Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: It was a unanimous decision at the Supreme Court in
Speaker 1: a case steeped in politics. The court overturned the fraud
Speaker 1: convictions of two defendants in the Bridgegate scandal that shook
Speaker 1: former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's administration, joining me as
Speaker 1: Brad MOS's apartment Mark zad So brad Atlanta Kagan wrote
Speaker 1: the majority opinion, and she said the evidence showed deception,
Speaker 1: corruption and abuse of power. So why did the court
Speaker 1: overturn the convictions? So what's happened here is the existing
Speaker 1: federal statute that the Justice Fartment has been trying to
Speaker 1: rely upon, such as wire fraud and federal bribery, never
Speaker 1: really envisioned being applied in a situation where there was
Speaker 1: no money at issue. So we're like, what happened here
Speaker 1: similar to what we had a couple of years ago
Speaker 1: with McDonald case that came out of Virginia. Was the
Speaker 1: particular corrupt actions which everyone, even though all the justices
Speaker 1: agreed were rup they were brazenly political. Complete retaliation didn't
Speaker 1: fall within the scope of this type of federal statute.
Speaker 1: They wire fraud statute required more than justice fraudulent use
Speaker 1: of authority, but that it would be done for the
Speaker 1: purpose of obtaining money or property. And the reason that
Speaker 1: the justices overruled the convictions here was because despite what
Speaker 1: actually happened, despite the admission that this was retaliation, it
Speaker 1: was fraud. They didn't do it in order to obtain
Speaker 1: money themselves. They were just engaging in political retaliation. And
Speaker 1: these federal statutes don't contemplate serving as sort of a
Speaker 1: roving federal anti corruption statute. That's not what they do.
Speaker 1: So is it because the government had a sort of
Speaker 1: tortured view of what government property consisted of. But that
Speaker 1: was part of it. And so what the government tried
Speaker 1: to claim was that because in order to cover up
Speaker 1: their actions, the steps taken by the two criminal defendants
Speaker 1: had been to utilize government resources to create a phony,
Speaker 1: you know, story about a travel study, to pay off
Speaker 1: a toll worker, to close lanes. Because they had used
Speaker 1: funds in that way, with implicating a federally funded program,
Speaker 1: the Port Authority, that was sufficient to meet the statute.
Speaker 1: But what the justices concluded was because these two individuals
Speaker 1: weren't doing it to get money for themselves that took
Speaker 1: it outside the scope of the wire fraud statute. So,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, this is not the first time the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has reversed a case when there's a prosecution
Speaker 1: for public corruption. Is there something about these prosecutions that
Speaker 1: the court finds wanting. It's not so much wanting from
Speaker 1: the facts so much as that the existing legal uh
Speaker 1: provisions that are being relied upon by d o j.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has included doesn't reach this far. So
Speaker 1: there isn't, by you know, in law, any kind of broad,
Speaker 1: overarching anti corruption statute that applies to the official acts
Speaker 1: of state officials. There's state laws that apply to that,
Speaker 1: and there may have been an argument that there should
Speaker 1: have been a state criminal business opposed to a federal one,
Speaker 1: but the federal government hasn't ever imposed such a law
Speaker 1: on state officials. And there'd be obvious questions, you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of Article ten of the Constitution, whether or
Speaker 1: not that would violate the separation of powers between the
Speaker 1: federal government and the state if the federal government could
Speaker 1: impose a broad anti corruption statute against state officials. So
Speaker 1: that's the thing why they haven't done that in the past.
Speaker 1: And probably why they won't even do that going forward.
Speaker 1: But it does speak to whether or not the existing
Speaker 1: statutes have been tried to be use, such as the
Speaker 1: you know, the bribery statutes, whether or not they'd be
Speaker 1: clarified or updated going forward, given how these state officials
Speaker 1: have been sort of exploiting these loopholes. Let's go back
Speaker 1: for a second to the McDonald case. Sort of a
Speaker 1: shocking decision to most people. Yeah, and in that one,
Speaker 1: so that was the in that case, with the federal
Speaker 1: bribery statute that was to play, and there was things
Speaker 1: a value of personal money received, so that element that
Speaker 1: long of the issue was resolved and the government could
Speaker 1: prove its case. But what they struggled with there and
Speaker 1: why the justices overturned the conviction in that case, was
Speaker 1: there was no actual official act by Governor McDonald that
Speaker 1: the simple actions of taking a meeting or recommending someone
Speaker 1: talk with the private company wasn't sufficient to implicate the
Speaker 1: official act by a state official. And again we're getting
Speaker 1: into the nitty gritty weeds of what doesn't does does
Speaker 1: not qualify as official state action, what doesn't doesn't qualify
Speaker 1: as a fraudulent effort to obtain personal moneys or property.
