Hiatt v. Brigham Young Univ.

• Decision Date: 07 January 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:20-CV-00100-TS
• Citation: Hiatt v. Brigham Young Univ., 512 F.Supp.3d 1180 (D. Utah 2021)
• Parties: Chase HIATT, Plaintiff, v. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
• Writing for the Court: TED STEWART, United States District Judge
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Utah

512 F.Supp.3d 1180

Chase HIATT, Plaintiff,

v.BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-CV-00100-TS

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division.

Signed January 7, 2021

Jeremy B. Francis, Pro Hac Vice, The Sultzer Law Group P.C., New York, NY, Michael Jay Watton, Watton Law Group, Milwaukee, WI, Brett R. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, Michael A. Tompkins, Pro Hac Vice, Leeds Brown Law PC, Carle Place, NY, for Plaintiff.

Christopher A. Bauer, David M. Andersen, Office of the General Counsel, Provo, UT, James S. Jardine, Samuel C. Straight, Ray Quinney & Nebeker PC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

TED STEWART, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Brigham Young University's ("BYU") motion to dismiss ("Motion"), which asks the Court to dismiss this matter for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the Court denies the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") is a deadly, novel coronavirus that was discovered in late 2019 and spread very quickly in the first months of 2020. COVID-19 caused a global pandemic that has affected all facets of regular life. As one example, in and around March 2020 many universities in the United States, including BYU, adjusted the ways they conducted classes and other campus activities to prevent the spread of COVID-19.¹ This included moving most or all in-person classes to an online format and closing or cancelling many on-campus facilities and services.² These changes set the stage for Plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff was an undergraduate student at BYU during the relevant semesters,³ and his Complaint presents a proposed class action on behalf of himself and BYU students who paid tuition for any semester or term affected by COVID-19.⁴ Undergraduate students at BYU paid between $2,895 and $5,970 in tuition,⁵ and graduate students paid between $430 to $860 per credit hour in tuition for the Winter 2020 semester.⁶ The students also paid mandatory fees in addition to their tuition.⁷ According to the Complaint, BYU "agreed to ... provide an in-person and on-campus live education as well as the services and facilities to which the Mandatory fees they paid pertained" in return.⁸ Plaintiff supports this alleged agreement by referencing BYU's website, promotional materials, and acceptance letters that market and promote the in-person education and campus services BYU provides.⁹ Then, during the Winter 2020 semester, BYU unexpectedly changed its in-person classes to online classes and stopped providing many on-campus services to prevent the spread of COVID-19.¹⁰ Despite these changes, BYU has not refunded any part of the tuition or mandatory fees it assessed for the Winter semester or any other semester affected by COVID-19.¹¹ Plaintiff brought this Complaint against BYU for breach of contract and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment because of the changes BYU made due to COVID-19.¹² Now, with this Motion, BYU challenges the entire Complaint for failure to state a claim.¹³

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court may dismiss a complaint when it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.¹⁴ "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."¹⁵ Legal conclusions alone are not sufficient.¹⁶ When reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court must assume all the facts alleged in the complaint are true.¹⁷ The court must also limit its review to the four corners of the Complaint and documents incorporated by reference in the Complaint.¹⁸

III. ANALYSIS

BYU seeks dismissal on Plaintiff's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. Both of the claims are governed under Utah law, as detailed below.

A. BREACH OF CONTRACT

In its Motion, BYU argues that Plaintiff's breach of contract claim should be dismissed for two reasons. First, BYU argues there is no contract term requiring BYU to provide in-person education and campus services, so BYU did not breach the contract. Second, BYU argues that even if the contract does contain a term requiring BYU to provide in-person education and services, BYU is excused because it would be impracticable to provide in-person education and services during a global pandemic. Each of these arguments will be addressed individually.

1. Prima Facie Case

In Utah, the necessary elements of a breach of contract claim are "(1) a contract, (2) performance by the party seeking recovery, (3) breach of the contract by the other party, and (4) damages."¹⁹ While BYU admits, for the purposes of its Motion, that Plaintiff sufficiently alleges the existence of a contract, the parties do not agree about the terms of the contract. BYU argues that it did not agree to provide in-person instruction or on-campus services and therefore did not breach the agreement. But Plaintiff argues that BYU's website, promotional materials, and his acceptance letter establish a contract in which BYU agreed to provide in-person education and on-campus services, and BYU did breach this agreement. Thus, the relevant question is whether Plaintiff, in the Complaint, sufficiently alleges a contract in which BYU agreed to provide in-person instruction and on-campus services.

As an initial matter, the Court will address BYU's argument that there is no contract requiring BYU to provide in-person education and services. Importantly, "a court should consider no evidence beyond the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss" except for "documents referred to in the complaint if the documents are central to the plaintiff's claim and the parties do not dispute the documents’ authenticity."²⁰ BYU supports its argument with two documents: the Financial Responsibility Declaration and BYU's catalog. Plaintiff does not explicitly reference either of these documents in the Complaint, but Plaintiff does broadly refer to the BYU website. Though these documents are not listed by name in the Complaint, they can be found on the BYU website. Thus, it is not clear whether the Financial Responsibility Declaration and the catalog are referred to in the Complaint or central to Plaintiff's claim, but Plaintiff does not dispute their authenticity. Plaintiff also does not argue that these documents should not be considered. In an attempt to give BYU every allowance supported by law, the Court will consider these documents.

The two documents BYU submitted do not support dismissal. First, the Financial Responsibility Declaration states "I understand that when I register for any class or receive any service from BYU I accept full responsibility to pay all tuition, fees, and other associated costs assessed as a result of my registration and/or receipt of services."²¹ While this declaration does not explicitly require BYU to provide in-person learning, it does not conflict with Plaintiff's claim. Further, BYU's argument that its obligation to Plaintiff is complete when he registers for classes or receives any service defies logic. Under this interpretation, BYU would be permitted to require full tuition payment for the mere privilege of registration without providing any type of instruction. Such a reading of the Financial Responsibility Declaration is untenable and inconsistent with the relationship between a university and its students. While BYU is correct that nothing in this declaration requires in-person instruction, it surely suggests that BYU owes more to its students than simply allowing them to register or receive some modicum of services.

Next, BYU points to a disclaimer in its catalog, which states

The university makes every reasonable effort to provide accurate information in the contents of this catalog but reserves the right to make changes at any time without prior notice. The university reserves the right to change or discontinue graduation requirements, department majors, individual courses, instructors, and all other aspects of university operations. In the event the university determines to make changes in curriculum, it will post these changes as soon as practical within this online catalog. It is recommended that students regularly check this catalog for possible changes.²²

In the employment context, courts have held that a clear and conspicuous waiver may prevent the creation of an implied-in-fact contract.²³ "The prominence of the text, the placement of the disclaimer, and the language of the disclaimer are all relevant factors in determining whether a disclaimer is clear and conspicuous."²⁴ Here, there is insufficient information for the Court to determine whether this disclaimer bars Plaintiff's claim as a matter of law.

BYU also argues that the Court should not interfere with BYU's academic decisions.²⁵ BYU cites to several cases in which courts have declined to interfere in academic decisions such as academic dismissals.²⁶ However, Plaintiff is not asking the Court to interfere in BYU's academic or pedagogical choices by requiring BYU to provide in-person education or change its methods of education. Rather, Plaintiff is asking for a refund of tuition and/or mandatory fees for the breach of contract alleged. The requested relief does not require the Court to ask BYU to change its operations or otherwise interfere in BYU's academic decisions, so this argument does not support granting the Motion.

Next, the Court will address whether Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a contract in which BYU agreed to provide in-person instruction and on-campus services. Under Utah law, a contract can consist of an express contract or an implied-in-fact contract.²⁷ Contracts implied in fact are "contracts established by conduct" and, like express contracts, "require a meeting of the minds."²⁸ Utah courts have not specifically addressed whether students can use a university's publications as evidence of an implied-in-fact contract, but they "have stated that an...