filing on suit against raymond basquez sr. and wife linda basquez

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 ~ 11 UJ 00 > :::-~ .-!: 0 r-

12 ~~g ~a-:: 0\ ~~s 13 >- :- -"""CM >>-~Ci 14 ~~~ 0 uo ::7. -o < s Q\ JS ~~< wr;sU ~ c.,;

16 !t J5 ..!! Co~ 3: " c

CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1) Violation of the California

Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civil. Code 1750 et. seq.)

2) Unfair Competition (Cal. Business and Professions Code 17200)

3) Unjust Enrichment 4) Money Had nnd Received

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

(by fax filing)

Plaintiff VANESSA GUTIERREZ individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

brings this action against defendants CASINO CAREER CENTER, INC. (4'CCC"), LINDA BASQUEZ, and RAYMOND BASQUEZ, (collectively referred to hereinaJ1er as '"Defendants'\) and alleges, on information and belief (except as to those allegations relating to Plaintiff herself, which arc asserted on personal knowledge), as follows:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

INTRODUCTION

1) This action is brought as a class action under the provisions of Civil Code section

1781; Business & Professions Code section 17203; and Code of Civil Procedure section 382.

PARTIES

2) Plaintiff Vanessa Gutierrez is an individual who resides in the City of Temecula in the

County of Riverside California.

3) Defendant, CCC is a business entity located at 28780 Front Street, Suite B-3

Temecula, California 92590.

4) Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Linda Basquez is an individual who

resides in the City of Temecula in the County of Riverside California.

5) Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Raymond Basquez is an individual

who resides in the City of Temecula in the County of Riverside California.

6) Plaintiff is informed and believes that there is such a unity of interest and ownership

between CCC and its owners, Defendants Linda and Raymond Basquez, that the separate

personalities of CCC and its owners do not truly exist, but that, instead, each of the Defendants

named herein, acted as the agent, joint venturer or alter ego of or for the other Defendants with

respect to the acts, violations, and common course of conduct alleged herein.

7) Defendants organized and operated CCC in direct violation of California Education

Code sections 94886 and 94943(a) for the unlawful purpose of operating an illegal casino school and

illegally charging and receiving tuition payments from consumers who Defendants mislead by

numerous misrepresentations and falsehoods including, but not limited to, Defendants false

advertisement that CCC is a state certified school, and Defendants fraudulent advertisement and

use of a long defunct Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education license number.

Treating the acts alleged herein as the acts of CCC alone would sanction Defendants fraud upon

Plaintiff, the members of the class, and the general public and promote illegal use of the corporate

form.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

8) The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise

of Defendants named DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who, therefore, sues

such Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis

alleges, that DOES 1 through 20 are in some manner responsible and/or liable for the wrongs and

injuries alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to allege the

true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 20 once they have been ascertained.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9) This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these proceedings pursuant to the

general jurisdiction granted by the California Constitution as set forth in California Code of Civil

Procedure section 410.10.

10) This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are found and are

doing business in the State of California and/or have sufficient minimum contacts with California so

as to render the exercise of general or specific jurisdiction by the California courts permissible under

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

11) Venue is proper in Riverside County as against Defendants pursuant to Sections 394

and 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure because one or more of the Defendants reside in this County.

Venue is also proper under Civil Code section 1780(d) because the transactions giving rise to this

Complaint all took place in Riverside County, California where CCC is located and where all

Defendants reside and do business.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

12) Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly

situated. Such a representative action is necessary to prevent and remedy the deceptive, unlawful and

unfair practices alleged herein.

13) This action is brought and may be properly maintained as a class action pursuant to the

provisions of Civil Code section 1781, Business and Professions Code section 17203, and Code of

Civil Procedure section 382. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all members of the

class, defined as follows:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

Any person who, on or after December 24, 2010, paid tuition to Defendants or any agent or employee of any Defendant, for enrollment in, or attendance at, CCC.

14) Excluded from the class are Defendants, any officers, directors, affiliates, attorneys,

heirs, predecessors and successors in interest, employees, agents, and/or assigns of any of the

Defendants.

15) The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable. While the exact number of class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can

only be ascertained through discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are at least two hundred members

of the proposed class.

16) There is a well-defined community of interest among the members of the proposed

class. Plaintiff, like all other members of the class, paid CCC and its owners Linda Basquez and

Raymond Basquez tuition based on Defendants false representations to Plaintiff and to the public

through promotional materials, including, but not limited to, CCCs website that:

(a) CCC is an state-certified provider of vocational education;

(b) that CCC classes are taught only by state-certified instructors;

(c) that 99% of [CCCs] students have found work in the industry.

(d) that CCCs graduation certificate is SO HIGHLY REGARDED that one-year

experience requirements are often waived by casinos!;

(e) that a Limited Supply of Scholarships and Grants are available to pay 65% to

100% of [students] tuition;

(f) that CCCs courses take Up to 8 weeks to complete.

(g) that students may contact the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational

Education with any problems or questions concerning CCC; and

(h) that the CCC Enrollment Agreement & Contract is a legally binding instrument when

signed by the student and accepted by the School

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

17) As set forth in greater detail below, all of Defendants above-listed statements about

CCC are false. Defendants made those statements as part of CCCs transactions with Plaintiff and

other class members with the intent to result (and they did result) in Plaintiff and other class members

paying tuition to Defendants.

18) As an unapproved school, Defendants were statutorily barred from charging and

collecting tuition from Plaintiff and the class under any circumstance. See Cal. Educ. Code 94886,

94943 & 94944.

19) Plaintiff and other members of the class would not have paid tuition to Defendants if

Defendants had not mislead Plaintiff and other class members with the foregoing false statements.

20) Accordingly, the factual bases of Defendants misconduct are common to all members

of the class and represent a common practice of unlawful conduct resulting in damages to all

members of the class.

21) There are numerous questions of fact common to Plaintiff and the members of the

class, and those questions predominate over any questions that may effect individual members of the

class. Common questions of fact include, inter alia, the following:

(a) Whether, CCC has ever obtained approval to operate from the California Bureau of

Private Postsecondary Education (the BPPE).

