Law School Sued for “Culling” First Years

Our neighbor, the St. Thomas University School of Law, has been sued over expelling students. It seems to be a fraud claim: that the school admitted students it knew wouldn’t pass and/or that it had a plan to flunk a greater percentage of the class than advertised in order to raise its bar pass rate:

A former law student has filed a federal class action against St. Thomas University School of Law of Miami, claiming that it is illegally accepting and then expelling more than 25% of its first-year class to boost its flagging bar pass rates.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the complaint alleges that the private law school unlawfully dismissed Thomas Joseph Bentey and as many as 80 students from the incoming class of 2005 because they failed to maintain a 2.5 grade point average.

The action further alleges that in 2003 the school began a scheme to accept large numbers of students-and their tuition dollars-only later to dismiss or pressure the withdrawal of almost 30% of its first- and second-year students. The case could include hundreds of former students as plaintiffs if the court grants class action status.

The associate dean for student and alumni services at St. Thomas law school called the lawsuit “illogical.”

“Why would you admit people and dismiss them early if you’re trying to get their resources?” said George Sheldon.

I have to say that this is the first case of its kind I’ve heard of. Usually law schools get sued for not admitting people. Or students say they want to sue when they fail the bar, or learn that the school doesn’t even try to teach them the dull parts of the bar exam but wants them to take an expensive cram course after graduation.

I would have thought judges would tend not to be sympathetic to this sort of claim, especially the class action part (as to be a class action you need to show that the facts are the same for each member of the class — but each exam is different) — but I am not ready to predict that it won’t get to discovery, especially as an individual claim for the named plaintiff alone.

I can confidently predict, however, that it’s not going to affect my grading.

This entry was posted in Law School. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Law School Sued for “Culling” First Years

  1. If the allegation is true it demonstrates an unusual revenue enhancement policy. But only if tuition is non-refundable. I would not really expect a school to be guilty of this, but these days it wouldn’t surprise me either

  2. We used to speculate about this kind of behavior when I was in law school. For some reason it got worse as we progressed through the ranks of legal education. The other oft heard complaint was that they gave out more scholarships than they could afford to attract students, then worked the grading curve to insure that most of those scholarships lapsed after the first year so the student would be stuck paying for the remaining two years of their education. Not really a surprise considering most of the students in my class were grouped between a 2.7 and 2.9 gpa.

  3. Law_student says:

    My take is do you really think they are trying to “control the herd” by expelling after they have given these people a chance in the first place? If they really were doing what this article says, then wouldn’t those below a 150 be giving a chance? Or am I confusing something here? I know people below the 150 lsat score whom were rejected from this school.

    Law school is tough in the first year, they (the admin) makes it that way to weed out those they admit, and keep the best of them. All I know is that if I were someone that was giving a chance with an lsat score of 150 or less, I would make sure I prove them wrong and that I am the “exception” to the rule. I would not slack off, but I would not and I would try hard not to follow the “herd mentality.”

    By herd mentallity I mean those who do what everyone else does their first year, go around with their heads cut off. I would prepare at least 8 months before I start law school in order to get an edge and stay on top.

    I don’t agree with this law suit. The guy couldn’t hack it and now he is mad.

  4. Law Student says:

    I believe that it is conclusory to assume that Bentey could not hack it. I am a trasfer student that left St. Thomas and I know from my experience that whether or not this law suit is legit or not there is something going on with the administration at that school. My grades were acceptable but I am still not comfortable with the way students were treated. Many students were dismissed and I can not tell you why thier work was any differant than mine. Frankly I did not deserve the grades I got, Bentey was one of the hardest workers and more insightful members at school, he more than “hacked it.” There was favoritism going on and other situations where students were cheating but it was overlooked. Certain students had a far easier path to success at that school as compared to others. This is the main reason why I left the institution. The school also boasts a faculty that is nothing short of criminal. This is not even disputed the Miami herald ran a story about the faculty of St. Thomas that included a criminal law professor that had inbezzled money when he was the Attorney General of Arkansas. St. Thomas is a sorry excuse for a law school and it would not suprise me at all if Benteys alligations were true. I am just pleased I was fortunate enough to get out. I would not recommend that school to anyone who wanted a future as a lawyer

  5. Anonymous says:

    “They’re not supposed to accept students who don’t have a reasonable prospect of completing law school,” said his lawyer.

    WOW! His claim is they never should have accepted me, yet the previous poster claims he “was one of the hardest workers and more insightful members at school”

  6. Anonymous says:

    He is a nice guy, I feel terrible that he was removed.

    It is sad and the financial loss he endured is real, but the school is not to blame, I worked hard for every grade I earned there.

    Herein lays the problem, students do not believe they “earn grades”, they “get grades”. Listen to the language we use. We ask “What did you get” or “What did she give you” or we say “That #!#&! She gave me a C” etc…

    I “earned” every grade I received both good and bad, I am glad that I did not get booted, but I worked hard and prayed that would not happen. The truth is I am still scared of getting tossed and I did fairly well.

    In fact I have spent too much time on this post, I have to read Con Law, Crim Law, etc.

    Fate is not wicked, and all failure does not come from laziness, ironically though lucky people work really hard.

    -Smile

  7. Current St. Thomas Student says:

    NLY RD THS F Y RLLY WNT TH TRTH F THS LWST

    Ths s jst wfl. Bntly knw th stks h ws p gnst. vn ftr h ws pt n prbtn frm th frst smstr, h stll styd n knwng tht f h dd nt mk t vr 2.5 h wld b btd. H ccptd th trms. vn f thr ws schm tht ths mrn ccss St. Thms f, tht ds nt mn tht th schm s llgl. Y sgn nt smthng, thn y tk th rsk. Bntly s lsr, cry bby, lttl brt, wh ws nt cpbl f lw schl. m St. Thms stdnt, nd m n th tp f my clss (tp 20%). My LST ws ptfl, bt St. Thms gv m chnc t shn. hv bttr GP thn th stdnts wh gt vr 160 n thr LST nd stdy t St. Thms.

    St. Thms gvs y ll th tls t sccd. Thy gv y Dns Fllws, L nstrctrs, Wst clsss, nd n n n ttrng f y r dng bd. bt Bntly gnrd ll f ths xtr hlp sssns whl h ws t scrwng rnd ll smstr.

    St. Thms s th bst schl n th ntn. Th sprt f St. Thms, tht ll th stdnts hv wth n nthr, wll nvr b fnd n ny thr lw schl cmps, nywhr n th cntry.

    dn’t cr bt th lw br pssg rts. Hrvrd ds nt hv 100% br pssg. Tht mns tht t lst n prsn frm St. Thms pssd th br, nd t lst n prsn frm Hrvrd fld t. dd nt trnsfr t f St. Thms bcs blv n wht St. Thms stnds fr.

    Y wnt prf tht Bntly s cmplt mrn? H s sng Flrd schl n NJ. H bvsly nvr rd Cvl Prcdr tht wld rqr &qt;prpsfl vlmnt&qt; n rdr fr Stt t hv jrsdctn vr t f stt Dfndnts. St. Thms ds nt hv sffcnt mnmm cntcts n NJ n rdr t b sd n NJ. Bt Bntly nly wld hv knwn tht f h wld hv pssd Cv Pr. Bt h cld nt pss Cv Pr cld h. nd hs ncmptnt ttrny s n dffrnt fr brngng st n NJ. Shm n th ttrny wh tk tht cs, shm n th Bntly fr nt ccptng tht h blw lw schl, nd shm n ny mbcl wh spprts ths crrpt nnsnscl dtc tlndsh grbg.

    Myb f tht mbcl Bntly wld hv spnt lss tm n th Brzwy hngng t wth hs frnds, h wld hv gttn bttr grds.

    Bntly y r lss thn nthng. Y r wst f lf. hp th schl cntrss y fr frvls lwst, f y vn knw wht tht s.

  8. Michael says:

    I really cannot accept these personal attacks on this site.

  9. St. Thomas Student says:

    [personal attacks deleted]

  10. St. Thomas Student says:

    Even if there was a scheme that Bentley is talking about, that does not mean that the scheme is illegal. When Bentley signed on for the semester at St. Thomas, he knew he had to get a 2.5 to stay in. Just because he could not (most likely because he was spending too much time in the Breezeway goofing off like the rest of the imbeciles who got kicked out), does not mean that he can file a frivolous lawsuit accusing the school of letting him in when the school knew he lacked the intelligence to graduate.

