ABA Seeks to Stay InfiLaw Accreditation Suits
The American Bar Association is expected to issue decisions in accreditation appeals filed by Florida Coastal School of Law and Arizona Summit Law School by October, but those schools are arguing in court that their lawsuits against the ABA should move forward anyway.
August 09, 2018 at 02:47 PM
4 minute read
The latest round in InfiLaw Corp.'s legal battle with the American Bar Association centers on whether its accreditation lawsuits should move forward while the accrediting body weighs the fates of the company's two remaining law schools.
The ABA has asked two federal courts to stay the litigation brought by Florida Coastal School of Law and Arizona Summit Law School on the grounds that its Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is currently considering the appeals both schools filed after being deemed out of compliance with the ABA's accreditation standards. The ABA is expected to issue decisions in both appeals no later than October.
But Florida Coastal asserts that its lawsuit should not be stayed because the ABA has imposed a number of requirements on it that must be met regardless of the pending appeal. An InfiLaw spokesman said Thursday that the company will file an opposition to the ABA's motion to stay the Arizona Summit suit on Friday.
The ABA on July 27 moved to dismiss a third suit brought by InfiLaw's now-closed Charlotte School of Law.
InfiLaw filed the three suits in May after the ABA found the company's for-profit law schools out of compliance with its accreditation standards. The suits each allege that those standards are unlawfully vague and applied unevenly across schools, and that the InfiLaw schools were unfairly targeted for accreditation actions because they are for profits.
According to the ABA, the Florida Coastal and Arizona Summit suits are not yet ripe for judicial review.
“The court cannot assess the process afforded to Coastal before the process is complete, and it cannot assess whether substantial evidence exists to support a decision that is still under consideration by the ABA,” reads the ABA's latest motion, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where the suit pertaining to Florida Coastal School of Law is pending. The ABA has asked the court to issue a stay only if it opts not to dismiss the case altogether.
The Jacksonville school countered in a July 23 filing that the litigation should not be stayed because the school is still subject to numerous actions imposed by the ABA during the appeal process, including a campus visit by an ABA-appointed fact-finder and the development of a plan to come back into compliance with the accreditation standards.
“Because the committee's decision imposed immediate consequences and requirements on Coastal that are not stayed by the pending appeal, the ABA's argument lacks merit and its request for dismissal should be denied,” reads Florida Coastal's motion.
Arizona Summit's position is particularly dire. The ABA in June yanked the Phoenix school's accreditation for numerous accreditation shortcomings—an apparent first.
The ABA council was scheduled to hear both Florida Coastal and Arizona Summit's appeals last week when it met in Chicago.
Meanwhile, the ABA's motion to dismiss the suit pertaining to Charlotte School of Law takes a different tack, given that the school is now closed. In a July 27 motion, the ABA argues that its 2016 finding that the school was out of compliance with the accreditation standards wasn't the cause of the Charlotte's closure the following year. Rather, the U.S. Department of Education's decision to kick the school out of its federal loan program and the subsequent decision by state higher education regulators to not renew the school's license to operate in North Carolina were to blame.
“Because the school's closure was caused by the intervening decisions of two separate governmental authorities that are not before the court, plaintiffs' alleged injury is not fairly traceable to the ABA and cannot be redressed by an injunction against the ABA,” the motion reads.
The ABA sought to have the three suits coordinated into a multidistrict litigation in a bid to boost efficiency and eliminate the risk of conflicting decisions across jurisdictions. But the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the ABA's request earlier this month.
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
© 2025 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 AllSecurities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
3 minute readTrump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
3 minute readLandlord Must Pay Prevailing Tenants' $21K Attorney Fees in Commercial Lease Dispute, Appellate Court Rules
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Morgan Lewis Adds 4 IP Partners in Orange County, 1 in Seattle
- 2Delaware DOJ's Hume Is Named Newest Magistrate In Chancery
- 3Trade Wars: Five Tips for Legal Teams to Manage Tariffs and Trade in Trump II
- 4Balancing Attorney-Client Privilege With a Lawyer’s Right to Defend Against Allegations of Wrongdoing
- 5Public Interest Calendar of Events
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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