Botts v. Johns Hopkins Univ.

Decision Date21 April 2021
Docket NumberCivil Action No. ELH-20-1335
PartiesELENA BOTTS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION

The COVID-19 global pandemic is the worst public health crisis that the world has experienced in 100 years.1 Given the potentially severe consequences of contracting the virus, the pandemic produced unparalleled and exceptional circumstances impacting every aspect of our lives. Indeed, for a significant period of time, life as we have known it came to a halt. As mitigation efforts began to take hold in March 2020, many businesses and schools were forced to shut their doors, including Johns Hopkins University ("JHU," "Johns Hopkins," "Hopkins," or "University").

On or about March 11, 2020, in response to the public health crisis, Johns Hopkins announced the closure of its campus. And, like many institutions of higher learning, Johns Hopkins fashioned an alternative in teaching methodology, so that its students could continue their studies. In particular, Hopkins transitioned to online, remote learning.

Through the summer and fall semesters of 2020, as the pandemic continued, the University's campus remained closed and its offerings continued to be virtual. But, the University's tuition remained almost the same for most students.

The failure of JHU to remit and reduce tuition and fees, despite the move to online instruction, led plaintiff Elena Botts, a graduate student in JHU's School of International Studies ("SAIS"), to file suit against Hopkins. See ECF 1 ("Complaint"); ECF 35 ("Amended Complaint"). Botts filed a putative class action against the University, on behalf of herself, undergraduate, and graduate students, complaining that Hopkins "has not apportioned the [financial] burden in an equitable manner . . . ." ECF 35, ¶ 2.2 Botts complains that JHU has "retained all collected tuition, fees, and related payments since the Spring 2020 semester . . . ." Id. ¶ 3. She also alleges that Hopkins has "demanded" tuition and fees consistent with an "on-campus educational experience." Id. Because of the suspension of in-person instruction, Botts seeks a partial refund of tuition and fees, claiming that the University "has not delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities" that were "expected, were promised, contracted for and paid for. . . ." Id.

The Amended Complaint contains three counts: breach of contract (Count I); unjust enrichment (Count II); and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. Code (2013 Repl. Vol., 2017 Supp.), §§ 13-101 et seq. of the Commercial Law Article ("C.L.") (Count III). All three counts are asserted on behalf of all three classes: the "Spring 2020 Semester Class"; the "Summer 2020 Semester Class"; and the "Fall 2020 Semester and Beyond Class." Eachclass includes undergraduate and graduate students who paid "tuition and/or fees for in-person educational services that Johns Hopkins did not provide" during the relevant semester. Plaintiff seeks damages in the form of "reimbursement, return, and disgorgement of the pro-rated portion of tuition and fees" paid for the Spring 2020 semester and the subsequent semesters of online learning, to account "for the diminished value of online learning." Id. ¶¶ 61, 62.

Johns Hopkins has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF 42. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 42-1 (collectively, the "Motion"). Plaintiff opposes the Motion. ECF 43 (the "Opposition"). Defendant has replied. ECF 44 (the "Reply").

Notably, this class action is one of many brought by students against colleges and universities, complaining about tuition and fees in light of the pandemic. Indeed, since the filing of the Reply, both sides have filed notices of supplemental authority, bringing to the Court's attention several recent decisions in some of these suits. See ECF 45 to ECF 56.

No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny the Motion as to Counts I and II and grant the Motion as to Count III.

I. Factual Background3

Founded in 1876, Johns Hopkins is a "private research university" centered in Baltimore with approximately 23,000 students in its graduate and undergraduate programs. ECF 35, ¶ 9. It"boasts" a 140 acre "main campus" in Baltimore, with a wide variety of facilities, and also has "a substantial campus in the District of Columbia." Id. ¶ 15. In its Motion, JHU points out that Johns Hopkins actually has a total of eleven campuses. See ECF 42-1 at 7.4 The University has an endowment of approximately $6.28 billion dollars. ECF 35, ¶ 9.

Plaintiff claims that Johns Hopkins "holds itself out through its website, educational and promotional literature, and through in-person activities such as campus tours, as being as [sic] an elite residential research university." Id. ¶ 15. And, when "students apply to become admitted to one of its graduate or undergraduate programs, such students have the expectation that they would have use of the campus and educational facilities" and continue "their studies through the attainment of a degree." Id. ¶¶ 16, 17.

