Pitale v. Holestine
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 2/27/2012:Mailed notice(slb, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
No. 11 C 00921
Judge Edmond E. Chang
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Anthony Pitale, former Chief Operating Officer of American Career
College and West Coast University, brings this suit against Defendant Dan Holestine,
former Vice President of Marketing at the same institutions, alleging that Holestine
made statements about him that are actionable as defamation per se and false light
invasion of privacy under Illinois law.1 R. 5. Before the Court is Holestine’s motion to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). R. 15. As explained
below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
At this stage in the litigation, the Court accepts Pitale’s allegations as true and
draws reasonable inferences in his favor. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, – U.S. –, 131 S. Ct. 2074,
2079 (2011). Pitale was the COO of American Career College from June 2008 through
July 2010. R. 5 ¶ 6. Holestine reported to Pitale from June 2008 until Holestine
The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See R. 4, 5 (amended
complaint fixing jurisdictional allegations). Citation to the docket is “R.” followed by the entry
number, and when applicable, the page or paragraph.
resigned in June 2010. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. Pitale remained COO until July 2010. Id. ¶ 6. After
Holestine’s resignation, Pitale alleges that Holestine made false statements in the
Wikipedia entries for Eldorado College (a college that Pitale owned some time before
working at American Career College) and American Career College, as well as in a post
on Holestine’s “friendofthestudent” blog titled “American Career College Executive
Wall of Shame No. 1.” Id. ¶¶ 9-27.2
Pitale alleges that several statements made by Holestine were defamatory.
First, in the Eldorado College Wikipedia entry, Holestine stated that “a financial
scandal led to the revocation of [Eldorado College’s] accreditation, as well as its
eligibility to receive funds from its alumni and various charities.” R. 15-2, Exh. B. Next,
in the American Career College Wikipedia entry, Holestine said, “[t]he schools were
closed by the Department of Education due to high default rates after a battle with
regulators over questionable refund policies from 1990-1994.” R. 15, Exh. C. These
statements have been removed from the respective entries. R. 5 ¶¶ 14, 18.
As for the blog post, Pitale points to Holestine’s statements that Pitale “led
schools amid a scandal around short changing the students and state government on
student refunds . . . ,” id. ¶ 24, that Eldorado was “closed by the Department of
Education for student default rate violations that exceeded 25% for three consecutive
Pitale did not attach copies of the offending webpages to his complaint. R. 5. In his
motion to dismiss, R. 15, Holestine attached the: “About” section of the friendofthestudent blog
and the offending blog post, R. 15-1, Exh. A; the Wikipedia Eldorado College entry, R. 15-2,
Exh. B; and the Wikipedia American Career College entry, R. 15-3, Exh. C. The Court is
permitted to consider these documents. Rosenblum v. Travelbyus.com Ltd., 299 F.3d 657, 661
(7th Cir. 2002) (court may consider documents not attached to a complaint if they are referred
to by the complaint and central to it).
years,” id. ¶ 25, and that Pitale engaged in “unsavory actions” and “inappropriate
education management practices,” id. ¶ 23. Pitale also alleges that the blog “implies
[he] was banned from a school because he committed a crime,” but does he does not
identify specific statements that he believes imply that fact. Id. ¶ 22. The blog post also
features a picture of Pitale, id. ¶ 21, and includes links to archived versions of the
Eldorado College and American Career College Wikipedia entries,3 which Pitale
contends republishes the Wikipedia statements, id. ¶¶ 19-20.
