International Technological University Foundation v. WASC Senior College and…

Background

International Technological University Foundation (ITU) brought claims against WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), another university, and two former employees. The claims relevant to this motion alleged that WSCUC breached contracts with ITU by conditioning accreditation on ITU’s installation of Greg O’Brien, a friend of WSCUC’s executive vice president, in a leadership position. ITU also alleged that WSCUC placed it on “show cause” status in retaliation after ITU’s board removed O’Brien in 2019.

WSCUC placed ITU on “show cause” status in October 2019, meaning WSCUC determined that ITU had significant accreditation noncompliance and that its accreditation would be removed unless ITU took corrective action approved by WSCUC. WSCUC later withdrew ITU’s accreditation on June 15, 2022, effective June 17, subject to ITU’s appeal. ITU’s appeal was pending when it filed this motion. ITU’s enrollment had declined from 447 students in 2019 to 106 students in winter 2023.

Motion and legal standard

ITU sought a temporary restraining order, an emergency form of injunctive relief. It asked the court to prohibit WSCUC from withdrawing its accreditation, allow ITU to remove information about possible or actual adverse accreditation actions from its website and promotional materials, prohibit WSCUC from taking adverse accreditation action based on that removal, and require representations that ITU remained fully accredited and in good standing.

The court explained that a temporary restraining order is evaluated under the same standard as a preliminary injunction. A party generally must show a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, favorable balancing of hardships, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. A party showing only serious questions on the merits may still obtain relief if the balance of hardships strongly favors it and the other requirements are met.

Court’s analysis

The court held that it lacked authority to issue the requested relief because the motion did not have a sufficient connection to the claims in ITU’s complaint. The motion sought to stop accreditation withdrawal and require statements about accreditation, while the complaint sought damages for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of a conflict-of-interest policy. The court also questioned whether restoring accreditation could be obtained under the claims as pleaded.

The court separately found that ITU had not shown immediate and irreparable harm. ITU had waited more than three years after being placed on “show cause” status to seek relief concerning the threatened loss of accreditation. It had also waited nine months after WSCUC withdrew its accreditation. The court found that the situation had remained static since June 2022, that ITU identified no recent event by WSCUC, and that ITU’s declining enrollment had been apparent at least by 2021.

The court further noted that ITU asked the court to restore accreditation without evidence that ITU currently met accreditation standards. Because ITU had not shown a sufficient connection between the requested injunction and its complaint and had not shown irreparable harm, the court denied the requested emergency relief.

Disposition

The court denied ITU’s motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice to filing a noticed motion for a preliminary injunction. The court also granted ITU’s administrative request to exceed the page limit for the motion, while stating that it would not grant requests for additional pages for future motions, including a future preliminary-injunction motion.