19 Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to meet this standard for the same reasons that the fiduciary duty claim failed. Among other things, Plaintiffs have improperly lumped together all Defendants, alleging, for example, that “Defendants took advantage of their position of trust by making substantial misrepresentations regarding CSL’s noncompliance with ABA Standards . . . .” (BFAC ¶ 128.)24 IV. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (Count 1). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 codifies North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”). To establish a violation of the UDTPA, “a plaintiff must show: (1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656-57, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001). Plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim is based solely on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by Defendants. (BFAC ¶¶ 100-101.) Ordinarily, where an independent fraud claim is asserted, a UDTPA claim based on fraud rises and falls with the fraud claim. See Silverdeer, LLC v. Berton, No. 11 CVS 3539, 2013 WL 1792524, at *10 (N.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 24, 2013) (“On its face, Plaintiffs’ Chapter 75 claim is derivative of their other Claims, specifically the fraud claims, and therefore rises and falls with those Claims.”); Atkinson v. Omtron USA, LLC, No. 1:11CV910, 2012 WL 12887700, at *4 (M.D.N.C. May 30, 2012) (“Because the fraud claim was found inadequate, it cannot serve as the basis of a Chapter 75-1.1 claim.”). As shown below, even though Plaintiffs have not asserted a stand-alone fraud claim, Plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim: (i) is based on allegations of fraud, and thus subject to Rule 9(b); and (ii) must be dismissed because its allegations are insufficient. 24 See Breeden, 171 F.R.D. at 197-98 (where there are multiple defendants, “the complaint should inform each defendant of the nature of his alleged participation in the fraud.”) (quoting Andrews, 823 F. Supp. at 373). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 19 of 34 20 A. Plaintiffs’ UDTPA Claim is a Fraud Claim in Disguise. As the crux of their UDTPA claim, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made misrepresentations regarding CSL’s compliance with ABA Standards and bar passage rates and Defendants’ alleged concealment of the true nature of CSL’s noncompliance with the referenced ABA Standards. (BFAC ¶¶ 100-101.) Plaintiffs’ allege the following:  Defendants’ misrepresentations and concealment of information had the capacity and tendency to deceive (BFAC ¶ 103);  The misrepresentations and concealment of information were committed willfully (BFAC ¶ 104);  Defendants’ made the misrepresentations with the intent that Plaintiff would rely on the misrepresentations (BFAC ¶ 105);  Defendants’ misrepresentations possessed the tendency and/or capacity to deceive and mislead or create the likelihood of deception to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes and did in fact deceive Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes (BFAC ¶ 106);  Defendants’ concealment possessed the tendency and/or capacity to deceive and mislead or create the likelihood of deception to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes and did in fact deceive Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes (BFAC ¶ 107);  Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations (BFAC ¶ 108); and  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Classes have been damaged (BFAC ¶ 110); These allegations mirror almost exactly the elements required to plead a claim for fraud under North Carolina law. See Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 527, 649 S.E.2d 382, 387 (2007) (noting a fraud claim requires a “(1) [f]alse representation or concealment of a material fact, (2) reasonably calculated to deceive, (3) made with intent to deceive, (4) which does in fact deceive, (5) resulting in damage to the injured party.”). So – whether by design or not – Plaintiffs actually plead a fraud claim, but without the required particularity. Thus, as established below, that claim must be dismissed. Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 20 of 34 21 B. This Court Should Apply the Rule 9(b) Particularity Requirements to Plaintiffs’ UDTPA Claim. Defendants acknowledge there is a split of authority over whether Rule 9(b) applies to UDTPA claims based upon fraud. Compare Topshelf Mgmt., Inc. v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 117 F. Supp. 3d 722, 727-32 (M.D.N.C. 2015) (applying Rule 9(b) to fraud-based UDTPA claims) with CBP Res., Inc. v. SGS Control Servs., Inc., 394 F. Supp. 2d 733, 739 (M.D.N.C. 2005) (determining Rule 9(b) does not apply to fraud-based UDTPA claims). However, this Court should adopt the well-reasoned analysis of Topshelf Management. In Topshelf Management, the court applied the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) to the plaintiff’s UDTPA claim because the claim was predicated on “precisely the same alleged misrepresentations” as the plaintiff’s fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. Topshelf Management, 117 F. Supp. 3d at 731. In explaining its decision, the court stated: To treat the two claims with two different pleading standards would permit [plaintiff] to bring a disguised fraud claim without putting [defendant] on notice of the ‘particular circumstances’ of its claim and without having to show ‘substantial prediscovery evidence’ of these circumstances. Id. The rationale articulated in Topshelf Management is equally applicable here – particularly because Plaintiffs here have not even alleged a separate fraud claim that could be evaluated under Rule 9(b). Thus, the Court should evaluate Plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim under Rule 9(b). C. Plaintiffs’ Claim Fails to Meet Rule 9(b)’s Particularity Requirements. “To satisfy the specificity requirements of Rule 9(b), it is plaintiff’s obligation to plead the time, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the representation and what such person obtained thereby. If such particularity is lacking, dismissal is proper.” Bishop v. Green Tree Serv., LLC, No. 106CV355, 2007 WL 959524, at *9 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2007) (citing Gant v. NCNB Nat’l Bank of N.C., 94 N.C. App. Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 21 of 34 22 198, 201, 379 S.E.2d 865, 868 (1989)). Plaintiffs’ purported UDTPA allegations do not meet this standard. 1. Plaintiffs’ Fraud Allegations Are Not Pled with Particularity. “Where multiple defendants are asked to respond to allegations of fraud, ‘the complaint should inform each defendant of the nature of his alleged participation in the fraud.’” Solomon v. PNC Mortg. Co., No. 5:13-CV-421-FL, 2013 WL 4461538, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 2013) (quoting Bluestone Coal Corp. v. CNX Land Res., Inc., 2007 WL 6641647, at *6 (S.D. W. Va. 2007); see also Superior Performers, 2015 WL 3823818, at *5 (“The requirement that the identity of each person making the misrepresentation be pled with particularity is especially important in a multi-defendant, or multi-counterclaim defendant case.”). In other words, a fraud claim should be dismissed if the plaintiff describes the alleged fraud in terms of what “defendants” or “they” did or failed to do. Breeden, 171 F.R.D. at 198. Plaintiffs have done in this case precisely what North Carolina law forbids. Plaintiffs have named three separate entities as defendants in their First Amended Complaint and defined them collectively as “Defendants.” Directly contrary to the authority just cited, Plaintiffs describe the alleged misconduct of the Defendants with collective, “topical” language, identifying neither any specific Defendant nor the specific contents of any alleged fraudulent statement. See, e.g., BFAC ¶¶ 51-53 (“Upon information and belief, Defendants did not inform…”); BFAC ¶ 54 (“Defendants have published statements … which constitute substantial misrepresentations…”); BFAC ¶ 59 (“Upon information and belief, Defendants have represented …”); BFAC ¶ 60 (“Upon information and belief, Defendants have promoted and maintained …”) and BFAC ¶¶ 103-110 (referring only to “Defendants” in the collective). These conclusory Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 22 of 34 23 allegations are insufficient to withstand scrutiny under Rule 9(b), and Plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim must be dismissed. 2. Plaintiffs’ Fraudulent Concealment Allegations Are Not Pled with Particularity. Further, to the extent Plaintiffs have attempted to imbed a fraudulent concealment claim in their purported UDTPA claim, that claim also must fail. See BFAC ¶¶ 103-104, 107. “To assert a claim for fraudulent concealment, there must be a showing that the opposing party knew a material fact, and failed to fully disclose that fact in violation of a pre-existing duty to disclose.” Head v. Gould Killian CPA Grp., P.A., 795 S.E.2d 142, 149 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to allege the necessary duty to speak on behalf of any Defendant. There is no allegation in Count 1 of the existence of a fiduciary duty, and none of the preceding allegations incorporated by reference allege such a duty (nor does such a duty exist). Absent the allegation of this material element, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for fraudulent concealment. See Daniel Grp., Inc. v. Am. Sales & Mktg., Inc., No. 16 CVS 889, 2016 WL 7435995, at *8 (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 15, 2016) (“[S]ilence is fraudulent only when there is a duty to speak.” (citation omitted)).25 3. Plaintiffs’ Allegations That Defendants Misrepresented or Failed To Disclose CSL’s ABA Accreditation Status, Nature of CSL’s Curriculum, Or CSL’s Admission Standards Fail To State a Claim. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants made essentially three alleged misrepresentations. In addition to the above deficiencies, each fails as a matter of law for the following reasons. ABA Accreditation Status. Plaintiffs allege that CSL made false statements regarding the status of its ABA accreditation. This is incorrect and fails to state a claim for multiple reasons. (BFAC ¶¶ 59-62.) First, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have misrepresented to 25 Even if Plaintiffs had alleged such a duty, it would fail for the reasons noted in Section II. Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 23 of 34 24 current and prospective CSL students, “during all relevant periods, that CSL was fully accredited by the ABA” (BFAC ¶ 59), but this statement is absolutely true. The ABA Council provisionally accredited CSL in 2008, and then (once the ABA’s mandatory two-year provisional accreditation period had passed), fully accredited CSL in 2011.26 A law school granted full approval “remains approved unless the Council withdraws that approval.” ABA Standard 103(b). There is no other category of accredited status. Here, the ABA placed CSL on probation and did not withdraw approval of its accreditation. Thus, CSL remains fully accredited. Second, Plaintiffs allege that a statement added to CSL’s website following its full accreditation in 2011 falsely stated the status of the CSL’s accreditation, at least after the Committee’s July 2016 probation. The statement resided on the website in a subsection entitled “Our History,”27 which addressed the historical context of CSL’s accreditation, and reads in pertinent part: Charlotte School of Law has been awarded full accreditation by the American Bar Association. The action was approved by the Council . . . during the Council's quarterly meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, on June 10, 2011. The Council determined through its accreditation process that Charlotte School of Law is in full compliance with the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools. . . . . The ABA granted provisional approval to the School in 2008, concluding it was in compliance with ABA standards and had a plan to bring itself into full 26 Plaintiffs further contend that this undeniably true statement somehow became misleading because it suggests that CSL “was in full compliance with ABA Standards.” (BFAC ¶ 59.) The ABA Standards themselves refute the contention that the statement was misleading. Those Standards distinguish only between “provisional” and “full” accreditation. To move from provisional to full accreditation, the law school must demonstrate “full compliance with each of the standards.” ABA Standard 103(a). However, once fully approved, the law school retains that status “unless the Council withdraws that approval.” Id. 27 Plaintiffs allege this statement is published under the heading “Our Mission,” but fail to mention that the bolded, capitalized subheading immediately above the statement is “Our History.” See Ex. 8 (CSL’s Website, “Our History” section, available at http://www.charlottelaw.edu/our-mission.html). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 24 of 34 25 compliance. A law school must be provisionally approved for at least two years before it is eligible to apply for full approval. In order to be granted full approval, a School must demonstrate that it has established full compliance with each of the ABA's standards . . . See Ex. 8 (emphasis added). There can be no actionable misrepresentation or omission based on this statement because there is nothing materially false. It explicitly relates to the “History” of CSL’s accreditation, and states that the ABA Council “determined” in 2011 that CSL complied with its standards and decided to grant CSL full accreditation. This statement cannot plausibly be read to make any representation regarding CSL’s ongoing compliance with ABA Standards because, among other things, it merely (and accurately) describes the historical accreditation process and explicitly recites that the process concluded in 2011. Plaintiffs are overreaching here and have not alleged an actionable misrepresentation of a past or existing fact with respect to this statement. See Forbes v. Par Ten Group, Inc., 99 N.C. App. 587, 594, 394 S.E.2d 643, 647 (1990) (an “essential element[] of actionable fraud” is a “material misrepresentation of a past or existing fact”) (citation omitted)).28 “Rigorous Curriculum” Allegation. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants fraudulently represented that “a rigorous curriculum” had been “created to ensure that … students are equipped with practical skills that will allow them to thrive in a professional setting.” (BFAC ¶ 63.) Leaving aside the fact that CSL continues to believe this statement is true, this alleged misrepresentation cannot serve as the basis for a claim of fraud for multiple reasons. 28 To the extent this statement can be construed as a representation that CSL will remain in compliance with ABA standards, it is a nonactionable representation about future conduct. See, e.g., Atkinson v. Omtron USA, LLC, No. 11-cv-910, 2012 WL 12887700, at *3 (M.D.N.C. May 30, 2012) (promise to do a future act is not actionable fraud); McQuade v. Xerox Corp., No. 10- cv-149, 2011 WL 344091, at *7-8 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2011) (promise of future conduct by itself is not actionable). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 25 of 34 26 First, just like the statement regarding ABA compliance, this statement is a representation of future intended conduct, and there is no factual basis to claim it is false. Moreover, even if Defendants ultimately did not perform as they originally had intended, such non-performance cannot serve as the basis of a claim that Defendants misrepresented facts unless the Plaintiffs specifically allege contemporaneous intent to defraud, which they have failed (and have no basis) to do. See Atkinson, 2012 WL 12887700, at *3; McQuade, 2011 WL 344091, at *7-8. Second, the “rigorous curriculum” allegation must fail because any statement regarding whether a curriculum is “rigorous” is too vague and comparative as a matter of law and thus constitutes nonactionable opinion. As stated in Solum v. Certainteed Corp., 147 F. Supp. 3d 404 (E.D.N.C. 2015), in addressing language virtually identical to that here: General statements of comparison or superiority are puffery and are not actionable as a matter of law. See, e.g., Longman v. Food Lion, Inc., 197 F.3d 675, 685 (4th Cir. 1999) (analyzing reasonable reliance under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934); Nutrition & Fitness, Inc. v. Mark Nutritionals, Inc., 202 F. Supp. 2d 431, 435 (M.D.N.C. 2002) (analyzing reasonable reliance under the Lanham Act). . . . The statement that a credential is “prestigious” or that a course is “rigorous” expresses nothing more than a general opinion, and thus cannot reasonably be relied upon. See, e.g., Pizza Hut, Inc., 227 F.3d at 496; Longman, 197 F.3d at 685; EndoSurg Med., Inc., 71 F. Supp. 3d at 554; Imagine Medispa, LLC, 999 F. Supp. 2d at 881; Nutrition & Fitness. Inc., 202 F. Supp. 2d at 435; McKee, 2014 WL 7534078, at *10, 16. Id. 412-13 (emphasis added).29 29 The ABA Standards use virtually identical language. The fact that a recent case has found this statement to be nonactionable opinion merely establishes that the ABA’s conclusions regarding whether CSL had a “rigorous curriculum” do not reveal an objective, quantifiable fact, but an opinion within the ABA’s province. Indeed, the ABA essentially acknowledges this fact when it notes in the cover letters to several of its decisions that the Accreditation Committee avoids providing its own summary of the impressions of site evaluation teams because such impressions by their very nature are not able to be compared. See also Weil v. Morgan Stanley DW Inc., 877 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 26 of 34 27 Bar Passage Rate Allegation. Citing to a Charlotte Business Journal article, Plaintiffs claim that Chidi Ogene, CSL’s President, stated that CSL’s bar pass rate “between 2009 and 2013” was consistently “at or above the state bar average pass rate.” (BFAC ¶ 65.) This statement also cannot serve as the basis of a claim. First, Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Ogene’s statement was false because CSL’s bar passage rate was below the state average a majority of the time. To the contrary, based on all North Carolina bar exam results from July 2009 through July 2013, CSL’s average pass rate (taking into account both first-time and repeat takers) was above the state average five of nine times. See Board of Law Examiners for the State of North Carolina Reports (July 2009-July 2013) (submitted as Ex. 9 with school-specific data other than CSL’s redacted). Second, Plaintiffs have not alleged and cannot allege that the article proximately caused them any damage.30 Plaintiffs fail to allege that any of them even saw this article, or that it caused any of them any harm because they relied on it in enrolling. Indeed, Mr. Ogene purportedly made this statement in November 2016, so Plaintiffs could not have relied on it in deciding whether to attend for the 2016-2017 academic year even if they had seen it. (BFAC ¶ 82.)31 See Deluca v. River Bluff Holdings II, LLC, No. 13 CVS 783, 2015 WL 410429, at *10-11 A.2d 1024, 1029 (Del. Ch. 2005) (holding that opinion unaccompanied by false or misleading statements is “not actionable as a breach of fiduciary duty”). 30 See, e.g., Solum v. Certainteed Corp., 147 F. Supp. 3d 404, 411 (E.D.N.C. 2015) (“When the alleged UDTPA violation is a misrepresentation, a plaintiff must prove detrimental reliance on the alleged misrepresentation to satisfy the proximate cause requirement.”); see also Marketel, 2015 WL 2401001, at *7-8 (granting summary judgment on a fiduciary duty claim because “[a]ssuming arguendo that [defendant’s actions] were a breach of a fiduciary duty, the record does not show that these actions proximately caused any injury to [plaintiff]”); see also Farndale, 176 N.C. App. at 68, 628 S.E.2d at 20 (holding fiduciary duty “claims require[ ] proof of an injury proximately caused by the breach of duty”). 