Pitale’s complaint sets out five counts of defamation per se and two counts of
false light invasion of privacy. R. 5. Counts 1 and 2 allege defamation per se based on
the two Wikipedia entries because the statements impute that Pitale lacked integrity
in performing his duties, id. ¶¶ 29-30 (Count 1), and prejudice him in his profession,
id. ¶ 33 (Count 2). Count 6 alleges a false light invasion of privacy claim based on the
Wikipedia entries. Id. ¶¶ 44-50. For the blog statements, Count 3 alleges a defamation
per se claim that alleges that the blog statements impute that Pitale committed a
crime, id. ¶ 36, and Counts 4 and 5 allege defamation per se claims for imputing a lack
of integrity in performing duties and prejudicing Pitale in his profession, respectively,
id. ¶¶ 39, 42. Count 7 alleges a false light claim based on the blog statements. Id. ¶¶
The link on the blog post is actually a link to a prior blog post, and that prior post
reproduces the Wikipedia entries.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint generally need only
include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This short and plain statement must “give the
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell
Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
“A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police
Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). “[W]hen ruling on a defendant’s
motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained
in the complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). A “complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). These allegations “must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. And the allegations
that are entitled to the assumption of truth are those that are factual, rather than
mere legal conclusions. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.
Holestine argues that the statements—those in the Eldorado College entry on
Wikipedia, the American Career College entry on Wikipedia, and the blog post
—cannot serve as the basis for either a defamation or a false-light claim. He relies on
various protections that are built into the law of defamation. The First Amendment
does place a high value on the freedom of speech, and that value takes concrete form
in the law’s refusal to impose liability for speech unless certain hurdles are overcome.
The speech must state a false fact, not merely an opinion. Madison v. Frazier, 539 F.3d
646, 653 (7th Cir. 2008). There is no claim if the statement is “capable of innocent,
nondefamatory construction.” Id.; Solaia Tech., LLC v. Specialty Pub. Co., 852 N.E.2d
825, 839 (Ill. 2006). The plaintiff must show that the statement is “concerning the
plaintiff,” Madison, 539 F.3d at 653; if the statement can be interpreted as referring
to someone else, there is no liability, see Solaia, 852 N.E.2d at 839. There must be some
requisite state of mind, and various privileges protect certain types of statements.
Lewis v. School District No. 70, 523 F.3d 730, 745 (7th Cir. 2008). And only certain
types of defamatory statements may subject the speaker to presumed (rather than
actual) damages, specifically, those statements that are defamatory per se, where the
“harm is obvious and apparent on its face.” Solaia, 852 N.E.2d at 839.
Even if a speaker is liable for presumed damages,4 juries and judges do not have
“Presumed damages include damages for mental suffering, personal humiliation,
impairment of professional reputation and standing in the community and for economic loss.”
Leyshon v. Diehl Controls North America, 946 N.E.2d 864, 874 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
free rein to impose presumed damages without limit. There are some established
factors to take into account: the number of times the statement is published, the
number of readers (or listeners) of the statement, the source of the speech (the more
authoritative the speaker, the greater the damage from the false statement because
of the audience’s receptiveness to the statement), the severity of the derogatory
statement, and the medium by which the statement is delivered. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco v. Jacobson, 827 F.2d 1119, 1142 (7th Cir. 1987). With these general liability
and damages principles in mind, the Court turns to the specific statements alleged in
Wikipedia Statements: Counts 1, 2, and 6
Defamation per se
Counts 1 and 2 allege that the Wikipedia statements constitute defamation per
se. Illinois recognizes five categories of statements that are defamatory per se. Solaia
Tech., 852 N.E.2d at 839. Two of these categories are (a) statements that impute a lack
of integrity in performing employment duties and (b) statements that prejudice
individuals in their professions. Id. According to Pitale, the Wikipedia entries both
impute a lack of job-performance integrity (Count 1) and prejudice him in his
profession (Count 2).
