Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Daghlian v. Devry University

July 31, 2009

SARO DAGHLIAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC.; DEVRY INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-00994-MMM.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wardlaw, Circuit Judge

FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted July 9, 2009 -- Pasadena, California.

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Saro Daghlian appeals the district court's denial of his motion for class certification and grant of summary judgment in favor of DeVry University and its parent company, DeVry Inc. We lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and thus dismiss.

The California Private Post-secondary and Vocational Education Reform Act ("Act"), on which all of Daghlian's claims are based, was repealed without a savings clause effective January 1, 2008. See Cal. Educ. Code § 94999 (West 2007). No subsequent legislation has been enacted to revive the Act.*fn1

As Daghlian concedes, the repeal of the Act abates his Education Code claims. See Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified Sch. Dist. v. Mann, 558 P.2d 1, 2 (Cal. 1977) (in bank); see also Cal. Gov. Code § 9606 (West 2009). The appeal is therefore moot unless an exception to the abatement rule applies. See Zipperer v. County of Santa Clara, 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 487, 493-94 (Ct. App. 2005); Younger v. Superior Court, 577 P.2d 1014, 1018-19 (Cal. 1978) (in bank). We conclude that no exception applies. Daghlian did not state a claim for breach of contract, and his other claims were "wholly statutory," Zipperer, 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 494, as they were derivative of a violation of the Act. Because we cannot grant any effective relief, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes v. Shalala, 166 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir. 1999).

...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.