BY THE COURT
Whether a district court erred by granting a motion to
dismiss is a question of law subject to unlimited review. The
appellate court will view the well-pleaded facts in a light
most favorable to the plaintiff and assume as true those
facts and any inferences reasonably drawn from them. If those
facts and inferences state any claim upon which relief can be
granted, then dismissal is improper.
Kansas does not recognize a cause of action in tort for
Courts must be careful not to reject all claims that arise
out of a school environment under the umbrella of educational
malpractice. Instead, the specific facts of each case must be
considered in light of the relevant policy concerns that
drive the rejection of educational malpractice actions.
state a claim for negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff
must allege that (1) defendant failed to exercise reasonable
care in obtaining or communicating false information, (2)
plaintiff relied on the information that defendant supplied
for their benefit and guidance, and (3) plaintiff suffered
damages in a transaction that defendant intended to
appellate court has unlimited review over the interpretation
and application of a statute of limitations under the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act.
Kansas Consumer Protection Act claim becomes actionable,
triggering the limitations period, when the consumer becomes
aggrieved. A consumer becomes aggrieved when the consumer
suffers legal harm, even if he or she fails to discover or
recognize the harm.
appellate court reviews the district court's decision to
deny a motion to alter or amend the judgment using an abuse
of discretion standard.
from Douglas District Court; Barbara Kay Huff, judge.
Pantaleon Florez Jr., of Topeka, for appellant.
J. Aufdengarten and Michael C. Leitch, Office of the General
Counsel, University of Kansas, for appellees.
Hill, P.J., Standridge, J., and Neil B. Foth, District Judge,
23, 2016, Pantaleon Florez III filed a lawsuit against the
University of Kansas (KU); Dr. Rick Ginsberg, Dean of the KU
School of Education; Dr. Sally Roberts, Associate Dean of the
KU School of Education; and Dr. Paul Markham, Associate
Professor within the KU School of Education (Defendants). In
the lawsuit, Florez alleged negligence and a violation of the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) based on information
posted to the KU School of Education website that
misrepresented the requirements necessary to obtain an
initial teaching license in Kansas. The district court
granted a motion to dismiss in favor of Defendants based on
the court's finding that Florez' negligence claim was
actually a claim for educational malpractice, which is not an
actionable theory in Kansas, and its finding that the KCPA
claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Florez filed
a motion to alter or amend the judgment, but the district
court denied his motion. On appeal, Florez argues the
district court erred in dismissing his claims. We agree.
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated below, we reverse the
district court's order dismissing the petition and remand
with directions for the district court to reinstate the
action and otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with this
following facts are taken from the petition filed by Florez
and are assumed to be true for purposes of reviewing the
district court's ruling on Defendants' motion to
dismiss. See Cohen v. Battaglia, 296 Kan. 542,
545-46, 293 P.3d 752 (2013) (district court's decision on
motion to dismiss is subject to unlimited review and
appellate court must accept facts alleged by plaintiff as
2012, Florez applied for and was accepted into the KU School
of Education to pursue a Master's degree in Curriculum
and Instruction with an endorsement in Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Florez successfully
completed the coursework and received his Master's degree
in May 2014.
the date Florez submitted his application in 2012 through the
date Florez received his Master's degree in 2014, KU
represented on its official School of Education website that
the Curriculum and Instruction "[c]oursework fulfills
the requirement for the degree and a Kansas initial teaching
license." During the relevant time period, each of the
Defendants knew that the representations made on the website
were false because each of the Defendants knew that a degree
in Curriculum and Instruction from the KU School of Education
did not actually meet the qualifications necessary to obtain
an initial teaching license in Kansas.
21, 2014, Florez met with his advisor, Professor Markham.
During this meeting, Florez learned for the first time that,
contrary to the representations on the website, successful
completion of the coursework and a degree in Curriculum and
Instruction from the KU School of Education failed to meet
the qualifications necessary to obtain an initial teaching
license in Kansas. Professor Markham told Florez that the
Curriculum and Instruction coursework was not an initial
licensure program. In response to Florez' claim that the
website stated otherwise, Professor Markham disagreed.
that day, Florez e-mailed Dean Ginsberg about the issue.
Ginsburg confirmed that his degree failed to meet the
qualifications necessary to obtain an initial teaching
license in Kansas and agreed with Professor Markham's
opinion that the official website did not represent that
successful completion of the Curriculum ...