No. 18-16375 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS …no. 18-16375 in the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit martin calvillo manriquez, jamal cornelius, rthwan dobashi

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.


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


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


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.


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).


https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/department-education-and-attorney-general-kamala-harris-announce-findings-investigation-wyotech-and-everest-programs



https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-announces-final-regulations-protect-students-and-taxpayers-predatory-institutions



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.


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).


https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-announces-path-debt-relief-students-91-additional-corinthian-campuses



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-


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/state-attorneys-general-o_b_4677145.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/state-attorneys-general-o_b_4677145.html




http://www.ag.state.il.us/pressroom/2017_04/20170412.html

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-provides-guidance-former-corinthian-college-students-eligible-federal







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).


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


18

Dated: Oct. 10, 2018 PUBLIC LAW CENTER

s/ EmmaElizabeth Gonzalez

EmmaElizabeth Gonzalez Attorneys for Amici


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


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.


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


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


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


Documents

No. 18-16375 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS …no. 18-16375 in the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit martin calvillo manriquez, jamal cornelius, rthwan dobashi