Flatscher v. Manhattan Sch. of Music

• Citation: 551 F.Supp.3d 273
• Decision Date: 20 July 2021
• Docket Number: 20 Civ. 4496 (KPF)
• Parties: Alina FLATSCHER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. The MANHATTAN SCHOOL OF MUSIC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

551 F.Supp.3d 273

Alina FLATSCHER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,

v.The MANHATTAN SCHOOL OF MUSIC, Defendant.

20 Civ. 4496 (KPF)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed July 20, 2021

Thomas James McKenna, Gainey & McKenna, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Gregory Bertram Reilly, III, Aisling Margaret McAllister, Bond, Schoenek & King, Samuel G. Dobre, New York, NY, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:¹

Plaintiff Alina Flatscher brings this putative class action against Defendant The Manhattan School of Music ("MSM") for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of the school's response to the COVID-19 pandemic during the Spring 2020 semester, during which semester Defendant ceased in-person instruction, restricted access to school facilities, and transitioned to online learning. Plaintiff alleges that these changes deprived her and other MSM students of the educational experiences for which they had bargained and paid. She asserts claims for (i) breach of implied contract, (ii) unjust enrichment, (iii) conversion, and (iv) deceptive business practices in violation of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law ("NYGBL"). Now before the Court is Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND²

A. Factual Background

1. Plaintiff's Education at MSM

Plaintiff is a vocalist currently residing in Austria. (Am. Compl. ¶ 18). In the fall of 2016, Plaintiff enrolled in a Bachelor of Music degree program at MSM. (Id. ). Defendant describes itself as a "premier international conservatory" located in New York City. (Id. at ¶ 20). Obtaining an education at MSM is not inexpensive: For the 2019-2020 academic year, Defendant charged each student $48,280 in tuition. (Id. at ¶ 48). In addition, Defendant imposes various fees on its students, including a general student fee, a student health insurance fee, a doctoral program fee, a thesis research fee, a thesis examination fee, an application/audition fee, a fee for credits exceeding degree credit limits, a course audit fee, a damage/judicial fines fee, a graduation fee, an instrument maintenance fee, and a qualifying examination fee. (Id. at ¶ 52). Defendant also requires students to select and pay for one of the school's four meal plans. (Id. at ¶ 49).³

Upon enrolling at MSM, each student enters into a Financial Responsibility Agreement ("FRA") with Defendant, wherein the student "accept[s] full responsibility to pay all tuition, fees[,] and other associated costs assessed as a result of [their] registration and/or receipt of services[.]" (Answer Ex. G (FRA)). If a student fails to make a payment, Defendant "will place a business office hold on [the] student account, preventing [the student] from attending private studio lessons, classes, auditions, rehearsals[,] and participating in other [s]chool activities ... or using [Defendant's] facilities (including practice rooms)." (Id. ).

In exchange for students’ tuition and fees, Defendant promises a campus "designed to meet all the needs of young performers." (Am. Compl. ¶ 22). In its course catalogue, Defendant assures students that "[t]uition payment provides access to Manhattan School of Music facilities ... when classes are in session[.]" (Id. at ¶ 20). With particular respect to its campus, Defendant guarantees students that its practice rooms will be open for 24 hours each day. (Id. at ¶ 27). Similarly, students enroll for a degree at MSM expecting access to "a state-of-the-art digital multi-track facility capable of recording events in all of [Defendant's] main performance spaces." (Id. at ¶ 33; see also id. at ¶ 45). In conjunction with this offering, Defendant promises that its staff will "work to ensure that every student leaves MSM with a portfolio of professional audio and video recordings that ... serve to further their professional careers." (Id. at ¶ 33). In addition, Defendant requires each student to satisfy a concert attendance requirement in order to graduate. (Id. at ¶ 61). To Defendant, "[a]ttending concerts is a vital and important part of the total educational experience," and to satisfy the requirement, students must attend seven major concerts or master classes for at least six semesters. (Id. ). Defendant tracks students’ attendance through their student identification cards, requiring ushers to physically scan each identification card at the end of each concert. (Id. ). As such, students must be physically present with their identification cards to fulfill the concert attendance requirement. (See id. ).

