No. 18-16375
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN CALVILLO MANRIQUEZ, JAMAL CORNELIUS,
RTHWAN DOBASHI and JENNIFER CRAIG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
ELISABETH DEVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Education and THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, Defendants-Appellants.
On Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of California
No. 17-cv-07210 Hon. Sallie Kim
BRIEF OF PUBLIC LAW CENTER AND PUBLIC COUNSEL AS AMICI
CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE
EmmaElizabeth Gonzalez, SBN 266223 [email protected] Leigh Ferrin, SBN 259302 [email protected] PUBLIC LAW CENTER 601 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 541-1010 Facsimile: (714) 541-5157
Attorneys for Amici Curiae
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 1 of 23(1 of 24)
1
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Amici curiae hereby certify that they have no parent corporation and that no
publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of their stock.
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 2 of 23(2 of 24)
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT……………………………...……..1 STATEMENT OF INTERESTED PARTIES…………………………………...…4 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………….5 ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………….7
I. THE AVERAGE EARNINGS RULE, AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS AND REMAINS UNNECESSARY………...7
II. AVERAGE EARNINGS RULE WAS NOT TAILORED TO PROVIDE ACTUAL RELIEF FOR BORROWERS………………...9
A. Average Earning Rule Is Deeply Flawed and Does Not Lead to
Equitable Results……………………………………………….....9
B. Average Earnings Rule Fails to Recognize the Significant Harm to Borrowers as a result of Corinthian’s Misrepresentations……….12
C. The Unlawful Implementation of the Average Earnings Rule has
Created Inequitable and Arbitrary Results for Similarly Situated Borrowers………………………………………………….……..13
III. PARTIAL RELIEF COMPOUNDS THE IRREPARABLE HARM
TO BORROWERS WHO FELL VICTIM TO CORINTHIAN’S MISREPRESENTATIONS………………………………..………..15
IV. NO CLEAR PROCESS TO CONTEST AVERAGE EARNINGS RULE………………………………………………………………..17
CONCLUSION……………………………………...……………………………17 APPENDIX A…………………………………………………...………………...19 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE………………………...……………………21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE………………………………………..…………..22
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 3 of 23(3 of 24)
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Other Authorities California Attorney General, Information for Former Corinthian Colleges Students,
(Updated Aug. 8, 2017), https://oag.ca.gov/corinthian (last visited Oct. 10, 2018) ................................................................................................................................ 5
David Halperin, State Attorneys General Open Major Investigations of Big For-
Profit Colleges, Huffington Post, (Updated Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/state-attorneys-general-o_b_4677145.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2018) ...................................................... 8
Illinois Attorney General, Press Release: Madigan: Former Corinthian College
Students Eligible for Federal Student Loan Cancellation, (Apr. 12, 2017), http://www.ag.state.il.us/pressroom/2017_04/20170412.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2018) ................................................................................................................. 8
New York Attorney General, Press Release: A.G. Schneiderman Provides
Guidance to Former Corinthian College Students Eligible for Federal Student Loan Cancellation, (Apr. 21. 2017), https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-provides-guidance-former-corinthian-college-students-eligible-federal (last visited Oct. 10, 2018) ......................................................................... 8
United States Dep’t of Education, Press Release: U.S. Department of Education
Announces Final Regulations to Protect Students and Taxpayers from Predatory Institutions, (Oct. 28, 2016), https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-announces-final-regulations-protect-students-and-taxpayers-predatory-institutions (last visited Oct. 10, 2018) ................................. 5
United States Department of Education, Press Release: Department of Education
and Attorney General Kamala Harris Announce Findings from Investigation of Wyotech and Everest Programs, (Nov. 17, 2015), https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/department-education-and-attorney-general-kamala-harris-announce-findings-investigation-wyotech-and-everest-programs (last visited Oct. 10, 2018) .................................................................5, 8
United States Department of Education, Press Release: U.S. Department of
Education Announces Path for Debt Relief for Students at 91 Additional Corinthian Campuses, (Mar. 25, 2016), https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-announces-path-debt-relief-students-91-additional-corinthian-campuses (last visited Oct. 10, 2018) .............................7, 8
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 4 of 23(4 of 24)
4
STATEMENT OF INTERESTED PARTIES1
This brief is submitted by Public Law Center and Public Counsel, non-profit
legal and advocacy organizations as Amici Curiae; descriptions of each are
available at Appendix A. Public Law Center and Public Counsel are direct services
and policy advocacy organizations working on behalf of low-income students and
borrowers in California. Amici have firsthand experience with low-income
borrowers who attended Corinthian Schools, the harm caused by those schools, and
the challenges they have faced since they left those schools. Based on the
investigations by state and federal agencies, the misrepresentations and misconduct
that occurred at the Corinthian Schools were widespread and caused significant
financial harm, as well as emotional distress, to the students who attended.
