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

District of Arizona

2:2016-cv-03490 (azd)

COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-13494561 filed by Tristan Young. (submitted by Phil Flemming)

Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 14 1 Phil S. Flemming (#014778) ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC 2 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 3 Telephone: (602) 682-6450 Facsimile: (602) 682-6455 4 psf@robainalaw.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Tristan Young, an individual, No. 9 Plaintiff 10 v. COMPLAINT 11 Arizona Summit Law School, LLC, a (Americans with Disabilities Act; 12 Delaware limited liability company, and Rehabilitation Act; Negligent Infilaw Corporation, a Delaware Misrepresentation; Common Law 13 corporation, Fraud) 14 Defendants. Jury Trial Demanded 15 16 17 Plaintiff, Tristan Young, by undersigned counsel, for her Complaint against 18 Arizona Summit Law School, LLC (formerly Phoenix School of Law) and Infilaw 19 Corporation alleges as follows: 20 NATURE OF ACTION 21 1. This is an action seeking money damages and equitable relief for violations 22 of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 ("ADA") and 23 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1972 ("Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 794, et 24 seq., and for negligent representation and common law fraud against Defendants. 25 PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 26 2. Ms. Young is a United States citizen who at all relevant times resided in 27 Maricopa County, Arizona. 28 3. Defendant Arizona Summit Law School, LLC ("ASLS") is a Delaware 1 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 14 1 limited liability company offering private legal education in Arizona. ASLS is licensed 2 by the Arizona State Board for Private and Post-Secondary Education and the American 3 Bar Association. 4 4. Defendant Infilaw Corporation, the parent corporation of ASLS, is a 5 Delaware corporation with headquarters in Naples Florida. 6 5. At all relevant times, ASLS caused events to occur in Maricopa County, 7 Arizona, out of which this action arises. 8 6. At all relevant times, ASLS was a "place of public accommodation" for 9 purposes of 42 U.S.C. 12182(a) and a "program or activity receiving federal financial 10 assistance for purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 11 7. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because 12 this action arises under the laws of the United States, specifically, Title III of the 13 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 14 Act of 1972, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq. 15 8. Supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Young’s state law claims are proper 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 17 9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because 18 the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. 19 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 20 10. Ms. Young incorporates all other paragraphs in this Complaint as though 21 fully set forth herein. 22 11. ASLS is a private, for-profit law school located in Phoenix, Arizona. 23 12. Infilaw if a for profit corporation that operates three private law schools 24 including ASLS. 25 13. Infilaw retains significant control of ASLS’ operations by, among other 26 things, maintaining control over academic matters and promulgating policies and 27 procedures by which ASLS is operated, including the Student Handbook. 28///2 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 14 1 14. ASLS is known for admitting students into its law school program who are 2 unable to obtain admittance at other schools because of poor grades or low LSAT scores. 3 15. Tuition for full-time students at ASLS is in excess of $45,000 annually and 4 is in excess of $35,000 annually for part-time students. 5 16. Ms. Young took the LSAT on three occasions, earning a 136 each time. 6 17. Despite that the score was lower than even ASLS typically admits, ASLS 7 recruited Ms. Young in the Spring of 2013 and invited her to participate in its AAMPLE 8 program, claiming she was an "excellent candidate." 9 18. AAMPLE is an "Alternative Admissions Model for Legal Education" that 10 allows certain otherwise unqualified students to gain admission to a law participating law 11 school by passing a pre-admission program designed to provide students insight into the 12 rigors of first-year law school courses. 13 19. ASLS promised Ms. Young a quality education, boasting a focus on 14 "student centered" outcomes, a bar passage rate exceeding 80% and a 97% employment 15 rate of its graduates. 16 20. Ms. Young received multiple emails and marketing materials advertising 17 the school’s fast track to ABA Accreditation as well as its 80+% bar pass rate. 18 21. Ms. Young also reviewed the Law School Admission Council’s website 19 and the ASLS website. 20 22. Although skeptical of the extremely high cost of attendance at ASLS and 21 the negative reviews she read about the school, she was convinced to attend ASLS based 22 on the representations related to bar passage and post-graduate employment. 