1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PAULA LUA

3717 SOUTH LA BREA AVE 106-621 LOS ANGELES, CA 90016 323 532-4711

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES : Case No.: SC 109295 : PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED : COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: : : 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; : 2. FRAUD; : 3. NEGLIGENT : MISREPRESENTATION; : 4. VIOLATION OF BPPVE : 5. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200;

PAULA LUA, Plaintiff, vs. CAREER COLLEGES OF AMERICA, dba CCA Educorp; DOES 1 through 50 Defendant

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF and alleges against Defendants as follows: THE PLAINTIFF1.

PAULA LUA, at all material times, was a resident of the State of California and is a former student of Defendants Career Colleges of America dba CCA Educorp, (CCA).

2.

Defendants Career Colleges of America dba CCA Educorp is a California corporation that operates a for-profit school in Los Angeles County, California. Upon information and belief, Career Colleges of America is wholly owned and operated by Defendants CCA Educorp .

3.

Defendant CCA is a California corporation that does business in Los Angeles, County, and California by and through Career Colleges of America, (CCA) its

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6. 5. 4.

wholly owned and controlled subsidiary. Plaintiff is informed and believes that CCA Educorp exercises dominion and control over each and all of its subsidiaries, including Career Colleges of America, and enjoys the full benefits of all monies and profits earned by these subsidiaries. Plaintiff is also informed and believes that CCA Educorp benefits in other direct and indirect ways from prescribes all of the wrongful actions of Career Colleges alleged in this Complaint. As set forth herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes that CCA Educorp develops and oversees the implementation of all policies and procedures at Career Colleges, including without limitation policies and procedures concerning admissions practices, financial aid practices, curriculum, and job placement. Defendant Career Colleges of America then implements and carries out the policies and procedures developed and imposes by CCA Educorp. Throughout all their activities, CCA Educorp and Career Colleges of America acted as alter egos of each other. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of Defendants sued in this Complaint under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore, sues these Defendants by such fictitious names under the provisions of section 474 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendants DOES 1 through 50 are in some manner responsible for the events alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained. Whenever in this Complaint reference is made to any act or omission of a corporate Defendant, company, partnership or trust that allegation shall mean that entity did the acts alleged in the Complaint through its officers, partners, directors, members, agents, employees, and/or representatives while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority.

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12. 11. 9. 8. 7.

NATURE OF DEFENDANTS BUSINESS Career Colleges of America was established in 1988 to provide entry-level training in various career opportunities. The college was purchased in 1991, and its name was changed to Career Colleges of America, which is a dba of CCA Educorp. Career Colleges of America opened its San Bernardino Campus in 1994 and its Los Angeles Campus in 2003. Career Colleges of America offered an eight (8) month paralegal course from March 2004 through October 2004 at its Los Angeles Campus. The tuition for the course was $8,800 of which the Defendants received a $4,000 Pell Grant from the students who qualified. The remaining tuition balance was procured from student loans. 10. Defendants received payment up front for the paralegal course. Defendants coerced the students to sign documents authorizing the defendants to receive the full amount of the Pell Grant. Sometime in 2004, Defendants decided to shut down their paralegal course. Defendants failed to inform students of the decision to close and failed to inform the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education of this decision prior to shutting down the paralegal course as well as career services for the paralegal students. Plaintiff upon information and belief that the Defendants knew in 2004 that they were shutting down their paralegal course. Based upon this decision the Defendants failed to disclose this information to the paralegal students before the completion of the paralegal course, to give the students the option to continue the course or ask for a full refund pursuant to Sections 94824; 94869 (b) 94820 (a) and 94870 (e); of the Education Code BPPVE 1989. Allegations Common to All Causes of Action

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

13. This action arises out a fraudulent scheme conceived and operated by Defendants in connection with the recruitment of the Plaintiff as a student. 14. Defendants marketed CCA to Plaintiff and other prospective students through an extensive advertising campaign that included print, Internet, and in-person recruitment. 15. During and throughout the statutory claims period, Defendants induced Plaintiff to apply to and attend CCA and to subsequently remain enrolled in CCA by making one or more of the following representation:a.

Paralegal Program after completion ability to obtain entry level employment as a paralegal with an eight (8) month course culminated in a diploma.

b.

Paralegal Program Graduates will be able to work independently without a supervisory attorney.

c.

Paralegal Program Graduates will have lifetime job placement.

d. CCA Career Services will post and update all job openings for paralegal graduates. e. CCA students have an extremely high rate of job placement in the jobs for which the students seek to be trained. f. In 2004 it was, and is the custom and practice of Defendants to make these representations to recruit and each prospective applicant and induce them to attend CCA in reliance thereon.g.

