International Technological and University Foundation v. WASC Senior College…

Background

International Technological University Foundation (ITU) alleged that WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC) unlawfully withdrew ITU’s accreditation in 2025. ITU asserted claims for common-law due process, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation per se, racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

WSCUC moved to dismiss all claims except the common-law due-process claim. It also asked the court to dismiss or strike ITU’s requests for damages and a jury trial connected to that claim.

Contract-related claims

The court held that an earlier ruling in a related proceeding had already determined that WSCUC’s accreditation handbook and related policies were not a contract between WSCUC and ITU. The court gave that determination issue-preclusive effect, meaning ITU could not relitigate the same issue. The court also stated that ITU identified no specific contractual terms apart from the handbook and alleged no facts showing that a separate contract existed.

The court therefore concluded that the prior determination disposed of ITU’s claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of § 1981, which depended on a contract.

Defamation and requested relief

The court ruled that ITU’s defamation-per-se claim failed because WSCUC’s statements announcing the accreditation withdrawal were privileged statements made as part of a formal proceeding authorized by law.

The court also ruled that injunctive relief is a remedy rather than an independent cause of action. It further concluded that ITU’s request for declaratory relief duplicated its other claims.

Common-law due process

WSCUC did not seek dismissal of ITU’s common-law due-process claim, so that claim may proceed. The court nevertheless agreed with WSCUC that ITU could not seek damages or a jury trial for the claim. The court characterized accreditation challenges as similar to administrative-law claims, for which the appropriate remedy is returning the matter to the accreditation agency to correct an arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise defective decision.

Because the due-process claim is quasi-administrative, the court stated that review will follow Civil Local Rule 16-5 and be based on an administrative record.

Disposition

The court granted WSCUC’s motion to dismiss. The common-law due-process claim remains pending, but ITU may not seek damages or a jury trial for that claim.