    Think about how that sounds…. the school let him in when they knew he was not smart enough or capable of law school. Sounds pretty frivolous to me.

    For whatever it is worth, my LSAT was really really low (well below 150). I got in, and I am in the top 20% of my class. Maybe at first glance at my application one may assume that I was not capable, but St. Thomas gave me the chance, and I vowed to succeed… which I did. I got a huge scholarship this year, and am practically studying law for free.

    Bentley, I hope you realize that you just never put the effort in needed to pass law school. Anyone can pass law school as long as they know how to study.

    I have proof that you never put the effort in to learn law school. Second semester of Civil Procedure, you learned that a defendant does not have to stand trial in another state unless that defendant has “purposely availed” himself to the jurisdiction of the court. How could you be suing St. Thomas in NJ? Where is the purposeful availment? If by accepting applications from people all over the state results in purposeful availment, then that means that St. Thomas can be sued anywhere in the world (they accept people from all over this earth). How silly does that sound? Probably as silly as this frivolous lawsuit. Bentley you should have sued St. Thomas in Florida buddy. Next time, please pay more attention in Civil Procedure, so you can avoid resorting to nonsense like this lawsuit.

  11. Michael says:

    I asked my afternoon class if they thought there would be jurisdiction over a private US law school in any US state to which it regularly sent catalogs, and from which students regularly sent in registration deposits. They all agreed this would satisfy minimum contacts; having any law school staff travel up there to recruit would just ice the cake.

    I think my class got it right, and that you have it wrong. The implications of this given your note (and its grammatical inventiveness) are left as an exercise for the reader.

    Incidentally, the real issue is special not general jurisdiction — does the law school’s contract with P (for that is what the offer of a place in the school, and the acceptance by sending in a deposit, really is) in itself create enough contacts for that P to sue on that contract. I should think it would, especially if it is not a one-off but part of a course of conduct on the school’s part.

    I don’t see why this is an odd or offensive result. It’s pretty normal.

    if the law school doesn’t want to be sued all over the USA, it should just put a choice of law clause into its contract….

  12. St. Thomas Student says:

    Obviously this guy Michael who wants to dual with me lacks the same fundamental understanding of simple civil procedure. Michael, you spoke about “minimum contacts,” in your response– although you may be correct that the school has enough contact with the school to satisfy a low threshold of “minimum contacts,” that does not absolve the fact that there still is no “purposeful availment.” You seemed to have missed what I was saying before, and next time I ask that you read my comment entirely before responding to it so as to avoid a silly error such as this.

    Let me try to explain this is simple language for you. “Minimum contacts” is not enough for a state to have jurisdiction over an out of state defendant. There still has to be “PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT.” (hopefully you don’t miss it this time). Purposeful Availment means that there must be a deliberate choice by the school that is fair, reasonable, and foreseeable, in order for a state to have jurisdiction over out of state defendants. If by sending catalogs out all over the country would mean that the school has purposely availed itself to the jurisdiction of the court, then that would mean that if St. Thomas would be sued in Alaska, or even Japan for that matter, US law would require St. Thomas to travel all the way out there for 10 years, and consume extremely hefty litigation expenses pending the outcome of the case. Remember that St. Thomas is innocent until proven guilty, and it would be extremely unreasonable, unfair, and unforeseeable that the school would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend itself, out of state, from this frivolous lawsuit, when the school has done nothing wrong, and there is not even a scintilla of evidence to back up Bentley’s outlandish allegations.

    I don’t know if anyone taught you ordinary common sense, but if you think about it for one minute, it sounds quite silly that a school would be forced to just “travel the world” each time they got sued.

    If someone wants to sue the school, they must come to Florida. The student, NOT THE SCHOOL, has purposely availed himself by coming to the state of Florida to study.

    Anyway, before we even get to a state’s long arm statute or a state’s minimum contacts, you have to first look at the FEDERAL LONG ARM STATUTE, under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(k)(1)(d).

    I truly do feel bad for you Michael because it appears that you have fallen victim to the same inability to grasp simple legal concepts as Mr. Bentley. How you survived law school and are still a St. Thomas student is beyond me, hopefully next year you will suffer the same fate, and be academically dismissed from this school. It is people like you that are the unfortunate cause of our low bar passage.’

    Just so you do not miss it this time, please review your civil procedure law for Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment

  13. St. Thomas Alumni says:

    Who’s to say that a student “A” with LSAT 148 (or even less) is less suitable student and less likely to succeed in law school than a student “B” with LSAT 165. I personally knew many students at St. Thomas who were admitted via so called “Summer Conditional Programs”, students whose LSAT scores were so poor that other school would not even consider reading their applications. The truth is that although some people who are not good in taking standardized tests (such as the LSAT) are otherwise extremely hard working people and anyone who went to law school knows that law school success is highly correlated with the amount of hard work one is willing to put in. Many students I personally knew, with very poor LSAT results, went on and through hard work not only graduated on top of their classes, but also passed the bar on the first try and went on to get their LLMs in the most prestigious legal institution in the country (NYU, Boston University etc.). Those students, with lower LSAT scores, who were given a chance to enter St. Thomas U. School of Law, should be GRATEFUL that they were given a chance and give it their best shot to succeed. Why do I say so? Well .. I was one of those students. This suit is nothing short of frivolous and should a federal judge even entertain to grant a “go” to proceed with discovery, he/she would demonstrate why our legal system is clogged and inefficient. The suing ex-student should take a good look into a mirror and ask himself what is it he did or did not do that made him the “expelled” and stop blaming others for his failure.

  14. STU a Joke says:

    Hey “St. Thomas Student,”

    Counsel for Plaintiff is a New Jersey Super Lawyer and
    partner in a firm that has recovered over $250 million
    for its clients. Do you really think these guys know less
    about the FRCP than YOU, who were obviously too stupid
    to be admitted to a real law school?

  15. Michael says:

    Dear “St. Thomas Student”

    I don’t think you are really a law student (Stanley — is that you?), but on the off chance that you might be, or that someone might think you are, I’m going to respond — just this once — to you. I’ve italicized your comments below; my responses are in regular type.

    Obviously this guy Michael who wants to dual with me lacks the same fundamental understanding of simple civil procedure.

    Just to be clear: “this guy Michael” is the proprietor of this blog. I have a short bio online.

    Michael, you spoke about “minimum contacts,” in your response– although you may be correct that the school has enough contact with the school to satisfy a low threshold of “minimum contacts,” that does not absolve the fact that there still is no “purposeful availment.” You seemed to have missed what I was saying before, and next time I ask that you read my comment entirely before responding to it so as to avoid a silly error such as this. Let me try to explain this is simple language for you. “Minimum contacts” is not enough for a state to have jurisdiction over an out of state defendant. There still has to be “PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT.” (hopefully you don’t miss it this time). Purposeful Availment means that there must be a deliberate choice by the school that is fair, reasonable, and foreseeable, in order for a state to have jurisdiction over out of state defendants.

    Actually, I read it all the way to the very end. Making a contract with a party located in the forum state is sufficient ‘purposeful availment’ to support special jurisdiction over claims resulting from the agreement. Here we have what sounds like either a breach claim or a fraudulent inducement claim (anyone got a copy of the actual complaint?); jurisdiction for either, and probably even general jurisdiction, is supplied by the course of conduct of soliciting and accepting applicants and their deposits.

    If by sending catalogs out all over the country would mean that the school has purposely availed itself to the jurisdiction of the court,

    One doesn’t actually “purposefully avail oneself to the jurisdiction of the court”; one avails oneself of the benefits of the laws of the forum and in so doing becomes subject to the jurisdiction of its courts.

    then that would mean that if St. Thomas would be sued in Alaska, or even Japan for that matter,

    Alaska certainly; Japan maybe — although that depends primarily on their law, not ours, and there might be forum non conveniens questions. Also, the course of conduct would, I imagine, be less — fewer catalogs, applicants, accepted persons, etc. Think about it: neither the catalog nor the offer of acceptance washed up on the shores of New Jersey by some strange accident. No, the law school sent them there, it intended them to be there, it very much wanted them to be there it…purposefully and knowingly availed itself of the benefits of New Jersey in order the help them get where they were going. The availment could not be more direct.

    US law would require St. Thomas to travel all the way out there for 10 years, and consume extremely hefty litigation expenses pending the outcome of the case.

    All avoidable by putting a choice of forum clause in the contract. See Carnival Cruise Lines and its ilk.

    Remember that St. Thomas is innocent until proven guilty,

    Actually, that ‘s a criminal law standard. This is a civil case. We don’t speak of “innocence” and “guilt” but of “liability” and “not being liable”. And since the winner is the one who gets a scintilla over 50% of plausibility, the presumption relating to the non-liability of the defendant is, as an abstract matter, low. Although, in this case, it is not the world’s most inherently plausible claim. [I'd love to cross-examine this plaintiff: "So, sir, it is your case that you are so obviously stupid, so plainly unsuited to be a lawyer, that my client should have recognized your unfitness from your application alone, is it not?" and "Why did you apply to law school, and why did you attend, if you were so obviously unfit to be a lawyer?" and so on.]

    and it would be extremely unreasonable, unfair, and unforeseeable that the school would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend itself, out of state, from this frivolous lawsuit, when the school has done nothing wrong, and there is not even a scintilla of evidence to back up Bentley’s outlandish allegations.

    Welcome to the realities of litigation. If the suit is in fact frivolous, there’s always Rule 11. Plus the school can make an offer of judgment under Rule 68 in order to contain and recoup costs.

    I don’t know if anyone taught you ordinary common sense, but if you think about it for one minute, it sounds quite silly that a school would be forced to just “travel the world” each time they got sued.

    Er. No. Why shouldn’t firms that deal directly with consumers have to litigate in the consumer’s home jurisdiction? Why should it be the consumer that always has to go to the firm’s home court?

    If someone wants to sue the school, they must come to Florida. The student, NOT THE SCHOOL, has purposely availed himself by coming to the state of Florida to study.

    It’s certainly the case that Florida has more to do with the execution of the agreement (although not with its formation). That seems relevant to choice of law…but not especially to forum.

    Anyway, before we even get to a state’s long arm statute or a state’s minimum contacts, you have to first look at the FEDERAL LONG ARM STATUTE, under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(k)(1)(d).

    FRCP 4(k)(1(d) — which refers to service when authorized by a federal statute — is probably irrelevant to a contract or tort case such as this one. Or do you think there’s a trademark claim lurking somewhere?

    I truly do feel bad for you Michael because it appears that you have fallen victim to the same inability to grasp simple legal concepts as Mr. Bentley. How you survived law school and are still a St. Thomas student is beyond me, hopefully next year you will suffer the same fate, and be academically dismissed from this school. It is people like you that are the unfortunate cause of our low bar passage.’

    I do appreciate your sympathy. Alas, it is somewhat misplaced. I have not had the privilege of attending St. Thomas. I graduated from Yale Law School in 1987, and my bar results thus had no effect on St. Thomas’s statistics.

    Just so you do not miss it this time, please review your civil procedure law for Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment

    I will certainly keep that in mind the next time I teach Civil Procedure.

  16. Andrew says:

    How ya like them apples?

  17. STU a Joke says:

    HAHAHAHAHA.

    I wonder if “St. Thomas Student” will even have the gall to respond. (Quite likely, actually, given the general tendency of STU students to assume that success in that grimy little puddle negates prior evidence of stupidity).

    On a more serious note….

    I can’t speak to the validity of the Plaintiff’s claims, but something that the Dean said on Law.com makes me wonder if students from prior years–individually or as a class–might have a better shot at success in the courts:

    In the article, the Associate Dean asserts that a year ago, the law school decided to modify its academic probation GPA from a 2.5 to 2.0. Well, what led to that decision? Why would the school alter a policy that has consistently led to an attrition rate comparable to law schools ranked similarly to St. Thomas?

    Was a a higher percentage of these earlier classes expelled than the 12% that he claims is the St. Thomas average? Unless there has been a similar shift upwards in average GPA among STU students, it would certainly seem that way to me. I’d love to see the STU attrition rate for the years SINCE Butterworth began greatly expanding class sizes, and PRIOR to the change to a 2.0 probation GPA.

    I believe something stinks in Opa Locka, ahem, “Miami Gardens.”

    Here’s hoping that this case at least makes it to discovery.

  18. Hostile Witness says:

    Hey Michael,

    Lay off of “St. Thomas Student.” It is quite sad that a person your age would want to argue via the internet with anyone.

    I guess some people don’t grow up with age. (How old are you now… 50?)

    If you did go to Yale, as your profile says, you sure don’t act like it.

    Or you could be just another one of those low-lives who never did anything with their lives and instead make up fake names and profiles on the internet and send them to people… in order to get some distorted gratification and fulfillment.

  19. STU a Joke says:

    Hostile Witness,

    There is nothing unfair about politely taking someone to task for
    his misconceptions, especially when that person presumes to know
    more than a respected legal scholar.

    Those with no stomach for debate should probably stick to friendlier
    confines, such as the baby pool located up on 37th Avenue at 826.

  20. St. Thomas Student says:

    Dear “Michael”,

    First, I hope you are not that Michael guy that sings the 80′s song “There’s a monkey on your back.” If you are, I totally understand why you lack common sense and simple understanding of the law.

    It is truly disgraceful that you are a professor (we’ll see if that is even true, I have your address now, I could show up one day to find out if you are the real deal)

    Here are your comments and my responses (some of your comments might include portions of my previous comments as well, I have to do it that way in order for others to see why you responded the way you did):

    Michael: Actually, I read it all the way to the very end. Making a contract with a party located in the forum state is sufficient ‘purposeful availment’ to support special jurisdiction over claims resulting from the agreement. Here we have what sounds like either a breach claim or a fraudulent inducement claim (anyone got a copy of the actual complaint?); jurisdiction for either, and probably even general jurisdiction, is supplied by the course of conduct of soliciting and accepting applicants and their deposits.

    My Response: Man you really are dumb. Your argument is entirely contextual and could go either way, depending on how the judge sees it. You proved nothing with your last comment. And you are a law professor?!?!?!?!?

    Michael: One doesn’t actually “purposefully avail oneself to the jurisdiction of the court”; one avails oneself of the benefits of the laws of the forum and in so doing becomes subject to the jurisdiction of its courts.

    My Response: That is just clearly incorrect. Purposeful availment is exactly what I said it was. Your little knit-picking of how I defined the term “purposeful availment” shows your weakness and insecurity in your ability to defend yourself. I can just as easily say you are wrong and that “’Purposeful availment’ means that the defendant’s contacts with the forum state must not be random, fortuitous, attenuated, or the result of unilateral activity of a third person or another party.” Guinness Imp. Co. v. Mark Vii Distribs., 153 F.3d 607, 614 (8th Cir. 1998). But if I do define it as such, that would be knit-picking and succumbing to your juvenile tactics for lack of a better argument. Stick to meaningful arguments, not pathetic ones.

    Michael: Alaska certainly; Japan maybe — although that depends primarily on their law, not ours, and there might be forum non conveniens questions.

    My Response: Please go to R&B Falcon v. Noble, 91 Fed. Appx. 317, 319. When you get to the case you will see the following excerpt

    “The district court granted Noble Denton’s motion to dismiss, determining that R&B Cliffs failed to establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction. The district court found that all activities giving rise to the suit occurred in London or the Persian Gulf, and that the fact that the contracts were faxed to R&B Cliffs in Houston did not, by itself, establish purposeful availment of the forum sufficient to confer jurisdiction.”

    My continued Response: you must really feel silly now. As a stated in an earlier posting, your “inability to grasp simple legal concepts” does not dignify any further elaboration on this point.

    Michael: US law would require St. Thomas to travel all the way out there for 10 years, and consume extremely hefty litigation expenses pending the outcome of the case.
    All avoidable by putting a choice of forum clause in the contract.

    My Response: No that is just not true. Not even close. A simple choice of forum clause does not absolve this problem at all. People can waive certain terms of a contract. A written contract is not a final document that ends all matters.. it is merely proof of an agreement (most professors know this, unlike you unfortunately). An agreement can be proven by a written contract, outside documents, parole evidence, expressed and implied waivers, etc. The list goes on. So your “quick fix” reliance on a simple choice of forum clause, does nothing to solve the jurisdictional predicament. So not only do you know very little about Civ Pro, but you also lack simple Contract concepts as well???

