Burt v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of R.I.

• Decision Date: 04 March 2021
• Docket Number: C.A. No. 20-295-JJM-LDA, C.A. No. 20-226-JJM-LDA, C.A. No. 20-191-JJM-LDA,C.A. No. 20-465-JJM-LDA, C.A. No. 20-246-JJM-LDA
• Citation: 523 F.Supp.3d 214
• Parties: Sean BURT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND ; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. Logan Thomson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Board of Trustees of the University of Rhode Island, Defendant. Hyun Choi, Anna House, and Amy Pham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brown University and the Corporation of Brown University, Defendants. Destiny Washington, Devin Hazel, and Doris Alexander, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Johnson & Wales University, Defendant. Jeremy Simmons-Telep, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Roger Williams University, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

523 F.Supp.3d 214

Sean BURT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND ; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.

Logan Thomson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.Board of Trustees of the University of Rhode Island, Defendant.

Hyun Choi, Anna House, and Amy Pham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.Brown University and the Corporation of Brown University, Defendants.

Destiny Washington, Devin Hazel, and Doris Alexander, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.Johnson & Wales University, Defendant.

Jeremy Simmons-Telep, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.Roger Williams University, Defendant.

C.A. No. 20-465-JJM-LDA

C.A. No. 20-295-JJM-LDA

C.A. No. 20-191-JJM-LDA

C.A. No. 20-246-JJM-LDA

C.A. No. 20-226-JJM-LDA

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

Signed March 4, 2021

Jason A. Ibey, Pro Hac Vice, Kazerouni Law Group, Apc, St. George, UT, Todd M. Friedman, Pro Hac Vice, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, PC, Woodland Hills, CA, Peter N. Wasylyk, Law Offices of Peter N. Wasylyk, Providence, RI, for Plaintiff.

C. Russell Bengtson, Todd J. Romano, Bengtson & Jestings, LLP, Providence, RI, Crystal L. Nix-Hines, Pro Hac Vice, Shon Morgan, Pro Hac Vice, T. Scott Mills, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR., Chief United States District Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

This order consolidates Motions to Dismiss in five lawsuits brought against four universities in Rhode Island – the University of Rhode Island ("URI"), Brown University ("Brown"), Johnson & Wales University ("JWU"), and Roger Williams University ("RWU").¹ All the suits allege that Defendant universities’ decisions to transition from in-person to remote academic experiences in response to the COVID-19 pandemic amounted to breaches of contract. Suits against Brown and JWU also charge the schools with unlawful conversion, and the latter also brings a claim of "money had and received" against JWU.

University of Rhode Island

URI is a public research university with over 2,000 graduate and 14,000 undergraduate students. ECF No. 1 at 3-4 (20-465). The university traditionally offers both in-person and online learning options, at different price points. However, the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted the latter option – in mid-March 2020, in-person classes were changed to online only, students were mostly required to vacate their dormitories, and on-campus services and activities were cancelled. Students subsequently completed their Spring 2020 semesters remotely. URI offered a 25% refund towards housing and meal plans, but otherwise declined to refund tuition and other fees.² ECF No. 1 at 5-6 (20-465).

In response, two lawsuits have been filed against URI arguing that the decision amounted to a breach of contract and unjust enrichment. One suit brings these claims on behalf of a single class of all individuals who paid tuition and/or fees for on-campus instruction at URI for the Spring 2020 semester, ECF No. 1 (20-465), whereas the other brings the claims on behalf of both a "tuition class" and a "fees class." ECF No. 22 (20-295).

Brown University

Brown is a private research university with approximately 10,257 full-time students, including 7,043 undergraduates. ECF No. 22 at 10 (20-191). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the school offered few online courses and programs. Id. at 13. However, on March 12, 2020, the university announced that it was shifting all academic instruction online and requiring most students living on-campus or in Brown-owned properties to vacate their residences. For the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester, university facilities were closed, in-person events were cancelled, and students completed their courses online. Brown offered limited refunds on recreation, housing, and meal plan payments, but otherwise declined to refund tuition and other fees.³ Id. at 23-24.

