MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Rajin Patel with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Bach, Jason)¶

Patel v. Texas Tech University et al, No. 5:17-cv-00174-C (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 3 · 2017-07-25 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 1 of 29

PageID 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
RAJIN PATEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY; DUANE
JONES, individually and in his official
capacity as adjunct professor; WILLIAM
PASEWARK, individually and in his official
capacity as TTU Rawls College of Business
Associate Dean of Graduate Programs and
Research; ROBERT RICKETTS, individually
and in his official capacity as Area Coordinator
in Accounting; and BRITTANY TODD,
individually and in her individual capacity as
Associate Director of the Office of Student
Conduct;
Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 5:17-cv-174-C

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
JASON J. BACH, ESQ.
Texas Bar No. 24071556
2802 Flintrock Trace, Suite 255
Austin, Texas 78738
Telephone: (512) 879-3901
Facsimile: (702) 925-8788
jbach@bachlawfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 2 of 29

PageID 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………….i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………...ii
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES………………………………………….1
I.

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………...…1

II.

FACTS…………………………………………………………………………………….2

III.

LEGAL ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………….8

LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION……………………………………8
A.

IRREPARABLE INJURY IS IMMINENT ABSENT INJUNCTION……………9

B.

THE THREATENED INJURY OUTWEIGHS ANY HARM TEXAS TECH
UNIVERSITY MIGHT SUFFER………………………………………………..12

C.

PLAINTIFF IS SUBSTANTIALLY LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS
OF HIS CLAIMS………………………………………………………………...14
1.

D.

Mr. Patel Asserts a Viable Substantive Due Process Claim……………..14
a.

Defendants Did Not Exercise Careful or Deliberate Professional
Judgment in Rendering a Guilty Verdict Against Mr. Patel……..16

b.

Defendants Did Not Exercise Careful and Deliberate Professional
Judgment in Sanctioning Mr. Patel………………………………19

2.

Mr. Patel Asserts a Viable Equal Protection Claim……………………...21

3.

Plaintiff Asserts a Viable State Law Breach of Contract Claim…………22

THE INJUNCTION WILL NOT DISSERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST……...23

IV.

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………..…24

V.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE…………………………………………………….25

VI.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE…………………………………………………………..25

i

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 3 of 29

PageID 32

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Alcorn v. Vaksman, 877 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. App. 1994)…………………………………………16
Allied Home Mortg. Corp. v. Donovan, 830 F. Supp. 2d 223 (S.D. Tex. 2011)………………8, 14
Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531 (1987)……………………12
Beauchene v. Mississippi Coll., 986 F.Supp.2d 755 (S.D. Miss. 2013)…………………………22
Blanco v. Burton, No. CIV.A. 06-3813, 2006 WL 2366046, at *15 (E.D. La. Aug. 14, 2006)…..9
Brennan v. Steward, 834 F.2d 1248 (5th Cir. 1988)……………………………………………..15
Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974)………………………….8
Doe v. Middlebury College, No. 1:15-CV-192-JGM, 2015 WL 5488109, at *3 (D. Vt. Sept. 16,
2015)…………………………………………………………………………………………..…10
Doe v. Univ. of Notre Dame, No. 3:17CV298-PPS/MGG, 2017 WL 1836939, at *12 (N.D. Ind.
May 8, 2017)…………………………………………………………………………………10, 13
Dismukes v. Hackathorn, 802 F.Supp. 1442 (N.D. Miss.1992)…………………………………14
DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 898 F.Supp. 1183 (N.D. Tex. 1995)…..8
Eiland v. Wolf, 764 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. App. 1989)………………………………………………16
Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2011)…………………………………………………14
Justin Inds., Inc. v. Choctaw Secs., L.P., 920 F.2d 262, 268 n. 7 (5th Cir.1990)………………....9
King v. DePauw University, No. 2:14-CV-70-WTL-DKL, 2014 WL 4197507, at *13 (S.D. Ind.
Aug. 22, 2014)…………………………………………………………………………………...10
La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 608 F.3d 217 (5th Cir. 2010)…9
Lindquist v. City of Pasadena Texas, 669 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2012)……………………………..21
Mawle v. Texas A&M University Kingsville, No. CIV.CC-08-64, 2010 WL 1782214, at *10 (S.D.
Tex. Apr. 30, 2010)……………………………………………………………………………....15
ii

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 4 of 29

PageID 33

Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618 (5th Cir. 1985)……….…..8
Monumental Task Comm., Inc v. Foxx, 157 F. Supp. 3d 573 (E.D. La. 2016)……………………9
Pham v. Univ. of Louisiana at Monroe, 194 F.Supp.3d 534 (W.D. La. 2016)……………………14
Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 106 S.Ct. 507, 88 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985)
………………………………………………………………………………………………..15, 16
Ritter v. Oklahoma, No. Civ.-16-043 8-HE, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60193 at *8 (W.D. Okla. May
6, 2016)…………………………………………………………………………………………..10
Roho, Inc. v. Marquis, 902 F.2d 356 (5th Cir.1990)……………………………………………..14
Schuler v. Univ. of Minn., 788 F.2d 510 (8th Cir. 1986)…………………………………………16
Seals v. Mississippi, 998 F.Supp.2d 509 (N.D. Miss. 2014)……………………………………..15
Star Satellite, Inc. v. Biloxi, 779 F.2d 1074 (5th Cir. 1986)………………………………………23
Texas v. United States, 86 F.Supp.3d 591, 674–75 (S.D. Tex. 2015), aff’d, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir.
2015), as revised (Nov. 25, 2015), aff’d, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016)…………12, 13, 23
Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981)…………………………………………………8
Univ. of Texas Health Sci. Ctr. at Houston v. Babb, 646 S.W.2d 502 (Tex. App. 1982)………..22
Univ. of Texas Med. Sch. at Houston v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926, 930 (Tex. 1995)……………….11
Viajes Gerpa, S.A. v. Fazeli, et al., No. 14-15-00608-CV, 2016 WL 7478352, at *12 (Tex. App.
Dec. 29, 2016)……………………………………………………………………………………23
Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000)……….21
Williams v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 6 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 1993)………..15
Wilkenfield v. Powell, 577 F.Supp. 579 (W.D. Tex. 1983)………………………………………16
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)……………………………………9

iii

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 5 of 29

PageID 34

Plaintiff, RAJIN PATEL (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Patel”), by and through his counsel, hereby
files this Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and requests this Court to issue an immediate preliminary injunction compelling
Defendant Texas Tech University (“TTU”) to immediately cease and cause to be ceased all
collection actions against Mr. Patel, move Mr. Patel to active student status, and permit Mr. Patel
to enroll in the next academic semester at TTU and complete his remaining baccalaureate and
Masters courses without further extraneous obligations, harassment or retaliation. In support of
his Motion, Plaintiff respectfully shows the Court as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Patel filed a Complaint initiating the above-captioned case against TTU and others
based on Defendants’ violation of his substantive due process rights and right to equal protection
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution during the 2016-2017 academic
term. Mr. Patel alleges that TTU failed to exercise professional judgment in concluding that he
plagiarized and, moreover, that expulsion was a highly inappropriate sanction based upon the
circumstances of his situation. Rather, Mr. Patel claims that Defendants’ actions and effect are
patently arbitrary and in violation of his rights.