    Michael: Remember that St. Thomas is innocent until proven guilty,
    Actually, that ‘s a criminal law standard. This is a civil case. We don’t speak of “innocence” and “guilt” but of “liability” and “not being liable”.

    My Response: Once again your knit-picking is overwhelming. Try to get the point of what I am saying. Perhaps you couldn’t figure it out…most likely because you lack the ability to understand law. So I guess I should spell it out for you. A school (or any business for that matter) can not be forced to travel the world each time they get sued. Especially when the school has no other offices anywhere else in the country. The only office is in Opa Locka, Florida. It is not like McDonalds where they are in every single state in the country, and it would be no sweat off their back to stand trial anywhere someone wants to sue them. Maybe you can’t see that. McDonalds would have purposely availed itself to be sued anywhere, because their main purpose as a company is to expand larger and larger around the country each day. Whereas St. Thomas has no aspirations of expanding their school anywhere else in the country (seeking students from out of state is not “expanding” under my usage of the term). But once again, you missed the whole point of the reasons why I used the term “innocent until proven guilty,” and instead chose to ramble on about criminal and civil liability, when I was not using it to demonstrate any burdens of proof.

    Perhaps if St. Thomas had written in their catalogs that they had a scheme to take people’s money and then fail them out, then their intentions would be purposeful, and more likely that they purposely availed themselves to the “jurisdiction” or the “benefits of the laws” of NJ, for the simple reason that they were blatantly performing criminal acts around the country. (Am I going too fast for you? Want me to slow down?)

    Michael: and it would be extremely unreasonable, unfair, and unforeseeable that the school would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend itself, out of state, from this frivolous lawsuit, when the school has done nothing wrong, and there is not even a scintilla of evidence to back up Bentley’s outlandish allegations.
    Welcome to the realities of litigation. If the suit is in fact frivolous, there’s always Rule 11. Plus the school can make an offer of judgment under Rule 68 in order to contain and recoup costs.

    My Response: Ok you proved nothing with your reply, and completely avoided the point I was making. I posted this here to demonstrate that not only are you UNABLE to understand simple legal concepts in Civ Pro and Contracts, but you can not even formulate a convincing, relevant argument either.

    Michael: I don’t know if anyone taught you ordinary common sense, but if you think about it for one minute, it sounds quite silly that a school would be forced to just “travel the world” each time they got sued.
    Er. No. Why shouldn’t firms that deal directly with consumers have to litigate in the consumer’s home jurisdiction? Why should it be the consumer that always has to go to the firm’s home court?

    My Response: Er… Yes. That is exactly right. The consumer must go to the state where the act occurred in order to bring suit. Otherwise I could go to some mom and pop store in State A, and come back to my home State B and file a lawsuit that leaves the mom and pop store no choice but to settle in order to avoid the hundreds of thousands of dollars that litigation costs are to defend themselves in State B. Man you really must feel silly at this point. But don’t worry, I will continue embarrassing you.

    Michael: If someone wants to sue the school, they must come to Florida. The student, NOT THE SCHOOL, has purposely availed himself by coming to the state of Florida to study.
    It’s certainly the case that Florida has more to do with the execution of the agreement (although not with its formation). That seems relevant to choice of law…but not especially to forum.

    My Response: How is someone “choosing to study in Florida” relevant to “choice of law”? What the *&^% type of response was that? I don’t even know where to begin my reply to this because it is so ludicrous (is that word too big for you?). Once again I must reiterate your inability to even formulate an argument. I hope you are not that pathetic in the courtroom bringing up nonsensical arguments on behalf of your client. (Oh wait, you probably have never been in a court room because you spend so much time teaching incorrect Civ Pro to students).

    Michael: I do appreciate your sympathy. Alas, it is somewhat misplaced. I have not had the privilege of attending St. Thomas. I graduated from Yale Law School in 1987, and my bar results thus had no effect on St. Thomas’s statistics.

    My Response: It just goes to show you that it does not matter where one studies law, whether St. Thomas, Yale, or UCLA… unbelievably ignorant and incompetent people like you can come from anywhere.

    The secretary at the firm I work for knows more Civ Pro than you. You should be ashamed.

    Although I always enjoy a healthy debate, debating with you is more of a waste of time than playing darts with an inflatable dartboard.

    Michael: I will certainly keep that in mind the next time I teach Civil Procedure.

    My Response: No wonder UMiami had the 3rd lowest bar passage rate in Florida for the February 2006 exam (not sure of the July yet). Even Nova and Florida Coastal beat you. You must feel pretty pathetic. Maybe my school doesn’t have a high bar passage rate (we never have), but I can promise one thing… we at least have dignity at my school. Something UM, and awful professors like yourself, lack.

    As I stated last time, please review your civil procedure law for Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment

  21. St. Thomas Student says:

    Dear “Michael”,

    First, I hope you are not that Michael guy that sings the 80′s song “There’s a monkey on your back.” If you are, I totally understand why you lack common sense and simple understanding of the law.

    It is truly disgraceful that you are a professor (we’ll see if that is even true, I have your address now, I could show up one day to find out if you are the real deal)

    Here are your comments and my responses (some of your comments might include portions of my previous comments as well, I have to do it that way in order for others to see why you responded the way you did):

    Michael: Actually, I read it all the way to the very end. Making a contract with a party located in the forum state is sufficient ‘purposeful availment’ to support special jurisdiction over claims resulting from the agreement. Here we have what sounds like either a breach claim or a fraudulent inducement claim (anyone got a copy of the actual complaint?); jurisdiction for either, and probably even general jurisdiction, is supplied by the course of conduct of soliciting and accepting applicants and their deposits.

    My Response: Man you really are dumb. Your argument is entirely contextual and could go either way, depending on how the judge sees it. You proved nothing with your last comment. And you are a law professor?!?!?!?!?

    Michael: One doesn’t actually “purposefully avail oneself to the jurisdiction of the court”; one avails oneself of the benefits of the laws of the forum and in so doing becomes subject to the jurisdiction of its courts.

    My Response: That is just clearly incorrect. Purposeful availment is exactly what I said it was. Your little knit-picking of how I defined the term “purposeful availment” shows your weakness and insecurity in your ability to defend yourself. I can just as easily say you are wrong and that “’Purposeful availment’ means that the defendant’s contacts with the forum state must not be random, fortuitous, attenuated, or the result of unilateral activity of a third person or another party.” Guinness Imp. Co. v. Mark Vii Distribs., 153 F.3d 607, 614 (8th Cir. 1998). But if I do define it as such, that would be knit-picking and succumbing to your juvenile tactics for lack of a better argument. Stick to meaningful arguments, not pathetic ones.

    Michael: Alaska certainly; Japan maybe — although that depends primarily on their law, not ours, and there might be forum non conveniens questions.

    My Response: Please go to R&B Falcon v. Noble, 91 Fed. Appx. 317, 319. When you get to the case you will see the following excerpt

    “The district court granted Noble Denton’s motion to dismiss, determining that R&B Cliffs failed to establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction. The district court found that all activities giving rise to the suit occurred in London or the Persian Gulf, and that the fact that the contracts were faxed to R&B Cliffs in Houston did not, by itself, establish purposeful availment of the forum sufficient to confer jurisdiction.”

    My continued Response: you must really feel silly now. As a stated in an earlier posting, your “inability to grasp simple legal concepts” does not dignify any further elaboration on this point.

    Michael: US law would require St. Thomas to travel all the way out there for 10 years, and consume extremely hefty litigation expenses pending the outcome of the case.
    All avoidable by putting a choice of forum clause in the contract.

    My Response: No that is just not true. Not even close. A simple choice of forum clause does not absolve this problem at all. People can waive certain terms of a contract. A written contract is not a final document that ends all matters.. it is merely proof of an agreement (most professors know this, unlike you unfortunately). An agreement can be proven by a written contract, outside documents, parole evidence, expressed and implied waivers, etc. The list goes on. So your “quick fix” reliance on a simple choice of forum clause, does nothing to solve the jurisdictional predicament. So not only do you know very little about Civ Pro, but you also lack simple Contract concepts as well???

    Michael: Remember that St. Thomas is innocent until proven guilty,
    Actually, that ‘s a criminal law standard. This is a civil case. We don’t speak of “innocence” and “guilt” but of “liability” and “not being liable”.