(b) Whether Defendants have falsely stated in promotional materials, including, but not

limited to Defendants business cards, promotional flyers, CCCs Certificate of

Completion, and CCCs Enrollment Agreement, that CCC is approved to operate by

the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (the

BPPVE).

(c) whether Defendants have falsely stated in promotional materials including but not

limited to CCCs website that All instructors at Casino Career Center are State

Certified;

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

(d) whether Defendants have falsely stated in promotional materials, including, but not

limited to, CCCs website that 99% of [CCCs] students have found work in the

industry;

(e) whether Defendants have falsely stated in promotional materials, including, but not

limited to, CCCs website, that CCCs Certificate is SO HIGHLY REGARDED that

one-year experience requirements are often waived by casinos!;

(f) whether Defendants have falsely stated in promotional materials, including, but not

limited to, CCCs website, that Scholarships and Grants are available to pay 65% to

100% of your tuition. Limited supply. Call for an appointment NOW!;

(g) whether Defendants have falsely advertised that CCC courses take Up to 8 weeks to

complete.

(h) whether Defendants have falsely stated in CCCs Enrollment Agreement & Contract

that, Any questions or problems concerning this school which have not been

satisfactorily answered or resolved by the school, should be directed to the Bureau for

Private Postsecondary & Vocational Education. 1027 Tenth Street, Fourth Floor,

Sacramento, CA 95814, (915)445-3427;

(i) whether Defendants have failed to perform all of the acts and disclosures required by

Education Code section 94902 prior to enrolling any student;

(j) whether Defendants have failed to include all of the statements, and information

required by Education Code section 94911 in CCCs Enrollment Agreement;

(k) whether Defendants have failed to make the disclosures and fulfill the requirements of

Education Code sections 94910 and 94912 prior to having students execute CCCs

Enrollment Agreement;

(l) whether CCCs Enrollment Agreement and Contract has stated This agreement is a

legally binding instrument when signed by the student and accepted by the School;

and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

(m) whether Defendants have failed to include all of the information required by

Education Code section 94913 on CCCs website.

22) There are numerous questions of law common to Plaintiff and the members of the

class and those questions predominate over any questions that may effect individual members of the

class. Common questions of law include, inter alia, the following:

(a) Whether Defendants operation of CCC without any approval to operate violated (and

violates) California Education Code sections 94886 & 94943; and Business &

Professions Code section 17200;

(b) whether Defendants false statements that CCC is certified by the Bureau of Private

Postsecondary and Vocational Education (the BPPVE) violates Civil Code sections

1770(a)(2); (a)(3); and (a)(5); Education Code section 94897(l)(1); and Business &

Professions Code sections 17500 and 17200;

(c) whether Defendants false statement that, All instructors at Casino Career Center are

State Certified violates Civil Code sections 1770(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(5); and

Business & Professions Code sections 17500, and 17200;

(d) whether Defendants false statement that 99% of our students have found work in the

industry violates Civil Code section 1770(a)(5); Education Code sections 94897(b) &

(c); and Business & Professions Code sections 17500, and 17200;

(e) whether Defendants false statement that CCCs Certificate is SO HIGHLY

REGARDED that one-year experience requirements are often waived by casinos!

violates Civil Code section 1770(a)(5); and Business & Professions Code sections

17500, and 17200;

(f) whether Defendants false statement that a Limited supply of Scholarships and

Grants are available to pay 65% to 100% of [CCC students] tuition violated Civil

Code section 1770(a)(13); and Business & Professions Code sections 17500 and

17200;

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

(g) whether Defendants false advertisement in CCCs promotional flyers that CCC

courses take Up to 8 weeks to complete violates Civil Code section 1770(a)(7) and

(a)(9); and Business & Professions Code sections 17500 and 17200.

(h) whether Defendants false statement in CCCs Enrollment Agreement that Any

questions or problems concerning this school which have not been satisfactorily

answered or resolved by the school, should be directed to the Bureau for Private

Postsecondary & Vocational Education. 1027 Tenth Street, Fourth Floor, Sacramento,

CA 95814, (915)445-3427 violates Civil Code sections 1770(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5), and

(a)(14); Education Code sections 94897(l)(1) & 94911(j)(1); and Business &

Professions Code sections 17500 and 17200.

(i) whether Defendants operation of CCC without approval from the BPPE in violation

of Education Code section 94886 renders CCCs Enrollment Agreement illegal and

unenforceable;

(j) whether Defendants failures to perform all of the acts and disclosures required by

Education Code sections 94902, 94910, 94911, and 94912 renders CCCs Enrollment

Agreement illegal and unenforceable;

(k) whether Defendants false statement in CCCs Enrollment Agreement that This

agreement is a legally binding instrument when signed by the student and accepted by

the School violates Civil Code sections 1770(a)(14); and Business & Professions

Code sections 17500 and 17200;

(l) whether Defendants failure to include statutorily-required information on CCCs

website violates Education Code section 94913 and Business & Professions Code

section 17200;

(m) whether Plaintiff and other class members are entitled to restitution of all tuition paid

to Casino Career Center;

(n) whether Plaintiff and other class members are entitled to compensatory damages;

(o) whether Plaintiff and other class members are entitled to punitive damages; and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

(p) Whether Defendants should be enjoined from further engaging in the unlawful

conduct described herein.

23) Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the class. Plaintiff

and all the members of the class have sustained economic injury arising out of Defendants course of

unlawful conduct as alleged herein.

24) Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.

Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience practicing in the state of California. Plaintiff

and her counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the class and have

the financial resources necessary to do so. Neither Plaintiff, nor her counsel have any interest adverse

to those of the class.

25) A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy since individual joinder of all members of the class is impracticable.

Further, as the damages suffered by each individual member of the class may be relatively small, the

expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual

members of the class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the court system of such

individual adjudication would be substantial. Individualized litigation would also present the

potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments and would magnify the delay and expense to all

parties and the court system in multiple trials of identical factual issues. By contrast, the conduct of

this action as a class action presents fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the

parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each class member.

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS

26) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that in or about March

2006, Defendants and DOES 1 through 20 knowingly conspired and agreed among themselves to

unlawfully operate CCC without the required approval to operate and in violation of the requirements

of the California Education Code as described in detail below.