He further alleges that Defendant TTU

discriminated against him without any rational reason compared to his similarly situated peers.
Mr. Patel also filed a asserted a state law breach of contract claim, which is relevant to this motion.
Mr. Patel will suffer immediate and irreparable harm to his education and career without
injunctive relief. Until TTU took wrongful actions to punish him for purported plagiarism, Mr.
Patel was registered for a dual baccalaureate and graduate program, and even today his enrollment
in his baccalaureate program remains active. However, TTU refuses to consider him a student in

1

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 6 of 29

PageID 35

good standing and has barred him from further participation at TTU, unless Mr. Patel signs
documentation falsely admitting wrongdoing, pays a fee, and takes a punitive-based class on
plagiarism.
As a model student with no history of wrongdoing whatsoever, Mr. Patel understandably
refuses to do so, and, thus, his overall academic and career prospects diminish daily during his
wrongful expulsion and precarious baccalaureate status. In fact, Mr. Patel earned a prestigious
internship that was to start immediately this summer, from which TTU has barred him, and he will
be unable to register for fall 2017 classes for either program, simply because he will not admit
wrongdoing. He has already missed one opportunity, and his curriculum vitae will soon show a
gap. Moreover, his status as a Masters student is expelled. Injunctive relief at this point will
minimize or wholly eliminate long-term damage to his resume and may permit him to salvage part
of his summer internship. Finally, further injunctive relief forcing TTU to withdraw its collection
action against Mr. Patel is appropriate because a wrongful negative report on his credit record will
damage his credit rating pending the resolution of this lawsuit. He can easily pay the nominal
penalty later, if necessary. The requested injunctive relief requested here is narrowly tailored to
preclude TTU from inflicting further damages upon Mr. Patel pending this Court’s resolution of
his well-grounded claims, which he is likely to succeed on.
II.

FACTS

Mr. Patel matriculated to TTU as an undergraduate in 2012, and was accepted to the Rawls
College of Business Graduate School to complete his Master of Science degree in Accounting in
August 2016.

Incidentally, TTU overall has a relatively interesting history with academic

plagiarism cases. Researchers from TTU have nationally decried the use of digital “plagiarism
detection” software. Complaint, ¶ 38. And, during Mr. Patel’s time at TTU, the Director of the

2

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 7 of 29

PageID 36

Office of Student Conduct, Sofia Chapman, has gone on record saying, “First time offenders
receive a deferred suspension,” and that first time offenders are generally punished the same unless
there are exceptions. Id., ¶ 16.
Theoretically, these stances on plagiarism should have resulted in no impact on Mr. Patel’s
honorable academic career. In his long tenure at TTU, Mr. Patel proved to be an exceptional
student who excelled in his courses and never faced any academic misconduct charges. Id., ¶ 14.
He even earned a prestigious internship for the summer of 2017. Id.
During the fall 2016-2017 term, Mr. Patel, along with 100 other students, was enrolled in
the graduate school course BLAW 5392 Advanced Business Law (“BLAW”) taught by Defendant
Duane Jones. Id., ¶ 18. Mr. Patel did well in the class and had earned a 97.7% test average and a
95% quiz average going into the final exam. Id. The test-bank final exam followed the structure
of past exams and quizzes, but was proctored differently; the final exam was administered
electronically to small groups of about ten students at a time, given over the course of ten days,
and was proctored by Defendant Jones himself. Oddly, Jones permitted the first set of examinees
to use their e-text, notes, and the internet during the final; later final exam sessions, including Mr.
Patel’s, were ordered to be closed-book. Complaint, ¶¶ 19-20. Mr. Patel did not bring his notes
or book to the exam or reference any other prohibited materials to complete the examination during
his session on December 12, 2016. In fact, Mr. Patel sat four feet from Jones with his computer
screen visible to Jones the whole time, and Jones noted there were no discrepancies in the exam
process that day. Id., ¶¶ 21-22. Mr. Patel finished the exam in a timeframe that was average to
the class and earned a high grade consistent with his other quizzes and exams. Id., at ¶ 22.
Nonetheless, Defendant Jones emailed Mr. Patel on December 19, 2016, and stated that
there was a “quandary regarding your grade” and asked if Mr. Patel had anything to tell him about

3

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 8 of 29

PageID 37

the exam. Id., ¶ 23. Mr. Patel immediately tried to call but was sent to voicemail; he then received
a chilling email from Defendant Jones refusing to talk and accusing Mr. Patel of “apparently highly
plagiarized” test answers. Id., ¶ 24. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Patel and two other students met with
Defendant Pasewark and learned that Defendant Jones had accused all three of plagiarism and
using prohibited material in their closed-book session; the other students allegedly used Google,
but there was no mention of what resources Mr. Patel was accused of using. Id., ¶ 25. Mr. Patel
immediately told Dr. Pasewark that he did not cheat and instead arrived at his answers through
copious studying and preparation. Id. He and the other two students also told Mr. Pasewark about
the irregularities between exam sessions, including the fact that some students in earlier sessions
were allowed to use open books and e-notes and that the structure of the exam was strange and in
fact mimicked the textbook review questions. Id.
In response, Dr. Pasewark expressed concern that the differential treatment could lead to
grade challenges, and then as to the plagiarism charges, stated that “all students (with allegations)
should go through the student conduct process.” Complaint, ¶ 26. The students and Dr. Pasewark
discussed the unfairness between exam sessions at length, and Dr. Pasewark indicated he would
consider the differential testing conditions as part of TTU’s decision to press charges. Id. Hours
later, however, Defendant Jones filed a complaint against Mr. Patel alone in the middle of the
night, although Mr. Patel did not see the incident report until much later. Id., ¶ 29. The allegations
included Mr. Patel’s supposed use of outside materials on the exam and the allegation that Mr.
Patel’s answer to a question was similar to the test bank answer provided by the course textbook.
Id.
Soon thereafter, Mr. Patel learned that that misconduct allegations were dropped against
the other two students, but that Defendant Jones decided to maintain misconduct allegations

4

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 9 of 29

PageID 38

against Mr. Patel alone. Id., ¶¶ 28-29. In fact, Mr. Patel was the only student who met with Dr.
Pasewark who did not “admit” to some sort of unauthorized use of material, yet the other two
accused students never faced charges. Id., at ¶ 28. Mr. Patel also learned that at least one student
from the “open book” group, C.C.

