Lorona v. Arizona Summit law School LLC et al
Court Docket Sheet

District of Arizona

2:2015-cv-00972 (azd)

ANSWER to {{34}} Amended Complaint by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.

Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 43 1 Quarles & Brady LLP Firm State Bar No. 00443100 2 Renaissance One 3 Two North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391 4 TELEPHONE 602.229.5200 5 Nicole France Stanton (#020452) nicole.stanton@quarles.com 6 Eric B. Johnson (#020512) 7 eric.johnson@quarles.com Michael S. Catlett (#025238) 8 michael.catlett@quarles.com 9 Attorneys for Defendants 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 12 Paula C. Lorona, 13 NO. 2:15-CV-00972-NVW Plaintiff, 14 ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED vs., COMPLAINT 15 Arizona Summit Law School LLC, a 16 Delaware limited liability company; Infilaw Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Jane 17 and John Doe 1-100; Black Corporation 1-100; White Partnership 1-100, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Defendants Arizona Summit Law School LLC ("ASL") and Infilaw Corporation 21 ("Infilaw"; jointly referred to herein as "Defendants"), by and through their undersigned 22 counsel, hereby answer Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint as follows: 23 1. This is an action for relief from Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s civil 24 rights. These violations include: wrongful and willful discrimination and retaliation in 25 violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq., and wrongful 26 and willful gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil 27 Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Plaintiff also brings claims for 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3 Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 43 1 fraud and negligent misrepresentation under Arizona state law. 2 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint do not state a factual 3 allegation to which a response is deemed necessary and Defendants therefore deny same. 4 2. Plaintiff seeks damages, including lost wages and benefits, compensatory, 5 general punitive and liquidated damages, plus interest and reasonable attorneys’ fees and 6 costs. 7 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint do not state a factual 8 allegation to which a response is deemed necessary and Defendants therefore deny same. 9 Defendants further deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in the Complaint or 10 at all. 11 PARTIES, VENUE, AND JURISDICTION 12 3. Plaintiff Paula Lorona ("Lorona") is a resident of Maricopa County, 13 Arizona. 14 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 15 allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 16 4. Defendant Arizona Summit Law School ("ASLS") formerly known as 17 Phoenix School of Law, is a for-profit Arizona limited liability company. ASLS is a 18 private, for-profit post-secondary school, owned and managed by Infilaw Corp. that offers 19 Legal Education Programs in Phoenix, Arizona. ASLS is licensed by the Arizona State 20 Board for Private Post-Secondary Education and is accredited by the American Bar 21 Association (ABA). 22 ANSWER: Defendants admit that ASLS is owned by Infilaw and that it is 23 licensed by the Arizona State Board for Private Post-Secondary Education and is 24 accredited by the American Bar Association. As to the remaining allegations of 25 Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, the term "managed" is vague, ambiguous and calls for 26 speculation and Defendants therefore deny same. 27 5. Defendant Infilaw Corporation ("Infilaw") is a Delaware corporation with a 28 primary place of business in Naples, Florida, and is the parent company of ASLS. In QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-2-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 43 1 addition to ASLS, Infilaw owns and operates two other private, for-profit law schools – 2 Florida Coastal School of Law in Jacksonville, Florida, and Charlotte School of Law in 3 Charlotte, North Carolina. 4 ANSWER: Defendants admit that Infilaw is a Delaware corporation with a 5 primary place of business in Naples, Florida, and that it is the parent company of ASLS. 6 Defendants further admit that Infilaw owns and operates two other private, for-profit law 7 schools – Florida Coastal School of Law in Jacksonville, Florida, and Charlotte School of 8 Law in Charlotte, North Carolina. As to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 of the 9 Complaint, the term "operates" is vague, ambiguous and calls for speculation and 10 Defendants therefore deny same. 11 6. Defendants Jane Does and 1-100, Black Corporations 1-100, and White 12 Partnerships 1-100 are certain unknown individuals or entities who through their own 13 actions or inactions have caused or assisted others in causing the incidents and resulting 14 harms set forth below. Despite diligent efforts by Lorona, the identity of these individuals 15 has not yet been ascertained but they are well known by the Defendants. Lorona will 16 amend their complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the various Doe 17 Defendants when they are learned. 18 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 19 7. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 21 as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII) and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 22 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A, and pursuant to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111, et seq. 23 ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 24 8. Venue is proper in the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1391 (b), 25 because the events giving rise to Lorona’s claims occurred in this District. 26 ANSWER: Defendants admit venue is proper but deny the remaining allegations 27 of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 28 9. Lorona timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-3-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 4 of 43 1 Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and this Complaint is timely filed. 2 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint state legal 3 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny the same. 4 10. All administrative prerequisites have been met. 5 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint state legal 6 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny the same. 7 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8 A. Liability of Infilaw on Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Claims. 9 11. At all relevant times, Infilaw participated in or influenced the employment 10 policies and practices of ASLS. 11 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 12 12. Infilaw controlled and managed the budget and budgeting process of ASLS. 13 All promotions, raises for performance reviews and any other incentives had to be 14 approved by Infilaw. Infilaw also had to approve ASLS’s annual budget. 15 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 16 13. Infilaw prepared and distributed to ASLS and its sister schools all employee 17 handbooks, and required the use of those handbooks in the operation of the schools. 18 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 19 14. Infilaw promulgated and imposed on ASLS all hiring policies and Infilaw 20 made all benefits decisions applicable to ASLS employees. Infilaw determined the 21 insurance carriers and plans that were available to ASLS employees under ASLS health 22 insurance benefits. 23 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 24 15. Infilaw transferred employees of the three law schools it owns, including 25 ASLS, between the three law school campuses. For example, Don Lively, a founder of 26 Infilaw, has rotated and served at various points in time as the President and Dean of all 27 three Infilaw campuses. 28 ANSWER: Defendants admit that some individuals have worked at more than one QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-4-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 5 of 43 1 of the campuses affiliated with Infilaw. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of 2 Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 3 16. Infilaw processed and maintained control of ASLS’s payroll. 4 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 5 17. 401-K and all other benefits of ASLS employees, including tuition waivers 6 for ASLS students who also were also, were controlled and managed by Infilaw. 7 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 8 18. Reimbursement for corporate credit cards and expenses paid by individual 9 employees while traveling for ASLS were made by Infilaw, which also had to review and 10 approve such reimbursements. 11 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 12 19. Infilaw is accordingly liable for the violations of the ADA and Title VII 13 alleged herein. 14 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 15 20. On information and belief, Defendant Infilaw was given actual notice of the 16 EEOC proceedings alleged above during the time that the EEOC’s investigation of 17 Lorona’s Charge of Discrimination was still pending. 18 ANSWER: Defendants admit that Infilaw was aware that Lorona had filed a 19 charge of discrimination while the EEOC's investigation was pending. Defendants deny 20 the remaining allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 21 21. As alleged herein, at all relevant times Defendant Infilaw had an identity of 22 interest with Defendant ASLS with respect to the matters alleged in Lorona’s Charge of 23 Discrimination filed with the EEOC. 24 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 25 B. Lorona’s Employment With ASLS. 26 22. ASLS hired Lorona to work as an administrative assistant in November 27 2009. While employed by ASLS Lorona received promotions to financial aid 28 representative in 2010, assistant director of financial aid in 2011, and student QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-5-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 6 of 43 1 accounts/accounting manager in 2011. 2 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. 3 23. Throughout her employment, Lorona received excellent employee reviews 4 and was assured by her superiors at ASLS that she would have the opportunity for 5 advancement commensurate with her skills and experience. 6 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 7 24. However, after Lorona began working for ASLS, she was subjected to a 8 pattern of discrimination because of her gender and because she was known to have minor 9 children with disabilities, for whom Lorona was the primary caregiver. For example, 10 unlike her male colleagues and other employees who were not caregivers of disabled 11 family members, Lorona was denied promotions or even the opportunity to interview for 12 positions for which she was qualified. She was also denied the opportunity to work 13 remotely, and was charged "paid time off" when she did work remotely. Further, 14 Defendants did not offer her FMLA leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act 15 ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., in the same manner it offered such leave to other 16 employees. 17 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 18 25. Lorona complained to her superiors, including ASLS President Scott 19 Thompson ("Thompson") and ASLS Director of Human Resources Stephanie Lee ("Lee") 20 that she was being treated worse than her male colleagues and colleagues who were not 21 caregivers of disabled family members. 22 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 23 26. Defendants took no corrective action on Lorona’s complaints, and instead 24 continued their pattern of discrimination. 25 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 26 27. On April 13, 2013, Lee informed Lorona that Lorona and the School were 27 going to be "mutually separating," and that if Lorona signed a waiver of rights and 28 confidentiality agreement she would receive three weeks of pay. QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-6-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 7 of 43 1 ANSWER: Defendants admit that they offered severance pay but lack knowledge 2 sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 27 of the Complaint 3 and therefore deny same. 4 28. Lorona did not agree to "mutually separate" her employment. 5 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 6 allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 7 29. Lorona asked Lee why she was being terminated, because in multiple 8 meetings just weeks prior Lee had assured Lorona that her job was not in jeopardy and she 9 had no performance concerns. 10 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 11 allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 12 30. Lee replied that Lorona was not being fired for cause, that Lorona had not 13 done anything wrong, and that the company just felt she would be happier somewhere 14 else. 15 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 16 allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 17 31. Lorona refused to sign the waiver of rights and/or confidentiality agreement. 18 ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 19 32. In response, Lorona filed appropriate complaints with the Arizona Attorney 20 General’s Office for whistleblower protection and the EEOC for discrimination. 21 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 22 allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 23 33. Despite ASLS’s assurances to Lorona that her termination was without 24 cause, ASLS represented to the EEOC during the course of its investigation of Lorona’s 25 charge of discrimination that Lorona had in fact been terminated for cause because she 26 talked about students and had performance issues, such as poor 360 results. 27 ANSWER: Defendants refer to the documents provided by ASLS to the EEOC 28 for the content thereof. Those documents should be interpreted in accordance with QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-7-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 8 of 43 1 Arizona and Federal law. 2 34. In fact, Lorona had never had a disciplinary report filed against her at 3 ASLS. 4 ANSWER: In responding to the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, the 5 term "disciplinary report" is vague, ambiguous and calls for speculation. ASLS did 6 receive complaints concerning Lorona and Defendants therefore deny the allegations in 7 Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 8 C. Lorona’s Enrollment at ASLS. 9 1. Lorona Relied On Defendants’ Representations In Deciding to Enroll as a Student at ASLS. 10 35. One benefit given to employees of ASLS is a full tuition waiver to attend 11 law school, beginning 12 months after full-time employment and continuing throughout 12 employment. Also, based upon the employee’s job performance, the employee could be 13 granted a pro rata early tuition waiver starting at 9 months 14 ANSWER: Defendants admit that a tuition waiver may be provided to eligible 15 employees. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint. 16 36. This tuition waiver was one of the factors Lorona considered when 17 accepting employment with ASLS. 18 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 19 allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 20 37. Before her employment and before enrolling at ASLS, Lorona reviewed 21 statistics set forth in marketing materials physically placed throughout the admissions area 22 of the ASLS facility. This marketing material included the annual "Viewbook" which 23 contained favorable statements from previous students about the caliber of the students 24 attending ASLS and the quality of the education they received from ASLS. The 25 "Viewbook" was also available online on ASLS’ website. 26 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 27 allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-8-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 9 of 43 1 38. ASLS posted on its website and in its "Viewbook" enrollment statistics, 2 including LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs, of its students. ASLS updated this 3 information at least annually on its website and in the "Viewbook." ASLS also provided 4 this information to the Law School Admission Council ("LSAC"), which similarly posted 5 it on its website for review by students and potential students of ASLS. Lorona reviewed 6 these statistics both online and in the paper copy marketing materials and "Viewbooks" 7 available in the admissions area of ASLS facilities. 8 ANSWER: Defendants admit that ASLS has published enrollment statistics, 9 including average LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs, of its students, including on its 10 own website and with LSAC. Defendants refer to those publications for the content 11 thereof. Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the allegation as to 12 what information Lorona reviewed and therefore deny same. 13 39. Lorona also reviewed additional information on ASLS’ graduates provided 14 by ASLS in its student application packet. From this information, Lorona was impressed 15 to learn that only two out of 70 students that were actively seeking employment were 16 unemployed. She also learned from the application packet that the median salary for 17 ASLS graduates was $60,000, with a median student loan debt of $101,310. 18 ANSWER: Defendants refer to the "information" referenced in Paragraph 39 for 19 the content thereof. Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 20 remaining allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same. 21 40. ASLS’ law school application instructions that ASLS provided to Lorona 22 online contained in its Section 10 explicit assurance that: 23 Phoenix School of Law’s [ASLS’s] admissions process is 24 governed by the American Bar Association Standards for Approval of Law Schools and Interpretations. In particular, 25 Standard 501 provides that: (a) A law school’s admission policies shall be consistent with 26 the objectives of its educational program and the resources 27 available for implementing those objectives. 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-9-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 10 of 43 1 (b) A law school shall not admit applicants who do not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its educational program 2 and being admitted to the bar. 3 Lorona read and relied upon these assurances in deciding to enroll at ASLS as a law 4 student. ASLS repeated these assurances in its online application page through at least 5 2012. 6 ANSWER: Defendants refer to ASLS' law school application instructions for the 7 content thereof. Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the remaining 8 allegations contained in Paragraph 40 and therefore deny the same. 9 41. Lorona also read on ASLS’ website prior to enrolling at ASLS as a student 10 that ASLS’ graduates had bar passage rates exceeding 80%. 11 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 12 allegations of Paragraph 41 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 13 42. Based upon all the foregoing information, which ASLS provided to Lorona 14 prior to her enrollment, Lorona decided that ASLS would be a good place for her to work 15 and attend law school. 16 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 17 allegations of Paragraph 42 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same. 18 43. Specifically, Lorona reasonably believed based upon this information that if 19 she completed ASLS’ law school program she had a very good chance of passing the bar 20 examination and would easily be able to find employment at a law firm or even in the 21 public sector making approximately $60,000 per year. 22 ANSWER: Defendants deny that any such belief by Lorona was reasonable or 23 based on any statement made by ASLS. Defendants lack information sufficient to 24 confirm or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint and therefore 25 deny the same. 26 44. In August 2009, Lorona applied for traditional enrollment at ASLS and was 27 accepted as a traditional evening student. 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-10-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 11 of 43 1 ANSWER: Defendants admit that Lorona applied for enrollment at ASLS in 2 August 2009. As to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, the term 3 "traditional" is vague, ambiguous and calls for speculation and Defendants therefore deny 4 same. Defendants also affirmatively allege that Lorona was later academically dismissed, 5 and then reapplied and was accepted as a evening student in Spring 2012. 6 45. Throughout the time she was a law student of ASLS, ASLS continued to 7 post on its website and in its "Viewbook" statistics including LSAT scores and grade 8 point averages of ASLS students. ASLS updated the reported statistics at least annually. 9 ASLS also continued to provide those statistics to LSAC, which with ASLS’ knowledge 10 and permission, continued to post them on LSAC’s website for review by students and 11 potential students of ASLS. 12 ANSWER: Defendants admit that ASLS updates its reported enrollment statistics 13 at least annually and that it has continued to provide its enrollment statistics to LSAC for 14 publication on LSAC's website. Defendants refer to ASLS' published enrollment statistics 15 for the content thereof. 16 46. LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs are commonly accepted indicators of 17 the likelihood of a student’s success in law school and ability to pass the bar examination. 18 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 19 allegations of Paragraph 46 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 20 47. Throughout the time Lorona was a student at ASLS she continued to read 21 and rely upon the admission statistics, including LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of 22 ASLS students as reported on ASLS’ website and marketing materials, including the 23 "Viewbook" and on LSAC’s website. 24 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 25 allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 26 48. Lorona took comfort in the fact that the reported statistics regarding LSAT 27 scores and undergraduate GPAs of ASLS students remained stable throughout this time, 28 and compared favorably to comparable statistics regarding students enrolled at other law QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-11-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 12 of 43 1 schools. 2 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 3 allegations of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same. 4 49. For example, median LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs for ASLS 5 students as reported on ASLS website in the "Viewbook" as of Spring 2008 were 153 and 6 3.18 respectively. 7 ANSWER: Defendants refer to the materials referenced in Paragraph 49 of the 8 Complaint for the content thereof. 9 2. Admission of Large Numbers of Students Through the AAMPLE Program Materially Decreased the Median and Average LSAT Scores 10 and Undergraduate GPAs of ASLS’ Student Body. 11 50. By 2005, ASLS was admitting certain students to its law school through a 12 program known as Alternative Admissions Model for Legal Education ("AAMPLE"). 13 ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 50 of the Complaint. 14 51. Admission and enrollment through AAMPLE does not require grade point 15 average nor LSAT scores within the range of traditional admissions. 16 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of the 17 Complaint. 18 52. AAMPLE students are admitted through alternative means. As such, and 19 unbeknownst to Lorona, LSAT and undergraduate GPA statistics were not included in the 20 admissions statistics ASLS posted on its website, published in its marketing materials, 21 including the "Viewbook" and provided to the LSAC for review by potential and existing 22 ASLS students. 23 ANSWER: Defendants admit that AAMPLE students are admitted through 24 alternative means. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 52 25 of the Complaint. 26 53. The percentage of AAMPLE applicants who were admitted to ASLS 27 increased from 11% in 2005 to 80% in Spring 2011. The number and percentage of 28 AAMPLE students included in ASLS’ student body likewise increased substantially and QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-12-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 13 of 43 1 materially during that time period. 2 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of the 3 Complaint. 4 54. However, ASLS did not disclose on its website nor in marketing materials 5 nor the "Viewbook," nor in the information it provided to LSAC for posting on its website 6 that the reported admissions statistics, including LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs, 7 did not include the LSAT scores or undergraduate GPAs of AAMPLE students. As such, 8 the statistics ASLS reported were materially false and misleading. 9 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. 10 55. Lorona did not know that the reported LSAT scores and undergraduate 11 grade point averages of ASLS students that she reviewed on ASLS website and marketing 12 materials, including the "Viewbook," excluded AAMPLE students. This omission was 13 material, and rendered the reported statistics materially false and misleading. 14 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 55 of the Complaint. 15 56. Defendants thus misrepresented their admission requirements and the 16 caliber of students being admitted to ASLS. 17 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. 18 57. Reporting enrollment and success statistics based on 20% or less of the 19 student population is grossly misleading to incoming and existing students. 20 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. 21 58. The actual impact of the admission of ever-increasing numbers of AAMPLE 22 students was not known to Lorona until ASLS’ recent disclosure of abysmal and 23 progressively lower bar examination passage rates, culminating in the July 2015 bar 24 passage rate of 26.4% for first-time and repeat takers. 25 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 58 of the 26 Complaint. 27 59. Actual bar pass rates (combined first time and repeat takers) of ASLS 28 graduates during Lorona’s tenure as a student of ASLS were as follows: QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-13-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 14 of 43 1 February 2012 63.8% 2 July 2012 73.1% 3 February 2013 72.9% 4 July 2013 63.3% 5 February 2014 48.8% 6 July 2014 49.5% 7 8 February 2015 52.6% 9 Lorona took the February 2015 bar examination. 10 ANSWER: Defendants refer to the Arizona Supreme Court's publications relating 11 to bar passage rates for the content thereof. Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim 12 that the Court has now dismissed with prejudice. 13 60. The actual bar pass rate of ASLS graduates taking the July 2015 bar 14 examination was 26.4%. The bar pass rate for Arizona State University Sandra Day 15 O’Connor College of law and University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law 16 graduates taking the July 2015 bar examination were 81.8% and 77%, respectively. 17 ANSWER: Defendants refer to the Arizona Supreme Court's publications relating 18 to bar passage rates for the content thereof. Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim 19 that the Court has now dismissed with prejudice. 20 61. However, prior to and continuing through the time that Lorona was a 21 student of ASLS, ASLS continued to tout "Ultimate Bar Pass Rate[s]" exceeding 80%. 22 For example, ASLS’ "Viewbook" marketing brochure which was used to market to and 23 attract student to ASLS in at least the years 2013 and 2014 prominently touts an "Ultimate 24 Bar Pass Rate" of 86% for ASLS graduates, and in fine-print purportedly bases this on 25 "[g]raduates who passed the Arizona Bar Exam on the first or subsequent attempts." 26 ANSWER: Defendants refer to ASLS' "Viewbook" marketing brochures for the 27 content thereof. Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now 28 dismissed with prejudice. QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-14-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 15 of 43 1 62. In an October 16, 2014 email to ASLS students, including Lorona, Dean 2 Mays reported an "Ultimate pass rate" of 80.8%. 3 ANSWER: Defendants refer to Dean Mays' alleged email for the content thereof. 4 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with 5 prejudice. 6 63. Throughout her tenure as a law student of ASLS Lorona read and relied 7 upon and continued to read and rely upon ASLS’s representations of an "Ultimate Bar 8 Pass Rate" exceeding 80%. 9 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 10 allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint. Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim 11 that the Court has now dismissed with prejudice. 12 64. Moreover, as the bar pass rate of ASLS graduates continued to decline, 13 enrollment at ASLS appeared to increase substantially during Lorona’s tenure. 14 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 64 of the Complaint. 15 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with 16 prejudice. 17 65. Thus, the "Ultimate" bar pass rates touted by ASLS were extremely 18 misleading at best. 19 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 65 of the Complaint. 20 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with 21 prejudice. 