Figueroa v. Point Park Univ.
| Decision Date | 11 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01484 |
| Citation | 553 F.Supp.3d 259 |
| Parties | Rafael FIGUEROA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. POINT PARK UNIVERSITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Gary F. Lynch, Edward W. Ciolko, Pro Hac Vice, Nicholas Colella, Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff Rafael Figueroa.
Gary F. Lynch, Edward W. Ciolko, Nicholas Colella, Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiffs Kahlil Cabble, Ty'Anthony Scott, Ryan Petty.
Chalyn Galligan, Jeffrey Weimer, Mariah H. McGrogan, Catherine S. Ryan, Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant.
In Spring 2020 the global Covid-19 pandemic necessitated the closure of campuses worldwide and a temporary transition of essentially all United States post-secondary instruction to online. The question before this Court, as before numerous others nationwide, is not whether this sweeping alteration in the educational experience of students previously receiving a traditional on-campus post-secondary education was foreseeable, voluntary, or avoidable by either party. Clearly it was not. Nor is the question whether Defendant was justified in closing its campus. Clearly it was. Nor is the question whether the university made appropriate efforts in response to an unprecedented public health crisis. Surely it did. The question is: did the educational institution have a contractual obligation to provide in-person, on-campus learning to the Plaintiffs? And: (a) If so, is it excused from financial liability for a difference in value between the institution's traditional education and the virtual education necessitated (a difference perhaps informed by its own online course fees), as by, e.g. , a force majeure clause in its contract?1 Or (b) If not, are the students nonetheless entitled to restitution, as by a theory of unjust enrichment or quantum meruit ?
These are the questions that must inform the assignment of this portion of the pandemic losses – of education, employment, savings, homes, friendships, family, life itself – which befell us. And they are ones on which District and State Courts across the country continue to be divided. For the reasons set forth fully below, the Court finds in answer to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss that Plaintiffs have stated a claim for (a) breach of contract under Pennsylvania law or, in the alternative, (b) unjust enrichment/quantum meruit. It further concludes that they have failed to state a claim for conversion.
Plaintiffs (Rafael Figueroa, Kahlil Cabble, Ty'Anthony Scott, and Ryan Petty) and the putative class members are students who were participating in Defendant's on-campus educational program for the Spring 2020 semester. Defendant, Point Park University ("PPU" or "University"), is a private university with a principal campus located in downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The University offers major fields for undergraduate students, as well as a number of graduate programs. It offers the traditional on-campus post-secondary degree program in which Plaintiffs were enrolled, and which was being provided to them in the first part of their Spring 2020 semester. It also offers an online/virtual learning program, under a lower-cost tuition and fee structure.2
The university requires, as do some others, that students electing to "proceed[ ] with the online registration process" accept the "financial registration terms and conditions" set forth in the one-page document of the same name. The Financial Registration Terms and Conditions (the "FRTC") provides, as one would expect, specific payment obligations being assumed by the student. These include the section headings: Financial Responsibility, Late Fees/Business (Student Accounts) Hold, Collection Costs and Credit Reporting and Collection Communications.3 The final two sections contain (a) a Withdrawal Policy under which a student who "officially" drops or withdraws from classes "during the determined tuition refund periods" is "eligible for a refund of all or a portion of tuition and fees"4 and (b) a reservation of PPU's "right to change the financial registration terms and conditions at any time", with a recommendation that the student therefore review them periodically. Notably, the FRTC does not contain any express reciprocal obligation on the part of the University whatsoever. It does not, e.g. , contain any express provision obligating PPU to provide instruction of any kind (in-person or other) or even to process the student's registration. Nor does it contain any specification of the amounts or parameters of the charges the student is assertedly contracting to pay for "tuition, fees, room, board" and unspecified "other charges". It contains no merger clause or language of integration. The FRTC is, in other words, precisely what its title suggests: an unintegrated express documentation of some terms of particular importance to the University – i.e. , students’ payment obligations. ECF No. 26-1. See also ECF No. 35 at 6 ().5
Plaintiffs allege that in exchange for amounts charged for their traditional education, Defendant undertook to provide benefits and services unique to in-person learning – such as an active, urban campus environment "in the heart of Downtown Pittsburgh"; "a full calendar of [on-campus] student activities and events"; and the friendships, collaborations and social interactions of campus life. ECF No. 34 at 7; see e.g. , Complaint at ¶ 42. These additional benefits and services are assertedly represented through various PPU materials made available to students, such as PPU's website, catalogs, promotional materials, circulars, and other admission papers and publications. See e.g. , Complaint at ¶¶ 42-43. Plaintiffs therefore allege that, under Pennsylvania law, these writings contained terms of their implied-in-fact contract with PPU.
In March 2020, part-way through the Spring semester and in response to the pandemic and government mandates, PPU closed its campus facilities and in-person services and activities and moved all classes to virtual learning platform(s).6 Plaintiffs allege that:
The cancellation of all in-person campus activity resulted in a unilateral reduction in benefits and services provided to Plaintiffs. The benefits provided to Plaintiffs during the latter part of the Spring, 2020 semester were similar to those offered to Point Park's online degree students, who pay a significantly lower tuition. The University's decision not to provide the agreed upon educational services and not to provide any refund of Plaintiffs’ tuition or fees resulted in a breach of the contract between students and the University, and inequitable retention of funds by the University.
Plaintiffs’ putative class action brings claims for breach of contract, and in the alternative, unjust enrichment and conversion against PPU based on its decisions to close campus and transition to online learning when it was unable to continue traditional education services. They seek compensation "commensurate with their loss of benefits", i.e. , partial reimbursement of charges incurred for tuition, fees, and housing. ECF No. 27 at 1. See also Complaint at ¶ 1 ().8
Defendant moved to dismiss on February 3, 2021 and filed its Brief in Support at ECF No. 26. Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition and Defendant's Reply thereto were timely filed at ECF No. 27 and 28, respectively. There followed three (3) filings in April of Supplemental Authorities by Defendant and each party's May 2021 supplemental briefings. ECF Nos. 29-31, 34-35. The Court has considered the parties’ briefs, together with the cases subsequently cited. It has also conducted a careful independent review of relevant Pennsylvania law (particularly regarding the contractual relationship between students-universities) and a multitude of decisions in nationwide student-university pandemic refund cases issued both prior and subsequent to the parties’ filings in this action.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has summarized the standard to be applied in deciding motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6):
Under the "notice pleading" standard embodied in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff must come forward with "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." As explicated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), a claimant must state a "plausible" claim for relief, and "[a] claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Although "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), a plaintiff "need only put forth allegations that raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element." Fowler , 578 F.3d at 213 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Covington v. Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials , 710 F.3d 114, 117–18 (3d Cir. 2013).
Thompson v. Real Estate Mortg. Network , 748 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2014). See also Plastic Surgery Ctr., P.A. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. , 967 F.3d 218, 229 (3d Cir. 2020) ().
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court may consider ...
To continue reading
Request your trial