Cases & Developments

Opinion Affirming Summary Judgment for the Defendant. Plaintiffs, former students at Chapman University, sued the university for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices seeking a partial tuition refund after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs’ “general expectations for in-person classes” was not reflective of a “specific, binding promise.” On appeal, the court affirmed, reasoning that even though the university publications included statements that “listed class locations and touted on-campus facilities and ‘face-to-face contact’ with faculty,” the statements were “not sufficiently ‘specific’ to constitute enforceable implied promises.”

Opinion Affirming Defendant’s Summary Disposition. Plaintiffs, two students who attended the University of Michigan during the Winter 2020 semester, brought breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against the university, seeking prorated refunds for tuition, fees, and room and board after the university modified the educational program by moving classes online and canceling campus events in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. After the court of claims granted summary disposition to defendants, plaintiffs appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on any of their claims. With respect to plaintiffs’ tuition reimbursement claim, the court held that “[i]n light of the university’s written indication that courses were subject to change, and plaintiffs’ failure to point to any evidence to the contrary,” there was no evidence of an offer, or a meeting of the minds on any specific format for delivering educational services, and therefore, no enforceable contractual promise. The court also held that the university did not breach any terms in its housing contracts, noting that while the university explicitly allowed students to remain in campus housing, it offered students a $1,200 refund for those who chose to move out, which both plaintiffs accepted. Finally, the court concluded it was not unjust for the university to retain tuition and fees paid by the plaintiffs, reasoning that the university charged the same for both in-person and online instruction and had “successfully maintained the core of its educational mission” by continuing to provide these services throughout the pandemic.   

Order and Opinion Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Class Certification. Plaintiff, father of a former Emory University student during Spring 2020, on behalf of himself and a proposed class brought a breach of contract claim and a money-had-and-received claim following the closure of the University’s campuses due to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. In September 2023, the Eleventh Circuit granted permission for an interlocutory appeal of the partial grant of plaintiff’s Motion to Certify the Class, which it subsequently vacated and remanded, assigning two errors: “(1) it was an error to find that the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry ‘requires that damages . . . be measurable on a class wide basis through use of a common methodology;’ and (2) it was an error to place the burden on [the University] rather than [plaintiff] to establish whether damages are capable of class wide rather than individual determination.” On remand, the University requested that the Court reconsider whether plaintiff had standing to pursue his claims, citing a new wave of case law handed down since the Court first considered the issue. The Court found that many courts have more recently held that parents seeking relief on behalf of their adult children do not have standing in suits against colleges and universities that closed their campuses during COVID-19, citing a similar case in the Second Circuit where a parent was found to lack standing to pursue a breach of implied contract claim or a money-had-and-received claim. Reasoning that “federal courts have concluded near unanimously that parents of adult students lack standing to bring similar COVID-19-related lawsuits against universities, even when they paid tuition and fees,” the court concluded that plaintiff failed to allege an injury particular to him as he did not and could not claim that he was denied access to the University’s in-person classes, facilities, and services; plaintiff’s daughter is the only one who suffered the alleged injury-in-fact, and that as a result she is the only one who could have entered into a contract with the University. Finally, the Court found that plaintiff failed to meet his burden to identify a viable class wide damages model and his proposed class was unmanageable as he did not know how many members his putative class contained, and his proposal relied on a UserID field in the University’’ OPUS software that does not reliably identify payors; made no attempt to explain how he will identify payors who paid through third-party services or wire transfers; would allow payors to self-identify; and would require individualized forensic review of payment records.