United States Ex Rel. Jajdelski v. Kaplan, Inc.
684 F. App'x 660
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Charles Jajdelski, a qui tam relator, sued Kaplan, Inc. under the False Claims Act alleging a "phantom student" scheme and retaliatory discharge.
- Jajdelski alleged Heritage College (a Kaplan subsidiary) falsified graduation/attendance records (e.g., student R.R. listed as "graduated" after dropping out) and found boxes of undistributed diplomas.
- Kaplan voluntarily refunded tuition to 51 students and produced extensive student records during discovery.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Kaplan on both the FCA "phantom student" claim and retaliatory discharge claim; Jajdelski appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and addressed whether evidence supported any false claims for federal student aid and whether the retaliation claim was preserved for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence shows specific false claims for federal student aid ("phantom student") | Jajdelski: Heritage listed students as graduated and kept diplomas, indicating false claims for federal funds | Kaplan: No evidence that any listed/graduated students generated false claims or that federal funds were obtained after withdrawal | Court: Affirmed summary judgment—no genuine dispute of material fact; plaintiff failed to identify any particular false claim or detailed circumstantial evidence |
| Whether undistributed diplomas and statements about graduation create inference of false claims | Jajdelski: Diplomas and statements show falsified graduation/placement rates implying false claims | Kaplan: Those facts, even if they show falsified metrics, do not show submission or receipt of false government claims | Court: Evidence could relate to accreditation issues but not to submission of false claims for funds; insufficient for FCA claim |
| Whether Kaplan's refunds indicate broader fraud | Jajdelski: Refunds to 51 students suggest wider pattern of false claims | Kaplan: Refunds do not establish that federal funds were claimed or received improperly; discovery access negates lack of evidence claim | Court: Refunds unconnected to any identified false claim; plaintiff still failed to point to specific false claims |
| Whether retaliatory discharge claim was properly before the court | Jajdelski: Argued retaliation claim on appeal | Kaplan: Claim was not challenged in first appeal; law of the case bars reconsideration | Court: Affirmed dismissal of retaliation claim under law of the case doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. ex rel. Aflatooni v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard requiring relator to identify particular false claims or detailed circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 1997) (law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of issues previously decided)
- U.S. ex rel. Jajdelski v. Kaplan, Inc., [citation="517 F. App'x 534"] (9th Cir. 2013) (prior panel reversed only the phantom-student FCA claim and affirmed dismissal of other allegations)