Local Counsel in EDTX for Contract Dispute

I am a California law student and I am seeking a local attorney in the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) to assist with a contract dispute involving my former university and a debt collector. The ideal candidate will be responsible for a variety of tasks including:

- Reviewing the complaint

- Negotiating with the Defendants

- e-filing and signing

I will draft filings and overall strategy. You will get a base fee for your time (review for accuracy) and a percentage of debt discharged and a bonus for obtaining specific performance.

The attorney will also need to e-file and physically appear in court on my behalf.

You should have a strong background in contract law and experience in the EDTX federal court. Good communication skills and a commitment to my case are essential. Please include your experience with contract disputes and the EDTX in your proposal.

REDACTED EXTRACT FROM DRAFT COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

[REDACTED PLAINTIFF NAME]

Plaintiff,

V.

[REDACTED UNIVERSITY NAME]; and

[REDACTED COLLECTION AGENCY NAME]

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil action no.:_______________________

INTRODUCTION

[REDACTED PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") respectfully submits this action against [REDACTED UNIVERSITY NAME] ("University") and [REDACTED COLLECTION AGENCY NAME] ("Collection Agency"), asserting claims under federal law, state law, and contractual principles. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges improper financial practices, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and violations of consumer protection laws. This action seeks damages, declaratory relief, and specific performance, including the immediate release of official transcripts unlawfully withheld by the University.

PARTIES

Plaintiff is a former student of the University and has resided in the Eastern District of Texas during all times relevant to this case.

Defendant University is a state institution of higher education located in [REDACTED CITY], Texas, which administers federal financial aid programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act.

Defendant Collection Agency is a debt collection agency conducting business in multiple states, including Texas.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) as Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal statutes, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Supplemental jurisdiction exists for Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as these claims are so closely related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because substantial acts giving rise to the claims occurred within the Eastern District of Texas.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff enrolled as a student at the University and satisfied all tuition obligations using a combination of an American Express payment, federal financial aid, and a University grant. (See Exhibits A and B).

The University issued two refunds ("Refunds X") to Plaintiff’s bank account, confirmed through emails from the Vice President of Accounting at the University. (See Exhibit C).

Despite these refunds, the University later applied charges to Plaintiff’s account in an amount equal to 1X Refund X. These charges were not visible in the University’s online payment portal, creating a false sense of resolution under promissory estoppel principles. (See Exhibit D).

During the same semester, Plaintiff added mid-term courses and submitted tuition payments of Y on [Insert Dates]. Technical issues caused duplicate submissions, resulting in three charges for the same amount. While these charges were not disputed initially, the resulting negative balance (Z) compounded the confusion. (See Exhibits E, F, and G).

Plaintiff received a phone call from the University’s accounting office alerting them to unexplained charges that were not reflected in prior statements or the payment portal. (See Exhibit H).

Additionally, Plaintiff incurred study abroad charges, which were later removed but contributed to ongoing discrepancies. (See Exhibit I).

Subsequently, Plaintiff was contacted by the Collection Agency, alleging a debt of (C). Plaintiff disputed this claim through certified mail (See Exhibit J), prompting the agency to provide contradictory responses. (See Exhibit K).

The University’s "Student Financial Responsibility Agreement" purports to justify withholding official transcripts for unpaid balances. However, the University’s website explicitly states that transcripts are available for order 24/7. (See Exhibit L). Certified copies of these public statements are attached.

At one point, Plaintiff agreed to a payment plan solely to expedite access to transcripts required for employment. However, Plaintiff did not make payments under this plan, believing the cost of legal action outweighed the burden the University claimed.

Transcripts at the University are produced by a third-party vendor, imposing minimal administrative burden for release. Despite this, the University continues to refuse Plaintiff’s transcript request submitted on December 27, 2024, for which fees were paid. (See Exhibit N).

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count I – Promissory Estoppel

Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs. The University’s conduct created clear and definite promises regarding financial obligations and transcript availability, inducing Plaintiff’s reliance to their detriment. Under Texas law, the University is estopped from imposing hidden charges or withholding transcripts based on prior representations. See In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2005).

Count II – Breach of Contract

The financial transactions, refund confirmations, and the University’s publicly stated policies constitute enforceable contractual terms. The University breached these terms by imposing undisclosed charges and refusing transcript requests after payment. See Henry Schein, Inc. v. Stromboe, 102 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. 2002).

Count III – Violation of Federal Financial Aid Regulations

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

As a Title IV participant, Defendant University is required to manage federal financial aid in compliance with the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1070 et seq.) and applicable federal regulations. Defendant’s handling of Plaintiff’s account, including contradictory financial statements and improper charges, constitutes a violation of these statutory duties.

While not binding in this jurisdiction, the reasoning in Alden v. Georgetown Univ., 734 F. Supp. 245 (D.D.C. 1990), is instructive and should guide this Court for purposes of continuity in interpreting federal law. In Alden, the court emphasized the critical importance of accurate financial aid administration to ensure compliance with federal laws designed to protect student borrowers. Consistent with Alden, this Court should find that the University’s mismanagement of Plaintiff’s account, including misrepresentations and improper withholding of funds, violates the statutory obligations imposed under Title IV.

The violations alleged have directly harmed Plaintiff by creating confusion in their account records, delaying access to their transcripts, and impeding their ability to apply for employment and further education. These harms underscore the importance of continuity in enforcing federal financial aid standards to ensure the integrity of Title IV programs and to protect students relying on these funds.

Count IV – Unfair Debt Collection Practices

The Collection Agency violated the FDCPA by pursuing collection of a disputed debt with contradictory statements, causing distress and confusion in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

Count V – Specific Performance

Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the University to release the requested transcripts. Given the University’s minimal burden in facilitating this request, specific performance is warranted. See Cohen v. Mavis Tire Supply, LLC, 13 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. App. 2000).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

Declare the University’s actions unlawful;

Order the University to release Plaintiff’s official transcripts;

Award damages, including costs incurred;

Enjoin the Collection Agency from further collection efforts;

Award reasonable compensation for Plaintiff’s time; and

Grant any other relief deemed just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Pravo Pogodbe Pisanje pravnih vsebin Pravne raziskave Delovno pravo

ID projekta: #38930331

Več o projektu