Brown et al v. Texas A&M University School of Law et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against Andrew P. Morriss, Frederick G. Slabach, Texas A&M University School of Law, Texas Wesleyan University filed by R. Renee Jolley, Kathryn Freed-Collier, Jeff Fletcher, Maria Jackson Branch, Bryan Eggleston, Kristin R. Brown, Kathleen Hennessey Smith, Julie Glover, Terance Grisso, Cynthia Cooper Spigel, Kevin Ray Walden, Suzanne Stevens, Adam Miller, Deborah Johnson, Jared Julian, Amanda M. Coffey, Elliott Smith, Cherry L. Davis, Amy Theresa Ford, Patricia Donovan Henderson, Mark Lane, Norma A. Bazan, Monty J. Buhrow, Roxie Roll, Jennifer Browning Ledbetter, Payam Ghassemi Dell, Venisa McLaughlin, Myron Eugene Kimball, Jr, Riley C. Massey, Janice Eggleston, Adam Luck, Charles E. Ames. (Filing fee $400; Receipt number 0539-6987669) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit(s) Appendix) (Norred, Warren)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
KRISTIN BROWN,
on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated,
CHARLES AMES, NORMA BAZAN,
MARIA BRANCH, MONTY BUHROW,
AMANDA COFFEY, CHERRY DAVIS,
PAYAM DELL, BRYAN EGGLESTON,
JANICE EGGLESTON, JEFF
FLETCHER, AMY FORD, KATHRYN
FREED-COLLIER, JULIE GLOVER,
TERANCE GRISSO, PATRICIA
HENDERSON, DEBORAH JOHNSON,
RENEE JOLLEY, JARED JULIAN,
MYRON KIMBALL JR., MARK LANE,
JENNIFER LEDBETTER, ADAM LUCK,
RILEY MASSEY, VENISA
MCLAUGHLIN, ADAM MILLER, ROXIE
ROLL, ELLIOT SMITH, KATHLEEN
SMITH, CYNTHIA SPIGEL, SUZANNE
STEVENS, and KEVIN WALDEN,
Plaintiffs.

§
§
§
§
§
§ No. 4:15-CV-613
§ CLASS ACTION
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v.
§
§
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
§
SCHOOL OF LAW,
DEAN ANDREW P. MORRISS,
§
individually and in his official capacity, §
TEXAS WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY, and
§
PRESIDENT FREDERICK G.
§
§
SLABACH,
individually and in his official capacity, §
Defendants.
§
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 1

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION
1.

Plaintiffs in this action seek a declaratory judgment of trademark

non-infringement and license regarding their use of A&M trademarks, §
1983 damages for irrational discrimination, negligence for their failure to
reasonably

protect

plaintiffs’

interests

when

transferring

Texas

Wesleyan University School of Law from one defendant to the other, and
contract damages against defendants for their disavowal of plaintiffs as
graduates of Texas A&M University School of Law.

I.
2.

NATURE OF THE CASE

In summer of 2013, Texas A&M University System (“TAMU”)

purchased Texas Wesleyan University School of Law (“TWU School of
Law”) and renamed it the “Texas A&M University School of Law”
(“TAMU School of Law”). TAMU School of Law then announced it would
no longer recognize pre-acquisition graduates as its alumni. This decision
has damaged the disavowed graduates, who have lost the ability to easily
show that their juris doctor degrees are valid to potential employers and
clients, as their law school is no longer easily located on many lists of
accredited law schools.
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 2

3.

This suit seeks to require TAMU School of Law to recognize the

disavowed graduates based on estoppel. TAMU could have started its
own law school, but having chosen to purchase one and backdate its
accreditation to 1994, capitalizing on the bar results, hours of pro bono
service, and other accomplishments of its pre-acquisition graduates,
TAMU School of Law cannot now treat pre- and post-acquisition
graduates differently. TAMU School of Law must complete the name
change process it began by recognizing all its graduates in the same way,
and reissue diplomas to those graduates whose work TAMU School of
Law uses for recruitment daily.

II.

PARTIES

A.

Plaintiffs

4.

Lead Plaintiff Kristin R. Brown graduated from the Law School in

2013, during which time she won the Equal Justice pro bono award
with approximately 1300 hours (about 1% of the Law School's total pro
bono hours). She resides in Dallas, TX, and can be contacted through
Plaintiffs’ counsel.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 3

5.

Plaintiff Charles E. Ames graduated from the Law School in 1995.

He resides in Addison, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
6.

Plaintiff Norma A. Bazan graduated from the Law School in 2008.

She resides in Fort Worth, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
7.

Plaintiff Maria Jackson Branch graduated from the Law School in

1998 and is currently an elected official. She resides in Houston, TX,
and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’ counsel.
8.

Plaintiff Monty J. Buhrow graduated from the Law School in

2003. He resides in Hurst, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
9.

Plaintiff Amanda M. Coffey graduated from Law School in 2009.

She resides in Denton, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
10.

Plaintiff Cherry L. Davis graduated from the Law School in 2002.

She resides in Gig Harbor, WA, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 4

11.

Plaintiff Payam Ghassemi Dell graduated from the Law School in

2007. He resides in Dallas, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
12.

Plaintiff Bryan Eggleston graduated from the Law School in 2010.

He resides in Spicewood, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
13.

Plaintiff Janice Eggleston graduated from the Law School in 2010.

She resides in Spicewood, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
14.

Plaintiff Jeff Fletcher graduated from the Law School first class of

graduates in 1993. He resides in Quitman, TX, and can be contacted
through Plaintiffs’ counsel.
15.

Plaintiff Amy Theresa Ford graduated from the Law School in

2012. She resides in Rowlett, TX, and can be contacted through
Plaintiffs’ counsel.
16.

Plaintiff Kathryn Freed-Collier graduated from the Law School in

2000. She resides in New Windsor, MD, and can be contacted through
Plaintiffs’ counsel.
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 5

17.

Plaintiff Julie Glover graduated from the Law School in 2009. She

resides in Lucas, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’ counsel.
18.

Plaintiff Terance Grisso graduated from the Law School in 1994.

He resides in Colleyville, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
19.

Plaintiff Patricia Donovan Henderson graduated from the Law

School in 1994. She currently resides in Grapevine, TX, and can be
contacted through Plaintiffs’ counsel.
20.

Plaintiff Deborah Johnson graduated from the Law School in

2005, during which time she chaired the Law Fellowship Board of
Directors; participated in the Mediation Competition, becoming a
Regional Finalist; volunteered with National Adoption Day; and
volunteered with juvenile mediation. She resides in North Richland
Hills, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’ counsel.
21.

Plaintiff R. Renee Jolley graduated from the Law School in 2005.

She resides in Denton, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 6

22.

Plaintiff Jared Julian graduated from the Law School in 2001,

where he served as President of the Student Bar Association. He resides
in Dallas, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’ counsel.
23.

Plaintiff Myron Eugene Kimball, Jr. graduated from the Law

School in 1996. He currently resides in Arlington, TX, and can be
contacted through Plaintiffs’ counsel.
24.

Plaintiff Mark Lane graduated from the Law School in 1998. He

resides in Fort Worth, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
25.

Plaintiff Jennifer Browning Ledbetter graduated from the Law

School in 2011. She resides in Rowlett, TX, and can be contacted through
Plaintiffs’ counsel.
26.

Plaintiff Adam Luck graduated from the Law School in 2013. He

resides in Dallas, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’ counsel.
27.

Plaintiff Riley C. Massey graduated from the Law School in 2011.

He resides in Dallas, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 7

28.

Plaintiff Venisa McLaughlin graduated from the Law School in

2003. She currently resides in Granbury, TX, and can be contacted
through Plaintiffs’ counsel.
29.

Plaintiff Adam Miller graduated from the Law School in 2010. He

resides in Crowley, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’ counsel.
30.