23 23. Based on ASLS’ representations and marketing materials she believed she 24 had a good chance of succeeding in law school, passing a bar examination on the first try 25 and obtaining a post-graduation position practicing law in either public or private 26 practice. 27///28///3 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 4 of 14 1 24. Ms. Young accepted enrollment into the AAMPLE Program, passed, and 2 commenced traditional law school course work as a part-time student at ASLS in the Fall 3 of 2013. 4 25. Ms. Young has a history of Dyslexia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 5 Disorder, Reading and Mathematics Disorders, General Anxiety Disorder, and Bipolar II 6 Disorder. 7 26. In an effort to receive educational accommodations for the AAMPLE 8 program and in law school, Ms. Young submitted an evaluation and recommendation for 9 accommodations from licensed clinical psychologist, Jeremy Sharp, PhD. 10 27. In his evaluation, Dr. Sharp documented Ms. Young’s diagnoses and 11 learning difficulties and recommended ASLS afford Ms. Young additional time on tests, 12 separate testing area, proofreading assistance, advance copies of professor 13 notes/overheads, and for tests to be read to her. 14 28. For its part, ASLS retained psychology consultant Sandra M. Graff to 15 review either accept or make other recommendations for Ms. Young. 16 29. In her "File Review of Disability Accommodations Request," Ms. Graff 17 agreed with Dr. Sharp’s recommendations, finding them "properly supported and 18 appropriate." 19 30. Ms. Young was advised that ASLS would provide the accommodations. 20 Ms. Young was Academically Dismissed and Reinstated Four Times 21 31. ASLS instituted an Infilaw wide curriculum change in Fall 2013. 22 32. Under ASLS’ new curriculum, traditional law school courses such as Torts, 23 Contracts, Research and Writing and Criminal Law were omitted from the first year 24 curriculum in favor of courses such as "Law School Foundations" and "Introduction to 25 Criminal Practice and Writing." 26 33. The courses were significantly different than the courses taught through the 27 AAMPLE program. 28///4 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 5 of 14 1 34. In addition to changing the curriculum, ASLS instituted a new grading 2 policy whereby many courses were pass/fail and graded courses were weighted 3 differently than a traditional law school. 4 35. Ms. Young took four classes during the Fall 2013 semester. 5 36. ASLS’ Accommodations Director, Debra Love, ensured Ms. Young 6 received additional time on tests in a separate and quiet testing facility and that she was 7 not subject to pop quizzes. 8 37. Ms. Love also proofread Ms. Young’s ScanTron sheets and written 9 examination responses. 10 38. Ms. Young passed all of her classes during the Fall 2013 semester. 11 39. Two courses were pass/fail. She received a C+ in a three credit course and 12 a C-in a five credit course. 13 40. Because of the weighting of the new courses Ms. Young did not achieve a 14 2.0 grade point average and was placed on academic probation. 15 41. After achieving a 2.33 grade point average in the Spring 2014 semester, 16 Ms. Young was placed back in good academic standing with ASLS. 17 42. During the Summer 2014 semester, Ms. Young failed a class and earned 18 only a 1.36 grade point average, lowering her cumulative grade point average to 1.83. 19 She was placed back on academic probation. 20 43. During the Summer and Fall of 2014, Ms. Young suffered a personal 21 trauma of which ASLS was fully aware. 22 44. The personal trauma negatively affected Ms. Young’s disabilities and 23 grades. 24 45. Also in 2014, Ms. Love left ASLS and was replaced by Sandra Ericson. 25 46. During the Fall 2014, Ms. Young was required to take pop quizzes. 26 47. When Ms. Ericson was made aware of the pop quizzes, she asked the 27 professor to remove Ms. Young from the requirement. 28///5 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 6 of 14 1 48. Although no longer subject to pop quizzes, Ms. Young’s grade was 2 negatively impacted by the pop quizzes previously taken. 3 49. In addition, as of Fall 2014, Ms. Young was no longer provided 4 proofreading assistance. 5 50. On her Fall 2014 Evidence mid-term examination, Ms. Young made an 6 error when entering her Blind Grading Number ("BGN") onto her ScanTron sheet. 7 51. Before the mid-term examination, Professor Mitchell Fleischman warned 8 that any student whose BGN was entered incorrectly would receive a 25-point deduction 9 on the mid-term exam because, in his opinion, "If you can’t fill out a Scantron sheet 10 correctly, then you have no business being an attorney." 11 52. Ms. Young’s error resulted in a 25-point deduction, and an overall grade of 12 C-in the class. 13 53. When Ms. Young discovered the BGN error, she discussed her disabilities 14 and the accommodations she was supposed to receive with Professor Fleischman who 15 agreed to return the 25 points so long as the then Dean of Student Services, Therese 16 Brown agreed. 17 54. Ms. Brown refused to allow Professor Fleischman to alter Ms. Young’s 18 grade stating that proofreading was not an accommodation. 19 55. Had the accommodation been provided, as it was in prior semesters, per 20 Professor Fleischman, Ms. Young would have received a C+ or B-grade. 