Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Nov 16 3:55 PM-17CV009767
OD903 - F84
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
HONDROS COLLEGE, INC., CASE NO. 17 CV 009767
Plaintiff, JUDGE CHRIS BROWN
vs.
DAVIS COLLEGE, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
As discussed with the Court during the telephonic status conference held in this matter on
the afternoon of November 15, 2017, Defendants, Davis College, Inc. (“Davis”) and The CE
Shop, Inc. (“CE Shop” and, collectively with Davis, “Defendants”) hereby supplement their
Motion to Stay Action Pending Resolution of Administrative Proceeding, which was filed herein
on November 13, 2017 (“Motion”)
On the morning of November 15, 2017, the Ohio State Board of Career Colleges and
Schools (“Board”) considered Davis’ application (“Application”) for the real estate pre-licensure
courses at issue in this case (the “Courses”), and took action that further supports Defendants’
Motion. Specifically, the Board (1) tabled Davis’ Application; (2) directed its staff (“Staff”) to
investigate and obtain additional information from Davis regarding the role CE Shop will have in
Davis’ offering of the Courses to students; (3) addressed other matters pertaining to statutory
violations, if any, related to the offering of the Courses.
With respect to potential statutory violations, the Board may either issue a formal
complaint, or it may endeavor to resolve the issue through the informal methods of conference,
conciliation, and persuasion. R.C. 3332.091(A)(1). If conference, conciliation, and persuasionFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Nov 16 3:55 PM-17CV009767
OD903 - F8&5
are not effective to resolve the issue, then the Board is required to file a formal complaint. R.C.
3332.091(A)(2).
Once a formal complaint is filed, the Board is statutorily vested with full authority to
investigate whether a violation of R.C. 3332.06(A)(1) did in fact occur. In this regard, R.C.
3332.091(D) gives the Board the following investigatory powers:
Administering oaths;
Taking sworn testimony;
Issuing subpoenas;
Compelling attendance of witnesses; and
Requiring production for examination of any books and papers.
eoceee
After the investigation, a public hearing must be held, which will result in the Board
adjudicating the formal complaint. R.C. 3332.091(A)(2). If the Board ultimately determines that
a violation of R.C. 3332.06(A)(1) occurred, it has the power to impose penalties for any such
violation. Under R.C. 3332.091(A)(2)(c)&(B), the Board’s enforcement powers include the
following:
. Attempt preliminary informal resolution through conference, conciliation,
and persuasion;
. Impose a civil penalty of $1,000-$3,500 per violation, not to exceed
$35,000 in any 6 month period;
. limit, suspend, or revoke any certificate of registration or program
authorization;
Order curtailment of advertising;
Order discontinuation of enrollment of students in program; and
Order immediate cessation of all sales, advertising, and enrollment
activities.
Thus, R.C. 3332.091 provides a comprehensive procedure pursuant to which the Board is
statutorily vested with the authority to investigate any potential violations of R.C. 3332.06(A)(1)
(which statute Hondros alleges Defendants violated), to adjudicate whether a violation occurred,
and to impose statutorily prescribed penalties if a violation is found to have occurred.Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Nov 16 3:55 PM-17CV009767
OD903 - F86é
By initiating this procedure, the Board has now assumed jurisdiction over the issue of
whether Defendants violated R.C. 3332.06(A)(1). Thus, the argument in favor of staying this
action pending the final resolution of the Board’s administrative proceeding pursuant to the
doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction is even more compelling now than it was when
Defendants filed their Motion. Whereas before the Board was only exercising jurisdiction over
Davis’ Application on a going forward basis, it has now also assumed jurisdiction over the issue
of whether Defendants’ past conduct in offering the Courses without Board approval violated
R.C. 3332.06(A)(1), which is the very question Hondros has put at issue in this action.
Consequently, Defendants respectfully request that the Court stay this action pending the
final resolution, including all appeals, of the Board’s ongoing administrative procedure whereby
the Board is considering Davis’ Application and is now also considering whether Defendants
previously violated R.C. 3332.06(A)(1).
Respectfully submitted,
4s/ Stephen D. Jones
Stephen D. Jones (0018066)
Jeremy S. Young (0082179)
Roetzel & Andress, LPA
41 South High St., 21‘ Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: 614.463.9770
Facsimile: 614.463.9792
E-mail: sjones@ralaw.com
jyoung@ralaw.com
andFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Nov 16 3:55 PM-17CV009767
OD903 - F87
Ronald S. Kopp (0004950)
Roetzel & Andress, LPA
222 South Main Street
Akron, Ohio 44308
Telephone: 330.376.2700
Facsimile: 330.376.4577
E-mail: rkopp@ralaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants, Davis College,
Inc. and The CE Shop, Inc.
PROOF OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing was served on November 16, 2017 pursuant to Civ. R. 5(B)(2),
by email to:
Thomas W. Hill
Timothy A. Kelley
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A.