, used exam reviews to help her complete her exam,

and she further alleged that other students in her session openly used open book, open notes, and
internet during the exam, all without penalty or complaint from Defendant Jones. Id.
On January 2, 2017, Defendant Todd sent Mr. Patel an email stating that the Office of
Student Conduct was beginning an inquiry to determine if formal misconduct charges were
warranted against him. Id., ¶ 31. According to TTU rules, the tenor of the inquiry phase was
supposed to be thorough, neutral and impartial. Id., ¶ 15(a). However, the same day, the
“complaint” filed by Defendant Jones and shared with Mr. Patel shows the document was altered
by Ms. Todd. Complaint, ¶ 31. And when Defendant Todd followed her January 2 email with a
call to Mr. Patel on January 4, 2017, pursuant to the newly minted investigation, she refused to let
Mr. Patel speak, failed to memorialize any of his statements, and instead spoke accusingly about
Mr. Patel’s “cheating”, as if the TTU had already rendered a decision. Id., ¶ 32. This was the
extent of the contacts with Mr. Patel contacted during the investigation phase, and Mr. Patel felt
railroaded. Id. The subsequent hearing on charges of plagiarism and use of prohibited materials
were similarly one-sided, and Mr. Patel was never given any real opportunity to present any of the
facts and information that supported his defense.
On January 10, 2017, Ms. Todd sent Mr. Patel an email stating that there was enough
evidence to warrant formal charges and that he would be subject to a hearing. Id., ¶ 33.

On

January 19, 2017, Defendant Todd called Mr. Patel in for a pre-hearing conference, which Mr.
Patel attended with his mother. Id., ¶ 34. Instead of taking the role of an unbiased, neutral

5

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 10 of 29

PageID 39

investigator pursuant to her duties and obligations set forth in the Handbook, Ms. Todd began
screaming, “You already know why you are here!”, “You are a liar!”, and “that this will be like
you winning the lottery. This will go to hearing and you will be expelled!” Id. Ms. Todd did not
give Mr. Patel the opportunity to present any material in his defense. Id. The Patels were
concerned that the investigator did not convey a neutral or impartial tone and, in fact, was already
biased and inflammatory. Id. Mr. Patel did not know Ms. Todd was simultaneously preparing a
Final Investigation Report to be used against him or that he could provide evidence to her directly,
because she did not permit him any opportunity to do so in between calling him a liar and
threatening expulsion. Id. Mr. Patel is still unsure how anyone could have construed the
investigatory phase as unbiased, neutral or impartial.
On January 24, 2017, Ms. Todd sent Mr. Patel her 104-page “Final Investigation Report”
which purportedly included everything she gathered during her “impartial” investigation.
Complaint, ¶ 36. The 104-page document based her “findings” on a misuse of plagiarism detection
software, Turnitin, and a few emails from Defendant Jones. Id. She further informed Mr. Patel
that he had little more than forty-eight hours to provide additional, contradictory information and
to choose between an administrative hearing or panel hearing, and that if he picked a panel, she
would provide “scripts” to the panelists that she would select. Id., ¶ 39.
Mr. Patel asked for more time, but was denied, yet was able to assemble some facts and
logical inferences thereof in his defense. Id., ¶¶ 40-42. One of the things he highlighted was the
fact that TTU instructors themselves have been wary to rely on Turnitin because the program is
inherently flawed, and that the way Ms. Todd inputted his data gave a skewed result. Id., ¶¶ 3738, 40.

6

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 11 of 29

PageID 40

In the meantime, TTU began a cursory follow-up investigation into the differential testing
allegations, and Defendant Jones was presented with Mr. Patel’s refutation to the “Final
Investigation Report” and his statements about unfairness and differential testing thereto. Id., ¶
43. Defendant Jones finally admitted to telling some students they could use open notes, but the
bulk of his email response included a scathing attack on Mr. Patel, as well as a rude directive, from
which Mr. Patel gleaned that Defendant Jones was angry and vindictive about Mr. Patel outing
Jones’ defective test proctoring. Id., ¶ 44. In the end, Ms. Todd failed to include any of Mr. Patel’s
refuting documentation into her “Final Investigation Report,” including his allegations of
differential testing conditions and animosity from Mr. Jones, his allegations that TTU cautions
against the use of plagiarism detection software, that Ms. Todd misused the defective plagiarism
software, or any other exculpatory evidence Mr. Patel provided. Id., ¶¶ 40-42, 45. In fact, her
supposed “unbiased” report contained nothing from Mr. Patel whatsoever. Id., ¶ 45.
Ms. Todd orchestrated her scripted panel hearing on February 10, 2017. There, the
panelists reviewed the slanted, incomplete “Final Investigation Report” under the guise that it was
unbiased and neutral; then they further listened as Mr. Patel tried to orally present material that
Ms. Todd refused to include in the official report, for whatever weight it was left to hold. Id., ¶
45-46. When a faculty panelist interjected and stated he did not agree that the allegations with
which TTU was charging Mr. Patel were appropriate, Ms. Todd told panelists they must choose
between the charges, refusing to appropriately advise the panel that they could find Mr. Patel
innocent. Id., ¶ 47. After her statement, it is unsurprising that the panel ultimately found Mr. Patel
guilty even though their report noted there was no “direct evidence.” Id., ¶ 48. Ms. Todd really
gave them no other choice, and Mr. Patel’s fears of being railroaded were realized.