Amici respectfully submit this brief to assist the Court in analyzing the
irreparable injuries that low-income borrowers will incur if the Corinthian Rule is
discarded and the Average Earnings Rule is allowed to be reinstated.
1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Fed. R. App. P. 29(a) (“Any
other amicus curiae may file a brief . . . if the brief states that all parties have consented to its filing.”). No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and neither the parties, nor their counsel, nor anyone except for amici, financially contributed to preparing this brief. Id.
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 5 of 23(5 of 24)
5
INTRODUCTION The Corinthian schools have a well-documented history of misconduct and
misrepresentations. Based on investigations by the Attorneys General of a number
of states2 and the Department of Education,
3 extensive findings were made that the
Corinthian Schools were defrauding students and convincing them to enroll in a
school that ultimately provided them with no benefit, but significant debt.
Following up on the extensive investigations, the Department of Education, in
2016, after undergoing the proper process for implementing regulations, created a
rule to carry out those regulations – to determine how to compensate students for
the harm caused by the Corinthian schools’ multiple violations of state law. This
rule, referred to as the Corinthian Job Placement Rate Rule (“Corinthian Rule”),
provided for a full discharge of student loans for those students who attended
certain Corinthian campuses, during certain time periods and in certain
certificate/degree programs.4 This rule was narrowly tailored to provide specific
relief to students harmed by Corinthian’s violations of California law and to ensure
2 California Attorney General, Information for Former Corinthian Colleges
Students, (Updated Aug. 8, 2017), https://oag.ca.gov/corinthian (last visited Oct. 10, 2018). 3 United States Department of Education, Press Release: Department of Education
and Attorney General Kamala Harris Announce Findings from Investigation of Wyotech and Everest Programs, (Nov. 17, 2015), https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/department-education-and-attorney-general-kamala-harris-announce-findings-investigation-wyotech-and-everest-programs (last visited Oct. 10, 2018). 4 United States Dep’t of Education, Press Release: U.S. Department of Education
Announces Final Regulations to Protect Students and Taxpayers from Predatory Institutions, (Oct. 28, 2016), https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-announces-final-regulations-protect-students-and-taxpayers-predatory-institutions (last visited Oct. 10, 2018).
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 6 of 23(6 of 24)
6
that harmed students were made whole.
Amici have had extensive experience working with students, some of whom
qualified for the Corinthian Rule and some of whom did not. In 2015, amici began
submitting Borrower Defense applications to the Department of Education on
behalf of low-income borrowers. For students who were within the cohort defined
by the Corinthian Rule, applications under the streamlined process were submitted.
Initially, applications were being reviewed, and relief was being granted.
Borrowers (and their families) were finally able to see that the Department
recognized the harm caused by the Corinthian schools’ misrepresentations and
violations of California law, and that the Department was attempting to make them
whole. Then, in December 2017, The Department of Education announced a new
rule, the Average Earnings Rule, to replace the Corinthian Rule. This new rule
compared the average 2014 earnings of a selection of students who attended
Corinthian schools and then applied for loan cancellation, with the average 2014
earnings of student who attended comparable programs at schools considered to
have “passed” Gainful Employment.
In amici’s work with low-income students, very few, if any, clients who are
employed have found employment in the field in which they studied at the
Corinthian Schools. Most of the students are young, low-income women in their
20s or 30s and often the first in their family to pursue education after high school.
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 7 of 23(7 of 24)
7
These borrowers are generally unsophisticated, but they are goal oriented. They
will work hard to get where they need to go, no matter how little help they get
along the way. Abandoning the Corinthian Rule, as the Department has, and
adopting the utterly inadequate Average Earnings Rule eviscerates the purpose of
granting relief in the first place and irreparably harms these ambitious students
who want nothing more than to put themselves in a position to earn an adequate
living. The Average Earnings Rule in no way relates to the harm caused by the
Corinthian schools and does not make the students who attended those schools
whole.
ARGUMENT
I. THE AVERAGE EARNINGS RULE, AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS AND REMAINS UNNECESSARY
The Average Earnings Rule was never necessary to adjudicate and resolve
Corinthian students’ borrower defense claims, and it is certainly unnecessary now.