Plaintiff Roxie Roll graduated from the Law School in 1997. She

resides in Stafford, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’ counsel.
31.

Plaintiff Elliott Smith graduated from the Law School in 2011. He

resides in McKinney, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
32.

Plaintiff Kathleen Hennessey Smith graduated from the Law

School in 2004. She currently resides in Southlake, TX, and can be
contacted through Plaintiffs’ counsel.
33.

Plaintiff Cynthia Cooper Spigel graduated from the Law School in

2005. She resides in Dallas, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 8

34.

Plaintiff Suzanne Stevens graduated from the Law School in 2007.

She resides in Denton, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
35.

Plaintiff Kevin Ray Walden graduated from the Law School in

1995. She resides in Spring, TX, and can be contacted through Plaintiffs’
counsel.
36.

Hereinafter, plaintiffs are collectively referred to as “Pre-

Acquisition Graduates” or “Plaintiffs.”

B.

Defendants

37.

Defendant Texas A&M University School of Law ("TAMU School

of Law") is a component of Texas A&M University. TAMU Law is
located at 1515 Commerce Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102, and may be
served via any authorized agent at the same address.
38.

Defendant Andrew P. Morriss, Dean of Texas A&M University

School of Law, is an individual residing in Texas. He may be served at
his office located in the Dean's Suite at Texas A&M University School of

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 9

Law, 1515 Commerce Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102, or wherever he
may be found.
39.

Defendant Texas Wesleyan University ("TWU") is a domestic,

nonprofit corporation. TWU is located at 1201 Wesleyan Street, Fort
Worth, Texas 76105, and may be served via any authorized agent at the
same address.
40.

Defendant Frederick G. Slabach, President of Texas Wesleyan

University, is an individual residing in Texas. He may be served at his
office located at 1201 Wesleyan Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76105, or
wherever he may be found.
41.

This Complaint will use “Law School” to denote the academic

institution generally, without necessarily referencing its owner or name
at any particular time.

III.
42.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This court has personal jurisdiction over this class action in that:

a. Plaintiff Kristin Brown is a resident of Texas.
b. Defendant Texas A&M University School of Law is located in Fort
Worth, Texas.
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 10

c. Defendant Andrew P. Morriss is a resident of Texas.
d. Defendant Texas Wesleyan University is a Texas corporation.
e. Defendant Frederick G. Slabach is a resident of Texas.
43.

Plaintiffs seek a declaration of rights with respect to federal

trademark laws and bring a claim for deprivation of rights. This Court
has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
and 1338 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory judgment), 15
U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., (the Lanham Act), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil
action for deprivation of rights).
44.

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state

claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, negligence, and tortious interference under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)
because these claims are so related to Plaintiffs’ federal claims which
are within this Court’s original jurisdiction, that the claims form part of
the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States
Constitution.
45.

Venue is proper in Tarrant County. Section 85.18(b) of the Texas

Education Code states that venue for suits filed against any component
or officer of the Texas A&M University System is mandatory in the
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 11

county in which the primary office of the chief executive officer of the
component, as applicable, is located. Texas A&M University School of
Law and Dean Andrew P. Morriss are located in Tarrant County.
46.

Plaintiffs herein claim that the statute of limitations on their

claims is extended by the discovery rule, based on the September 12,
2013 Q&A session hosted at the Law School

IV.
47.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff Kristin Brown brings this action on behalf of herself and

all persons who graduated from the law school known as Texas
Wesleyan School of Law (“TWU School of Law”) from 1994 until its sale
to Summer of 2013 by Texas Wesleyan University (“TWU”) to Texas
A&M University (“TAMU”), when it was renamed to “Texas A&M
University School of Law” (“TAMU School of Law”).
48.

Plaintiff Brown alleges on the basis of information received by the

State Bar of Texas that this class of persons consists of approximately
3000 persons.
49.

All plaintiffs are from the defined class and represent all years of

operation of TWU School of Law, stretching from 1994 to May 2013.
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 12

This Complaint may refer to the defined class as the “Pre-Acquisition
Graduates.”
50.

The claims set forth in this complaint are common to each class

member, each of whom received a degree from the Law School prior to
its purchase by TAMU and subsequent renaming.
51.

Plaintiff Brown is a proper representative of this class of persons

because, as will be more fully shown below, her claims are typical of the
claims of all members of the class, and these claims are not subject to
any unique defenses, and no interest of Plaintiff Brown in this litigation
conflicts with other class members.
52.

The claims set out below are proper for certification as a class

action under the provisions of Rules 23(b)(1)(A), 23(b)(1)(B), 23(b)(2),
and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
53.

Plaintiffs expect to prove damages exceeding $5,000,000.

54.

The questions of law and fact common to the class predominate

over any questions affecting individual members because the damages
done to all proposed class members are very similar, and the proposed
remedies are also similar, which include equitable relief regarding the
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 13

reissue of diplomas and storage of educational records. The amount of
damages is unlikely to be sufficient to warrant individuals filing suit on
their own behalf. None of the class members will have unique claims,
and the defendants’ defenses will generally apply to all claims and all
members of the class. Even the amount of individual damages will be
largely constant.
55.

The class action is superior to other available methods of

adjudication because there are approximately 3,000 members in the
proposed class, and repeated individual litigation of the common issues
shared by all class members would be inefficient for all parties and the
judicial system.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 14

V.
56.

FACTS

In 1994, Texas Wesleyan University ("TWU") purchased the law

school now located at 1515 Commerce Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(“Law School”) and obtained accreditation from the American Bar
Association and level VI accreditation from the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (“SACS”), the academic
accrediting body.
57.

From 1994 to 2012, approximately 3,000 people received juris

doctor degrees from Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, which
was owned and operated by TWU until August, 2013.
58.

On December 19, 2012, TWU President Frederick Slabach and

former president of Texas A&M University (“TAMU”) R. Bowen Loftin
notified SACS of TWU’s intent to sell the Law School to TAMU.
59.

In a letter dated April 12, 2013, just months before the acquisition

of the Law School by TAMU, TAMU informed SACS that if the
acquisition was approved, TWUSL would become “Texas A&M
University School of Law at Texas Wesleyan University."

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 15

60.

On April 15, 2013, TAMU submitted a substantive-change

prospectus ("Prospectus") to SACS regarding TAMU's purchase of the
Law School.
1) Page three of the Prospectus states:
To maintain the current law school status as an ABA
approved law school, TWUSL must receive acquiescence for
this administrative change by the ABA. TWUSL submitted
its formal request on December 5, 2012. A decision by the
ABA on TWUSL's request is anticipated in August, 2013 . . .
. Because no substantive change in faculty, students,
curricula, libraries, IT, finances or facilities will occur in this
acquisition, we believe we will qualify for acquiescence from
the ABA with a determination that it is the same law school.
We are committed that no student be caught in a situation
where they would not graduate from an ABA-accredited
program.
(Italics added for emphasis.)
2) Page four of the Prospectus states:
The merger will also benefit TWUSL, its students, alumni,
faculty, and staff. The law school will become part of TAMU,
which is ranked among the top 20 national public research
universities, is a member of the Association of American
Universities (AAU), is one of three tier 1 universities in
Texas, offers 120 undergraduate and 240 graduate degrees,
and has an endowment in excess of $5 billion. Law students
and faculty would benefit from the possibilities . . . .
(Italics added for emphasis.)
61.

The August 12, 2013 letter from the American Bar Association to

TWU and TAMU approving the sale of the Law School states in part:
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 16

“The proposed acquisition of the Texas Wesleyan University School of
Law by Texas A&M University does not amount to the closure of an
approved law school and the opening of a different law school within the
meaning of Rule of Procedure 20(b).”
62.