Specifically, in the American Career College entry, after descriptions of the
American Career College’s management team, the entry states:
Both presidents report to Chief Operating Officer Anthony J. Pitale. He is the
former owner and founder of Eldorado College and Orange County Business
College. The schools were closed by the Department of Education due to high
default rates after a battle with the regulators over questionable refund policies
R. 15, Exh. C, R. 5 ¶ 15. There are two problems with premising a defamation claim
on the statement that “[t]he schools were closed by the Department of Education due
to high default rates after a battle with the regulators over questionable refund policies
from 1990-1994.” First, the statement is equally capable of being interpreted to refer
to persons other than Pitale, or to the “schools” generally, especially when viewed in
the context of the rest of the Wikipedia entry. Most of the entry describes American
Career College’s educational programs, its history, and its management. See R. 15,
Exh. C. To be sure, the entry mentions Pitale by name at the end of a section about the
school’s management, which precedes the allegedly defamatory statement. Id. (“Both
presidents report to Chief Operating Officer Anthony J. Pitale. He is the former owner
and founder of Eldorado College and Orange County Business College.”) But that is the
lone reference to Pitale in the entry, so when the allegedly defamatory statement
follows that reference, all we know is that Pitale was the “former owner and founder”
of those “schools” that were closed. Readers do not know whether Pitale was still
connected to the schools when they closed, let alone whether Pitale was responsible for
why the schools closed. To the extent that the statement can naturally be read as
innocent or as defamatory, the tie goes to the speaker in the interest of protecting First
Amendment expression. See Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures, 477 F.3d 899, 904 (7th
Cir. 2007); Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 667 N.E.2d. 1296, 1302 (Ill. 1996). Thus, the
American Career College entry, standing alone,5 cannot be the basis for defamation
because it may be construed as targeting other persons.
The second problem with Pitale’s reliance on the American Career College entry
is that it is capable of an innocent construction that does not impute lack of integrity
in job performance or cause prejudice to Pitale’s professional work, nor alleges specific
facts that fall into those defamation per se categories. Remember that the statement
says, “The schools were closed by the Department of Education due to high default
rates after a battle with the regulators over questionable refund policies from
1990-1994.” What facts are alleged in that statement? The “schools were closed by the
Department of Education”—but did Pitale (if the statement was referring to him) do
anything wrong to cause that closing? There were “high default rates”—again, there
is no factual assertion that Pitale did anything to cause those rates. There was a
“battle with the regulators”—“battle” could have a negative connotation, but it could
equally be interpreted as describing a dispute with regulators, which would not be a
defamatory accusation. There were “questionable” refund policies—but that is an
opinion, not a factual assertion. Standing alone, the American Career College entry
The “standing alone” qualifier is important because those readers who accessed the
archived version of the entry through the blog post, R. 15, Exh. A, would be able to identify
Pitale as the statement’s target. The blog post explicitly names Pitale as having, among other
things, “led the schools amid a scandal around short changing the students,” and then says
that “all of this was posted on Wikipedia in July and documented on previous posts,”
immediately followed by the link to the archived versions of the Wikipedia entries. But only
those readers of the blog post would have put two and two together, and in any event, as
discussed infra, the American Career College entry can be read with an innocent construction.
does not state a defamation claim. This is the close scrutiny required by the First
Amendment’s commitment to free speech.
Next, Pitale complains about the Eldorado College entry in Wikipedia. This
statement does not suffer from the same difficulty in discerning who is the target of the
statement. The full two sentences in which the statement appears reads as follows:
The college closed [on] September 11, 1997 after a financial scandal led
to the revocation of its accreditation, as well as its eligibility to receive
funds from its alumni and various charities. Mr. Pitale, defiant to the
end, claimed that the school[’]s failure was the result of “overzealous
bureaucrats” versus any wrongdoing by the owner of the organization.
R. 15, Exh. B. In this context, the natural and obvious meaning of the statement is that
it was Pitale who engaged in the “financial scandal” and “wrongdoing” that led to the
college’s loss of accreditation. After all, earlier in the Wikipedia entry,6 Pitale is
identified as the “founder/owner.”
Nor can the El Dorado College statement be innocently construed as not
suggesting wrongdoing, at least if reasonable inferences are drawn in Pitale’s favor, as
they must at this motion-to-dismiss stage. This statement can be interpreted as
imputing a lack of integrity in performing job duties and prejudices Pitale in his
profession. The terms “financial scandal” and “wrongdoing,” and labeling Pitale’s
response to regulators as “defiant to the end,” are all naturally interpreted as accusing
Each statement must be interpreted within the context of the entire Wikipedia entry
or blog post where it appears, just as the Court would consider a statement within the context
of an entire newspaper article. See Seith v. Chicago Sun-Times, Inc., 861 N.E.2d 1117, 1127
(Ill. App. Ct. 2007). A reasonable reader would read the entirety of the entries and the blog
post, which are not very long.