Before the invention of the Average Earnings Rule in December 2017, the
Corinthian Rule was already in place and had been utilized to provide relief to
students who were clearly harmed by the Corinthian schools’ multiple violations of
California law, as determined by the Department of Education.5 A significant
number of streamlined/attestation applications were granted in full by the
5 United States Department of Education, Press Release: U.S. Department of
Education Announces Path for Debt Relief for Students at 91 Additional Corinthian Campuses, (Mar. 25, 2016), https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-announces-path-debt-relief-students-91-additional-corinthian-campuses (last visited Oct. 10, 2018).
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 8 of 23(8 of 24)
8
Department of Education, primarily prior to January 20, 2017, before the
Administration changed hands.
State Attorneys General and the Department of Education spent significant
time investigating the Corinthian Schools, including Everest, Heald and
WyoTech.6 The outcomes of those investigations showed that the schools
misrepresented their job placement rates upon graduation in many of their
programs of study.7 This practice was found to be ongoing for a period of more
than four years, and was a clear violation of California law.8 The Department of
Education thus determined that borrowers who attended specific programs at
specific campuses during a specific time frame were entitled to relief.9
6 David Halperin, State Attorneys General Open Major Investigations of Big For-
Profit Colleges, Huffington Post, (Updated Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/state-attorneys-general-o_b_4677145.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2018). 7 United States Department of Education, Press Release: Department of Education
and Attorney General Kamala Harris Announce Findings from Investigation of Wyotech and Everest Programs, (Nov. 17, 2015), https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/department-education-and-attorney-general-kamala-harris-announce-findings-investigation-wyotech-and-everest-programs (last visited Oct. 10, 2018); See also Illinois Attorney General, Press Release: Madigan: Former Corinthian College Students Eligible for Federal Student Loan Cancellation, (Apr. 12, 2017), http://www.ag.state.il.us/pressroom/2017_04/20170412.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2018) and New York Attorney General, Press Release: A.G. Schneiderman Provides Guidance to Former Corinthian College Students Eligible for Federal Student Loan Cancellation, (Apr. 21. 2017), https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-provides-guidance-former-corinthian-college-students-eligible-federal (last visited Oct. 10, 2018). 8 United States Department of Education, Press Release: Department of Education
and Attorney General Kamala Harris Announce Findings from Investigation of Wyotech and Everest Programs, (Nov. 17, 2015), https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/department-education-and-attorney-general-kamala-harris-announce-findings-investigation-wyotech-and-everest-programs (last visited Oct. 10, 2018). 9 United States Department of Education, Press Release: U.S. Department of
Education Announces Path for Debt Relief for Students at 91 Additional Corinthian Campuses, (Mar. 25, 2016), https://www.ed.gov/news/press-
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 9 of 23(9 of 24)
9
The findings made to support this streamlined “attestation” process were
clear: the students who attended the identified Everest, Heald and Wyotech
programs during the designated time periods could not have received the benefit
from their education that they were promised. These violations of California law
led the Department of Education to conclude that the students who met the clear
criteria were eligible for relief under the Borrower Defense regulations. Further,
the Department correctly concluded that the appropriate relief pursuant to the
Borrower Defense regulations and applicable California law was return of any
money paid and discharge of any loan balances still outstanding.
II. AVERAGE EARNINGS RULE WAS NOT TAILORED TO
PROVIDE ACTUAL RELIEF FOR BORROWERS A. Average Earning Rule Is Deeply Flawed and Does Not Lead to
Equitable Results
Beyond the violation of the Privacy Act, the methodology of the Average
Earnings Rule is deeply flawed. The Department of Education created 79
“Program/Credential Groups” based on what apparently was their own
determination of similar/related programs and the result of that program, whether it
be a Diploma, an Associate’s Degree or some other outcome. After determining
these “Groups,” the Department of Education took it upon themselves to compare
those Groups to the earnings of students in programs at schools that were
considered to pass Gainful Employment regulations. There are so many issues with
releases/us-department-education-announces-path-debt-relief-students-91-additional-corinthian-campuses (last visited Oct. 10, 2018).
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 10 of 23(10 of 24)
10
the ways in which the Average Earnings Rule was put together that it is difficult to
know where to begin.