Speaker 1: But this is where the vagaries of the law have
Speaker 1: come down to and where we're still fleshing out, you know,
Speaker 1: at this point, and even with the Supreme Court cases
Speaker 1: these two in the last five years of exactly how
Speaker 1: far state officials can, you know, push the boundaries and
Speaker 1: exercise their power. So finally, will this have a chilling
Speaker 1: effect on federal prosecutors. I think there'll be a little
Speaker 1: bit more gun shy in terms of how they approached
Speaker 1: some of these cases. I think there was certainly an
Speaker 1: effort to crack down some of the corruption that they
Speaker 1: thought was not being properly addressed. I think they were
Speaker 1: legitimate and good, good faith purposes behind both prosecutions. I mean,
Speaker 1: certainly what Governor McDonald did here in Virginia a few
Speaker 1: years back, and then what these two individuals did in
Speaker 1: New Jersey back was discussing it was unethical, um and
Speaker 1: it was brazenly politically corrupt. But it raises a question
Speaker 1: about how much the federal government is allowed to venture
Speaker 1: into this from a criminal standpoint, given our state government
Speaker 1: officials and not the federal government officials. Okay, thanks brad,
Speaker 1: that's Bradley mass apartment. Mark Zade coming up next on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law, a controversial Trump nominee to the second highest
Speaker 1: court in the land, gets a confirmation hearing with social
Speaker 1: distancing MH. The Senate Judiciary Committee became one of the
Speaker 1: first Congressional panels to embrace new procedures to work during
Speaker 1: the coronavirus pandemic. The committee heard testimony from President Trump's
Speaker 1: controversial pick for the d C Circuit Court of Appeals,
Speaker 1: Judge Justin Walker, joining me as Madison Alder Bloomberg Law reporter.
Speaker 1: So was it a teleconference, Maddie, a video conference? How
Speaker 1: did it work? It was a little bit of both.
Speaker 1: So the Senate Judiciary Committee was one of the first
Speaker 1: committees on the Hill to to try, uh, to adapt
Speaker 1: to the coronavirus pandemic. And the way they chose to
Speaker 1: do that was to use the larger hearing room than
Speaker 1: they typically do. So they had lawmakers who were there
Speaker 1: in person, spread out among two levels of desks. They
Speaker 1: had at least six feet of separation between them. And
Speaker 1: then they had a few lawmakers who were present via
Speaker 1: video conference. Uh, So they showed up on a video screen,
Speaker 1: and then the nominee himself was there and would addressed
Speaker 1: their questions on that on that video. It's great and
Speaker 1: so um they're just in the pandemic just like everyone else.
Speaker 1: Were there any uh hiccups, any problems. It was a
Speaker 1: little difficult to hear a few of the speakers. Um,
Speaker 1: when Senator Patrick lay he came on, his voice was
Speaker 1: very booming. He sounded a bit like the Wizard of
Speaker 1: oz Um. And then later on Senator Marsha Blackburn, she
Speaker 1: came on and we couldn't hear her audio for a second.
Speaker 1: But despite those those couple of hiccups, it went pretty smoothly.
Speaker 1: I think, you know, it kind of fits with the
Speaker 1: theme we've seen with a lot of these government institutions
Speaker 1: that are switching over to some kind of adapted version
Speaker 1: of their proceedings, like the Supreme Court, where despite a
Speaker 1: few minor hiccups, that seems to be working pretty well.
Speaker 1: The Democrats had an objection to even holding this hearing
Speaker 1: because they're holding this hearing before Judge Griffith, whom Walker
Speaker 1: is supposed to replace, is even scheduled to step aside,
Speaker 1: that's in September. I have this hearing that that's correct.
Speaker 1: So Democrats for a prose to the idea of this hearing.
Speaker 1: Last week they sent a letter to Senator Graham one
Speaker 1: word of this hearing came out. They said that they
Speaker 1: should be focusing on issues within the Senatejuciary Committee jurisdiction
Speaker 1: that are related to the coronavirus pandemic, rather than a
Speaker 1: nominee who won't be filling this seat until September when
Speaker 1: Judge brought this step down. But the Senate Judiciary Committee
Speaker 1: McConnell has said that this is going to be a
Speaker 1: priority for the Senate, and the Senate Judiciary Committee is
Speaker 1: moving along without work. Republicans are saying that that judges
Speaker 1: are a part of the essential work of the Senate.
Speaker 1: Um Senator John Cornyn yesterday I reiterated that and said,
Speaker 1: you know, this is one of the things that the
Speaker 1: Senate should be doing during this time. So that was
Speaker 1: definitely a consistent conversation throughout the hearing. In addition to
Speaker 1: questioning the nominee himself, we kind of had this side
Speaker 1: debate of whether or not they should be focusing on
Speaker 1: this versus, you know, other things that the committee could
Speaker 1: be doing now. Walker is a protege of Majority Leader
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, who has been leading the Bush to fill
Speaker 1: the judiciary with conservatives. Tell us a little more about him. So,
Speaker 1: Justine Walker. He is currently a judge on the Western
Speaker 1: District of Kentucky thirty seven, which is fairly young for
Speaker 1: an Afield Court nominee. He is a protege of Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell has really championed his nomination for the DC Circuit.
Speaker 1: Walker was first nominated to his trial court seat by
Speaker 1: Trump UH and confirmed just six months ago, so this
Speaker 1: is a pretty quick elevation to the DC Circuit. There
Speaker 1: was a bit of controversy over his last nomination because
Speaker 1: the American Bar Association, which does ratings for judicial nominees,
Speaker 1: rating him not qualified, which is he was one of
Speaker 1: the handful of nominees that Trump has had who has
Speaker 1: been rated not qualified, and that was that largely characterized demo.
Speaker 1: Perhaps concerns in the last hearing, a lot of their
Speaker 1: comments were about his qualifications in his background. This time around, however,
Speaker 1: the night before his hearing, the A B A gave
Speaker 1: him a well qualified rating, which is their highest rating.
Speaker 1: So why did the A B A change it's rating
Speaker 1: on him? He's only been a judge for six months.
Speaker 1: The ADA says they changed their rating because they were
Speaker 1: looking through different lens for this for this position. Um. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I talked to a few people who follow this process
Speaker 1: and they said that the DC circuit had has different
Speaker 1: types of cases than a trial court would, and also
Speaker 1: circuit courts have different types of cases and trial court would.
Speaker 1: So that could be part of why they changed their
Speaker 1: their decision here is that you know, as a trial
Speaker 1: court judge there are different um types of skills and
Speaker 1: responsibilities that you need to um have and and attend
Speaker 1: to then you do as an appeals court judge. So
Speaker 1: those are the factors that could be contributing to why
Speaker 1: they ultimately changed the rating. Did anyone talk about the
Speaker 1: fact that he just became a district court judge not
Speaker 1: six months ago. Yeah, I mean, it wasn't lost on
Speaker 1: members of the committee. McConnell even made reference to that
Speaker 1: when he gave remarks on the Senate floor yesterday during
Speaker 1: the hearing um. It is somewhat of a quick elevation,
Speaker 1: but this has happened in you know, in the past
Speaker 1: and in other administrations where someone is appointed to a
Speaker 1: lower court and is elevated to UM an appeal court.
Speaker 1: Is Walker leap frogging over other candidates who were in line. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so that is something else that was brought up at
Speaker 1: the hearing yesterday. Walker was nominated amid the pandemic um.
Speaker 1: Trump had two nominees for the appeals court seats that
Speaker 1: he has left to still as a seat on the
Speaker 1: fifth Circuit and as this seat on on the DC Circuit.