31 Moreover, the bar passage rates to which Mr. Ogene referred are publicly available (e.g., on the CSL website page that includes ABA required disclosures). See Solum, 147 F. Supp. 3d at 413 (finding plaintiffs’ reliance unreasonable as a matter of law because, among other things, Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 27 of 34 28 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 28, 2015) (dismissing UDTPA claim, in part, because plaintiffs’ own allegations showed lack of reasonable reliance on misrepresentations that formed the basis of the claim); Jay Grp. v. Glasgow, 139 N.C. App. 595, 601-02, 534 S.E.2d 233, 237 (2000) (fiduciary duty claim dismissed because prior knowledge by corporate principal of the substance of purported misrepresentation “will not allow a reasonable inference that plaintiffs were deceived by, or reasonably relied upon, the alleged misrepresentations”). Related Omissions Allegations. Plaintiffs’ threadbare allegations that Defendants “conceal[ed]” information regarding ABA accreditation status, rigor of the curriculum, and bar passage rates are conclusory and fail for the same reasons that their misrepresentation claims fail, as shown above. Additionally, with respect to Plaintiffs’ two core allegations – omitting disclosure that CSL maintained insufficiently demanding admission standards and failed to provide a “rigorous curriculum” – Plaintiffs had ample ability to evaluate the alleged failures. Plaintiffs Barchiesi and Hadzic, who enrolled in CSL respectively in the summer and fall of 2015 (BFAC ¶¶ 67, 75) had experienced CSL’s curriculum first-hand, and the pertinent information regarding CSL’s matriculant UGPAs and LSAT scores and those for all other law schools are available in 509 Reports, Employment Summary Reports, and Gainful Employment Disclosures that the ABA and Department mandate that law schools publish. plaintiffs could have discovered the truth of alleged misrepresentations through minimal research on defendant’s website); Cobb v. Pa. Life Ins. Co., 715 S.E.2d 541, 549 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (“Reliance is not reasonable where the plaintiff could have discovered the truth of the matter through reasonable diligence, but failed to investigate.”); Broussard v. Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops, 155 F.3d 331, 341 (4th Cir. 1998) (“[I]f a plaintiff had an alternative source for the information that is alleged to have been concealed from or misrepresented to him, his ignorance or reliance on any misinformation is not reasonable.”); see also Watts v. Cumberland Cnty. Hosp. Sys., 317 N.C. 110, 116, 343 S.E.2d 879, 884 (N.C. 1986) (possession of information from second opinions “dispels the presumption of reliance and . . . deceit that arises from the fiduciary relation itself”). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 28 of 34 29 V. Plaintiffs Failed To State A Claim For Unjust Enrichment (Count 2). To plead unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating: “(1) one party conferred a benefit upon the other party; (2) the benefit was not ‘conferred officiously, . . .’ ; (3) the benefit was not gratuitous; (4) the benefit was measureable; and (5) the defendant consciously accepted the benefit.” Law Offices of John L. Juliano, P.C., v. Jensen, --- Fed. Appx. ---, 2016 WL 7240176, at *3 (4th Cir. Dec. 15, 2016) (applying North Carolina law); see also JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Browning, 750 SE. 555, 559-60 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). A claim that is conclusory or vague fails to satisfy this standard.32 In this case, Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed for at least four reasons. First, North Carolina does not recognize a cause of action for educational malpractice. Plaintiffs’ thinly veiled attempt to circumvent this well-established law by disguising their educational malpractice claim as one for unjust enrichment must be rejected: [T]he claim must not involve “inquiry into the nuances of educational processes and theories.” . . . [T]he Court will not entertain a substantive challenge to Duke’s disciplinary decision or otherwise open up any type of “educational malpractice” claim. McFadyen, 786 F. Supp. 2d at 982-83 (quoting Ryan v. Univ. of N.C. Hosps., 128 N.C. App. 300, 302, 494 S.E. 2d 789, 791 (1998)); see Rouse v. Duke Univ., 869 F. Supp. 2d 674, 683 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (rejecting claims based on vague assurances of educational quality and experience as “too general to be enforceable as a matter of contract”); Thomas v. Olshausen, No. 3:07CV130-MU, 2008 WL 2468738, at *2 (W.D.N.C. June 16, 2008) (claims that “Defendants denied [Plaintiff] or his son access to more challenging educational programs . . . should be dismissed as there is no cognizable claim for educational malpractice under North Carolina 32 See Pres. Prof’l Servs., LLC, 2015 WL 3657463, at *4 (dismissing unjust enrichment claim where, among other things, plaintiffs’ factual allegations were “too vague”); McManus v. GMRI, Inc., 2012 WL 2577420, at *2 (W.D.N.C. 2012) (same). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 29 of 34 30 law”), aff’d 305 F. App’x 55 (4th Cir. 2008). Thus, a claim against a school requires more than an allegation that “the education was not good enough . . . .” Ryan, 128 N.C. App. at 302, 494 S.E.2d at 791 (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, courts applying North Carolina law have repeatedly disavowed inquiries “‘into the nuances of educational processes and theories . . . .’” Id. (quoting Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410, 417 (7th Cir. 1992)). These courts (as well as those throughout the country33) have rejected educational malpractice claims for many reasons, including that a student’s educational deficiency can be caused by complex and myriad factors other than the conduct of the school, the “sheer number of claims that could arise” if the cause of action were recognized, and the courts’ reluctance to “oversee[] the day-to-day operations of schools.” See, e.g., Ross, 957 F.2d at 414. Here, Plaintiffs’ quasi-contract unjust enrichment allegations would require exactly this forbidden “inquiry into nuances of educational processes and theories.” Id. Plaintiffs’ central allegation is that Defendants failed to “compl[y] with its obligations” to meet certain ABA Standards and then failed to disclose such failures. (BFAC ¶¶ 1, 27.) The ABA Standards that Defendants purportedly failed to meet are the quintessence of vague “nuances of the educational processes” (Ryan, 128 N.C. App. at 302, 494 S.E.2d at 791), such as whether CSL maintained “a rigorous program of legal education,” maintained “sound admission policies,” or admitted 33 See, e.g., Bittle v. Okla. City Univ., 6 P.3d 509, 514-15 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (affirming grant of judgment in defendant’s favor because unjust enrichment claim was essentially “educational malpractice” claim that the state does not recognize); Brodsky v. Mead Sch. For Human Dev., 1999 WL 391580, at *11 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jun. 4, 1999) (striking unjust enrichment claim because “plaintiffs cannot disguise their impermissible” educational malpractice claim as one of unjust enrichment); see also Cavaliere v. Duff’s Bus. Inst., 605 A.2d 397, 403 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (dismissing claims “for educational malpractice, whether framed in terms of tort or breach of contract”); Paladino v. Adelphi Univ., 89 A.D.2d 85, 94 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982) (dismissing fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit claims where students could not show that school made any “statements of fact capable of proof” about the quality of the education). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 30 of 34 31 applicants who did “not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program . . . .” (BFAC ¶ 27.) This is exactly the type of educational malpractice claim that North Carolina courts and others throughout the country routinely refuse to recognize. Second, Plaintiffs’ claim is based on their conclusory allegation that “Defendants realized a financial benefit by preventing current and enrolling students the opportunity to make an informed decision prior to enrolling at CSL. . . .” (BFAC ¶ 113.) However, Plaintiffs again merely lump all Defendants together. There is no plausible allegation regarding how the parent and grandparent Defendants (InfiLaw and Holding, respectively) received anything, consciously or otherwise.34 Third, there is no claim for unjust enrichment where a benefit is given officiously, that is to say, without “solicit[ation] or induce[ment].” Homeq v. Watkins, 154 N.C. App. 731, 733, 572 S.E.2d 871, 873 (2002) (“Absent such inducement or solicitation, Defendants are simply not liable for unjust enrichment, even if they did benefit from [plaintiff]’s actions.”); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., No. 3:07-CV-86, 2007 WL 4233317, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 2007) (dismissing unjust enrichment claim where plaintiff failed to allege that defendant “acted to induce or solicit [plaintiff’s] actions”).35 Here, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants actively solicited their attendance. On the contrary, Plaintiffs state they “thoroughly reviewed” CSL’s website, showing that they, on their own, sought out CSL. (BFAC ¶¶ 70, 78.) Thus, CSL did not actively induce or solicit Plaintiffs. 34 See, e.g., N.C. Joint Underwriting Ass’n v. Long, No. 7:06-CV-28-WW, 2008 WL 320150, at *10 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2008) (holding defendants were not unjustly enriched where they indirectly received the benefit). 35 See Elite Outsourcing Grp., Inc. v. Healthsouth Corp., No. 05CV00051, 2006 WL 1666739, *2 (M.D.N.C. 2006) (granting summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff did not prove that defendant “took any action to induce Plaintiff to perform the services”). Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 31 of 34 32 Fourth, Plaintiffs must allege that the benefit conferred gave rise to “a legal or equitable obligation on the part of the defendant to account for the benefits received.” Homeq, 154 N.C. App. at 733, 572 S.E.2d at 873 (2002) (quoting Norman v. Nash Johnson & Sons’ Farms, Inc., 140 N.C. App. 390, 417, 537 S.E.2d 248, 266 (2000)). In this case, CSL did account for the tuition (i.e., the benefit) it received. CSL’s only obligation was to provide Plaintiffs with an education, and it did so. CSL provided the classes and educational opportunities in exchange for Plaintiffs’ tuition. Thus, Defendants’ acceptance of Plaintiffs’ tuition cannot be unjust. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant their motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety. Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 32 of 34 33 This the 20th day of March, 2017. Respectfully submitted, Cooley LLP s/ David E. Mills David E. Mills (admitted pro hac vice) Michael D. Hays (admitted pro hac vice) 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel: (202) 776-2865 Fax: (202) 842-7899 Email: dmills@cooley.com mhays@cooley.com Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP s/ Sarah Motley Stone Debbie W. Harden, NCSB No. 10576 Sarah Motley Stone, NCSB No. 34117 One Wells Fargo Center, Suite 3500 301 South College Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Tel: (704) 331-4943 Fax: (704) 338-7813 E-mail: dharden@wcsr.com sstone@wcsr.com Johnny M. Loper, NCSB No. 15533 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 831 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Tel: (919) 755-2116 Fax: (919) 755-6056 E-mail: jloper@wcsr.com Attorneys for Defendants Charlotte School of Law, LLC InfiLaw Corporation, and InfiLaw Holding LLC Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 33 of 34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim and Exhibits thereto were filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of case activity to be generated and sent electronically by the Clerk of Court to the following parties registered to receive such service: H. Forest Horne, Jr. John Alan Jones Karl Joseph Amelchenko Steven D. Corriveau Martin & Jones 410 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27603 Email: hfh@m-j.com, jaj@m-j.com, kja@m-j.com, sdc@m-j.com Gary K. Shipman Kyle Joseph Nutt Shipman & Wright, LLP 575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106 Wilmington, NC 28405 Email: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com, knutt@shipmanlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs This the 20th day of March, 2017. /s/ Sarah Motley Stone Sarah Motley Stone WCSR 39077783v1Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 34 of 34 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-00861 ROBERT C. BARCHIESI, and LEJLA HADZIC, Individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, INFILAW HOLDING, LLC, and INFILAW CORPORATION, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPENDIX INDEX OF EXHIBITS THAT ARE JUDICIALLY NOTICEABLE, INTEGRAL TO THE COMPLAINT, OR OTHERWISE MAY BE CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS Exhibit Page Reference in Motion to Dismiss Document Basis for Review 1 p. 4-5, 9-10, 28 Charlotte School of Law (“CSL”)’s American Bar Association (“ABA”) Standard 509 Information Reports (“509 Reports”) for 2011-2016 (available at http://www.charlottelaw.edu/userfiles/files/20 16%20Charlotte%20Std509InfoReport_12 and http://www.abarequireddisclosures.org/) Judicial notice; referenced in Barchiesi First Amended Complaint (“BFAC”) ¶¶ 58-59 and integral to BFAC 2 p. 5-10, 13, 15, 19-20, 24-26, 30 ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools published in August 2016 (available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba /publications/misc/legal_education/Standards/ 2016_2017_aba_standards_and_rules_of_pro cedure.authcheckdam.pdf) Judicial notice; referenced in and integral to BFAC; see, e.g., BFAC ¶¶ 1, 15, 26-28, 30-32, 35, 37- 38, 40-41, 43, 46-47 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-2 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 2 2 Exhibit Page Reference in Motion to Dismiss Document Basis for Review 3 p. 5 Excerpt of “ABA-Approved Law Schools by Year” webpage (available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_ed ucation/resources/aba_approved_law_schools /by_year_approved.html) Judicial notice; referenced in BFAC ¶ 21 and integral to BFAC 4 p. 6 “Accreditation Archives” webpage (available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_ed ucation/accreditation/accreditation_archives) Judicial notice 5 p. 6 Excerpt from a transcript from a June 22, 2016 hearing of the United States Department of Education, National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (“NACIQI”) (available at https://sites.ed.gov/naciqi/archive-of- meetings/) Judicial notice 6 p. 9 Email from ABA Managing Director Barry Currier dated July 24, 2016 Referenced in BFAC ¶ 38 and integral to BFAC 7 p. 12-13 CSL’s Program Participation Agreement (“PPA”) with the United States Department of Education Judicial notice; referenced in and integral to BFAC; see, e.g., BFAC ¶¶ 17, 118- 119, 8 p. 24-25 Excerpt of CSL’s “Our History” webpage (available at http://www.charlottelaw.edu/our- mission.html) Judicial notice; referenced in BFAC ¶¶ 62-63 and integral to BFAC 9 p. 27 Board of Law Examiners for the State of North Carolina Reports dated July 2009-July 2013 (school-specific data other than that of CSL has been redacted) Judicial notice; integral to BFAC ¶ 65 WCSR 39077791v1Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-2 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit 1 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 13 The Basics Type of school PRIVATE Term Semester Application deadline 1/25/2012 8/15/201 2 Application fee $ 0 Financial aid deadline Can first year start other than fall? Yes Student faculty ratio 20.12 to 1 # of housing spaces available Restricted to law students 0 Graduate housing for which Law students are eligible 0 Faculty and Administrators Total Men Women Minorities Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Full-Time 36 41 15 18 21 23 12 14 Other Full- Time 3 1 2 1 Deans, librarians & others who teach 6 4 2 3 4 1 3 2 Part-Time 31 42 19 22 12 20 4 6 76 87 37 43 39 44 20 22 CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW 2145 Suttle Avenue Charlotte, NC 28208 Phone : 704-971-8500 Fax : 704-971-8599 Website : charlottelaw.edu 1231231212312312 ABA Approved Since 2008 Curriculum Full-Time Part-Time Typical first-year section size 75 60 Is there typically a "small section" of the first-year class, other than Legal writing, taught by full-time faculty No No If yes,typical size offered last year 0 0 # of class room course titles beyond 1st year curriculum 96 Number of upper division classroom course sections Under 25 72 25 - 49 32 50 - 74 10 75 - 99 11 100+ 2 # of seminars 19 # of seminar positions available 375 # of seminar positions filled 195 63 # of positions available in simulation courses 92 # of simulation position filled 63 21 # of positions available in faculty supervised clinical courses 204 # of faculty supervised clinical positions filled 63 17 # involved in field placements 43 13 # involved in law journals 38 5 # involved in moot court or trial competitions 18 5 # of credit hours required to graduate 90 1 J.D. Enrollment and Ethnicity Men Women Full-Time Part-Time First - Year Total J.D. Deg # % # % # % # % # % # % Awrd Hispanics of any race 19 3.5 31 5.1 38 4 12 6.1 24 4.3 50 4.3 4 American Indian or Alaska Native 8 1.5 12 2 18 1.9 2 1 15 2.7 20 1.7 3 Asian 19 3.5 14 2.3 27 2.8 6 3 22 3.9 33 2.9 3 Black or African American 68 12.6 125 20.4 147 15.4 46 23.2 117 20.9 193 16.8 1 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1 0.2 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 1 0.2 1 0.1 0 Two or more races 2 0.4 6 1 6 0.6 2 1 7 1.2 8 0.7 0 Total Minority 117 21.7 188 30.7 237 24.9 68 34.3 186 33.2 305 26.5 11 White 418 77.7 419 68.4 707 74.2 130 65.7 369 65.9 837 72.7 87 Nonresident Alien 3 0.6 6 1 9 0.9 0 0 5 0.9 9 0.8 0 Race and Ethnicity Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 538 46.7 613 53.3 953 82.8 198 17.2 560 48.7 1,151 100 98 Transfers Transfers In 10 Transfers Out 22 Tuition and Fees Resident Non- Resident Full-Time $ 36,916 $ 36,916 Part-Time $ 29,850 $ 29,850 Tuition Guarantee Program No Living Expenses Estimated Living Expenses for singles Living on Campus Living Off Campus Living at Home $ $ 21,305 $ 21,305 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 13 ABA Approved Since 2008 GPA and LSAT Scores Total Full-Time Part-Time # of apps 3,955 3,605 350 # of offers 2,728 2,512 216 # of matrics 529 446 83 75% GPA 3.31 3.33 3.16 Median GPA 3 3.01 2.92 25% GPA 2.6 2.61 2.53 75% LSAT 151 151 150 Median LSAT 148 149 147 25% LSAT 145 146 143 Grants and Scholarships (from prior year) Total Full-Time Part-Time # % # % # % Total # of students 812 100 669 82.4 143 17.6 Total # receiving grants 598 73.6 547 81.8 51 35.7 Less than 1/2 tuition 562 69.2 512 76.5 50 35 Half to full tuition 35 4.3 34 5.1 1 0.7 Full tuition 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0 More than full tuition 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median grant amount $ 9,500 $ 7,500 Bar Passage Rates First Time Takers: 77 Avg. Pass Diff: 6.66 Reporting %: 90.91 Avg. School %: 84.28 Avg.State%: 77.62 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff % North Carolina 66 55 83.33 77.50 5.83 South Carolina 4 4 100.00 79.69 20.31 Informational and Library Resources Total amount spent on library materials $ 834,758 Study seating capacity inside the library 435 Study FTE professional librarians 9.34 Hours per week library is open 105 # of open wired connections available to students 0 # of networked computers available for use by students 56 Has wireless network Yes Require computer? Yes J.D. Attrition (from prior year) Academic Other Total # # # % 1st year 47 48 95 19.3 2nd year 4 3 7 3.1 3rd year 0 0 0 0 4th year 0 0 0 0 2 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 13 The Basics Type of school PRIVATE Term Semester Application deadline 1/15/2013 5/8/2013 8/19/201 3 