These representations were materially false and/or misleading. Defendants knew the representations were false and/or misleading and/or had no reasonable grounds for believing them to be true. Moreover, or in the alternative, Defendant only partially disclosed facts regarding the quality, prestige, and marketability of a CCA education and failed to disclose other

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l. k. j. i. h.

more accurate facts necessary to prevent the foregoing representations from being misleading. These representations are made on the website run by Defendants and in print, Internet across the State of California. Further the student handbook, which list false and misleading employment rates for graduates of CCA. The true facts are as follows. Admission is not at all selective, but is open to virtually anyone with a high school diploma or GED certificate who can pay the charges (and almost all applicants can pay via student loans that CCA arranges for students). A CCA paralegal diploma does not increase graduates incomes and opportunities. A diploma from CCA does not satisfy the requirements of California Business and Profession Code Section 6450. Thereby rendering the CCA diploma deficient and does not qualify for an entry level paralegal position. CCA paralegal diploma can not authorize its paralegal graduates to work independently. California Business and Profession Codes mandate that paralegals must work under the supervision of a license attorney. However to work under the supervision of a license attorney one most first meet all the required stipulations of Section 6450 (8) of the California Business and Profession Codes. CCA does not provide its paralegal graduates with any meaningful assistance in finding employment (EX 3 defendants response to request for production of documents). CCA does not have an extensive network of contacts and close relationships with employers with whom CCA graduates can obtain employment. Rather most CCA paralegal graduates from the Los

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 p. o. m.

Angeles campus find jobs solely as a result of their own efforts and despite their CCA credentials, with little or no assistance from CCA. After students graduate and stop being a source of income for Defendants, students are virtually abandoned by CCA, contrary to promises that CCA will provide them with lifetime job placement services, and are generally able to find low paying entry level jobs. CCAs reputation is poor, and is a knock off of American Career Colleges. The job placement rates published by the Defendants to the paralegal students were materially inflated, inaccurate, false, CCAs stated placement rates misrepresented CCA actual placement rates by claiming credit for job placements by CCA even when CCA had provided no assistance to former students who had nonetheless found jobs n. CCA admissions representatives conducted the Fraudulent Recruiting Program by advertising in print, or on the Internet. Plaintiff reasonably relied and continued each day to reasonably rely on the misrepresentations and fraudulent omissions of CCA to enroll in and remain at CCA. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the misrepresentations and fraudulent omissions of CCA in making tuition payments. As a result of Defendants unlawful conduct, including the misrepresentations and omissions of material fact alleged above as part of the Fraudulent Recruiting Program, Plaintiff has been damaged by among other things: (1) paying tuition to Defendants;(2) paying interest on student loans that Defendants had induced them to take out in order to pay tuition; and (3) being unable to find employment based on and as a result of their education at CCA. Plaintiff paid or became obligated to one or more third parties (lenders)

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21. 20. 17. 16.

to pay thousands of dollars, plus significant interest thereon. In addition, Plaintiff has invested valuable months of her life and incurred cost of living and other expenses. Plaintiff has been damaged in other and further ways subject to proof at trial. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (Against All Defendants) Paragraphs 1 through 15 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. Plaintiff never stated; alleged; or claimed the breach of contract occurred in January 2005. At all times 1-2005 was the date plaintiff became aware that the defendants terminated the paralegal course at its Los Angeles campus. On or about March 1, 2004 the Plaintiff entered into a written contract with the Defendants to train her as a paralegal in exchange for tuition in the amount of $8,880. As well as lifetime job placement after completion of the course (EX 1). 18. At all times the Defendants did represent the availability, frequency and appropriateness of its paralegal program to the employment objectives that it stated were designed to meet. 19. At all times the Plaintiff did perform and complete the contract which gives rise to the Complaint. Further Plaintiff did state her intention and desire to work as an independent paralegal to CCAs recruiters, Admission Director, Instructor, and to Career Services. In March 2004 Plaintiff was not aware of Section 6450 of the California Business and Profession Code. Defendants never stated or informed the Plaintiff that under California law she could not work independently without the supervision of a license attorney.

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

22.

Sometime in 2004 before the first and last paralegal class at CCAs Los Angeles campus was completed the Defendants decided to shut down the paralegal program.

23. Defendants did not disclose their decision to stop offering the paralegal course with the students/plaintiff presently enrolled in the course. The defendants concealed the matter and systematically stopped offering other services the Plaintiff contracted for.24. 25.

The Defendants stopped posting job opening for its paralegal students/plaintiff. In or about January 2009 the Plaintiff did follow protocol as a former student of CCA in filing her complaint as to the deficient paralegal diploma.