Rule 20(a)(4) of the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools

2013-2014 states that “[a]cquiring or merging with another university
by the parent university where it appears that there may be substantial
impact on the operation of the law school” amounts to the closure of an
approved law school and the opening of a different law school. If a
change of this nature occurs, SACS must give notice to the law school
and recommend to the ABA that any acquiescence in the proposed
structural change be accompanied by a requirement that the school
apply for provisional approval under the provisions of Standard 102 and
Rule 4.
63.

On August 2, 2013, Texas Wesleyan University and Texas A&M

University entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement ("APA") for the
purchase of the Law School.
1) Section 2.1(xv) of the APA shows that TAMU purchased TWU’s
“Books and Records,” a term defined by the APA’s section 1.1 to
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 17

include alumni records and student files, social media accounts
related to the Law School, as well as all goodwill related to the
Law School as a going concern.
2) In the APA at section 4.2, TAMU purchased all of the assets
necessary for, or material to, the ownership and operation of the
Law School. At the least, those assets would include a license to
use Plaintiffs’ student files and records, as those records are
necessary to create the ABA-required disclosures found on every
law school’s website.
3) Specifically excluded from the APA, and retained by TWU, were
all student receivables of the Law School in existence as of the
closing date that were attributable to the 2013 Summer semester
or any prior semester and all causes of action pertaining to the
collection of the student receivables. TWU retained the right to
collect on student receivables pursuant to sections 2.1(a)(i) and 2.3
of the APA, but failed to include any other provision in the APA
that would protect the rights and privileges of Plaintiffs’ degrees.
64.

On August 12, 2013, TWU and TAMU executed a Bill of Sale

confirming the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement.
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 18

65.

An addendum to the Prospectus contains TAMU’s request for an

exemption so TAMU could issue diplomas to current students at the
Law School who had not completed the required one-third of credit
hours to be considered TAMU graduates. SACS granted TAMU’s
request. The request contains no request or other discussion of an
exemption for the rules for Pre-Acquisition Graduates. A true and
correct copy of the addendum is attached as Exhibit A.
66.

On September 12, 2013, the Law School hosted a question and

answer session at the Law School in which its representative Dr. Karan
Watson stated, “We got a one-time exception for those students who are
currently enrolled who will graduate in December that they could have
less than one-third of their hours from Texas A&M and still get a degree
. . . That’s as far as we were able to get the [accrediting body] to bend.” 1
67.

According to a February 2014 article published by FW Weekly,

when SACS President Belle Wheelan was asked about the claimed
request for a waiver, she reportedly stated that said she did not recall

Video of the Q&A session is available in its entirety here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMpPtP_PRjo&list=WL&index=7

1

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 19

TAMU asking for any waivers and that diploma reissuance “is not an
accreditation issue; that is the university’s issue.” 2
68.

In the FW Weekly article, Dr. Wheelan further remarked, “What

would have happened once the two institutions merged, then Texas
A&M’s name would go on that diploma because that was the school that
was granting the degree now.”
69.

For the Pre-Acquisition Graduates, Dr. Wheelan said that SACS

has “no prohibition against putting both [school] names on the diploma.
They could do that.”
70.

Despite refusing to recognize Pre-Acquisition Graduates as alumni

of Texas A&M University School of Law, the Law School continuously
uses the accolades of Pre-Acquisition Graduates, including bar-passage
rates and employment statistics, in advertisements and publications. 3
71.

On November 13, 2013, TAMU issued a press release 4 declaring

“Texas A&M law students have provided more than 120,000 hours of

The news report is available online at http://www.fwweekly.com/2014/02/26/aggievanishing-act/.
3 Bar-passage rates are viewable in vol. 30, no. 34 of Texas Lawyer magazine at
http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/318b1ba7#/318b1ba7/25
4 The statement is available in its entirety on the website for Texas A&M University School
of Law: https://law.tamu.edu/media/news-media-resources/story/law-school-awarded-forsmart-moves.
2

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 20

pro bono legal services which equates to more than $2.4 million in total
legal services given to the community.” A true and correct copy of the
press release is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B.
72.

The 120,000 pro bono hours claimed by TAMU includes hours

performed by the Pre-Acquisition Graduates.
73.

At least three individuals delayed turning in their pro bono

records until after the Law School’s acquisition, thereby qualifying for
the TAMU School of Law diploma and other benefits. These individuals
took no classes after the acquisition of the Law School, but are
considered TAMU alumni.
74.

In addition, some senior-level TWU School of Law students had

sufficient credits to sit for the bar exam before graduation. In doing so,
the state bar recognized other TWU School of Law near-graduates who
were taking the bar exam at the same time, yet only the latter group
were allowed to obtain the TAMU School of Law diploma.
75.

Some May 2013 graduates are inexplicably listed on the Texas Bar

as graduated from TAMU School of Law; such use could be found to be a
trademark infringement.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 21

76.

A page of TAMU School of Law’s website titled “Careers and the

Aggie Network” features the employment statistics for the class of 2012,
prior to the acquisition. A true and correct copy of the webpage is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C.
77.

In Vol. 1, Issue 1 of The Aggie Lawyer, the inaugural alumni

magazine published by Texas A&M University School of Law, pages 25
to 33 boast the accomplishments of graduates ranging from 1993 to
2013, including Plaintiff Brown (p.33). A true and correct copy of an
excerpt of the magazine is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit D. 5
78.

Also displayed in the above-mentioned magazine at page 24 is an

announcement regarding the yearly trip to be admitted to the United
States Supreme Court that the Office of Marketing & External Affairs
offers to graduates who have been licensed for at least three years.
According to the Law School’s public position, TAMU School of Law has
zero graduates who have been licensed for at least three years. This
offer is routinely advertised to Pre-Acquisition Graduates by email. A
true and correct of an excerpt of the magazine is attached to this
Complaint as Exhibit E.
http://issuu.com/tamu_law/docs/aggie_lawyer_vol-1_issue1_online_s?e=13332889/9159537
5

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 22

79.

In its 2014 Standard 509 Information Report, TAMU School of

Law states that it has been ABA-approved since 1994.
80.

TAMU School of Law disallows unsanctioned use of its marks,

listing Collegiate Licensing Company as a licensing agent, and refers to
TAMU’s general rules at trademarks.tamu.edu.
81.

TAMU School of Law provides strict instructions on the use of its

marks

at

http://tamulawtest.ddns.net/docs/default-source/faculty-

documents/tamulaw_brand_guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
82.

TAMU and its subsidiaries own many trademarks, including the

text mark “Texas A&M University” (Reg. No. 2273374) and the
graphical seal (Reg. No. 1962785) which are found on every diploma
issued by a TAMU subsidiary.
83.

Pre-Acquisition Graduates have requested reissued degrees from

TAMU School of Law, but have been told that the Law School will not
reissue degrees with the new name that is on the front of its building,
on its newly remodeled web site, and on all other public documents.
84.

In response to the renamed TAMU School of Law's refusal to

reissue diplomas to Pre-Acquisition Graduates, a group of more than
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 23

500 Texas Wesleyan University School of Law alumni signed a petition
(“Petition”) asking that Texas A&M University School of Law reconsider
its 2013 decision not to reissue corrected diplomas to its alumni who
graduated prior to the purchase.
85.

The

Petition

was

delivered

to

the

Law

School,

Texas A&M University Interim President Mark Hussey, Board of
Regents, American Bar Association, Texas State Bar, and Texas
Legislature on behalf of the Petition's signers.
86.