Application fee $ 0 Financial aid deadline Can first year start other than fall? Yes Student faculty ratio 19.33 to 1 Faculty and Administrators Total Men Women Minorities Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Full-Time 42 62 19 25 23 37 15 19 Other Full- Time 8 2 6 3 Deans, librarians & others who teach 6 9 3 5 3 4 3 3 Part-Time 40 46 25 34 15 12 3 4 96 117 49 64 47 53 24 26 CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW 2145 Suttle Avenue Charlotte, NC 28208 Phone: 704-971-8500 Fax: 704-971-8599 Website: charlottelaw.edu 1231231212312312 ABA Approved Since 2008 Curriculum Full-Time Part-Time Typical first-year section size 70 60 Number of classroom course titles beyond first-year curriculum 117 Number of upper division classroom course sections Under 25 78 25 - 49 38 50 - 74 9 75 - 99 8 100+ 5 Number of positions available in simulation courses 410 Number of simulation positions filled 310 76 Number of positions available in faculty supervised clinical courses 137 Number of faculty supervised clinical positions filled 101 7 Number of field placement positions filled 128 0 Number of students who enrolled in independent study 12 4 Number of students who participated in law journals 40 6 Number of students who participated in interschool skills competitions 35 3 Number of credit hours required to graduate 90 1 J.D. Enrollment and Ethnicity Men Women Full-Time Part-Time First - Year Total J.D. Deg # % # % # % # % # % # % Awrd Hispanics of any race 16 2.6 47 6.1 50 4.3 13 5.8 36 5.5 63 4.5 14 American Indian or Alaska Native 16 2.6 14 1.8 24 2.1 6 2.7 14 2.1 30 2.2 0 Asian 21 3.4 20 2.6 35 3 6 2.7 19 2.9 41 2.9 2 Black or African American 108 17.3 200 26.1 242 20.7 66 29.5 193 29.3 308 22.1 27 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1 0.2 1 0.1 2 0.2 0 0 1 0.2 2 0.1 0 Two or more races 2 0.3 2 0.3 3 0.3 1 0.4 0 0 4 0.3 0 Total Minority 164 26.2 284 37 356 30.5 92 41.1 263 39.9 448 32.2 43 White 442 70.7 457 59.6 772 66.1 127 56.7 366 55.5 899 64.6 190 Nonresident Alien 6 1 12 1.6 18 1.5 0 0 13 2 18 1.3 0 Race and Ethnicity Unknown 13 2.1 14 1.8 22 1.9 5 2.2 17 2.6 27 1.9 1 Total 625 44.9 767 55.1 1,168 83.9 224 16.1 659 47.3 1,392 100 234 Transfers Transfers In 5 Transfers Out 43 Tuition and Fees Resident Non- Resident Full-Time $ 38,606 $ 38,606 Part-Time $ 31,232 $ 31,232 Tuition Guarantee Program No Living Expenses Estimated Living Expenses for singles Living on Campus Living Off Campus Living at Home $ $ 21,650 $ Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 4 of 13 ABA Approved Since 2008 GPA and LSAT Scores Total Full-Time Part-Time Number of apps 4,040 3,645 395 Number of offers 3,062 2,808 254 Number of matrics 626 529 97 75% GPA 3.32 3.35 3.12 Median GPA 2.97 3 2.9 25% GPA 2.65 2.67 2.57 75% LSAT 150 150 147 Median LSAT 146 147 144 25% LSAT 142 143 141 Grants and Scholarships (from prior year) Total Full-Time Part-Time # % # % # % Total number of students 1,151 100 953 82.8 198 17.2 Total number receiving grants 550 47.8 473 49.6 77 38.9 Less than 1/2 tuition 476 41.4 407 42.7 69 34.8 Half to full tuition 74 6.4 66 6.9 8 4 Full tuition 0 0 0 0 0 0 More than full tuition 0 0 0 0 0 0 75% grant amount 0 0 $ 18,000 0 $ 12,000 0 Median grant amount 10,000 7,000 25% grant amount 0 0 5,000 0 3,600 0 Bar Passage Rates First Time Takers: 98 Avg. Pass Diff: -1.00 Reporting %: 92.86 Avg. School %: 79.12 Avg.State%: 80.12 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff % North Carolina 86 67 77.91 80.32 -2.41 South Carolina 5 5 100.00 76.66 23.34 Informational and Library Resources Total amount spent on library materials $ 874,090 Study seating capacity inside the library 435 Number of FTE professional librarians 7.68 Hours per week library is open 105 Require computer? Yes J.D. Attrition (from prior year) Academic Other Total # # # % 1st year 76 72 148 26.4 2nd year 5 6 11 2.9 3rd year 0 5 5 2.5 4th year 0 0 0 0 2 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 5 of 13 The Basics Type of school PRIVATE Term Semester Application deadline 1/1/2014 5/1/2014 8/1/2014 Application fee $ 0 Financial aid deadline Can first year start other than fall? Yes Tuition and Fees (academic year*) Resident Non-Resident Full-Time $ 40,146 $ 40,146 Part-Time $ 32,476 $ 32,476 Tuition Guarantee Program No Living Expenses (academic year*) Estimated Living Expenses for singles Living on Campus $ Living Off Campus $ 21,650 Living at Home $ 21,650 - 2013 Standard 509 Information Report 201 South College Street Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28244 Phone: 704-971-8500 Website: charlottelaw.edu 1231231212312312 ABA Approved Since 2008 GPA and LSAT Scores (calendar year**) Total Full-Time Part-Time Number of apps 3,340 2,878 462 Number of offers 2,446 2,152 294 Number of matrics 522 428 94 75% GPA 3.25 3.31 3.00 Median GPA 2.91 2.96 2.75 25% GPA 2.59 2.63 2.48 75% LSAT 149 149 144 Median LSAT 144 145 141 25% LSAT 141 142 139 Grants and Scholarships (prior academic year*) Total Full-Time Part-Time # % # % # % Total number of students 1,392 100 1,168 83.9 224 16.1 Total number receiving grants 700 50.3 583 49.9 117 52.2 Less than 1/2 tuition 469 33.7 382 32.7 87 38.8 Half to full tuition 231 16.6 201 17.2 30 13.4 Full tuition 0 0 0 0 0 0 More than full tuition 0 0 0 0 0 0 75% grant amount $ 29,000 $ 12,500 Median grant amount $ 12,500 $ 5,040 25% grant amount $ 5,000 $ 2,500 J.D. Enrollment and Ethnicity (academic year*) Men Women Full-Time Part-Time First - Year Total J.D. Deg Awd # % # % # % # % # % # % Hispanics of any race 24 4.1 45 5.5 57 5 12 4.5 27 5 69 4.9 13 American Indian or Alaska Native 16 2.7 20 2.4 28 2.5 8 3 17 3.2 36 2.6 5 Asian 22 3.7 22 2.7 36 3.2 8 3 17 3.2 44 3.1 10 Black or African American 130 22 275 33.6 294 25.8 111 41.3 201 37.6 405 28.7 47 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1 0.2 2 0.2 2 0.2 1 0.4 2 0.4 3 0.2 0 Two or more races 1 0.2 2 0.2 2 0.2 1 0.4 0 0 3 0.2 0 Total Minority 194 32.8 366 44.7 419 36.7 141 52.4 264 49.3 560 39.7 75 White 384 65 425 51.9 688 60.3 121 45 252 47.1 809 57.4 278 Nonresident Alien 1 0.2 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.4 0 0 2 0.1 0 Race and Ethnicity Unknown 12 2 27 3.3 33 2.9 6 2.2 19 3.6 39 2.8 1 Total 591 41.9 819 58.1 1,141 80.9 269 19.1 535 37.9 1,410 100 354 1 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 6 of 13 ABA Approved Since 2008 Curriculum (prior academic year*) Full-Time Part-Time Typical first-year section size 56 60 Number of classroom course titles beyond first-year curriculum 152 Number of upper division classroom course sections Under 25 131 25 - 49 63 50 - 74 34 75 - 99 24 100+ 0 Number of positions available in simulation courses 1,596 Number of simulation positions filled 930 309 Number of positions available in faculty supervised clinical courses 225 Number of faculty supervised clinical positions filled 102 33 Number of field placement positions filled 128 42 Number of students who enrolled in independent study 30 10 Number of students who participated in law journals 80 26 Number of students who participated in interschool skills competitions 44 14 Number of credit hours required to graduate 90 Faculty and Administrators (calendar year**) Total Men Women Minorities Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Full-Time 61 64 25 26 36 38 15 16 Other Full-Time 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 Deans, librarians & others who teach 9 8 3 3 6 5 3 4 Part-Time 48 45 31 29 17 16 6 4 119 119 59 59 60 60 25 25 Student faculty ratio 17.31 to 1 Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2012) First Time Takers: 222 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff. % North Carolina 162 106 65.43 79.03 -13.60 South Carolina 18 14 77.78 72.79 4.99 Reporting % Avg. School Pass % Avg. State Pass % Avg. Pass Diff. % 81.08 66.67 78.41 -11.74 J.D. Attrition (prior academic year*) Academic Other Total # # # % 1st year 55 94 149 22.6 2nd year 3 7 10 2.4 3rd year 1 14 15 4.9 4th year 0 0 0 0 Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2011) First Time Takers: 98 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff. % North Carolina 86 67 77.91 80.32 -2.41 South Carolina 5 5 100.00 76.66 23.34 Reporting % Avg. School Pass % Avg. State Pass % Avg. Pass Diff. % 92.86 79.12 80.12 -1.00 Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2010) First Time Takers: 77 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff. % North Carolina 66 55 83.33 77.50 5.83 South Carolina 4 4 100.00 79.69 20.31 Reporting % Avg. School Pass % Avg. State Pass % Avg. Pass Diff. % 90.91 84.28 77.62 6.66 Transfers (prior academic year*) Transfers In 5 Transfers Out 66 2 * "Academic year" refers to the 2013 - 2014 academic year. ** "Calendar year" refers to the 2013 calendar year. Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 7 of 13 The Basics Type of school PRIVATE Term Semester Application deadline Application fee $ 50 Financial aid deadline Can first year start other than fall? Yes Tuition and Fees (academic year*) Resident Non-Resident Full-Time $ 41,348 $ 41,348 Part-Time $ 33,448 $ 33,448 Tuition Guarantee Program No Living Expenses (academic year*) Estimated Living Expenses for singles Living on Campus $ Living Off Campus $ 22,620 Living at Home $ Students Matriculating in # Entering with # Reduced or Eliminated 2013-2014 Academic Year 307 178 2012-2013 Academic Year 341 181 2011-2012 Academic Year 307 177 Conditional Scholarships - 2014 Standard 509 Information Report 201 South College Street Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28244 Phone: 704-971-8500 Last Site Visit: 2012-2013 Website: charlottelaw.edu Next Site Visit: 2019-2020 12312312 ABA Approved Since 2008 GPA and LSAT Scores (calendar year**) Total Full-Time Part-Time # of apps 2,472 2,110 362 # of offers 1,853 1,574 279 # of matriculants 446 319 127 75th Percentile GPA 3.18 3.21 3.00 50th Percentile GPA 2.83 2.91 2.66 25th Percentile GPA 2.53 2.59 2.37 # not incl. in GPA percentile calc. 4.00 1.00 3.00 75th Percentile LSAT 146 147 142 50th Percentile LSAT 142 143 138 25 Percentile LSAT 138 140 136 # not incl. in LSAT percentile calc. 0 0 0 Grants and Scholarships (prior academic year*) Total Full-Time Part-Time # % # % # % Total # of students 1,410 100 1,141 80.9 269 19.1 Total # receiving grants 644 45.7 571 50 73 27.1 Less than 1/2 tuition 382 27.1 335 29.4 47 17.5 Half to full tuition 228 16.2 204 17.9 24 8.9 Full tuition 34 2.4 32 2.8 2 0.7 More than full tuition 0 0 0 0 0 0 75th Percentile grant amount $ 27,000 $ 17,200 50th Percentile grant amount $ 15,000 $ 10,000 25th Percentile grant amount $ 8,000 $ 6,400 J.D. Enrollment and Ethnicity (academic year*) Men Women Other Full-Time Part-Time First - Year Total J.D. Deg Awd # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Hispanics of any race 26 5.1 43 5.7 0 0 44 4.6 25 8.1 30 6.6 69 5.4 15 American Indian or Alaska Native 10 2 13 1.7 0 0 20 2.1 3 1 7 1.5 23 1.8 11 Asian 23 4.5 21 2.8 0 0 36 3.8 8 2.6 21 4.6 44 3.5 11 Black or African American 135 26.4 326 43.1 0 0 302 31.6 159 51.3 204 44.8 461 36.4 77 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1 0.2 2 0.3 0 0 3 0.3 0 0 1 0.2 3 0.2 1 Two or more races 3 0.6 9 1.2 0 0 10 1 2 0.6 5 1.1 12 0.9 4 Total Minority 198 38.7 414 54.8 0 0 415 43.4 197 63.5 268 58.9 612 48.3 119 White 299 58.5 324 42.9 0 0 517 54 106 34.2 175 38.5 623 49.2 285 Nonresident Alien 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.3 0 0 1 0.1 1 Race and Ethnicity Unknown 13 2.5 18 2.4 0 0 25 2.6 6 1.9 12 2.6 31 2.4 10 Total 511 40.3 756 59.7 0 0 957 75.5 310 24.5 455 35.9 1,267 100 415 1 2014.1Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 8 of 13 ABA Approved Since 2008 Curriculum (prior academic year*) Full-Time Part-Time Typical first-year section size 57 60 # of classroom course titles beyond first-year curriculum 161 # of upper division classroom course sections Under 25 167 25 - 49 76 50 - 74 39 75 - 99 21 100+ 0 # of positions available in simulation courses 1,625 # of simulation positions filled 1,133 492 # of seminar positions filled 589 104 # of positions available in faculty supervised law clinic courses 256 # of faculty supervised law clinic positions filled 163 42 # of field placement positions filled 158 57 # of students who enrolled in independent study 26 10 # of students who participated in law journals 110 29 # of students who participated in interschool skills competitions 62 17 # of credit hours required to graduate 90 Faculty and Administrators (calendar year**) Total Men Women Other Minorities Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Full-Time 57 64 23 25 34 39 0 0 16 18 Deans, librarians & others who teach 13 8 5 3 8 5 0 0 5 4 Part-Time 39 50 25 30 14 20 0 0 5 4 109 122 53 58 56 64 26 26 Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2013) First Time Takers: 316 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff. % North Carolina 222 134 60.36 69.22 -8.86 South Carolina 34 24 70.59 79.49 -8.90 Reporting % Avg. School Pass % Avg. State Pass % Avg. Pass Diff. % 81.01 61.72 70.59 -8.87 J.D. Attrition (prior academic year*) Academic Transfer Other Total # # # # % 1st year 98 47 27 172 32.1 2nd year 11 5 14 30 6.7 3rd year 1 0 6 7 1.9 4th year 0 0 0 0 0 Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2012) First Time Takers: 222 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff. % North Carolina 162 106 65.43 79.03 -13.60 South Carolina 18 14 77.78 72.79 4.99 Reporting % Avg. School Pass % Avg. State Pass % Avg. Pass Diff. % 81.08 66.67 78.41 -11.74 Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2011) First Time Takers: 98 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff. % North Carolina 86 67 77.91 80.32 -2.41 South Carolina 5 5 100.00 76.66 23.34 Reporting % Avg. School Pass % Avg. State Pass % Avg. Pass Diff. % 92.86 79.12 80.12 -1.00 Transfers (prior academic year*) Transfers In # See Appendix for list of schools from which students transferred Transfers Out 52 2 * "Academic year" refers to the 2014 - 2015 academic year. ** "Calendar year" refers to the 2014 calendar year. 2014.1 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 9 of 13 The Basics Type of school PRIVATE Term Semester Application deadline Application fee $ 50 Financial aid deadline Can first year start other than fall? Yes Tuition and Fees (academic year*) Resident Non-Resident Full-Time $ 41,348 $ 41,348 Part-Time $ 33,448 $ 33,448 Tuition Guarantee Program No Living Expenses (academic year*) Estimated Living Expenses for singles Living on Campus $ 22,620 Living Off Campus $ 22,620 Living at Home $ 22,620 Students Matriculating in # Entering with # Reduced or Eliminated 2014-2015 Academic Year 337 202 2013-2014 Academic Year 307 178 2012-2013 Academic Year 341 181 Conditional Scholarships - 2015 Standard 509 Information Report 201 South College Street Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28244 Phone: 704-971-8500 Last Site Visit: 2012-2013 Website: charlottelaw.edu Next Site Visit: 2019-2020 12312312 ABA Approved Since 2008 GPA and LSAT Scores (calendar year**) Total Full-Time Part-Time # of apps 2,260 2,007 253 # of offers 1,470 1,343 127 # of matriculants 309 251 58 75th Percentile GPA 3.17 3.16 3.23 50th Percentile GPA 2.82 2.82 2.82 25th Percentile GPA 2.51 2.49 2.59 # not incl. in GPA percentile calc. 2.00 1.00 1.00 75th Percentile LSAT 145 145 144 50th Percentile LSAT 142 143 141 25 Percentile LSAT 140 140 135 # not incl. in LSAT percentile calc. 0 0 0 Grants and Scholarships (prior academic year*) Total Full-Time Part-Time # % # % # % Total # of students 1,267 100 957 75.5 310 24.5 Total # receiving grants 778 61.4 597 62.4 181 58.4 Less than 1/2 tuition 553 43.6 410 42.8 143 46.1 Half to full tuition 188 14.8 154 16.1 34 11 Full tuition 25 2 24 2.5 1 0.3 More than full tuition 12 0.9 9 0.9 3 1 75th Percentile grant amount $ 3,042 $ 2,000 50th Percentile grant amount $ 11,000 $ 4,500 25th Percentile grant amount $ 25,000 $ 13,200 J.D. Enrollment and Ethnicity (academic year*) Men Women Other Full-Time Part-Time First - Year Total J.D. Deg Awd # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Hispanics of any race 13 4 26 4.4 0 0 26 4 13 5 19 5.4 39 4.2 27 American Indian or Alaska Native 6 1.9 10 1.7 0 0 13 2 3 1.2 4 1.1 16 1.7 9 Asian 12 3.7 20 3.4 0 0 26 4 6 2.3 15 4.2 32 3.5 15 Black or African American 107 33.3 275 46.1 0 0 252 38.3 130 50 174 49.2 382 41.6 122 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1 0.3 1 0.2 0 0 2 0.3 0 0 0 0 2 0.2 1 Two or more races 2 0.6 9 1.5 0 0 8 1.2 3 1.2 1 0.3 11 1.2 0 Total Minority 141 43.9 341 57.1 0 0 327 49.7 155 59.6 213 60.2 482 52.5 174 White 173 53.9 236 39.5 0 0 317 48.2 92 35.4 128 36.2 409 44.6 266 Nonresident Alien 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Race and Ethnicity Unknown 7 2.2 20 3.4 0 0 14 2.1 13 5 13 3.7 27 2.9 9 Total 321 35 597 65 0 0 658 71.7 260 28.3 354 38.6 918 100 450 1 2015.1Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 10 of 13 ABA Approved Since 2008 Curriculum (prior academic year*) Typical first-year section size 48 # of classroom course titles beyond first-year curriculum 167 # of upper division classroom course sections Under 25 222 25 - 49 83 50 - 74 30 75 - 99 14 100+ 0 # of positions available in simulation courses 2,481 # of simulation positions filled 1,941 # of seminar positions filled 556 # of law clinics 12 # of seats available in the law clinics identified in sub-part (i) above 253 # of seats filled in the law clinics identified in sub-part (i) above 167 # of field placement positions filled 351 # of students who enrolled in independent study 20 # of students who participated in law journals 109 # of students who participated in interschool skills competitions 49 Faculty and Administrators (calendar year**) Total Men Women Other Minorities Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Full-Time 43 48 23 24 20 24 0 0 14 16 Deans, librarians & others who teach 11 10 3 4 8 6 0 0 2 2 Part-Time 54 50 31 29 23 21 0 0 6 5 108 108 57 57 51 51 22 23 Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2014) First Time Takers: 368 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff. % North Carolina 237 135 56.96 69.12 -12.16 South Carolina 34 22 64.71 73.41 -8.70 Reporting % Avg. School Pass % Avg. State Pass % Avg. Pass Diff. % 73.64 57.93 69.66 -11.73 J.D. Attrition (prior academic year*) Academic Transfer Other Total # # # # % 1st year 121 33 49 203 44.6 2nd year 16 5 4 25 5.7 3rd year 0 0 9 9 2.9 4th year 0 0 1 1 1.6 Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2013) First Time Takers: 316 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff. % North Carolina 222 134 60.36 69.22 -8.86 South Carolina 34 24 70.59 79.49 -8.90 Reporting % Avg. School Pass % Avg. State Pass % Avg. Pass Diff. % 81.01 61.72 70.59 -8.87 Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2012) First Time Takers: 222 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff. % North Carolina 162 106 65.43 79.03 -13.60 South Carolina 18 14 77.78 72.79 4.99 Reporting % Avg. School Pass % Avg. State Pass % Avg. Pass Diff. % 81.08 66.67 78.41 -11.74 Transfers (prior academic year*) Transfers In # See Appendix for list of schools from which students transferred Transfers Out 38 2 * "Academic year" refers to the 2015 - 2016 academic year. ** "Calendar year" refers to the 2015 calendar year. 2015.1 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 11 of 13 The Basics Type of school PRIVATE Term Semester Application deadline Application fee $ 50 Financial aid deadline 5/22/2016 Can first year start other than fall? Yes Tuition and Fees (academic year*) Resident Non-Resident Full-Time $ 44,284 $ 44,284 Part-Time $ 35,822 $ 35,822 Tuition Guarantee Program No Living Expenses (academic year*) Estimated Living Expenses for singles Living on Campus $ Living Off Campus $ 22,534 Living at Home $ 22,534 Students Matriculating in # Entering with # Reduced or Eliminated 2015-2016 Academic Year 264 155 2014-2015 Academic Year 337 202 2013-2014 Academic Year 307 178 Conditional Scholarships - 2016 Standard 509 Information Report 201 South College Street Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28244 Phone: 704-971-8500 Last Site Visit: 2012-2013 Website: charlottelaw.edu Next Site Visit: 2019-2020 12312312 ABA Approved Since 2008 GPA and