21 56. Either grade would have been enough to raise her cumulative grade point 22 average to a 2.0. 23 57. Instead, Ms. Young was academically dismissed on January 16, 2015. 24 58. Per ASLS policy Ms. Young petitioned for reinstatement. 25 59. The ASLS Student Handbook at Sections 2.4.8.2 and 2.4.8.3 requires 26 students seeking reinstatement to demonstrate specifically: 27 a) that extenuating circumstances leading to the student’s deficient academic 28 performance existed; 6 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 7 of 14 1 b) that those circumstances no longer exist; 2 c) a detailed plan for academic success upon reinstatement, including the 3 student’s responsibility for assuring such success; 4 d) that the student’s record contains sufficient indicators of future success in 5 law school and the ability to pass a bar examination. 6 60. In her petition for reinstatement, Ms. Young cited "extenuating 7 circumstances" related to the extreme personal trauma of which ASLS was aware. 8 61. Ms. Young avowed that the extenuating circumstances no longer existed 9 and that she had a plan for academic success. 10 62. On February 2, 2015, Ms. Young was reinstated based on the Academic 11 Standards Committee’s ("Committee") determination that "extenuating circumstances 12 detrimental to satisfactory performance substantially hindered [Ms. Young]" and that 13 those circumstances were no longer present. 14 63. In addition, the Committee opined that Ms. Young would be able to achieve 15 a cumulative 2.0 grade point average. 16 64. At the time Ms. Young petitioned for reinstatement, she also became aware 17 that ASLS graduates were not passing the Arizona bar examination. 18 65. ASLS’ Arizona bar pass rates were less than 55% for first time takers in 19 February 2014, and only 48.8% overall. 20 66. ASLS’ Arizona bar pass rates were 54.7% for first time takers in July 2014 21 and 49.7% overall. 22 67. Ms. Young was concerned about her own ability to pass a bar examination, 23 in particular given her personal academic struggles at ASLS. 24 68. Ms. Young considered discontinuing her education at ASLS but was 25 continually reassured that despite the numbers reported by the Committee on Bar 26 Examinations that ASLS’ bar pass rate exceeded 80%. 27 69. During a town hall meeting, Dean Shirley Mays represented to students that 28 bar pass rates were not as bad as they appeared and that the students were to blame based 7 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 8 of 14 1 on their lack of effort. 2 70. The next semester, Spring 2015, ASLS again failed to appropriately 3 accommodate Ms. Young when the proctor arrived to the testing site fifteen minutes late 4 and made multiple interruptions and errors forcing Ms. Young to start and restart her 5 Advanced Property Law examination three times. 6 71. As a result, Ms. Young was tested for nearly six hours, after which she was 7 suffering severe symptoms of anxiety. 8 72. Ms. Young scored poorly on the Advanced Property Law examination and 9 earned a D grade in the course. 10 73. Despite the testing interruptions and errors not caused by Ms. Young, 11 ASLS denied her grade appeal citing ASLS’ policy that the grade was not the result of a 12 "computation error, arbitrariness, or animus" toward Ms. Young. 13 74. Ms. Young was academically dismissed. 14 75. Although her dismissal was not the result of "extenuating circumstances," 15 as before, Ms. Young petitioned for reinstatement. 16 76. To her surprise, on June 26, 2015, ASLS reinstated Ms. Young citing 17 "extenuating circumstances that were no longer present" and the ability to earn a 2.0 18 cumulative grade point average. 19 77. Ms. Young took a pass/fail course during the Summer 2015 Intersession 20 and achieved a 2.05 grade point average for course work during the Summer 2015 21 semester. 22 78. Ms. Young’s cumulative grade point average after the Summer 2015 23 semester remained below a 2.0. 24 79. Ms. Young was academically dismissed on September 3, 2015. 25 80. Ms. Young again petitioned for reinstatement despite having no 26 "extenuating circumstances hindering" her performance. 27 81. Ms. Young was reinstated on September 10, 2015 citing "extenuating 28 circumstances" hindering Ms. Young’s performance that no longer exist, and stating that 8 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 9 of 14 1 she would be able to achieve a cumulative minimum 2.0 grade point average. 2 82. Effective Fall Semester 2015, Infilaw and ASLS amended the academic 3 policy to require students to achieve a cumulative 2.2 grade point average to remain in 4 good standing and to graduate. 5 83. Ms. Young and others who began law school at ASLS before Fall 2015 6 were afforded two semesters in which to either graduate or meet the minimum 2.2 grade 7 point average requirement. 8 84. Given Ms. Young’s record throughout her law school career, and the total 9 number of credits Ms. Young accumulated before Fall 2015, it was impossible for Ms. 10 Young to raise her grade point average to 2.2 within two semesters. 11 85. ASLS either knew, or should have known that Ms. Young could not 12 achieve a 2.2 grade point average within two semesters when it reinstated her effective 13 Fall 2015. 