Cases & Developments

Opinion and Order denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff, a student at Barnard College during the Spring 2020 semester, on behalf of herself and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the College after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. In denying the College’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s contract claims, the court ruled that various descriptions on the College’s website were sufficient to allege an implied contract for on-campus instruction and services. The court also found that the College’s disclaimer in its course catalogue did not defeat plaintiff’s implied contract claim and that the College’s assertion of an impossibility defense and contention that plaintiff waived her claim and ratified the change when she retained the benefit of the bargain were better resolved at a later stage of litigation. Likewise, the court also permitted plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim to proceed.   

Final Order approving Class Action Settlement. Plaintiffs, three students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) during Spring 2020, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against RPI, after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. The court granted final approval of the parties’ multi-class Settlement Agreement, which provided for a total settlement amount of $6,500,000.   

Memorandum & Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, two students at Brandeis University during Spring 2020, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the University related to tuition and fees after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. Massachusetts, however, enacted a statute granting institutions of higher learning retroactive immunity from damages claims arising from the spring academic term of 2020 where the institution offered online or remote learning options to allow students to complete coursework. In granting summary judgment in favor of the University, the court held that the retroactive provisions were narrowly tailored to the difficulties of the initial phases of the pandemic and promoted several rational bases, including encouraging institutions to respond appropriately to future health crises.

Order denying petition for a writ of mandamus. Plaintiff, a student at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) during Spring 2020, on behalf of herself and putative tuition and fee classes of all students enrolled in institutions overseen by the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), sued NSHE for its March 2020 directive to institutions to cease in-person instruction, which was made in response to the Governor’s COVID-19 Emergency Directives. The district court denied NSHE’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against the institutions she had not attended for lack of standing, finding she had sufficiently pled that students at all NSHE institutions had suffered the same injury when it moved to online instruction. In declining to provide writ relief, the Supreme Court of Nevada held that the district court had not clearly erred or manifestly abused its discretion in finding that prior to discovery the “products” of UNLV and the other NSHE institutions were not sufficiently differentiated to deny plaintiff standing to proceed against all the institutions.   

Opinion affirming denial of class certification. Plaintiff, a student at Ball State University in spring 2020, on behalf of himself and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the University after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. The Indiana General Assembly, however, passed a law retroactively prohibiting class action lawsuits against postsecondary institutions to recover losses related to COVID-19. The trial court denied class certification, but the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed. In vacating and affirming the trial court’s order, the Supreme Court of Indiana held that the law constitutionally furthers the public policy objective of reducing institutions’ litigation exposure for their pandemic responses and does not impermissibly interfere with judicial administration. The court also held that (1) the law is not an unconstitutional taking because there is no property right in a class action and (2) limiting his ability to enforce other students’ contract rights does not impair his ability to seek a remedy in his own alleged breach.

Order reversing and remanding dismissal, and certifying a question to the Florida Supreme Court. Plaintiff, a student at the University of South Florida, on behalf of himself and a putative class, brought contract claims against the University after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. The trial court dismissed the claims on the ground of sovereign immunity. In reversing, the Florida Court of Appeals held that whether the parties’ contract included a promise to provide on-campus services and the University’s assertion of sovereign immunity are more appropriately resolved at the summary judgment stage. The appeals court also certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question, “Should a motion to dismiss a breach of contract claim against a state university alleging the university’s failure to provide its students with access to on-campus services and facilities be granted based on sovereign immunity if the complaint alleged a contract between the parties but the attached documents alleged to comprise that contract do not specifically obligate the university to provide the on-campus services and facilities that the state university allegedly failed to provide?” 

Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiffs, two students enrolled at the University of Rhode Island during Spring 2020, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the University related to tuition and fees after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ tuition claims, finding no plausibly alleged implied contract, and subsequently granted summary judgment on the fees claims. Beginning with the tuition claims, the First Circuit held that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged an implied contract based on published statements and prior course of dealings, but it also held that the University had sufficiently established at the motion-to-dismiss stage the affirmative defense of frustration, noting that the Governor’s emergency orders made in-person, on-campus instruction impracticable. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University on plaintiffs’ contract claims regarding fees, the court held (1) that the University fulfilled its obligations related to the student activities, capital projects, technology, and health services fees and (2) that its contractual obligations as to the use of the Memorial Union and Fitness Center were discharged by substantial frustration. Plaintiffs’ corresponding unjust enrichment claim failed because plaintiffs adduced no evidence to suggest that the University’s use of these funds on alternative services was unjust.