LSAT Scores (calendar year**) Total Full-Time Part-Time # of apps 2,189 1,981 208 # of offers 1,416 1,322 94 # of matriculants 343 303 40 75th Percentile GPA 3.07 3.06 3.22 50th Percentile GPA 2.80 2.81 2.75 25th Percentile GPA 2.48 2.46 2.55 # not incl. in GPA percentile calc. 13.00 11.00 2.00 75th Percentile LSAT 148 148 148 50th Percentile LSAT 144 144 144 25 Percentile LSAT 141 141 141 # not incl. in LSAT percentile calc. 7 7 0 Grants and Scholarships (prior academic year*) Total Full-Time Part-Time # % # % # % Total # of students 918 100 658 71.7 260 28.3 Total # receiving grants 566 61.7 452 68.7 114 43.8 Less than 1/2 tuition 397 43.2 319 48.5 78 30 Half to full tuition 154 16.8 123 18.7 31 11.9 Full tuition 14 1.5 10 1.5 4 1.5 More than full tuition 1 0.1 0 0 1 0.4 75th Percentile grant amount $ 20,000 $ 11,237 50th Percentile grant amount $ 8,000 $ 4,746 25th Percentile grant amount $ 4,500 $ 2,000 J.D. Enrollment and Ethnicity (academic year*) Men Women Other Full-Time Part-Time First - Year Total J.D. Deg Awd # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Hispanics of any race 16 6.2 33 7.3 0 0 34 6.9 15 6.8 25 6.4 49 6.9 16 American Indian or Alaska Native 2 0.8 2 0.4 0 0 3 0.6 1 0.5 3 0.8 4 0.6 5 Asian 15 5.8 23 5.1 0 0 28 5.7 10 4.5 26 6.6 38 5.3 10 Black or African American 91 35 214 47.3 0 0 199 40.6 106 47.7 163 41.7 305 42.8 119 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 1 0.2 0 0 1 0.2 0 0 1 0.3 1 0.1 2 Two or more races 2 0.8 7 1.5 0 0 4 0.8 5 2.3 4 1 9 1.3 6 Total Minority 126 48.5 280 61.9 0 0 269 54.9 137 61.7 222 56.8 406 57 158 White 126 48.5 160 35.4 0 0 210 42.9 76 34.2 156 39.9 286 40.2 177 Nonresident Alien 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Race and Ethnicity Unknown 8 3.1 12 2.7 0 0 11 2.2 9 4.1 13 3.3 20 2.8 7 Total 260 36.5 452 63.5 0 0 490 68.8 222 31.2 391 54.9 712 100 342 1 2016.1Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 12 of 13 ABA Approved Since 2008 Curriculum (prior academic year*) Typical first-year section size 43 # of classroom course titles beyond first-year curriculum 126 # of upper division classroom course sections Under 25 140 25 - 49 82 50 - 74 19 75 - 99 5 100+ 0 # of positions available in simulation courses 935 # of simulation positions filled 756 # of seminar positions filled 147 # of law clinics 16 # of seats available in the law clinics identified in sub-part (i) above 196 # of seats filled in the law clinics identified in sub-part (i) above 190 # of field placement positions filled 237 # of students who enrolled in independent study 10 # of students who participated in law journals 109 # of students who participated in interschool skills competitions 51 Faculty and Administrators (calendar year**) Total Men Women Other Minorities Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Full-Time 34 36 17 18 17 18 0 0 12 14 Deans, librarians & others who teach 11 12 3 4 8 8 0 0 2 2 Part-Time 38 31 23 20 15 11 0 0 4 4 83 79 43 42 40 37 18 20 Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2015) First Time Takers: 369 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff. % North Carolina 241 110 45.64 64.67 -19.03 South Carolina 27 14 51.85 72.78 -20.93 Reporting % Avg. School Pass % Avg. State Pass % Avg. Pass Diff. % 72.63 46.26 65.48 -19.22 J.D. Attrition (prior academic year*) Academic Transfer Other Total # # # # % 1st year 130 17 27 174 49.2 2nd year 12 0 5 17 7.3 3rd year 4 0 1 5 1.9 4th year 0 0 0 0 0 Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2014) First Time Takers: 368 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff. % North Carolina 237 135 56.96 69.12 -12.16 South Carolina 34 22 64.71 73.41 -8.70 Reporting % Avg. School Pass % Avg. State Pass % Avg. Pass Diff. % 73.64 57.93 69.66 -11.73 Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2013) First Time Takers: 316 Jurisdiction Takers Passers Pass % State % Diff. % North Carolina 222 134 60.36 69.22 -8.86 South Carolina 34 24 70.59 79.49 -8.90 Reporting % Avg. School Pass % Avg. State Pass % Avg. Pass Diff. % 81.01 61.72 70.59 -8.87 Transfers (prior academic year*) Transfers In # See Appendix for list of schools from which students transferred Transfers Out 17 2 * "Academic year" refers to the 2016 - 2017 academic year. ** "Calendar year" refers to the 2016 calendar year. 2016.1 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-3 Filed 03/20/17 Page 13 of 13 "'$%#%& ! Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-4 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 14 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-4 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 14 KYV -+ ,1(-+ ,2 7 87 JeR_URcUd R_U If ]Vd `W Gc̀ TVUf cV Ẁ c7 aac̀ gR]`W CRh JTY``]d h VcV RU`aeVU Sj eYV 9`f _TZ]`W eYV 7 87 JVTeZ̀ _`W CVX R] %7% PQS Q̂Q\ [̂S M̂Y [^[ T̀Q̂ Z[Z$>%7% PQS Q̂Q \ [̂S M̂Y # [RRQ̂ M\ [̂S M̂Y UZ MO[aZ`̂e [a _̀UPQ T̀Q IZU Q̀P G̀ M̀Q_# [^ _QQW [̀ Q_̀ MNXU_T M _Q\ M̂ M̀QX[OM̀ U[Z% !Q" 4 \ [̂bU_U[ZMXXe M\ \ [̂bQP XMc _OT[[X _TMXX _̀ M̀Q T̀M̀ U`U_ \ [̂bU_U[ZMXXe M\ \ [̂bQP UZ MXX [R U _̀ \ ÛZ Q̀P MZP QXQÒ [̂ZUO Y M̀ Q̂ UMX_ PQ_Ô UNUZS T̀Q XMc _OT[[X MZP U _̀ \ [̂S M̂Y MZP UZ MZe [ T̀Q̂ \ aNXUOM̀ U[Z T̀M̀ Q̂RQ̂ QZOQ_ T̀QXMc _OT[[Xg_M\ \ [̂bMXNe T̀Q6[aZOUX% !R" 4 XMc _OT[[X_QQWUZS \ [̂bU_U[ZMXM\ \ [̂bMX_TMXXY MWQU _̀_̀ M̀a_OXQM̂ UZ MZe \ ÛZ Q̀P MZP QXQÒ [̂ZUO Y M̀ Q̂ UMX_PQ_Ô UNUZS T̀QXMc _OT[[XMZP U _̀ \ [̂S M̂Y MZP UZ MZe [ T̀Q̂ \ aNXUOM̀ U[Z T̀M̀ Q̂RQ̂ QZOQ_ T̀Q XMc _OT[[Xg_ M\ \ [̂bMX_̀ M̀a_% 4 `MY UZUY aY # T̀Q XMc _OT[[X_TMXX_̀ M̀Q T̀Q R[XX[c UZS UZ MXX _aOT O[Y Y aZUOM̀ U[Z_1 HTQ XMc _OT[[X U_ Z[`Oa^̂ QZ X̀e M\ \ [̂bQP Ne T̀Q 6[aZOUX [R T̀Q GQÒ U[Z [R @QS MX 8PaOM̀ U[Z MZP 4 PY U__U[Z_ [̀ T̀Q 5M̂ [R T̀Q 4 Y Q̂ UOMZ 5M̂ 4 __[OUM̀ U[Z MZP Y MWQ_ Z[ Q̂\ Q̂_QZ M̀̀ U[Z [̀ MZe M\ \ XUOMZ`̀ TM̀ U c̀ UXX Q̂OQUbQM\ \ [̂bMXR̂ [Y T̀Q 6[aZOUXNQR[ Q̂ T̀Q S ^MPaM̀ U[Z [RMZe Y M̀ ÛOaXM̀ UZS _̀ aPQZ %̀ !S " 4 XMc _OT[[X _QQWUZS \ [̂bU_U[ZMX M\ \ [̂bMX _TMXX Z[`PQXMe O[ZRQ̂ ÛZS M >%7% a\ [Z M _̀ aPQZ` UZ MZ ÙOU\ M̀ U[Z [R [N M̀UZUZS M\ \ [̂bMX% 4 Z M\ \ [̂bQP XMc _OT[[X Y Me Z[` Q̂̀ [̂MÒ UbQXe S ^MZ` M >%7% PQS Q̂Q M_ MZ M\ \ [̂bQP _OT[[X [̀ M _̀ aPQZ`c T[ S ^MPaM̀QP R̂ [Y T̀Q XMc _OT[[X NQR[ Q̂ U _̀M\ \ [̂bMX% ,0 4.323.4- 4/10 #"$!# CXMZ_ `[ MOTUQbQ _aN_`MZ`UMX O[Y\XUMZOQ cU`T MZe [R `TQ E`MZPM^P_ M^Q Z[` _aRRUOUQZ` `[ PQY[Z_`^M`Q _aN_`MZ`UMX O[Y\XUMZOQ& !M" HTQ 6[aZOUX _TMXX S ^MZ`RaXX M\ \ [̂bMX [̀ M \ [̂bU_U[ZMXXe M\ \ [̂bQP XMc _OT[[X UR M̀ T̀Q ÙY Q T̀Q _OT[[X _QQW_ _aOT M\ \ [̂bMX U`PQY [Z_̀ ^M̀Q_ T̀M̀ U`U_ UZ RaXX O[Y \ XUMZOQ c U T̀ QMOT [R T̀Q G̀ MZPM̂ P_% DXMZ_ [̀ MOTUQbQRaXXO[Y \ XUMZOQc U T̀ MZe G̀ MZPM̂ P M̂ QZ[ _̀aRRUOUQZ`̀ [ PQY [Z_̀ ^M̀Q RaXXO[Y \ XUMZOQ% Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-4 Filed 03/20/17 Page 4 of 14 0 7 87 JeR_URcUd R_U If ]Vd `WGc̀ TVUf cV Ẁ c7 aac̀ gR]`WCRh JTY``]d -+ ,1(-+ ,2 !N" 4 XMc _OT[[X S M̂Z Q̀P M\ \ [̂bMX aZP Q̂ T̀U_ G̀ MZPM̂ P Q̂Y MUZ_ M\ \ [̂bQP aZXQ__ T̀Q 6[aZOUX c U T̀P M̂c _ T̀M̀ M\ \ [̂bMX% 4 XMc _OT[[X_TMXXRa ẐU_T MO[Y \ XQ̀ QP MZZaMX] aQ_̀ U[ZZMU Q̂# _QXR$_̀ aPe# _U Q̀QbMXaM̀ U[Z ] aQ_̀ U[ZZMU Q̂# MZP _aOT [ T̀Q̂ UZR[ Ŷ M̀ U[Z M_ T̀Q4 OÔ QPU M̀̀ U[Z 6[Y Y U`̀QQ[^6[aZOUXY Me Q̂] aU Q̂%HTU_UZR[ Ŷ M̀ U[Z Y a_̀ NQ O[Y \ XQ̀ Q# MOOa^M̀Q# MZP Z[`Y U_XQMPUZS # MZP Y a_̀ NQ _aNY U`̀QP UZ T̀Q R[ Ŷ # Y MZZQ̂ # MZP ÙY QR̂ MY Q_\ QOURUQP Ne T̀Q6[aZOUX% !M" 5QR[ Q̂ MXMc _OT[[XY MWQ_ MY MV[^ OTMZS Q UZ U _̀ \ [̂S M̂Y [R XQS MXQPaOM̀ U[Z [^ [ Ŝ MZUfM̀ U[ZMX _̀ âÒ a Q̂# U`_TMXX [N M̀UZ T̀Q MO] aUQ_OQZOQ [R T̀Q 6[aZOUX R[^ T̀Q OTMZS Q% 4 Y MV[^ OTMZS Q UZ \ [̂S M̂Y [^_̀ âÒ a Q̂ T̀M̀ Q̂] aU Q̂_M\ \ XUOM̀ U[Z R[^MO] aUQ_OQZOQUZOXaPQ_1 !(" 4 O] aU ÛZS MZ[ T̀Q̂ XMc _OT[[X# \ [̂S M̂Y # [^QPaOM̀ U[ZMXUZ_̀ U à Ù[Z2 !)" 4 O] aU ÛZS [^Y Q̂ S UZS c U T̀ MZ[ T̀Q̂ aZUbQ̂ _U è Ne T̀Q\ M̂ QZ àZUbQ̂ _U è c TQ̂ QU M̀\ \ QM̂ _ T̀M̀ T̀Q̂ QY Me NQ_aN_̀ MZ ÙMXUY \ MÒ [Z T̀Q[\ Q̂ M̀ U[Z [R T̀QXMc _OT[[X2 !*" H M̂Z_RQ̂ ÛZS MXX# [^ _aN_̀ MZ ÙMXXe MXX# [R T̀Q \ [̂S M̂Y [R XQS MX QPaOM̀ U[Z [^ M__Q̀ _ [R T̀Q M\ \ [̂bQP XMc _OT[[X [̀ MZ[ T̀Q̂ XMc _OT[[X[^aZUbQ̂ _U è2 !+" A Q̂ S UZS [^MRRUXUM̀ UZS c U T̀ [ZQ[^Y [ Q̂M\ \ [̂bQP [^aZM\ \ [̂bQP XMc _OT[[X_2 !," A Q̂ S UZS [^MRRUXUM̀ UZS c U T̀ [ZQ[^Y [ Q̂aZUbQ̂ _U ÙQ_2 !-" A M̀ Q̂ UMXXe Y [P UReUZS T̀QXMc _OT[[Xg_XQS MX_̀ M̀a_[^UZ_̀ U à Ù[ZMX Q̂XM̀ U[Z_TU\ c U T̀ M \ M̂ QZ`UZ_̀ U à Ù[Z2 !." 4 OTMZS Q UZ O[Z`̂[X[R T̀Q _OT[[X Q̂_aX̀ UZS R̂ [Y MOTMZS Q UZ [c ZQ̂ _TU\ [R T̀Q _OT[[X[^ M O[Z`̂MÒ aMXM̂ ^MZS QY QZ 2̀ !/" 4 OTMZS Q UZ T̀QX[OM̀ U[Z [R T̀Q _OT[[X T̀M̀ O[aXP Q̂_aX̀ UZ _aN_̀ MZ ÙMXOTMZS Q_ UZ T̀Q RMOaX̀e# MPY UZU_̀ ^M̀ U[Z# _̀ aPQZ Ǹ[Pe# [^Y MZMS QY QZ [̀R T̀Q _OT[[X2 !0" 8_̀ MNXU_TUZS MN M̂ZOT OMY \ a_2 !(' " 8_̀ MNXU_TUZS M_Q\ M̂ M̀QX[OM̀ U[Z2 !((" 4 _US ZURUOMZ ÒTMZS Q UZ T̀QY U__U[Z [^[NVQÒ UbQ_[R T̀QXMc _OT[[X2 !()" HTQ MPP U Ù[Z [R O[a _̂Q_ [^ \ [̂S M̂Y _ T̀M̀ Q̂\ Q̂_QZ`M_US ZURUOMZ`PQ\ M̂ à Q̂ R̂ [Y Qd U_̀ UZS [RRQ̂ UZS _ [^ Y Q̀ T[P [R PQXUbQ̂ e _UZOQ T̀Q XM̀Q_̀ _U Q̀ QbMXaM̀ U[Z UZOXaP UZS UZ_̀ U à ÙZS MZQc RaXX$ ÙY Q[^\ M̂ $̀ ÙY QP UbU_U[Z2 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-4 Filed 03/20/17 Page 5 of 14 7 87 JeR_URcUd R_U If ]Vd `WGc̀ TVUf cV Ẁ c7 aac̀ gR]`WCRh JTY``]d -+ ,1(-+ ,2 ,- T̀QNM_U_[R M̂OQ#O[X[ #̂ Q̂XUS U[Z#ZM̀ U[ZMX[ ÛS UZ# S QZPQ̂ #_Qd aMX[ ÛQZ M̀̀ U[Z#MS Q#MZP PU_MNUXU è UZ Q̂S M̂ P [̀ TU ÛZS # \ [̂Y [ Ù[Z# Q̂̀ QZ Ù[Z MZP O[ZP U Ù[Z_[RQY \ X[eY QZ %̀ ,0 4.323.4- 4/10 $"'!# 4 XMc _OT[[X YMe Z[` ^Q]aU^Q M\\XUOMZ`_$ _`aPQZ`_$ RMOaX`e [^ QY\X[eQQ_ `[ PU_OX[_Q `TQU^ _QdaMX [^UQZ`M`U[Z$ MX`T[aST `TQe YMe \^[bUPQ [\\[^`aZU`UQ_ R[^ `TQY `[ P[ _[ b[XaZ`M^UXe& ,0 4.323.4- 4/10 $"'!$ E[ X[ZS M_ M _OT[[X O[Y\XUQ_ cU`T E`MZPM^P *(-"O#$ `TQ \^[TUNU`U[Z O[ZOQ^ZUZS _QdaMX [^UQZ`M`U[Z P[Q_ Z[` ^Q]aU^Q M ^QXUSU[a_Xe MRRUXUM`QP _OT[[X `[ MO` UZO[Z_U_`QZ`Xe cU`T `TQ Q__QZ`UMX QXQYQZ`_ [R U`_ ^QXUSU[a_ bMXaQ_ MZP NQXUQR_& 9[^ QdMY\XQ$ E`MZPM^P *(-"O# P[Q_ Z[` ^Q]aU^Q M _OT[[X `[ ^QO[SZUfQ [^ _a\\[^` [^SMZUfM`U[Z_ cT[_Q \a^\[_Q_ [^ [NVQO`UbQ_ cU`T ^Q_\QO` `[ _QdaMX [^UQZ`M`U[Z O[ZRXUO` cU`T `TQ Q__QZ`UMX QXQYQZ`_ [R `TQ ^QXUSU[a_ bMXaQ_ MZP NQXUQR_ TQXP Ne `TQ _OT[[X& ,0 4.323.4- 4/10 $"'!% E`MZPM^P *(-"P# M\\XUQ_ `[ MXX QY\X[eQ^_$ UZOXaPUZS S[bQ^ZYQZ` MSQZOUQ_$ `[ cTUOT M _OT[[X Ra^ZU_TQ_ M__U_`MZOQ MZP RMOUXU`UQ_ R[^ UZ`Q^bUQcUZS MZP [`TQ^ \XMOQYQZ` _Q^bUOQ_& <[cQbQ $̂ `TU_ E`MZPM^P P[Q_ Z[` ^Q]aU^Q M XMc _OT[[X `[ UY\XQYQZ` U`_ `Q^Y_ Ne QdOXaPUZS MZe QY\X[eQ^ aZXQ__ `TM` QY\X[eQ^ PU_O^UYUZM`Q_ aZXMcRaXXe& ,0 4.323.4- 4/10 $"'!& FTQ PQZUMX Ne M XMc _OT[[X [R MPYU__U[Z `[ M ]aMXURUQP M\\XUOMZ` U_ `^QM`QP M_ YMPQ a\[Z `TQ NM_U_ [R ^MOQ$ O[X[ $̂ ^QXUSU[Z$ ZM`U[ZMX [^USUZ$ SQZPQ $̂ _QdaMX [^UQZ`M`U[Z$ MSQ$ [^ PU_MNUXU`e UR `TQ NM_U_ [R PQZUMX ^QXUQP a\[Z U_ MZ MPYU__U[Z ]aMXURUOM`U[Z [R `TQ _OT[[X `TM` U_ UZ`QZPQP `[ \^QbQZ` `TQ MPYU__U[Z [R M\\XUOMZ`_ [Z `TQ NM_U_ [R ^MOQ$ O[X[ $̂ ^QXUSU[Z$ ZM`U[ZMX [^USUZ$ SQZPQ $̂ _QdaMX [^UQZ`M`U[Z$ MSQ$ [^ PU_MNUXU`e `T[aST Z[` \a^\[^`UZS `[ P[ _[& ,0 4.323.4- 4/10 $"'!' FTQ PQZUMX Ne M XMc _OT[[X [R QY\X[eYQZ` `[ M ]aMXURUQP UZPUbUPaMX U_ `^QM`QP M_ YMPQ a\[Z `TQ NM_U_ [R ^MOQ$ O[X[ $̂ ^QXUSU[Z$ ZM`U[ZMX [^USUZ$ SQZPQ $̂ _QdaMX [^UQZ`M`U[Z$ MSQ$ [^ PU_MNUXU`e UR `TQ NM_U_ [R PQZUMX ^QXUQP a\[Z U_ MZ QY\X[eYQZ` \[XUOe [R `TQ _OT[[X `TM` U_ UZ`QZPQP `[ \^QbQZ` `TQ QY\X[eYQZ` [R UZPUbUPaMX_ [Z `TQ NM_U_ [R ^MOQ$ O[X[ $̂ ^QXUSU[Z$ ZM`U[ZMX [^USUZ$ SQZPQ $̂ _QdaMX [^UQZ`M`U[Z$ MSQ$ [^ PU_MNUXU`e `T[aST Z[` \a^\[^`UZS `[ P[ _[& !M" 6[Z_U_̀ QZ c̀ U T̀ _[aZP XQS MXQPaOM̀ U[Z \ [XUOe MZP T̀Q G̀ MZPM̂ P_# MXMc _OT[[X_TMXXPQY [Z_̀ M̂̀Q Ne O[ZÔ Q̀ Q MÒ U[Z M O[Y Y U Ỳ QZ` [̀ P UbQ̂ _U è MZP UZOXa_U[Z Ne \ [̂bUP UZS RaXX [\ \ [^̀ aZU ÙQ_ R[^ T̀Q _̀ aPe [R XMc MZP QZ`̂e UZ [̀ T̀Q \ [̂RQ__U[Z Ne Y QY NQ̂ _ [R aZP Q̂ Q̂\ Q̂_QZ Q̀P S [̂a\ _# \ M̂ ÙOaXM̂ Xe ^MOUMXMZP Q̀ TZUO Y UZ[ Û ÙQ_# MZP MO[Y Y U Ỳ QZ` [̀ TMbUZS M _̀ aPQZ`N[Pe T̀M̀ U_ P UbQ̂ _Qc U T̀ Q̂_\ QÒ [̀ S QZPQ̂ # ^MOQ# MZP Q̀ TZUOU è% !N" 6[Z_U_̀ QZ c̀ U T̀ _[aZP QPaOM̀ U[ZMX\ [XUOe MZP T̀Q G̀ MZPM̂ P_# MXMc _OT[[X_TMXXPQY [Z_̀ M̂̀Q Ne O[ZÔ Q̀ Q MÒ U[Z MO[Y Y U Ỳ QZ` [̀ P UbQ̂ _U è MZP UZOXa_U[Z Ne TMbUZS MRMOaX̀e MZP _̀ MRR T̀M̀ M̂ Q P UbQ̂ _Qc U T̀ Q̂_\ QÒ [̀ S QZPQ̂ # ^MOQ# MZP Q̀ TZUOU è% Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-4 Filed 03/20/17 Page 6 of 14 ,. 787 JeR_URcUd R_U If]Vd `W Gc`TVUfcV W`c 7aac`gR] `W CRh JTY``]d -+,1(-+,2 ,04.323.4-4/10 $"(!# FTQ ^Q]aU^QYQZ` [R M O[Z_`U`a`U[ZMX \^[bU_U[Z [^ _`M`a`Q `TM` \a^\[^`_ `[ \^[TUNU` O[Z_UPQ^M`U[Z [R SQZPQ $̂ ^MOQ$ Q`TZUOU`e$ [^ ZM`U[ZMX [^USUZ UZ MPYU__U[Z_ [^ QY\X[eYQZ` PQOU_U[Z_ U_ Z[` M Va_`URUOM`U[Z R[^ M _OT[[Xg_ Z[Z%O[Y\XUMZOQ cU`T E`MZPM^P *(.& 4 XMc _OT[[X `TM` U_ _aNVQO` `[ _aOT O[Z_`U`a`U[ZMX [^ _`M`a`[^e \^[bU_U[Z_ c[aXP TMbQ `[ PQY[Z_`^M`Q `TQ O[YYU`YQZ` ^Q]aU^QP Ne E`MZPM^P *(. Ne YQMZ_ [`TQ^ `TMZ `T[_Q \^[TUNU`QP Ne `TQ M\\XUOMNXQ O[Z_`U`a`U[ZMX [^ _`M`a`[^e \^[bU_U[Z_& ,04.323.4-4/10 $"(!$ =Z MPPU`U[Z `[ \^[bUPUZS RaXX [\\[^`aZU`UQ_ R[^ `TQ _`aPe [R XMc MZP `TQ QZ`^e UZ`[ `TQ XQSMX \^[RQ__U[Z Ne YQYNQ^_ [R aZPQ^^Q\^Q_QZ`QP S^[a\_$ `TQ QZ^[XXYQZ` [R M PUbQ^_Q _`aPQZ` N[Pe \^[Y[`Q_ O^[__% OaX`a^MX aZPQ^_`MZPUZS$ TQX\_ N^QMW P[cZ ^MOUMX$ Q`TZUO$ MZP SQZPQ^ _`Q^Q[`e\Q_$ MZP QZMNXQ_ _`aPQZ`_ `[ NQ``Q^ aZPQ^_`MZP \Q^_[Z_ [R PURRQ^QZ` NMOWS^[aZP_& FTQ R[^Y_ [R O[ZO^Q`Q MO`U[Z ^Q]aU^QP Ne M XMc _OT[[X `[ _M`U_Re `TQ [NXUSM`U[Z_ [R `TU_ E`MZPM^P M^Q Z[` _\QOURUQP& =R O[Z_U_`QZ` cU`T M\\XUOMNXQ XMc$ M XMc _OT[[X YMe a_Q ^MOQ MZP Q`TZUOU`e UZ U`_ MPYU__U[Z_ \^[OQ__ `[ \^[Y[`Q PUbQ^_U`e MZP UZOXa_U[Z& FTQ PQ`Q^YUZM`U[Z [R M XMc _OT[[Xg_ _M`U_RMO`U[Z [R _aOT [NXUSM`U[Z_ U_ NM_QP [Z `TQ `[`MXU`e [R `TQ XMc _OT[[Xg_ MO`U[Z_ MZP `TQ ^Q_aX`_ MOTUQbQP& FTQ O[YYU`YQZ` `[ \^[bUPUZS RaXX QPaOM`U[ZMX [\\[^`aZU`UQ_ R[^ YQYNQ^_ [R aZPQ^^Q\^Q_QZ`QP S^[a\_ `e\UOMXXe UZOXaPQ_ M _\QOUMX O[ZOQ^Z R[^ PQ`Q^YUZUZS `TQ \[`QZ`UMX [R `TQ_Q M\\XUOMZ`_ `T^[aST `TQ MPYU__U[Z \^[OQ__$ _\QOUMX ^QO^aU`YQZ` QRR[^`_$ MZP \^[S^MY_ `TM` M__U_` UZ YQQ`UZS `TQ MOMPQYUO MZP RUZMZOUMX ZQQP_ [R YMZe [R `TQ_Q _`aPQZ`_ MZP `TM` O^QM`Q M RMb[^MNXQ QZbU^[ZYQZ` R[^ _`aPQZ`_ R^[Y aZPQ^^Q\^Q_QZ`QP S^[a\_& !M" 4__a^UZS Q]aMXU`e [R [\\[^`aZU`e R[^ ]aMXURUQP UZPUbUPaMX_ cU`T PU_MNUXU`UQ_# M_ ^Q]aU^QP Ne G`MZPM^P )',# ^Q]aU^Q_ M XMc _OT[[X `[ \^[bUPQ _aOT _`aPQZ`_# RMOaX`e MZP _`MRR cU`T ^QM_[ZMNXQ MOO[YY[PM`U[Z_ O[Z_U_`QZ` cU`T M\\XUOMNXQ XMc% !N" 4 XMc _OT[[X _TMXX MP[\`# \aNXU_T# MZP MPTQ^Q `[ c^U``QZ \[XUOUQ_ MZP \^[OQPa^Q_ R[^ M__Q__UZS MZP TMZPXUZS ^Q]aQ_`_ R[^ ^QM_[ZMNXQ MOO[YY[PM`U[Z_ YMPQ Ne ]aMXURUQP UZPUbUPaMX_ cU`T PU_MNUXU`UQ_% ,04.323.4-4/10 $")!# 4\\XUOMZ`_ MZP _`aPQZ`_ _TMXX NQ UZPUbUPaMXXe QbMXaM`QP `[ PQ`Q^YUZQ cTQ`TQ^ `TQe YQQ` `TQ MOMPQYUO _`MZPM^P_ ^Q]aU_U`Q `[ MPYU__U[Z MZP \M^`UOU\M`U[Z UZ `TQ XMc _OT[[X \^[S^MY& FTQ a_Q [R `TQ `Q^Y h]aMXURUQPi UZ `TQ E`MZPM^P ^Q]aU^Q_ M OM^QRaX MZP `T[^[aST O[Z_UPQ^M`U[Z [R QMOT M\\XUOMZ` MZP QMOT _`aPQZ`g_ ]aMXURUOM`U[Z_ UZ XUST` [R ^QM_[ZMNXQ MOO[YY[PM`U[Z_& DQM_[ZMNXQ MOO[YY[PM`U[Z_ M^Q `T[_Q `TM` M^Q O[Z_U_`QZ` cU`T `TQ RaZPMYQZ`MX ZM`a^Q [R `TQ _OT[[Xg_ \^[S^MY [R XQSMX QPaOM`U[Z$ `TM` OMZ NQ \^[bUPQP cU`T[a` aZPaQ RUZMZOUMX [^ MPYUZU_`^M`UbQ Na^PQZ$ MZP `TM` OMZ NQ \^[bUPQP cTUXQ YMUZ`MUZUZS MOMPQYUO MZP [`TQ^ Q__QZ`UMX \Q^R[^YMZOQ _`MZPM^P_& Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-4 Filed 03/20/17 Page 7 of 14 7 87 JeR_URcUd R_U If ]Vd `WGc̀ TVUf cV Ẁ c7 aac̀ gR]`WCRh JTY``]d -+ ,1(-+ ,2 -/ ,0 4.323.4- 4/10 %#'!# 8dMY\XQ_ [R YQ`T[P_ `TM` YMe NQ a_QP `[ YQM_a^Q `TQ PQS^QQ `[ cTUOT _`aPQZ`_ TMbQ M``MUZQP O[Y\Q`QZOe UZ `TQ _OT[[Xg_ _`aPQZ` XQM^ZUZS [a`O[YQ_ UZOXaPQ ^QbUQc [R `TQ ^QO[^P_ `TQ XMc _OT[[X YMUZ`MUZ_ `[ YQM_a^Q UZPUbUPaMX _`aPQZ` MOTUQbQYQZ` \a^_aMZ` `[ E`MZPM^P +),3 QbMXaM`U[Z [R _`aPQZ` XQM^ZUZS \[^`R[XU[_3 _`aPQZ` QbMXaM`U[Z [R `TQ _aRRUOUQZOe [R `TQU^ QPaOM`U[Z3 _`aPQZ` \Q^R[^YMZOQ UZ OM\_`[ZQ O[a^_Q_ [^ [`TQ^ O[a^_Q_ `TM` M\\^[\^UM`QXe M__Q__ M bM^UQ`e [R _WUXX_ MZP WZ[cXQPSQ3 NM^ QdMY \M__MSQ ^M`Q_3 \XMOQYQZ` ^M`Q_3 _a^bQe_ [R M``[^ZQe_$ VaPSQ_$ MZP MXaYZU3 MZP M__Q__YQZ` [R _`aPQZ` \Q^R[^YMZOQ Ne VaPSQ_$ M``[^ZQe_$ [^ XMc \^[RQ__[^_ R^[Y [`TQ^ _OT[[X_& FTQ YQ`T[P_ a_QP `[ YQM_a^Q `TQ PQS^QQ [R _`aPQZ` MOTUQbQYQZ` [R XQM^ZUZS [a`O[YQ_ M^Q XUWQXe `[ PURRQ^ R^[Y _OT[[X `[ _OT[[X MZP XMc _OT[[X_ M^Q Z[` ^Q]aU^QP Ne `TU_ _`MZPM^P `[ a_Q MZe \M^`UOaXM^ YQ`T[P_& C\KVNKZN (&+$ 10B @0CC064 !M" 4 XMc _OT[[Xg_ NM̂ \ M__MS Q ^M̀Q _TMXXNQ _aRRUOUQZ #̀ R[^ \ a \̂ [_Q_ [R G̀ MZPM̂ P *' (!M"# UR T̀Q _OT[[X PQY [Z_̀ M̂̀Q_ T̀M̀ U Ỳ QQ̀ _MZe [ZQ[R T̀Q R[XX[c UZS Q̀_̀ _1 !(" HTM̀ R[^_̀ aPQZ _̀c T[ S M̂PaM̀QP R̂ [Y T̀QXMc _OT[[Xc U T̀UZ T̀QRUbQY [_̀ Q̂OQZ X̀e O[Y \ XQ̀ QP OMXQZPM̂ eQM̂ _1 ., \ Q̂ OQZ [̀^Y [ Q̂[R T̀Q_QS M̂PaM̀Q_c T[ _M̀ R[^ T̀QNM̂ \ M__QP MNM̂ Qd MY UZM̀U[Z2 [^ UZ M̀ XQM_̀ T̀ Q̂Q[R T̀Q_QOMXQZPM̂ eQM̂ _# ., \ Q̂ OQZ [̀R T̀Q _̀ aPQZ _̀ S ^MPaM̀ UZS UZ T̀[_Q eQM̂ _MZP _U`̀UZS R[^ T̀QNM̂ TMbQ\ M__QP MNM̂ Qd MY UZM̀ U[Z% =Z PQY [Z_̀ ^M̀UZS O[Y \ XUMZOQ aZP Q̂ _QÒ U[Z_ !("!U" MZP !UU"# T̀Q _OT[[XY a_̀ Q̂\ [^̀ NM̂ \ M__MS Q Q̂_aX̀_ R̂ [Y M_Y MZe Va Û_PUÒ U[Z_M_ZQOQ__M̂ e [̀ MOO[aZ R̀[^M̀ XQM_̀ .' \ Q̂ OQZ [̀R U _̀ S ^MPaM̀Q_ QMOT eQM̂ # _̀ M̂ ÙZS c U T̀ T̀Q Va Û_PUÒ U[Z UZ c TUOT T̀Q TUS TQ_̀ ZaY NQ̂ [R S M̂PaM̀Q_ [̀[W T̀Q NM̂ Qd MY MZP \ [̂OQQP UZS UZ PQ_OQZPUZS [ P̂ Q̂ [R R̂ Q] aQZOe% !)" HTM̀ UZ T̀ Q̂Q [^ Y [ Q̂ [R T̀Q RUbQ Y [_̀ Q̂OQZ X̀e O[Y \ XQ̀ QP OMXQZPM̂ eQM̂ _# T̀Q _OT[[Xg_ MZZaMXRU _̂̀ $ ÙY QNM̂ \ M__MS Q^M̀QUZ T̀QVa Û_PUÒ U[Z_ Q̂\ [^̀ QP Ne T̀Q_OT[[XU_Z[ Y [ Q̂ T̀MZ (, \ [UZ _̀NQX[c T̀QMbQ̂ MS QRU _̂̀ $ ÙY QNM̂ \ M__MS Q M̂̀Q_R[^S ^MPaM̀Q_[R4 54 $M\ \ [̂bQP XMc _OT[[X_ M̀WUZS T̀QNM̂ Qd MY UZM̀ U[Z UZ T̀Q_Q_MY QVa Û_P UÒ U[Z_% =Z PQY [Z_̀ ^M̀UZS O[Y \ XUMZOQ aZP Q̂ _QÒ U[Z !)"# T̀Q _OT[[XY a_̀ Q̂\ [^̀ RU _̂̀ $ ÙY Q NM̂ \ M__MS Q PM̀MR̂ [Y M_ Y MZe Va Û_P UÒ U[Z_ M_ ZQOQ__M̂ e [̀ MOO[aZ R̀[^ M̀ XQM_̀ .' \ Q̂ OQZ [̀R U _̀ S ^MPaM̀Q_ QMOT eQM̂ # _̀ M̂ ÙZS c U T̀ T̀Q Va Û_P UÒ U[Z UZ c TUOT T̀Q TUS TQ_̀ ZaY NQ̂ [R S M̂PaM̀Q_ [̀[W T̀Q NM̂ Qd MY MZP \ [̂OQQPUZS UZ PQ_OQZP UZS [ P̂ Q̂ [R R̂ Q] aQZOe% K TQZ Y [ Q̂ T̀MZ [ZQ Va Û_P UÒ U[Z U_ Q̂\ [^̀ QP # T̀Q c QUS T Q̀P MbQ̂ MS Q [R T̀Q Q̂_aX̀_ UZ QMOT [R T̀Q Q̂\ [^̀ QP Va Û_P UÒ U[Z_ _TMXXNQ a_QP [̀ P Q̀ Q̂ Y UZQO[Y \ XUMZOQ% !N" 4 _OT[[X_TMXXNQ[a [̀RO[Y \ XUMZOQc U T̀ T̀U_ G̀ MZPM̂ P UR U Ù_aZMNXQ [̀ PQY [Z_̀ M̂̀Q T̀M̀ U Ỳ QQ̀ _ T̀Q Q̂] aU Q̂Y QZ _̀ [R \ M̂ MS M̂\ T !M"!(" [^!)"% !O" 4 _OT[[XR[aZP [a [̀R O[Y \ XUMZOQ aZP Q̂ \ M̂ MS M̂\ T !N" MZP T̀M̀ TM_ Z[ ǸQQZ MNXQ [̀ O[Y Q UZ [̀ O[Y \ XUMZOQ c U T̀UZ T̀Q c̀ [$eQM̂ \ Q̂ U[P _\ QOURUQP UZ FaXQ (+!N" [R T̀Q FaXQ_ [R D̂ [OQPa Q̂ R[^ 4 \ \ [̂bMX[R @Mc GOT[[X_# Y Me _QQW [̀ PQY [Z_̀ M̂̀Q S [[P OMa_Q R[^Qd Q̀ZP UZS T̀Q \ Q̂ U[P T̀QXMc _OT[[XTM_ [̀ PQY [Z_̀ M̂̀QO[Y \ XUMZOQNe _aNY U`̀UZS QbUPQZOQ[R1 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-4 Filed 03/20/17 Page 8 of 14 -0 7 87 JeR_URcUd R_U If ]Vd `WGc̀ TVUf cV Ẁ c7 aac̀ gR]`WCRh JTY``]d -+ ,1(-+ ,2 !(" HTQXMc _OT[[Xg_`̂QZP UZ NM̂ \ M__MS Q M̂̀Q_R[^N[ T̀ RU _̂̀ $ ÙY QMZP _aN_Q] aQZ`̀ MWQ̂ _1 M OXQM̂ `̂QZP [R UY \ [̂bQY QZ c̀ UXXNQ O[Z_UP Q̂ QP UZ T̀Q _OT[[Xg_ RMb[ #̂ MPQOXUZUZS [^ RXM̀ `̂QZP MS MUZ_̀ U %̀ !)" HTQ XQZS T̀ [R ÙY Q T̀Q XMc _OT[[Xg_ NM̂ \ M__MS Q ^M̀Q_ TMbQ NQQZ NQX[c T̀Q RU _̂̀ $ ÙY Q MZP aX̀ UY M̀Q^M̀Q_Q_̀ MNXU_TQP UZ \ M̂ MS M̂\ T 4 1M_T[^̀ Q̂ ÙY Q\ Q̂ U[P c UXXNQO[Z_UP Q̂ QP UZ T̀Q_OT[[Xg_RMb[ #̂ MX[ZS Q̂ \ Q̂ U[P MS MUZ_̀ U %̀ !*" 4 Ò U[Z_Ne T̀QXMc _OT[[X [̀ MPP Q̂__NM̂ \ M__MS Q# \ M̂ ÙOaXM̂ Xe T̀QXMc _OT[[Xg_MOMPQY UO ÛS [^ MZP T̀Q PQY [Z_̀ M̂̀QP bMXaQ MZP QRRQÒ UbQZQ__ [R U _̀ MOMPQY UO _a\ \ [^̀ MZP NM̂ \ Q̂\ M̂ M̀ U[Z \ [̂S ^MY _1 bMXaQ$MPPQP# QRRQÒ UbQ# _a_̀ MUZQP MZP \ Q̂ bM_UbQ MÒ U[Z_ [̀ MPP Q̂__ NM̂ \ M__MS Q \ [̂NXQY _ c UXXNQ O[Z_UP Q̂ QP UZ T̀Q XMc _OT[[Xg_ RMb[ 2̂ UZQRRQÒ UbQ [^[ZXe Y M̂ S UZMXXe QRRQÒ UbQ\ [̂S M̂Y _[^XUY U Q̀P MÒ U[Z Ne T̀QXMc _OT[[XMS MUZ_̀ U %̀ !+" 8RR[^̀ _ Ne T̀Q XMc _OT[[X [̀ RMOUXU M̀̀Q NM̂ \ M__MS Q R[^ U _̀ S ^MPaM̀Q_ c T[ P UP Z[`\ M__ T̀Q NM̂ [Z \ Û[^ M̀ Q̀Y \ _̀1 QRRQÒ UbQ MZP _a_̀ MUZQP QRR[^̀ _ Ne T̀Q XMc _OT[[X c UXX NQ O[Z_UP Q̂ QP UZ T̀Q _OT[[Xg_ RMb[ 2̂ UZQRRQÒ UbQ [^ XUY U Q̀P QRR[^̀ _ Ne T̀Q XMc _OT[[X MS MUZ_̀ U %̀ !," 8RR[^̀ _Ne T̀QXMc _OT[[X [̀ \ [̂bUPQN [̂MP Q̂ MOOQ__ [̀ XQS MXQPaOM̀ U[Z c TUXQY MUZ M̀UZUZS MOMPQY UO ÛS [ 1̂ _a_̀ MUZQP Y QMZUZS RaXQRR[^̀ _ c UXXNQ bUQc QP UZ T̀Q XMc _OT[[Xg_ RMb[ 2̂ UZ Q̀̂ Y U`̀QZ [̀^XUY U Q̀P QRR[^̀ _Ne T̀QXMc _OT[[XMS MUZ_̀ U %̀ !