14 86. Despite knowledge that Ms. Young did not meet the requirements for 15 reinstatement, and knowing that its own policy changes further diminished Ms. Young’s 16 potential for future success in law school, ASLS reinstated Ms. Young. 17 87. Because she could not raise her cumulative grade point average to 2.2 18 within two semesters, Ms. Young hoped to graduate within two semesters. 19 88. In order to graduate within two semesters, Ms. Young needed to complete 20 ASLS’ mandatory advanced writing requirement. 21 89. On September 8, 2015, Ms. Young applied to participate in an Independent 22 Study Course that would satisfy her advanced writing requirement. 23 90. Professor Suzanne Dohrer agreed to faculty advise Ms. Young, knowing 24 that her cumulative GPA under 2.0. 25 91. On September 9, 2015, Ms. Young learned that the grade point average 26 requirement for participation in an Independent Study course was changed to 2.2. She 27 also learned that there was no grandfathering provision under the new grade point 28 average requirement, and that in any event, no exception would be made. 9 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 10 of 14 1 92. She was informed that she could not complete her advanced writing 2 requirement until she achieved a 2.2 grade point average. 3 93. Although Ms. Young could raise her grade point average to a 2.0 in one 4 semester and then take the Independent Study course in the Spring 2016, it was near 5 impossible for her to raise her grade point average to a 2.2 in only one semester. 6 94. Also during the Fall 2015 Semester, Ms. Young added Designing Land Use 7 Policies after the semester began, but before the deadline to add a course. 8 95. The Designing Land Use Policies course met once a week and per ASLS 9 policies, students could miss three class sessions. 10 96. Ms. Young missed three class sessions and was withdrawn from the course 11 in November 2015. 12 97. Ms. Young petitioned for reinstatement into the course based on 13 extenuating circumstances because one of the absences occurred on the first day of class, 14 before she ever enrolled in the course. 15 98. In addition, Ms. Young pointed out in the petition that despite the absences, 16 she was doing well in the course, having scored an 83/100 on the mid-term examination 17 and receiving the highest possible score on the first writing assignment for the class. 18 99. Marren Sanders, the Associate Dean of Academic Services denied Ms. 19 Young’s petition citing a lack of extenuating circumstances. 20 100. The stress placed on Ms. Young by the new grade point requirement and 21 being withdrawn from a class she was doing well in, along with the looming realization 22 that she may not be able to graduate was too much for Ms. Young to manage. 23 101. Ms. Young quickly decompensated, and was forced to withdraw from law 24 school in November 2015. 25 102. After withdrawing from ASLS, Ms. Young required inpatient treatment for 26 psychoses. 27 103. Between Summer Semester 2013 and Fall Semester 2015, Ms. Young 28 accumulated $230,000 in law school debt. 10 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 11 of 14 1 LEGAL ANALYSIS 2 Claim One 3 Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act 4 104. Ms. Young incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as though 5 fully set forth herein. 6 105. The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits private colleges and 7 universities from discriminating against an individual because of disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 8 12182. 9 106. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1972 ("Rehabilitation Act") 10 provides that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability … shall, solely by 11 reason of her or his disability … be denied the benefits of … any program or activity 12 receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 13 107. Discrimination includes a failure to make reasonable modifications in 14 policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such 15 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with 16 disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would 17 fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, 18 or accommodations. 42 USCS § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). 19 108. Reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to, additional time 20 for test taking, not assessing penalties for spelling errors, access to teacher notes, not 21 being called on in class without warning, J. L. v. Mercer Island Sch. Dist., 575 F.3d 1025, 22 1031 (9th Cir. 2009), "notetaking assistance, a reduced course load, priority registration 23 for a section with afternoon classes, and time and one half on exams in a quiet, 24 distraction-free room." Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 974 F. Supp. 106, 124 (D. Mass. 25 1997). 26 109. ASLS is a program receiving Federal financial assistance for purposes of 27 the Rehabilitation Act. 28 110. Ms. Young has multiple documented disabilities for which she requested 11 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 12 of 14 1 accommodations, including testing in a quiet location, separate testing location, 2 proofreading assistance, and advance copies of professor notes. 