## Facts

- Kevin Ross, a recruited student-athlete, enrolled at Creighton University after being recruited despite very weak academic preparation.
- Ross alleged Creighton knew he could not do college-level work, but kept him eligible to play basketball by directing him into non-substantive courses and relaxing academic standards applied to non-athletes.
- Ross alleged Creighton promised a meaningful education and support sufficient to teach him necessary academic skills, but failed to provide adequate instruction or remedial assistance.
- Ross later attributed severe emotional and psychological harm, and difficulty functioning outside basketball, to Creighton’s recruitment and educational practices.
- Ross sued Creighton in contract and tort; Creighton removed to federal court based on diversity and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether an Illinois federal court could exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state private university based on its recruitment-related contacts connected to the dispute.
2. Whether claims framed as breach of contract, negligence, and misrepresentation for failing to provide an adequate education state a cognizable claim or are barred as educational malpractice.

## Decision

- The court denied the Rule 12(b)(2) motion, finding sufficient contacts to support personal jurisdiction.
- The court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the amended complaint in full.
- The court held that, regardless of labeling in contract or tort, Ross’s allegations required judicial evaluation of the adequacy and quality of educational services and therefore amounted to barred educational malpractice.

## Legal Principles

- Courts generally will not recognize tort claims alleging deficient educational quality because adjudication would require evaluating academic judgments, teaching methods, and curricular choices.
- Generalized promises of a “meaningful” or “adequate” education cannot be enforced through breach-of-contract theories when adjudication would still require assessing educational adequacy.
- Pleading educational-quality allegations as contract, negligence, or misrepresentation does not avoid dismissal when the substance of the claim seeks judicial review of academic performance and institutional educational decisions.
- Policy reasons supporting nonrecognition include absence of manageable legal standards for educational adequacy, deference to institutional academic discretion, and concern about broad exposure to litigation over educational outcomes.

## Conclusion

The court exercised personal jurisdiction over Creighton based on recruitment-related contacts but dismissed all claims because they were, in substance, impermissible educational malpractice allegations requiring judicial assessment of educational quality.


Ross v. Creighton Univ., 740 F. Supp. 1319 (N.D. Ill. 1990)