MacDonald v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School
880 F. Supp. 2d 785
W.D. Mich.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are 12 Cooley Law School graduates alleging misrepresentation of employment data and resulting damages.
- Court granted Cooley’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion; MCPA claim (Count I) dismissed as inapplicable to educational purchase.
- Fraud claim (Count II) dismissed: alleged representations not reasonably relied upon; statements were ambiguous and inconsistent.
- Silent fraud claim (Count III) dismissed: no duty to disclose material facts absent a specific inquiry.
- Negligent misrepresentation (Count III) dismissed: absence of justifiable reliance; reliance was unreasonable.
- Court left room for caveat emptor and issued a separate order dismissing amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCPA applicability to education purchase | Plays argues MCPA covers deceptive education marketing | Cooley argues purchase for business not personal use; MCPA not apply | MCPA not applicable; claim dismissed |
| Fraud: misrepresentations in Employment Reports | Statistics were false and relied upon to enroll | Statistical terms not clearly false; readers could misinterpret; reliance unreasonable | Fraud claim dismissed for unreasonable reliance; statements not separately actionable |
| Silent fraud claim viability | Cooley suppressed material employment data | No duty to disclose; no specific inquiry by plaintiffs | Silent fraud claim dismissed; no duty to disclose established |
| Negligent misrepresentation viability | Justified reliance on employment data | Reliance not justifiable; data inherently ambiguous | Negligent misrepresentation claim dismissed for lack of justifiable reliance |
| Rule 9(b) pleading adequacy for fraud | Allegations meet specificity requirements | Not enough to state a fraud claim | Plaintiffs adequately pleaded reliance and specifics under Rule 9(b) for fraud claims (as to notice). |
Key Cases Cited
- Hord v. Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, 463 Mich. 399, 617 N.W.2d 543 (2000) (silent fraud; duty to disclose requires inquiry-based misrepresentation)
- Schuler v. Am. Motors Sales Corp., 197 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. App. 1972) (cannot rely on ignored information when it is part of given data)
- Cummins v. Robinson Twp., 283 Mich.App. 677, 770 N.W.2d 421 (2009) (no fraud where plaintiff could determine truth from information provided)
- Aron Alan v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 240 F. App’x 678 (6th Cir. 2007) (unreasonable reliance on divergent internal documents in procurement context)
- Titan Ins. Co. v. Hyten, 491 Mich. 547, 817 N.W.2d 562 (2012) (principles on reasonable reliance and information availability)