James Galdikas v. The Board of Trustees of Governors State University

BEAUPRE, BRUCE FRIEFELD, JOAN PORCHE, WANDA BRACY, AMI WANG,

CECILIA ROKUSEK, PAUL KEYS, TOBIN BAROZZO, HARRIET MEEK, KAREN

SOBIERAJ, KITTY CUNNINGHAM AND JESSE MCDONALD, in their official and

individual capacities, Respondent.

Opinion filed April 20, 2011

PAULETTE A. PETRETTI, Counsel for Claimant

LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General (JACQUELINE K. WILLIAMS, Assistant

Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

Practice and procedure-Motion to correct/amend- Illinois Courts and Rules of

Practice favor liberal amendment pleadings which do not present material issues of

surprise or prejudice to an adverse party.

Breach of implied contract-University accreditation-Denied- Claimants were aware

when applying for the GSU Master of Social Work Program that it was not

accredited.

Claimants' alleged reliance on predictions, promises and

representations of future events, as distinguished from existing facts, are not

actionable.

ORDER

Jann, J.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss Claimants' six count Amended Complaint with 10 Exhibits attached thereto, Claimants' Motion to Correct/Amend/Supplement Exhibits to Amended Complaint, Claimants' Response to Motion to Dismiss; and Respondent's Reply to Claimants' Response to Motion to Dismiss.

There is no response to the Motion to Correct Exhibits of Record.

[*134] This cause is stated as arising from breach of an implied contract, and express contract now argued, and other personal claims by Claimants alleged to have been a result of acts, statements, negligence, fraud in the inducement, and certain willful and wanton acts or omissions arising from Claimants' enrollment in a Master's of Social Work Program which was not accredited at Governor's State University.

I. Motion to Correct/Amend.

Claimants' Motion to Amend styled "Motion to Correct" and actually, per

paragraphs 3-12 is a plea to amend or supplement documents Claimants assert

were produced in discovery in this claim in a prior Federal claim arising from the

same underlying events or alleged breaches at issue in the actions considered

under the Amended Complaint herein.

We agree, and Respondent filed no objection, that Illinois courts and Rules of

Practice favor liberal amendment of pleadings which do not present material issues

of surprise or prejudice to an adverse party as cited in Claimants' Motion at

paragraphs 5, (Clerical Error) and 11, (Liberal Amendment) of his Motion.

We find no reason to deny the Motion, and have fully considered the Exhibits

as amended/supplemented but for the copy of a letter referenced in paragraph 12

of the Motion to Correct which is not alleged to be determinative per paragraph 15

of his Motion to Correct, and affirmatively states the substantive information in the

now corrected Exhibits 1 and 8 are already included in the Amended Complaint and

per paragraph 14 of the Motion to Correct, known to Respondent.

Claimants'

Motion is granted.

[*135] II. Motion to Dismiss.

The Response to Motion to Dismiss by Claimants argues Angles v. State

(1983) 37 Ill.Ct.Cl. 134 is helpful to Claimants' claims herein.

We disagree, as does

Respondent.

Angles, id. is inapposite in these purported contract claims.

Claimants also argue inducement, ambiguity, an express contract, negligent

hiring and various other legal issues not fully pleaded in their Complaint, or

Amended Complaint now considered.

Claimants' Exhibit A at page 2 reads as

follows in pertinent part:

Objective 7 - to diversify the social services workforce to better

serve the increasing numbers of racial, ethnic and cultural

minorities served by these agencies.

The GSU Master of Social Work Program will be comparable to

the programs at other universities in meeting the basic

requirements in these five areas.

However, the GSU program

will vary from the others in ways which are increasingly

responsive to student demand:

• New approaches to concentrations

• Responsiveness to the needs of human service systems

• Programs integrated throughout the university

• Designed for the part-time student

While the curricula contain the required components of

traditional accredited M.S.W. programs, the emphasis on

service to vulnerable populations through public support

interdisciplinary teamwork, service integration, cultural

competency, the relationships between organization and

practice and data based management and program design are

far more pervasive and integrated than in traditional programs

which have added these concerns to established curricula.

Thus, the content of specific courses and approaches to

instruction differ substantially from traditional M.S.W.

curricula in the following ways:

• Course content will be refined with an outside advisory

group

• Interdisciplinary teamwork is incorporated throughout [*136]

Research and evaluation courses focus on "real world"

•

skills

• Concentrations are designed for the human service system.

Respondent's argument is that Claimants knew when they applied for this newly created program that it was not accredited, and sought admission and received instruction with that knowledge.

All claims made by Claimants directly arise from Respondent's failure to gain accredited status for the new Masters of Social Work program, and Claimants alleged reliance on "predictions, promises and representations of future events, as distinguished from existing facts" which are not actionable per Rubidoux and Sasak v. Northeastern University, et. al. (1998), 51 Ill.Ct.Cl. 275.

Claimants seek to distinguish Rubidoux in its Response as the case was regarding future rental receipts on a contract with student renters.

We have fully considered the arguments and citations of both parties in making our decision.

Ultimately, it is inescapable fact that Respondent's program was not accredited and Claimants knew this to be true when they enrolled.

The

record also indicated Respondent could not promise certification or accredited status by a third party, as argued herein.

Wherefore, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED.