High Expectations LLC v. KPCA Northwestern Presbyterian Theological Seminary
1:24-cv-11225
| D. Mass. | Sep 3, 2025Background
- Plaintiff High Expectations LLC (Massachusetts) sued KPCA Northwestern Presbyterian Theological Seminary (Washington nonprofit), KPCA officers Yohan Kang and Jong Taek Chung, and GoAhead Visa alleging a "pay to stay" scheme that lured foreign students and harmed Massachusetts schools; claims include violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy.
- KPCA operates online and hybrid degree programs from Washington, admits students via web-based platforms, lists tuition (sticker price $4,800/yr), and has ~1,048 students including at least 129 Massachusetts residents; hundreds of Massachusetts students allegedly transferred from Massachusetts schools.
- Chung (office administrator / Designated School Official) and Kang (Officer / Dean of Academic Affairs) reside and perform their functions in Washington; both handled admissions and I-20 issuance for international students.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim; the court applied the Massachusetts long‑arm statute and federal due process principles under the prima facie standard.
- Ruling: the court GRANTED Chung’s and Kang’s motions for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court DENIED KPCA’s motion as to personal jurisdiction (finding Massachusetts long‑arm and specific jurisdiction satisfied), with other KPCA challenges left under advisement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mass. long‑arm §3(b)/(a) reaches Chung | Chung participated in admissions and sent I‑20s to MA students, so he transacted business/caused in‑forum injury | Chung acted only as KPCA’s agent in Washington and derived no personal benefit; not a contracting party | No personal jurisdiction over Chung under long‑arm; motion to dismiss granted |
| Whether Mass. long‑arm §3(a)/(b) reaches Kang | Kang administered KPCA’s online platform, processed ~101 transfers and revenue from MA students, so he transacted business in MA | Kang’s acts were corporate and within scope of employment, not personal conduct giving rise to jurisdiction | No personal jurisdiction over Kang under long‑arm; motion to dismiss granted |
| Whether Mass. long‑arm §3(a)/(b) reaches KPCA (corporate defendant) | KPCA’s interactive websites, enrollment of 100+ MA students, and tuition revenue establish transacting business and contracting to supply services in MA | KPCA did not specifically target MA (no in‑state recruitment, ads, or fairs); online presence alone insufficient | Long‑arm satisfied as to KPCA: transacting business and contracting to supply services in MA; dismissal on that basis denied |
| Whether exercising specific jurisdiction over KPCA comports with Due Process | KPCA purposefully availed itself by enrolling hundreds of MA residents via its online programs and deriving substantial revenue; claims arise from that conduct | KPCA’s contacts are fortuitous results of students’ unilateral moves; not targeted conduct | Specific jurisdiction over KPCA satisfies due process (relatedness, purposeful availment, and reasonableness); dismissal on due process grounds denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381 (1st Cir. 1995) (federal court in diversity is functional equivalent of state court for personal jurisdiction analysis)
- Barrett v. Lombardi, 239 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2001) (jurisdiction must be authorized by statute and satisfy due process)
- Cossart v. United Excel Corp., 804 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2015) (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction; but‑for causation under long‑arm)
- Boit v. Gar‑Tec Prods., Inc., 967 F.2d 671 (1st Cir. 1992) (prima facie evidentiary standard for jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing)
- Chen v. United States Sports Acad., Inc., 956 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2020) (interactive online education alone may not establish purposeful availment; holistic assessment required)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts / fair play and substantial justice foundational test)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment, foreseeability, and voluntariness principles)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (U.S. 2011) (contacts must be directed at the forum’s society or economy)
- Adelson v. Hananel, 652 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2011) (nexus required between forum contacts and claims)
- Foster‑Miller, Inc. v. Babcock & Wilcox Can., 46 F.3d 138 (1st Cir. 1995) (reasonableness factors for specific jurisdiction)