27) Defendants further knowingly conspired and agreed among themselves to advertise

CCC as a state certified school and to lure customers to enroll at CCC and pay Defendants tuition

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

based on numerous misrepresentations concerning CCCs approval to operate; the qualifications of

CCCs instructors; the value that casino employers place on CCCs graduation Certificates; the time

required to attain a CCC Certificate; and the job prospects for Certificate-holding CCC graduates.

28) Defendants further knowingly conspired and agreed among themselves to advertise

and use Defendant Raymond Basquezs status as a member and former councilman of the Pechanga

Band of Luiseo Mission Indians to persuade customers to pay Defendants tuition by telling current

and prospective students that Defendants could guarantee employment at the Pechanga Resort and

Casino.

29) Defendants further conspired and agreed among themselves to lure students to enroll

in CCC by falsely stating that a limited supply of scholarships and grants were available to pay up to

100% of tuition. Defendants used that lie to create a sense of urgency and induce prospective students

to hurriedly sign Defendants Enrollment Agreement for fear of missing out on a substantial discount.

30) Defendants further conspired and agreed among themselves that, in fact, CCC would

provide no scholarships or grants, but that, instead, Defendants would simply offer discounts on a

student-by-student basis as part of negotiating tuitionmuch the same as parties negotiate the sale of

a used car. In order to close the deal with a prospective student, Defendants also told prospective

students that they probably would not need to take certain courses listed in CCCs promotional flyers,

only to inform that student weeks or months after enrolling that, in order to get hired at Pechanga, the

student would need those additional courses--which CCC would provide for an additional fee. Thus,

once Defendants had a student on the hook, Defendants could continue to charge that student for

tuition, and assorted gambling equipment such as cards and chips until the student became wise and

refused any further payments to Defendants. At that point, Defendants would simply issue CCCs

useless and fraudulent Certificate of Completion to such a student and wish the student luck.

31) Pursuant to, and in furtherance of Defendants conspiracy, Defendants engaged in the

acts set forth below.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

A. Defendants Operate CCC without Statutorily-Required Approval to Operate.

32) The BPPVE was established by legislative enactment under the Private Postsecondary

and Vocational Education Reform Act of 1989 (the 1989 Act).

33) The BPPVE ceased to exist on January 1, 2007 when the 1989 Act was allowed to

sunset pursuant to former Education Code section 94999.

34) The 1989 Act, at former Education Code section 94931(a), barred any non-exempt

private postsecondary educational institution from offering educational services or programs unless

the institution obtained approval to operate from the BPPVE.

35) Plaintiff is informed and believes that during the period that the 1989 Act was in force,

CCC was fully subject to the 1989 Acts requirements and was not exempt.

36) Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges, that some time prior to

2003, CCC obtained approval to operate from the BPPVE, however, CCCs approval to operate

expired in 2003.

37) Effective January 1, 2009, the legislature enacted the California Private Postsecondary

Education Act of 2009 (the 2009 Act) see Educ. Code 94800 et. seq. The 2009 Act established

the BPPE to replace the defunct BPPVE and enumerated various requirements for the lawful

operation of private postsecondary schools in California.

38) The 2009 Act, at Education Code section 94886, requires that, subject to specific

exemptions, a person shall not open, conduct, or do business as a private postsecondary educational

institution in this state without obtaining approval to operate under this chapter.

39) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that from January 1, 2009

to the present, CCC has been fully subject to the 2009 Acts requirements and has not been exempt

from the Act.

40) Accordingly, CCC has not had approval to operate since 2003, notwithstanding that

for nine of those eleven years, the 1989 Act and the 2009 Act required CCC to have such approval to

operate.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

B. Defendants Falsely Advertise That CCC Is Approved to Operate.

41) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that Defendants Linda

Basquez and Raymond Basquez (collectively the Basquez Defendants) acquired ownership of CCC

in March 2006, three years after CCCs BPPVE approval to operate had expired.

42) Accordingly, as set forth above, CCC has not had approval to operate at any time that

the school has been under the Basquez Defendants control.

43) Nevertheless, Defendants have advertised CCC as a BPPVE-licensed vocational

training institution.

44) The Basquez Defendants have a business card that they provide to the public.

45) Plaintiff received one such business card from Linda Basquez on or about May 1,

2014.

46) A true and correct copy of that Business card is attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiffs

Civil Code section 1780(d) affidavit filed with this Complaint.

47) The business card identifies the Basquez Defendants as the owners of CCC and

includes the following text State Certified Vocational Training Lic. #3303011.

48) Defendants also give prospective students who visit CCC a flyer listing the classes

that CCC offers and the price for each class. That flyer states prominently at the top, State Certified

Vocational Training Bureau for Private Postsecondary Vocational Education BPPVE #3303011.

49) Defendants give Certificates of Completion to students who graduate from CCC.

Upon her completion of courses at CCC, Plaintiff received such a Certificate dated May 5, 2014

which was signed by Linda Basquez. The Certificate states prominently at the top, Casino Career

Center, Inc. State Certified BPPVE#3303011.

50) In addition, notwithstanding that the BPPVE ceased to exist in 2007, Defendants

include the following language in CCCs Enrollment Agreement: Any questions or problems

concerning this school which have not been satisfactorily answered or resolved by the school, should

be directed to the Bureau for Private Postsecondary & Vocational Education. The Enrollment

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

Agreement then provides a useless contact address and phone number. Defendants had Plaintiff

execute that Enrollment Agreement in November 2013.

C. Defendants Violate Numerous Sections of the California Education Code.

51) The California Legislature enacted the 2009 Act with the stated purpose of ensuring,

among other things, minimum educational quality standards, meaningful student protections,

appropriate regulatory oversight, and the prevention of the deception of the public that results from

conferring, and the use of, fraudulent or substandard degrees. See Cal. Educ. Code 94801.

52) It is no wonder that CCC does not have approval to operate because CCC falls grossly

short of meeting the Education Codes requirements for lawfully operating a vocational school.

Defendants Violations of Education Code section 94897(b)

53) Education Code section 94897(b) provides that An institution shall not do any of the

following: (b) Promise or guarantee employment, or otherwise overstate the availability of jobs

upon graduation

54) Notwithstanding the requirements of Education Code section 94897(b), CCCs

website claims that 99% of our students have found work in the industry and that You can find

exciting work in Indian Casinos, Cruise Ships, Las Vegas, Foreign Countriesjust about anywhere.