First, the Average Earnings Rule cannot assess “value” delivered to
Corinthian students in terms of earnings improvements because it only measures
earnings at a single point in time rather than before and after attendance, and
earnings for many Corinthian programs are no higher than earnings by workers
with no degree. . Indeed, many of amici’s clients ended up working in the same or
similar positions that they worked in prior to attending one of the Corinthian
schools. Many students who attended one of the Corinthian schools earned the
same amount (or less) after leaving a Corinthian school as they did prior to
attending the school. If the goal of the Department of Education is to assess the
“value” of the education, the methodology employed by the Average Earnings
Rule is not tailored to accomplish that goal.
Second, the amount of money borrowers were earning in 2014 cannot
automatically be assumed to be the result of the value of the education obtained at
a Corinthian School. Many different circumstances impact a borrower’s ability to
recover from falling victim to a scam like the clients seen by amici. Some former
Corinthian borrowers might have had decent earnings in 2014 not because of
Corinthian, but in spite of, having attended a Corinthian school. For instance,
Public Law Center has worked with a student who graduated from Everest, but has
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 11 of 23(11 of 24)
11
not listed it on her resume as education since a year or two after graduation
because it had such a negative impact on her job search. However, she is a driven,
resourceful person, and she has made connections and has been able to find and
maintain employment that pays her approximately the same amount as she was
earning prior to enrolling in the Corinthian Schools. Under the Department’s
proposed Average Earnings Rule, this borrower would likely receive a 30% partial
discharge of her student loans, leaving her responsible for the remaining $10,000
or so. However, she has had to take additional classes and continuing education
courses, at her own expense, in order to remain employed; as stated above, she
does not list the Everest program on her resume; and she is afraid to leave her
current position because she is afraid she will not be able to get rehired as a result
of her lack of education. A 30% discharge of her student loans does not provide an
equitable result, as this borrower’s ability to earn a living cannot in any way be
credited to the Everest program she attended.
As with the example above, some borrowers find themselves in situations
where they are able to earn a stable living. Other borrowers were (and are still)
unemployed or underemployed. However, the reality is that no matter the
subsequent circumstances of each borrower, the Corinthian schools violated
California law by misrepresenting job placement rates to each borrower and
therefore the students did not get what they thought they were paying for. In those
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 12 of 23(12 of 24)
12
circumstances, restitution is the appropriate remedy. The differing relief being
granted for these streamlined/attestation students completely ignores the
misrepresentations and substantial harm perpetrated by the Corinthian Schools’
violations of California law.
Third, the Average Earnings Rule doesn’t take into account geography and
major variances in minimum wages and living wages from places like Santa Ana,
California to places like the rural Midwest. Thus, the Department’s comparisons of
“earnings” are meaningless.
Fourth, the Average Earnings Rule only compares earnings, not cost of
education, and thus cannot speak to “value.” Corinthian was extraordinarily
expensive, moreso than many other similar programs, meaning that even if two
borrowers earned the same on an annual basis, if the Corinthian borrower spent
$30,000 to earn $30,000 they did not get nearly as much “value” as a borrower
who spent $5,000 to earn $30,000. The Average Earnings Rule creates arbitrary
and unfair outcomes for borrowers and is not tailored to implement the regulations.
B. Average Earnings Rule Fails to Recognize the Significant Harm to Borrowers of Corinthian’s Misrepresentations
Amici have seen many students who attended the specific programs, at the
specific campuses, during the specific time periods. The impact on these students
and the harm caused by these programs is across the board pretty similar: the
students did not benefit from the program they attended, and yet they are being
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 13 of 23(13 of 24)
13
held financially responsible for the substantial cost of attending that program. As in
the example above, in some cases, the student has chosen to seek out additional
education, at an additional cost or has made a connection that has allowed them
into a particular field of employment. In those circumstances, the student may be
able to earn a sufficient income to pay their monthly bills, but should not be
punished for doing so by receiving only a partial discharge of their student loans
incurred while attending the Corinthian schools.
The mere fact that some students have managed to now earn something
comparable to what they were earning prior to enrolling at a program at a
Corinthian School does not mean that they were not substantially harmed by the
misrepresentations. Rather, it is a testament to many of these students’ characters,
and often a reflection of individual student’s particular circumstances, that they
have been able to pull themselves up out of a tough situation.
C. The Unlawful Implementation of the Average Earnings Rule has Created Inequitable and Arbitrary Results for Similarly Situated Borrowers
As a result of the Department of Education’s implementation of the Average
Earnings Rule, amici have seen dramatically and arbitrarily different outcomes for
similarly situated borrowers.