Concurrent with the Petition, a dozen Pre-Acquisition Graduates

put together a complaint to the American Bar Association (“ABA
Complaint”). The ABA Complaint cites troublesome issues that PreAcquisition Graduates have faced as a result of TAMU's refusal to grant
earlier requests for corrected degrees, including reciprocity delays and
the reality that Texas Wesleyan University School of Law is not listed
on the drop-down menus found in many Internet forms used for the
automation of legal processes. Examples include the following:
1) The Law School has removed its pre-acquisition name from use
with the Law School Admission Council, so that a Pre-Acquisition
Graduate has no ability to choose “Texas Wesleyan School of Law”
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 24

from the drop-down menu when registering for LLM programs.
The Law School Admission Council uses a drop-down menu for
those beginning the process to enroll in an LLM program which
does not include TWU School of Law as an option. A true and
correct copy of a screen print of that drop-down menu is attached
to this Complaint as Exhibit F.
2) The American Bar Association uses a drop-down menu in its
Employment Summary Report webpage which no longer contains
an option to choose TWU School of Law, but has an option to
choose TAMU School of Law’s employment records dating back to
2010, three years prior to the purchase. A true and correct screen
print of this site showing that TWU School of Law is not available
and that the option for TAMU School of Law is available is
attached as Exhibit G. 6 The pre-acquisition reports provide
employment records of those who graduated originally with TWU
School of Law degrees.
87.

In July, 2014, Plaintiffs gave notice to the ABA that, in light of

Rule 20(a)(4) of the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools 2013This view of the ABA’s webpage can be replicated at
http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/.
6

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 25

2014, TAMU’s acquisition of the Law School created a substantial,
rather than a mere administrative, impact on the operation of the Law
School by filing a complaint with the ABA describing TAMU’s refusal to
recognize the alumni status of Pre-Acquisition Graduates by reissuing
diplomas (“ABA Complaint”). A true and correct copy of the ABA
Complaint is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit H.
88.

The American Bar Association issued a response to Plaintiffs’ ABA

Complaint, stating it did not act regarding student-school disputes, but
was limited to the approval of law schools.
89.

Plaintiffs have attempted to resolve this issue amicably by

discussion with TAMU School of Law personnel, petitioning TAMU
School of Law, the Board of Regents, and the American Bar Association.
90.

Plaintiffs continuously receive emails from TAMU as though they

were alumni of TAMU Law. Plaintiffs have received emails from the
TAMU Association of Former Students and TAMU School of Law asking
Plaintiffs to add their names to the directory of former students.
Plaintiffs have received emails from the Office of Gift Planning
soliciting donations from Plaintiffs.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 26

91.

Plaintiff Brown’s current profile on the Texas Bar’s website

reports that her law school was “Texas Wesleyan University,” a law
school that appears to be no longer accredited. However, the Law School
did not lose its accreditation or cease to exist. In fact, the SACS 2013
Roll of Accredited and Candidate Institutions states that 2013 is the
initial accreditation date of TAMU's level VI accreditation. The Roll
additionally states that TAMU's level VI accreditation was gained from
a separate accredited institution, and that prior to 2013, the institution
was listed as a different entity.
92.

Plaintiffs believed that they would be able to obtain after-hours

library cards for use at the Law School, but that promise continues to be
unfulfilled, nearly two years after the acquisition. To create their own
cards, Plaintiffs would have to violate Defendant TAMU School of Law’s
marks.
93.

Plaintiffs also reasonably believed, based on industry practices of

higher education, that the Law School would maintain records of its
graduates so that potential employers and clients can locate and verify
that they attended a law school that has not failed, and that TAMU

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 27

School of Law would continue to honor the special relationship that
educational institutions have with their graduates.
94.

Based on the statements made during the Q&A Session, Plaintiffs

have no assurance that, as soon as the Standard 509 reports, salary
reports, and other public documents no longer require reference to the
records of the Pre-Acquisition Graduates, TAMU School of Law will
simply drop all support to the Pre-Acquisition Graduates.
95.

TAMU School of Law’s failure to continue servicing its graduates

has other real impact, as individuals have worked with lenders to
refinance their law school loans, only to find out the lender could not
find TWU School of Law on the accredited list, and therefore could not
go further with that lender and would have to start over with another.
96.

Pre-Acquisition Graduates also suffer from the inability to show

potential employers that their law school still exists. For example, in
one faculty recruiting service, users can select TWU School of Law from
the drop-down menu of law schools, but then the potential employer is
given the information without a means of explaining that the school
still exists and that it has merely been acquired and renamed.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 28

97.

At the time that Plaintiffs accepted TWU's offer of enrollment and

began paying tuition, Plaintiffs reasonably expected that the law
degrees they were to receive from TWU would come with all of the
rights and privileges as any other ABA-accredited degree. These rights
and privileges include the ability to reference the degree-granting
institution on applications for reciprocal admission to other state bars
and to list an ABA-accredited institution on Plaintiffs' resumes, and the
reasonable expectation that TWU would take measures to ensure that
its graduates could easily validate their degree within the legal
community without an extensive discussion about the matter every time
the issue arises.
98.

Plaintiffs seeking admission on motion to the bars of other states

are unable to obtain the required certification from an existing law
school. For example, the Arkansas State Board of Law Examiners
requires that applicants requesting admission by motion to complete a
form which must be signed by the ABA-accredited law school from
which the applicant received his or her degree. Similarly, the Oklahoma
Board of Bar Examiners requires applicants seeking admission by

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 29

motion to obtain an official transcript from the same ABA-accredited
institution which issued the applicant’s J.D.
99.

Plaintiffs can surmount these issues, but the task is made more

complicated and taken out of the mechanistic approval process which
Plaintiffs enjoyed prior to the acquisition.
100. Additionally, Plaintiffs' local job prospects are at risk, as
employers often require documentation of graduation from an
accredited law school. When applying for legal jobs, Plaintiffs now find
themselves being called to defend their alma mater's admissions
standards, as Plaintiffs are unable to list an ABA-accredited school on
their resumes and are prohibited from listing Texas A&M University
School of Law.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 30

VI. CLAIM 1 – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(NON-INFRINGEMENT AND LICENSE OF TRADEMARK)
101. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every
allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully
herein.
102. Plaintiffs file this action for a declaration of rights with respect to
federal trademark laws, over which the court is given jurisdiction by 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 (trademark federal question), and 28 U.S.C.
§ 2201 (declaratory judgment).
103. Plaintiffs seek the Court’s declaration that the Law School treat
Pre-Acquisition Graduates just as it does post-acquisition graduates,
particularly with regard to the Law School’s marks and duties of the
Law School with respect to all its graduates.
104. The dispute is an actual controversy ripe for adjudication based on
the “totality of the circumstances” standard:
a. Plaintiffs are using the registered mark in commerce in various
third-party publications to describe their education and in
advertising, such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and the State Bar of
Texas.
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 31

b. Plaintiffs have also requested reissued diplomas with the Law
School’s new name, and those requests have been denied.
c. TAMU School of Law hosted a question-and-answer session
directed at the Pre-Acquisition Graduates on September 12, 2013,
(“Q&A Session”) in which Dr. Karen Watson described the Law
School’s position to be “unbendable,” while stating that the PreAcquisition Graduates would not be considered alumni of TAMU
School of Law, and Pre-Acquisition Graduates would not be able
to obtain reissued diplomas or be called graduates of TAMU
School of Law.
d. TAMU School of Law requires permission to use its marks,
publishing

a

brand

guide

on

its

web

site

at:

http://tamulawtest.ddns.net/docs/default-source/facultydocuments/tamulaw_brand_guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

disallows

unsanctioned use of its marks, giving Collegiate Licensing
Company as a licensing agent, and refers to the general rules of
TAMU’s rules at trademarks.tamu.edu.
e. TAMU School of Law uses the trademarks of Texas A&M
University, including the text mark “Texas A&M University”
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 32

