Gorbaty v. Mitchell Hamlin School of Law

Background

In August 2018, Mitchell Hamline School of Law revoked Howard M. Gorbaty’s offer of admission after discovering that he had answered “no” to an application question requiring disclosure of any criminal charges. The application stated that inaccurate or incomplete information could lead to denial of admission or, after admission, suspension, dismissal, or revocation of a degree.

During orientation, school officials told Gorbaty that the school had found discrepancies in his application and gave him an opportunity to correct it and provide police reports. Gorbaty disclosed several incidents, including criminal convictions and charges that were later dropped, but he did not provide the requested police reports. The school revoked his admission offer and later returned his tuition.

Gorbaty previously sued the school in New Jersey state court, asserting several claims. After removal, the New Jersey federal court dismissed that case for lack of personal jurisdiction without reaching the merits. Gorbaty later submitted additional applications to Mitchell Hamline, but the school denied them after he again failed to fully disclose his criminal history.

Gorbaty then filed this lawsuit in Minnesota state court. After the case was removed to federal court, he filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint did not identify a specific cause of action, but its request for readmission and restoration to his prior position implied a breach-of-contract claim.

Motion to Dismiss

Mitchell Hamline moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) for insufficient process and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim, assuming the complaint’s plausible factual allegations are true.

The school argued that the summons was defective because it identified “Ramsey County” as the court, omitted a response deadline, and lacked the clerk’s signature and the court’s seal. The court agreed that the summons was deficient but declined to dismiss on that ground. It found that Gorbaty had substantially complied with the service rules in good faith and that the school was not prejudiced because it could understand what he was attempting to accomplish.

Breach-of-Contract Claim

The court considered only the amended complaint, explaining that Gorbaty could not maintain two operative complaints at the same time. Even giving the required lenience to a self-represented litigant, the court concluded that the amended complaint failed to plausibly allege a breach-of-contract claim.

Under the standard cited by the court, a breach-of-contract claim requires allegations showing that a contract was formed, the plaintiff performed required conditions, the defendant materially breached the contract, and the plaintiff suffered damages. The court found that Gorbaty failed to adequately allege any of these elements.

Gorbaty appeared to rely on the Mitchell Hamline Student Handbook and argued that the school failed to follow a disciplinary-hearing policy and targeted or discriminated against him. The court noted that Minnesota courts are generally reluctant to treat student handbooks as creating contractual obligations between students and schools. The court also relied on the application’s express warning that inaccurate or incomplete information could justify denial of admission. Gorbaty did not identify a sufficient contractual obligation or a condition he had performed that the school breached.

Disposition

The court concluded that allowing Gorbaty to file a second amended complaint would be futile because he had not identified facts creating a reasonable expectation that discovery would uncover evidence supporting the proposed claim. The court therefore ordered that Mitchell Hamline’s Motion to Dismiss was GRANTED and that the Amended Complaint was DISMISSED with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.