-" HTQ PQY [Z_̀ M̂̀QP XUWQXUT[[P T̀M̀ T̀Q XMc _OT[[Xg_ _̀ aPQZ _̀ c T[ `̂MZ_RQ̂ [̀ [ T̀Q̂ 4 54 $M\ \ [̂bQP _OT[[X_ c UXX \ M__ T̀Q NM̂ Qd MY UZM̀ U[Z1 `̂MZ_RQ̂ _ Ne _̀ aPQZ _̀ c U T̀ M _̀ [̂ZS XUWQXUT[[P [R \ M__UZS T̀Q NM̂ c UXXNQ O[Z_UP Q̂ QP UZ T̀Q _OT[[Xg_ RMb[ #̂ \ [̂bUP UZS T̀Q XMc _OT[[X TM_ aZP Q̂ M̀WQZ O[aZ_QXUZS MZP [ T̀Q̂ M\ \ [̂\ ÛM̀Q QRR[^̀ _ [̀ Q̂̀ MUZ U _̀ c QXX$\ Q̂ R[ Ŷ UZS _̀ aPQZ _̀% !." HQY \ [ M̂̂ e OU ÔaY _̀ MZOQ_ NQe[ZP T̀Q O[Z`̂[X [R T̀Q XMc _OT[[X# Na`c TUOT T̀Q XMc _OT[[X U_ MPP Q̂__UZS 1 R[^ Qd MY \ XQ# M ZM̀a M̂X P U_M_̀ Q̂ T̀M̀ P U_̂ a\ _̀ [\ Q̂ M̀ U[Z_ [^ M _US ZURUOMZ ÙZÔ QM_QUZ T̀Q _̀ MZPM̂ P R[^\ M__UZS T̀Q Q̂XQbMZ ǸM̂ Qd MY UZM̀ U[Z!_"% !/" C T̀Q̂ RMÒ [ _̂# O[Z_U_̀ QZ`c U T̀ M XMc _OT[[Xg_ PQY [Z_̀ ^M̀QP MZP _a_̀ MUZQP Y U__U[Z# c TUOT T̀Q _OT[[XO[Z_UP Q̂ _ Q̂XQbMZ ÙZ Qd \ XMUZUZS U _̀ PQRUOUQZ`NM̂ \ M__MS Q Q̂_aX̀_ MZP UZ Qd \ XMUZUZS T̀Q_OT[[Xg_QRR[^̀ _ [̀ UY \ [̂bQ T̀QY % Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-4 Filed 03/20/17 Page 9 of 14 02 7 87 JeR_URcUd R_U If ]Vd `WGc̀ TVUf cV Ẁ c7 aac̀ gR]`WCRh JTY``]d -+ ,1(-+ ,2 FaXQ(*1 7Q̀ Q̂ Y UZM̀ U[Z_[R6[Y \ XUMZOQ 7 UVeVĉ Z_ReZ̀ _eYReeYV]Rh dTY``]Zd Z_T`^ a]ZR_TVh ZeY R]]`WeYVJeR_URcUd ^ VR_d eYReeYV]Rh dTY``] cV^ RZ_d R_Raac̀ gVU ]Rh dTY``]) @_WZ_UZ_X R ]Rh dTY``]Z_T`^ a]ZR_TV h ZeY R JeR_URcU'eYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV ^ Rj T`f a]V eYV WZ_UZ_X h ZeY R deReV^ V_e TR]]Z_X eYV ]Rh dTY``]qd ReeV_eZ̀ _ è eYV cVbf ZcV^ V_ed `W eYRe JeR_URcU h YV_ eYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV YRd cVRd`_è SV]ZVgV eYRe eYV ]Rh dTY``]^ ZX Ye'Re d`^ V eẐ V SVẀ cV eYV _Vie dTYVUf ]VU dZeV VgR]f ReZ̀ _'_̀ ]̀ _X VcSV Z_T`^ a]ZR_TV h ZeY eYV JeR_URcU Z_bf VdeZ̀ _) KYV Raac̀ gR] deRef d `W R ]Rh dTY``]Zd _̀ e RWWVTeVU h YZ]V R_RaaVR]Wc̀ ^ '`c cVgZVh `W'R UVTZdZ̀ _ `c cVT`^ ^ V_UReZ̀ _`WeYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV `c9`f _TZ]Zd aV_UZ_X ) FaXQ(+1 4 Ò U[Z_[Z 7Q̀ Q̂ Y UZM̀ U[Z_[RB[ZO[Y \ XUMZOQc U T̀ MG̀ MZPM̂ P =`]]̀ h Z_X R UVeVĉ Z_ReZ̀ _ Sj eYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV `W _̀ _(T`^ a]ZR_TV h ZeY R JeR_URcU Z_ RTT`cU h ZeY If ]V,-$R%$/%'eYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV dYR]]5 $,% IVbf ZcV eYV ]Rh dTY``]è ScZ_X ZedV]W Z_è T`^ a]ZR_TV R_U df S^ Ze Z_Ẁ ĉ ReZ̀ _Sj R daVTZWZT UReV è UV^ `_decReV eYReZeYRd T`^ V Z_è T`^ a]ZR_TV h ZeY eYV JeR_URcU6 R_U $-% ; ZcVTe eYRe cVacVdV_eReZgVd `W eYV ]Rh dTY``]'Z_T]f UZ_X R_j aVcd`_daVTZWZTR]]j UVdZX _ReVU Sj eYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV'RaaVRcRe R YVRcZ_X è UVeVĉ Z_V h YVeYVc è Ẑ a`dV dR_TeZ̀ _d Z_T`__VTeZ̀ _h ZeY eYV ]Rh dTY``]qd _̀ _(T`^ a]ZR_TV h ZeY eYV JeR_URcU) KYV aVcZ̀ U `W eẐ V Sj h YZTY R ]Rh dTY``]Zd cVbf ZcVU è UV^ `_decReV T`^ a]ZR_TV h ZeY R JeR_URcU dYR]] _̀ e ViTVVU eh ` jVRcd Wc̀ ^ eYV UReV `W UVeVĉ Z_ReZ̀ _ `W _̀ _T`^ a]ZR_TV' ViTVae Rd ac̀ gZUVU Ẁ c Z_df SdVTeZ̀ _$T%) La`_ cVbf Vde `W eYV ]Rh dTY``] R_U Ẁ c X ``U TRf dV dY`h _' eYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV ^ Rj VieV_U eYV UReV `W T`^ a]ZR_TV `c^ Rj cVT`^ ^ V_U eYReeYV 9`f _TZ]VieV_U eYV UReV `WT`^ a]ZR_TV) FaXQ(,1 FQO[Z_UP Q̂ M̀ U[Z2 FUS T`̀ [ 4 \ \ QMX 7 ]Rh dTY``] U`Vd _̀ e YRgV eYV cZX Ye è cVbf Vde cVT`_dZUVcReZ̀ _`W R UVTZdZ̀ _`c cVT`^ ^ V_UReZ̀ _ ^ RUV Sj eYV 7 TTcVUZeReZ̀ _ 9`^ ^ ZeeVV `c è cVbf Vde cVT`_dZUVcReZ̀ _ `W R UVTZdZ̀ _ ^ RUV Sj eYV 9`f _TZ]) 7 ]Rh dTY``]YRd R cZX Ye è RaaVR]R UVTZdZ̀ _`WeYV 7 TTcVUZeReZ̀ _9`^ ^ ZeeVV Rd ac̀ gZUVU Z_If ]V -.) 7 ]Rh dTY``]YRd R cZX Ye è RaaVR]R UVTZdZ̀ _`WeYV 9`f _TZ]Rd ac̀ gZUVU Z_If ]V .1) Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-4 Filed 03/20/17 Page 10 of 14 04 7 87 JeR_URcUd R_U If ]Vd `WGc̀ TVUf cV Ẁ c7 aac̀ gR]`WCRh JTY``]d -+ ,1(-+ ,2 R aReeVc_`W ^ ZdT`_Uf Te6 SRU WRZeY `Sdecf TeZ̀ _ `W R_ Z_gVdeZX ReZ̀ _ `c dR_TeZ̀ _ ac̀ TVVUZ_X Sj WRZ]Z_X è T`^ a]j h ZeY cVbf Vded `W eYV D R_RX Z_X ; ZcVTè cqd FWWZTV' R =RTe =Z_UVc' `c cf ]Vd `W R dR_TeZ̀ _ ac̀ TVVUZ_X 6 df S^ ZddZ̀ _ `W WR]dV `c ^ Zd]VRUZ_X VgZUV_TV' WR]dV `c ^ Zd]VRUZ_X deReV^ V_ed' `c `eYVc UVTVaeZgV acRTeZTVd Uf cZ_X eYV Z_gVdeZX ReZ̀ _ac̀ TVdd `cdR_TeZ̀ _ac̀ TVVUZ_X 6 cVWf dR]è RT\ _̀ h ]VUX V h c̀ _X Wf ]_Ref cV `WT`_Uf Te6 Z_[f cj è Ẁ ĉ Vc'Tf ccV_e'`cac̀ daVTeZgV ]Rh def UV_ed6 RaaRcV_eR^ `f _e`W ^ `_VeRcj'decReVX ZT'`ccVaf eReZ̀ _R]X RZ_6 WRZ]f cV è YRgV df WWZTZV_e djdeV^ d Z_a]RTV è V_df cV T`^ a]ZR_TV'Z_T]f UZ_X eYV ]Rh dTY``] UVR_qd ]RT\ `W`gVcdZX Ye6 Z_deZef eZ̀ _R]Z_TV_eZgV decf Tef cVd eYRe ^ Rj T`_ecZSf eV è _̀ _T`^ a]ZR_TV6 R_U WRZ]f cV è V_bf ZcV `cZ_gVdeZX ReV h YV_TZcTf ^ deR_TVd h RccR_eV_bf Zcj `cZ_gVdeZX ReZ̀ _) $-% D ZeZX ReZ_X TZcTf ^ deR_TVd RcVR_j T`_dZUVcReZ̀ _d `cWRTè cd eYRe^ Rj [f deZWj h ZeYY`]UZ_X `ccVUf TZ_X R dR_TeZ̀ _R_U Z_T]f UV'h ZeY`f e]Ẑ ZeReZ̀ _5 RSdV_TV `WR acZ̀ cYZdè cj `WgZ̀ ]ReZ̀ _d6 UVX cVV `W_VX ]ZX V_TV'cVT\ ]Vdd_Vdd'`c\ _̀ h ]VUX V6 RaaRcV_e]RT\ `W ^ `_VeRcj'decReVX ZT'`ccVaf eReZ̀ _R]X RZ_6 dV]W(cVa`ceZ_X `WgZ̀ ]ReZ̀ _6 eẐ V]j X ``U WRZeY VWẀ ce è cVTeZWj T`_dVbf V_TVd `WgZ̀ ]ReZ̀ _6 Wf ]]R_U WcVV UZdT]̀ df cV è R_U T``aVcReZ̀ _h ZeY D R_RX Z_X ; ZcVTè cqd FWWZTV'T``aVcReZ̀ _ h ZeY WRTeWZ_UVc'`cT``aVcReZgV ReeZef UV è h RcU dR_TeZ̀ _ac̀ TVVUZ_X d6 R_U Ẑ a`dZeZ̀ _`W`eYVcdR_TeZ̀ _d) FaXQ(.1 GMZÒ U[Z_R[^9MUXa Q̂ [̀ 6a Q̂B[ZO[Y \ XUMZOQc U T̀ MG̀ MZPM̂ P @W'Ẁ ]]̀ h Z_X R UVeVĉ Z_ReZ̀ _Sj eYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV eYRe R ]Rh dTY``]Zd _̀ e Z_T`^ a]ZR_TV h ZeY R JeR_URcU'eYV ]Rh dTY``]WRZ]d è ScZ_X ZedV]W Z_è T`^ a]ZR_TV h ZeYZ_eYV eẐ V daVTZWZVU Sj eYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV'Z_T]f UZ_X R_j VieV_dZ̀ _Ẁ cX ``U TRf dV'`cWRZ]d è T`^ a]VeV cV^ VUZR]RTeZ̀ _UZcVTeVU f _UVc-,$T% `cWRZ]d è T`^ a]j h ZeY dR_TeZ̀ _d Ẑ a`dVU Sj eYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV `c9`f _TZ]f _UVc,1$S%'eYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV dYR]]Ẑ a`dV `ccVT`^ ^ V_U eYReeYV9`f _TZ]Ẑ a`dVWf ceYVccV^ VUZR]RTeZ̀ _`cdR_TeZ̀ _d Rd ac̀ gZUVU Ẁ cZ_,1$T% R_U ,1$U% `ccVT`^ ^ V_U eYReeYV 9`f _TZ]VieV_U eYV aVcZ̀ U Ẁ ceYV ]Rh dTY``]è ScZ_X ZedV]WZ_è T`^ a]ZR_TV) FaXQ(/1 A [ZU [̀ ÛZS MZP 8ZR[ ÔUZS 6[Y \ XUMZOQc U T̀ GMZÒ U[Z_ KYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV dYR]]^ `_Zè ceYV ]Rh dTY``]qd T`^ a]ZR_TV h ZeY R_j cVbf ZcV^ V_ed Ẁ ccV^ VUZR]RTeZ̀ _' R_j dR_TeZ̀ _d' `c R_j cVbf ZcV^ V_ed `W ac̀ SReZ̀ _ Ẑ a`dVU f _UVc eYVdV If ]Vd) @W eYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV T`_T]f UVd eYRe eYV ]Rh dTY``]Zd _̀ e T`^ a]jZ_X h ZeY eYV dR_TeZ̀ _d eYRe YRgV SVV_Ẑ a`dVU'`c _̀ e ^ R\ Z_X RUVbf ReV ac̀ X cVdd è h RcU ScZ_X Z_X ZedV]W Z_è T`^ a]ZR_TV h ZeY eYV JeR_URcUd'`c_̀ e Wf ]WZ]]Z_X eYV cVbf ZcV^ V_ed `W Zed ac̀ SReZ̀ _'eYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV ^ Rj Ẑ a`dV `ccVT`^ ^ V_U eYRe eYV 9`f _TZ]Ẑ a`dV RUUZeZ̀ _R] dR_TeZ̀ _d cVWVccVU è Z_ ,1$S%) KYV 9`^ ^ ZeeVV ^ Rj ZedV]W Ẑ a`dV R_j dR_TeZ̀ _ f _UVc ,1$S%'ViTVae Ẁ cdR_TeZ̀ _d f _UVc$2% `c$3%) Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-4 Filed 03/20/17 Page 11 of 14 787 JeR_URcUd R_U If]Vd `W Gc`TVUfcV W`c 7aac`gR] `W CRh JTY``]d -+,1(-+,2 1+ @W R ]Rh dTY``] YRd SVV_ a]RTVU `_ ac`SReZ`_' eYV ]Rh dTY``] dYR]] UV^`_decReV T`^a]ZR_TV hZeY eYV JeR_URcUd Sj eYV V_U `W eYV aVcZ`U WZiVU W`c ac`SReZ`_) @W eYV ]Rh dTY``] WRZ]d e` UV^`_decReV T`^a]ZR_TV' eYV_ eYV 9`^^ZeeVV dYR]]5 $,% IVT`^^V_U eYRe eYV 9`f_TZ] hZeYUcRh Raac`gR]6 `c $-% IVT`^^V_U eYRe' W`c X``U TRfdV dY`h_' eYV 9`f_TZ] VieV_U eYV aVcZ`U W`c eYV ]Rh dTY``] e` ScZ_X ZedV]W Z_e` T`^a]ZR_TV) @W R ]Rh dTY``] YRd SVV_ a]RTVU `_ ac`SReZ`_' R_U eYV ]Rh dTY``] UV^`_decReVd T`^a]ZR_TV hZeY eYV JeR_URcUd Sj eYV V_U `W eYV aVcZ`U WZiVU W`c ac`SReZ`_' eYV_ eYV 9`^^ZeeVV dYR]] cVT`^^V_U e` eYV 9`f_TZ] eYRe ac`SReZ`_Rcj deRefd SV cV^`gVU) FaXQ (01 4OO^QPU`M`U[Z 6[YYU``QQ 6[Z_UPQ^M`U[Z KYV 7TTcVUZeReZ`_ 9`^^ZeeVV dYR]] T`_dZUVc eYV deRefd `W R ]Rh dTY``] f_UVc GRce @@@ `c R_ Raa]ZTReZ`_ Wc`^ R ]Rh dTY``] f_UVc GRce M@@ SRdVU `_ R cVT`cU T`_dZdeZ_X `W eYV W`]]`hZ_X' Rd Raac`acZReV5 $,% 7_j WRTe WZ_UVcqd cVa`ce cV]ReZ_X e` eYV dfS[VTe ^ReeVc f_UVc T`_dZUVcReZ`_ R_U R_j cVda`_dV Wc`^ eYV ]Rh dTY``]6 $-% KYV ^`de cVTV_e dZeV VgR]fReZ`_ cVa`ce R_U R_j cVda`_dV Wc`^ eYV ]Rh dTY``]6 $.% KYV ^`de cVTV_e dZeV VgR]fReZ`_ bfVdeZ`__RZcV6 $/% KYV ^`de cVTV_e R__fR] bfVdeZ`__RZcV6 $0% 7_j ]VeeVcd cVa`ceZ_X 9`^^ZeeVV `c 9`f_TZ] UVTZdZ`_d hcZeeV_ dfSdVbfV_e e` eYV ^`de cVTV_e dZeV VgR]fReZ`_ cVa`ce' R_U R_j cVda`_dVd `W eYV ]Rh dTY``]6 $1% KYV Raa]ZTReZ`_ W`c ac`gZdZ`_R] `c Wf]] Raac`gR]6 $2% KYV Raa]ZTReZ`_ W`c RTbfZVdTV_TV Z_ R ^R[`c TYR_XV6 $3% KYV Raa]ZTReZ`_ W`c R gRcZR_TV `W R deR_URcU6 R_U $4% 7_j `eYVc Z_W`c^ReZ`_ eYRe eYV DR_RXZ_X ;ZcVTe`c R_U eYV 9YRZc UVeVc^Z_V cV]VgR_e e` eYV ^ReeVc f_UVc T`_dZUVcReZ`_) KYV 9`^^ZeeVV dYR]] ^R\V WZ_UZ_Xd `W WRTe R_U deReV T`_T]fdZ`_d hZeY cVdaVTe e` eYV ^ReeVc f_UVc T`_dZUVcReZ`_) @W eYV ^ReeVc WR]]d hZeYZ_ eYV ac`gZdZ`_d `W If]V .$R%' eYV 9`^^ZeeVV dYR]] ^R\V cVT`^^V_UReZ`_d e` eYV 9`f_TZ]) FaXQ )'1 4``QZPMZOQ M` 4OO^QPU`M`U[Z 6[YYU``QQ AQQ`UZS_ MZP ABA Groups > Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar > Resources > ABA-Approved Law Schools > By Year Approved Official Guide Follow ABA ShareThis JOIN THE ABA SHOP ABA CALENDAR MEMBER DIRECTORY Membership ABA Groups Diversity Advocacy Resources for Lawyers Publishing CLE Insurance News About Us Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-5 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit 4 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-6 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 6 Accreditation Archives http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/accreditation/accreditation_archives.html[3/14/2017 5:40:07 PM] | myABA | Log In ABA GROUPS Accreditation Accreditation Archives DPCC Archives Appeals Panel Schedule of Law School Fees Schools Seeking ABA Approval Law School Site Visits Accreditation Archives December 2016 Council Grants Full Approval to University of Massachusetts School of Law-Dartmouth November 2016 Public Notice of Council Decision to Place Charlotte School of Law on Probation (November 15, 2016) Public Notice of Council Decision to Censure Valparaiso University School of Law (November 15,2016) Statement on Accreditation Actions Regarding the University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law August 2016 Public Notice of Council Decision to Direct Ave Maria School of Law to Take Specific Remedial Action June 2016 Council Grants Full Approval to Belmont University College of Law Council Acquiesces in Application of Willamette University College of Law to Operate a Separate Location in Portland, Oregon March 2016 Summary of Council Actions Regarding the Standards at March 2016 Meeting Council Grants Full ABA Approval to University of La Verne College of Law Council Grants Provisional ABA Approval to Indiana Tech Law School Council Acquiesces in Application of Albany Law School to Affiliate with University at Albany-SUNY December 2015 The Council acquiesced in the application of Hamline University School of Law and William Mitchell College of Law to combine the two schools into Mitchell | Hamline School of Law. The Council acquiesced in the application of the University of New Hampshire School of Law to establish a part-time Patent Track Program. The Council acquiesced in the application of Western State Coillege of Law at Argosy University for a change in the location of its campus from Fullerton, California, to Irvine, California. August 2015 Public Notice of Council Decision to Deny Provisional Approval to Indiana Tech Law School Council acquiesces in application of Rutgers University School of Law-Camden and Rutgers University School of Law-Newark to 2012 Task Force on the Accreditation of Foreign Law Schools Task Force Report Executive Summary and Reports Supplemental Report 1: June 2010 Report on the Special Committee on Foreign Law Schools Supplemental Report 2: 2010 Report by Chair Christine Durham to the Council CCJ Resolution 2007 Accreditation Policy Task Force Accreditation Policy Task Force Report (May 2007) 2007 Accreditation Task Force Charge Open Forum Transcript (January 2007) Open Forum Transcript (February 2007)Comments 2003 Task Force on Foreign Programs Final Report Semester Abroad Criteria Foreign Summer Program Criteria Student Study at a Foreign Institution Criteria 2002 Task Force on Accreditation Processes Cover Memo Final Report 1995 Wahl Commission (Commission to Review the Substance & Process of the ABA's Accreditation of American Law Schools) Final Report Supplementary Report ABA Task Force on the Financing of Legal Education Issues Its Final Report (2015) 20 Years After the MacCrate Report: 2013 Report of the Special Committee on the Professional Educational Continuum 2010 Report of the Special Committee on Foreign Law Schools Seeking Approval Under ABA Standards (Kane Report) 2009 Report of the Special Committee on International Issues 2008 Reports of the Special Committees on Outcome Measures, Security of Position and Transparency 0 Home > ABA Groups > Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar > Accreditation > Accreditation Archives Accreditation Decisions Task Force Reports Special Committee Reports Follow ABA JOIN THE ABA SHOP ABA CALENDAR MEMBER DIRECTORY Membership ABA Groups Diversity Advocacy Resources for Lawyers Publishing CLE Insurance News About Us Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-6 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 6 Accreditation Archives http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/accreditation/accreditation_archives.html[3/14/2017 5:40:07 PM] merge into one fully approved law school: Rutgers University School of Law June 2015 Concordia University School of Law Granted Provisional Approval University of Oregon School of Law granted acquiescence in establishment of a separate location in Portland, Oregon Council Denies Application of Indiana Tech Law School for ABA Approval March 2015 Council Acquiesces in Widener University School of Law's Application to Separate Campuses into Two Separate ABA- Approved Law Schools Council acquiesces in application of Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center to realign with Louisiana State University December 2014 Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law Granted Provisional Approval August 2014 Council granted provisional approval to the Tampa Bay branch campus of the fully approved Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School June 2014 Penn State University Receives Approval to Operate Two Independent and Fully Approved Law Schools University of California-Irvine, School of Law Granted Full Approval Council approved Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School Teach-out Plan for its Ann Arbor campus. Council granted acquiescence in application of Seattle University School of Law to establish a separate location in Anchorage, Alaska. Council recognized Savannah Law School as an approved branch campus of the fully approved Atlanta's John Marshall Law School. December 2013 University of Kansas School of Law Public Censure ABA News Release Regarding University of Kansas Public Censure _____________________________ Rutgers University-Camden School of Law Public Censure ABA News Release Regarding Rutgers-Camden Public Censure Council granted acquiescence in application of the University of New Hampshire School of Law to be integrated into the university. Council approved application of William Mitchell College of Law to offer a part-time hybrid J.D. option. August 2013 Council Acquiesces in Texas Wesleyan School of Law/Texas A&M University Merger June 2013 Belmont University College of Law Granted Provisional Approval October 2012 Statement Regarding Dismissal of LMU Appeal and Lawsuit July 2012 Law School Consumer Data Available in New Easy-to-Use Format (February 2015) Compliance with Revised Standard 509 (August 2013) ABA Releases Class of 2012 Law Graduate Data March 2012 Statement on Collection of Employment Class of 2012 Law Graduate Employment Data Updated Announcement Regarding Collection of Employment Data (March 2012) Council Approves Changes in Collection & Publication of Law Graduate Employment Data (December 2011) Data Collection Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-6 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 6 Accreditation Archives http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/accreditation/accreditation_archives.html[3/14/2017 5:40:07 PM] Council Affirms Its Decision to Deny Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law Provisional Approval Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law has appealed the Council's denial of its application for provisional approval on remand from the Appeals Panel. The Council's decision on remand is stayed pending the Appeals Panel's decision on the second appeal under Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. June 2012 University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth School of Law Granted Provisional Approval Thomas M. Cooley Law School's Ann Arbor Branch Campus Granted Full Approval University of Illinois College of Law Public Censure March 2012 University of La Verne College of Law Granted Provisional Approval December 2011 Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law Denial of Provisional Approval Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law has appealed the Council's denial of its application for provisional approval. The Council's decision is stayed pending the decision of the Appeals Panel under Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. August 2011 Villanova University School of Law Public Censure Charleston School of Law Granted Full Approval Drexel University Earle Mack School of Law Granted Full Approval June 2011 University of LaVerne College of Law Denied Full Approval Final Council Decision Regarding the University of La Verne College of Law The University of La Verne College of Law Response Regarding Submission of Comments Charlotte School of Law Granted Full Approval Elon University School of Law Granted Full Approval University of California-Irvine, School of Law Granted Provisional Approval March 2011 Changes Approved for Statement of Ethical Practices in the Process of Law School Accreditation Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-6 Filed 03/20/17 Page 4 of 6 Accreditation Archives http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/accreditation/accreditation_archives.html[3/14/2017 5:40:07 PM] 2016 Summary of September 2016 Standards Review Committee Actions ___________________________________ 2016-2017 Review of ABA Standards, Interpretations, and Rules of Procedure ________________________ Adoption and Implementation of Revised Standards and Criteria Related to Foreign Study 2015 Adoption & Implementation of Revised Standards and Rules 2014 Revised Standards and Rules Concurred in by ABA House of Delegates ___________________________________ Implementation of New Standards and Rules for Approval of Law Schools ________________________________ Revised Memo on Compliance with Standard 509: July 2014 _________________________________ 2013 Compliance with Revised Standard 509 2012 Standard 509 (Consumer Information), Rule 16 (Sanctions) and Foreign Program Criteria (August 2012) Information on New Standard 509 2011 Standards 105, 306, 512 and Rules 20, 24 (August 2011) Standard 509, Rules 10, 22, 24 (February 2011) 2010 Revisions to Criteria for Approval of Study Abroad Programs Approved (August 2010) Council Adopts Resolution on Tracking Bar Exam Passage (December 2013) 2011 Resolution on Interference with Clinics 2010 Resolution on the Accreditation of Foreign Law Schools Standards and Rules Resolutions FOR THE PUBLIC ABA-Approved Law Schools RESOURCES FOR ABA Annual Meeting Military Lawyers STAY CONNECTED Twitter Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-6 Filed 03/20/17 Page 5 of 6 Accreditation Archives http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/accreditation/accreditation_archives.html[3/14/2017 5:40:07 PM] Law School Accreditation Public Education Public Resources ABA Leverage Bar Associations Government and Public Sector Lawyers Judges Law Students Non-US Lawyers Public Interest Lawyers Senior Lawyers Solo and Small Firms Tribal Law Resource Young Lawyers Facebook LinkedIn ABA Career Center Contact Us Online Advertising & Sponsorship © 2017 ABA, All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Privacy Policy | Your California Privacy Rights | Copyright & IP Policy | Web Staff Portal | Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-6 Filed 03/20/17 Page 6 of 6 Exhibit 5 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-7 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 4 1 U.S. Department of Education 1 Office of Postsecondary Education 2 3 NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON 4 INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY AND INTEGRITY 5 (NACIQI) 6 June 22, 2016 7 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. 