7

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 12 of 29

PageID 41

After the hearing, Mr. Patel learned he was dismissed from the Graduate program entirely,
put on deferred suspension for his baccalaureate degree, and given an F in the BLAW class. Id.,
¶ 49. As part of the deferred suspension, TTU further mandated that he pay a penalty related to
the plagiarism, demanded Mr. Patel to admit he plagiarized, and required that Mr. Patel enroll in
an Academic Integrity BlackBoard course about plagiarism. Id. Mr. Patel has refused to do
because he did not plagiarize. Id., ¶ 51. No one from TTU has ever explained why Mr. Patel’s
case was an extreme exception warranting a dismissal for a first time offense. Id., ¶ 49.
Mr. Patel immediately appealed the decision, which was denied on March 7, 2017, finding
that there were no procedural or substantive errors and that there was no “new” information to
consider. Id., ¶ 50. As a result, Mr. Patel has been effectively expelled from TTU entirely and
cannot perform his internship, register for classes, or even get a copy of his transcript. He is also
facing collection actions for the imposed penalty. Id., ¶¶ 52-53. Mr. Patel unsuccessfully appealed
both the hearing and the punishment and has worked with attorneys to remedy this situation, all to
no avail. Id., ¶¶ 50-53. He is now facing continuing, additional and lasting damages to his
academic and professional record absent immediate action by this honorable Court. Id., ¶¶ 52-53.
III.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is limited to preserving the relative positions of
the parties until a trial on the merits can be held. Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395
(1981); see also Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 1974); Allied
Home Mortg. Corp. v. Donovan, 830 F. Supp. 2d 223, 227 (S.D. Tex. 2011); DSC Communications
Corp. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 898 F.Supp. 1183, 1187 (N.D. Tex. 1995). The decision to grant
or deny a preliminary injunction is discretionary with the district court. Miss. Power & Light Co.

8

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 13 of 29

PageID 42

v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985). A preliminary injunction may be
issued when a plaintiff demonstrates a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, a substantial
threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, that the threatened injury outweighs any
harm that will result if the injunction is granted, and that the injunction will not disserve the public
interest. La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 608 F.3d 217, 219 (5th
Cir. 2010). Mr. Patel satisfies these requisite elements and prays this Court will issue an injunction
here so that his long-term career and economic prospects will not be needlessly damaged as the
parties navigate the instant litigation.
A.

IRREPARABLE INJURY IS IMMINENT ABSENT INJUNCTION.
Perhaps the single most important factor supporting the issuance of preliminary injunctive

relief is a finding of irreparable harm that Mr. Patel will suffer during the pendency of these
proceedings, if such relief were not granted at this time. Blanco v. Burton, No. CIV.A. 06-3813,
2006 WL 2366046, at *15 (E.D. La. Aug. 14, 2006), Mississippi Power at 632 (5th Cir. 1985)
(“the prevention of irreparable harm element is the ultimate touchstone for preliminary injunctive
relief”). Plaintiffs must show that, without an injunction, “irreparable injury is likely” during the
pendency of litigation. Monumental Task Comm., Inc v. Foxx, 157 F. Supp. 3d 573, 583 (E.D. La.
2016) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)), Justin Inds., Inc. v.
Choctaw Secs., L.P., 920 F.2d 262, 268 n. 7 (5th Cir.1990). Moreover, in order for a harm to be
considered irreparable for purposes of issuing a preliminary injunction, monetary damages must
be inadequate to redress it. Id.
Courts in the Second, Seventh, and Tenth circuits, as well as Texas state courts, have
recognized that a student’s removal from a university that causes a “gap” and forces an explanation
of wrongdoing constitutes the kind of harm that meets precisely the definition of irreparable injury.

9

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 14 of 29

PageID 43

Irreparable harm is easily demonstrated when a student is confronted with removal from a
university. Gathering cases from various district courts, a very recent decision in the Northern
District of Indiana against Notre Dame University recognized,
A gap constitutes irreparable harm to [plaintiff’s] reputation and résumé for
purposes of career prospects and possible further academic advancement.
The questions the gap raises, and the explanation it requires, are potentially
damaging to [plaintiff] in a manner not compensable by money damages
and not repaired by permanent injunctive relief that might be granted after
a decision on the merits in [plaintiff’s] favor.
Doe v. Univ. of Notre Dame, No. 3:17CV298-PPS/MGG, 2017 WL 1836939, at *12 (N.D. Ind.
May 8, 2017); see also Ritter v. Oklahoma, No. Civ.-16-043 8-HE, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60193
at *8 (W.D. Okla. May 6, 2016) (plaintiff seeking a TRO demonstrated that the “loss of educational
and career opportunities he will encounter if he is not reinstated and allowed to graduate is not
readily compensable in money damages”). Indeed, other courts across the nation have found:
While Plaintiff may recover money damages to compensate for lost wages,
money damages cannot compensate for the loss of his senior year in college
with his class, the delay in the completion of his degree, or the opportunity
to begin his career.... Further, Plaintiff would have to explain, for the
remainder of his professional life, why his education either ceased prior to
completion or contains a gap.
Doe v. Middlebury College, No. 1:15-CV-192-JGM, 2015 WL 5488109, at *3 (D. Vt. Sept.
16, 2015) (student-plaintiff obtained an injunction in time to permit him to return to his university
in the fall and complete the entire school year, and so to avoid entirely a gap in his education during
the pendency of the litigation); see also King v. DePauw University, No. 2:14-CV-70-WTL-DKL,
2014 WL 4197507, at *13 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 22, 2014) (same result).
Like other students caught in litigation across the country, Mr. Patel will be irreparably
harmed if the injunction requested is not granted. TTU has put Mr. Patel in a no-win situation by
mandating that he either: (a) admits in writing that he plagiarized, pays a monetary penalty, and
takes a class to remedy his plagiarism, all of which will be noted in his academic record, in order
10

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 15 of 29

PageID 44

to complete his undergraduate degree; or (b) refuse to admit guilt to baseless plagiarism allegations
and pursue legal recourse, but withstand a damaging “gap” in his résumé and curriculum vitae.
Complicating the first option is the additional sanction for alleged plagiarism, TTU has also
dismissed Mr. Patel from the Master’s program, effective spring 2017. If he enters a false “guilty
plea” in order to finish his bachelor’s degree, he would have to apply elsewhere to earn his Master’s
degree. But admitting to plagiarism – even falsely, just so he can complete his Bachelor’s degree
– negates the likelihood that he will be able to get into a different graduate school. Thus, both
options are more punitive than they appear facially.
Indeed, it is hard to see how either option is anything but a calculated attempt by TTU to
damage Mr. Patel to the maximum extent possible. Admitting plagiarism just to finish the
undergraduate classes will have long-term consequences; courts have recognized that plagiarism
constitutes the type of “stigma” that “is likely to follow the student and preclude him from
completing his education at other institutions.” Univ. of Texas Med. Sch. at Houston v. Than, 901
S.W.2d 926, 930 (Tex. 1995). If Mr. Patel miraculously happens to get into graduate school
elsewhere, he would still have to explain the plagiarism blemish on his record to professors and
future employers. Admitting plagiarism also would have precluded Mr. Patel’s ability to file the
instant suit because such an admission of wrongdoing would eclipse his claims that Defendants
were unfair and biased towards him. TTU would have a record of admitted wrongdoing and assert
it as an affirmative defense.
On the other hand, refusing to admit to “guilt” has created a host of other problems;
including, the effective termination of Mr. Patel’s progression towards a bachelor’s degree and the
substantial loss of a prestigious internship. Moreover, if TTU’s actions are not stopped, Mr. Patel
will suffer an additional damaging “gap” in his curriculum vitae that will continue to haunt him

11

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 16 of 29

PageID 45

for the rest of his life. Immediate, and temporary, injunctive relief by the Court will remedy the
unfairness of this situation and return Mr. Patel’s status to an active student at least until a full
review on the merits of the case can be made.
B.

THE THREATENED INJURY OUTWEIGHS ANY HARM TEXAS TECH
UNIVERSITY MIGHT SUFFER.
At the opposite end of the spectrum from Mr. Patel’s irreparable injury is the fact that TTU

will suffer no harm at all if the injunction requested is granted. The law requires that courts
“balance the competing claims of injury and ... consider the effect on each party of the granting or
withholding of the requested relief.” Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, Alaska, 480
U.S. 531, 542 (1987). Thus, in addition to demonstrating threatened irreparable harm, a plaintiff
must show that he would suffer more harm without the injunction than would the defendant if it
were granted. Texas v. United States, 86 F.Supp.3d 591, 674–75 (S.D. Tex. 2015), aff’d, 809 F.3d
134 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (Nov. 25, 2015), aff’d, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016).
If the case is litigated and Mr. Patel loses following an injunction reinstating him to the
program, TTU will be no worse off than it would have been had Mr. Patel not been enrolled at that
time. TTU enrolls approximately 36,000 students on the Lubbock, Texas campus. Keeping Mr.
Patel active on its massive roster will not hurt or aggrieve TTU, especially because Mr. Patel will
be paying for the classes he takes and will pay the nominal penalty if the litigation results in
Defendants’ favor. Moreover, although most universities consider plagiarism a disciplinary wrong
within their respective codes of conduct, plagiarism is not the kind of “harm” that exposes a
university to liability. It is not as if any other students face serious bodily injury or other dire
consequences if Mr. Patel is allowed to continue to take classes during the pendency of this
litigation. Indeed, even TTU does not think Mr. Patel is an actual threat; currently imposed
sanctions permit Mr. Patel to rejoin campus activities and classes as a baccalaureate student if only
12

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 17 of 29

PageID 46

he would be willing to falsely admit to plagiarism. TTU has no problem with Mr. Patel being
there, if only he will give them the satisfaction of admitting he did something he, in fact, did not
do.
The only meritorious claim TTU might make that it will suffer by Mr. Patel’s readmission
to the school is that Mr. Patel’s admission to his former course of study might undermine the
school’s disciplinary process and leave the school “without meaningful sanctions.” See Doe v.
Univ. of Notre Dame, at *13. However, Texas district courts and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
have not found that such vague and speculative harm outweighs a plaintiff’s well-pleaded potential
for real damage. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d at 186 (a harm that “obstructs a core Executive
prerogative” and offends separation-of-powers and federalism principles are vague). Moreover,
the injunction Mr. Patel is seeking is limited to permit his admission during the duration of the
suit. If TTU wins, TTU’s discipline will be upheld, any progress Mr. Patel has made towards
completing his degrees, and even the degrees themselves, can be summarily erased from his record
with the click of a button. See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 675 (S.D. Tex.),
aff’d, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (Nov. 25, 2015), cert. granted, 579 U.S. ___, 136
S.Ct. 2271 (2016) (explaining that if “a preliminary injunction would give plaintiff all or most of
the relief to which the plaintiff would be entitled if successful at trial,” courts are less likely to
grant the injunction). Mr. Patel can also be required to pay a penalty later. To the extent TTU is
concerned about an “accused cheater” being allowed back into class, and the effect of that on
TTU’s reputation for discipline, TTU’s Director of Student Conduct has already stated that first
time plagiarism offenders are not expelled. TTU would simply be giving Mr. Patel the same
treatment it promised to all students. Moreover, TTU has welcomed Mr. Patel back to some of his
classes, but only if he admits wrongdoing. Again, TTU has no problem with Mr. Patel’s presence

13

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 18 of 29

PageID 47

on campus and is only keeping him out until he bends to their will and admits to something he did
not do. However, to the extent TTU might agree to the Mr. Patel’s limited readmission pending
the resolution of the instant litigation, Mr. Patel is willing to agree to remain silent about the
ongoing litigation and his limited readmission.
C.

PLAINTIFF IS SUBSTANTIALLY LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS OF
HIS CLAIMS.
Of course, any injury Mr. Patel might suffer during the pendency of the litigation is only

worth protecting if it is likely that he will prevail on the merits of his claims. Mr. Patel can meet
his burden as to this element. In order to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits in
support of a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff need only present a prima facie case even if it is not
certain that he will win. It will ordinarily be enough that a plaintiff has raised questions going to
the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground for litigation,
and thus open for a more deliberate investigation. Allied Home Mortg. Corp. v. Donovan, 830
F.Supp.2d 223, 227 (S.D. Tex. 2011). The “standards provided by the substantive law” provide
the requisite benchmark of this assessment. Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 596 (5th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Roho, Inc. v. Marquis, 902 F.2d 356, 358 (5th Cir.1990)).
1.

Mr. Patel Asserts a Viable Substantive Due Process Claim.