(ellipsis in original).

55) The website also states, Our certificate SO HIGHLY REGARDED that one-year

experience requirements are often waived by casinos!

56) The website also states that Casinos call us for students! and provides a list of

nineteen local casino employment opportunities.

57) Additionally, Defendant Linda Basquez regularly tells students and prospective

students that she can guarantee them employment at the Pechanga Resort and Casino because her

husband, Defendant Raymond Basquez is a member of the Pechanga Tribe and former member of the

Pechanga Tribal Council. The CCC website also touted the Basquez Defendants employment and

membership history with the Pechanga Resort and Casino and the Pechanga Band of Luiseo Mission

Indians as part of the Basquez Defendants biographical information.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

58) That biographical information was removed from the CCC website after Defendants

received Plaintiffs Civil Code section 1782 Notice and Demand Letter.

59) Contrary to Defendants public claims, CCCs Certificate of Completion is not

recognized (much less HIGHLY REGARDED) by any casino employer. Instead, hiring decisions

at casinos (including the Pechanga Resort and Casino) are made on the basis of auditions, prior

dealing experience, drug testing and criminal background checks, licensing, and the employers

particular needswithout regard to any certificate issued by CCC or any other casino school. No one

can guarantee employment at any casino.

60) Defendants gross overstatement of the availability of jobs for graduates with a CCC

Certificate of Completion violates Education Code section 94987(b).

Defendants Violations of Education Code section 94897(l)(1)

61) Under Education Code section 94897(l)(1) only an institution that has been granted

approval to operate may indicate that the institution is licensed or licensed to operate.

62) Education Code section 94897(l)(1) prohibits institutions from stating or implying that

The institution or its educational programs are endorsed or recommended by the state or the

bureau.

63) CCC has not been granted approval to operate. Nevertheless, Defendants business

cards state State Certified Vocational Training Lic. #3303011; Defendants promotional flyers for

CCC state State Certified Vocational Training Bureau for Private Postsecondary Vocational

Education BPPVE #3303011; CCCs Certificate of Completion states State Certified

BPPVE#3303011; and CCCs Enrollment Agreement falsely states that students with complaints

may address them to the BPPVE.

64) Defendants false claim to be licensed by the state and the Bureau violates Education

Code section 94987(l)(1).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

Defendants Violations of Education Code section 94911(j)

65) Under Education Code section 94911(j), an enrollment agreement must include a

statement that students may file complaints with the BPPE, and it must provide the BPPEs contact

information, and directions to the BPPEs website. See Cal. Educ. Code 94911(j).

66) Defendants failure to include these required statements regarding the BPPE in CCCs

Enrollment Agreement while, instead, providing useless and out-of-date instructions and contact

information for the now-defunct BPPVE violates Education Code section 94911(j).

Defendants Violations of Education Code section 94909

67) Education Code section 94909 requires that prior to enrolling any student an

institution must provide the student with, among other things, (a) a statement that the institution is

approved by the BPPE; (b) the contact information of the BPPE; (c) it must advise the student that he

or she may file a complaint with the BPPE; (d) a notice if the vocation for which the student is being

trained may require licensure and the list of eligibility requirements for such licensure; (e)

information regarding the schools faculty and their qualifications; and (f) a detailed description of

the schools cancellation, withdrawal, and refund policies including that the student has the right to

cancel the enrollment agreement and obtain a refund of charges through the first class session or the

seventh day after enrollment, whichever is later.

68) In violation of Education Code section 94909, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff or

other members of the class with any of the foregoing. Indeed, CCCs Enrollment Agreement even

requires students to initial a no refund policy in direct violation of Education Code section

94909(a)(8)(B).


69) Education Code section 94910 requires, among other things, that prior to enrollment,

an institution shall provide a prospective student with a School Performance Fact Sheet containing

completion rates, placement rates, license examination passage rates, salary or wage information, and

other information. The Fact Sheet must include a statement that the information therein is calculated

pursuant to state law and is filed with the BPPE.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

70) In violation of Education Code section 94910, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff or

members of the class with any School Performance Fact Sheet.


71) Education Code section 94911 enumerates numerous specific minimum requirements

for enrollment agreements, including, but not limited to, (a) a list of the total charges a student is

required to pay in underlined capital letters; (b) a disclosure with the clear and conspicuous caption

STUDENTS RIGHT TO CANCEL, with an explanation of the institutions statutorily-required

refund policy; (c) a statement explaining that the institution is required to provide the student with a

catalog and a School Performance Fact Sheet and to obtain the students signature on relevant

portions of the School Performance Fact Sheet and a certification for the Students signature stating

I have received the catalog, School Performance Fact Sheet, and information regarding completion

rates, placement rates, license examination passage rates, salary or wage information, and the most

recent three-year cohort default rate, if applicable, included in the School Performance Fact sheet,

and have signed, initialed, and dated the information provided in the School Performance Fact

Sheet; and (d) the enrollment agreement must also notify the student of his or her right to complain

to the BPPE and must provide the BPPEs address and phone number.

72) CCCs Enrollment Agreement meets none of the foregoing requirements in violation

of Education Code section 94911.


73) Education Code section 94912 requires that Prior to the execution of an enrollment

agreement, the information required to be disclosed pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, of

section 94910 shall be signed and dated by the institution and the student. Each of these items shall

also be initialed and dated by the student.

74) In violation of Education Code section 94912, Defendants had Plaintiff and other

members of the class execute CCCs Enrollment Agreement without Defendants fulfilling any of the

requirements of Education Code section 94912.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

Defendants Violation of Education Code section 94913

75) Education Code section 94913 requires that An institution that maintains an Internet

Web site shall provide on that Web site all of the following: (1) the school catalog. (2) A School

Performance Fact Sheet for each educational program offered by the institution. (3) Student

brochures offered by the institution. (4) A link to the bureaus Internet Web Site. (5) The institutions

most recent annual report submitted to the bureau.

76) In violation of Education Code section 94913, CCCs website provides none of the

information required by that section.