Pitale of mismanaging Eldorado College to the point of loss of accreditation, loss of
eligibility to receive funds from alumni and various charities, and closure. Holestine
argues that this sentence somehow “credits Pitale,” R. 27 at 4, but that is a strained
interpretation given words like “scandal,” “defiant to the end,” and “wrongdoing.” R.
15, Exh. B.
Moreover, the statement “can reasonably be interpreted as stating actual fact,”
not just merely an opinion. Imperial Apparel, Ltd. v. Cosmo’s Designer Direct, Inc., 882
N.E.2d 1011, 1022 (Ill. 2008); Solaia, 852 N.E.2d at 840. Three factors are considered
to determine whether a statement is opinion or fact: (1) whether the statement has a
precise meaning; (2) whether it is verifiable; and (3) whether its literary or social
context suggests it is factual. Madison, 539 F.3d at 654 (citation omitted); Imperial
Apparel, 882 N.E.2d at 1022. Courts consider these factors together, but emphasize
verifiability. Rose v. Hollinger Intern., Inc., 889 N.E.2d 644, 648 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).
All three factors point toward the Eldorado College statement as a factual
assertion, not opinion. The statement has a relatively precise meaning—that the school
lost its accreditation and eligibility to receive funds, and why—and, as Pitale points
out, R. 25 at 8, is verifiable. Although the term “financial scandal” may be imprecise
in isolation, the preceding paragraph explicitly states that “student loan default rates”
exceeding the maximum percentage set by the Department of Education led to the
school’s closure. R. 15, Exh. B. The overall context also suggests that the statement
was intended as a statement of fact: Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia,
primarily serving (or at least intending to serve) as a source of factual information
rather than as a forum for expressing opinion. Wikipedia strives to be a repository of
facts, not opinions.7 All in all, at this stage of the litigation, Counts 1 and 2 state a
claim for defamation per se as to the Eldorado College entry.
Count 6 is a false light claim. The false light tort protects the “interest in being
free from false publicity.” Moriarty v. Greene, 732 N.E.2d 730, 741 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
Under Illinois law, Pitale must establish three elements to state a false light claim: (1)
Holestine placed him in a false light before the public; (2) a trier of fact could find the
false light “highly offensive to a reasonable person”; and (3) Holestine acted with actual
malice. See Pope v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 95 F.3d 607, 616 (7th Cir. 1996); Kolegas v.
Heftel Broad. Corp., 607 N.E.2d 201, 209 (Ill. 1992); Moriarty, 732 N.E.2d at 741.
Although false light is a different cause of action than defamation per se, the
analyses are similar because false light claims must also be “of and concerning” the
plaintiff and are equally subject to the innocent construction rule. Muzikowski, 477
F.3d at 907 (the tests are “basically the same”); Schivarelli v. CBS, Inc., 776 N.E.2d
693, 701 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). Applying the same analyses from above, the American
Career College entry can be innocently construed and therefore does not support a false
But the false light claim premised on the Eldorado College entry survives the
motion to dismiss. Pitale has satisfied the first element because, as explained above,
One of Wikipedia’s “three core content policies” is “neutral point of view.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (Last accessed Feb. 27, 2012).
the statement does target Pitale as the wrongdoer. The statement was public because
it appeared on Wikipedia, and Pitale alleges the statement is false. R. 5 ¶ 46. Pitale
satisfies the second element because a jury could find a statement that implies
professional irresponsibility to be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Moriarty,
732 N.E.2d at 741. Moriarty held that a jury could find a statement that a psychologist
saw her job “as doing what the biological parents [of her child patient] instructed”
highly offensive to a reasonable person because it implied she would disregard
professional obligations. Id. As discussed above, the natural meaning of attributing
Eldorado College’s closing to a “financial scandal” similarly suggests that he
disregarded professional obligations. As to the third element of the claim, Pitale
adequately alleges that Holestine acted with actual malice. Id. ¶ 50. Thus, Count 6
survives to the extent it is based on the Eldorado College entry on Wikipedia.
