The lawsuit accused the university of failing to fulfill its obligations to students
A US state judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Golden Gate University School of Law students and alumni to prevent the school's closure but allowed them to amend their complaint while the university facilitates student transfers to other law schools.
The judge also denied their request for an injunction to keep the school open for the upcoming fall semester, Reuters reported.
Judge Richard Ulmer ruled that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently substantiated their claims but allowed them the opportunity to file an amended complaint. The lawsuit accused Golden Gate University of failing to fulfill its obligations to students. Attorney Ryan Griffith, a Golden Gate Law alum representing the plaintiffs, expressed determination to continue efforts to keep the 123-year-old law school in San Francisco open.
“Let be honest, a delay is not helpful,” Griffith said. “But it’s not fatal either." He added that he plans to file an amended complaint and will again seek an injunction.
Golden Gate University responded to the ruling by emphasizing that many of its students have already enrolled at the University of San Francisco School of Law and Mitchell Hamline School of Law for the fall semester, under agreements with those institutions. “We are satisfied with yesterday's ruling and remain firmly focused on opportunities for our students to continue their legal education,” the university stated.
The closure announcement came in November when Golden Gate University officials declared that the JD law degree program would be discontinued in May. The decision was attributed to declining enrollment, a sluggish employment market for law graduates, and low bar exam pass rates.
In February, the plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, alleging that students were kept uninformed about the law school’s financial troubles and that the administration had not provided adequate transfer options. They also suggested that the law school could be saved if placed under the control of a court-appointed receiver, a proposition that Judge Ulmer ruled as premature.
