LSAT Prep Firms at War
When aspiring law students paid nearly $1,100 for a month-long LSAT-prep course by TestMasters, they assumed the prestigious Santa Monica, Calif., company would help them score higher on the law school entry exam. However, several students soon discovered that they had mistakenly signed up for a class with Houston-based Test...
December 31, 2005 at 07:00 PM
3 minute read
When aspiring law students paid nearly $1,100 for a month-long LSAT-prep course by TestMasters, they assumed the prestigious Santa Monica, Calif., company would help them score higher on the law school entry exam. However, several students soon discovered that they had mistakenly signed up for a class with Houston-based Test Masters, not California-based TestMasters.
On Oct. 25, 2005, the New York State Consumer Protection Board issued a warning to future LSAT takers stating that 17 students had filed complaints after they enrolled in what they thought was the original “TestMasters” program. Robin Singh, who received a perfect score on the LSAT a record 12 times, is the owner of the California TestMasters company.
The warning is the latest twist in a six-year battle between the two companies. Singh has brought two cases to federal court against the Houston company alleging unfair competition and false advertising. The Houston company sued Singh for use of the name.
In 2003, a federal district court in California enjoined Singh from communicating directly with Test Masters employees. Test Masters accuses Singh of harassment, spying on its classes and verbally and physically threatening Test Masters employees.
When aspiring law students paid nearly $1,100 for a month-long LSAT-prep course by TestMasters, they assumed the prestigious Santa Monica, Calif., company would help them score higher on the law school entry exam. However, several students soon discovered that they had mistakenly signed up for a class with Houston-based Test Masters, not California-based TestMasters.
On Oct. 25, 2005, the
The warning is the latest twist in a six-year battle between the two companies. Singh has brought two cases to federal court against the Houston company alleging unfair competition and false advertising. The Houston company sued Singh for use of the name.
In 2003, a federal district court in California enjoined Singh from communicating directly with Test Masters employees. Test Masters accuses Singh of harassment, spying on its classes and verbally and physically threatening Test Masters employees.
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 All
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Climate Protestors are Targeting A&O Shearman. Here's Why
- 2What Will Happen to U.S. Efforts Against Financial Secrecy and Corruption Under Trump’s Leadership?
- 3A Look Back at the Biggest Legal Industry Shifts in 2024
- 4Ben Brafman's Professional Legacy After 50 Years? Himself
- 5Ruling Provides Lessons for Investors: Mind Your Business (Affairs)!
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