26. Defendants continued to feign that its paralegal course did meet the requirements of Section 6450 of the California Business and profession Codes. 27. Defendants only post and update job openings for their medical students. The Plaintiff was directed to Craigslist to find employment. 28. Plaintiff is precluded from obtaining employment as a paralegal due to the substandard education received by the Defendants. California law requires that all paralegal students receive a certificate of completion or degree with no less than 2 years course of study. The defendants paralegal course was only for 8 months 720 hours and culminating in a diploma. Pursuant to the Education Code Section 94832 a postsecondary diploma is below the associates level. Plaintiff paid for a paralegal diploma which has not qualified her to obtain an entry level paralegal position. The diploma offered by the defendants is not in accordance with California law. In Bold lettering the Enrollment Application states NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES THAT THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES. Clearly the Plaintiff did not get what she contracted for which is a Breach of Contract. A cause of action for breach of

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30. 29.

contract requires the plaintiff to plead and prove a valid contract exist (EX 1) and subsisting contract based upon mutual assent of the parties thereto performance or excuse for non-performance; the defendants breach of said contract and damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD (Against All Defendants) Paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. As set forth above more fully, Defendants induced Plaintiff to apply to and attend CCA, to pay tuition and to continue to attend CCA by making numerous false statements as part of the Fraudulent Recruiting Program. (1) Deficient Paralegal Program not in accordance with California Law ( 2) Was not approved to receive federal funding under the Work Force Investment Act (3) At the time of recruitment defendants were not in good standing and were not authorized to do busy in the State of California due to their suspended Corporate status (EX 2). 31. As set forth more fully above, Defendants representations were materially false and misleading when made. 32. Defendants knew these misrepresentations were false when made.33.

Defendants made these misrepresentations with the intent to induce Plaintiff to rely upon them and to purchase services from CCA.

34. Plaintiff was ignorant of the facts concealed and omitted by Defendants, based on the misrepresentations, concealment, and omissions of Defendants and did in fact reasonably rely upon them. 35. Accordingly, Plaintiff has been damaged in a sum to be determined at trial.

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (Against All Defendants) 36. Paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 37. In all the foregoing actions, Defendants acted negligently in providing false information to Plaintiff as part of the Fraudulent Recruiting Program described above. It was foreseeable to Defendants that Plaintiff would rely on such false information. Defendants violated their duties to the Plaintiff arising out of their confidential relationship as elucidated in paragraphs 36 through 45. 39. Plaintiff in fact did rely on Defendants false representations to her financial detriment. 40. Plaintiff suffered economic harm as a proximate cause of the actions of Defendants, in an amount to be determined at trial.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE BUREAU OF POSTSECONDARY AND PRIVATE VOCATIONAL ACT 1989 (Against All Defendants) 41. Paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 42. At the time of all allegations alleged in this Complaint the Postsecondary and Private Vocational Education (BPPVE) was a unit of the California Department of Consumer Affairs whose purpose was to protect students by establishing academic standards for private institutions of higher education in California. BPPVE approval was required by the state of California to ensure consumer safety from

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47. 45.

fraudulent or substandard education providers. Plaintiff did file a viable complaint with the Department of Consumer affairs against the defendants in 2009. In so doing all of the Plaintiffs claims as alleged in this Complaint are under the purview of the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009. 43. The BPPVE was not a recognized accreditor nor did its approval serve as a substitute for educational accreditation, State approval was, however, a prerequisite in order for a private institution to become accredited. 44. The Defendants received accreditation from the BPPVE in 1999 a year before the state of California enacted new legislation regulating paralegals and the mandated training/education of paralegals. California Business and Profession Codes 6450 mandates that paralegal possess at least one of the following: (1) A certificate of completion of a paralegal program approved by the American Bar Association. (2) A certificate of completion of a paralegal program at, or a degree from, a postsecondary institution that requires the successful completion of a minimum of 24 semester, or equivalent, units in lawrelated courses and that has been accredited by a national or regional accrediting organization or approved by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. 46. The Defendants paralegal diploma issued to the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements of Section 6152 of the Business and Profession Codes. The Plaintiff was issued a paralegal diploma which pursuant to the Education Code is below the associates level. In violation of BPPVE the defendants received $8,888.00 in tuition from the Plaintiff for a substandard education which is a blatant violation of the Private Postsecondary Vocational Reform Act of 1989. (The June 30, 2011 Tentative Rule

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52. 50. 49. 48.