Mr. Patel has a strong substantive due process claim that TTU’s actions against him were
arbitrary and capricious in light of the manner in which the school handled its investigation of the
charges levied against him, the panel hearing and the sanctions they imposed upon him given his
entire academic tenure and cumulative conduct history. The substantive component of the due
process clause bars certain arbitrary government actions, “even if their implementation is fair.”
Pham v. Univ. of Louisiana at Monroe, 194 F.Supp.3d 534, 544 (W.D. La. 2016) (citing Dismukes
v. Hackathorn, 802 F.Supp. 1442, 1447 (N.D. Miss.1992). To state a substantive due process
14

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 19 of 29

PageID 48

claim, a plaintiff must show that the government’s deprivation of a property interest was arbitrary
or not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. Williams v. Texas Tech University
Health Sciences Center, 6 F.3d 290, 294 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Brennan v. Steward, 834 F.2d
1248, 1256 (5th Cir. 1988), Mawle v. Texas A&M University Kingsville, No. CIV.CC-08-64, 2010
WL 1782214, at *10 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2010)). Whether a decision is arbitrary or not reasonable
turns on how the decision was made, not on whether the decision makers came to the correct
decision. Mawle v. Texas A&M University Kingsville, No. CIV.CC-08-64, 2010 WL 1782214, at
*10 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2010) (emphasis added). Moreover, it is relevant whether the sanction
was appropriate in relation to the alleged wrong. Id., at *9.
In pleading a substantive due process claim in the academic context, a plaintiff must plead
that he possesses a valid property interest in his education and must assert enough facts to allege
the decision to take away that property interest “is beyond the pale of reasoned academic decisionmaking when viewed against the background of the student’s entire career at the University.” Seals
v. Mississippi, 998 F.Supp.2d 509, 523 (N.D. Miss. 2014) (quoting Regents of University of
Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 106 S.Ct. 507, 88 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985)). Thus, in order to allege
a substantive due process claim for a plagiarism dismissal, Mr. Patel should be able to plead that
Defendants did not exercise professional judgment in concluding that he had plagiarized or that
Defendants failed to exercise professional judgment in deciding expulsion was an appropriate
sanction when viewed against his entire career at TTU, which was exemplary. Mawle at *9; Seals
at 523.
Factors that a court looks to in deciding whether a university used judgment “beyond the
pale of reasoned academic decision-making” include: (a) whether the university handled a
claimant’s case differently than other students’ cases; (b) whether the university’s decision was

15

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 20 of 29

PageID 49

not careful and deliberate; and/or (3) whether decision makers are “motivated by bad faith or ill
will unrelated to academic performance.” Eiland v. Wolf, 764 S.W.2d 827, 833 (Tex. App. 1989);
see also Wilkenfield v. Powell, 577 F.Supp. 579, 583 (W.D. Tex. 1983); Schuler v. Univ. of Minn.,
788 F.2d 510, 516 (8th Cir. 1986).

A dismissal based on these factors may be found

unconstitutional and in violation of a student’s substantive due process rights. Alcorn v. Vaksman,
877 S.W.2d 390, 397 (Tex. App. 1994); Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. at 225
(stressing the difference between good faith and bad faith dismissals). All three are relevant here.
Mr. Patel has met his burden of raising questions that go to the merits of his substantive due process
claim that warrant a more deliberate investigation by this Court both as to the guilty decision and
the sanctions imposed.
a.

Defendants Did Not Exercise Careful or Deliberate Professional
Judgment in Rendering a Guilty Verdict Against Mr. Patel.

An inquiry on how Mr. Patel’s guilty decision came to fruition demonstrates several of
Defendants’ actions were beyond the pale of reasoned academic decision making, especially in
light of Mr. Patel’s career at the University. TTU handled Mr. Patel’s case far differently than
other students accused of plagiarism, Defendant Jones was motivated by bad faith, and Ms. Todd’s
management of the investigation and panel hearing was anything but careful and deliberate.
Conversely, Mr. Patel was an excellent student, and there is no record of any wrongdoing prior to
the unsubstantiated charges in December, 2016. Complaint, ¶ 14.
Mr. Patel has consistently and unequivocally averred that he did not use any materials
during the exam and did not cheat. Id., ¶¶ 21, 25. There is nothing – no computer record, no
classmate or proctor testimony, no video from an in-room camera – showing Mr. Patel copy-andpasting or retyping an answer into the blackboard space while he looked at the opened answer on
a computer screen or on a paper. Id., ¶ 45. Indeed, Defendant Jones himself was proctoring the
16

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 21 of 29

PageID 50

test site and saw no discrepancies in the exam process that day. Id., ¶ 22. Yet, Defendant Jones
decided to advance charges against Mr. Patel while two similarly accused students had academic
misconduct allegations against them dropped. Id., ¶ 28. Moreover, at least one witness, C.C.
C.C.

, has come forward declaring that she and other students in a different exam session were

allowed to use open book, open notes, and the internet during the exam, all without penalty. Id.
Mr. Patel was treated dissimilarly.
Not only was Mr. Patel’s prosecution handled differently than other students’ cases, but
Mr. Patel has raised a plausible inference that Defendant Jones was actually motivated by ill will
in deciding to press misconduct charges against him. Mr. Patel pleaded that Defendant Jones
patently fouled up the administration of his own testing rules early on by letting some students use
open book, open notes and internet but denied the same testing conditions to later test takers,
including Mr. Patel. Complaint, ¶¶ 28, 44. Further, he pleaded that he was one of the first students
to make TTU administration aware of the exam session inequities. Id., ¶ 25. Defendant Jones’
misstep made the entire BLAW final examination subject to viable grade appeals by any one of
the hundred students in the class, potentially causing massive administrative headaches, and Jones
was furious that Mr. Patel continued to discuss the issue. Id., ¶¶ 26-28. In fact, Defendant Jones’
decision to press charges against Mr. Patel came mere hours after Mr. Patel discussed Defendant
Jones’ inequitable test administration with his department chair. Id., ¶ 26. Defendant Jones still
expressed anger about the situation months later and further demonstrated his hostility and clear
animus towards Mr. Patel in emails to Ms. Todd once other student witnesses came forward. Id.,
¶¶ 43-44.
Once Defendant Jones’ complaint was wrongfully initiated against Mr. Patel, the only
“careful and deliberate” assessment TTU made into Jones’ allegations of cheating was to analyze