(Reg. No. 2273374) and the graphical seal (Reg. No. 1962785)
which are found on every diploma issued by TAMU School of
Law.
f. After its acquisition, the Law School replaced signage on the front
of the Law School, remodeled its web site, and removed its former
name from many other third-party listings with professional
impact, such as the Law School Admission Council and American
Bar Association sites, so that Pre-Acquisition Graduates can no
longer find the name of an accredited law school from which they
received their degree.
g. While TAMU School of Law denies that the Pre-Acquisition
Graduates are its alumni, TAMU School of Law presents the
salary of those same graduates in its Standard 509 reports with
the American Bar Association under its own name, while the
previously available records for Texas Wesleyan University
School of Law are mysteriously no longer shown. See Ex. G
(screenprint of http://abarequireddisclosures.org/ showing menu)
and Ex. I (TAMU School of Law 2014 Standard 509 Information
Report).
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 33

h. TAMU has filed suits to protect its trademarks, and Plaintiffs
reasonably believe that if Plaintiffs ordered or created their own
diplomas without sanction from the Law School, they would face
suit for trademark or copyright infringement.
i. In addition to action by TAMU School of Law, any attempt to
create or order an appropriate replacement degree would likely
result in action by the Texas Attorney General’s office, which
regularly acts against what it deems to be illegal diplomas swift
and aggressively. See, e.g., State v. Lincoln Academy, No. 201414329 (295th Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex. Aug. 4, 2014).
j. The Law School has removed its pre-acquisition name from use
with the Law School Admission Council, so that a Pre-Acquisition
Graduate has no ability to choose “Texas Wesleyan School of
Law” from the drop-down menu when registering for LLM
programs. The current menu now appears so:

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 34

k. As another example, in matriculating to the Law School initially,
Plaintiffs reasonably believed that if they earned their juris
doctor degrees, they would be licensed by the Law School and
able to fill out mundane forms like the one above in the ordinary

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 35

manner as all other graduates of all other Texas law schools do,
and as Plaintiffs did until the Law School’s acquisition by TAMU.
l. Plaintiffs believed that they would be able to obtain an afterhours library card for use at the Law School, but that promise
continues to be unfulfilled, nearly two years after the acquisition.
To create their own library cards, Plaintiffs would have to violate
Defendant TAMU School of Law’s marks.
m. In the Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) at section 2.1(xv),
TAMU purchased TWU’s "Books and Records," a term defined by
the APA’s section 1.1 to include alumni records and student files,
social media accounts relate to the Law School, as well as all
goodwill related to the Law School as a going concern.
n. In the APA at section 4.2, TAMU purchased all of the assets
necessary for, or material to the ownership and operation of the
Law School. At the least, those assets would include a license to
use Plaintiffs’ student files and records, as those records are
necessary to create the ABA-required disclosures found on every
law school’s website.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 36

o. Plaintiffs also reasonably believed, based on industry practices of
higher education, that the Law School would maintain records of
its graduates so that potential employers and clients can locate
and verify that they attended a law school that has not failed, and
that TAMU School of Law would continue to honor the special
relationship that educational institutions have with their
graduates.
p. Based on the statements made during the Q&A Session,
Plaintiffs have no assurance that, as soon as the Standard 509
reports, salary reports, and other public documents no longer
require reference to the records of the Pre-Acquisition Graduates,
TAMU School of Law will not simply drop all support of the PreAcquisition Graduates.
105. Plaintiffs contend that the Law School has an obligation to honor
an uphold the traditional duties of an educational institution with
respect to the Pre-Acquisition Graduates based on the following:
a. TWU School of Law did not lose its accreditation or cease to
exist; the American Bar Association list of accredited schools lists
TAMU School of Law with an accreditation date of 1994, and all
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 37

acquisition documentation states specifically that TAMU School
of Law is a mere acquisition of a law school as an ongoing concern
and renaming, and not the closing of TWU School of Law with a
new TAMU School of Law built with the previous school’s assets.
b. TAMU School of Law was not listed as an accredited law school
until 2013, and then suddenly appears with the accreditation
date of 1994; TWU School of Law was listed as an accredited law
school until TAMU School of Law was listed. If TAMU School of
Law was retroactively recognized as accredited in 1994, then all
of the Pre-Acquisition Graduates must be recognized as after-thefact graduates of TAMU School of Law.
c. In page three of the Prospectus provided to the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (the academic accrediting
body) during the approval process, TAMU states (underlining
added):

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 38

d. Page four of the Prospectus states:

e. In a letter to SACS dated April 12, 2013, just months before the
acquisition, Defendants stated:
(A true and correct copy of the letter is attached as Ex. J.)
f. On December 19, 2012, President of Texas A&M University Dr.
Bowen Loftin sent a letter to SACS President Dr. Belle Wheelan,
stating (underlining added):

(A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Ex. K.)
g. The American Bar Association also approved the acquisition,
stating:

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 39

h. On September 24, 2013, TAMU agent Pam Matthews received an
email from Cheryl Cardell, a vice-president of the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools, which was later procured
through a freedom-of-information request, and follows:

There is no explanation or background for the email, which was
sent shortly after the Q&A Session in which TAMU School of Law
agents informed the Pre-Acquisition Graduates that TAMU was
not legally able to issue degrees. However, the relevant reasoning
is that Ms. Cardell is stating that TWU degrees should remain
TWU degrees because the acquisition is not retroactive. Plaintiffs
would point to the 1994 accreditation date claimed by TAMU
School of Law and assert otherwise.
i. In the Disclosure Schedules to the APA, TAMU assumes more
than thirty pages of listed executory contracts, indicating that
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 40

TAMU purchased an ongoing concern, rather than just buying
assets of a defunct business.
j. TAMU School of Law has touted that the Law School’s alumni
have performed 120,000 pro bono hours. This number must
include the thirty hours that each Pre-Acquisition Graduate has
performed, or the calculation would fall short.
k. TAMU School of Law’s failure to continue servicing its graduates
has other real impact, as individuals have worked with lenders to
refinance their law school loans, only to find out the lender could
not find TWU School of Law on the accredited list, and therefore
could not go further with that lender and would have to start over
with another.
l. Pre-Acquisition Graduates also suffer from the inability to show
potential employers that their law school still exists. For example,
in one faculty-recruiting service, users can select TWU School of
Law from the drop-down menu of law schools, but then the
potential employer is given the information without a means of
explaining that the school still exists.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 41

m. Plaintiffs have attempted to work with TAMU School of Law,
providing it with a petition containing more than 500 names,
asking for resolution of the matter without resorting to the
courts.
n. Plaintiffs also sought administrative resolution with the
American Bar Association to ensure that all avenues of resolution
were attempted.
106. Plaintiffs assert that TAMU School of Law must be run in
accordance with TAMU’s statements to SACS, and therefore must
admit that pre- and post-acquisition graduates of the Law School should
have the same marketing position, and use the most recent name and
obtain new diplomas which use the Law School’s TAMU marks in the
same way that graduates used the Law School’s TWU marks before the
acquisition.
107. Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that TAMU School of Law
cannot claim the work and accomplishments of Plaintiffs, and then deny
that they are graduates. Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue a declaration
that puts explicit terms to the special relationship and duties between
educational institution and its graduates, or at the least, require TAMU
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 42

School of Law to treat all of its graduates from the accreditation date of
1994 to present with the same ability to obtain diplomas or any other
benefit of graduation, including, but not limited to, the use of TAMU
School of Law’s name when filling out various third-party forms found
in a typical legal career.