“Wall of Shame” Statements: Counts 3, 4, 5, and 7
Defamation per se
Counts 3, 4, and 5 allege that the “Wall of Shame” blog post comprised
defamatory per se statements. Specifically, Pitale believes that the blog post accused
him of committing a crime (Count 3), Solaia, 852 N.E.2d at 839, and also imputed a
lack of integrity in his job performance (Count 4) and prejudiced Pitale in his
profession (Count 5).
The statements at issue from the blog post are that Pitale “led schools amid a
scandal around short changing the students and state government on student refunds,”
R. 5 ¶ 24; R. 15, Exh. A, and that Eldorado College was “closed by the Department of
Education for student default rate violations that exceeded 25% for three consecutive
years,” R. 5 ¶ 25; R. 15, Exh. A. Additionally, the blog post states that Pitale engaged
in “unsavory actions” and “inappropriate education management practices.” R. 5 ¶ 23.
With regard to purported accusation of criminal conduct (Count 3), R. 5 ¶ 36, the
Wall of Shame statements are capable of an innocent construction and therefore are
not defamatory per se. For this category of defamation per se, the words must
themselves denote criminal conduct. Moore v. People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, Inc., 932 N.E.2d 448, 457 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). This standard has been applied
strictly; for example, the statement that a person was a “reputed organized crime
figure” was capable of innocent construction because it could be interpreted as stating
he was believed to be a crime figure, and perhaps that belief was incorrect. Salamone
v. Hollinger Intern., Inc., 807 N.E.2d 1086, 1090-91 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). Pitale does not
identify the specific statements that he believes impute his commission of a crime. Id.
¶¶ 22, 34-36. None of the statements from the blog post explicitly allege criminal
conduct; all can be innocently construed as criticizing Pitale’s conduct without implying
that his actions rose to the level of a crime. Count 3 must be dismissed.
But the Wall of Shame statements do qualify as other types of defamation per
se, namely, they impute a lack of integrity in his job performance (Count 4) and
prejudice him in his profession (Count 5). Viewed in the context of the entire blog post,
which features a picture of Pitale at the top and discusses him by name throughout,
the statements naturally and obviously refer to Pitale and impute that he lacked
integrity in his professional duties and prejudice him in his profession. “Pitale led the
schools amid a scandal around short changing the students and state government on
student refunds,” R. 15, Exh. A, specifically identifies Pitale and suggests that he
cheated (“short changing”) students and state governments. Pitale is also identified by
name in the sentence preceding the statement “he ran two schools in the 90’s which
were closed by the Department of Education for student default rate violations that
exceeded 25% for three consecutive years.” Id.8 These statements are defamatory (or
more precisely, a jury reasonably could so find), and according to Pitale, all of these
statements are false. R. 5 ¶¶ 38, 41.