Speaker 1: The fifth Circuit seat is actually vacant right now, and
Speaker 1: it has been for quite some time. It's considered a
Speaker 1: judicial emergency, which is a term given to seats that
Speaker 1: kind of put a lot more pressure on the remaining
Speaker 1: judges they have a higher workload. Uh, So that seat
Speaker 1: is still vacant. Um. The nominee for that seat, Corey Wilson,
Speaker 1: was nominated before Walker, so he's leap frogging another appeals
Speaker 1: court nominee, and then of course he is leapfrogging other
Speaker 1: district court picks who are in the pipeline. There's about
Speaker 1: um forties four nominees currently in the pipeline. Uh. Some
Speaker 1: of those have yet to have a hearing, So there
Speaker 1: are a number of those nominees that that could also
Speaker 1: have a hearing soon. So is there any explanation from
Speaker 1: the committee chair or from McConnell as to why they're
Speaker 1: not dealing with the vacant seat first? What is the
Speaker 1: urgency of this? There hasn't been very much, uh in
Speaker 1: terms of addressing why Walker's nomination was put first. But
Speaker 1: if we look at the numbers and the past history
Speaker 1: of the Judiciary Committee, UM and Trump and and Senator McConnell,
Speaker 1: is that we see that they do prioritize Appeals Court
Speaker 1: nominees over other nominees. Um. There's been some you know,
Speaker 1: data that shows that those nominies move quicker through the
Speaker 1: process than than other nominees. So, um, you know, it
Speaker 1: could that is the contributing factor that the d C
Speaker 1: Circuit is is known as the second highest court in
Speaker 1: the land. It's a very important court. And you know,
Speaker 1: I'm sure McConnell will like to get his his pick
Speaker 1: into that seat as quickly as possible. Now, Democrats are
Speaker 1: concerned about Walker's writings and remarks on Obamacare. Tell us
Speaker 1: about their concerns. So Walker has made a few comments
Speaker 1: over the past few years about the A c. A.
Speaker 1: The first one was in an article defending Kavanaugh's nomination
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. He was a former Kavanaugh clerk.
Speaker 1: When Kavanat was on the DC Circuit. He also clerked
Speaker 1: for this Anthony Kennedy. UH. And in that article he
Speaker 1: basically said that the Supreme Court decision in n f
Speaker 1: I B Versus Civilius, which is the decision that upheld
Speaker 1: the individual mandate of the A C. A. He said
Speaker 1: that that was indefensible and that was something that Democrats
Speaker 1: took issue with. UM kind of in the context of
Speaker 1: the pandemic. A few of them asked why they should
Speaker 1: advance a judge who was seemingly opposed to this law, UH,
Speaker 1: during the time of a pandemic. Another comment he made
Speaker 1: was that his investor in march um it was a
Speaker 1: bit of a joke. At the end of a description
Speaker 1: of his relationship with his former boss, Anthony Kennedy, he
Speaker 1: he made a remark that UH kind of poked fund
Speaker 1: at the A C A UH and that particular decision again,
Speaker 1: and Democrats also took took a shoet with that. But
Speaker 1: you know, he said that in the article that he wrote, UM,
Speaker 1: he was really trying to do a legal analysis. And
Speaker 1: then he also said that you know, it really was
Speaker 1: a joke, and he does, you know, respect Kennedy and
Speaker 1: the Court. And I believe that not only Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: but Justice Kavanaugh were at his investiture ceremonies. That's correct. Um,
Speaker 1: this was actually in March, so was at the beginning
Speaker 1: of this pandemic. Um, McConnell and and Kavanaugh were there.
Speaker 1: They were present when you know, he was formally added
Speaker 1: to the Western District of Kentucky, which, um, you know,
Speaker 1: brace some eyerows among Democrats. But both of those were
Speaker 1: mentors of his. Um. So it's it's not a typical
Speaker 1: to have mentors there, but um, it definitely raised some eyes,
Speaker 1: eyebrows in the opposition. What also raised some eyebrows was
Speaker 1: his recent ruling allowing Easter services to go forward in
Speaker 1: Kentucky despite the virus. And it was controversial not only
Speaker 1: because it seemed to solve an issue that really wasn't there,
Speaker 1: but also because of its overt religious tones. Did he
Speaker 1: talk about that, That's correct. That was another thing that
Speaker 1: was brought up a lot. It was interesting at the hearing.