VII. CLAIM 2 – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS)
108. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every
allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully
herein.
109. This is an action brought by Plaintiffs seeking declaratory relief,
compensatory damages, and punitive damages against the named
Defendants for violations of rights guaranteed under the laws of the
United States and for personal and other injuries in violation of laws of
the State of Texas.
110. Additional Jurisdiction and Venue - This action is brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a).
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 43

111. Plaintiffs bring this action for the unequal and irrational
treatment of Pre-Acquisition Graduates in comparison to those who
have graduated since TAMU acquired the Law School.
112. The TWU School of Law operated as part of TWU from 1994 to
May 2013, at which time the Law School was acquired by TAMU and
then renamed “TAMU School of Law.”
113. All graduates of TAMU School of Law are required to perform
thirty hours of pro-bono service to the community before qualifying to
graduate.
114. At least three individuals delayed turning in their pro bono
records until after the Law School’s acquisition, thereby qualifying for
the TAMU School of Law diploma and other benefits. These individuals
took no classes after the acquisition of the Law School, but are
considered TAMU School of Law alumni.
115. In addition, some senior-level TWU School of Law students had
almost enough credits to graduate that they could sit for the bar exam
before graduation. In doing so, the state bar recognized other TWU
School of Law near-graduates who were also taking the bar exam at the

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 44

same time, yet only the latter group were allowed to obtain the TAMU
School diploma.
116. In yet other conditions, some May 2013 graduates were
inexplicably listed on the Texas Bar as graduated from TAMU School of
Law; such use could be found to be infringement.
117. As noted supra, the Law School was purchased as an ongoing
concern, rather than a failure of one law school and the creation of a
new one using the old school’s assets.
118. TAMU School of Law touts 120,000 pro bono hours of generosity
provided by the Law School’s alumni to the local community, a number
that requires the use of the Pre-Acquisition Graduates’ pro bono hours.
119. TAMU School of Law is listed as having achieved its accreditation
in 1994, begging the question of where the list of the graduates from
1994 to 2013 is located.
120. The Fourteenth Amendment prevents the unequal treatment of
individuals similarly situated by state actors, even if there was only one
individual being mistreated. Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564
(2000).
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 45

121. Plaintiffs contend that based on Defendants’ own behavior, there
is no rational basis for the Law School to differentiate between pre- and
post-acquisition graduates. Plaintiffs ask the Court to require
Defendants to treat all of its graduates equally.
122. Plaintiffs also seek an award of actual damages and attorney fees
in an amount deemed appropriate by this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983-1988.

VIII.

CLAIM 3 - BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT

123. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every
allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully
herein.
124. This is a claim for breach of implied-in-fact contract under the
Texas common law.
125. TWU breached the implied-in-fact contract between Plaintiffs and
TWU when TWU failed to take necessary actions to protect the
credibility of law degrees previously issued to Plaintiffs.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 46

126. Elements of the claim. A party is entitled to relief based on breach
of contract when:
A. there exists a contractual relationship between the parties,
B. the contract supports plaintiff's right to recover,
C. the contract is supported by consideration,
D. plaintiff performed or tendered performance under the contract,
E. defendant breached the contract, and
F. plaintiff was damaged as a result of defendant's breach.
A.

A contract exists between Plaintiffs and TWU.

127. Texas courts have said that the relationship between a private
school and its student has by definition primarily a contractual basis.
Southwell v. Univ. of the Incarnate Word, 974 S.W.2d 351, 356 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 1999).
128. Where a private university impliedly agrees to provide educational
opportunity and confer the appropriate degree in consideration for a
student's agreement to successfully complete degree requirements,
abide

by

university

guidelines,

and

pay

tuition,

a contract exists. Southwell v. Univ. of the Incarnate Word, 974 S.W.2d
351, 356 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999); see Smith v. Renz, 840 S.W.2d
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 47

702, 704 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied) (stating
an implied contract arises from the dealings of the parties, from which
the facts show that the minds of the parties met on the terms of
the contract without any legally expressed agreement thereto).
129. An implied-contract relationship between a university and its
students is supported by federal courts nationwide. Kashmiri v. Regents
of Univ. of Cal., 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 635, 649-50 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding
that an implied contract was created by the students' conduct when
they accepted the University's offer of enrollment). See, e.g., Ross v.
Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410, 417 (7th Cir. 1992); Lyons v. Salve
Regina

College,

565

F.2d

200,

202

(1st

Cir.

1977) (terms

of

contract between student and college may include statements provided
in student manuals and registration materials); Mangla v. Brown
Univ., 135 F.3d 80, 83 (1st Cir. 1998) (standard for interpreting
contractual terms is that of “reasonable expectation—what meaning the
party making the manifestation, the university, should reasonably
expect the other party to give it”) (emphasis added); Johnson v. Schmitz,
119 F. Supp. 2d 90, 93 (D.Conn 2000) (“Because a student bases his or
her decision to attend a college or university, in significant part, on the
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 48

documents

received

concerning

core

matters,

such

as

faculty,

curriculum, requirements, costs, facilities and special programs,
application of contract principles based on these documents and other
express or implied promises … appears sound”).
130. TWU offered legal education to Plaintiffs for the purpose of
obtaining ABA-recognized juris doctor degrees. Plaintiffs based their
decision to attend TWU on TWU's fact books, student handbook,
catalog, and other publications containing statements of the Law
School's accreditation by the American Bar Association.
131. A meeting of the minds of parties to an implied contract is inferred
from and evidenced by their conduct and course of dealing. Haws &
Garrett Gen. Contrs., Inc. v. Gorbett Bros. Welding, 480 S.W.2d 607, 609
(Tex. 1972).
132. Following their acceptance of TWU's offer of enrollment, Plaintiffs
had a reasonable expectation that TWU would preserve the integrity of
the juris doctor degrees TWU issued to Plaintiffs.
133. TWU’s conduct indicated that the juris doctor degrees it issued
would remain credible and recognized by third parties for as long as the
Law School remained in existence. Plaintiffs acted so as to complete
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 49

course requirements and remain in good academic standing, and TWU
issue juris doctor degrees to Plaintiffs upon completion of the
requirements.
134. Over the years prior to the acquisition by TAMU, it was never
once contemplated by the parties that the degrees granted by TWU to
Plaintiffs would lose their value upon acquisition by another school.
B.

The terms of the contract support Plaintiffs' right to recover.

135. The specific terms of an implied contract must logically be defined
by the college or university's policies and requirements. Southwell v.
Univ. of the Incarnate Word, 974 S.W.2d 351, 356 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1999).
136. TWU's policies contained many statements that its graduates
would receive juris doctor degrees from an ABA-accredited school.
137. Plaintiffs predicated their decisions to attend the Law School on
TWU's implied promise that, as an ABA-accredited institution, TWU
would confer degrees that would continue to be valid in the future and
that would hold rights and privileges comparable to any other degree
granted by an ABA-accredited institution.
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 50

138. Upon admission to the Law School, Plaintiffs had the reasonable
expectation that the degrees they were to receive from TWU School of
Law would remain valid for admission by motion to other state bars and
for use in job applications without undue explanation. TWU has failed
to take reasonable measures to meet that expectation.
139. Currently, Plaintiffs applying for reciprocal admission to the bars
of other states are often unable to select TWU School of Law as their
alma mater, and Plaintiffs have been told that they are not alumni of
TAMU School of Law, even though TAMU School of Law touts
Plaintiffs’ accomplishments as its own.
140. Even the American Bar Association’s website does not list TWU
School of Law in its drop-down menu on its webpage titled “Section of
Legal Education – Employment Summary Report.” 7
141. State courts have held that custom and usage can also create
specific terms by implication. Kashmiri v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 67
Cal. Rptr. 3d 635, 649-50 (Ct. App. 2007).
142. The practices of other American universities that have undergone
name changes or have been acquired by other institutions indicate that
7

Webpage is viewable at http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 51

industry custom is to preserve the quality and credibility of degrees
issued from the former institution. Often this is done simply by
reissuing diplomas to reflect the change. Upon its transition from Mesa
State College to Colorado Mesa University, the school granted its
graduates new diplomas reflecting the new name of the institution.
Formerly International College, Hodges University allowed graduates of
International College to, for a small fee, obtain diplomas granted by
Hodges University. When TAMU acquired East Texas State University,
it allowed pre-acquisition graduates to purchase diplomas reflecting the
new name for a nominal fee.
C.