3 111. During the AAMPLE program and throughout her first year of law school, 4 Ms. Young was provided all recommended accommodations. 5 112. Beginning Summer 2014, she was no longer provided proofreading 6 assistance and was not provided advance copies of professor notes. 7 113. Ms. Young was also not provided a "quiet location" when she was 8 interrupted by a proctor and forced to restart her Advanced Property Law exam three 9 times. 10 114. The absence of effective accommodations directly negatively impacted 11 Ms. Young’s grades and cumulative grade point average. 12 Claim Two 13 (Negligent Misrepresentation) 14 115. Ms. Young incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as though 15 fully set forth herein. 16 116. ASLS made numerous representations to Ms. Young that the school had an 17 80% or better bar pass rate and that its graduates were obtaining employment. 18 117. At the time the representations were made, the Arizona Commission on Bar 19 Examinations reported that ASLS’ bar pass rates were less than 55% for first time takers 20 and less than 50% overall. 21 118. Although recruiting materials were eventually changed to include a 22 footnote that ASLS’ published bar pass rate was in fact an "ultimate" bar pass rate, the 23 phrase "ultimate bar pass rate" was not relayed or defined for existing students in 24 meetings or town hall sessions. 25 119. In addition, ASLS repeatedly reinstated Ms. Young in violation of its own 26 policies, thereby representing to Ms. Young that record contained sufficient indicators of 27 future success in law school and the ability to pass a bar examination. 28 120. The representations by ASLS were false, in particular since ASLS changed 12 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 13 of 14 1 the minimum required grade point average to that which was not mathematically 2 achievable by Ms. Young. 3 121. ASLS made the representations for the purpose of enticing Ms. Young to 4 enroll at ASLS and to remain enrolled at ASLS. 5 122. Ms. Young relied upon ASLS’ representations by enrolling at ASLS and 6 remaining enrolled, both to her detriment. 7 123. As a result, Ms. Young suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, 8 but in any event, no less than $223,000. 9 Claim Three 10 (Common Law Fraud) 11 124. Ms. Young incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as though 12 fully set forth herein. 13 125. In an effort to entice Ms. Young to enroll and remain enrolled at ASLA, 14 ASLS made representations to Ms. Young about student outcomes and of Ms. Young’s 15 chances of success in law school and in passing a bar examination. 16 126. Ms. Young reasonably relied on ASLS’ assurances that its graduates were 17 passing the bar exam and obtaining jobs, and that she too exhibited a record such that she 18 could graduate and pass a bar examination. 19 127. The representations were false, in that nearly half of ASLS graduates do not 20 pass the bar examination on the first time and are not obtaining employment. 21 128. In addition, the representations were false as to Ms. Young because ASLS 22 knew from Ms. Young’s performance that she could not graduate from its program and 23 knew the likelihood of success on a bar examination was minimal. 24 129. Based on the false representations, Ms. Young enrolled and remained 25 130. As a result, Ms. Young suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, 26 but in any event, no less than $223,000. 27 WHEREFORE, Ms. Young requests Judgment against Defendants as follows; 28 A. for compensatory damages; 13 Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 14 of 14 1 B. for punitive damages; 2 C. for equitable relief; 3 D. for attorneys’ fees and costs; 4 E. for interest on any judgment from the date of entry of judgment until 5 paid in full; and 6 F. for any other damages or remedies the Court deems just and 7 reasonable. 8 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 9 Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all claims and issues set forth herein. 10 DATED this 12th day of October 2016. 11 ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC 12 13 By/s/Phil S. Flemming 14 Phil S. Flemming Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 552 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
10/12/2016
COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-13494561 filed by Tristan Young. (submitted by Phil Flemming)
1
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025116514758" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025116514758','1003911','6','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Civil Cover Sheet)
1 Attachment
2
10/12/2016
SUMMONS Submitted by Tristan Young. (submitted by Phil Flemming)
1
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025116514768" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025116514768','1003911','8','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Summons)
1 Attachment
3
10/12/2016
Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-13494561. This case has been assigned to the Honorable John Z Boyle. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-16-03490-PHX-JZB. Magistrate Election form attached.