Nor are the statements mere opinions rather than assertions of fact. Applying
the test that sorts out opinions from factual assertions, the statements have a precise
meaning (the first factor) because they describe what the “scandal” involved (“short
changing the students and the state government on student refunds”) and they are
verifiable (the second factor) by examining refund records. The literary and social
context of the statements (the third factor) is a closer question, but for now Pitale gets
the benefit of reasonable inferences, and this factor could also support deeming these
statements to be factual assertions rather than opinions. It is true that the statements
appear on a blog, not on a site touted as an online encyclopedia. There is no generallyheld view that blogs primarily deliver unadorned facts; on the contrary, a glance at
sitemeter.com’s top-visited-sites listing shows a wide variety of blogs, topped by a
Although the statement regarding the Department of Education’s closure of the schools,
standing alone, could be innocently construed in the American Career College entry, see supra,
the additional context in the Wall of Shame post takes this statement out of the realm of
celebrity gossip blog.9 But the statements at issue here purport to provide a factual
background on Pitale and describe his history. R. 15, Exh. A. Although the blog
contains some language stating that it represents opinion, couching a fact as an
opinion does not necessarily make it an opinion. Madison, 539 F.3d at 656; Solaia, 852
N.E.2d at 840. Even when statements appear on part of a website that is used to
express opinion, statements will not be considered opinions when they imply actual
facts. Maxon v. Ottawa Pub. Co., 929 N.E.2d 666, 677-78 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). Maxon
held that a commenter’s accusation that the plaintiff had bribed city officials could
reasonably be interpreted as an assertion of fact, even though the statement appeared
in the Comments section of an online newspaper article. Id. Here, the post is listed
under the general subject heading “Opinion,”10 but the statements at issue outright
accuse Pitale in factual terms. R. 15, Exh. A. Moreover, the “About” self-description of
the blog, see R. 15, Exh. A, states that the blog is meant to “collect the stories of those
who were misled by the admissions teams” and that Holestine will try to “shed some
light,” id. When viewed in Pitale’s favor at this stage of the litigation, these statements
imply that the blog’s purpose is to uncover and communicate facts rather than serve
only as a platform to express opinion. Thus, these two Wall of Shame statements are
actionable statements of fact.
sitemeter.com’s top visited site as of February 26, 2012 was perezhilton.com, a celebrity
The site structure of the blog post was Home > Opinion, Southern California Schools
> American Career College Executive Team – Wall of Shame #1.
In contrast, the statements accusing Pitale of “unsavory actions” and
“inappropriate education management practices” are neither precise nor verifiable, and
constitute assertions of opinion. Both statements are broad and could have multiple
meanings because they do not identify specific actions and management practices, and
what is “unsavory” and “inappropriate” to one person may be acceptable to another.
Additionally, statements are not verifiable when they are “shapeless” and do not
indicate where an investigation could begin. Rose v. Hollinger Intern., Inc., 889 N.E.2d
644, 653 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). Rose held that a statement that an employee had damaged
a newspaper’s finances was not verifiable because it did not indicate how the employee
caused the damage and an investigation would require examining all aspects of the
employee’s duties. Id. These statements (“unsavory” and “inappropriate”) similarly lack
the specificity necessary for verification because they do not reference anything specific
that could be investigated and would require examining all aspects of Pitale’s
employment. Thus, to the extent that Counts 4 and 5 rely on these latter statements,
that portion of the claims are dismissed.
Count 7 seeks to assert a false light claim for the blog statements. In addition
to mirroring the defamation analysis under the innocent construction rule, false light
claims, like defamation claims, are also non-actionable for statements of opinion.
Brennan v. Kadner, 814 N.E.2d 951, 959 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004); Schivarelli v. CBS, Inc.,
776 N.E.2d 693, 701-02 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). Thus, to the extent that Count 7 relies on
the statements “unsavory actions” and “inappropriate education management
practices,” that aspect of the claim is dismissed. Count 7 does state a claim as to the
other Wall of Shame statements. Pitale has adequately alleged actual knowledge of the
statements’ falsity and actual malice. R. 5 ¶¶ 54, 57. Furthermore, as discussed above,
the statements are not mere assertions of opinion, nor are they capable of innocent
construction (when reasonable inferences are drawn in Pitale’s favor). Lastly, the
statements imply professional irresponsibility, which a jury could find highly offensive
to a reasonable person. Accordingly, the claim survives the motion to dismiss.
Counts 1, 2, and 6 state a claim as to the Eldorado College entry, but are
dismissed to the extent that the claims rely on the American Career College entry.
Count 3 is dismissed. Counts 4, 5, and 7 state claims in part, as explained above.
Accordingly, Holestine’s motion to dismiss [R. 14] is granted in part and denied in part.
Honorable Edmond E. Chang
United States District Judge
DATE: February 27, 2012
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?