8 9 Double Tree by Hilton Hotel 10 Washington Ballroom 11 Washington, DC - Crystal City 12 300 Army Navy Drive 13 Arlington, VA 22202 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-7 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 4 182 So it’s a combination -- there’s a group called the National Conference of 1 Bar Examiners which is the national group that works with bar examining offices and 2 they are doing a lot of good work and one of the things they are willing to do is be the 3 collector of all of that information if the states would provide it to them the bar 4 examining offices are very thinly staffed and have tight budgets and the notion that they 5 would send out letters to you know 60 or 70 different law schools you know twice a year 6 with name and bar pass/fail information is just a task that for the most part they have 7 been unwilling to assume. 8 But we do have a national organization that is developing a national bar 9 exam number so that a student who takes first in California and then takes again in 10 Oregon could easily be tracked. So we are on our way to actually getting very good 11 comprehensive data but bar admission is a matter for each state to determine under the 12 authority and control of the state and so it requires the cooperation and buy-in of the 13 Supreme Court of the state and the bar admissions professionals in that state. 14 MS. DERLIN: Thank you I will pass this back to you Sue. 15 MS. PHILLIPS: Art? 16 MR. KEISER: A couple of questions. I would like to get back to the 17 student achievement issues and the issue of pass rates. How many institutions have you 18 denied accreditation to for low pass rates? 19 MS. BERCH: For low pass rates alone none. We have several things 20 going on the bar pass rate 316 is something that can trigger a further inquiry by us that 21 will get more monitoring. As Mr. Currier just noted the time of enforcement under our 22 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-7 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 4 183 existing rule stretches out for almost five years it’s why we are trying to do away with 1 our existing rule and update to a rule that would allow us to enforce more quickly. 2 Bar pass rate is an item that we will look at to help us determine under 501 3 and schools can be disciplined under Standard 501 if it is determine that they are not 4 admitting students that appear capable of not only going through the program of study but 5 passing the bar so it is something that we can consider there and we have. 6 MR. KEISER: Over the past five years how many institutions have you 7 withdrawn your accreditation from? 8 MR. CURRIER: Zero, zero. 9 MR. KEISER: Yet in Florida I read about institutions with very low pass 10 rates. Is it a kind of a that moveable standard that the pass rates I mean some of the rates 11 I saw in the 30 percentile now I don’t know if that is true or not I don’t believe the press 12 most of the time. But those seem to be published rates of a number of institutions with 13 fairly low pass rates. 14 MR. CURRIER: And I don’t want to seem defensive at all about this and 15 my wife always says watch your tongue so signal when I’m -- what you see in the press is 16 usually first time pass rates so what you don’t know is if the school has 30% or 50% or 17 70% first-time pass rate, you don’t really know a year later what that pass rate is so that’s 18 one point the reports are a first-time pass rate information because that is what the bar 19 examiners make public. 20 Secondly a lot of those reports relate to the mid-year exam, bar exam that 21 is given in February, the bar exam is given in February and July -- I would say 75 - 85% 22 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-7 Filed 03/20/17 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit 6 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-8 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 3 From: Barry Currier Date: Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 6:50 PM To: Jay Conison Cc: Chidi Ogene , "Adams, William" Subject: RE: ABA Letter to Charlotte Jay, This confirms receipt of your email. As we discussed, your note and my reply here stay any requirements for you to make the disclosures that the Decision Letter requires you to make within five business days of the date of the letter and means that we will not publish notice of the committee’s action on our website within that timeframe. Please address the appeal Greg Murphy, who will be chair by the time you file: Gregory Murphy, Esq. Council Chair c/o Managing Director’s Office ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar 321 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 You can send the appeal to me by attachment to an email, if you wish. There is no need to follow up with a hard copy. We will see you on Wednesday. Barry __________________ Barry A. Currier I Managing Director, Accreditation and Legal Education ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar 321 N. Clark St., 21st Floor I Chicago, IL 60654 312.988.6744 (office) I 310.400.2702 (mobile) barry.currier@americanbar.org From: Jay Conison Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 5:18 PM To: Currier, Barry Cc: Chidi Ogene; Adams, William Subject: ABA Letter to Charlotte Barry— Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-8 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 3 Thank you for taking time for a preliminary conversation today. As we discussed, Charlotte is very likely to appeal all or part of the Accreditation Committee decision. So would you please stay any action or requirements regarding public disclosure. We look forward to our discussion Wednesday. Regards, Jay Conison 201 S. College Street │ Charlotte, NC 28244 Telephone 704.808.8022 │ Mobile 704.575.1869 CSL-Disclaimer: This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential, privileged and/or proprietary information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please: (1) immediately notify me by reply e-mail; and (2) destroy the original (and any copies of) this transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-8 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit 7 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FEDERAL STUDENT AID SCHOOL ELIGIBILITY CHANNEL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Effective Date of Approval: The date on which this Agreement is signed on behalf of the Secretary of Education Approval Expiration Date: June 30, 2015 Reapplication Date: March 31, 2015 Name of Institution: Charlotte School of Law Address of Institution: 2145 Suttle Avenue Charlotte, NC 28208-2816 OPE ID Number: 04143500 DUNS Number: 175620124 Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN): 510601574 The execution of this Agreement by the Institution and the Secretary is a prerequisite to the Institution's initial or continued participation in any Title IV, HEA Program. The postsecondary educational institution listed above, referred to hereafter as the "Institution," and the United States Secretary of Education, referred to hereafter as the "Secretary," agree that the Institution may participate in those student financial assistance programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (Title IV, HEA Programs) indicated under this Agreement and further agrees that such participation is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, the term "Department" refers to the U.S. Department of Education. SCOPE OF COVERAGE This Agreement applies to all locations of the Institution as stated on the most current ELIGIBILITY AND CERTIFICATION APPROVAL REPORT issued by the Department. This Agreement covers the Institution's eligibility to participate in each of the following listed Title IV, HEA programs, and incorporates by reference the regulations cited. Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] FEDERAL FAMILY EDUCATION LOAN PROGRAM, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1071 et seq.; 34 C.F.R. Part 682. FEDERAL DIRECT STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1087a et seq.; 34 C.F.R. Part 685. FEDERAL PERKINS LOAN PROGRAM, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1087aa et seq.; 34 C.F.R. Part 674. FEDERAL WORK-STUDY PROGRAM, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2751 et seq.; 34 C.F.R. Part 675. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. The Institution understands and agrees that it is subject to and will comply with the program statutes and implementing regulations for institutional eligibility as set forth in 34 C.F.R. Part 600 and for each Title IV, HEA program in which it participates, as well as the general provisions set forth in Part F and Part G of Title IV of the HEA, and the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations set forth in 34 C.F.R. Part 668. The recitation of any portion of the statute or regulations in this Agreement does not limit the Institution's obligation to comply with other applicable statutes and regulations. 2. a. The Institution certifies that on the date it signs this Agreement, it has a drug abuse prevention program in operation that it has determined is accessible to any officer, employee, or student at the Institution. b. The Institution certifies that on the date it signs this Agreement, it is in compliance with the disclosure requirements of Section 485(f) of the HEA (Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics). 3. The Institution agrees to comply with -- a. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Parts 100 and 101 (barring discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin); b. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 106 (barring discrimination on the basis of sex); c. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99; d. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 104 (barring discrimination on the basis of physical handicap); and e. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 110. f. The Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, 16 C.F.R. Part 314, issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act, P.L. 106-102. These Standards are intended to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information. The Secretary considers any breach to the security of student records and information as a demonstration of a potential lack of administrative capability as stated in 34 C.F.R. 668.16(c). Institutions are strongly encouraged to inform its students and the Department of any such breaches. 4. The Institution acknowledges that 34 C.F.R. Parts 602 and 667 require accrediting agencies, State regulatory bodies, and the Secretary to share information about institutions. The Institution agrees that the Secretary, any accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary, and any State regulatory body may Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] share or report information to one another about the Institution without limitation. 5. The Institution acknowledges that the HEA prohibits the Secretary from recognizing the accreditation of any institution of higher education unless that institution agrees to submit any dispute involving the final denial, withdrawal, or termination of accreditation to initial arbitration prior to any other legal action. SELECTED PROVISIONS FROM GENERAL PROVISIONS REGULATIONS, 34 C.F.R. PART 668.14 An institution's program participation agreement applies to each branch campus and other location of the institution that meets the applicable requirements of this part unless otherwise specified by the Secretary. (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that-- (1) It will comply with all statutory provisions of or applicable to Title IV of the HEA, all applicable regulatory provisions prescribed under that statutory authority, and all applicable special arrangements, agreements, and limitations entered into under the authority of statutes applicable to Title IV of the HEA, including the requirement that the institution will use funds it receives under any Title IV, HEA program and any interest or other earnings thereon, solely for the purposes specified in and in accordance with that program; (2) As a fiduciary responsible for administering Federal funds, if the institution is permitted to request funds under a Title IV, HEA program advance payment method, the institution will time its requests for funds under the program to meet the institution's immediate Title IV, HEA program needs; (3) It will not request from or charge any student a fee for processing or handling any application, form, or data required to determine a student's eligibility for, and amount of, Title IV, HEA program assistance; (4) It will establish and maintain such administrative and fiscal procedures and records as may be necessary to ensure proper and efficient administration of funds received from the Secretary or from students under the Title IV, HEA programs, together with assurances that the institution will provide, upon request and in a timely manner, information relating to the administrative capability and financial responsibility of the institution to-- (i) The Secretary; (ii) A guaranty agency, as defined in 34 CFR part 682, that guarantees loans made under the Federal Stafford Loan and Federal PLUS programs for attendance at the institution or any of the institution's branch campuses or other locations; (iii) The nationally recognized accrediting agency that accredits or preaccredits the institution or any of the institution's branch campuses, other locations, or educational programs; (iv) The State agency that legally authorizes the institution and any branch campus or other location of the institution to provide postsecondary education; and (v) In the case of a public postsecondary vocational educational institution that is approved by a State agency recognized for the approval of public postsecondary vocational education, that State agency; (5) It will comply with the provisions of § 668.15 relating to factors of financial responsibility; (6) It will comply with the provisions of § 668.16 relating to standards of administrative capability; (7) It will submit reports to the Secretary and, in the case of an institution participating in the Federal Stafford Loan, Federal PLUS, or the Federal Perkins Loan Program, to holders of loans made to the institution's students under that program at such times and containing such information as the Secretary may reasonably require to carry out the purpose of the Title IV, HEA programs; (8) It will not provide any statement to any student or certification to any lender in the case of an FFEL Program loan, or origination record to the Secretary in the case of a Direct Loan Program loan that qualifies the student or parent for a loan or loans in excess of the amount that the student or parent is eligible to borrow in accordance with sections 425(a), 428(a)(2), 428(b)(1)(A) and (B), 428B, 428H and 455(a) of the HEA; Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 4 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] (9) It will comply with the requirements of Subpart D of this part concerning institutional and financial assistance information for students and prospective students; (10) In the case of an institution that advertises job placement rates as a means of attracting students to enroll in the institution, it will make available to prospective students, at or before the time that those students apply for enrollment-- (i) The most recent available data concerning employment statistics, graduation statistics, and any other information necessary to substantiate the truthfulness of the advertisements; and (ii) Relevant State licensing requirements of the State in which the institution is located for any job for which an educational program offered by the institution is designed to prepare those prospective students; (11) In the case of an institution participating in the FFEL Program, the institution will inform all eligible borrowers, as defined in 34 CFR part 682, enrolled in the institution about the availability and eligibility of those borrowers for State grant assistance from the State in which the institution is located, and will inform borrowers from another State of the source for further information concerning State grant assistance from that State; (12) It will provide the certifications described in paragraph (c) of this section; (13) In the case of an institution whose students receive financial assistance pursuant to section 484(d) of the HEA, the institution will make available to those students a program proven successful in assisting students in obtaining the recognized equivalent of a high school diploma; (14) It will not deny any form of Federal financial aid to any eligible student solely on the grounds that the student is participating in a program of study abroad approved for credit by the institution; (15) (i) Except as provided under paragraph (b)(15)(ii) of this section, the institution will use a default management plan approved by the Secretary with regard to its administration of the FFEL or Direct Loan programs, or both for at least the first two years of its participation in those programs, if the institution -- (A) Is participating in the FFEL or Direct Loan programs for the first time; or (B) Is an institution that has undergone a change of ownership that results in a change in control and is participating in the FFEL or Direct Loan programs. (ii) The institution does not have to use an approved default management plan if -- (A) The institution, including its main campus and any branch campus, does not have a cohort default rate in excess of 10 percent; and (B) The owner of the institution does not own and has not owned any other institution that had a cohort default rate in excess of 10 percent while that owner owned the institution. (16) For a proprietary institution, the institution will derive at least 10 percent of its revenues for each fiscal year from sources other than Title IV, HEA program funds, as provided in § 668.28(a) and (b), or be subject to sanctions described in § 668.28(c); (17) The Secretary, guaranty agencies and lenders as defined in 34 CFR part 682, nationally recognized accrediting agencies, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, State agencies recognized under 34 CFR part 603 for the approval of public postsecondary vocational education, and State agencies that legally authorize institutions and branch campuses or other locations of institutions to provide postsecondary education, have the authority to share with each other any information pertaining to the institution's eligibility for or participation in the Title IV, HEA programs or any information on fraud and abuse; (18) It will not knowingly -- (i) Employ in a capacity that involves the administration of the Title IV, HEA programs or the receipt of funds under those programs, an individual who has been convicted of, or has pled nolo contendere or guilty to, a crime involving the acquisition, use, or expenditure of Federal, State, or local government funds, or has been administratively or judicially determined to have committed fraud or any other material violation of law involving Federal, State, or local government funds; (ii) Contract with an institution or third-party servicer that has been terminated under section 432 of the HEA for a reason involving the acquisition, use, or expenditure of Federal, State, or local government funds, or that has been administratively or judicially determined to have committed fraud or any other material violation of law involving Federal, State, or local government funds; or Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 5 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] (iii) Contract with or employ any individual, agency, or organization that has been, or whose officers or employees have been-- (A) Convicted of, or pled nolo contendere or guilty to, a crime involving