Defendants Violation of Education Code section 94920

77) Education Code section 94920 provides in relevant part that Institutions shall refund

100 percent of the amount paid for institutional charges, less a reasonable deposit or application fee

not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250), if notice of cancellation is made through attendance at

the first class session, or the seventh day after enrollment, whichever is later.

78) Under Education Code section 94922 a student may not waive his or her rights under

Education Code section 94920.

79) CCCs Enrollment Agreement states, There are no refunds under the discounted

rates and requires enrollees to initial that they understand the no refund policy.

80) As set forth in greater detail below, Plaintiff requested to withdraw from CCC and get

her money back on November 5 after starting classes the prior day. In response, Linda Basquez

shouted at Plaintiff and told Plaintiff that Plaintiff had signed a contract, and Basquez stated, Ill

give you something, but its not going to be much.

81) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that it is Defendants

policy to refuse all refund requests whether timely under Education Code section 94920 or not.

82) Defendants no-refund policy violates Education Code section 94920.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

D. Defendants Make Numerous False and Unlawful Statements in CCCs Promotional and

Student Materials.

83) Defendants maintain a website for CCC. The address of the website is

www.school4dealers.net.

84) The website is registered to Defendant Linda Basquez.

85) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that CCCs website was

created in January 2010.

86) Plaintiff visited CCCs website which advertised that one can Earn BIG MONEY in

AN EXCITING CASINO CAREER! On its jobs page, the CCC website stated, Why train for a

casino career? Casinos are all over the world! Make Big Money! Glamorous locations! You can find

exciting work in Indian Casinos, Cruise Ships, Las Vegas, Foreign Countriesjust about anywhere!

(ellipsis in original).

87) At various pages, the website made the following (or substantially identical) claims:

WHY ARE WE THE BEST?

99% of our students have found work in the industry.

The Casino Career Center Certificate means you are ready to audition and go to

work!

Casino personnel audition RIGHT HERE AT CASINO CAREER CENTER!

Our certificate SO HIGHLY REGARDED that one-year experience requirements are

often waived by casinos!

Casinos call us for students!

NO OTHER SCHOOL IS EVEN CLOSE!

88) The website also stated, on every page, that Scholarships and Grants are available to

pay 65% to 100% of your tuition. Limited Supply. Call for an appointment NOW!

89) The website also stated that All instructors at Casino Career Center are State

Certified and have many years of experience, especially with local casinos.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

90) Defendants also provide prospective students who visit the school with a promotional

flyer that states prominently at the top, State Certified Vocational Training Bureau for Private

Postsecondary Vocational Education BPPVE #3303011.

91) The promotional flyer also states that CCC courses take Up to 8 weeks to complete.

92) As set forth in greater detail below, all of the foregoing statements identified at

paragraphs 87 through 91 above are false.

E. Plaintiff Enrolls at CCC Relying on Defendants Numerous Misrepresentations.

93) In or about October, 2013 Plaintiff went to the CCCs website and saw all of the

foregoing claims. The prospect of making good money casino dealing, and the high rate of job

placement for CCC Certificate holders peaked Plaintiffs interest.

94) Plaintiff called CCCs phone number and spoke with Defendant Linda Basquez. Ms.

Basquez assured Plaintiff that, provided Plaintiff has no felony convictions, Plaintiff was sure to be

hired at the Pechanga Resort and Casino. Ms. Basquez told Plaintiff, that CCC was state-certified,

that CCC had the highest job placement rate of any casino school, and that Plaintiff should not attend

competing schools because they are a rip off.

95) Ms. Basquez told Plaintiff that she was sure that she could get Plaintiff a job at the

Pechanga Resort and Casino because Ms. Basquezs husband, Defendant Raymond Basquez is a

member of the Pechanga Band and former member of the Pechanga Tribal Council.

96) Ms. Basquez said that Plaintiff could expect to earn $5,000 a month as a table games

dealer at the Pechanga Resort and Casino.

97) Plaintiff then visited CCC on or about October 15, 2013.

98) During her visit, Ms. Basquez gave Plaintiff CCCs promotional flyer which lists

CCCs available classes and their prices. The flyer lists three different packages of courses,

Blackjack, Roulette, and Poker.

99) According to the flyer, the Blackjack Package of course costs $3,000, the Roulette

Package of courses costs $2,200, and the Poker Package of classes costs $3,000.

100) The flyer states that the classes will take Up to 8 weeks to complete.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

101) Prominently at the top of the flyer are the words, State Certified Vocational Training

Bureau for Private Postsecondary Vocational Education BPPVE #3303011.

102) Ms. Basquez informed Plaintiff that registration for the Blackjack Package would cost

Plaintiff $3,020, and that Plaintiff might not need the Roulette Package.

103) Plaintiff explained that she could not afford to pay $3,020, and Ms. Basquez said that

she would discount Plaintiffs tuition and registration by $1,500.

104) On November 4, 2013, having been persuaded by Defendants that she could find a

good job making $5,000 per month if she graduated from CCC, and believing that she was getting a

significant discount for tuition, Plaintiff went to CCC to enroll in CCCs Blackjack Package of

classes.

105) Plaintiff filled out and initialed CCCs Enrollment Agreement and made a $740 down

payment on the $1,520 owed as tuition for the Blackjack Package.

106) The Enrollment Agreement states There are no refunds under the discounted rates.

107) After filling out and initialing the Enrollment Agreement, Plaintiff started classes at

CCC.

108) On November 5, 2014, Plaintiff had second thoughts about her decision to enroll at

CCC. Plaintiff told Ms. Basquez that she wanted to cancel her enrollment, and that she wanted her

money back.

109) Ms. Basquez took Plaintiff outside and began shouting at her, You think you can just

come in here and use me for free? There are no refunds. You signed a contract.

110) When Plaintiff persisted with her cancellation and refund request, Ms. Basquez told

Plaintiff, youre not going to get a full refund. Ill give you something, but its not going to be

much.

111) Ms. Basquez then told Plaintiff that Plaintiff just had to hang in there, that Plaintiff

was sure to be hired at the Pechanga Resort and Casino, and that Plaintiff would make $5,000 a

month.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

112) Based on Ms. Basquezs assurances that Plaintiff would be hired at the Pechanga

Resort and Casino, and further based on Ms. Basquezs insistence that she would not refund Plaintiff

her entire tuition payment, Plaintiff returned to the school.

