THE LENGTHY AND REDUNDANCY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS

So, back in August, CalWestern filed a demurrer to my lawsuit. Generally speaking, this is a motion used to discredit a lawsuit. Used before you even answer a suit. And it's a pretty good delay tactic since they schedule these demurrers like 35 days out. So this gives you over a month to respond to a complaint.

But not here in San Diego, apparently. Apparently, the court can't hear a motion for demurrer until FEBRUARY GODDAMNED 28th, 2025! Even though we have a Case Management Conference set for December 27th. Check out the timeline below. This demurrer should happen early on and yet its being set 2 months after the CMC!

This is not CalWestern's fault. But they certainly are taking advantage of it. Because, during this time they could have started their discovery process, like I have. But, no, they're going to argue that they don't think it's prudent to start discovery since they have such an absolute confidence in their demurrer - which is horseshit.

Here's a copy of their demurrer: Memo of Ps and As ISO Demurrer.pdf

So, here's the problem, I think, with their demurrer:

1. Overreliance on Handbook Compliance:

CWSL keeps emphasizing that it followed its grading policies as outlined in its Student Handbook. However, they completely overlook whether the policies inherently violate principles of fairness or contract law. Not only do they overlook it, they say it doesn't even matter! Because I'm alleging that the grading policy lacks proportionality and transparency, this presents a legal issue even if the policy was technically followed!

2. Dismissal of ABA Standard Violation Claims:

The demurrer argues that ABA standards cannot form the basis of a contract claim. Which I never claim that it does. But I'm thinking the ABA’s standards might influence the court’s view of whether the school’s grading policies were reasonable and fair.

3. Failure to Address the Claim of Procedural Arbitrary Actions:

I'm claiming that the grade conversion process is opaque and results in GPA calculations that deviate from linear proportionality. CWSL's demurrer dismisses this as irrelevant but does not substantively counter the argument that the lack of transparency could breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

4. Generalized Rejection of Subjective Fairness Arguments:

CWSL likes to use academic freedom as a defense, but the demurrer does not adequately respond to specific allegations that the grading policy unfairly impacts students or disproportionately disadvantages them. I don't think blanket reliance on precedent regarding non-intervention in academic policies will necessarily persuade the court when faced with detailed allegations of inequity.

5. Assertion that Defects are Incurable:

I think CWSL is rather premature in suggesting that any defects in my complaint are incurable. Courts are generally amenable to this option.

6. Insufficient Address of Implied Covenant Breach:

My argument that CWSL's grading method makes achieving a 2.0 GPA more difficult, which violates the implied covenant of good faith. CWSL dismisses this claim as redundant to the contract claim without fully exploring whether the policy itself undermines my right to benefit from the agreement.

Additionally - CWSL seems to forget that the Court is assuming that all my factual allegations are true (which they are). Yet, CWSL wants to improperly argue my factual claims rather than limiting the argument to the sufficiency of the pleadings.

OH! At any rate, I went to the Case Management Conference and the Court continued it to the demurrer hearing. So, I guess I'll update on 2/28/25.....

ugh.