4th Circuit Affirms Charlotte Law School's Deal to Pay Former Students $2.65M
It would have taken more than $100 million to even refund a year of tuition for all the students who were unable to complete their law degrees, objectors argued. But those who brokered the agreement said they pulled in every dollar on the table.
June 12, 2020 at 08:12 PM
5 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed a $2.65 million class action settlement between the now-closed Charlotte School of Law and former students—some of whom had appealed the deal because they said it was not enough.
It would have taken more than $100 million to even refund a year of tuition for all the students who were unable to complete their law degrees, their attorneys argued. But those who brokered the agreement said they pulled in every dollar on the table.
On Thursday, a panel of three judges affirmed U.S. District Judge Graham Mullen of the Western District of North Carolina in approving the agreement. U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the Eastern District of Virginia wrote the opinion, sitting in at the Fourth Circuit. Alson was joined by Fourth Circuit Judges J. Harvey Wilkinson III and Barbara Milano Keenan.
"Defendants funded the settlement with $2,650,000.00, which was derived from the following two sources: a $2,500,000.00 portion of an insurance policy and a $150,000.00 institutional contribution. After a meticulous review, the district court ultimately approved the limited fund settlement," Alston said in the appeals court's opinion.
"We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the limited fund settlement. We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ultimately determining that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), and in denying a motion for discovery, largely concerning Defendants' ability to fund the settlement. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decisions in full."
Mullen approved the settlement in January, 2019, ending two years of litigation. Current and former students had filed four federal and 90 state court suits alleging they were kept in the dark about the school's accreditation troubles. The American Bar Association warned the school of problems in 2014, but that was not disclosed publicly until the fall of 2016. Afterward, the U.S. Department of Education ended the school's federal loan eligibility. The school closed its doors in August of 2017.
Anthony Majestro of Powell & Majestro in Charleston, West Virginia, is the class counsel and helped negotiate the settlement.
"We're very pleased," Majestro said Friday. "The panel agreed with the trial judge on everything. Hopefully, this will put an end to the ligation, and we'll be in a position to start paying the students."
Because of the limited resources available, Majestro said the attorneys agreed to cut legal fees to 15%, rather than the third that is more customary for class actions. "We knew everyone was not going to be made whole," he said.
Kyle Nutt of Wilmington, North Carolina, represented some of the class objectors who appealed. He was with Shipman & Wright when the litigation began, but is now with Reiss & Nutt.
Nutt said Friday he plans to ask the full court to rehear the appeal en banc. He said Alston's opinion did not address one of his key arguments—regarding intra-class conflicts. "That issue deserves to be addressed," he said.
David Mills with Cooley in Washington, D.C., represented the school and it's owner, InfiLaw.
"We are pleased the Fourth Circuit has affirmed the district court's approval of the class-wide settlement in a thorough and thoughtful opinion," Mills said Friday. "We look forward to seeing the settlement fund disbursed to the claimants."
The class covers any students who attended Charlotte Law between September of 2013 and August 2017—or about 2,500 students, according to the initial settlement motion filed in September.
The settlement would need to be $105 million just to refund the entire class for one year of tuition, attorneys opposing it said in pleadings. It's unclear how much each class member will receive. Payments will be determined by a number of factors, including how long claimants attended, whether they transferred, and whether they qualified to have their federal loans discharged through the Education Department.
An important part of the settlement is that it preserves the rights of former Charlotte students to have their federal loans discharged through the Education Department's closed-school discharge program or its borrower defense of repayment program, which allows defrauded students to discharge their loans, according to attorneys who negotiated the terms. Charlotte School of Law was established as a private, for-profit law school in 2006, and was accredited by the ABA in 2011. An ABA "site team" visited CSL in March 2014 and conducted a "three year interval evaluation." The report that followed noted failures to comply with ABA standards for curriculum, Alston said.
"CSL allegedly did not make the required disclosures and made representations seemingly to the contrary of the ABA's findings through public statements," Alston said. "CSL's license to operate granted by the University of North Carolina Board of Governors expired on August 10, 2017."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllState Appellate Court Affirms $2.75M Jury Verdict in Negligence Suit Against Railroad Co.
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250