    My Response: Once again your knit-picking is overwhelming. Try to get the point of what I am saying. Perhaps you couldn’t figure it out…most likely because you lack the ability to understand law. So I guess I should spell it out for you. A school (or any business for that matter) can not be forced to travel the world each time they get sued. Especially when the school has no other offices anywhere else in the country. The only office is in Opa Locka, Florida. It is not like McDonalds where they are in every single state in the country, and it would be no sweat off their back to stand trial anywhere someone wants to sue them. Maybe you can’t see that. McDonalds would have purposely availed itself to be sued anywhere, because their main purpose as a company is to expand larger and larger around the country each day. Whereas St. Thomas has no aspirations of expanding their school anywhere else in the country (seeking students from out of state is not “expanding” under my usage of the term). But once again, you missed the whole point of the reasons why I used the term “innocent until proven guilty,” and instead chose to ramble on about criminal and civil liability, when I was not using it to demonstrate any burdens of proof.

    Perhaps if St. Thomas had written in their catalogs that they had a scheme to take people’s money and then fail them out, then their intentions would be purposeful, and more likely that they purposely availed themselves to the “jurisdiction” or the “benefits of the laws” of NJ, for the simple reason that they were blatantly performing criminal acts around the country. (Am I going too fast for you? Want me to slow down?)

    Michael: and it would be extremely unreasonable, unfair, and unforeseeable that the school would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend itself, out of state, from this frivolous lawsuit, when the school has done nothing wrong, and there is not even a scintilla of evidence to back up Bentley’s outlandish allegations.
    Welcome to the realities of litigation. If the suit is in fact frivolous, there’s always Rule 11. Plus the school can make an offer of judgment under Rule 68 in order to contain and recoup costs.

    My Response: Ok you proved nothing with your reply, and completely avoided the point I was making. I posted this here to demonstrate that not only are you UNABLE to understand simple legal concepts in Civ Pro and Contracts, but you can not even formulate a convincing, relevant argument either.

    Michael: I don’t know if anyone taught you ordinary common sense, but if you think about it for one minute, it sounds quite silly that a school would be forced to just “travel the world” each time they got sued.
    Er. No. Why shouldn’t firms that deal directly with consumers have to litigate in the consumer’s home jurisdiction? Why should it be the consumer that always has to go to the firm’s home court?

    My Response: Er… Yes. That is exactly right. The consumer must go to the state where the act occurred in order to bring suit. Otherwise I could go to some mom and pop store in State A, and come back to my home State B and file a lawsuit that leaves the mom and pop store no choice but to settle in order to avoid the hundreds of thousands of dollars that litigation costs are to defend themselves in State B. Man you really must feel silly at this point. But don’t worry, I will continue embarrassing you.

    Michael: If someone wants to sue the school, they must come to Florida. The student, NOT THE SCHOOL, has purposely availed himself by coming to the state of Florida to study.
    It’s certainly the case that Florida has more to do with the execution of the agreement (although not with its formation). That seems relevant to choice of law…but not especially to forum.

    My Response: How is someone “choosing to study in Florida” relevant to “choice of law”? What the *&^% type of response was that? I don’t even know where to begin my reply to this because it is so ludicrous (is that word too big for you?). Once again I must reiterate your inability to even formulate an argument. I hope you are not that pathetic in the courtroom bringing up nonsensical arguments on behalf of your client. (Oh wait, you probably have never been in a court room because you spend so much time teaching incorrect Civ Pro to students).

    Michael: I do appreciate your sympathy. Alas, it is somewhat misplaced. I have not had the privilege of attending St. Thomas. I graduated from Yale Law School in 1987, and my bar results thus had no effect on St. Thomas’s statistics.

    My Response: It just goes to show you that it does not matter where one studies law, whether St. Thomas, Yale, or UCLA… unbelievably ignorant and incompetent people like you can come from anywhere.

    The secretary at the firm I work for knows more Civ Pro than you. You should be ashamed.

    Although I always enjoy a healthy debate, debating with you is more of a waste of time than playing darts with an inflatable dartboard.

    Michael: I will certainly keep that in mind the next time I teach Civil Procedure.

    My Response: No wonder UMiami had the 3rd lowest bar passage rate in Florida for the February 2006 exam (not sure of the July yet). Even Nova and Florida Coastal beat you. You must feel pretty pathetic. Maybe my school doesn’t have a high bar passage rate (we never have), but I can promise one thing… we at least have dignity at my school. Something UM, and awful professors like yourself, lack.

    As I stated last time, please review your civil procedure law for Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment

  22. St. Thomas Student says:

    Dear “Michael”,

    First, I hope you are not that Michael guy that sings the 80′s song “There’s a monkey on your back.” If you are, I totally understand why you lack common sense and simple understanding of the law.

    It is truly disgraceful that you are a professor (we’ll see if that is even true, I have your address now, I could show up one day to find out if you are the real deal)

    Here are your comments and my responses (some of your comments might include portions of my previous comments as well, I have to do it that way in order for others to see why you responded the way you did):

    Michael: Actually, I read it all the way to the very end. Making a contract with a party located in the forum state is sufficient ‘purposeful availment’ to support special jurisdiction over claims resulting from the agreement. Here we have what sounds like either a breach claim or a fraudulent inducement claim (anyone got a copy of the actual complaint?); jurisdiction for either, and probably even general jurisdiction, is supplied by the course of conduct of soliciting and accepting applicants and their deposits.

    My Response: Man you really are dumb. Your argument is entirely contextual and could go either way, depending on how the judge sees it. You proved nothing with your last comment. And you are a law professor?!?!?!?!?

    Michael: One doesn’t actually “purposefully avail oneself to the jurisdiction of the court”; one avails oneself of the benefits of the laws of the forum and in so doing becomes subject to the jurisdiction of its courts.

    My Response: That is just clearly incorrect. Purposeful availment is exactly what I said it was. Your little knit-picking of how I defined the term “purposeful availment” shows your weakness and insecurity in your ability to defend yourself. I can just as easily say you are wrong and that “’Purposeful availment’ means that the defendant’s contacts with the forum state must not be random, fortuitous, attenuated, or the result of unilateral activity of a third person or another party.” Guinness Imp. Co. v. Mark Vii Distribs., 153 F.3d 607, 614 (8th Cir. 1998). But if I do define it as such, that would be knit-picking and succumbing to your juvenile tactics for lack of a better argument. Stick to meaningful arguments, not pathetic ones.

    Michael: Alaska certainly; Japan maybe — although that depends primarily on their law, not ours, and there might be forum non conveniens questions.

    My Response: Please go to R&B Falcon v. Noble, 91 Fed. Appx. 317, 319. When you get to the case you will see the following excerpt

    “The district court granted Noble Denton’s motion to dismiss, determining that R&B Cliffs failed to establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction. The district court found that all activities giving rise to the suit occurred in London or the Persian Gulf, and that the fact that the contracts were faxed to R&B Cliffs in Houston did not, by itself, establish purposeful availment of the forum sufficient to confer jurisdiction.”

    My continued Response: you must really feel silly now. As a stated in an earlier posting, your “inability to grasp simple legal concepts” does not dignify any further elaboration on this point.

    Michael: US law would require St. Thomas to travel all the way out there for 10 years, and consume extremely hefty litigation expenses pending the outcome of the case.
    All avoidable by putting a choice of forum clause in the contract.

    My Response: No that is just not true. Not even close. A simple choice of forum clause does not absolve this problem at all. People can waive certain terms of a contract. A written contract is not a final document that ends all matters.. it is merely proof of an agreement (most professors know this, unlike you unfortunately). An agreement can be proven by a written contract, outside documents, parole evidence, expressed and implied waivers, etc. The list goes on. So your “quick fix” reliance on a simple choice of forum clause, does nothing to solve the jurisdictional predicament. So not only do you know very little about Civ Pro, but you also lack simple Contract concepts as well???

    Michael: Remember that St. Thomas is innocent until proven guilty,
    Actually, that ‘s a criminal law standard. This is a civil case. We don’t speak of “innocence” and “guilt” but of “liability” and “not being liable”.