the acquisition, use, or expenditure of Federal, State, or local government funds; or (B) Administratively or judicially determined to have committed fraud or any other material violation of law involving Federal, State, or local government funds; (19) It will complete, in a timely manner and to the satisfaction of the Secretary, surveys conducted as a part of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) or any other Federal collection effort, as designated by the Secretary, regarding data on postsecondary institutions; (20) In the case of an institution that is co-educational and has an intercollegiate athletic program, it will comply with the provisions of § 668.48; (21) It will not impose any penalty, including, but not limited to, the assessment of late fees, the denial of access to classes, libraries, or other institutional facilities, or the requirement that the student borrow additional funds for which interest or other charges are assessed, on any student because of the student's inability to meet his or her financial obligations to the institution as a result of the delayed disbursement of the proceeds of a Title IV, HEA program loan due to compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements of or applicable to the Title IV, HEA programs, or delays attributable to the institution; (22)(i) It will not provide any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly upon success in securing enrollments or financial aid to any person or entity engaged in any student recruiting or admission activities or in making decisions regarding the awarding of Title IV, HEA program funds, except that this limitation does not apply to the recruitment of foreign students residing in foreign countries who are not eligible to receive Title IV, HEA program funds. (ii) Activities and arrangements that an institution may carry out without violating the provisions of (b)(22)(i) of this section include, but are not limited to: (A) The payment of fixed compensation, such as a fixed annual salary or a fixed hourly wage, as long as that compensation is not adjusted up or down more than twice during any twelve month period, and any adjustment is not based solely on the number of students recruited, admitted, enrolled, or awarded financial aid. For this purpose, an increase in fixed compensation resulting from a cost of living increase that is paid to all or substantially all full-time employees is not considered an adjustment. (B) Compensation to recruiters based upon their recruitment of students who enroll only in programs that are not eligible for Title IV, HEA program funds. (C) Compensation to recruiters who arrange contracts between the institution and an employer under which the employer's employees enroll in the institution, and the employer pays, directly or by reimbursement, 50 percent or more of the tuition and fees charged to its employees; provided that the compensation is not based upon the number of employees who enroll in the institution, or the revenue they generate, and the recruiters have no contact with the employees. (D) Compensation paid as part of a profit-sharing or bonus plan, as long as those payments are substantially the same amount or the same percentage of salary or wages, and made to all or substantially all of the institution's full-time professional and administrative staff. Such payments can be limited to all, or substantially all of the full-time employees at one or more organizational level at the institution, except that an organizational level may not consist predominantly of recruiters, admissions staff, or financial aid staff. (E) Compensation that is based upon students successfully completing their educational programs, or one academic year of their educational programs, whichever is shorter. For this purpose, successful completion of an academic year means that the student has earned at least 24 semester or trimester credit hours or 36 quarter credit hours, or has successfully completed at least 900 clock hours of instruction at the institution. (F) Compensation paid to employees who perform clerical "pre-enrollment" activities, such as answering telephone calls, referring inquiries, or distributing institutional materials. (G) Compensation to managerial or supervisory employees who do not directly manage or supervise Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 6 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] employees who are directly involved in recruiting or admissions activities, or the awarding of Title IV, HEA program funds. (H) The awarding of token gifts to the institution's students or alumni, provided that the gifts are not in the form of money, no more than one gift is provided annually to an individual, and the cost of the gift is not more than $100. (I) Profit distributions proportionately based upon an individual's ownership interest in the institution. (J) Compensation paid for Internet-based recruitment and admission activities that provide information about the institution to prospective students, refer prospective students to the institution, or permit prospective students to apply for admission on-line. (K) Payments to third parties, including tuition sharing arrangements, that deliver various services to the institution, provided that none of the services involve recruiting or admission activities, or the awarding of Title IV, HEA program funds. (L) Payments to third parties, including tuition sharing arrangements, that deliver various services to the institution, even if one of the services involves recruiting or admission activities or the awarding of Title IV, HEA program funds, provided that the individuals performing the recruitment or admission activities, or the awarding of Title IV, HEA program funds, are not compensated in a manner that would be impermissible under paragraph (b)(22) of this section. (23) It will meet the requirements established pursuant to Part H of Title IV of the HEA by the Secretary and nationally recognized accrediting agencies; (24) It will comply with the requirements of § 668.22; (25) It is liable for all-- (i) Improperly spent or unspent funds received under the Title IV, HEA programs, including any funds administered by a third-party servicer; and (ii) Returns any title IV, HEA program funds that the institution or its servicer may be required to make; (26) If the stated objectives of an educational program of the institution are to prepare a student for gainful employment in a recognized occupation, the institution will-- (i) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the length of the program and entry level requirements for the recognized occupation for which the program prepares the student. The Secretary considers the relationship to be reasonable if the number of clock hours provided in the program does not exceed by more than 50 percent the minimum number of clock hours required for training in the recognized occupation for which the program prepares the student, as established by the State in which the program is offered, if the State has established such a requirement, or as established by any Federal agency; and (ii) Establish the need for the training for the student to obtain employment in the recognized occupation for which the program prepares the student. (27) In the case of an institution participating in a Title IV, HEA loan program, the institution -- (i) Will develop, publish, administer, and enforce a code of conduct with respect to loans made, insured or guaranteed under the Title IV, HEA loan programs in accordance with 34 CFR 601.21; and (ii) Must inform its officers, employees, and agents with responsibilities with respect to loans made, insured or guaranteed under the Title IV, HEA loan programs annually of the provisions of the code required under paragraph (b)(27) of this section; (28) For any year in which the institution has a preferred lender arrangement (as defined in 34 CFR 601.2(b)), it will at least annually compile, maintain, and make available for students attending the institution, and the families of such students, a list in print or other medium, of the specific lenders for loans made, insured, or guaranteed under Title IV, of the HEA or private education loans that the institution recommends, promotes, or endorses in accordance with such preferred lender arrangement. In making such a list, the institution must comply with the requirements in 34 CFR 682.212(h) and 34 CFR 601.10; (29) (i) It will, upon the request of an enrolled or admitted student who is an applicant for a private education loan (as defined in 34 CFR part 601.2(b)), provide to the applicant the self-certification form required under 34 CFR 601.11(d) and the information required to complete the form, to the extent the Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 7 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] institution possesses such information, including -- (A) The applicant's cost of attendance at the institution, as determined by the institution under part F of Title IV, of the HEA; (B) The applicant's estimated financial assistance, including amounts of financial assistance used to replace the expected family contribution as determined by the institution in accordance with Title IV, for students who have completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid; and (C) The difference between the amounts under paragraphs (b)(29)(i)(A) and (29)(i)(B) of this section, as applicable. (ii) It will, upon the request of the applicant, discuss with the applicant the availability of Federal, State, and institutional student financial aid; (30) The institution -- (i) Has developed and implemented written plans to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material by users of the institution's network, without unduly interfering with educational and research use of the network, that include -- (A) The use of one or more technology-based deterrents; (B) Mechanisms for educating and informing its community about appropriate versus inappropriate use of copyrighted material, including that described in § 668.43(a)(10); (C) Procedures for handling unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including disciplinary procedures; and (D) Procedures for periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the plans to combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials by users of the institution's network using relevant assessment criteria. No particular technology measures are favored or required for inclusion in an institution's plans, and each institution retains the authority to determine what its particular plans for compliance with paragraph (b)(30) of this section will be, including those that prohibit content monitoring; and (ii) Will, in consultation with the chief technology officer or other designated officer of the institution-- (A) Periodically review the legal alternatives for downloading or otherwise acquiring copyrighted material; (B) Make available the results of the review in paragraph (b)(30)(ii)(A) of this section to its students through a Web site or other means; and (C) To the extent practicable, offer legal alternatives for downloading or otherwise acquiring copyrighted material, as determined by the institution; and (31) The institution will submit a teach-out plan to its accrediting agency in compliance with 34 CFR 602.24(c), and the standards of the institution's accrediting agency upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (i) The Secretary initiates the limitation, suspension, or termination of the participation of an institution in any Title IV, HEA program under 34 CFR 600.41 or subpart G of this part or initiates an emergency action under § 668.83. (ii) The institution's accrediting agency acts to withdraw, terminate, or suspend the accreditation or preaccreditation of the institution. (iii) The institution's State licensing or authorizing agency revokes the institution's license or legal authorization to provide an educational program. (iv) The institution intends to close a location that provides 100 percent of at least one program. (v) The institution otherwise intends to cease operations. (c) In order to participate in any Title IV, HEA program (other than the LEAP and NEISP programs), the institution must certify that it-- (1) Has in operation a drug abuse prevention program that the institution has determined to be accessible to any officer, employee, or student at the institution; and (2)(i) Has established a campus security policy in accordance with section 485(f) of the HEA; and Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 8 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] (ii) Has complied with the disclosure requirements of § 668.47 as required by section 485(f) of the HEA. (d)(1) The institution, if located in a State to which section 4(b) of the National Voter Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-2(b)) does not apply, will make a good faith effort to distribute a mail voter registration form, requested and received from the State, to each student enrolled in a degree or certificate program and physically in attendance at the institution, and to make those forms widely available to students at the institution. (2) The institution must request the forms from the State 120 days prior to the deadline for registering to vote within the State. If an institution has not received a sufficient quantity of forms to fulfill this section from the State within 60 days prior to the deadline for registering to vote in the State, the institution is not liable for not meeting the requirements of this section during that election year. (3) This paragraph applies to elections as defined in Section 301(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(1)), and includes the election for Governor or other chief executive within such State. (e)(1) A program participation agreement becomes effective on the date that the Secretary signs the agreement. (2) A new program participation agreement supersedes any prior program participation agreement between the Secretary and the institution. (f)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section, the Secretary terminates a program participation agreement through the proceedings in subpart G of this part. (2) An institution may terminate a program participation agreement. (3) If the Secretary or the institution terminates a program participation agreement under paragraph (f) of this section, the Secretary establishes the termination date. (g) An institution's program participation agreement automatically expires on the date that-- (l) The institution changes ownership that results in a change in control as determined by the Secretary under 34 CFR part 600; or (2) The institution's participation ends under the provisions of § 668.26(a)(1), (2), (4), or (7). (h) An institution's program participation agreement no longer applies to or covers a location of the institution as of the date on which that location ceases to be a part of the participating institution. WILLIAM D. FORD FEDERAL DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM If an institution participates in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program, the institution and its representatives shall comply with the statute, guidelines, and regulations governing the Title IV, Part D, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1087a et seq. (Part C) and 34 C.F.R. Part 685. The institution will: 1. Provide for the establishment and maintenance of a Direct Loan Program at the Institution that will: Identify eligible students who seek student financial assistance in accordance with Section 484 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (the HEA). Estimate the need of students as required under Title IV, Part F of the HEA. Provide a certification statement of eligibility for students to receive loans that will not exceed the annual or aggregate limits, except the Institution may exercise its authority, under exceptional circumstances identified by the Secretary, to refuse to certify a statement that permits a student to receive a loan, or certify a loan amount that is less than the student's determination of need, if the Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 9 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] reason for such action is documented and provided in written form to a student. Establish a schedule for disbursement of loan proceeds to meet the requirements of Section 428G of the HEA. Provide timely and accurate information to the Secretary concerning 1) the status of borrowers while students are in attendance, any new information pertaining to the status of student borrowers of which the Institution becomes aware after the student leaves the Institution, and 2) the utilization of Federal funds under Title IV, Part D of the HEA at such times and in such manner as prescribed by the Secretary. 2. Comply with requirements established by the Secretary relating to student loan information with respect to the Direct Loan Program. 3. Provide that students at the Institution and their parents (with respect to such students) will be eligible to participate in the programs under Title IV, Part B of the HEA, Federal Family Education Loan programs, at the discretion of the Secretary for the period during which such Institution participates in the Direct Loan Program, except that a student or parent may not receive loans under both Title IV, Part B and Part D of the HEA for the same period of enrollment. 4. Provide for the implementation of a quality assurance system, as established by the Secretary and developed in consultation with Institutions of higher education, to ensure that the Institution is complying with program requirements and meeting program objectives. 5. Provide that the Institution will not charge any fees of any kind, regardless of how they are described, to student or parent borrowers for loan application, or origination activities (if applicable), or the provision and processing of any information necessary for a student or parent to receive a loan under Title IV, Part D of the HEA. 6. Provide that the Institution will originate loans to eligible students and parents in accordance with the requirements of Title IV, Part D of the HEA and use funds advanced to it solely for that purpose (Option 2 only). 7. Provide that the note or evidence of obligation of the loan shall be the property of the Secretary (Options 2 and 1 only). 8. Comply with other provisions as the Secretary determines are necessary to protect the interest of the United States and to promote the purposes of Title IV, Part D of the HEA. 9. Accept responsibility and financial liability stemming from its failure to perform its functions under this Program Participation Agreement. CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED FROM INSTITUTIONS The Institution should refer to the regulations cited below. Signature on this Agreement provides for compliance with the certification requirements under 34 C.F.R. Part 82, "New Restrictions on Lobbying," 34 C.F.R Part 84, "Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance)," 34 C.F.R. Part 85, "Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)," and 34 C.F.R. Part 86, "Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention." Breach of any of these certifications constitutes a breach of this Agreement. Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 10 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] PART 1 CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING; DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE; DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS; AND DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE PREVENTION 1. Lobbying As required by Section 1352, Title 31 of the U.S. Code, and implemented at 34 C.F.R. Part 82, for persons entering into a Federal contract, grant or cooperative agreement over $100,000, as defined at 34 C.F.R. Part 82, Sections 82.105, and 82.110, the undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form - LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. (3) The Institution shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants and contracts under grants, loans and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. 