113) On or about March 19, 2014, Linda Basquez told Plaintiff that Pechanga would not

hire Plaintiff unless Plaintiff knew the games, Ultimate Texas Holdem, and Roulette, and unless

Plaintiff knew how to pitch deal. Defendant Basquez told Plaintiff that she could learn those games

and skills at CCC for an additional tuition of $1,100.

114) Plaintiff paid the entire $1,100 but never received any instruction for either Roulette

or pitch dealing.

115) When Plaintiff complained in or about May 2014 to Defendant Basquez about not

receiving Roulette and pitch dealing instruction, Defendant Basquez told Plaintiff, you never paid.

116) Plaintiff insisted that she did pay, and Defendant Basquez replied Prove it.

117) On May 5, 2014, Plaintiff received a Certificate of Completion from CCC for the

Blackjack Package of courses.

118) Certificate in hand, Plaintiff sought, work at the Pechanga Resort and Casino, Pauma

Casino, Oceans Eleven Casino, and Lake Elsinore Card Room. All of those casinos are listed on

CCCs website as local employment opportunities on the same page that the website claims that

casinos call CCC for students and that casinos HIGHLY REGARD the CCC Certificate.

119) Pechanga Resort and Casino refused to hire Plaintiff because Plaintiff was denied a

gaming license by the Pechanga Gaming Commission.

120) The general manager at Oceans Eleven casino flatly told Plaintiff, We dont hire

students from Old Town.

121) CCC is located in Old Town Temecula.

122) When Plaintiff applied for work at Pauma Casino the hiring manager told Plaintiff that

her CCC Certificate is useless, and that he did not even want to see it.

123) When Plaintiff applied at Lake Elsinore Card Room, the manager for dealers there told

Plaintiff that her CCC Certificate is useless and that CCC is a scam.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

124) After two failed auditions, Lake Elsinore card room told Plaintiff that they would hire

Plaintiff, but that they would have to train her first.

125) Plaintiff started her unpaid training at Lake Elsinore card room on or about November

4, 2014one year after she had enrolled in CCC with Defendants assurance that Plaintiff would be

certified-ready to audition and go to work in eight weeks.

126) On or about December 10, 2014, after Plaintiff had trained for more than a month,

Lake Elsinore Card Room finally hired her as a table games dealer.

127) Plaintiffs experience is typical of the class. Plaintiff and the other members of the

class would never have enrolled at CCC and paid Defendants tuition if Defendants had told them the

truth that CCC is not state certified or approved by the BPPE; that CCCs BPPVE license expired or

was revoked eleven years ago; that CCC can not lawfully charge and accept tuition from anyone; that

CCC employs teachers who are not state-certified; that CCCs graduation certificate means nothing to

employers; that CCCs job placement rate is not, in fact, 99%; and that no student will attain a CCC

Certificate in eight weeks--unless it is clear to Defendants after eight weeks that they can not make

any more money from that student.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER

LEGAL REMEDIES ACT

(Cal. Civ. Code. 1750 Et. Seq.)

(against all Defendants)

128) Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation contained

in paragraphs 1 through 127 above as though fully set forth herein.

129) Civil Code section 1770(a) enumerates twenty-six unfair or deceptive acts and

practices that, when undertaken in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or

lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful.

130) Civil Code section 1760 provides, This title shall be liberally construed and applied

to promote its underlying purposes, which are to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive

business practices and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

131) Plaintiff and the members of the class are consumers as that term is defined in Civil

Code section 1761(d), who purchased services from Defendants for personal purposes.

132) Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, Civil Code section 1770 through

the unfair and deceptive acts and practices alleged herein, which were all undertaken by Defendants

in transactions that were intended to result, and which did result, in the sale of services to consumers,

thereby entitling Plaintiff and each member of the class to relief under Civil Code section 1780.

Defendants Violations of Civil Code section 1770(a)(2)

133) Civil Code section 1770(a)(2) makes it unlawful to misrepresent the sponsorship,

approval, or certification of goods or services

134) Defendants have misrepresented the sponsorship, approval, and certification of CCCs

services in violation of Civil Code section 1770(a)(2) by:

(a) Falsely claiming to be state-certified by prominently displaying a defunct BPPVE

certification number on Defendants business cards, promotional flyers, and

Certificates of Completion; and

(b) falsely stating on CCCs website that all CCC teachers are state certified.

135) As set forth above, CCC is not in fact state certified.

136) Plaintiff is informed and believes that one or more of her instructors at CCC were not

state certified. In fact, nine days after receiving Plaintiffs Civil Code section 1782 Notice and

Demand letter, Defendants removed the false claim that all CCC teachers are state certified from the

CCC website.

137) Defendants above-listed misrepresentations violated and violate Civil Code section

1770(a)(2).


138) Civil Code section 1770(a)(3) makes it unlawful to misrepresent the affiliation,

connection, or association with, or certification by, another.

139) Accordingly, Defendants misconduct listed at paragraph 134 (a) and (b) above also

violated, and violates, Civil Code section 1770(a)(3).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138


140) Civil Code section 1770(a)(5) makes it unlawful to represent that services have

sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not

have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he or she

does not have.

141) Accordingly, Defendants misconduct listed at paragraph 134(a) and (b) above also

violated, and violates, Civil Code section 1770(a)(5)

142) Additionally, Defendants have misrepresented that CCCs services have

characteristics uses, or benefits which they do not have, by inter alia:

(a) Falsely stating on CCCs website that 99% of our students have found work in the

industry;

(b) falsely stating on CCCs website that Our Certificate SO HIGHLY REGARDED that

one-year experience requirements are often waived by casinos!;

(c) falsely stating that casinos call CCC for students;

(d) falsely stating the CCCs Certificate means that students are ready to audition and go

to work; and

(e) falsely stating that CCCs courses take Up to 8 weeks to complete.

143) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that substantially fewer

than 99% of CCC students have found work in the industry.

144) Indeed, nine days after receiving Plaintiffs Civil Code section 1782 Notice and

Demand Letter, Defendants removed their false claim that 99% of [CCCs] students have found

work in the industry from CCCs website.

145) No casino employer has told Plaintiff that they give any regard (much less HIGH

REGARD) to CCCs Certificate. On the contrary, prospective employers have told Plaintiff that the

CCC Certificate is useless and that CCC is a scam.

146) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that casinos do not, in fact,

call CCC for students.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

147) Plaintiff, having failed multiple auditions after being issued a CCC Certificate, and

having had to be retrained before she was hired by a casino, further alleges that CCCs Certificate

does not, in fact, mean that a graduate is ready to audition and go to work.

148) Plaintiff was not issued a CCC Certificate in eight weeks. On the contrary, Plaintiff

did not receive a CCC Certificate until she had weekly attended CCC from 9:30 to 4:00 p.m. Monday

through Thursday for six monthswhen she began complaining to Ms. Basquez about not receiving

instruction in Roulette and pitch dealing.

149) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that CCC rarely, if ever,

gives its students a Certificate of Completion in only eight weeks.

150) Defendants above-listed false statements violated and violate Civil Code section

1770(a)(5).


151) Civil Code section 1770(a)(7) makes it unlawful to represent that services are of a

particular standard, quality, or grade, if they are of another.

152) Accordingly, Defendants misconduct listed at paragraph 142 (a) through (e) above

violated, and violates, Civil Code section 1770(a)(7).


153) Civil Code section 1770(a)(9) makes it unlawful to advertise services with intent not

to sell them as advertised.

154) Plaintiff alleges that at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants knew that

CCC had no approval to operate; that some or all CCC teachers are not state-certified; that CCCs

Certificate is not highly regarded by casinos; that a CCC certification has no value for graduates who

audition for casino jobs; that fewer than 99% of CCC graduates are hired to work in the casino

industry; and that it takes more than eight weeks to get a CCC Certificate of Completion.

155) Notwithstanding the foregoing knowledge, Defendants advertised CCC as a state

certified school, and advertised that CCC provides a program of classes taught only by state

certified instructors that leads to a certificate that is so HIGHLY REGARDED by casinos that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

99% of CCC graduates are hired, and that classes for a CCC Certificate take Up to 8 weeks to

complete.

156) Accordingly, Defendants unfair and deceptive acts listed at paragraph 134 (a) and (b);

and paragraph 142 (a) through (e) violated, and violate, Civil Code section 1770(a)(9).


157) Civil Code section 1770(a)(13) makes it unlawful to make false or misleading

statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions.

158) Until December 3, 2014 (after Defendants had received Plaintiffs statutory 30-Day

Notice and Demand Letter) Defendants website made the following (or a substantially identical

advertisement) on every page of its website: Scholarships and Grants are available to pay 65% to

100% of your tuition. Limited supply. Call for an appointment NOW!

159) Plaintiff is informed and believes that, in fact, there have never been scholarships or

grants available for attendance at CCC and that no student ever received a 100% tuition waiver, but

that, instead, Defendants negotiate and charge tuition arbitrarily on a student-by-student basis.

160) Plaintiff is informed and believes that tuition at CCC can vary from student to student

by thousands of dollars for the same classes purely based on such negotiations.

161) Accordingly, there is not, in fact, a limited supply of (or any) scholarships or

grants available to attend CCC, and Defendants false advertisements to the contrary violated Civil

Code section 1770(a)(13).


162) Civil Code section 1770(a)(14) makes it unlawful to represent that a transaction

confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are

prohibited by law.

163) As set forth in greater detail above, Defendants operation of CCC is prohibited by the

Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 because CCC has not been approved by the BPPE.

164) Accordingly, pursuant to Education Code section 94902(b)(2), CCCs Enrollment

Agreement is not enforceable.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

165) Accordingly, Defendants have violated Civil Code section 1770(a)(14) by falsely

stating in CCCs Enrollment Agreement that This agreement is a legally binding instrument when

signed by the student and accepted by the School. Your signature on this agreement acknowledges

that you have been given reasonable time to read and understand it and understand the no refund

policy.

166) Defendants have also violated Civil Code section 1770(a)(14) by misrepresenting to

Plaintiff and other class members that their transaction with CCC involved remedies that may be

invoked by contacting the BPPVE.

167) Specifically, Defendants Enrollment Agreement provides: Any questions or

problems concerning this school which have not been satisfactorily answered or resolved by the

school, should be directed to the Bureau for Private Postsecondary & Vocational Education. 1027

Tenth Street, Fourth Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916)445-3427.

168) As set forth above, in fact, the Bureau for Private Postsecondary & Vocational

Education ceased to exist on January 1, 2007 and the address and phone number listed in the

Enrollment Agreement have not been operational since that time.

169) By certified-mail letter mailed on November 22, 2014 as directed in Civil Code

section 1782, Plaintiff, by counsel, notified Defendants of their violations of the Consumer Legal

Remedies Act and demanded that Defendants provide a remedy that rectifies their conduct. More

than thirty days have elapsed since Plaintiff mailed the letter.

170) Defendants have failed to give an appropriate correction, repair, replacement, or other

remedy, as set forth in Civil Code section 1782(b), for the above-described violations of law.

171) Defendants violations of Civil Code section 1770 present a continuing threat to class

members and the public in that Defendants are continuing to engage in these practices, are continuing

to refuse to refund amounts paid by consumers and will not cease until an injunction is issued by the

Court. Unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing to engage in these practices, Plaintiff, the

members of the class, and the public will be irreparably harmed.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

172) Pursuant to Civil Code section 1780(a)(1), Plaintiff and each member of the class are

entitled to compensatory damages.

173) Pursuant to Civil Code section 1780(a)(3), Plaintiff and each member of the class are

entitled to restitution of all tuition payments unlawfully received by Defendants.

174) Defendants actions described above are despicable and have been carried out with a

willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs, and the class members rights. Defendants intentionally

misrepresented and concealed material facts in order to deprive Plaintiff and the class members of

their property and their legal rights. Accordingly, Defendants conduct warrants the imposition of

exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code sections 1780(a)(4) and 3294 in an amount appropriate to

punish each Defendant and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.

