Cases & Developments

Order reversing and remanding for further proceedings. Plaintiff, a student enrolled in the dental program at Ohio State University during Spring 2020, on behalf of herself and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims after the University ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic, related to the (1) mandatory student union fee paid by all students and (2) dental clinic education support fee paid by dental students. The trial court certified plaintiff’s proposed class related to the student union fee and her proposed subclass related to the dental clinic education fee. In the instant appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed in light of its decision in Smith v. Ohio State Univ., which found that “the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction when the state makes highly discretionary decisions pursuant to its legislative, judicial, executive, or planning function, because the state has not waived its sovereign immunity in those decisions,” and remanded for the trial court to determine whether discretionary immunity applies.  

Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiffs, seven students who were enrolled in in-person classes at Boston University during the Spring 2020 semester, on behalf of themselves 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 district court denied class certification and granted summary judgment to the University, finding that the University was entitled to an impossibility defense for the contract claims. Massachusetts subsequently enacted “Law 80” granting immunity from monetary relief claims to Massachusetts higher education institutions that shifted to remote learning during Spring 2020. The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the University on the alternate ground that Law 80 bars plaintiffs’ action. In holding the retroactive application does not violate due process, the court found that Law 80 serves reasonable “public interests related to health, safety, future compliance, and economic consequences beyond the control of the universities;” that plaintiffs did not have a reasonable expectation that the University should violate the Governor’s public health order; and that the duration of Law 80’s application is appropriately limited.   

Opinion affirming summary adjudication in favor of the University. Plaintiffs, undergraduate students at the University of San Francisco in Spring 2020, on behalf of themselves 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. In affirming summary adjudication in favor of the University, the California Court of Appeals found that the various University statements plaintiffs identified concerning the educational experiences were of such a level of generality as to support only an inference that some instruction and services would be provided in person, but not an inference that it would be provided exclusively in person. It similarly found that plaintiffs failed to identify past conduct or custom showing that the University had historically provided in-person instruction during public health or safety emergencies. In affirming disposition of their claims regarding Fall 2020 and Spring 2021, the court noted that plaintiffs could not reasonably have believed the University had promised in-person instruction for those semesters.

Opinion reversing and remanding for further proceedings. Plaintiff, an undergraduate student at The Ohio State University 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. At issue in the instant appeal is whether the University’s assertion of discretionary immunity is a jurisdictional bar or an affirmative defense. Noting that it has held that “the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction when the state makes highly discretionary decisions pursuant to its legislative, judicial, executive, or planning functions, because the state has not waived its sovereign immunity for those decisions,” the Supreme Court of Ohio held that discretionary immunity is a limitation on the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to the trial court “to determine whether Ohio State is immune from suit in the Court of Claims regarding its decisions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including to suspend in-person instruction, transition to virtual learning, restrict access to its campus, and provide pro rata refunds to students only for the recreational fee and for room and board.”   

Memorandum Opinion denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a student at Bucknell University during Spring 2020, 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. In permitting her contract claim to proceed, the court found that although the Governor’s order closing all non-life-sustaining businesses made provision of on-campus instruction impossible, plaintiff had sufficiently alleged she was not given a meaningful opportunity to reject the modification of the implied contract for on-campus instruction. It permitted her unjust enrichment claim to proceed, finding she had sufficiently alleged that the University “retained considerable cost savings … by transitioning to remote learning.” The court then directed the parties to conduct targeted jurisdictional discovery to determine whether the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 as required for it to retain subject matter jurisdiction over the putative class action.