United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND FOR MORE DEFINITE
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the same thing twice, one should expect the same
April 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs, former students at the Nursing
Program at InterCoast Career Institute (InterCoast), filed
this civil action claiming that InterCoast failed to provide
them the nursing education it had advertised was available.
Compl. (ECF No. 1). The Plaintiffs alleged breach of
contract, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.
Id. On May 4, 2016, InterCoast moved to dismiss the
complaint and for a more definite statement. Def.'s
Mot. to Dismiss Compl. and/or Mot. for a Mo[re]
Definite Statement (ECF No. 7) (Def.'s
Mot.). The Plaintiffs responded on May 23, 2016.
Pls.' Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss
(ECF No. 9).
Mason v. InterCoast Career Institute, No.
not the Court's first ruling on a motion to dismiss and
motion for more definite statement filed by InterCoast
against a former nursing student's legal action on the
same set of facts. On September 23, 2014, Courtney Mason
filed a civil action against InterCoast alleging essentially
the same underlying facts as form the basis of Ms.
Perez-Webber's and Ms. Reynoso's allegations against
InterCoast. See Compl., Mason v. InterCoast
Career Inst., No. 2:14-cv-00377-JAW (D. Me. Sept. 23,
2014) (ECF No. 1) (Mason Compl.). Just as in this
case, Ms. Mason has been represented by Attorneys Guy
Loranger and Danielle Campbell; InterCoast has been
represented by Attorney Frank K. N. Chowdry of Portland and
Attorney Neil C. Evans of Sherman Oaks, California.
March 4, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part
InterCoast's motions. Order on Def.'s Mot. to
Dismiss and Mot. for More Definite Statement,
Mason, No. 2:14-cv-00377-JAW (ECF No. 13) (Mason
Order). In Mason, the Plaintiff, a former
nursing student like the Plaintiffs here, filed suit against
InterCoast claiming that she did not receive the nursing
education that InterCoast promised in its advertisements.
Mason Compl. Courtney Mason, however, proceeded on
the following legal theories: (1) retaliation under the Maine
Whistleblowers' Protection Act, (2) breach of contract,
(3) retaliation under the False Claims Act, (4) First
Amendment retaliation, and (5) due process retaliation.
Id. at 1-4. In her response to InterCoast's
motions to dismiss and for more definite statement, Ms. Mason
did not oppose the dismissal of the Maine Whistleblowers'
Protection Act and False Claims Act counts, but she objected
to the dismissal of the remaining counts. Pl.'s Mem.
of Law in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss at
3-10, Mason, No. 2:14-cv-00377-JAW (ECF No. 11). In
its ruling, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as to the
unopposed counts, but rejected InterCoast's motion to
dismiss the breach of contract, First Amendment retaliation,
and due process retaliation counts. Mason Order at
2, 8-9. The Court also declined to grant InterCoast's
motion for more definite statement. Id. at 9-10.
Order on InterCoast's motion to dismiss in the
Mason case, the Court explained that in its view,
Ms. Mason had alleged sufficient facts to withstand the
motion, but more particularly, the Court observed:
This Court declines to issue a dispositive ruling in favor of
Intercoast at this early stage. Instead, it is preferable to
allow the parties to engage in discovery and frame the legal
issues in a motion for summary judgment.
Id. at 9. Similarly, in its Mason Order,
the Court explained that “in the Court's view,
there is nothing to be gained by forcing the Plaintiff to
make a more definite statement of her claim in her
Complaint.” Id. at 10.
proffered no reason the Court's ruling in Mason
should not apply with equal force to essentially the same
motions in this case. In fact, InterCoast did not even
mention the Court's Mason Order in its motions
in this case, much less make any effort to distinguish
Mason. Def.'s Mot. at 1-4. For the same reasons
the Court denied InterCoast's motions in Mason,
the Court denies them here.
Court DENIES InterCoast Career Institute's Motion to
Dismiss and/or Motion for a [More] ...