Goehring

Goehring v. Chapman University

Good Law
121 Cal. App. 4th 353·17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 39·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1267·2004 Daily Journal DAR 9481·5 A.L.R. 6th 715
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 3, 2004D039816California13,305 words

Opinion

Opinion

McCONNELL, J.

This case arises from misrepresentations Chapman University (Chapman) made to plaintiffs, students in the inaugural class of its law school, and its violations of Business and Professions Code section 6061, which requires written disclosures of facts pertinent to a law school’s unaccredited status. We hold as matters of first impression that Business and Professions Code section 6061 (1) confers a private right of action for the refund of tuition from an unaccredited law school that violates written disclosure requirements; (2) is not subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine; (3) requires written disclosures each semester, or preceding any payment of any tuition or fee other than an application fee; (4) does not unjustly enrich students who obtain refunds of tuition and continue in school; and (5) is governed by the one-year limitations period for actions on a statute for a penalty or forfeiture (Code Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. (a) [former subd. (1)]). We also conclude that to any extent doctrines of substantial compliance and waiver may apply to Business and Professions Code section 6061, they are inapplicable here.

Further, we conclude substantial…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.