2a. Drug-Free Workplace (Grantees Other Than Individuals) As required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and implemented at 34 C.F.R. Part 84, Subpart B, for grantees, as defined at 34 C.F.R. Part 84, Sections 84.200 through 84.230 - The Institution certifies that it will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: (a) Publishing a drug-free workplace statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; (b) Establishing an on-going drug-free awareness program to inform employees about- (1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (2) The Institution's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; (3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; (c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a); (d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will - (1) Abide by the terms of the statement, and (2) Notify the employer in writing if he or she is convicted for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no more than five calendar days after such conviction; (e) Notifying the agency, in writing, within 10 calendar days after receiving notice under this Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 11 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] subparagraph (d)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to: Director, Grants and Contracts Service, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20202. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant; (f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted - (1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1972, as amended; or (2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; (g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). 2b. Drug-Free Workplace (Grantees Who Are Individuals) As required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and implemented at 34 C.F.R. Part 84, Subpart C, for recipients who are individuals, as defined at 34 C.F.R. Part 84, Section 84.300 - 1. As a condition of the grant, the Institution certifies that it will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance in conducting any activity related to the award; and 2. If any officer or owner of the Institution is convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity, the Institution will report the conviction, in writing, within 10 calendar days of the conviction, to: Director, Grants and Contracts Service, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20202. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant. 3. Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters As required by Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, and implemented at 34 C.F.R. Part 85, for prospective participants in primary covered transactions as defined at 34 C.F.R. Part 85, Sections 85.105 and 85.110, the Institution certifies that it and its principals: (a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; (b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public or private agreement or transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes; commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, receiving stolen property, making false claims, or obstruction of justice; or commission of any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty that seriously and directly affects their present responsibility. (c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (b) of this certification; and (d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default. 4. Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 12 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] As required by the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Amendments of 1989, which added section 1213 to the Higher Education Act, and implemented at 34 C.F.R. Part 86, the undersigned Institution certifies that it has adopted and implemented a drug prevention program for its students and employees that, at a minimum, includes-- 1. The annual distribution in writing to each employee, and to each student who is taking one or more classes for any kind of academic credit except for continuing education units, regardless of the length of the student's program of study, of: Standards of conduct that clearly prohibit, at a minimum, the unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol by students and employees on its property or as part of any of its activities. A description of the applicable legal sanctions under local, State or Federal law for the unlawful possession or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol. A description of the health risks associated with the use of illicit drugs and the abuse of alcohol. A description of any drug or alcohol counseling, treatment, or rehabilitation or re-entry programs that are available to employees or students. A clear statement that the Institution will impose disciplinary sanctions on students and employees (consistent with local, State and Federal law), and a description of those sanctions, up to and including expulsion or termination of employment and referral for prosecution, for violation of the standards of conduct. A disciplinary sanction may include the completion of an appropriate rehabilitation program. 2. A biennial review by the Institution of its program to: Determine its effectiveness and implement changes to the program if they are needed. Ensure that its disciplinary sanctions are consistently enforced. PART 2 CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY, AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION -- LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS The Institution is to obtain the signatures of Lower Tier Contractors on reproduced copies of the certification below, and retain the signed certification(s) in the Institution's files. CERTIFICATION BY LOWER TIER CONTRACTOR (Before Completing Certification, Read Instructions for This Part 3, below) (1) The prospective lower tier participant certifies by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal Department or Agency. (2) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. _____________________________________________ ____________________________ Name of Lower Tier Organization PR/Award Number or ProjectName _____________________________________________ ____________________________ Name of Authorized Representative Title of AuthorizedRepresentative Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 13 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] _____________________________________________ ____________________________ Signature of Authorized Representative Date 1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below. 2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. 3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 4. The terms "covered transaction," "debarred," "suspended," "ineligible," "lower tier covered transaction," "participant," "person," "primary covered transaction," "principal," "proposal," "voluntarily excluded," as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the person to whom this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated. 6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion-- Lower Tier Covered Transactions," without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurement List. 8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. NOTE: A completed copy of the "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions" form must be retained by the Institution. The original blank certification must be returned with the PPA. IN WITNESS WHEREOF Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 14 of 15 PPA. OPE ID: 04143500. PPA Expiration Date: 06/30/2015 https://eligcert.ed.gov/eapp/ppa_doc?ope=041435&id=34364[12/19/2016 12:13:44 PM] the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. Signature of Institution's Chief Executive Officer: _______________________________________________ Date: ______________ Print Name and Title: _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ For the Secretary: _______________________________________________ Date: ______________ U.S. Department of Education Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-9 Filed 03/20/17 Page 15 of 15 Exhibit 8 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-10 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 2 ABA Required Disclosures and Gainful Employment CONTACT US Search Website GO CORPORATE COMPLIANCE CENTER Home Our Mission Our History Charlotte School of Law has been awarded full accreditation by the American Bar Association. The action was approved by the Council of the ABA's Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar during the Council's quarterly meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, on June 10, 2011. The Council determined through its accreditation process that Charlotte School of Law is in full compliance with the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools. The ABA Accreditation Committee gave Charlotte School of Law a positive recommendation to the Council in May 2011. The ABA granted provisional approval to the School in 2008, concluding it was in compliance with ABA standards and had a plan to bring itself into full compliance. A law school must be provisionally approved for at least two years before it is eligible to apply for full approval. In order to be granted full approval, a School must demonstrate that it has established full compliance with each of the ABA's standards, including standards relating to bar passage, job placement and diversity. The ABA's Chicago Headquarters is located at 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL, 60654. Practical Preparation is Critical A rigorous curriculum has been created to ensure that our students are equipped with practical skills that will allow them to thrive in a professional setting. Students are taught not only the traditions and theory of law, but also how to apply this learning through critical thinking and analytical skill sets. We address what using a law degree in "real life" can mean to an individual both personally and professionally. Contact Us Law Library Hours: Mon-Fri 8:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Library Hours are subject to change. Address: 201 S. College St, Ste 400, Charlotte, NC 28244 Email: libreference@charlottelaw.edu Library User Experience (LUX) Desk: 704-971-8573 Learn More We've provided access to tools & resources that help you meet your educational goals. CONTACT US COURSE DESCRIPTIONS FAST FACTS AlumniCareer ServicesCampusAdmissionsProgramsAcademicsAbout Page 1 of 3Our Mission 3/17/2017http://www.charlottelaw.edu/our-mission.html Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-10 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit 9 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 13 General Statistics <> The Board of Law Examinera of the State of North Carolina North Carolina Bar Exam Applicants for the 2009 July bar exam All Applicants (sealed excluded) Examined First Time 955 165 1120 770 or 80.63% passed 53 or 32.12% passed 823 or 73.48% passed Examined More Than Total Taking Examination North Carolina Law Schools Campbell Duke NCCU UNC WFU Elon University Charlotte Law School NC School Totals Out-of-State Law TOTAL APPLICANTS First Timers Repeaters FirstTimers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters 67.31% 52 35 First Timer& 17 ·- 0 0 Repeaters 0 67.31% sz 35 -------------- 17 %Pass Total Pass Fall 84.57% 635 537 First Timers 98 53.57% 28 15 Repeaters 13 83.26% 663 552 ------------1 ... 1-1 %Pass Total Pass Fail 72.81% 320 233 First Timers 87 27.74% 137 38 Repeaters 99 First Timers Repeaters 59.30% 457 271 _____________ 1 _ 8 _ 6 %Pass 80.63% 32.12% 73.48% Total 955 165 1120 Pass 770 53 823 Fail 185 112 297 Printed: D9/01/2009 Exhibit Note: School-specific data other than that of Charlotte School of Law has been redacted. Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 13 General Statistics The Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina North Carolina Bar Exam Applicants for the 2010 February bar exam All Applicants (sealed excluded) Examined First Time Examined More Than Total J"aking Examination 228 214 442 157 or 68.86% passed 92 or 42.99% passed 24.� qr �6.33% ,eassed North Carollna Law Schools Campbell Duke NCCU UNC WFU Elon University Charlotte Law School NC School Totals Out-of-State Law TOTAL APPLICANTS First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers 73.33% 15 50.00% 14 62.07°/o 29 ____ ..... ___ ___ �oPass Total 77.97% 59 44.83% 87 Repeaters_ ..... -............ -............ ss.22°1o 146 %Pass Total First Timers 65.68% 169 41.73% 127 Repeaters ________ _ 55.41% 296 %Pass Total First Timers 68.86% 228 42.99% 214 66.33% 442 Repeaters_....;, ..... �----...... 11 4 7 7 18 11 Pasg Fall 46 13 39 48 85 61 Pass Fall 111 58 53 74 U4 Jl2 Pass Fail 157 71 92 122 249 193 1 �.. 'i,. >! ,, ;j• : � '' � � 'I ,1, • y ' � �· ,, Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 13 The Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina North Carolina Bar Exam Applicants for the 2010 July bar exam All Applicants (sealed excluded) General Statistics Examined First Time 858 685 or 79.84% passed Examined More Than 156 55 or 35.26% passed Total Taking Examination 1014 740 or 72.98% passed North Carolina Law Schools %Pass Total Pass Fail Campbell First Timers Repeaters Duke First Timers Repeaters NCCU First Timers Repeaters UNC First Timers Repeaters WFU First Timers Repeaters Elon University First Timers Repeaters Charlotte Law School First Timers 86.79% 53 46 7 Repeaters 55.56% 9 5 4 82.26% 62 51 11 %Pass Total Pass Fail NC School Totals First Timers 83.36% 595 496 99 Repeaters 43.14% 51 22 29 80.19% 646 518 128 %Pass Total Pass Fail Out-of-State Law First Timers 71.86% 263 189 74 Repeaters 31.43% 105 33 72 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 4 of 13 60.33% 368 222 146 %Pass Total Pass Fail TOT AL APPLICANTS First Timers 79.84% 858 685 173 Repeaters 35.26% 156 55 101 72.98% 1014 740 274 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 5 of 13 The Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina North Carolina Bar Exam Applicants for the 2011 February bar exam All Applicants (sealed excluded) General Statistics Examined First Time 213 154 or 72.30% passed Examined More Than 213 100 or 46.95% passed Total Taking Examination 426 254 or 59.62% passed North Carolina Law Schools %Pass Total Pass Fail Campbell First Timers Repeaters Duke First Timers Repeaters NCCU First Timers Repeaters UNG First Timers Repeaters WFU First Timers Repeaters Elon University First Timers Repeaters Charlotte Law School First Timers 75.00% 20 15 5 Repeaters 50.00% 6 3 3 69.23% 26 18 8 %Pass Total Pass Fail NC School Totals First Timers 72.73% 66 48 18 Repeaters 48.84% 86 42 44 59.21% 152 90 62 %Pass Total Pass Fail Out-of-State Law First Timers 72.11% 147 106 41 Repeaters 45.67% 127 58 69 59.85% 274 164 110 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 6 of 13 TOT AL APPLICANTS First Timers Repeaters %Pass 72.30% 46.95% 59.62% Total 213 213 426 Pass 154 100 254 Fail 59 113 172 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 7 of 13 The Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina North Carolina Bar Exam Applicants for the 2011 July bar exam All Applicants (sealed excluded) General Statistics Examined First Time 915 752 or 82.19% passed Examined More Than 152 41 or 26.97% passed Total Taking Examination 1067 793 or 7 4.32% passed North Carolina Law Schools %Pass Total Pass Fail Campbell First Timers Repeaters Duke First Timers Repeaters NCCU First Timers Repeaters UNC First Timers Repeaters WFU First Timers Repeaters Elon University First Timers Repeaters Charlotte Law School First Timers 78.79% 66 52 14 Repeaters 50.00% 6 3 3 76.39% 72 55 17 %Pass Total Pass Fail NC School Totals First Timers 86.27% 641 553 88 Repeaters 31.67% 60 19 41 81.60% 701 572 129 %Pass Total Pass Fail Out-of-State Law First Timers 72.63% 274 199 75 Repeaters 23.91% 92 22 70 60.38% 366 221 145 %Pass Total Pass Fail TOTAL APPLICANTS First Timers 82.19% 915 752 163 Repeaters 26.97% 152 41 111 74.32% 1067 793 274 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 8 of 13 The Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina North Carolina Bar Exam Applicants for the 2012 February bar exam All Applicants (sealed excluded) General Statistics Examined First Time 249 150 or 60.24% passed Examined More Than 212 64 or 30.19% passed Total Taking Examination 461 214 or 46.42% passed North Carolina Law Schools %Pass Total Campbell First Timers Repeaters Duke First Timers Repeaters NCCU First Timers Repeaters UNC First Timers Repeaters WFU First Timers Repeaters Elon University First Timers Repeaters Charlotte Law School First Timers 53.13% 32 17 15 Repeaters 28.57% 14 4 10 45.65% 46 21 25 %Pass Total Pass Fail NC School Totals First Timers 59.52% 84 50 34 Repeaters 39.81% 103 41 62 48.66% 187 91 96 %Pass Total Pass Fail Out-of-State Law First Timers 60.61% 165 100 65 Repeaters 21.10% 109 23 86 44.89% 274 123 151 %Pass Total Pass Fail TOT AL APPLICANTS First Timers 60.24% 249 150 99 Repeaters 30.19% 212 64 148 46.42% 461 214 247 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 9 of 13 General Statistics The Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina North Carolina Bar Exam Applicants for the 2012 July bar exam All Applicants (sealed excluded) Examined First Time 1003 191 1194 Examined More Than Total Taking Examination North Carolina Law Schools Campbell Duke NCCU UNC WFU Elon University Charlotte Law School First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters 790 or 78. 76% passed 76 or 39. 79% passed 866 or 72.53% passed 21 11 10 --------- NC School Totals Out-of-State Law First Timers Repeaters First Timers Repeaters 66.00% 150 %Pass Total 80.00% 710 42.86% 77 --------- 76.37% 787 %Pass Total 75.77% 293 37.72% 114 --------- 65.11% 407 99 51 Pass Fail 568 142 33 44 601 186 Pass Fail 222 71 43 71 265 142 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 10 of 13 TOTAL APPLICANTS First Timers Repeaters %Pass 78.76% 39.79% 72.53% Total 1003 191 1194 Pass 790 76 866 Fail 213 115 328 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 11 of 13 The Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina North Carolina Bar Exam Applicants for the 2013 February bar exam All Applicants (sealed excluded) General Statistics Examined First Time 263 164 or 62.36% passed Examined More Than 264 96 or 36.36% passed Total Taking Examination 527 260 or 49.34% passed North Carolina Law Schools %Pass Total Pass Fail Campbell First Timers Repeaters Duke First Timers Repeaters NCCU First Timers Repeaters UNC First Timers Repeaters WFU First Timers Repeaters Elon University First Timers Repeaters Charlotte Law School First Timers 69.81% 53 37 16 Repeaters 50.00% 38 19 19 61.54% 91 56 35 %Pass Total Pass Fail NC School Totals First Timers 63.81% 105 67 38 Repeaters 44.52% 155 69 86 52.31% 260 136 124 %Pass Total Pass Fail Out-of-State Law First Timers 61.39% 158 97 61 Repeaters 24.77% 109 27 82 46.44% 267 124 143 %Pass Total Pass Fail TOTAL APPLICANTS First Timers 62.36% 263 164 99 Repeaters 36.36% 264 96 168 49.34% 527 260 267 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 12 of 13 The Board of Law Examiners of the Printed: State of North Carolina 08/30/2013 North Carolina Bar Exam Applicants for the 2013 July bar exam All Applicants (sealed excluded) General Statistics Examined First Time 1052 747 or 71.01% passed Examined More Than 202 47 or 23.27% passed Total Taking Examination 1254 794 or 63.32% passed North Carolina Law Schools %Pass Total Pass Fail Campbell First Timers Repeaters Duke First Timers Repeaters NCCU First Timers Repeaters UNC First Timers Repeaters WFU First Timers Repeaters Elon University First Timers Repeaters Charlotte Law School First Timers 57.80% 173 100 73 Repeaters 26.67% 30 8 22 53.20% 203 108 95 %Pass Total Pass Fail NC School Totals First Timers 71.54% 759 543 216 Repeaters 22.58% 93 21 72 66.20% 852 564 288 %Pass Total Pass Fail Out-of-State Law First Timers 69.62% 293 204 89 Repeaters 23.85% 109 26 83 57.21% 402 230 172 %Pass Total Pass Fail TOTAL APPLICANTS First Timers 71.01% 1052 747 305 Repeaters 23.27% 202 47 155 63.32% 1254 794 460 Case 3:16-cv-00861-GCM Document 25-11 Filed 03/20/17 Page 13 of 13