The contract is supported by consideration.

143. Plaintiffs paid tuition to TWU and completed all course
requirements. TWU promised to issue ABA-accredited law degrees to
Plaintiffs.
144. Over the twenty years prior to the acquisition by TAMU, it was
never once contemplated by the parties that the degrees granted by
TWU to Plaintiffs would lose their value upon acquisition by another
school or by any other substantive change in the Law School.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 52

145. At the time that Plaintiffs accepted TWU School of Law's offer of
enrollment and began paying tuition, Plaintiffs reasonably expected
that the law degrees they were to receive from TWU School of Law
would come with all of the rights and privileges as any other ABAaccredited degree. These rights and privileges include the ability to
reference the degree-granting institution on applications for reciprocal
admission to other state bars and to list an ABA-accredited institution
on Plaintiffs’ resumes without a need to explain incongruities in
Plaintiffs’ academic records.
146. The rights and privileges associated with the degrees conferred by
TWU School of Law at the time of Plaintiffs acceptance were the basis
of the bargain between TWU and Plaintiffs.
D.

Plaintiffs fully performed under the contract.

147. Plaintiffs paid tuition to TWU and completed all Law School and
ABA requirements for receiving juris doctor degrees.
E.

TWU breached the contract.

148. In failing to take actions to protect the credibility of Plaintiffs’
degrees, TWU breached its implied contract with Plaintiffs.
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 53

149. The industry practice to preserve the credibility of issued degrees
and the conduct of TWU, President Slabach, and Plaintiffs created an
implied contract between and Plaintiffs and TWU that TWU would act
to protect the credibility of Plaintiffs’ degrees received from TWU School
of Law in exchange for Plaintiffs’ payment of tuition and completion of
course requirements.
150. TWU and President Slabach failed to comply with the terms of its
implied contract with Plaintiffs when TWU and President Slabach
failed to include terms in the APA to ensure that the credibility of
Plaintiffs’ degrees would continue following the acquisition of the Law
School by TAMU, or to otherwise meet Plaintiffs’ reasonable
expectations of being able to have their degrees validated by TAMU
School of Law.
F.

Plaintiffs were damaged as a result of Defendants’ breach.

151. Defendants enjoy the benefits of their transaction with Plaintiffs,
but Plaintiffs no longer enjoy the benefit of affiliation with an ABAaccredited law school. Defendants received tuition money from
Plaintiffs. Defendants continue to use Plaintiffs’ bar-passage rates in
statistics published by TAMU School of Law, and Defendants advertise
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 54

the accolades of Pre-Acquisition Graduates in myriad press releases,
advertising, website postings, and even marketing efforts to convince
Pre-Acquisition Graduates to put TAMU in their wills.
152. Plaintiffs seeking admission on motion to the bars of other states
are unable to obtain the required certification from an existing law
school without undue complication. For example, the Arkansas State
Board of Law Examiners requires that applicants requesting admission
by motion complete a form which must be signed by the ABA-accredited
law school from which the applicant received his or her degree, and the
Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners requires applicants seeking
admission by motion to obtain an official transcript from the ABAaccredited institution from which the applicant received her J.D.
153. Without an existing, ABA-accredited alma mater to maintain
student records and grant certifications, Plaintiffs are barred from
practicing law in other states through admission by motion without
undue complexity that they did not experience prior to the purchase.
154. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ local job prospects are at risk, as
employers often require documentation of graduation from an
accredited law school. When applying for legal jobs, Plaintiffs now find
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 55

themselves being called to defend their alma mater's admissions
standards, as Plaintiffs are unable to list an ABA-accredited school on
their resumes and are prohibited from listing TAMU School of Law.
G.

Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief.

155. To obtain the equitable remedy of specific performance, a plaintiff
must plead and prove that he was ready, willing, and able to timely
perform his obligations under contract. Di Giuseppe v. Lawler, 269
S.W.3d 588, 593 (Tex. 2008).
156. As stated above, Plaintiffs have fully performed under the
contract.
157. Plaintiffs seek an order from this Court that TWU amend its sale
documents so that Pre-Acquisition Graduates are properly supported by
TAMU School of Law, reissue diplomas, and require TAMU School of
Law to treat the Pre-Acquisition Graduates as their alma mater, in
exactly the same way as their post-acquisition graduates.
158. Conditions Precedent. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ claim
for relief have been performed or have occurred.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 56

159. Attorney

Fees.

Plaintiffs

retained

counsel,

who

presented

Plaintiffs’ claim to Defendants. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
reasonable and necessary attorney fees in accordance with sections
38.001(8) and 38.005 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
160. Section 38.001(8) has been interpreted to include contracts that
are implied in fact. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Amarillo Hosp. Dist., 835
S.W.2d 115, 125-26 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1992).
161. Plaintiffs presented their claim to Defendants, but Defendants did
not reissue diplomas within thirty days after the claim was presented.
Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees
pursuant to section 38.001(8) for breach of contract.

IX.

ALTERNATIVE CLAIM - BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH
AND FAIR DEALING

162. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all allegations contained
in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
163. This Court has recognized that an informal fiduciary relationship
may arise between a private university and a student where the student
trusts in and relies upon the university. This Court recognizes a cause
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 57

of action for breach of good faith and fair dealing in an informal
fiduciary relationship under the Texas common law. Colli v. S.
Methodist Univ., No. 3:08-CV-1627-P, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92073, at
*6-8 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2011); see Bank One, N.A. v. Stewart, 967
S.W.2d 419, 442 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998).
A.

The parties have an informal fiduciary relationship.

164. Some contracts involve special relationships that may give rise
to duties enforceable as torts. Farah v. Mafrige & Kormanik, P.C., 927
S.W.2d 663, 675 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996). To impose a
tort duty upon parties to a contract, the court must first find that a
special relationship exists between them. When special confidence is
placed in one who thereby obtains a resulting superiority of position and
influence, a fiduciary or confidential relationship may result. The
existence of a special duty in the context of a contract is not
inconsistent. The special relationship may arise from the element of
trust necessary to accomplish the goals of the contract, or because of an
imbalance of bargaining power. Farah v. Mafrige & Kormanik, P.C., 927
S.W.2d 663, 675 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996).

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 58

165. In accepting TWU School of Law's offer of enrollment to the law
school, Plaintiffs placed special confidence in TWU. Plaintiffs trusted
TWU to accomplish the goal of the parties’ implied contract that
Plaintiffs’ degrees would carry the same rights and privileges in the
future as they did when conferred.
166. An informal fiduciary duty creates a common-law duty of good
faith and fair dealing from which tort damages result. Bank One, N.A.
v. Stewart, 967 S.W.2d 419, 442 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998).
B.

Defendants breached their duty.