17

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 22 of 29

PageID 51

Mr. Patel’s exam with the Turnitin software, the efficacy of which TTU has called into question
in the past, and for which Mr. Patel has identified as suspect because Defendant Todd’s input was
inaccurate. Id., ¶¶ 36-38. Other than her erroneous analysis via Turnitin, Ms. Todd’s supposed
“neutral and impartial” investigation was anything but. After altering the complaint submitted by
Defendant Jones, she opened her first conversation with Mr. Patel by making accusing and
conclusory statements regarding his “cheating.” Id., ¶¶ 31-32. She followed up that conversation
with a second conversation during which she called Mr. Patel a liar in front of his mother and
screamed at him promising he would be expelled. Id., ¶ 34. After giving Mr. Patel scrambled for
facts to include in Ms. Todd’s “Final Investigation Report” report in the scant two days she
proscribed, she refused to consider or include his exculpatory evidence at all for consideration by
his hearing panel. Complaint, ¶ 34-36, 39-41. Ms. Todd then led a panel hearing of members she
hand-picked and that she “scripted” herself and told the wary panelists that “must choose” between
the charges levied against Mr. Patel when a faculty panelist suggested that the charges were
inappropriate. Id., ¶46-47. After her direction and after refusing to appropriately advise the panel
that they could find Mr. Patel innocent, the panelists found Mr. Patel guilty even though they
confirmed there was no actual direct evidence of wrongdoing. Id., ¶¶ 45-48.
The hearing panel could only act on the circumstantial evidence with which they were
presented and the script they were given. What Defendant Todd provided for their consideration
was anything but neutral and impartial and ensured that the outcome was arbitrary, capricious, and
well beyond the pale of reasoned academic decision-making in conducting a biased investigation
and directing the panel that they must choose one of the charges she listed. Defendants did not
exercise careful and deliberate professional judgment in coming to the decision that Mr. Patel

18

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 23 of 29

PageID 52

plagiarized because TTU actors refused to allow them to see the full picture. This is a violation of
Mr. Patel’s substantive due process rights.
b.

Defendants Did Not Exercise Careful and Deliberate Professional
Judgment in Sanctioning Mr. Patel.

Not only was Mr. Patel’s “guilty” verdict a violation of substantive due process, but so was
TTU’s decision to expel him and further mandate that he “admit” plagiarism in order to keep taking
baccalaureate classes thereby holding hostage his degree, his academic record and his professional
career. Mr. Patel was an exceptional student throughout his tenure at TTU and, indeed, even in
the BLAW class attaining a 97.7% test average and a 96% quiz average going into the final exam.
Id., ¶¶ 14, 18, 21-22. As he pleaded in his Complaint, he did well on the BLAW exam by studying
the textbook, notes, and textbook review questions, and was lucky that the test bank-based final
exam used several questions that mimicked the textbook and review questions he studied. See id.,
¶¶ 19, 21, 25. Mr. Patel had no record with the Office of Student Conduct until the baseless
allegations against him by Defendant Jones. Id., ¶ 14. He had never been accused of any
wrongdoing, much less found guilty, during his entire tenure at TTU. Id. Nonetheless, TTU
decided to inflict the ultimate sanction of expulsion from the Master’s program, even though the
TTU Sanctions for Academic Dishonesty did not justify such a penalty and even though the
Director of the Office of Student Conduct has gone on record saying, “First time [academic
dishonesty] offenders receive a deferred suspension” and that first-time offenders are generally
punished the same unless there are extreme exceptions. See id., ¶ 16 (citing “Academic dishonesty
growing problem for colleges” at The Daily Toreador by Hannah Hipp, accessed at
http://www.dailytoreador.com/lavida/academic-dishonesty-growing-problem-forcolleges/article_c50d2d8c-a03e-11e3-acbf-0017a43b2370.html).

19

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 24 of 29

PageID 53

In fact, TTU’s Handbook says, as Mr. Patel has pleaded, that “[A]ny sanctions will be
proportionate to the severity of the violation and to the cumulative conduct history of the student.”
Complaint, ¶ 15. Since his expulsion from the Master’s program, no one from TTU has cited any
“extreme exception” or any exception whatsoever to justify why Mr. Patel’s first-time offense was
punished by expulsion, especially considering his cumulative conduct history, which is exemplary.
Id., ¶ 49.
Warranting further consideration by the Court is TTU’s sanction that pursuant to a deferred
suspension, Mr. Patel must pay a penalty, admit to plagiarism, and take a plagiarism class in order
to complete his undergraduate degree. Id., ¶ 49. As discussed herein, there seems to be no
legitimate reason to compel Mr. Patel to falsely admit to plagiarism except to whitewash TTU’s
own actions in violation of Mr. Patel’s rights. If, in fact, Mr. Patel had admitted wrongdoing, TTU
could have used it against him in this case. If anything, TTU’s imposition on Mr. Patel’s
baccalaureate degree constitutes not only irrational treatment but is motivated by ill will and selfserving. Mr. Patel’s expulsion and other sanctions are disproportionate to the severity of the
alleged violations and to his cumulative conduct history and are, therefore, in violation of TTU’s
stated policies and procedures. Ultimately, the Court will likely find TTU’s actions were both
arbitrary and capricious and that Defendants did not exercise careful and deliberate professional
judgment in sanctioning Mr. Patel thereby vindicating him. Because he has also pleaded the
existence of a right to his education through his contract with Defendant TTU, at paragraph 57 of
the Complaint, Mr. Patel has presented a prima facie case, and this Court should grant his request
for a temporary injunction.

///

20

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

2.

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 25 of 29

PageID 54

Mr. Patel Asserts a Viable Equal Protection Claim.

Jurisprudence recognizes a “successful equal protection claims brought by a ‘class of one,’
where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly
situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment,” because “[t]he purpose
of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the
State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express
terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.”

Vill. of

Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 1075, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000)
(citations omitted). In considering who is similarly situated, comparators must be prima facie
identical in all factors relevant to the case. Lindquist v. City of Pasadena Texas, 669 F.3d 225,
233–34 (5th Cir. 2012). This requires a court to make a case specific analysis, as “what is relevant
in one case might not be relevant in another” and depends “substantially on the facts and context
of the case.” Id.
Here, the context involves disciplinary action taken against a student for one count of
plagiarism and one count of use unauthorized material. As to the count of unauthorized material,
Mr. Patel is similarly situated to at least two other students at TTU. He, along with two other
students, Preston and Travis, faced academic misconduct charges stemming from their completion
of the BLAW final examination on December 12, 2016. Complaint, ¶¶ 25, 79. All three were
alleged to have used unauthorized materials to aid their exam completion, and all three met with
Dr. Pasewark on December 20, 2016, before Defendant Jones filed any official complaints. At the
meeting, all three discussed Defendant Jones’ defective examination processes, including the fact
that some students were permitted to use resources while others were not, and all three attempted
to halt any investigations or charges from materializing. Id., ¶¶ 25, 26. In all three of their cases,

21

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 26 of 29

PageID 55

there were no witnesses or other evidence to any wrongdoing; the witness who accused Preston
and Travis of wrongdoing supposedly retracted their statement while no one claimed to have
witnessed Mr. Patel’s wrongdoing. Id., ¶¶ 28, 45, 79. Indeed, even test proctor Defendant Jones
report seeing no discrepancies in the testing process that day, while sitting four feet away from
Mr. Patel with his computer screen in Defendant Jones’ line of sight, and there is no recorded
evidence that Mr. Patel used unauthorized materials during the exam session. Id., ¶¶ 22, 40, 45.
Despite the lack of witnesses, however, and unlike Preston, Travis, or indeed any other students
who were alleged to have or even admitted to having used unauthorized material on their exams,
Mr. Patel alone still faced allegations, and was eventually convicted, of academic misconduct, and
is further facing long-term career-altering sanctions as a result. Id., ¶¶ 52-53, 79-80. He has no
idea why and has pleaded that TTU has never offered a reason why the charge for use of
unauthorized materials was pursued against him and not against others, seeing as none of the cases
had any evidence or witnesses. Id., ¶¶ 30, 40. Mr. Patel has presented a prima facie case for
violation of his equal protection rights, and, thus, his request for an injunction should be granted.
3.