175) Pursuant to Civil Code section 1780(a)(2), Defendants should be enjoined from further

engaging in the unlawful practices alleged herein.

176) Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to an award of attorneys fees and costs against

Defendants pursuant to the provisions of Civil Code section 1780(e) which provides that The court

shall award court costs and attorneys fees to a prevailing plaintiff in litigation filed pursuant to this

section.

177) The unfair and deceptive acts and practices of Defendants described above present a

continuing wrong and threat to Plaintiffs, the class, and the members of the public in that Defendants

persist and continue to engage in one or more of those practices, and will not cease doing so unless

and until forced to do so by this Court. Defendants conduct is causing, and will continue to cause

irreparable injury unless enjoined or restrained.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION

(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et. seq.)




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

179) Business & Professions Code section 17200 et. seq., also known as the California

Unfair Competition Law, prohibits acts of unfair competition, including any unlawful, unfair or

fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act

prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business

and Professions Code.

180) Defendants violated the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices prongs of

the UCL by operating CCC in violation of Education Code sections 94886, 94897(b), 94897(l)(1),

94909, 94910, 94911, 94912, 94913, 94920, 94943(a) and 94944 as described in paragraphs 53

through 82 above.

181) Defendants further violated the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices

prongs of the UCL by violating Civil Code sections 1770(a)(2), 1770(a)(3), 1770(a)(5), 1770(a)(7),

1770(a)(9), 1770(a)(13), and 1770(a)(14) as described in paragraphs 133 through 168 above.

182) Defendants violated the deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising prongs of the

UCL, and engaged in acts prohibited by Business & Professions Code section 17500 by inter alia:

falsely advertising that CCC is certified by the BPPVE; falsely advertising that All instructors at

[CCC] are State Certified; falsely advertising that 99% of [CCCs] students have found work in the

industry; falsely advertising that CCCs Certificate is highly regarded by casinos; falsely advertising

that CCC has a limited supply of scholarships and grants to pay 65% to 100% of students tuition;

falsely stating that students may seek recourse from the BPPVE; falsely telling students that they are

legally bound by CCCs unenforceable Enrollment Agreement; falsely stating that Defendants can

guarantee employment at the Pechanga Resort and Casino; and falsely stating that CCCs courses

take Up to 8 weeks to complete.

183) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, business

acts and Defendants unfair, deceptive, untrue and misleading advertising, Plaintiff and the members

of the class were wrongfully induced to enroll in CCC and pay Defendants tuition that Defendants

could not (and can not) lawfully charge or collect.

184) Accordingly, Plaintiff and the other members of the class have suffered injury in fact.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

185) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful, unfair, and deceptive

business practices, and Defendants unfair, deceptive, untrue and misleading advertising, Defendants

have been unjustly enriched and should be ordered to make restitution to Plaintiff and the members of

the class pursuant to Business & Professions Code sections 17203 and 17204.

186) The unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices of Defendants described herein

present a continuing wrong and threat to Plaintiffs, the class, and members of the public in that

Defendants persist and continue to engage in these practices, and will not cease doing so unless and

until forced to do so by this Court. Defendants conduct is causing, and will continue to cause

irreparable injury unless enjoined or restrained.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT




188) Under Education Code sections 94886 and 94902, Defendants were (and are)

statutorily barred from charging or accepting tuition payments from Plaintiff, or the members of the

class, or anyone, and Defendants are otherwise barred from conducting business as an educational

institution in California because CCC has not obtained an approval to operate from the BPPE.

189) Indeed, Defendants operation of CCC without the required approval is an infraction

subject to Penal Code section 19.6 and 19.7, and punishable by a fine of $50,000. See Educ. Code

94943, 94944. Stated otherwise, CCC is, quite literally, a criminal enterprise.

190) Accordingly, Defendants have illegally and unlawfully charged and collected tuition

payments from Plaintiff and each member of the class for enrolling at CCC.

191) By receiving those tuition payments, Defendants were enriched at the expense of

Plaintiff and the other members of the class.

192) The circumstances under which Defendants received Plaintiffs and each class

members tuition payments were illegal, unlawful, and unjust and require Defendants to pay

restitution to Plaintiff and each class member in the full amount of each tuition payment.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31


THE

LAW

OFF

ICE

OF

AN

DR

EW W

. TW

IETM

EYER

10

780

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

, Sui

te 4

01

Los A

ngel

es, C

A 9

0025

(3

10) 9

09-7

138

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED




194) Defendants received money in the form of tuition paid to Defendants by Plaintiff and

each other member of the class which money was intended to be used for the benefit of Plaintiff and

each class member.

195) CCCs Enrollment Agreements, pursuant to which Plaintiff and each member of the

class paid tuition to Defendants, were all void for illegality pursuant to Education Code sections

94886 and 94902(b) because CCC is not approved to operate.

196) Accordingly, Defendants are indebted to Plaintiff and each member of the class in the

full amounts that Plaintiff and each member of the class paid tuition to Defendants.

///

///

///

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the class, prays for judgment against Defendants as 3 follows:

4 1. For certification of this action as a plaintiff class action as set forth hereinabove;

5 2. For an order requiring Defendants to make restitution of all revenues, earning, compensation,

6 and benefits obtained as a result of Defendants' wrongful conduct;

7 3. For general, compensatory, special, and consequential damages according to proof;

8 4. For punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code section l 780(a)(4) and Civil Code 9 section 3294 in an amount sufficient to deter, punish and make an example of Defendants;

10 5. for mandatory attorney's fees and costs of suit pursuant to California Civil Code section

11

12

14

15

1780(e); 6. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the

wrongful practices alleged in this Complaint;

7. for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest according to proof; and 8. for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just.

17 DATED: December 23, 2014 THE LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW W. TWIETMEYER 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 32


~ ~ 00 ~ ......... ::: :::8 0 r-f-o""'" ' g:i ~ gj ::;:: - ' ~~8 ~ ..J;:;: ::;:: :> __,

f.Il~.;., ~ o:l N @.~ g

filing on suit against raymond basquez sr. and wife linda basquez

Documents

defendants linda

acts of ccc

c class action complaint

defendants false advertisement

operated ccc

county of riverside

defendant raymond basquez

defendant linda basquez