22 66. The Bar Examination statistics and pass rates maintained by the Arizona 23 Supreme Court indicate that the passage rate for individuals taking the Arizona Bar 24 Examination for a second time or subsequent times is substantially lower than the passage 25 rate for individuals taking the Arizona Bar Examination for the first time. 26 ANSWER: Defendants refer to the Bar Examination statistics and pass rates 27 maintained by the Arizona Supreme Court for the content thereof. Moreover, this 28 allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with prejudice. QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-15-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 16 of 43 1 67. Throughout the time Lorona was a law student of ASLS, Lorona continued 2 to rely on ASLS’ representations regarding the success of its graduates in finding 3 employment in average salary of its graduates. This information could be found in ASLS’ 4 marketing materials and website. 5 ANSWER: Defendants refer to ASLS' marketing materials and website for the 6 content thereof. Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the remaining 7 allegations of Paragraph 67 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same. Moreover, this 8 allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with prejudice. 9 68. ASLS stated on its website from at least 2010 through 2013 that: 10 PSL’s [ASLS’s] Bar Exam passage rates are high, and the 11 school places 97% of its graduates into jobs within nine months of graduation. 12 ANSWER: Defendants refer to ASLS' website for the content thereof. 13 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with 14 prejudice. 15 69. Lorona read and took continuing comfort in this representation, and it gave 16 her assurance and confidence that she would be able to obtain employment with her ASLS 17 degree. 18 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to admit or deny the 19 allegations of Paragraph 69 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. Moreover, this 20 allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with prejudice. 21 3. Defendants Knew But Failed to Reveal That the Percentage of Its 22 Students Likely to Pass the Bar Exam Was Declining Rapidly and Materially. 23 70. Infilaw has studied bar passage rates for its students and based on its 24 findings, Infilaw and ASLS have developed a bar exam failure predictor formula. 25 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 70 of the Complaint. 26 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with 27 prejudice. 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-16-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 17 of 43 1 71. The failure predictor formula includes LSAT scores, undergraduate grade 2 point average, and law school grade point average, among other factors. 3 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. 4 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with 5 prejudice. 6 72. Both ASLS and Infilaw thus knew, but failed to disclose, that the percentage 7 of its students who were likely to ever pass the bar examination was declining 8 substantially and rapidly throughout the time of Lorona’s legal education at ASLS. This 9 omission was material. For example, in an email dated December 23, 2014 from Ann 10 Woodley, ASLS’s Associate Dean for Bar Pass and Student Success to certain ASLS 11 students and graduates stated that, "[t]he ASLS grads planning to take the bar exam in 12 February have a predicted pass rate of 47%, compared to an expected state average of 13 greater than 70%. This is based on our statistical analysis of how our students have 14 performed on the last few bar exams (and is primarily focused on law school grade point 15 averages and LSAT scores)." 16 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. 17 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with 18 prejudice. 19 73. Defendants also knew, but failed to disclose, that the substantial decline in 20 likely bar pass rates was due to the admission of ever-increasing numbers of students 21 through the AAMPLE program. This omission was likewise material. 22 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 73 of the Complaint. 23 74. Rather than disclosing this substantial and material decline in their students’ 24 abilities to pass the bar exam and in expected bar passage rates, Defendants have 25 attempted to manipulate reported bar pass rates. 26 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 74 of the Complaint. 27 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with 28 prejudice. QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-17-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 18 of 43 1 75. Beginning in May 2014, ASLS along with its Infilaw sister schools Florida 2 Coastal School of Law and Charlotte School of Law actually began to pay substantial and 3 material numbers of their graduates to defer or forego taking the bar exam upon 4 graduation based on these calculated failure predictors. 5 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 75 of the Complaint. 6 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with 7 prejudice. 8 76. This is an attempt to deceive the ABA accrediting board, and Department of 9 Education, potential and existing students, and the general public by artificially increasing 10 bar passage percentages. 11 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 76 of the Complaint. 12 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with 13 prejudice. 14 77. ASLS students who were predicted to fail the February 2015 bar exam 15 according to Infilaw’s failure predictor formula were offered $5,000 and other benefits 16 such as bi-weekly payments, to defer taking the bar exam. 17 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 77 of the Complaint. 18 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with 19 prejudice. 20 78. The effect of Infilaw’s and ASLS’s actions was to skew reported bar exam 21 results by eliminating from the pool of ASLS bar exam takers those who ASLS and 22 Infilaw believed would not pass. This enabled ASLS to maintain its reputation as a 23 competent law school producing well educated graduates capable of passing the bar and 24 actually practicing law at a law firm or in public employment by "cherry-picking" the 25 students who would attempt the bar exam in order to inflate their first-time test taker’s 26 passing percentage. 27 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 78 of the Complaint. 28 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-18-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 19 of 43 1 prejudice. 2 79. The deception also enabled ASLS to retain accreditation and receive other 3 benefits, such as eligibility for Title IV funding from the Department of Education. 4 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. 5 Moreover, this allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with 6 prejudice. 7 80. The ASLS bar examination preparation coach to whom Lorona was 8 assigned told Lorona frankly that the School is concerned that it may lose accreditation 9 and access to Title IV Federal Funding due to drastically low performance numbers. 10 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 11 allegations of Paragraph 80 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. Moreover, this 12 allegation relates to a claim that the Court has now dismissed with prejudice. 13 4. Lorona Reasonably Relied To Her Detriment Upon ASLS’ Misrepresentations and Omissions of Material Facts. 14 81. Lorona incurred well over $200,000 in student loan debt while attending 15 ASLS. 16 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 17 allegations of Paragraph 81 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 18 82. Based upon ASLS’ misrepresentation and omissions of material facts 19 regarding the caliber of students attending ASLS and bar pass rates, Lorona was confident 20 and reasonably believed that if she completed law school at ASLS she would be able to 21 find gainful employment at a law firm or in the public sector that would pay a salary 22 sufficient to justify the incursion and continuing incursion of debt in order to attend 23 ASLS. 24 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 82 of the Complaint. 25 83. As revealed by the disastrous recent bar exam pass rates of ASLS graduates, 26 the quality and value of Lorona’s law degree from ASLS is materially less than what she 27 was led to believe by virtue of ASLS’ misrepresentations and omissions of material facts. 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-19-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 20 of 43 1 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 83 of the Complaint. 2 84. As a result, Lorona is unable to obtain employment as a lawyer. 3 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 84 of the Complaint. 4 85. While she was waiting for her bar exam results, she had applied for 5 positions such as bailiff, clerk and paralegal, which did not even require a law license. 6 She did not even receive an interview for any of those positions. 7 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 8 allegations of Paragraph 85 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 9 86. After being admitted to the bar, Lorona applied for numerous positions at 10 private law firms, positions as public prosecutor and public juvenile law positions. She 11 also enlisted the services of employment placement firms including Robert Half and 12 Associates and Kelly Career Placement. From all this effort, she received one interview, 13 which did not even result in a callback. 14 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 15 allegations of Paragraph 86 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 16 87. Lorona’s inability to find employment is the result of the abysmal reputation 17 of ASLS, prompted largely by the inability of even a third of its graduates to pass the bar 18 exam. 19 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 87 of the Complaint. 20 88. The only use Lorona can make of her license to practice law is as a sole 21 practitioner, without the support or client base she would expect to access at a private firm 22 or through employment as a lawyer in the public sector. 23 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 88 of the Complaint. 24 89. Had she known that her ASLS law degree would be useless, and indeed an 25 impediment, in obtaining employment as a lawyer and that she would have no other 26 option other than to attempt to practice as a sole practitioner, struggling to make anything 27 close to $60,000, she would not have enrolled at ASLS and incurred the enormous debt to 28 attend that school. QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-20-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 21 of 43 1 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 89 of the Complaint. 2 90. Had she discovered the truth about ASLS’ misrepresentations and omissions 3 of material fact while she was attending ASLS, she would have withdrawn from the law 4 school and avoided the further incursion of debt. She could have then taken an entirely 5 different career path, if necessary, to obtain gainful employment. Although Lorona may 6 have already incurred substantial debt in attending the law school, she would have seen 7 little if any point in continuing to incur massive debt for a degree that would not enable 8 her to obtain employment as a lawyer, and would in fact hinder her ability to do so. 9 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 90 of the Complaint. 10 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 11 Count One – Consumer Fraud in violation of A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq. 12 (Defendant ASLS) 13 91. Lorona restates and re-alleges the allegations of the previous paragraphs as 14 if fully set forth herein. 15 ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their response to the prior paragraphs of this 16 Answer as though expressly set forth herein. 17 92. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1522. A.: 18 The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, 19 deceptive or unfair act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or 20 omission of any material fact with intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection 21 with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise whether or 22 not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice. 23 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 92 of the Complaint do not state a 24 factual allegation to which a response is deemed necessary and Defendants therefore deny 25 same. 26 93. A.R.S. § 44-1521. 5. Provides in pertinent part that ""Merchandise" 27 means," among other things, "intangibles" or "services." As alleged above, ASLS, in 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-21-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 22 of 43 1 connection with the sale or advertisement of the services it provided and the value of an 2 ASLS education, made material misrepresentations regarding bar passage rates and the 3 caliber of students it was admitting to its law school, including the ability of its students to 4 actually pass the bar examination and obtain employment as lawyers. ASLS omitted 5 material facts, including the LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of AAMPLE students 6 despite the fact that the percentage of AAMPLE students was increasing substantially and 7 materially from year to year. ASLS also omitted the material fact that it knew by 8 application of Infilaw’s own bar exam failure predictor formula that few, and increasingly 9 fewer, of its students were ever going to pass the bar exam, let alone find employment as 10 lawyers. ASLS deceptively represented its Legal Education Program as follows: 11 We believe by graduation, lawyers should enter the workforce 12 professionally prepared to practice law in a variety of diverse settings and industries. Summit Law partners with local law 13 firms, courts, municipalities, businesses and non-profits to provide real-world work experiences that foster our students’ 14 desire to learn, grow and succeed while creating well-rounded 15 lawyers who add immediate value to their firms and employers. 16 ANSWER: Defendants refer to the documents referenced in Paragraph 93 of the 17 Complaint for the content thereof. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of 18 Paragraph 93 of the Complaint. 19 94. ASLS used deception, used a deceptive act or practice, used fraud, used 20 false pretense, made false promises, made misrepresentations, and concealed, suppressed 21 and omitted material facts in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise. 22 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 94 of the Complaint. 23 95. ASLS intended that others rely upon these misrepresentations. 24 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 95 of the Complaint. 25 96. Lorona in fact relied upon ASLS’ misrepresentations in deciding to enroll in 26 law school at ASLS, and to continue to enroll in and remain a student at ASLS, and to 27 incur debt in connection therewith. But for ASLS’ misrepresentations, Lorona would not 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-22-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 23 of 43 1 have enrolled in ASLS, continued to enroll and remain a student at ASLS, and continued 2 to incur substantial debt in connection therewith. 