    My Response: Once again your knit-picking is overwhelming. Try to get the point of what I am saying. Perhaps you couldn’t figure it out…most likely because you lack the ability to understand law. So I guess I should spell it out for you. A school (or any business for that matter) can not be forced to travel the world each time they get sued. Especially when the school has no other offices anywhere else in the country. The only office is in Opa Locka, Florida. It is not like McDonalds where they are in every single state in the country, and it would be no sweat off their back to stand trial anywhere someone wants to sue them. Maybe you can’t see that. McDonalds would have purposely availed itself to be sued anywhere, because their main purpose as a company is to expand larger and larger around the country each day. Whereas St. Thomas has no aspirations of expanding their school anywhere else in the country (seeking students from out of state is not “expanding” under my usage of the term). But once again, you missed the whole point of the reasons why I used the term “innocent until proven guilty,” and instead chose to ramble on about criminal and civil liability, when I was not using it to demonstrate any burdens of proof.

    Perhaps if St. Thomas had written in their catalogs that they had a scheme to take people’s money and then fail them out, then their intentions would be purposeful, and more likely that they purposely availed themselves to the “jurisdiction” or the “benefits of the laws” of NJ, for the simple reason that they were blatantly performing criminal acts around the country. (Am I going too fast for you? Want me to slow down?)

    Michael: and it would be extremely unreasonable, unfair, and unforeseeable that the school would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend itself, out of state, from this frivolous lawsuit, when the school has done nothing wrong, and there is not even a scintilla of evidence to back up Bentley’s outlandish allegations.
    Welcome to the realities of litigation. If the suit is in fact frivolous, there’s always Rule 11. Plus the school can make an offer of judgment under Rule 68 in order to contain and recoup costs.

    My Response: Ok you proved nothing with your reply, and completely avoided the point I was making. I posted this here to demonstrate that not only are you UNABLE to understand simple legal concepts in Civ Pro and Contracts, but you can not even formulate a convincing, relevant argument either.

    Michael: I don’t know if anyone taught you ordinary common sense, but if you think about it for one minute, it sounds quite silly that a school would be forced to just “travel the world” each time they got sued.
    Er. No. Why shouldn’t firms that deal directly with consumers have to litigate in the consumer’s home jurisdiction? Why should it be the consumer that always has to go to the firm’s home court?

    My Response: Er… Yes. That is exactly right. The consumer must go to the state where the act occurred in order to bring suit. Otherwise I could go to some mom and pop store in State A, and come back to my home State B and file a lawsuit that leaves the mom and pop store no choice but to settle in order to avoid the hundreds of thousands of dollars that litigation costs are to defend themselves in State B. Man you really must feel silly at this point. But don’t worry, I will continue embarrassing you.

    Michael: If someone wants to sue the school, they must come to Florida. The student, NOT THE SCHOOL, has purposely availed himself by coming to the state of Florida to study.
    It’s certainly the case that Florida has more to do with the execution of the agreement (although not with its formation). That seems relevant to choice of law…but not especially to forum.

    My Response: How is someone “choosing to study in Florida” relevant to “choice of law”? What the *&^% type of response was that? I don’t even know where to begin my reply to this because it is so ludicrous (is that word too big for you?). Once again I must reiterate your inability to even formulate an argument. I hope you are not that pathetic in the courtroom bringing up nonsensical arguments on behalf of your client. (Oh wait, you probably have never been in a court room because you spend so much time teaching incorrect Civ Pro to students).

    Michael: I do appreciate your sympathy. Alas, it is somewhat misplaced. I have not had the privilege of attending St. Thomas. I graduated from Yale Law School in 1987, and my bar results thus had no effect on St. Thomas’s statistics.

    My Response: It just goes to show you that it does not matter where one studies law, whether St. Thomas, Yale, or UCLA… unbelievably ignorant and incompetent people like you can come from anywhere.

    The secretary at the firm I work for knows more Civ Pro than you. You should be ashamed.

    Although I always enjoy a healthy debate, debating with you is more of a waste of time than playing darts with an inflatable dartboard.

    Michael: I will certainly keep that in mind the next time I teach Civil Procedure.

    My Response: No wonder UMiami had the 3rd lowest bar passage rate in Florida for the February 2006 exam (not sure of the July yet). Even Nova and Florida Coastal beat you. You must feel pretty pathetic. Maybe my school doesn’t have a high bar passage rate (we never have), but I can promise one thing… we at least have dignity at my school. Something UM, and awful professors like yourself, lack.

    As I stated last time, please review your civil procedure law for Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment

  23. St. Thomas Student says:

    Dear “Michael”,

    First, I hope you are not that Michael guy that sings the 80′s song “There’s a monkey on your back.” If you are, I totally understand why you lack common sense and simple understanding of the law.

    It is truly disgraceful that you are a professor (we’ll see if that is even true, I have your address now, I could show up one day to find out if you are the real deal)

    Here are your comments and my responses (some of your comments might include portions of my previous comments as well, I have to do it that way in order for others to see why you responded the way you did):

    Michael: Actually, I read it all the way to the very end. Making a contract with a party located in the forum state is sufficient ‘purposeful availment’ to support special jurisdiction over claims resulting from the agreement. Here we have what sounds like either a breach claim or a fraudulent inducement claim (anyone got a copy of the actual complaint?); jurisdiction for either, and probably even general jurisdiction, is supplied by the course of conduct of soliciting and accepting applicants and their deposits.

    My Response: Man you really are dumb. Your argument is entirely contextual and could go either way, depending on how the judge sees it. You proved nothing with your last comment. And you are a law professor?!?!?!?!?

    Michael: One doesn’t actually “purposefully avail oneself to the jurisdiction of the court”; one avails oneself of the benefits of the laws of the forum and in so doing becomes subject to the jurisdiction of its courts.

    My Response: That is just clearly incorrect. Purposeful availment is exactly what I said it was. Your little knit-picking of how I defined the term “purposeful availment” shows your weakness and insecurity in your ability to defend yourself. I can just as easily say you are wrong and that “’Purposeful availment’ means that the defendant’s contacts with the forum state must not be random, fortuitous, attenuated, or the result of unilateral activity of a third person or another party.” Guinness Imp. Co. v. Mark Vii Distribs., 153 F.3d 607, 614 (8th Cir. 1998). But if I do define it as such, that would be knit-picking and succumbing to your juvenile tactics for lack of a better argument. Stick to meaningful arguments, not pathetic ones.

    Michael: Alaska certainly; Japan maybe — although that depends primarily on their law, not ours, and there might be forum non conveniens questions.

    My Response: Please go to R&B Falcon v. Noble, 91 Fed. Appx. 317, 319. When you get to the case you will see the following excerpt

    “The district court granted Noble Denton’s motion to dismiss, determining that R&B Cliffs failed to establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction. The district court found that all activities giving rise to the suit occurred in London or the Persian Gulf, and that the fact that the contracts were faxed to R&B Cliffs in Houston did not, by itself, establish purposeful availment of the forum sufficient to confer jurisdiction.”

    My continued Response: you must really feel silly now. As a stated in an earlier posting, your “inability to grasp simple legal concepts” does not dignify any further elaboration on this point.

    Michael: US law would require St. Thomas to travel all the way out there for 10 years, and consume extremely hefty litigation expenses pending the outcome of the case.
    All avoidable by putting a choice of forum clause in the contract.

    My Response: No that is just not true. Not even close. A simple choice of forum clause does not absolve this problem at all. People can waive certain terms of a contract. A written contract is not a final document that ends all matters.. it is merely proof of an agreement (most professors know this, unlike you unfortunately). An agreement can be proven by a written contract, outside documents, parole evidence, expressed and implied waivers, etc. The list goes on. So your “quick fix” reliance on a simple choice of forum clause, does nothing to solve the jurisdictional predicament. So not only do you know very little about Civ Pro, but you also lack simple Contract concepts as well???

    Michael: Remember that St. Thomas is innocent until proven guilty,
    Actually, that ‘s a criminal law standard. This is a civil case. We don’t speak of “innocence” and “guilt” but of “liability” and “not being liable”.

    My Response: Once again your knit-picking is overwhelming. Try to get the point of what I am saying. Perhaps you couldn’t figure it out…most likely because you lack the ability to understand law. So I guess I should spell it out for you. A school (or any business for that matter) can not be forced to travel the world each time they get sued. Especially when the school has no other offices anywhere else in the country. The only office is in Opa Locka, Florida. It is not like McDonalds where they are in every single state in the country, and it would be no sweat off their back to stand trial anywhere someone wants to sue them. Maybe you can’t see that. McDonalds would have purposely availed itself to be sued anywhere, because their main purpose as a company is to expand larger and larger around the country each day. Whereas St. Thomas has no aspirations of expanding their school anywhere else in the country (seeking students from out of state is not “expanding” under my usage of the term). But once again, you missed the whole point of the reasons why I used the term “innocent until proven guilty,” and instead chose to ramble on about criminal and civil liability, when I was not using it to demonstrate any burdens of proof.

    Perhaps if St. Thomas had written in their catalogs that they had a scheme to take people’s money and then fail them out, then their intentions would be purposeful, and more likely that they purposely availed themselves to the “jurisdiction” or the “benefits of the laws” of NJ, for the simple reason that they were blatantly performing criminal acts around the country. (Am I going too fast for you? Want me to slow down?)

    Michael: and it would be extremely unreasonable, unfair, and unforeseeable that the school would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend itself, out of state, from this frivolous lawsuit, when the school has done nothing wrong, and there is not even a scintilla of evidence to back up Bentley’s outlandish allegations.
    Welcome to the realities of litigation. If the suit is in fact frivolous, there’s always Rule 11. Plus the school can make an offer of judgment under Rule 68 in order to contain and recoup costs.

    My Response: Ok you proved nothing with your reply, and completely avoided the point I was making. I posted this here to demonstrate that not only are you UNABLE to understand simple legal concepts in Civ Pro and Contracts, but you can not even formulate a convincing, relevant argument either.

    Michael: I don’t know if anyone taught you ordinary common sense, but if you think about it for one minute, it sounds quite silly that a school would be forced to just “travel the world” each time they got sued.
    Er. No. Why shouldn’t firms that deal directly with consumers have to litigate in the consumer’s home jurisdiction? Why should it be the consumer that always has to go to the firm’s home court?

    My Response: Er… Yes. That is exactly right. The consumer must go to the state where the act occurred in order to bring suit. Otherwise I could go to some mom and pop store in State A, and come back to my home State B and file a lawsuit that leaves the mom and pop store no choice but to settle in order to avoid the hundreds of thousands of dollars that litigation costs are to defend themselves in State B. Man you really must feel silly at this point. But don’t worry, I will continue embarrassing you.

    Michael: If someone wants to sue the school, they must come to Florida. The student, NOT THE SCHOOL, has purposely availed himself by coming to the state of Florida to study.
    It’s certainly the case that Florida has more to do with the execution of the agreement (although not with its formation). That seems relevant to choice of law…but not especially to forum.

    My Response: How is someone “choosing to study in Florida” relevant to “choice of law”? What the *&^% type of response was that? I don’t even know where to begin my reply to this because it is so ludicrous (is that word too big for you?). Once again I must reiterate your inability to even formulate an argument. I hope you are not that pathetic in the courtroom bringing up nonsensical arguments on behalf of your client. (Oh wait, you probably have never been in a court room because you spend so much time teaching incorrect Civ Pro to students).

    Michael: I do appreciate your sympathy. Alas, it is somewhat misplaced. I have not had the privilege of attending St. Thomas. I graduated from Yale Law School in 1987, and my bar results thus had no effect on St. Thomas’s statistics.

    My Response: It just goes to show you that it does not matter where one studies law, whether St. Thomas, Yale, or UCLA… unbelievably ignorant and incompetent people like you can come from anywhere.

    The secretary at the firm I work for knows more Civ Pro than you. You should be ashamed.

    Although I always enjoy a healthy debate, debating with you is more of a waste of time than playing darts with an inflatable dartboard.

    Michael: I will certainly keep that in mind the next time I teach Civil Procedure.

    My Response: No wonder UMiami had the 3rd lowest bar passage rate in Florida for the February 2006 exam (not sure of the July yet). Even Nova and Florida Coastal beat you. You must feel pretty pathetic. Maybe my school doesn’t have a high bar passage rate (we never have), but I can promise one thing… we at least have dignity at my school. Something UM, and awful professors like yourself, lack.

    As I stated last time, please review your civil procedure law for Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Availment

  24. St. Thomas Student says:

    To everyone who watches me embarass Michael, I apologize for the numerous postings, everytime I hit send, the browser would say “Error with Internal Server.” So I hit the back button each time and resent it until it posted with no problem. Only then did I realize that it posted my other 3 prior attempts as well.

  25. STU a Joke says:

    Dignity? Please. Evidently you go to a different St. Thomas.
    There are a few good apples around, but it’s mainly just a
    big, steaming pile of cheaters, crooks and ass-kissing retards.

  26. St. Thomas Student says:

    Hey “Stu a Joke”

    You are right, I do go to a different St. Thomas than you speak of… I go to the St. Thomas School of Law, not the undergrad where are all the “cheaters, crooks and ass-kissing retards.”

    Where do (or did) you go to law school, and why are you so angry at St. Thomas? Are you the real Bentley who failed out? Will the real Thomas Bentley please stand up… please stand up… please stand up! hahahahahah

  27. Dear St. Thomas Student:

    I am an STU LAW Alumnus and I kindly request that you please stop posting, because every time you do you weaken the nation.

    Regards.

  28. St. Thomas Student says:

    Hey “Senior Advisor”

    If you really are who you say you are…. a St. Thomas Alumni, you are one of the reasons our bar passage is sofa king low. Do me a favor, please shut up… nobody appreciates people like you who have nothing intelligent to say.

    It is incompetent people like yourself that led St. Thomas to fall into the awful low bar passage arena. Leave it to the more intelligent hard working students like myself to clean up your mess, and bring St. Thomas back to a respectable competetive institution.

  29. STU a Joke says:

    I can most certainly vouch for your good, perhaps even
    superhuman, work ethic. Someone so self-evidently stupid
    could never hack it otherwise–even at St. Thomas. (That is,
    unless you’re one of the cheaters or ass-kissing retards that
    seem to predominate).

  30. Michael says:

    Posters are requested to review the comments policy:

    1. Participants in the comments are kindly requested to be civil, and at least vaguely on-topic.

    2. I will delete (or disemvowel) comments that are duplicative, commercial, needlessly foul or mean or otherwise inappropriately offensive.
    3. My decisions are final. I’m happy to discuss them by email.
    4. I’ll amend this policy as I gain experience.
    5. In the long run, it remains to be seen if comments is a workable commons or not.
  31. St. Thomas Student says:

    “STU a Joke”

    Why are you vouching for me, then in the same paragraph un-vouching for me and resorting to abusive verbal insults? Do you have Tourette’s?

    All kidding aside, please give an honest bio of yourself. I won’t judge you if you are the real Thomas Bentley who failed out of St. Thomas because you just couldn’t be a man and study like the rest of us and now brought a frivolous lawsuit against St. Thomas in order to save your face and reputation.

  32. Stu a Joke says:

    Provide you with a bio? Thanks but no thanks. I’m not Thomas Bentley, or
    whatever his name is; I actually have a degree from your beloved STU. But
    I wish him well in his suit, because I believe that Butterworth, et. al. have
    taken a cut-rate joke of a school and made it even worse. How? By holding
    students to a far more unforgiving standard than they apply to their own faculty.

    How about googling “Jeffery Allen” and “Valujet,” for a start, if you don’t know
    what I’m talking about. (Or, if that’s too much trouble, you can just tell us about
    the ex-felon Crim Law professor). That anyone could be dismissed because of a
    sub-2.5 GPA, as graded by that bunch of political cronies and lunkheads, is an
    utter travesty.

  33. Marc says:

    This stu student must be flame.

    You are really questioning “Michael” Froomkin’s bio? You know who runs discourse.net It’s Michael. I had him for admin law at UM and he wears the bowtie, just like the pic in the address bar, to class.

    Your lack of basic civ pro knowledge is shameful, but not as shameful as not admitting you were pwn3d by Michael and quitting. Seriously, I’ve seen Michael, or professor Froomin, “debate” before and while he may not be James Carville, he can hold his own. And for you to showcase your “knowledge” of civ pro and argue with him over simple issues that you didn’t understand was entertaining but I waish he went adhominem on you additionally.

    I had michael for class, he’s a vicious grader, and I passed the FL bar. Regardless, I’m shocked you passed civ pro at any aba-accredited school. You school should lose accredition if it truly passed you.

    I won’t go into the issues of your “debate” since you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and it was 2 ships passing in the night. You’re reposting fed long-arm statutes and michael’s already on the issue of specific jurisdiction through Ks b/w parties and which state’s laws should govern the parties’ K…unless you think there’s federal K law or as michael, jokingly noted, you think it’s a patent or IP case.

  34. St. Thomas Student says:

    “STU a Joke”

    I’m not angry at you for hating our school. I respect your opinion but I think you are misguided and making uninformed accusations. If you don’t mind, please see my comments below.

    When Butterworth became Dean he took over when the school’s bar passage rate had suffered the worst plummet in St. Thomas history (Former Dean Makdisi’s reckless, extremist, and radical right wing ideology caused every student who had a decent GPA to transfer out of the school and only the students with awful GPAs who could not transfer (or were too lazy) had to stay). Within 2 years of Butterworth taking over the bar passage rate doubled to 64%. (The prior bar passage rates were only in the 30% range under Makdisi).

    The reason why we have really awful faculty members at our school is because:
    1. Makdisi hired his own wife to teach Torts and the wife lady (although very nice), cannot grasp Torts, nor teaching in general, and makes a fool of herself all day in class. (Listening to her teach Products Liability was by far the most hilarious thing I have ever been subjected to).
    2. Makdisi’s right wing extremist ideology caused all the amazing professors to leave because they could not deal with a thick-headed imbecile like Makdisi who took no other professor’s ideas into consideration, and only installed his own ridiculous offensive rules and regulations.
    3. Makdisi’s lowered the enrollment to very few students. I guess his idea was to bring in fewer students, closer concentration with each student in order to get better bar passage. The problem? No decent human being would ever stay at St. Thomas through Makdisi’s oppressive regime. So the middle and top of the classes transferred, and the lowest idiots graduated and failed the bar.

    Makdisi was fired from St. Thomas after the entire school fell into turmoil, all subject to a dictator that had no understanding of decency, common sense, or unity.

    Do you think it is concidence that Makdisi has been a Dean of two other law schools and has been fired from both of them as well?

    Before Butterworth took over we were the last school in the state. Since Butterworth has taken over our bar passage rate has been hovering around the 60 percentile (double from Makdisi’s figures) and students from Great (even Ivy League) schools are coming to St. Thomas and actually staying. For the first time ever, more students from the top of the class are staying, and the bottom of the class who don’t take school seriously, are either transferring or just not allowed to come back (almost all students get 2 chances to pass… which is more than fair). The top 60% of the students at St. Thomas all score within the state average for bar passage. It is the bottom 40% of slackers that hold us down, and that is why the school needed to install a system that made sure the slackers (who are more than capable of law school, but are too lazy to put in any effort) are thrown out.

  35. St. Thomas Student says:

    Oh and Marc I just read your comments. You seem to be as incompetent as Michael.

    First you may want to do a spell check of your writing.. you mispelled way too many words. Second your grammer was worse than a high school student.

    And third you need to improve your reading comprehension (I seem to see a pattern for UM students and professors now… none of you have any idea how to read, speak, or even stay on topic). I never questioned Michael’s Bio (for example, I never questioned that Michael actually teaches Civ Pro), I questioned whether or not this was the real Michael, and I also questioned whether he understood simple Civ Pro rules, because he made careless errors and inaccurate responses. You had Michael as a professor? Man I feel bad for you, you couldn’t pay me to take a class with him, it is sad that students know more about Civ Pro than he does. Not to mention his lack of understanding in Contracts and Argument formation.

    It must have been nice that your daddy secured your admission into UM and then paid the entire bill. Perhaps if I would have had my life handed to me on a silver spoon, like both you and Michael, I could have afforded the $50,000 a year cost that UM charges. But by talking to incompetent students like you, and being subjected to ignorant professors like Michael, it’s no wonder I chose not to go to UM (I get a huge scholarship at St Thomas and I am in the top of my class).

    Just so you know, UM was the third lowest school in bar passage in Feb. 2006 (bar passage was in the 60 percentile). You should be ashamed, but then again after talking to you, I am not surprised your school did so poorly.

  36. STU a Joke says:

    Misspell “intelligent,” and you get a pass; there’s no need
    to be pedantic over what was surely (surely!) a simple typo.

    But really now, “grammar”…???

    GRAMMAR?!?

    Good God, for the sake of us all, PLEASE stop your posting.

  37. Marc says:

    This is my last post on this thread.

    STU student,

    I actually had a Dean’s Merit Scholarship for all 3 years to UM’s law school. I wouldn’t pay full price for any law school not in the top10.

    As far as Michael, no silver spoon got him into Yale. I imagine it was his triple major at their undergrad and being summa that did it.

    And as far as my school’s bar passage rate, well, I passed. I can’t speak for why other people failed. I suppose I could’ve paid full price and gone somewhere they had a higher bar passage rate, not that would help my personal debt or raise my chances of passing the bar.

    As far as you go, it won’t be. You’d be lucky to pass the bar without some serious overhaul of your logical abilities, reading comp, and humility.

    I seriously hope you don’t enter and dillute my profession further.

  38. Marc says:

    This is my last post on this thread.

    STU student,

    I actually had a Dean’s Merit Scholarship for all 3 years to UM’s law school. I wouldn’t pay full price for any law school not in the top10.

    As far as Michael, no silver spoon got him into Yale. I imagine it was his triple major at their undergrad and being summa that did it.

    And as far as my school’s bar passage rate, well, I passed. I can’t speak for why other people failed. I suppose I could’ve paid full price and gone somewhere they had a higher bar passage rate, not that would help my personal debt or raise my chances of passing the bar.

    As far as you go, it won’t be. You’d be lucky to pass the bar without some serious overhaul of your logical abilities, reading comp, and humility.

    I seriously hope you don’t enter and dillute my profession further.

  39. St. Thomas Student says:

    “STU a Joke” I sent you a personal blog before I replied to marc. Please scroll up and read it when you have the chance.

    Marc– as for you, your short response that completely evaded my every attack on your credibility and fitness to be a competent lawyer shows your weakness for the legal profession. I always enjoy a nice concession. Thanks for trying though!

    I do hope to dual with you one day in court, it will be by far the easiest win of my career, even easier than my win over Michael Froomkin (I still laugh every time I think about Michael actually teaching Civ Pro. UM must have been so desperate to get a big named Yale graduate, that they had to take a silly graduate like Michael).

  40. anon says:

    St. Thomas Student,

    Everytime you speak you are embarrassing your school. It is getting to the point where I no longer think you attend St. Thomas. Rather, I think you are someone who holds a personal vendetta against St. Thomas and is smearing their reputation by posting idiotic comments on a public blog. If you do actually attend St. Thomas, it does not speak well for the school.

  41. St. Thomas Student says:

    Anon,

    If you have anything intelligent to say, then please respond to these postings. If you don’t, please refrain from engaging in any discussions here. This place is only for law students and interested parties, not burger flippers at the local McDonalds.

  42. St. Thomas Student says:

    Whats wrong Michael? Got nothing to say? Cat got your tongue?

    Next time brush up on your Civ Pro and Contracts… then come back and try me again.

    Just so you know, us little St. Thomas grads go on to become the millionares, the UF and FSU students go on to become the judges, and the Ivy League graduates become the professors.

    Professors like yourself, make peanuts compared to what St. Thomas grads make. We will see in 10 years who has more money. Maybe then you will understand what it means to respect others.

    I’ll assume that since you failed to respond to my postings earlier that you respectfully conceded.

  43. Marc says:

    Can you list the famous or wealthy STU alumni whose footsteps you will follow? I don’t believe I’be heard of STU law producing many millionaires.

  44. anon@anon says:

    It’s ironic that you say this forum is not for burger flippers when you, as a graduate of St. Thomas, are more likely to be flipping burgers than anyone else here.

  45. Michael says:

    There being much heat, but no light, being generated, I’m going to close this comment thread.

  46. ST STudent says:

    I have been a St. Thomas student for the past 18 months and I too was dismissed this semester. What is so puzzling is that I needed to a get a 2.75 average to stay not a 2.5 average as I have heard that others needed. Also I have become aware of other irregularities in the way this school operates giving certain students different requirements in order to stay in school. I meet all the school requirements for good standing yet I was dismissed. I am also considering legal action.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.