Cases & Developments

Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff, a student at Grand Canyon University (GCU) during spring 2020, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the University after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic.  With respect to his contract claims, the court previously certified one class for those who paid room and board and one for those who paid other fees, but it denied class certification for his unjust enrichment claims.  The court granted summary judgment to GCU on the room and board claims, finding no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether GCU breached its contractual obligations because GCU continued to permit students to live on campus, continued to provide take-out meals, and refunded unused “Dining Dollars” to students who graduated.  Turning to the contract claims related to other fees, however, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed with respect to the Student Activity Fee and the Health Fee, finding disputes as to whether GCU continued to provide access to facilities and activities and a dispute as to whether the telehealth services it offered were available to students living outside of Arizona.  The court granted summary judgment to GCU on plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claims, finding that all damages sought derived from contractual rights and obligations. 

Opinion affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, and remanding dismissal.  Plaintiffs, students at the University of Pittsburg and Temple University during March 2020, on behalf of themselves and putative classes, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the Universities after they ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The district courts dismissed plaintiffs’ claims.  Consolidating the cases on appeal, the Third Circuit held, first, that the Universities’ Financial Responsibility Agreements functioned not as integrated contracts, but as promissory notes detailing only the students’ obligations.  It then held that plaintiffs’ references to university publications, a tradition of in-person instruction, and different marketing and pricing for online programs was sufficient to state an implied contract claim.  It similarly held that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded contract claims as to all required fees except for Pitt’s housing and dining fees for students who had not moved out by April 3, 2020, which no plaintiff was alleged to have paid.  Turning to their unjust enrichment claims, the court held that whether the Universities profited or incurred unexpected costs is a factual question appropriately resolved at a later stage.  Finally, the court held that plaintiffs had also adequately pleaded damages, finding that it is sufficient that the fact of damages is cognizable and that at this stage there need not be  an objective methodology by which such damages could reasonably be calculated.

Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a student at the University of Miami during the Spring 2020 semester, on behalf of herself 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 University retained full tuition for the semester but refunded a prorated amount of 36.5% of fees for the portion of the semester after it had closed campus facilities. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment to the University on her contract claims, holding that any contractual right to in-person education was qualified by Student Handbook provisions permitting modification of procedures and access to facilities. It affirmed summary judgment on her unjust enrichment claim, finding no showing of injustice in the face of executive orders mandating closure and citing the University’s overall $50 million net financial loss for the semester. The court also noted that plaintiff seemed to value online instruction on par with in-person instruction in Fall 2020 when she opted for online instruction over in-person instruction at the same rate. Finally, the court found that plaintiff failed to offer evidence to support her claim that it should have refunded 48% of fees in proportion to its one-week extension of spring break prior to its campus closure.