3 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 96 of the Complaint. 4 97. As a direct and proximate result of Lorona’s reliance on ASLS’ 5 misrepresentations, Lorona has suffered damages, including but not limited to student 6 loan debt that includes accruing interest and fees throughout its term. In addition, Lorona 7 is unable to obtain employment with her ASLS degree. 8 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 97 of the Complaint. 9 Count Two – Common Law Fraud 10 (Defendant ASLS) 11 98. Lorona restates and re-alleges the allegations of the previous paragraphs as 12 if fully set for the herein. 13 ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their response to the prior paragraphs of this 14 Answer as though expressly set forth herein. 15 99. As alleged herein ASLS made numerous representations to Lorona 16 regarding the bar passage rate and expected bar passage rates of ASLS graduates, 17 admission requirements and the caliber of students being admitted to ASLS, and 18 qualifications of ASLS graduates to actually practice law. 19 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 99 of the Complaint. 20 100. These representations were false. As alleged herein, the actual bar passage 21 rates and expected bar passage rates of ASLS graduates was substantially and materially 22 lower than those represented by ASLS. Admission requirements and the academic caliber 23 of students being admitted to ASLS, including their ability to actually pass the bar exam 24 and find employment as lawyers, was also materially lower than that being represented by 25 ASLS. 26 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 100 of the Complaint. 27 101. ASLS knew these representations were false. ASLS had possession of the 28 true statistics that were substantially and materially different from those represented by QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-23-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 24 of 43 1 Defendants. 2 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 101 of the Complaint. 3 102. ASLS’ representations were material in that they were sufficiently important 4 to influence Lorona’s actions and the actions of a reasonable person. 5 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 102 of the Complaint. 6 103. ASLS intended that Lorona rely upon these representations in deciding to 7 enroll and to remain enrolled at ASLS and to pay Defendants very substantial amounts of 8 money for tuition and fees. 9 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 103 of the Complaint. 10 104. Lorona in fact relied upon the truth of these representations in deciding to 11 enroll and to continue to enroll and remain a student at ASLS, and in deciding to incur 12 substantial debt in the form of loans to pay for attendance at ASLS. 13 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 104 of the Complaint. 14 105. Lorona’s reliance on ASLS’ representations was reasonable and justified 15 under the circumstances. 16 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 105 of the Complaint. 17 106. Lorona was unaware that ASLS’ representations were false. 18 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 106 of the Complaint. 19 107. As a direct and proximate result of Lorona’s reliance on ASLS’ 20 misrepresentations Lorona sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial including 21 but not limited to student loan debt that continues accruing interest and fees throughout its 22 term. In addition, Lorona is unable to obtain employment with her ASLS degree. 23 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 107 of the Complaint. 24 108. ASLS’ conduct was willful and intentional, extreme and outrageous, thus 25 entitling Lorona to an award of punitive damages. 26 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 108 of the Complaint. 27 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-24-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 25 of 43 1 2 Count Three –Negligent Misrepresentation (Defendant ASLS) 3 109. Lorona restates and re-alleges the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as 4 if fully set forth herein. 5 ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their response to the prior paragraphs of this 6 Answer as though expressly set forth herein. 7 110. As alleged herein ASLS made numerous representations to Lorona 8 regarding the bar passage rate and expected bar passage rates of ASLS graduates, 9 admission requirements and the caliber of students being admitted to ASLS, and 10 qualifications of ASLS graduates. 11 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 110 of the Complaint. 12 111. These representations were false. As alleged herein, the actual bar passage 13 rates and expected bar passage rates of ASLS graduates were substantially and materially 14 lower than those represented by ASLS. Admission requirements and the academic caliber 15 of students being admitted to ASLS, including their ability to actually pass the bar exam 16 and find employment as lawyers, was also materially lower than that being represented by 17 ASLS. 18 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 111 of the Complaint. 19 112. ASLS intended that Lorona rely on these representations and ASLS made 20 these representations for that purpose. 21 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 112 of the Complaint. 22 113. ASLS failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or 23 communicating the information conveyed in these representations. 24 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 113 of the Complaint. 25 114. Lorona relied on the information conveyed in these representations as 26 alleged herein in deciding to enroll in and to continue to enroll and remain a student at 27 ASLS, and to incur substantial debt in connection therewith. 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-25-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 26 of 43 1 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 114 of the Complaint. 2 115. Lorona’s reliance on these representations was justified. 3 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 115 of the Complaint. 4 116. As a direct and proximate result of Lorona’s reliance on ASLS’ 5 misrepresentations, Lorona sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial including 6 but not limited to student loan debt that continues accruing interest and fees throughout its 7 term. In addition, Lorona is unable to obtain employment with her ASLS degree. 8 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 116 of the Complaint. 9 Count Four – Family Caregiver And Family Responsibilities Discrimination 10 Association Discrimination The Americans With Disabilities Act. (All Defendants) 11 12 117. Lorona restates and realleges the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if 13 fully set forth herein. 14 ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their response to the prior paragraphs of this 15 Answer as though expressly set forth herein. 16 118. ASLS and Infilaw are "covered entities" within the meaning of the 17 Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (2) in that each of them is 18 an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees 19 for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding 20 calendar year. 21 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 118 of the Complaint state legal 22 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny same. 23 119. At all relevant times Lorona was an "employee" of ASLS and Infilaw within 24 the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (4). 25 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 119 of the Complaint state legal 26 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny same. 27 120. At all relevant times Lorona was a "qualified individual" within the 28 meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (8) in that Lorona can, and at all relevant times QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-26-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 27 of 43 1 could, perform the essential functions of her employment position and the employment 2 position she sought with Defendants with or without reasonable accommodation. 3 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 120 of the Complaint state legal 4 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny same. 5 121. The ADA, 42 U.S.C.§ 12112 (a) specifically provides that: 6 No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified 7 individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of 8 employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 9 This provision of the ADA applied to ASLS and Infilaw at all relevant times. 10 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 121 of the Complaint do not state a 11 factual allegation to which a response is deemed necessary and Defendants therefore deny 12 same. 13 122. The ADA, 42 U.S.C.§ 12112 (b) provides that: 14 15 As used in subsection (a) of this section, the term'discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of 16 disability’ includes---17 *** 18 (4) excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a 19 qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to 20 have a relationship or association. 21 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 122 of the Complaint do not state a 22 factual allegation to which a response is deemed necessary and Defendants therefore deny 23 same. 24 123. The ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (a) further prohibits retaliation against any 25 individual who opposes a violation of the ADA: 26 No person shall discriminate against any individual because 27 such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-27-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 28 of 43 1 testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter. 2 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 123 of the Complaint do not state a 3 factual allegation to which a response is deemed necessary and Defendants therefore deny 4 same. 5 124. Lorona’s minor children (B.L. and C.L.) each have a "disability", 6 specifically chronic severe asthma, within the meaning of the ADA 42, U.S.C. § 12102 7 (1). 8 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 124 of the Complaint state legal 9 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny same. 10 125. Lorona is in a protected category under the ADA because she is associated 11 with her minor children that have disabilities that are recognized under the ADA. 12 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 125 of the Complaint state legal 13 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny same. 14 126. Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and with reckless disregard of 15 Lorona’s rights under the ADA discriminated against Lorona on the basis of disability in 16 violation of the ADA as alleged herein. 17 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 126 of the Complaint. 18 127. Defendants ASLS and Infilaw, at all relevant times, knew that Lorona’s 19 minor children had a disability, and that Lorona was the primary caregiver to her minor 20 children. Lorona specifically discussed with her first ASLS supervisors, Alicia Togno, 21 and later Jim Lemire that Lorona’s children suffered from chronic severe asthma. Lorona 22 also informed Viki Coen from Infilaw about her children’s chronic severe asthma. In 23 addition, Lorona on numerous occasions informed Stephanie Lee of her children’s health, 24 including their severe asthma. In fact, Ms. Lee delivered Lorona’s work laptop to Lorona 25 at Banner Thunderbird Hospital while Lorona’s daughter was hospitalized due to a severe 26 asthma attack. Lee did this so that Lorona could work remotely and not be required to be 27 charged paid time off. Others at ASLS were also aware that Lorona’s children suffered 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-28-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 29 of 43 1 from a chronic severe illness. 2 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 127 of the Complaint. 3 128. Lorona is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, 4 with or without reasonable accommodations by the Defendant, the employer. 5 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 128 of the Complaint state legal 6 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny same. 7 129. Defendants discriminated against Lorona because of the known disability of 8 Lorona’s minor children. 9 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 129 of the Complaint. 10 130. ASLS has a written telecommuting policy that allows employees 11 occasionally to work remotely while caring for sick or disabled family members. 12 ANSWER: The document referenced speaks for itself and should be interpreted in 13 accordance with Arizona law. 14 131. However, Lorona was frequently denied the opportunity to work remotely, 15 or was criticized and harassed when she did work remotely 16 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 131 of the Complaint. 17 132. In addition, on occasions when Lorona was working remotely so that she 18 could be with her disabled children, ASLS routinely charged her paid time off and did not 19 advise her of or offer her FMLA leave. 20 ANSWER: Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 132 of the 21 Complaint. 22 133. Other employees who worked remotely and who did not have disabled 23 family members were not charge paid time off. 24 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 133 of the Complaint. 25 134. Indeed, ASLS employee Viki Coen spoke with Lorona’s supervisor 26 Thompson and informed him that Lorona was actually working and corresponding with 27 her while Lorona was working away from the office. However, even after being so 28 informed, Lee did not change the record, and Lorona was charged PTO. QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-29-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 30 of 43 1 ANSWER: Defendants lacks information sufficient to confirm or deny the 2 allegations of Paragraph 134 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 3 135. Other similarly situated employees were, and still to this day are, permitted 4 to work remotely for many reasons, including reasons less meritorious than caring for a 5 disabled child. 6 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 135 of the Complaint. 7 136. While employees that are not disabled and/or do not have caregiving 8 responsibilities are permitted to work remotely at will, those with disabilities and caring 9 for family members with disabilities are not permitted the same accommodations. For 10 example, Stephanie Lee was allowed to "work" remotely while she shopped, attended 11 appointments, or just stayed at home. Other ASLS employees, including without 12 limitation Glen Fogerty, Diane Alkais, Dave Bachechi, Nina Sergovia, Debbie Richards, 13 Eric Border, and Reid White, who did not have disabled children or family members were 14 allowed to work remotely as they desired. ASLS allowed Jennifer Hanny, who was single 15 and without children, work accommodations in connection with an ongoing illness. 