1
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025116514775" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025116514775','1003911','10','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Consent)
1 Attachment
4
10/13/2016
Summons Issued as to Arizona Summit Law School LLC and Infilaw Corporation. *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document.
1
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025116514794" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025116514794','1003911','12','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Summons)
1 Attachment
5
10/21/2016
Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
6
01/03/2017
First MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Complaint by Tristan Young.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
7
01/05/2017
ORDER granting 6 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have up to, and including, February 8, 2017 to serve her Complaint on Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle on 1/5/17.
8
01/10/2017
MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Tristan Young.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
9
01/31/2017
ORDER: the Motion of Robaina & Kresin PLLC to Withdraw as Counsel of Record Without Consent 8 is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle on 1/31/17.
10
02/01/2017
MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Tristan Young.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
11
02/01/2017
*Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Complaint by Tristan Young.
1
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025116959887" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025116959887','1003911','28','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Text of Proposed Order) *Modified on 2/2/2017; document contains incorrect case number.
1 Attachment
12
02/02/2017
OBJECTION re: 10 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiff Tristan Young (as pro se).
13
02/06/2017
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Serve Complaint 11 is granted; Plaintiff shall have up to, and including, 3/10/17 to serve her Complaint upon Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle on 2/6/17.
14
02/21/2017
ORDER: on or before 3/10/17, Mr. Flemming shall facilitate service of Plaintiff's Complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and file proof of service. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle on 2/21/17.
15
02/23/2017
SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Tristan Young: Certificate of Service re: Summons, Complaint and Consent to Magistrate Judge Form upon Arizona Summit Law School, LLC on 02/22/17.
16
02/23/2017
SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Tristan Young: Certificate of Service re: Summons, Complaint and Consent to Magistrate Judge Form upon Infilaw Corporaton on 02/22/17.
17
02/28/2017
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Michael S. Catlett appearing for Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
18
03/01/2017
ORDER: the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record Without Consent 10 is granted; the law firm of Robaina & Kresin, PLLC, and attorney Phil S. Flemming are withdrawn as counsel for Plaintiff; the Clerk shall update the docket to reflect that Plaintiff is pro se and her contact information is as stated in this order; Plaintiff must notify the Court by 3/21/17, whether she intends to proceed in this litigation pro se or if she will retain new counsel; if Plaintiff elects to retain new counsel, counsel must file a notice of appearance by 3/21/17. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle on 2/28/17.
19
02/28/2017
Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
20
03/01/2017
MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(b), a request has been received for a random reassignment of this case to a District Judge. FURTHER ORDERED Case reassigned by random draw to Judge Diane J. Humetewa. All further pleadings/papers should now list the following COMPLETE case number: CV-16-3490-PHX-DJH. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
21
03/01/2017
Corporate Disclosure Statement by Arizona Summit Law School LLC.
22
03/01/2017
Corporate Disclosure Statement by Infilaw Corporation.
23
03/01/2017
ORDER that motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) are discouraged if the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. The parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of such motions to determine whether it can be avoided. ORDERED that Plaintiff serve a copy of this Order upon Defendants and file a notice of service. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 3/1/2017. (LFIG)
24
03/13/2017
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT re: 1 Complaint Stipulation and Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by Arizona Summit Law School LLC, Infilaw Corporation.
1
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025117119220" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025117119220','1003911','76','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Text of Proposed Order Granting Extension) Modified on 3/14/2017
1 Attachment
25
03/13/2017
ORDER granting the parties' 24 Stipulation For Extension of Time and allowing Defendants up to and including April 4, 2017 to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 3/13/2017. (LFIG)
39
06/12/2018
Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
40
06/12/2018
~Util - Set/Reset Hearings
41
06/26/2018
Answer to Complaint
42
07/13/2018
Report - Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting (Proposed Case Mgt Plan)
07/23/2018
Order (Text entry; no document attached.)
07/23/2018
~Util - Terminate Hearings (Text entry; no document attached.)
44
07/23/2018
Scheduling Order
45
07/27/2018
Notice (Other)
07/30/2018
Notice of Deficiency (Text Only) (Text entry; no document attached.)
47
07/30/2018
Notice (Other)
48
08/30/2018
Stipulation
49
08/31/2018
~Util - Set/Clear Flags
50
09/21/2018
Amended Complaint
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.