TJSL Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment Motion

PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
ONNAUGHTON [H
1 A. Alaburda Suffered No Injury Because She Successfully Obtained a Full-Time
2 Lawyer Position After Graduating from TJSL.
3 The entire premise of Alaburda's lawsuit hinges on her allegation that TJSL overstated the
4 percentages of its graduates who secure full-time lawyer positions. Thus, Alaburda argues that
5 she paid her $32,745 in tuition under the mistaken belief that she, too, could obtain such a
6 position. However, Alaburda was offered precisely that-a full-time lawyer position paying
7 $60,000 per year, plus benefits-which she turned down. This fact alone destroys any claim that
8 Alaburda was "injured" by TJSL's allegedly deceptive practices.
9 A similar scenario was considered in Hall v. Time Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 847.
10 There, the plaintiff sued a book seller, alleging that the seller unlawfully induced consumers to
11 purchase books by offering a "free preview period," but then sent invoices prior to the expiration
12 of that period which asked for full payment. (ld. at 850.) The plaintiff alleged that the book seller
13 fooled customers into thinking that, despite the so-called "free" trial period, they were
14 automatically under the obligation to pay for the book. (ld. at 851.) Thus, the plaintiff ultimately
15 purchased the book after the preview period expired. In finding no injury, the Court held that the
16 buyer obtained the benefit of the bargain because he ultimately received what he paid for-the
17 book. (ld. at 855 ["Hall did not allege he suffered an injury in fact - he expended the money by
18 paying Time $29.51 - but he received a book in exchange."].)
19 Peterson v. CelleD Partnership (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1583 is also on point. There, the
20 plaintiffs purchased cell phones and insurance from a company that was not licensed to sell
21 insurance. (ld. at 1586-87.) The plaintiffs sought restitution of the insurance commissions
22 charged by the company, which are available only to licensed insurers. (Id. at 1587.) The Court
23 rejected this claim, noting that the plaintiffs did not allege they could have bought the same
24 insurance for a lower price from a licensed agent. (ld. at 1591.) Thus, they were not injured
25 because "they received the benefit of their bargain, having obtained the bargained for insurance at
26 the bargained for price." (ld.)
27 Here, as in Hall and Peterson, Alaburda received the full benefit of the bargain. She
28 alleges she attended TJSL based on her belief that she could receive a full-time, lawyer position
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10