16 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 136 of the Complaint. 17 137. Lorona was also denied promotions and even interviews for promotions 18 despite recommendations by three previous supervisors that she be promoted. 19 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 137 of the Complaint. 20 138. For example, in 2012, ASLS posted for application by potential candidates 21 the position of Director of Finance or Assistant Controller. 22 ANSWER: The documents referenced speak for themselves and should be 23 interpreted in accordance with Arizona law. 24 139. Lorona met or exceeded the minimum qualifications for the position as 25 stated in the posting. 26 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 139 of the Complaint. 27 140. Lorona applied for the position. 28 ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 140 of the Complaint. QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-30-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 31 of 43 1 141. During the first week of April 2012, and without reviewing Lorona’s 2 qualifications for Director of Finance or Controller, Lee told Lorona that she was not 3 qualified to even interview for the position. 4 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 5 allegations of Paragraph 141 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 6 142. Lorona then met with Lee in person in Lee’s office, and explained that 7 Lorona was indeed qualified. Lee curtly told Lorona that she would not be getting an 8 interview either way. Lee said this in the presence of Angelique Artigua, Lee’s 9 Administrative Assistant. 10 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 11 allegations of Paragraph 142 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 12 143. Lorona asked whether the reason she was being denied the opportunity to 13 even interview for the promotion was because she complained about being charged paid 14 time off to care for her disabled children. Lee responded that Lorona would just not be 15 receiving an interview, "period." 16 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 17 allegations of Paragraph 143 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same. 18 144. During this same time period, ASLS’s Viki Coen recommended Lorona for 19 promotions, raises and bonuses, and expressed to Lorona that she could not understand 20 why Lorona was not being promoted. 21 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 22 allegations of Paragraph 144 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same. 23 145. Ultimately, ASLS filled the position with a candidate that did not meet the 24 minimum qualifications for the position. 25 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 145 of the Complaint. 26 146. During the EEOC’s investigation of Lorona’s Charge of Discrimination, 27 ASLS advised the EEOC that Lorona did not qualify for the position to which she applied. 28 ANSWER: The documents within the EEOC investigation file speak for QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-31-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 32 of 43 1 themselves and should be interpreted in accordance with Arizona and federal law. 2 147. EEOC requested a copy of the job description during investigation. 3 ANSWER: The documents within the EEOC investigation file speak for 4 themselves and should be interpreted in accordance with Arizona and federal law. 5 148. ASLS provided a job description different from the position for which 6 Lorona applied. Specifically, the job description states that a CPA is required. 7 ANSWER: The documents within the EEOC investigation file speak for 8 themselves and should be interpreted in accordance with Arizona and federal law. 9 149. When the EEOC Investigator inquired as to why the school provided a 10 misleading job posting, with an incorrect date, ASLS told the EEOC Investigator that they 11 did not provide the correct posting requested because they were moving in a different 12 direction with the posting. 13 ANSWER: The documents within the EEOC investigation file speak for 14 themselves and should be interpreted in accordance with Arizona and federal law. 15 150. Lorona acquired the posted job requirements of the "new position." They 16 appear to be identical to the job duties of the prior posting, except that the "new position" 17 requires a CPA. 18 ANSWER: The documents referenced speak for themselves and should be 19 interpreted in accordance with Arizona and federal law. 20 151. The individual currently holding the position Lorona applied for is a male 21 without a disability and without caregiving responsibilities. 22 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 23 allegations of Paragraph 151 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 24 152. Lee and Thompson continued to harass Lorona in all facets of her 25 employment, including excluding her completely from departmental meetings, excluding 26 her while in meetings, taking Mrs. Lorona’s corporate credit card while other employees 27 in similar positions retained theirs, gossiping about Lorona, and ignoring her throughout 28 the workday. QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-32-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 33 of 43 1 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 152 of the Complaint. 2 153. In contrast, Defendants’ employees who do not have disabled children or 3 close family members are given special consideration and more favorable treatment by 4 Defendants. 5 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 153 of the Complaint. 6 154. Employees who have disabled children or close family members for whom 7 the employee is a caregiver, like Lorona, are required to take paid time off and not advised 8 of their FMLA rights while performing caregiver duties while non-caregiver employees 9 are permitted to work remotely and not blocked from promotions. 10 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 154 of the Complaint. 11 155. ASLS turnover rates, both voluntary and involuntary, for employee 12 caregivers are higher than non-caregiver employees, and the executive staff is primarily 13 made up of employees with non-caregiving duties. 14 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 155 of the Complaint. 15 156. As described herein Defendants discriminated against Lorona because of the 16 known disability of Lorona’s minor children. 17 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 156 of the Complaint. 18 157. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violations of the ADA, 19 Lorona sustained damages, including the loss of wages and benefits, and the loss of 20 increased salary and benefits and the potential for increased salary and benefits, in an 21 amount to be proven at trial. 22 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 157 of the Complaint. 23 158. Defendants’ conduct was willful, intentional and malicious, and was done in 24 reckless disregard of Lorona’s rights, thus entitling Lorona to an award of punitive 25 damages. 26 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 158 of the Complaint. 27 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-33-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 34 of 43 1 Count Five – Gender Discrimination – Disparate Treatment Title VII of the Civil 2 Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section(s) 2000e et seq. (All Defendants) 3 159. Lorona restates and re-alleges the allegations of the previous paragraphs of 4 this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 5 ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their response to the prior paragraphs of this 6 Answer as though expressly set forth herein. 7 160. This claim is authorized and instituted pursuant to the provisions of Title 8 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section(s) 2000e et seq. for 9 relief based upon the unlawful employment practices of Defendant. Specifically, Lorona 10 complains of Defendant’s violation of Title VII’s prohibition in employment based, in 11 whole or in part, upon an employee’s gender. 12 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 160 of the Complaint do not state a 13 factual allegation to which a response is deemed necessary and Defendants therefore deny 14 same. 15 161. Defendant ASLS is an "employer" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 16 (b) in that ASLS was engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more 17 employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or 18 preceding calendar year. 19 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 161 of the Complaint state legal 20 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny the same. 21 162. Defendant Infilaw is an "employer" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 22 2000e (b) in that Infilaw was engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or 23 more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current 24 or preceding calendar year. 25 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 162 of the Complaint state legal 26 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny the same. 27 163. At all relevant times, Lorona was an "employee" of ASLS and Infilaw 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-34-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 35 of 43 1 within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (f) in that she was employed by ASLS and 2 Infilaw. 3 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 163 of the Complaint state legal 4 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny the same. 5 164. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, provides in pertinent 6 part: 7 It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer – 8 (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or 9 otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of 10 employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, 11 sex, or national origin; or 12 (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to 13 deprive any individual of employment opportunities or 14 otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national 15 origin." 16 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—2 (a). At all relevant times this provision was applicable to 17 Defendants ASLS and Infilaw. 18 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 164 of the Complaint do not state a 19 factual allegation to which a response is deemed necessary and Defendants therefore deny 20 same. 21 165. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, also provides in part: 22 It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer 23 to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment … because he has opposed any practice made an 24 unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any 25 manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this 26 subchapter. 27 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—3 (a). 28 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 165 of the Complaint do not state a QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-35-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 36 of 43 1 factual allegation to which a response is deemed necessary and Defendants therefore deny 2 same. 3 166. During her employment with Defendant, Lorona was a member of a 4 protected class under Title VII against gender-based discrimination by her employer, 5 Defendant, or by its managers and supervisory personnel. 6 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 166 of the Complaint state legal 7 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny the same. 8 167. In 2013 Lorona scheduled a meeting with Lee to discuss disparate treatment 9 and whether Lorona’s job was in jeopardy for some reason. 10 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 167 of the Complaint. 11 168. At that meeting, Lorona asked Lee whether there were concerns with 12 performance that she should correct. Lee told Lorona that she did not have any concerns 13 with Lorona’s performance or employment in general. Lee also told Lorona that she had 14 never heard Thompson express any concern with Lorona’s job performance. 15 ANSWER: Defendants lack information sufficient to confirm or deny the 16 allegations of Paragraph 168 of the Complaint and therefore deny same. 17 169. In fact in at least three meetings with Stephanie Lee, at least one of which 18 was also attended by Scott Thompson, Lorona expressed concern that she was being 19 treated differently from other employees and excluded from work related meetings and 20 discussions. Lorona specifically asked whether her job was in jeopardy. Lee and 21 Thompson stated that they did not have any concerns with Lorona’s work. Lee assured 22 Lorona that her job was not in jeopardy. Lee told Lorona that if Lorona were to be 23 terminated she would first receive counseling and several write-ups to provide an 24 opportunity to improve where needed. 25 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 169 of the Complaint. 26 170. Lorona was also denied opportunities for promotion on multiple occasions. 27 Whereas, ASLS hired male executives without posting positions or interviewing potential 28 candidates, female candidates were forced to follow standard hiring procedures. QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-36-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 37 of 43 1 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 170 of the Complaint. 2 171. Shortly after being terminated, Lorona was replaced by a male employee, 3 Eric Border, with fewer qualifications who was not required to follow standard hiring 4 procedures. 5 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 171 of the Complaint. 6 172. Unlike Lorona, Mr. Border had never worked in Student Accounts and did 7 not have any experience managing student accounts. He had never worked in Financial 8 Aid until he started working at ASLS. He was also promoted to Lorona’s position without 9 the job being posted to the public, and without the interview and screening process that 10 others, like Lorona, were required to complete. 11 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 172 of the Complaint. 12 173. In fact, after Mr. Border was promoted, Lorona received numerous calls and 13 emails from individuals in ASLS’s IT Department asking Lorona to help train Mr. Border 14 because no one knew how to do Lorona’s job. 15 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 173 of the Complaint. 16 174. Defendants in fact have established a pattern and practice of discrimination 17 against women in general and those with caregiving responsibilities. 18 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 174 of the Complaint. 