For instance, the Public Law Center worked with two sisters who attended
the same Everest program at the same campus during the period of time designated
by the Department of Education for streamlined or attestation forgiveness. One
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 14 of 23(14 of 24)
14
sister’s application was processed by the Department of Education in late
December 2016 or early January 2017, and she received notification that the
entirety of the loans taken out to attend the Everest program were forgiven, based
on the Corinthian Rule. However, due to apparent processing delays, the second
sister’s application did not get processed until after January 20, 2017. As a result of
this delay, the second sister’s application was processed under the Average
Earnings Rule, and she received notice that she was only entitled to a partial (30%)
discharge of the student loans incurred to attend the same Everest program and
campus, during the same time frame, as her sister.
These two sisters attended the same Everest program, very close in time to
each other, and each was harmed by the same unlawful conduct that resulted in
their taking out federal student loans for an education that was not of the quality
promised and that neither sister has been able to use. However, one sister received
the full relief to which she was entitled, discharge of her student loan liability
under the Corinthian Rule, while the other sister received only a partial discharge
that has left her still subject to collections under the weight of an unaffordable debt
taken out on the basis of a misrepresentation that violated California law.
These unequal results demonstrate the arbitrariness and unfairness of the
abrupt and unlawful switch from the Corinthian Rule to the Average Earnings
Rule, as well as the substantial and continuing harm to borrowers whose claims are
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 15 of 23(15 of 24)
15
processed under the Average Earnings Rule.
III. PARTIAL RELIEF COMPOUNDS THE IRREPARABLE HARM
TO BORROWERS WHO FELL VICTIM TO CORINTHIAN’S
MISREPRESENTATIONS
The students eligible for relief under the Corinthian Rule have been harmed
by a series of misrepresentations and broken promises. They were lied to by the
Corinthian schools, including false assurances about their job prospects to get them
to enroll in the program. And now these students are finding that the Department of
Education’s promises to them about making them whole and providing full relief
are similarly hollow. The partial discharges that were being granted by the
Department under the Average Earnings Rule do not begin to make these
borrowers whole, and further compound problems faced by borrowers. A partial
discharge still subjects borrowers to administrative, involuntary collections and
still requires borrowers to pay for an education that caused more harm than benefit.
This is an unjust result that compounds the harm already suffered by these
borrowers.
When borrowers who attended the Corinthian schools seek amici’s
assistance, they are worried, unaware of their rights and options, and usually
fighting to keep their heads above water. Some have lost hope and have just
accepted that they will be stuck with unaffordable debt incurred to pay a school
that failed to provide the education and career and earnings opportunities
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 16 of 23(16 of 24)
16
promised.
Besides the clear legal problems with the Department adopting the Average
Earnings Rule, there are actual real-life ramifications to the borrowers who were
led to believe that relief from what many of them consider a nightmare was
available. The Department is now taking away that promise of relief based on what
appears to be at best a superficial understanding of the problems associated with
predatory for-profit schools. The harms set out above are mere examples; there are
hundreds more stories that could be told to emphasize the distress, both financial
and emotional, that these borrowers are dealing with as a result of the
Department’s unlawful actions.
Because of the tactics used by the Corinthian schools in overcharging
tuition, many borrowers have significant federal student loan debt. If a borrower is
granted a partial discharge, say 40% of the total debt, she may still owe well over
$20,000 to the Department. Based on the income of most of these borrowers, a
reduction in the principal balance is not affordable. The partial discharge will not
remove a borrower from default and will not take them out of collections. In fact,
because many of these borrowers are eligible for forbearance during the period of
time that their loans are being reviewed for eligibility for borrower defense,
granting a partial discharge further compounds the harm as the borrower will likely
be placed back in collections and be subject to administrative wage garnishment
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 17 of 23(17 of 24)
17
and/or tax refund seizure.
IV. NO CLEAR PROCESS TO CONTEST AVERAGE EARNINGS RULE
The final issue with the Average Earnings Rule as implemented is that there
is currently no formal appeal process for borrowers who have sought relief under
the Borrower Defense regulations. As amici have begun receiving determinations
from the Department of Education granting partial relief under the disputed
Average Earnings Rule, it has been extremely difficult to advise these borrowers.
While there may be an appeal process available to streamlined or attestation
borrowers, no clear process has been outlined for challenging a determination
made under the Average Earnings Rule. Because it is unclear exactly how these
determinations are being made, and what data is being used, it is extremely
important that borrowers be provided with guidance and a right to file an appeal of
the determination.
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons outlined above, amici urge this Court to affirm the
decision of the District Court that prohibited the use of the Average Earnings Rule
because of the irreparable harm faced by the low-income student loan borrowers.