Speaker 1: It was brought up by law makers on both sides
Speaker 1: of the aisle. Republicans pointed to that ruling as evidence
Speaker 1: of his understanding of the law and his you know
Speaker 1: how he would uphold the constitution. Um. But Democrats pointed
Speaker 1: to it as evidence of potential partisanship. UM. You know,
Speaker 1: said that it was it was far too off topic. UM.
Speaker 1: Another thing that came up about that particular ruling was that, um,
Speaker 1: it was made without contacting the the mayor who had
Speaker 1: put those restrictions in place himself. So UM. Some some
Speaker 1: Democrats who were questioning did bring that up as as
Speaker 1: a point um of of disagreements and Maddie, did anyone
Speaker 1: bring up. Recently, the chief Judge of the d C Circuit,
Speaker 1: Sri Sriniva Sin, asked the Chief Justice of the United States,
Speaker 1: John Roberts to get another circuit to investigate allegations or
Speaker 1: a request by Demand Justice to look into whether Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell influenced Judge Griffith to retire. So that's definitely in
Speaker 1: the background of all of this. That's that's kind of
Speaker 1: the contact for all of this. There have been um
Speaker 1: reports that Mitch McConnell is asking judges to retire in
Speaker 1: that this and UM. More liberal groups like Demand Justice
Speaker 1: are taking issue with saying that it's unethical for them
Speaker 1: to do so. Um, you know, that was something that
Speaker 1: definitely was uh part of the context for for yesterday's hearing.
Speaker 1: Has that moved anywhere that request to the chief Um,
Speaker 1: not that I know of yet. The last news that
Speaker 1: I heard was that it was just going through the
Speaker 1: process and that they had opted for that that review.
Speaker 1: So does it seem as if nothing is really going
Speaker 1: to stop Judge Walker's confirmation. Mitch McConnell has the votes
Speaker 1: as usual. You know, Walker went through last time despite
Speaker 1: his not qualified rating. Walker was confirmed and this time
Speaker 1: he has the well qualified rating. And the Senate is
Speaker 1: still led by Republicans, they still have a majority, So
Speaker 1: it does appear that his his nomination will will still
Speaker 1: be going through. But um, that doesn't mean it's not
Speaker 1: going through without a fight. As President Trump nominated other
Speaker 1: judges recently for positions. Yes yesterday there was another nomination
Speaker 1: from the White House for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Speaker 1: And that adds to you know, the over forty nominees
Speaker 1: that I mentioned that are in the pipeline. Um, that's
Speaker 1: for about seventy nine vacancies right now, current future vacancies
Speaker 1: so you know about half those vacancies have someone in
Speaker 1: the pipeline. They're just waiting for the Senate and the
Speaker 1: Judiciary committee. Doc. Okay, thanks Maddie. That's Madison Alder Bloomberg reporter.
Speaker 1: College students kicked off campus by the coronavirus have a
Speaker 1: new extracurricular activity, lawsuits. Undergraduates have sued more than fifty
Speaker 1: schools demanding refunds for partial tuition, room and board, and
Speaker 1: fees after the schools shut down. Joining me is Joe
Speaker 1: brannan professor at Vermont Law School who's tracking the litigation.
Speaker 1: What types of lawsuits are the students filing. It seems
Speaker 1: that they're filing contract based lawsuits, speaking damages for both
Speaker 1: contact damages and something called restitution or on just enrichment.