19 175. The Director of Admissions, a male, is frequently permitted to leave work 20 early during key times for admissions to attend children’s sporting events and other 21 activities. 22 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 175 of the Complaint. 23 176. In contrast, the Director of Admissions, a female, was berated openly in 24 management meeting regarding performance, and inability to meet performance goals. 25 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 176 of the Complaint. 26 177. A Director of Admissions resigned to take a Professor Position at Arizona 27 State University. Upon non-renewal of that contract, the Director returned to ASLS as the 28 Director of Admissions despite the severe drop in admissions numbers, and an apparent QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-37-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 38 of 43 1 inability to adapt to enrollment challenges prior to his initial departure. 2 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 177 of the Complaint. 3 178. In addition, ASLS hired Kenneth Schnolobler as Director of Technology in 4 2014 without posting the position or interviewing alternative candidates. 5 ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 178 of the Complaint. 6 179. Lorona was required to work until at least 5:00 p.m. daily to accommodate 7 night students. 8 ANSWER: Defendants admit that Lorona was expected to work until 5:00 p.m. 9 while employment by ASLS. Defendants denying the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10 179 of the Complaint. 11 180. Lorona’s male replacement routinely works no later than 4:00 p.m. The 12 male employee states he needs to leave early so that he can take public transportation 13 although public transportation runs much later than 4:00 p.m. on a daily basis. 14 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 180 of the Complaint. 15 181. As alleged above, Defendants also discriminated against Lorona on the basis 16 of her gender in violation of Title VII by failing to promote Lorona or even to consider 17 her for promotions due to her gender and the fact that she was the primary caregiver of her 18 minor children. 19 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 181 of the Complaint. 20 182. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Title VII 21 Lorona has sustained damages, including but not limited to lost wages and benefits, lost 22 promotions and the opportunity for promotions, and the loss of increased wages and 23 benefits through promotion or otherwise in an amount to be proven at trial. 24 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 182 of the Complaint. 25 183. Defendants’ violations of Title VII were willful, intentional and malicious, 26 and were done in reckless disregard of Lorona’s rights, thus entitling Lorona to an award 27 of punitive damages. 28 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 183 of the Complaint. QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-38-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 39 of 43 1 Count Six – Retaliatory Discharge in violation of Title VII and ADA (All Defendants) 2 184. Lorona re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set 3 forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 4 ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their response to the prior paragraphs of this 5 Answer as though expressly set forth herein. 6 185. On numerous occasions during the course of her employment at ASLS, 7 Lorona complained to her supervisors and superiors that Defendants were treating her 8 unfairly and discriminated against her because she: (a) has minor children with 9 disabilities; (b) needs to work from home on occasions so that she can care for her minor 10 children with severe and chronic asthma; and (c) is a woman in that, as described herein, 11 Lorona’s male coworkers were not subjected to harassment and denied promotions and 12 the opportunities for promotion in the same or similar manner as Lorona, and male 13 coworkers who were less qualified than Lorona were advanced and promoted in the 14 company while Lorona was not. 15 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 185 of the Complaint. 16 186. Defendants terminated Lorona’s employment because she attempted to 17 exercise her rights protected under the ADA and Title VII, and complained about unfair, 18 unequal and disparate treatment in violation of the ADA and Title VII as alleged herein. 19 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 186 of the Complaint. 20 187. But for Lorona’s complaints about, and opposition to, unlawful and 21 disparate treatment in violation of the ADA and Title VII and her attempts to exercise her 22 rights thereunder, Defendants would not have terminated Lorona’s employment. 23 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 187 of the Complaint. 24 188. Lee and Thompson were acting in the scope and course of their employment 25 with ASLS and Infilaw. Accordingly, ASLS and Infilaw are liable for the actions of 26 Thompson and Lee under the theory of respondeat superior. 27 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 188 of the Complaint state legal 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-39-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 40 of 43 1 conclusions to which no response is required and Defendants therefore deny the same. 2 189. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Lorona has suffered 3 damages, including but not limited to, the loss of income, loss of employee benefits, and 4 damage to her reputation because she will now be known as a whistleblower and will be 5 forever publicly linked to a whistleblower complaint. 6 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 189 of the Complaint. 7 190. Further, Defendants actions were willful, wanton, intentional, malicious, 8 and done with reckless and evil mind that consciously disregarded Lorona’s rights and the 9 damages that would plainly and obviously result. As such, an assessment of exemplary 10 and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial is warranted. 11 ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 190 of the Complaint. 12 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 13 191. Lorona demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. 14 ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 191 of the Complaint do not state a 15 factual allegation to which a response is deemed necessary and Defendants therefore deny 16 same. 17 GENERAL DENIAL 18 Defendants generally and specifically deny each allegation not expressly admitted 19 herein. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff has suffered any damages or is entitled to 20 any relief as alleged in the Complaint, or at all. 21 ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 22 1. The Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief 23 may be granted. 24 2. The Complaint, in whole or in part, is barred because Plaintiff failed to 25 exhaust her administrative remedies. 26 3. The Complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by the applicable statute of 27 limitations. 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-40-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 41 of 43 1 4. The Complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by the doctrines of estoppel, 2 waiver and/or laches. 3 5. Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any 4 discriminatory behavior and that the Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any 5 preventative or corrective opportunities provided by Defendants. 6 6. Defendants allege that all acts taken by it or anyone acting on their behalf 7 were just, fair, privileged, with good cause, in a good faith effort to comply with federal 8 law, without malice or intent to discriminate or retaliate, and for lawful and legitimate, 9 non-discriminatory reasons. 10 7. Plaintiff’s damages under the ADA are limited to any applicable statutory 11 cap including, but not limited to, the statutory cap set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). 12 8. Defendants allege that any acts or omissions attributed to Defendants in 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint were not willful in that Defendants did not know or show reckless 14 disregard for whether any conduct violated the ADA, Title VII, and other relevant laws 15 and regulations. 16 9. Defendants deny causing Plaintiff to suffer any damages and affirmatively 17 alleges, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part 18 because Plaintiff has, or discovery will show Plaintiff to have failed to mitigate any 19 damages claimed to have been suffered by her. 20 10. Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff, through her own negligence 21 and fault, proximately caused the injuries (in whole or in part to the extent there are any) 22 which are the subject of the Complaint. 23 11. Defendants have not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable 24 affirmative defenses set forth in Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. Defendants reserve the right to 25 assert and rely upon such other defenses as may become available or apparent during 26 discovery proceedings. 27 WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment against Plaintiff as follows: 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-41-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 42 of 43 1 1. Enter a judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff with respect to 2 all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants; 3 2. For costs, disbursements and attorneys’ fees; and 4 3. For such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 5 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of June 2016. 6 QUARLES & BRADY LLP Renaissance One 7 Two North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391 8 9 By/s/Eric B. Johnson 10 Nicole France Stanton Eric B. Johnson 11 Michael S. Catlett 12 Attorneys for Defendants 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-42-Case 2:15-cv-00972-NVW Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 43 of 43 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on June 1, 2016, I electronically transmitted the attached 3 document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all CM/ECF registrants in this matter, including: 4 Robert T Mills 5 Mills & Woods Law PLLC 6 5055 N 12th St., Ste. 101 Phoenix, AZ 85014 7 480-999-4556 8 rmills@millsandwoods.com 9 Sean Anthony Woods Mills & Woods Law PLLC 10 5055 N 12th St., Ste. 101 11 Phoenix, AZ 85014 480-999-4556 12 swoods@millsandwoods.com 13 14/s/Donna Lockwood An employee of Quarles & Brady 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 QB\152522.00007\38179809.3-43-

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Discovery due by 6/30/2017. Dispositive motions due by 7/28/2017. Joint Proposed Pretrial Order due by 8/10/2017. See order for additional deadlines and details. Signed by Senior Judge Neil V Wake on 3/21/2017.

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Paula C. Lorona, No. CV-15-0972-PHX-NVW 10 Plaintiff, CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 11 v. 12 Arizona Summit Law School LLC, et al, 13 Defendants. 14 15 On March 21, 2017, a Scheduling Conference was held pursuant to Rule 16(b) of 16 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties met before the conference in 17 accordance with Rule 26(f) and jointly prepared a Discovery Plan. On the basis of the 18 Scheduling Conference and the Discovery Plan, 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 20 1. Deadline for Joining Parties and Amending Pleadings. The deadline for 21 motions to join parties or for leave to amend pleadings is April 14, 2017. 22 2. Discovery Limitations. Depositions in this case shall be limited to four 23 hours each unless extended by agreement of the parties. The number of depositions and 24 interrogatories shall be as limited in Rules 30(a)(1) and 33(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure. Each subpart of any interrogatory, request for admission, or request for 26 production of documents shall count as a separate interrogatory, request for admission, or 27 request for production of documents. The limitations set forth in this paragraph may be 28 increased by mutual agreement of the parties, but such an increase will not result in an 1 extension of the discovery deadlines set forth below. 2 3. Deadline for Completion of Fact Discovery. The deadline for completing 3 fact discovery, including all disclosure required under Rule 26(a)(3), shall be June 30, 4 2017. To ensure compliance with this deadline, the following rules shall apply: 5 a. Depositions: All depositions shall be scheduled to commence in 6 time to be completed before the discovery deadline and at least five working days prior to 7 the discovery deadline. 8 b. Written Discovery: All interrogatories, requests for production of 9 documents, and requests for admissions shall be served at least 45 days before the 10 discovery deadline. 11 c. Notwithstanding LRCiv 7.3(c), the parties may mutually agree in 12 writing, without court approval, to extend the time provided for discovery responses in 13 Rules 33, 34, and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such agreed-upon 14 extensions, however, shall not alter or extend the discovery deadlines set forth in this 15 order. 16 4. Deadlines for Disclosure of Experts and Completion of Expert Discovery. 17 a. The Plaintiff(s) shall provide full and complete expert disclosures as 18 required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than 19 May 26, 2017. 20 b. No expert witness not timely disclosed will be permitted to testify 21 unless the party offering such witness demonstrates that: (a) the necessity of such expert 22 witness could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the deadline for 23 disclosing such expert witness; (b) the opposing counsel or unrepresented party were 24 promptly notified upon discovery of such expert witness; and (c) such expert witness was 25 promptly proffered for deposition. See Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 26 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) 27 /// 28 -2- 1 5. Discovery Disputes. 2 a. The parties shall not file written discovery motions without leave of 3 court. Except during a deposition, if a discovery dispute arises and cannot be resolved 4 despite sincere efforts to resolve the matter through personal consultation (in person or by 5 telephone), the parties shall jointly file (1) a brief written summary of the dispute with 6 explanation of the position taken by each party and (2) a written certification that the 7 counsel or the parties have attempted to resolve the matter through personal consultation 8 and sincere effort as required by LRCiv 7.2(j) and have reached an impasse. If the 9 opposing party has refused to personally consult, the party seeking relief shall describe 10 the efforts made to obtain personal consultation. Upon review of the filed written 11 summary of dispute, the Court may set a telephonic conference, order written briefing, or 12 decide the dispute without conference or briefing. Any briefing ordered by the Court 13 shall also comply with LRCiv 7.2(j). 