Plaintiffs contend that this denial amounted to a breach of express and implied contracts, as well as unjust enrichment and conversion on the part of Brown.⁴ They bring these claims on behalf of a single class, including all who paid Brown tuition, fees, and/or room and board. Id. at 6-7.

Johnson & Wales University

JWU is a private university with 12,390 students – split between campuses in Providence, Rhode Island; Miami, Florida; Denver, Colorado,’ and Charlotte, North Carolina. ECF No. 16 at 2 (20-246). The university operates in-person academic programs, as well as an online program called JWUOnline, which offers online degrees at a lower price point. Id. at 2-3. On March 17, 2020, just over a week after the beginning of the Spring 2020 trimester, JWU announced that it would be conducting all classes online for the remainder of the term. Id. at 7. JWU required students living on-campus to move out, closing the school's residence halls and other facilities and cancelling in-person events and services for the trimester. The school declined to offer any pro-rated discounts or refunds on Spring 2020 tuition or fees, including room and board fees. Id. at 8.

Plaintiffs argue that this decision amounted to a breach of contract, as well as unjust enrichment, conversion, and "money had and received" by JWU. They bring these claims on behalf of a single class, comprised of all who paid tuition and/or fees for in-person programs at JWU during the Spring 2020 trimester.⁵ Id. at 11.

Roger Williams University

RWU is an institution of higher learning located in Bristol, Rhode Island. The school has historically offered degree options both in-person and online (through its "University College" program) at different price points. ECF No. 21 at 4-5 (20-226). On March 11, 2020, the university instructed students not to return to campus following their Spring Break and announced that it was moving all classes online, cancelling in-person events, and closing most non-essential campus facilities. Id. at 9. RWU has announced that it will be issuing pro-rata refunds or credits for room and board fees, but not for tuition or any other fees paid for the semester.⁶ Id. at 9-11.

Plaintiff contends that RWU has breached its contracts with students and has been unjustly enriched by this decision. He brings his claims on behalf of both a "tuition class" and a "fees class." Id. at 11.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

All four universities have moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss the claims brought against them. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must plead a "plausible entitlement to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 559, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Each complaint must have sufficient factual allegations that plausibly state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This standard requires more than a recitation of elements and must allow the Court to draw a reasonable inference that a defendant is liable. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The Court must accept plaintiffs’ allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Gargano v. Liberty Int'l Underwriters, Inc. , 572 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir. 2009).

Additionally, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), JWU moves to dismiss Plaintiff Doris Alexander's claims for lack of standing. The school argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over her claims because she brings them on behalf of her adult daughter. "The proper vehicle for challenging a court's subject-matter jurisdiction is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)." Valentin v. Hosp. Bella Vista , 254 F.3d 358, 362 (1st Cir. 2001). If a plaintiff "lacks Article III standing to bring a matter before the court, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide the merits of the underlying case." Dubois v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. , 102 F.3d 1273, 1281 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas , 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) ).

II. DISCUSSION

The Court will now consider Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, combining legal analysis for the claims shared among multiple lawsuits (breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion) and then addressing unique claims separately.

A. Breach of Contract and Breach of Implied Contract Claims

Plaintiffs brought breach of contract claims against each of the four universities, alleging that their decisions to transition from in-person to online education breached their contracts with students.⁷ Defendants all moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaints failed to sufficiently allege contractual promises for in-person education.⁸ Further, they argue that Plaintiffs are effectively bringing educational malpractice claims – impermissibly asking this Court to assess the quality of their educational offerings. Citing the importance of academic discretion, they urge against court intervention. See, e.g., Ambrose v. New England Ass'n of Sch. & Colleges, Inc. , 252 F.3d 488, 499 (1st Cir. 2001) (noting that "policy concerns include the lack of a satisfactory standard of care by which to evaluate educators’ professional judgments and the patent undesirability of having courts attempt to assess the efficacy of the operations of academic institutions.").

Two of the five complaints – against URI and RWU – bring separate breach of contract claims on behalf of a "tuition class" and a "fees class," whereas the remaining complaints allege on behalf of a single combined class. Because all the suits call for tuition and fees refunds with substantively similar arguments, the Court will combine its breach of contract analysis for all four universities, dividing between the two types of payments. Overall, this Court partially GRANTS (tuition...