Case Activity (199)

1. Response | Filed: October 01, 2026 | Entered: October 01, 2026 Kathleen Hawks v. California Southern University, LLC et al

   Civil Rights: Jobs | California Central

   Objection/Opposition (Motion related)

   Opposition In Opposition to re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Superior Court of Orange County 10 filed by Defendant Perdoceo Education Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kate Juviinall ISO of Opposition to Motion to Remand, # 2 Proposed Order ISO of Opposition)(Juvinall, Kate)

2. Order | Filed: September 28, 2026 | Entered: September 28, 2026 Fiorisce LLC v. Perdoceo Education Corporation et al

   Other Statutes: False Claims Act | Colorado

   Minute Order

   MINUTE ORDER. The Court has reviewed the parties' respective letters of intent to file motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 143 and 144 , and their responses, ECF Nos. 148 and 149 . Materiality might be appropriate for summary disposition. The government (Dept. of Education) has been aware of relator's allegations since the case was filed. It appears to be undisputed that DOE has continued to pay defendants' claims, and that it renewed its agreement with defendants in 2025. Whether that combination of awareness and conduct renders relator's claims immaterial as a matter of law appears to turn largely on the interpretation of the Tenth Circuit's Jannsen decision and how, if at all, is applies to these facts. The Court expresses no opinion on that issue, only that it might be appropriate for summary disposition.
   
   The other issues raised by the relator are not clear in terms of summary disposition. I do not understand what the dispute is concerning the format of defendant's "claims" for payment. As for "falsity," I am not sure what the legal issue is that the Court could resolve without resolving fact disputes. Relator seems to be claiming that the calculation of "credit hours" must include a determination of how much actual time students are spending (attending class? doing homework?), and that the Intellipath system doesn't measure that. Defendants seem to saying that the regulations do not require "using particular student engagement metrics" (whatever that means), only that they must use a method that "reasonably approximates not less than [certain amounts of instruction and homework]," and that they permit "[taking a number of factors into account]," which Intellipath does. It would have been helpful if either party had described the dispute in plain English.
   
   Bottom line: The Court cannot prohibit the parties from seeking summary judgment. However, it doesn't help the parties or the Court to move for summary judgment if there are genuinely disputed factual issues that preclude disposition as a matter of law. Materiality strikes me as the best, maybe the only, issue that might be amenable to summary disposition, by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 9/28/2026. Text Only Entry (ccuen, )

3. 197 additional result(s)