14 b. If a discovery dispute arises in the course of a deposition and 15 requires an immediate ruling of the Court, the parties shall jointly telephone the Court to 16 request a telephone conference regarding the dispute. 17 c. Discovery disputes must be promptly resolved or presented to the 18 Court for decision. Discovery disputes must be presented in time to be decided and, if 19 relief is granted, complied with before expiration of the discovery deadline or they will 20 be deemed waived. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not entertain fact 21 discovery disputes after the deadline for completion of fact discovery and will not 22 entertain expert discovery disputes after the deadline for completion of expert discovery. 23 Delay in presenting discovery disputes for resolution is not a basis for extending 24 discovery deadlines. 25 6. Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions and Motions Challenging Expert 26 Testimony. 27 a. If no expert disclosures are exchanged, dispositive motions and 28 motions challenging expert testimony must be filed no later than July 28, 2017. If expert -3- 1 disclosures are exchanged, dispositive motions and motions challenging expert testimony 2 must be filed no later than 28 days after the deadline for close of expert discovery. If 3 opposing parties intend to file dispositive motions, sequential briefing is preferred over 4 simultaneous briefing. Any party may file a cross-motion when responding to an 5 opposing party's dispositive motion. 6 b. No party or parties represented by the same counsel may file more 7 than one motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 8 Procedure unless by leave of the Court. 9 c. Failure to respond to a motion within the time periods provided in 10 LRCiv 7.2 will be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court 11 may dispose of the motion summarily pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). 12 d. A party desiring oral argument shall place the words "Oral 13 Argument Requested" immediately below the title of the motion pursuant to 14 LRCiv 7.2(f). The Court will issue a minute entry order scheduling oral argument as it 15 deems appropriate. 16 7. Pre-motion Conference. The Court will hold a conference with the parties 17 before motions for summary judgment are filed. The purpose of the conference will be to 18 narrow issues and focus the briefing, and perhaps dispense with statements of fact under 19 Local Rule 56.1. The parties shall exchange two-page letters describing any anticipated 20 motions for summary judgment and responses, identifying the issues and claims on which 21 summary judgment will be sought and the basis for the motions and response. The 22 parties shall file these letters with the Court no later than the date for close of all 23 discovery and preferably earlier. The parties shall call the Court the same day to 24 schedule a time for a pre-motion conference. 25 8. Deadline for Engaging in Good Faith Settlement Talks. All parties and 26 their counsel shall meet in person and engage in good faith settlement talks no later than 27 June 30, 2017. Upon completion of such settlement talks, and in no event later than five 28 working days after the deadline set forth in the preceding sentence, the parties shall file -4- 1 with the Court a joint Report on Settlement Talks executed by or on behalf of all counsel. 2 The report shall inform the Court that good faith settlement talks have been held and shall 3 report on the outcome of such talks. The parties shall promptly notify the Court at any 4 time when settlement is reached during the course of this litigation. 5 The Court will set a settlement conference before a magistrate judge upon request 6 of all parties. 7 The parties are encouraged to discuss settlement at all times during the pendency 8 of the litigation. The Court will not, however, extend the case processing deadlines 9 because the parties wish to avoid litigation expense if and when they elect to pursue 10 settlement efforts, including a settlement conference before a magistrate judge. The 11 parties should plan their settlement efforts accordingly. 12 9. Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. 13 a. If no motions for summary judgment have been filed, then 14 Plaintiff(s) shall lodge a Joint Proposed Pretrial Order by August 10, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. 15 Arizona time. The order shall be in the form found at www.azd.uscourts.gov under 16 Judges' Orders, Forms & Procedures/Judge Wake. There are separate orders for cases 17 being heard by a jury and cases being heard by the Court. 18 b. If summary judgment motions have been filed, the Court will set a 19 time for lodging the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order after the resolution of such dispositive 20 motions. 21 10. Final Pretrial Conference. The parties who will be trying the case shall 22 appear at the Final Pretrial Conference TO BE SET BY LATER ORDER. 23 11. The Deadlines Are Real. The parties are advised that the Court intends to 24 enforce the deadlines set forth in this order, and they should plan their litigation activities 25 accordingly. The Court will not extend the case processing deadlines because the parties 26 wish to avoid litigation expense if and when they elect to pursue settlement efforts, 27 including a settlement conference before a magistrate judge. 28 -5- 1 12. Dismissal for Failure to Meet Deadlines of this Order or of the Rules. The 2 parties are warned that failure to meet any of the deadlines in this order or in the Federal 3 Rules of Civil Procedure without substantial justification may result in sanctions, 4 including dismissal of the action or entry of default. 5 13. Requirement for Paper Courtesy Copies. Pursuant to Section II.D.3 of the 6 Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, a paper courtesy 7 copy of dispositive motions and responses and replies thereto and any document 8 exceeding 10 pages in length shall be either post-marked and mailed directly to the judge 9 or hand-delivered to the judge's mail box located in the courthouse the next business day 10 after the electronic filing. Courtesy copies of documents too large for stapling must be 11 submitted in three-ring binders or otherwise firmly bound. If courtesy copies have 12 exhibits and/or attachments, they must be indexed and tabbed as set forth in the filing. If 13 courtesy copies are not delivered within three days of the file date, the Court may strike 14 the pleading summarily for failure to follow court rules and this order. 15 Dated this 21st day of March, 2017. 16 17 Neil V. Wake 18 Senior United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6-

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 131 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
05/28/2015
NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Maricopa County Superior Court, case number CV2015-000681. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-11726653 filed by Scott Thompson, Infilaw Corporation, Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Stephanie Lee. (submitted by Michael Catlett)
1
Exhibit
2
Notice of Removal
3
Civil Cover Sheet
4
Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet)(KMG
4 Attachments
2
05/28/2015
NOTICE - Verification of Michael S. Catlett to re: 1 Notice of Removal by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation, Stephanie Lee, Scott Thompson. (submitted by Michael Cablett)
05/28/2015
*****State Court record received on 5/28/2015*****SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Paula C Lorona: Affidavits of Service re: Summons, Demand for Jury Trial, First Amended Complaint, upon Arizona Summit Law School LLC; Scott Thompson; Jane Doe Thompson; Infilaw Corporation on May 5, 2015.*****Affidavits of Service filed in State Court on 5/6/2015, docketed in U.S. District Court on 5/28/2015 for case management purposes.***** (KMG) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (Text entry; no document attached.)
05/28/2015
*****State Court record received on 5/28/2015*****SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Paula C Lorona: Affidavit of Service re: Summons, Demand for Jury Trial, First Amended Complaint upon Jason Lee; Jason Lee for Susan Lee on May 6, 2015.*****Affidavits of Service filed in State Court on 5/6/2015, docketed in U.S. District Court on 5/28/2015 for case management purposes.***** (KMG) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (Text entry; no document attached.)
05/28/2015
*****State Court record received on 5/28/2015*****SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Paula C Lorona: Affidavit of Service re: Summons, Demand for Jury Trial, First Amended Complaint upon Jason Lee for Stephanie Lee (not Susan Lee) on May 6, 2015.*****Affidavit of Service filed in State Court on 5/20/2015, docketed in U.S. District Court on 5/28/2015 for case management purposes.***** (KMG) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (Text entry; no document attached.)
3
05/28/2015
Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-11726653. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Neil V Wake. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-15-00972-PHX-NVW. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached.
4
05/29/2015
NOTICE TO PARTY RE: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: Pursuant to FRCiv 7.1 and LRCiv 7.1.1 the attached Corporate Disclosure Statement form must be filed by all nongovernmental corporate parties with their first appearance. A supplemental statement must be filed upon any change in the information. In addition, if not already filed, the Corporate Disclosure Statement should be filed within 14 days. Corporate Disclosure Statement Deadline set as to Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
5
05/29/2015
ORDER that motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c) are discouraged if the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. Therefore, the parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of such motions to determine whether it can be avoided. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 5/29/15.
6
06/01/2015
ORDER (STANDING ORDER FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYMENT CASES) - Plaintiff(s) shall provide a copy of this order to Defendant(s) at the time of service of the complaint or within 10 days of receipt of this Order, whichever is later. Plaintiff(s) shall file a notice of service of this order with the Court. See order for complete details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 6/1/15.
7
06/01/2015
Corporate Disclosure Statement by Arizona Summit Law School LLC.
8
06/01/2015
Corporate Disclosure Statement by Infilaw Corporation.
9
06/04/2015
STIPULATION of Dismissal Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice by Jason Lee, Stephanie Lee, Scott Thompson.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
10
06/04/2015
STIPULATION for Filing Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
11
06/05/2015
ORDER granting the parties' Stipulation (Doc. 10). FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint no later than Monday, 06/15/15. Upon the filing of a new amended complaint, Defendants shall have ten days to file a responsive pleading. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 6/5/15.
12
06/15/2015
STIPULATION by Arizona Summit Law School LLC.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
13
06/16/2015
ORDER that the Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint by no later than Thursday, 06/25/15. Upon the filing of a new amended complaint, Defendants shall have ten days to file a responsive pleading. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 6/16/15.
14
06/25/2015
NOTICE of Appearance by Sean Anthony Woods on behalf of Paula C Lorona.
15
06/25/2015
First MOTION to Amend/Correct First Amended Complaint by Paula C Lorona.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
16
07/13/2015
STIPULATION re: 15 First MOTION to Amend/Correct First Amended Complaint by Paula C Lorona.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
17
07/17/2015
ORDER denying 16 Stipulation to File Amended Exhibit A. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 7/17/15.
18
07/21/2015
AMENDED MOTION to Amend/Correct 16 Stipulation to File Amended Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Paula C Lorona.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
19
07/21/2015
ORDER granting Plaintiff's Amended Motion (Doc. 18). FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file her Second Amended Complaint no later than Thursday, 07/23/15. Upon the filing of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Defendants shall have ten days to file a responsive pleading. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 7/21/15.
20
07/22/2015
AMENDED COMPLAINT against Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation, Unknown Parties filed by Paula C Lorona.
21
08/03/2015
MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
1
Exhibit A - Certificate of Conferral
2
Exhibit B - Charge
2 Attachments
22
08/20/2015
STIPULATION re: 21 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Paula C Lorona.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
23
08/24/2015
ORDER: The Court having reviewed the parties' Joint Stipulation to Extend Response Deadlines to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22), ORDERED granting the Stipulation. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have up to and including August 27, 2015, to file a response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) and Defendants shall have up to and including September 14, 2015, to file their reply. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
24
08/27/2015
RESPONSE to Motion re: 21 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Paula C Lorona.
1
Exhibit
1 Attachment
25
09/03/2015
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
26
09/09/2015
Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
27
09/11/2015
PROTECTIVE ORDER - granting the parties' Stipulation (Doc. 26). See order for complete details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 9/10/15.
28
09/14/2015
REPLY to Response to Motion re: 21 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
1
Exhibit A
1 Attachment
29
11/19/2015
ORDER that Plaintiff file no later than 11/25/15, a short memorandum stating whether Plaintiff objects to the authenticity of the purported copy of the Charge of Discrimination attached to Defendants' Reply (Doc. 28 -1) and if so, on what grounds. If no memorandum is filed by that date, Plaintiff will be deemed to have waived all objections to the copy's authenticity. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 11/19/15.
30
11/24/2015
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff's Memorandum in Response to the Court's November 19, 2015 Order 29 Order by Plaintiff Paula C Lorona.