Without this protection, thousands of students will be harmed by the Department’s
arbitrary and capricious implementation of the Average Earnings Rule.
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 18 of 23(18 of 24)
18
Dated: Oct. 10, 2018 PUBLIC LAW CENTER
s/ EmmaElizabeth Gonzalez
EmmaElizabeth Gonzalez Attorneys for Amici
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 19 of 23(19 of 24)
19
APPENDIX A
The Public Law Center (“PLC”) is a non-profit legal services organization in
Santa Ana, California that provides free civil legal services to low-income
residents of Orange County, California. The substantive work performed by PLC
staff and volunteers is varied, including family law, immigration, health, housing,
veterans, microbusiness and consumer. In the PLC’s Consumer Law Unit,
attorneys and staff regularly assist low-income clients who have attended predatory
for-profit schools and who now need assistance dealing with the resulting student
loans. PLC has defended student loan collection lawsuits, has submitted
administrative applications for discharge and has litigated affirmative cases
involving student loans in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Attorneys at PLC
have spoken to many low-income borrowers who are in a position of financial
limbo, because they cannot move forward to further their education and thus their
career, and at the same time, the education they do have from the Corinthian
Schools, has proven to be useless.
Public Counsel (“PC”) is non-profit legal services organization and the
nation’s largest pro bono law firm. It is the public interest law firm of the Los
Angeles County and Beverly Hills Bar Associations and the Southern California
affiliate of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Its staff of 71
attorneys and 50 support staff, along with over 5,000 volunteer lawyers, law
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 20 of 23(20 of 24)
20
students and legal professionals, provide free legal services to over 30,000
children, youth, families, and community organizations every year. PC's activities
are far-ranging and impact a wide spectrum of people who live at or below the
poverty level. PC’s Consumer Right’s Project regularly assists low-income student
loan borrowers who have been preyed upon by for-profit schools and are left with
staggering student loans they cannot afford to repay. PC has defended student loan
debt collection cases, has assisted victims of predatory for-profit colleges apply for
administrative discharges, has litigated student loan discharge cases in bankruptcy,
and has provided counsel and advice to numerous student loan borrowers.
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 21 of 23(21 of 24)
21
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C), I certify that: This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
29(a)(5) because this brief contains no more than one-half the words authorized by
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) for the Plaintiff-Appellee’s principal brief. This brief
contains 3,998 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this
brief has been prepared in proportionately spaced typeface using Microsoft Word
in Times New Roman 14-point font.
Date: Oct. 10, 2018 PUBLIC LAW CENTER s/ Elizabeth Gonzalez Elizabeth Gonzalez Attorneys for Amici
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 22 of 23(22 of 24)
22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 10, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system.
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by
the appellate CM/ECF system.
Date: Oct. 10, 2018 PUBLIC LAW CENTER s/ EmmaElizabeth Gonzalez EmmaElizabeth Gonzalez Attorneys for Amici
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 23 of 23(23 of 24)
Form 8. Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 9th Circuit Rules 28.1-1(f), 29-2(c)(2) and (3), 32-1, 32-2 or 32-4 for Case Number
Note: This form must be signed by the attorney or unrepresented litigant and attached to the end of the brief.I certify that (check appropriate option):
This brief complies with the length limits permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 28.1-1. The brief is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), if applicable. The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief complies with the length limits permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1. The brief is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), if applicable. The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief complies with the length limits permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 32-2(b). The brief is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), if applicable, and is filed by (1) separately represented parties; (2) a party or parties filing a single brief in response to multiple briefs; or (3) a party or parties filing a single brief in response to a longer joint brief filed under Rule 32-2(b). The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief complies with the longer length limit authorized by court order dated The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6). The brief is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), if applicable.
This brief is accompanied by a motion for leave to file a longer brief pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 32-2(a) and is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), if applicable. The brief’s type size and type face comply with Fed. R .App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief is accompanied by a motion for leave to file a longer brief pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 29-2(c)(2) or (3) and is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), if applicable. The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief complies with the length limits set forth at Ninth Circuit Rule 32-4. The brief is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), if applicable. The brief’s type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
Signature of Attorney or Unrepresented Litigant
("s/" plus typed name is acceptable for electronically-filed documents)
Date
(Rev.12/1/16)
18-16375
3,998
s/ EmmaElizabeth Gonzalez 10/10/2018
Case: 18-16375, 10/10/2018, ID: 11042318, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 1 of 1(24 of 24)