Speaker 1: If it's a contract to action, do students sign anything
Speaker 1: or do colleges have posting somewhere on a website that
Speaker 1: says what tuition covers. It's kind of very based on
Speaker 1: the institution um. Generally, schools, dur institutions will have something
Speaker 1: in offer letter that they send out the students saying
Speaker 1: that they're expecting accepting them into the program and oftentimes
Speaker 1: saying that they're bound by the terms of any academic
Speaker 1: or student regulation. To the extent that something on the website,
Speaker 1: it wand into some difficulty whether that that would actually
Speaker 1: be come part of the terms of the contract. Something
Speaker 1: like advertising generally isn't the basis of the offer or
Speaker 1: included in the offer. So um, that's reputtable that could
Speaker 1: become part of the offer. Who was very specific and
Speaker 1: and related to the terms of the agreement, But most
Speaker 1: of the time it would just be something in an
Speaker 1: offer letter, which generally doesn't lay out specifically what tuition
Speaker 1: dollars are allocated to. And what would one just enrichment
Speaker 1: claim depend on. I'm just enrichment requires three different things.
Speaker 1: It requires a law on the part of the plaintiffs,
Speaker 1: It requires a benefit on the part of the defendant,
Speaker 1: and it requires some connection or causation between the two
Speaker 1: of them. So that's a big difference between on justin
Speaker 1: Richmond claim and a contract claim. And a contract claim
Speaker 1: you're showing that you were hurt and you're entitled to
Speaker 1: money or compensation. In and on justin Richmond claim, you
Speaker 1: have to claim to show that not only were you damaged,
Speaker 1: but also the other party was at the same time benefited.
Speaker 1: And so that's um the recovery that we get the
Speaker 1: amount that they were on justly benefited. So these colleges
Speaker 1: still have to pay their professors, they have some amount
Speaker 1: that they have to spend in transitioning to online courses.
Speaker 1: So they are they necessarily going to come out ahead here.
Speaker 1: Not necessarily. Um, there are some areas where you might
Speaker 1: be more likely to get recovery than others. For instance,
Speaker 1: many schools are refunding um real plants or women boards
Speaker 1: because they're not now having to go out and buy
Speaker 1: the food to serve to the students, so they are
Speaker 1: saving a benett from from that. But schools are still
Speaker 1: teaching the courses, they're still playing their faculty to teach
Speaker 1: the courses that students are still getting credit for it,
Speaker 1: and there may be additional costs that have been incurred
Speaker 1: to support the online transition. So absolutely correct, there's not
Speaker 1: necessarily going to be a benefit to the law school
Speaker 1: or college or university, even if there was a detriment
Speaker 1: that was suffered by the planet. So how are colleges
Speaker 1: responding to these lawsuits? Are some of them say we're
Speaker 1: going to fight this to the bitter end or others
Speaker 1: saying well, we'll give you back this or that. I
Speaker 1: think it's early, and I think it's varied. Many schools
Speaker 1: have taken some steps to a funds. These that are
Speaker 1: directly related to specific costs, such as women board is
Speaker 1: a good example of that, or parking sees or some
Speaker 1: see that's directly related to a service that isn't being provided.
Speaker 1: It's still early and schools will have varied responses to this.
Speaker 1: I'm not aware as any of that have issued refunds
Speaker 1: of tuition to this point. Again, this is all happening
Speaker 1: UM insence blocks right now. If this went to trial,
Speaker 1: Let's say the students are still getting the credits towards
Speaker 1: their diploma, so they're getting that much. How would a
Speaker 1: court determine what the value of an online education is
Speaker 1: versus the value of an education on campus? Right, because
Speaker 1: that would be what the damages would be if it's
Speaker 1: an on just Enrichmond claim or even a contract claim UM.
Speaker 1: And so there's little precedent for this because what we're
Speaker 1: doing right now with the shift online education, wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been possible even UM a couple of years ago. Some
Speaker 1: case law is instructive in UM the case of Hurricane
Speaker 1: Katrina there worked on. Schools in New Orleans were not
Speaker 1: able to proceed with the campus, but other schools stepped
Speaker 1: in and let them finish out the semester at a
Speaker 1: different institution in a different area. And there was at
Speaker 1: least one class action related to that, and of course
Speaker 1: did dismissed the um greek of contract and on Justin
Speaker 1: Richmond claims because the students still did get the credit
Speaker 1: and graduate from the ITC and that they were enrolled
Speaker 1: in just for that's the dust, or they got it
Speaker 1: from a different area. So it is a difficult situation
Speaker 1: to evaluate exactly if there was a low benefit to
Speaker 1: the students would still be getting the same number of credits,
Speaker 1: So that would be students would have the burden is
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs to establish those damages and would have to
Speaker 1: bring in specific ways in which the online education and
Speaker 1: the in person education were preciably different, such that they're
Speaker 1: learning was not the same value as they had paid.
