Gokool v. Oklahoma City University, 17-6131

Background

Susan Gokool, a former Oklahoma City University law student, was dismissed after her first year for failing to meet the minimum GPA.
In early July 2014 she received notice of a hold on her account, then a dismissal letter; she accessed grades briefly after contacting the registrar and timely filed an appeal on July 16.
The appeal was denied July 23 and there was no further review; Gokool alleged the hold delayed access to records and sabotaged her appeal.
She sued pro se in district court alleging eight claims: breach of implied contract, bad faith/breach of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, negligence (including FERPA theories), conspiracy, disparate treatment (Title VI), and unjust enrichment.
District court dismissed the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim; the Tenth Circuit affirmed de novo, concluding Gokool’s pleadings lacked plausible factual support and legal bases for relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract	University policies/brochures created contractual duties and were breached (e.g., failures before dismissal)	Most alleged conduct occurred post-dismissal (no contract after expulsion); policies are not specific contracts	Dismissed — no plausible contractual breach; post-dismissal acts not actionable and plaintiff pointed to no specific contractual promise
Fraud (mischaracterizing account hold)	University misrepresented the nature of the hold to sabotage appeal and caused harm	Hold did not prevent timely appeal; dismissal was for low GPA, not the hold	Dismissed — no causal injury from alleged misrepresentation
Negligence / FERPA violation	University breached duties (e.g., handling of records/holds) and violated FERPA, supporting negligence	No identified duty under Oklahoma law; FERPA §1232g(b)(2) gives no private right of action	Dismissed — no legal duty shown and no private FERPA cause of action
Civil conspiracy	Administrators conspired to mislead, withhold records, and destroy holds evidence	Conspiracy requires an underlying unlawful act; none alleged	Dismissed — no unlawful underlying act pled
Disparate treatment (Title VI)	Treated differently by placing holds selectively against her as an older female minority student	No factual specificity or comparative allegations showing race/national-origin discrimination	Dismissed — conclusory assertion without facts; complaint contains no factual racial-discrimination allegations
Unjust enrichment	University should refund first-year tuition after dismissal	Student received the educational services paid for; no inequitable retention of funds	Dismissed — retention of tuition lawful; no unjust enrichment shown

Key Cases Cited

MediaNews Grp., Inc. v. McCarthey, 494 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Mason v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 23 P.3d 964 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (student no longer party to university contract after expulsion)
Bittle v. Okla. City Univ., 6 P.3d 509 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (institutional brochures/policies only create contracts if specific, identifiable promises exist)
State ex rel. Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Brown, 519 P.2d 491 (Okla. 1974) (elements for fraud include causation and injury)
Trinity Baptist Church v. Bhd. Mut. Ins. Servs., LLC, 341 P.3d 75 (Okla. 2014) (duty is threshold question in negligence actions)
Tanique, Inc. v. State ex rel. Okla. Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs, 99 P.3d 1209 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004) (civil conspiracy requires an underlying unlawful act)
Baker v. Bd. of Regents, 991 F.2d 628 (10th Cir. 1993) (elements of cause of action under Title VI)
Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (complaints must include some factual detail to plausibly allege discrimination)
Okla. Dep’t of Sec. ex rel. Faught v. Blair, 231 P.3d 645 (Okla. 2010) (definition and elements of unjust enrichment)