31
12/02/2015
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument re: 21 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for 12/10/2015 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Neil V. Wake. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
32
12/10/2015
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Neil V. Wake: Oral Argument held on 12/10/2015. Counsel argue their respective positions regarding the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21). Matter taken under advisement. Separate order to follow. APPEARANCES: Robert Mills and Sean Woods for Plaintiff. Eric Johnson and Michael Catlett for Defendants. (Court Reporter Charlotte Powers.) Hearing held 1:56 PM to 4:09 PM (with a recess from 3:13 PM to 3:26 PM) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
33
12/16/2015
ORDER that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) is granted with respect to every claim in the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 20) except (1) Title VII sex discrimination arising from the Law School denying Lorona opportunities for promotion, requiring her to work late, and terminating her; (2) ADA discrimination on the basis of her association with her disabled children; and (3) retaliation for activity protected under Title VII. Infilaw remains a defendant only with respect to Lorona's Title VII and ADA discrimination claims arising from denied opportunities for promotion. FURTHER ORDERED that Lorona may file a further amended complaint by 01/15/16. If Lorona does not file a further amended complaint by that date, she will be held to the position that no amendment could be made that would revive the claims dismissed in this order and may proceed only with her surviving claims, and the time for Defendants to file a responsive pleading will begin to run on the next business day. See order for complete details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 12/16/15.
34
01/14/2016
AMENDED COMPLAINT Third against All Defendants filed by Paula C Lorona.
35
01/28/2016
MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : Counts One Through Three by Arizona Summit Law School LLC.
1
Exhibit
1 Attachment
36
02/11/2016
RESPONSE to Motion re: 35 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : Counts One Through Three of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint filed by Paula C Lorona.
37
02/22/2016
REPLY to Response to Motion re: 35 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : Counts One Through Three of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint filed by Arizona Summit Law School LLC.
38
05/04/2016
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument as to 35 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims: Counts One Through Three for 5/13/2016 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Neil V. Wake. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
39
05/13/2016
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Neil V. Wake: Oral Argument held on 05/13/16. Counsel state their respective positions regarding Defendant Arizona Summit Law School, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Three of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 35). Motion taken under advisement. Written order to follow. APPEARANCES: Sean A. Woods for Plaintiff. Michael S. Catlett and Eric B. Johnson for Defendants. (Court Reporter Laurie Adams.) Hearing held 1:49 PM to 3:20 PM This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
40
05/18/2016
ORDER that Defendant Arizona Summit Law School, LLC's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 35) Counts I, II, and III of the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 34) is granted with prejudice only to the extent those Counts rely on fraud other than misrepresentation in enrollment statistics. The Motion is otherwise denied. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may, as of the date of this order, begin discovery as to how many of the Law School's students were Alternative students during the times relevant to Lorona's fraud claims. This discovery shall conclude no later than Friday, 07/15/16. FURTHER ORDERED that if the Law School deems the outcome of this discovery dispositive of Lorona's fraud claims, it may file a motion for summary judgment to that effect no later than Monday, 08/01/16. If no such motion is filed, the parties may then begin general discovery as to Lorona's fraud claims. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 5/17/16.
41
05/25/2016
NOTICE of Deposition of Shirley Mays, filed by Paula C Lorona.
42
05/25/2016
NOTICE of Deposition of Scott Thompson, filed by Paula C Lorona.
43
05/25/2016
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paula C Lorona.
44
05/26/2016
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paula C Lorona.
45
05/26/2016
NOTICE of Deposition of ARIZONA SUMMIT LAW SCHOOL, filed by Paula C Lorona.
46
05/27/2016
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paula C Lorona.
47
05/28/2016
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paula C Lorona.
48
05/28/2016
TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Paula C Lorona for proceedings held on 5/13/2016, Judge Neil V Wake hearing judge(s).
49
06/01/2016
ANSWER to 34 Amended Complaint by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
50
06/17/2016
NOTICE re: Joint Notice of Discovery Dispute Re Depositions by Arizona Summit Law School LLC.
1
Exhibits A-C
1 Attachment
51
06/24/2016
ORDER that the Joint Notice of Discovery Dispute Re Depositions (Doc. 50), which the Court treats as a motion for protective order by Defendants, is granted. Defendants shall produce a witness with knowledge to testify how the data reflected on the spreadsheets were collected and what the data mean. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 6/24/16.
52
07/14/2016
NOTICE re: Discovery Dispute re 30(b)(6) Deposition by Paula C Lorona.
1
Exhibit Defendants' Exhibits B-D
1 Attachment
53
06/30/2016
NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing proceedings held on 05/13/2016, before Judge Neil V. Wake. (Court Reporter: Laurie A. Adams). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/21/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/1/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/28/2016.
54
07/15/2016
*NOTICE of Errata re 52 Joint Notice of Discovery Dispute Re 30(b)(6) Deposition - Exhibit A by Plaintiff Paula C Lorona.
1
Exhibit Exhibit A) *Modified to include document linkage on 7/18/2016 (KMG
1 Attachment
55
08/01/2016
MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts One Through Three of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
56
08/01/2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 55 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts One Through Three of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint by Defendants Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
1
Exhibit
1 Attachment
57
08/01/2016
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on the pending Discovery Dispute (Doc. 52 54) for 8/4/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Neil V.Wake. Ordered by Senior Judge Neil V Wake. (vg)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.)
58
08/04/2016
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Senior Judge Neil V. Wake: Discovery Hearing/Oral Argument held on 8/4/2016. Counsel state their respective positions regarding the Joint Notice of Discovery Dispute (Docs. 52, 54). Treating the pending dispute as a motion, the Court denies Plaintiff's request. APPEARANCES: Sean A. Woods for Plaintiff. Michael S. Catlett for Defendants. (Court Reporter Laurie Adams.) Hearing held 2:04 PM to 2:57 PM This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
59
08/09/2016
TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Paula C Lorona for proceedings held on 08/04/2016, Judge Neil V Wake hearing judge(s).
60
08/16/2016
NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Discovery Hearing proceedings held on 08/04/2016, before Judge Neil V. Wake. (Court Reporter: Laurie A. Adams). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/6/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/16/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/14/2016.
61
09/06/2016
STIPULATION re: 55 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts One Through Three of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, 56 Statement of Facts to Extend Time for Plaintiff's Response by Paula C Lorona.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
62
09/07/2016
ORDER granting the parties' Stipulation (Doc. 61). FURTHER ORDERED extending the time for Plaintiff to file her Response to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment until Tuesday, 09/13/16. Signed by Senior Judge Neil V. Wake on 9/7/16.
63
09/13/2016
RESPONSE to Motion re: 55 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts One Through Three of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint filed by Paula C Lorona.
64
09/13/2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 63 Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Paula C Lorona.
1
Exhibit Exhibits 1-13
1 Attachment
65
09/13/2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 63 Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 64 Statement of Facts Controverting Statement of Facts by Plaintiff Paula C Lorona.
66
10/03/2016
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST REQUEST) by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation, Jason Lee, Stephanie Lee, Scott Thompson, Unknown Thompson, Unknown Parties.
1
Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order
1 Attachment
67
10/03/2016
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant submit a proposed form of order that is not on law firm stationery, in compliance with Local Rule 7.1(b)(3) re: 66 Stipulation to Extend Time filed by Infilaw Corporation, Stephanie Lee, Unknown Thompson, Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Unknown Parties, Scott Thompson, Jason Lee. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
68
10/03/2016
Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 66 Stipulation TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST REQUEST) by Defendants Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation, Jason Lee, Stephanie Lee, Scott Thompson, Unknown Thompson, Unknown Parties.
69
10/04/2016
ORDER granting the parties' Stipulation (Doc. 66). FURTHER ORDERED extending the time for Defendant to file its Reply in in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment until Tuesday, 10/11/16. Signed by Senior Judge Neil V. Wake on 10/3/16.
70
10/11/2016
*RESPONSE re: 64 Statement of Facts DEFENDANT ARIZONA SUMMIT LAW SCHOOL, LLC'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF PAULA C. LORONA'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF HER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ARIZONA SUMMIT LAW SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Defendants Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation. *Modified to correct event type on 10/12/2016
71
10/11/2016
*REPLY in Response to 55 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment DEFENDANT ARZIONA SUMMIT LAW SCHOOL, LLC'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS ONE THROUGH THREE OF PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT by Defendants Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation. *Modified to add document number on 10/12/2016
72
12/27/2016
ORDER that Plaintiff Paula C. Lorona's objection to the admission of the Law Schools Source Spreadsheet is overruled. ORDERED that Defendant Arizona Summit Law School, LLC's 55 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts One Through Three of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference will be set by separate order. Signed by Senior Judge Neil V Wake on 12/27/2016. (See Order for details.) (LFIG)
73
12/27/2016
SCHEDULING ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 2/10/2017 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Neil V Wake (see document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Neil V Wake on 12/27/16.
74
12/29/2016
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Summit Law School LLC.
75
01/23/2017
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
76
01/23/2017
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paula C Lorona.
77
02/02/2017
Due to a conflict in the Court's calendar, IT IS ORDERED the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, presently set for 02/10/2017 at 10:30 AM is VACATED and RESET to 02/17/2017 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Neil V. Wake. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming all orders contained within the Court's Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference (Doc. 73) except for the date and time of said conference. Ordered by Senior Judge Neil V Wake. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.)
78
02/02/2017
REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
79
02/03/2017
Due to a conflict in Plaintiff's counsel's calendar and upon agreement of all parties, IT IS ORDERED resetting the Scheduling Conference, presently set for 02/17/2017 at 2:30 PM to 2/24/2017 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Neil V. Wake. Ordered by Senior Judge Neil V Wake. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.)
80
02/24/2017
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Senior Judge Neil V Wake: At the time set for Scheduling Conference on 2/24/2017, discussion is held. The parties are directed to meet and submit a revised Joint Proposed Discovery Plan, as stated on the record, not later than 3/10/2017. Scheduling Conference is reset for 3/20/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Neil V Wake. APPEARANCES: Sean Woods for Plaintiff. Eric Johnson for Defendants. (Court Reporter Laurie Adams.) Hearing held 1:36 PM to 1:54 PM This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
81
03/02/2017
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paula C Lorona.
82
03/10/2017
REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
83
03/11/2017
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paula C Lorona.
84
03/13/2017
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED, due to a conflict in the Court's calendar, resetting the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference from 3/20/2017 at 9:30 AM to 3/21/2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Neil V. Wake. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
85
03/15/2017
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paula C Lorona.
86
03/15/2017
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paula C Lorona.
87
03/21/2017
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Senior Judge Neil V Wake: Scheduling Conference held on 3/21/2017. Case status and scheduling are discussed. Separate Case Management Order to issue. APPEARANCES: Sean Anthony Woods for Plaintiff. Eric Bowen Johnson for Defendants. (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder.) Hearing held 11:29 AM to 12:01 PM This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
88
03/21/2017
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Discovery due by 6/30/2017. Dispositive motions due by 7/28/2017. Joint Proposed Pretrial Order due by 8/10/2017. See order for additional deadlines and details. Signed by Senior Judge Neil V Wake on 3/21/2017.
89
05/31/2017
STIPULATION of Dismissal Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
90
06/01/2017
ORDER granting 89 Stipulation of Dismissal. The above-captioned matter is dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by Senior Judge Neil V Wake on 06/01/2017.
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.