167. Plaintiffs do not have to show proof of actual causation or
economic damage, only that TWU breached its standard of care.
Campbell v. Brummett, No. 14-99-00750-CV, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS
7991, at *4, 5 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 30, 2000, no pet.).
168. TWU and President Slabach owed a duty of reasonable care to the
Pre-Acquisition Graduates to ensure that their juris doctor degrees
issued by TWU prior to the acquisition by TAMU would retain their
value and integrity following the acquisition.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 59

169. Section 2.1(xv) of the Asset Purchase Agreement shows that TWU
conferred all alumni and student records to TAMU. Section 4.2 of the
APA shows that TAMU purchased all of the assets necessary for, or
material to, the ownership and operation of the Law School. At the
least, those assets would include a license to use Plaintiffs’ student files
and records, as those records are necessary to create the ABA-required
disclosures found on every law school’s website.
170. TWU and President Slabach breached the duty to deal fairly with
Plaintiffs when TWU and President Slabach did not act to protect the
credibility of Plaintiffs’ degrees.
171. A person acting in good faith and dealing fairly would have
ensured that TAMU accepted a duty to validate the degrees of PreAcquisition Graduates or provide replacement diplomas. This easily
could have been effected by including an additional provision in the
Asset Purchase Agreement.
172. The practices of other American universities that have undergone
name changes or have been acquired by other institutions indicate that
industry custom is to preserve the quality and credibility of degrees
issued from the former institution. Often this is done simply by
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 60

reissuing diplomas to reflect the change. Upon its transition from Mesa
State College to Colorado Mesa University, the school granted its
graduates new diplomas reflecting the new name of the institution.
Formerly International College, Hodges University allowed graduates of
International College to, for a small fee, obtain diplomas granted by
Hodges University.
173. When TAMU acquired East Texas State University, it allowed
pre-acquisition graduates to purchase diplomas reflecting the new name
for a nominal fee.
174. TWU failed to deal fairly when it did not include terms in the APA
to ensure that the credibility of Plaintiffs’ degrees would continue
following the acquisition of the Law School by TAMU, or to otherwise
meet Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations of being able to have their
degrees validated by TAMU School of Law.
C.

Plaintiffs are entitled to relief.

175. Under a claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in tort. Bank One, N.A. v. Stewart,
967 S.W.2d 419, 442 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998).

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 61

176. Plaintiffs seek equitable relief, asking the Court to grant an order
requiring the reissuance of diplomas, which shall reflect the acquisition
of the Law School by TAMU.

X.

ALTERNATIVE CLAIM – NEGLIGENCE

177. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every
allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully
herein.
178. This is a claim for negligence under the Texas common law.
179. TWU and President Frederick G. Slabach breached their duty of
care to Plaintiffs when TWU and President Slabach failed to take
necessary actions to protect the credibility of law degrees issued to PreAcquisition Graduates.
180. Elements of the claim. A party is entitled to relief based on
negligence when one party owes a duty to another and breaches that
duty, resulting in damages proximately caused by the breach.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 62

A.

TWU and President Slabach owed a duty to Plaintiffs.

181. TWU and President Slabach owed a duty of reasonable care to the
Pre-Acquisition Graduates to ensure that the juris doctor degrees issued
by TWU School of Law prior to the acquisition by TAMU would retain
their value and integrity following the acquisition.
182. Section 2.1(xv) of the Asset Purchase Agreement shows that TWU
conferred all alumni and student records to TAMU. Section 4.2 of the
APA shows that TAMU purchased all of the assets necessary for, or
material to, the ownership and operation of the Law School. At the
least, those assets would include a license to use Plaintiffs’ student files
and records, as those records are necessary to create the ABA-required
disclosures found on every law school’s website.
183. A person of reasonable care would have ensured that TAMU
accepted a duty to validate the degrees of Pre-Acquisition Graduates or
provide replacement diplomas. This easily could have been effected by
including an additional provision in the Asset Purchase Agreement.
184. Furthermore, the practices of other American universities that
have undergone name changes or have been acquired by other
institutions indicate that industry custom is to preserve the quality and
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 63

credibility of degrees issued from the former institution. Often this is
done simply by reissuing diplomas to reflect the change. Upon its
transition from Mesa State College to Colorado Mesa University, the
school granted its graduates new diplomas reflecting the new name of
the institution. Formerly International College, Hodges University
allowed graduates of International College to, for a small fee, obtain
diplomas granted by Hodges University. When TAMU acquired East
Texas State University, it allowed pre-acquisition graduates to
purchase diplomas reflecting the new name for a nominal fee.
B.

TWU and President Slabach breached the duty.

185. TWU and President Slabach failed to exercise reasonable care to
ensure that the credibility of the Pre-Acquisition Graduates’ degrees
would continue following the acquisition of the law school by TAMU.
186. The Asset Purchase Agreement contains provisions allowing TWU
to collect on student receivables prior to the acquisition, but includes no
other provisions that would protect the rights and privileges of
Plaintiffs’ degrees.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 64

187. TWU failed to include a provision in the APA specifically imposing
a duty on TAMU to validate the degrees of Pre-Acquisition Graduates
for as long as the Law School remains operational.
188. In failing to take reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiffs’
degrees would retain their credibility following the acquisition, TWU
and President Slabach breached their duty to Plaintiffs.
C.

Defendants’ breach caused damage to Plaintiffs.

189. TWU and President Slabach’s breach actually and proximately
caused damage to Plaintiffs. But for TWU and President Slabach’s
failure to take reasonable steps to ensure the integrity and rights of
Plaintiffs’ juris doctor degrees issued by TWU, Plaintiffs’ admissions to
other state bars and applications to LLM programs through LSAC
would not be jeopardized. Plaintiffs would still be able to access their
student records and receive validation of their degrees from TAMU
School of Law.
190. It was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the acquisition that
failing to write provisions into the Asset Purchase Agreement
specifically pertaining to alumni of the Law School and degrees
previously issued by the Law School might reasonably result in damage
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 65

to Plaintiffs, and that Plaintiffs’ damage would not have otherwise
occurred.
D.

Plaintiffs’ damages are as follows:

191. Plaintiffs were damaged as a direct result of TWU and President
Slabach’s breach. Plaintiffs seeking admission on motion to the bars of
other states are unable to obtain the required certification from an
existing law school. For example, the Arkansas State Board of Law
Examiners requires that applicants requesting admission by motion
complete a form which must be signed by the ABA-accredited law school
from which the applicant received his or her degree. Similarly, the
Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners requires applicants seeking
admission by motion to obtain an official transcript from the ABAaccredited institution from which the applicant received her J.D.
192. Without an existing, ABA-accredited alma mater to maintain
student records and grant certifications, Plaintiffs are unable from
practicing law in other states through admission by motion without
undue complications.
193. Additionally, Plaintiffs' local job prospects are at risk, as
employers often require documentation of graduation from an
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 66

accredited law school. When applying for legal jobs, Plaintiffs now find
themselves being called to defend their alma mater's admissions
standards, as Plaintiffs are unable to list a currently ABA-accredited
school on their resumes and are prohibited from listing Texas A&M
University School of Law.

XI.

ALTERNATIVE CLAIM – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

194. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every
allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully
herein.
195. Plaintiffs assert that the actions by TWU constitute tortious
interference with prospective contractual relations. In particular,
Plaintiffs attempts to refinance student loans, seek faculty positions,
and efficiently gain reciprocity admission in other states have been
damaged by TWU’s interference with the American Bar Association’s
listing of accredited schools, in that now TWU School of Law is not
listed as an accredited school.

4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 67

XII.

JURY DEMAND

196. Plaintiffs request trial by jury of all claims.
XIII.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

197. Plaintiffs respectfully pray:
A. That Plaintiff and each member of the class recover damages for the
injuries that each has suffered in an amount to be determined by the
evidence presented at trial, but in no event less than $5,000,000.
B. That Plaintiff and each member of the class recover costs of suit and
that Plaintiffs’ attorneys be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees, as
provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h).
C. That Plaintiff and that each member of the class be awarded any
and all other relief that may be just and proper, in accordance with
the claims asserted as detailed above.
Respectfully submitted this 11th day of August, 2015,
s/ Warren V. Norred
Warren V. Norred, TX Bar: 24045094
NORRED LAW, PLLC
200 E. Abram, Suite 300; Arlington, Texas 76010
O: 817-704-3984; F: 817-524-6686
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiffs
4:15-CV-613, Brown v. Texas A&M University School of Law
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

Page 68