Plaintiff Asserts a Viable State Law Breach of Contract Claim.

Courts in Texas and the Fifth Circuit recognize, as do courts across the country, that a
“school’s catalog constitutes a written contract between the educational institution and the patron,
where entrance is had under its terms.” Univ. of Texas Health Sci. Ctr. at Houston v. Babb, 646
S.W.2d 502, 506 (Tex. App. 1982); Beauchene v. Mississippi Coll., 986 F.Supp.2d 755, 769 (S.D.
Miss. 2013). To prevail on a breach of contract claim, a party must establish: (a) a valid contract
existed between the plaintiff and the defendant, (b) the plaintiff tendered performance or was
excused from doing so, (c) the defendant breached the terms of the contract, and (d) the plaintiff

22

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 27 of 29

PageID 56

sustained damages as a result of the defendant’s breach. Viajes Gerpa, S.A. v. Fazeli, et al., No.
14-15-00608-CV, 2016 WL 7478352, at *12 (Tex. App. Dec. 29, 2016).
In his Complaint, Mr. Patel pleaded the requisite elements of a breach of contract claim.
Mr. Patel pleaded that the Handbook constituted a valid contract between the parties, and, further,
that TTU promises a fair and equitable student conduct process, utilizing a thorough, neutral, and
impartial investigation” and that “[n]o student will be found in violation of University policy
without sufficient information and evidence showing that it is more likely than not that a policy
violation occurred....” Handbook, p. 4 (emphasis added); Complaint, ¶¶ 15, 91-93. Mr. Patel
pleaded that he timely tendered performance under the contract. Id., ¶ 92. Mr. Patel further
pleaded that TTU violated its promises to Mr. Patel “by conducting a biased investigation and onesided hearing that omitted all information supporting Mr. Patel’s various defenses and summarily
dismissed Mr. Patel without any evidence proving that he did in fact plagiarize,” by withholding
evidence from the Panel, and by imposing arbitrary sanctions on Mr. Patel. Id., ¶¶ 91-95. Finally,
Mr. Patel specifically pleaded damages, including general damages. ¶¶ 51-53, 96-97. Although
not necessary for the purposes of the instant motion, Mr. Patel also pleaded that TTU’s actions are
both arbitrary and capricious, such that TTU did not merely commit a perfunctory breach, but an
egregious breach. Mr. Patel has presented a prima facie case against TTU for breach of contract,
and, thus, his request for an injunction should be granted.
D.

THE INJUNCTION WILL NOT DISSERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
“The final factor in the preliminary injunction analysis focuses on policy considerations,

and plaintiff has the burden to show that if granted, a preliminary injunction would not be adverse
to public interest.” Star Satellite, Inc. v. Biloxi, 779 F.2d 1074, 1079 (5th Cir. 1986); Texas v.
United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 675 (S.D. Tex.), aff’d, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised

23

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 28 of 29

PageID 57

(Nov. 25, 2015), cert. granted, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 906 (2016). Here, issuance of a preliminary
injunction in this case, requiring Defendants to conform to their own policies and procedures and
to assure that Mr. Patel is not arbitrarily and capriciously removed from school, will impose
absolutely no burden upon Defendants that is not already required by law.
On the other hand, should the injunction requested not issue preliminarily, he will be unable
to return to school, will be delayed in his graduation or denied his degree completely, will suffer
lost income, lost reputation in the professional community, and will have negative notations on his
transcript thereby eclipsing his ability to gain acceptance into any other undergraduate or graduate
school. Mr. Patel will also face derogatory marks on his credit score.
Indeed, it would be greatly to the benefit of the public interest to require Defendants to
adhere to TTU’s policies and procedures to afford its students due process and equal protection
prior to removing them from the institution so that the suffering which Mr. Patel has endured will
not continue and future students will not suffer treatment at TTU similar to what he has
experienced. Because the public interest will not be harmed, but instead served, Mr. Patel prays
this Court will immediately issue a temporary injunction in this case.
IV.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Mr. Patel respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an order
requiring Defendants to reinstate Mr. Patel to TTU as a student in good standing, cease and cause
to cease any collection actions against him, and to remove any notations of accusations, findings
or sanctions from his transcript resulting from Defendants’ unlawful and arbitrary and capricious
actions resulting in Plaintiff’s dismissal from TTU, pending the resolution of the instant suit.
Mr. Patel has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the
requested preliminary injunction. Mr. Patel has established a prima facie case for each of his

24

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 3

Filed 07/25/17

Page 29 of 29

PageID 58

asserted claims and has a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of such claims.
Moreover, if the requested injunction were to issue, there is no hardship for Defendants. Yet, in
the absence of the injunction, Mr. Patel will assuredly suffer extreme undue hardship thereby
tipping the balance of hardship firmly in his favor. Accordingly, Mr. Patel requests that the Court
immediately issue a preliminary injunction and order that it remain in effect until this matter is
brought to trial.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2017.
THE BACH LAW GROUP, LLC
By

V.

/s/ Jason J. Bach
JASON J. BACH, ESQ.
Texas Bar No. 24071556
2802 Flintrock Trace, Suite 255
Austin, Texas 78738
Telephone: (512) 879-3901
Facsimile: (702) 925-8788
Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I, Jason J. Bach, hereby certify that I am unable to confer with Defendants’ counsel as this
motion is getting filed concurrently with the Complaint, however, a copy of this instant motion
will be served along with a copy of the Summons and Complaint to all Defendants.
By
VI.

/s/ Jason J. Bach
JASON J. BACH, ESQ.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 25th day of July, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF
system.
By

/s/ Jason J. Bach
JASON J. BACH, ESQ.

25