65 E. State Street, Suite 1800
Columbus, Ohio 43215
il @keelerbrown.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Hondros College, Inc., d/b/a
Hondros College of Business
4s/ Stephen D. Jones
Stephen D. Jones
12037611 1
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Nov 16 3:55 PM-17CV009767 OD903 - F84 IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO HONDROS COLLEGE, INC., CASE NO. 17 CV 009767 Plaintiff, JUDGE CHRIS BROWN vs. DAVIS COLLEGE, INC., ET AL., Defendants. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING As discussed with the Court during the telephonic status conference held in this matter on the afternoon of November 15, 2017, Defendants, Davis College, Inc. (“Davis”) and The CE Shop, Inc. (“CE Shop” and, collectively with Davis, “Defendants”) hereby supplement their Motion to Stay Action Pending Resolution of Administrative Proceeding, which was filed herein on November 13, 2017 (“Motion”) On the morning of November 15, 2017, the Ohio State Board of Career Colleges and Schools (“Board”) considered Davis’ application (“Application”) for the real estate pre-licensure courses at issue in this case (the “Courses”), and took action that further supports Defendants’ Motion. Specifically, the Board (1) tabled Davis’ Application; (2) directed its staff (“Staff”) to investigate and obtain additional information from Davis regarding the role CE Shop will have in Davis’ offering of the Courses to students; (3) addressed other matters pertaining to statutory violations, if any, related to the offering of the Courses. With respect to potential statutory violations, the Board may either issue a formal complaint, or it may endeavor to resolve the issue through the informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. R.C. 3332.091(A)(1). If conference, conciliation, and persuasionFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Nov 16 3:55 PM-17CV009767 OD903 - F8&5 are not effective to resolve the issue, then the Board is required to file a formal complaint. R.C. 3332.091(A)(2). Once a formal complaint is filed, the Board is statutorily vested with full authority to investigate whether a violation of R.C. 3332.06(A)(1) did in fact occur. In this regard, R.C. 3332.091(D) gives the Board the following investigatory powers: Administering oaths; Taking sworn testimony; Issuing subpoenas; Compelling attendance of witnesses; and Requiring production for examination of any books and papers. eoceee After the investigation, a public hearing must be held, which will result in the Board adjudicating the formal complaint. R.C. 3332.091(A)(2). If the Board ultimately determines that a violation of R.C. 3332.06(A)(1) occurred, it has the power to impose penalties for any such violation. Under R.C. 3332.091(A)(2)(c)&(B), the Board’s enforcement powers include the following: . Attempt preliminary informal resolution through conference, conciliation, and persuasion; . Impose a civil penalty of $1,000-$3,500 per violation, not to exceed $35,000 in any 6 month period; . limit, suspend, or revoke any certificate of registration or program authorization; Order curtailment of advertising; Order discontinuation of enrollment of students in program; and Order immediate cessation of all sales, advertising, and enrollment activities. Thus, R.C. 3332.091 provides a comprehensive procedure pursuant to which the Board is statutorily vested with the authority to investigate any potential violations of R.C. 3332.06(A)(1) (which statute Hondros alleges Defendants violated), to adjudicate whether a violation occurred, and to impose statutorily prescribed penalties if a violation is found to have occurred.Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Nov 16 3:55 PM-17CV009767 OD903 - F86é By initiating this procedure, the Board has now assumed jurisdiction over the issue of whether Defendants violated R.C. 3332.06(A)(1). Thus, the argument in favor of staying this action pending the final resolution of the Board’s administrative proceeding pursuant to the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction is even more compelling now than it was when Defendants filed their Motion. Whereas before the Board was only exercising jurisdiction over Davis’ Application on a going forward basis, it has now also assumed jurisdiction over the issue of whether Defendants’ past conduct in offering the Courses without Board approval violated R.C. 3332.06(A)(1), which is the very question Hondros has put at issue in this action. Consequently, Defendants respectfully request that the Court stay this action pending the final resolution, including all appeals, of the Board’s ongoing administrative procedure whereby the Board is considering Davis’ Application and is now also considering whether Defendants previously violated R.C. 3332.06(A)(1). Respectfully submitted, 4s/ Stephen D. Jones Stephen D. Jones (0018066) Jeremy S. Young (0082179) Roetzel & Andress, LPA 41 South High St., 21‘ Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: 614.463.9770 Facsimile: 614.463.9792 E-mail: sjones@ralaw.com jyoung@ralaw.com andFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Nov 16 3:55 PM-17CV009767 OD903 - F87 Ronald S. Kopp (0004950) Roetzel & Andress, LPA 222 South Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308 Telephone: 330.376.2700 Facsimile: 330.376.4577 E-mail: rkopp@ralaw.com Attorneys for Defendants, Davis College, Inc. and The CE Shop, Inc. PROOF OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing was served on November 16, 2017 pursuant to Civ. R. 5(B)(2), by email to: Thomas W. Hill Timothy A. Kelley Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A. 65 E. State Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, Ohio 43215 il @keelerbrown.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Hondros College, Inc., d/b/a Hondros College of Business 4s/ Stephen D. Jones Stephen D. Jones 12037611 1