Botts asserts that the admissions offer from Johns Hopkins "promises a live, in-person education at one" of the University's campuses. Id. ¶ 20. Further, the admissions letter provides that the student will be "'joining a vibrant campus'" where the student "'will learn alongside intellectually adventurous peers under the guidance of faculty who are experts in their fields....'" Id. In addition, the admissions offer states: "'We can't wait to see what you will contribute to our campus....'" Id.

According to plaintiff, the JHU website "expressly promises that students will receive an in-person, on-campus educational experience." Id. ¶ 22. It states: "'Admitted first year students will receive additional information about their enrollment at Johns Hopkins in April. This will include details about housing, dining, academic advising, registration, [o]rientation and more.'" Id.

Further, plaintiff alleges that Johns Hopkins touts "the value of its campus life"; "its research capabilities"; "its various libraries"; residing on campus; the "significance of 'Experiential Learning'"; the "importance of in-person interactions"; "the benefits of in-person extracurricular activities"; and participation in "student clubs." Id. ¶¶ 40, 42-49. For instance, the website states: "'Living on campus is an indispensable piece of the Hopkins undergraduate experience.'" Id. ¶ 44 (quoting Housing & Dining, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY (May 21, 2020) https://www.jhu.edu/life/housing-dining/). As to "Experiential Learning," the website claims that, "'[t]hrough study treks, practicum projects, staff rides, career treks, and internships, you will gain practical, hands-on experience.'" Id. ¶ 45 (quoting Experiential Learning, SAIS (May 27, 2020), https://sais.jhu.edu/student-experience/experiential-learning). And, with respect to one of JHU's on-campus libraries, the website proclaims: "'Mason Library provides services, collections, and technologies that support the Johns Hopkins SAIS community. From one-on-one consultations with librarians to spaces for academic collaboration, the library is a hub of activity for students.'" Id. ¶ 49 (quoting Our Libraries, SAIS (May 27, 2020), https://sais.jhu.edu/faculty-research/our-libraries (May 27, 2020)).

Moreover, Botts alleges that Johns Hopkins "requires students to be on campus in order to be enrolled." Id. ¶ 41 (emphasis in original). For example, the student handbook for SAIS provides: "Students who are not on campus during the first two weeks of the semester may be required to [move] enrollment to a future term." Id.

The Spring 2020 semester began on January 15, 2020, "on-campus and in-person as usual, and as expected." Id. ¶ 24. The semester was scheduled to end on May 12, 2020. Id. However, about halfway through the semester, on March 5, 2020, Maryland Governor Lawrence ("Larry") Hogan, Jr. declared a state of emergency and catastrophic health emergency to control and preventthe spread of COVID-19 in Maryland. See State of Maryland, Declaration of State of Emergency and Existence of Catastrophic Health Emergency - COVID-19 (Mar. 5, 2020). A week later, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. See Rolling Updates on Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), WORLD HEALTH ORG., https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen. And, on March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency due to the novel coronavirus. See President Donald J. Trump, Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronarirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/.

On March 11, 2020, Johns Hopkins emailed its students, faculty, and staff, announcing that "because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person classes for the Spring 2020 semester would be suspended and replaced with online classes by March 23, 2020." Id. ¶ 27. Students were asked to vacate on-campus housing by March 15, 2020. Id.

Virtual instruction continued through the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester, as well as the 2020 Summer session. Id. ¶ 30. On June 20, 2020, Johns Hopkins announced that it would resume in-person classes in the Fall of 2020. Id. ¶ 32. But, a month later, on July 20, 2020, as the pandemic continued, the University "abruptly announced that all classes for the SAIS student[s] would be held online for the" Fall of 2020. Id. ¶ 34. Shortly thereafter, on August 6, 2020, JHU announced that undergraduate classes would also be held online for the Fall 2020 ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Bryant v. Koppers, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • September 12, 2022
    ...how their claim fails nonetheless under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 for completeness. Botts v. Johns Hopkins Univ., No. CV ELH-20-1335, 2021 WL 1561520, at *20 (D. Md. Apr. 21, 2021) ("The parties argue over whether plaintiff's MCPA claims are subject to the heightened pleading standa......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT