Gail Fung v. Liberty University

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Fung fails to allege sufficient facts to pass even the first element of this test—her complaint merely alleges “Liberty failed to adhere to its established graduation policies,” without establishing what those policies are or what “false representations” Liberty made regarding her graduation. Dkt. 38 at 1. And further, Fung’s complaint is silent as to the “false representations” Liberty made about the degrees that dissertation chairs must have in order to work in their positions. 3 The Court finds that Fung’s cited case, Friedman v. Southern New Hampshire University, 104 A.D. 3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) does not exist, nor does it provide support for the assertion that students may bring claims of education fraud against their schools and universities. The Court addresses Liberty’s request for sanctions related to Fung’s inclusion of this case in the conclusion of this memorandum opinion. 4 She relies on Hoffman v. Board of Education in making this argument—a case which, even construed liberally—does not address “the impact of educational institutions’ actions on students’ career prospects.” Dkt. 38 at 2; 400 N.E.2d 121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979). Hoffman concerned a student’s placement in special education for intellectually disabled children, where he remained improperly for “over ten years.” Id. at 123-24. The Court denied his parents the right to challenge his placement. Id. at 127. 5 Case 6:25-cv-00058-NKM-CKM Document 48 Filed 02/24/26 Page 6 of 11 Pageid#: 132

Authorities cited in the passage: Friedman v. Southern New Hampshire University, 104 A.D. 3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) · Friedman v. Southern New Hampshire University · Rule 11