Date: 06-08-2023

Case Style:

Stephanie Castillo, et al. v. Geeta B. Brown

Case Number: 2:20-CV-243

Judge: John A. Woodcock, Jr.

Court: United States District Court for the District of Maine (Cumberland County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: William M. Ojile, Jr., Elisab eth Anne Fortugne and James B. Haddow

Description: Portland, Maine civil litigation class action lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a fraud theory.

This action, Stephanie Castillo v. Geeta B. Brown, was filed on July 10, 2020 as a class action with four representative plaintiffs: Stephanie Castillo, Caridad Jean Baptiste, Cathy Mande, and Catherine Valley. Compl. ¶ 1 (ECF No. 1) (“All plaintiffs on their own behalves and as representatives of a class consisting of former practical (“LPN”) nursing students who were enrolled in InterCoast Career Institute in Kittery or South Portland, Maine”). The parties commenced discovery and on December 17, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion asking for an extension of time to complete settlement. Jt. Mot. for Extension of Time to File Mot. to Approve Settlement and Req. for Status Conf. (ECF No. 34). In this motion, the parties explained that this action is closely related to Kourembanas v. InterCoast Colleges, No. 2:17-cv-00331-JAW and Philadelphia Indemnity Company v. InterCoast Career Institute, No. 20-cv-00085-JDL. Id. at 1. They represented that on September 21, 2021, they had arrived at a “global settlement” of all three cases. Id.

As further background, although entitled Kourembanas v. InterCoast Colleges, No. 2:17-cv-00331-JAW, the Kourembanas action against InterCoast involved the same four representative plaintiffs and was a class action against InterCoast. Stephanie Castillo is the now married name of the former Stephanie Kourembanas. See Kourembanas, Pls.' Unopposed Mot. to Dismiss at 2, n.3 (ECF Nos. 70). In Kourembanas, the Court had reluctantly ruled that the mandatory arbitration provision of the InterCoast contract with its students was effective, and the Court stayed the action to allow the parties to proceed with arbitration. Kourembanas, Order on Mot. to Compel and to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 36, 44). There was a separate arbitration proceeding and, according to Ms. Brown, each of the representative plaintiffs in this case settled all their claims against InterCoast and Ms. Brown during the arbitration proceeding. Ms. Brown's Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Juris. Under Rule 12(b)(1) at 1 (ECF No. 57) (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss).

Separately, the parties to all three actions availed themselves of the masterful mediation abilities of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison, who orchestrated a global settlement with the parties' assistance. On July 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs in Kourembanas moved to dismiss their class action against InterCoast. Kourembanas, Pls.' Unopposed Mot. to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 70) (Kourembanas Mot. to Dismiss). Consistent with the unopposed motion, on July 18, 2022, the Court issued an order and entered judgment in accordance with a proposed order, dismissing the Kourembanas action with prejudice as to forty-eight named individuals and without prejudice as to any unnamed persons. Order on Pls.' Unopposed Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 71); J. (ECF No. 72).

In the July 15, 2022 motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs represented that they had arrived at a global settlement, including not only Kourembanas but Castillo and Philadelphia Indemnity as well. Kourembanas Mot. to Dismiss at 3. For reasons not apparent on the docket, the final resolution of Castillo has been delayed. The Philadelphia Indemnity resolution has also been delayed, but it seems that the resolution of that case depends upon the resolution of Kourembanas and Castillo. See Philadelphia Indemnity, Pl. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co.'s Mot. to Extend Time to Complete Settlement and File Stip. of Dismissal to Feb. 28, 2022 at 1 (ECF No. 72).

The docket is mostly silent about why the Castillo case has remained pending despite the July 15, 2022 representation that it had been resolved. There are periodic references to ongoing conferences with Magistrate Judge Nivison. Finally, on March 16, 2023, Geeta Brown filed a motion to dismiss the Castillo class action lawsuit. Mot. to Dismiss at 1-6. On April 14, 2023, the Castillo Plaintiffs filed a partial opposition. Pls.' Partial Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Juris. (ECF No. 58) (Pls.' Partial Opp'n). On May 1, 2023, Ms. Brown filed
her reply. Ms. Brown's Reply Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 59) (Def.'s Reply).

Outcome:
The Court GRANTS Ms. Brown's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1) (ECF No. 57) with prejudice as to the four representative plaintiffs and without prejudice as to unknown members of the uncertified class.

SO ORDERED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: