Rodi v. Southern New England School Of Law

389 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Rodi (P), who resided in New Jersey, received a letter from D stating that the accreditation committee of the ABA had voted to recommend D for 'provisional accreditation,' a status that would be granted upon ratification of the recommendation by two other ABA bodies. The letter stated that D was 'highly confident' of receiving the needed ratifications and that the future of the school 'has never been brighter.' P intended to take the New Jersey bar examination, and New Jersey requires bar applicants to hold law degrees from ABA-accredited institutions. P enrolled at D that month. D received a catalog containing, a statement that: 'The Law School makes no representation to any applicant or student that it will be approved by the American Bar Association prior to the graduation of any matriculating student.' P alleges that D knew full well that D had identifiable deficiencies that would almost certainly preclude ABA accreditation. The ABA denied D's application for accreditation in September of 1997. P considered transferring to an accredited law school for his second year of study. D wrote to P in order to 'make sure' that he was 'fully informed of the school's current status regarding ABA accreditation.' D stated that the school had improved the four areas found deficient by the ABA and that there should be 'no cause for pessimism' about the school achieving accreditation before the plaintiff's forecasted graduation date. In reliance on these and other representations -- all of which P says were knowingly false -- P remained at D. D knew, but elected not to disclose, that the ABA was highly critical of D; that any faint hope of attaining accreditation depended upon a complete overhaul of the faculty, administration, curriculum, and student body; and that the level of non-compliance made the prospect of D's near-term accreditation remote. D intentionally frustrated students' attempts to learn about the true status. D failed to get accreditation. Notwithstanding his diploma, P has not been able to sit for the New Jersey bar examination. P sued Ds: (i) Ds' statements constituted actionable fraud or misrepresentation, and (ii) that D's actions violated a consumer protection statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, §§ 1-11. Ds filed a timely motion to dismiss. The court dismissed, and P appealed.