Speaker 1: So lawyers are advertising on sites like college refund dot
Speaker 1: com to sign up students because they wanted to be
Speaker 1: a class action. So explain how that would work our plaintiffs.
Speaker 1: Lawyers in a rush now to be the lead plaintiffinite
Speaker 1: class action. So with class actions, you you're looking at
Speaker 1: exactly for a lead plaintiffs. You need a names plate
Speaker 1: TIFFs as the stars who can bring the claim. And
Speaker 1: once you established that that plaint that has the premissation
Speaker 1: case that they have met the elements that a jury
Speaker 1: or fact finder could find in their favor, then you
Speaker 1: look to see, are there lots of other people who
Speaker 1: are similarly situated to be in UM a position where
Speaker 1: it's efficient to have this trial all held together and
Speaker 1: it makes sense to do so. So yes, I think
Speaker 1: that typically when an event happens that is related to
Speaker 1: a class action, you will find law firms looking for
Speaker 1: those UM those names plaintiffs who would be a strong
Speaker 1: representative for a tutitive class to be certified at a
Speaker 1: later point. So, does this sound like it's a good
Speaker 1: case for a class action and a judge would certify
Speaker 1: these students as a class? I guess it depends how
Speaker 1: broad the class is that UM the pliantists are speaking
Speaker 1: to name here. If you're staying within one institution that
Speaker 1: is eliminating some of the UM dissimilar mist of the
Speaker 1: claims that wouldn't it would be brought by the various
Speaker 1: plantifs um. For certain areas, I think class action could
Speaker 1: be a more natural vehicle to use, such as woman
Speaker 1: board sees. Everybody would be similarly situated with that because
Speaker 1: they would have the same contractual agreement, they would be
Speaker 1: paying the same sees, and they would not be um
Speaker 1: making any differences in that. For some other areas, like tuition,
Speaker 1: perhaps the detriment that has been suffered by each student
Speaker 1: is varied, so there's going to be some more kurdels.
Speaker 1: I think at the class if it gets the class
Speaker 1: certification stage to certify a class on those types of plants.
Speaker 1: So if this is not certified as a class, if
Speaker 1: these are not certified as class actions, will the plaintiffs
Speaker 1: lawyers go away? Because to represent students individually would cost
Speaker 1: so much what would the benefit be to them? That's
Speaker 1: exactly right. One of the big benefits to class actions
Speaker 1: is it allows plaintiffs to bring relatively small claims that
Speaker 1: aren't enough that it would be worthwhile for one plaintiff
Speaker 1: to bring. It's expensive to bring litigation, and so if
Speaker 1: there's only a couple of thousand dollars, you could easily
Speaker 1: spend more in litigation fees than you would recover, and
Speaker 1: in situation like this, we would have certain upper limits
Speaker 1: on the amount that any individual student went to cover.
Speaker 1: This isn't like a court action where someone was negligent
Speaker 1: and you're going for medical expenses or pain and suffering.
Speaker 1: To my noge, nobody was alleging that anyone was negligence
Speaker 1: or did any wrongdoing. Here, um, the Internet was caused
Speaker 1: by a global pandemic. Were argument is contract damages. So
Speaker 1: the maximum amount you could get would be the the amount
Speaker 1: you were benefited or the benefits you lost under that contract,
Speaker 1: because that would be about a quarter of the year,
Speaker 1: and even that it wouldn't be full tuition because you
Speaker 1: are getting a some value of it by getting credits
Speaker 1: and finishing pouse that term not having to take it again.
Speaker 1: So there may be difficulties for an individual plaintiff to
Speaker 1: bring a claim which could support an argument for for
Speaker 1: for pross action. Thanks for being on Bloomberg Lade Joe.
Speaker 1: That's Joe Brennan, a professor from law school, and that's
Speaker 1: it for the edition of Bloomberg Law. I'm June Grosso.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening and remember to tune in to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law show weeknights at ten pm Eastern from Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Radio