stated Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege the delay in discovery and that claims are based upon violation of the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act.). The legislature did not enact the law until 2009. Plaintiff filed her Complaint in August 2010. The defendants are the ones who alleged the Plaintiffs claims were timed barred. To defend against the defendants moot affirmative defense the Plaintiff was forced to elucidate why her claims were not time barred. Plaintiff did not become aware of the facts giving rise to this Complaint until November 2008 upon reading an Orange County Lawyer Article. This article presented Federal Decisions where Paralegal compensation was successfully opposed or limited in recovery. The article entitled Paralegal Requirements and Fee Recovery.-found at pages 42-45 of the November 2008 edition. The article stated in California, paralegals must meet certain educational and certification requirements, including continuing education requirements, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6550-6456. Although this legislation did not create a governing body for the paralegal professions, courts are patrolling violations through scrutiny of fee petitions seeking reimbursement for paralegal work. The article concluded by stating Make sure that anyone who is hired for a paralegal position has met the education and experience requirements of section 6450 (c). 51. Plaintiffs paralegal credits are not transferable which precludes her from continuing her course of study (paralegal) at another institution or vocational school. Further the defendants have stopped offering the paralegal course which further precludes the Plaintiff from complying with continuing education provision of sections of 64506456. Plaintiff after reading the Orange County Lawyer Article did immediately contact the defendants whereupon she discovered the paralegal course had been shut down. The

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54. 53.

defendants failed to disclose why the course was terminated. Further the defendants had stopped posting jobs for its paralegal graduates. The BPPVE was required to cease operation on July 1, 2007. Legislation to extend the statue was passed by the State Legislation but was vetoed by then Governor Schwarzenegger. However on July 12, 2007, Schwarzenegger signed into a law a bill to extend student protections at private postsecondary vocational education institutions through January 31, 2008. This statute allowed the state Department of Consumer Affairs to enter into voluntary compliance agreements with for-profit institutions while more permanent arrangements are considered by the legislature and state administration. The defendants CCA did purport to enter into the voluntary compliance agreement; however they refused to address the Plaintiffs complaint filed with the Department of Consumer Affairs. California Legislation enacted the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009. This existing law provides the following: (1) Establishes the Bureau within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and provides for Bureau oversight and regulation of California postsecondary institutions. Section 94809.5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law: (a) For any claims that a student had based on a violation of the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act of 1989 on or before June 30, 2007, the period of time from June 30, 2007, to December 31, 2009, inclusive, shall be excluded in determining the deadline or the statute of limitation for filing any claims with the bureau or a lawsuit based on any claim. (b) All claims described in subdivision (a), except claims to the Student Tuition Recovery Fund, including those contained in a lawsuit or other legal action, shall be determined or adjudicated based on the law that was in effect when the violation or

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55.

events took place, even though those provisions have become inoperative, been repealed, or otherwise expired. Plaintiffs breach of contract; fraud; and negligence claims are not time barred based upon section 94809.5 of the Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 (UNFAIR COMPETITION) AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 56. Paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 57. Beginning on an exact date unknown to Plaintiff, but within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendants engaged in and are still engaged in unfair competition within the meaning of and in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 through 17206 by: A. Making false or fraudulent representations to students/plaintiff with intent to defraud the plaintiff into paying tuition for classes that Defendants knew were not in accordance with the Business and Profession Code Section 6450B.

Failing to refund all monies paid by Plaintiff to Career Colleges of America vocational school 31 days after the closing of the paralegal course as required by Education Code section 94877 (a);

C. Compensating representatives involved in recruitment, enrollment or admissions on a commissions basis in violation of Education Code 94832 (e);

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

D. Failing to notify the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education in writing of intent to close the paralegal course at least 30 days before ceasing to offer educational services at the school in violation of Section 74200 of Title 5 of California Code of Regulations; E. The defendants Enrollment Agreement clearly states the following: NOTICE: ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES THAT THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED. F. In short Plaintiff did not get what she paid for. The paralegal diploma is worthless. At all times the Plaintiff was deemed a consumer of services offered by the defendants. Plaintiff agreed to enter into contract with the defendants based on the defendants false advertisements via mass marketing of their goods and services. As a debtor I am entitled to a full and complete refund and all other losses incurred.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:1.

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17203 and 17535, Defendants, and each of them be ordered to pay the Plaintiff all funds the school (Career Colleges of America) received from or on behalf of the Plaintiff.

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

2. Compensatory Damage amount to be determined at the trial3.

Consequential Damages pursuant to Civil Code 3343 to be proven at trial.

4. Punitive Damages amount to be proven at trial 5. Plaintiff have such other and further relief as the nature of the case may require and the Court deems appropriate to dissipate the unlawful and unfair acts complained of.

Dated this 7th day of July, 2011

PAULA LUA

VERIFICATION I,PAULA LUA , the Plaintiff in this matter has read and understand the content of this document and further attest the foregoing is true and correct except for the items stated upon information and belief. Dated: JULY 7, 2011 ______________________ Paula Lua

AMENDED COMPLAINT -

16