To attract students, Defendant makes several representations about its classes and the educational opportunities it offers. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 59-60). As a musical conservatory, many of Defendant's classes "require" "hands-on" instruction in Defendant's facilities and "in-person" performance. (Id. at ¶ 60). For example, Defendant's "Jury" class requires students to complete a "final in-person performance/examination ... in front of a panel of jurors, consisting of faculty at MSM." (Id. at ¶ 59 (emphasis added)).⁴ Classes in studio techniques expect students to utilize "independent lab time" — in Defendant's lab — "for hands-on practice in MIDI [Musical Instrument Digital Interface] composition and recording techniques." (Id. at ¶ 60). Similarly, instrumental lessons provide "hands-on learning in [Defendant's] vocal and instrumental studios on a weekly basis." (Id. ). Defendant offers classes that require "small studio performance[s] at the end of the semester" and "live hearings of student works," as well as full-length recitals. (Id. at ¶¶ 59-60). Still other classes expect "visits from guest artists who [will] present ... music in live performance" for students. (Id. at ¶ 60).

Further, Defendant entices students by advertising "an ongoing roster of luminaries invited to lead MSM's high-profile master class series" and by offering "singular performance opportunities at venerable venues such as Jazz at Lincoln Center[.]" (Am. Compl. ¶ 21). Defendant describes itself as a "first-rate performing arts center" that "provides ... more than 700 live performances a year," hosted in one of "MSM's nine performance venues" or at "off-site partner venues." (Id. ).

Like many universities, Defendant attracts students by advertising its location and community. Defendant markets itself as a "vibrant place to study and live," offering students access to "social activities, study groups, recreation, clubs, and student organizations." (Am. Compl. ¶ 21). Moreover, Defendant highlights its Morningside Heights location as a place that allows students to "enjoy the best of two worlds," a "college feel" in a "dynamic, multi-faceted urban setting." (Id. ). Indeed, Defendant entices students to travel from all over the world — as did Plaintiff — by promising to "take[ ] full advantage of New York's incomparable creative energy" and "abundant learning and performance opportunities." (Id. ).

2. The Spring 2020 Semester

In the Spring of 2020, Plaintiff was in her final semester of study at MSM and on the brink of graduation. (Am. Compl. ¶ 18). On March 13, 2020, with the COVID-19 pandemic escalating, Defendant announced that all classes would be conducted online starting March 23, 2020. (Answer Ex. B; see also Am. Compl. ¶ 40). Defendant also extended students’ spring break vacation by an additional week. (Am. Compl. ¶ 41).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant closed its campus and limited access to many of its facilities. (Id. at ¶¶ 23, 37, 40, 44). For the remainder of the semester, Defendant continued with online learning and limited access to school facilities. (See id. at ¶¶ 36-37, 44). For example, Defendant "repurposed" its concert attendance requirement, allowing students to satisfy the requirement by "log[ging] in and view[ing] at least one performance" in Defendant's digital performance forum, and it held several student performances online. (Answer Ex. D, H).⁵

Plaintiff continued her education remotely throughout the Spring 2020 semester (see Answer Ex. I), although she alleges that her classes "required hands-on, in-person attendance" (Am. Compl. ¶ 59). Specifically, Plaintiff continued her classes online and received private voice lessons via video conference; however, Plaintiff asserts that "connection issues and technical difficulties" made her lessons "impossible." (Id. at ¶ 59 n.1). Nevertheless, Plaintiff received letter grades and credit towards her degree, and graduated from MSM on May 15, 2020. (See Answer Ex. I). In May, Defendant announced that it would not hold its graduation ceremonies as planned. (Am. Compl. ¶ 43). Instead, Defendant hosted a virtual "toast" to celebrate its graduates. (Id. ; see also Answer Ex. D). Defendant did not refund Plaintiff any portion of the graduation fee she paid. (Am. Compl. ¶ 54).

As a result of the changes implemented by Defendant in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff alleges that she was denied the benefits Defendant promised her. (Am. Compl. ¶ 37). Specifically, Plaintiff expected to receive "face to face interaction with professors, mentors, coaches[,] and peers," "access to facilities such as music rooms, study rooms, libraries, practice rooms, concert halls, and recording studio rooms," and "in-person/hands-on classes, auditions, and rehearsals." (Id. at ¶ 36). Defendant has not offered Plaintiff nor other students refunds for any portion of the tuition or fees assessed for the Spring 2020 semester. (Id. at ¶¶ 46, 54).⁶ As such, Plaintiff brings the instant action on behalf of herself and all other MSM students enrolled during the Spring 2020 semester to recover a portion of the tuition and fees paid to Defendant.

B. Procedural History

On June 11, 2020, Plaintiff initiated this litigation (see generally Dkt. #1), and Defendant answered Plaintiff's initial complaint on October 6, 2020 ...