Johnson v. Schmitz

• Decision Date: 29 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. 3:99CV1738 (JBA).,3:99CV1738 (JBA).
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: Kris JOHNSON v. Oswald SCHMITZ, et al.

Page 90

119 F.Supp.2d 90

Kris JOHNSON v. Oswald SCHMITZ, et al.

No. 3:99CV1738 (JBA).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

September 29, 2000.

Daniel S. Blinn, Consumer Law Group, Rocky Hill, CT, for Kris Johnson, plaintiff.

Patrick M. Noonan, Delaney, Zemetis, Donahue, Durham & Noonan, Guilford, CT, for Oswald Schmitz, defendant.

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [DOC. # 21]

ARTERTON, District Judge.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Assuming all the factual allegations in the complaint to be true, and drawing all inferences in favor of the plaintiff, the following represents the background of this case. Plaintiff Kris Johnson is a graduate student in the doctoral program at Yale University, in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Upon his entrance into the program, he was assigned a committee of faculty advisors to assist him in the development of his dissertation. See Compl. ¶ 20. Defendant David Skelly is a member of this committee and defendant Oswald Schmitz is co-chair. See id. at ¶¶ 21, 50.

While working on a research project for Schmitz in the summer of 1995, Johnson developed the idea for his dissertation, based on the Trophic-Dynamic Theory of Redundancy (the Theory), and recorded his notes and other information about the Theory in a private journal. See id. at ¶ 25. During that time, Johnson discovered two other student workers reading his journal and later overheard them explaining its contents to Schmitz. See id. at ¶¶ 27-28. As a result of this incident, Johnson expressed hesitation when Schmitz requested that he explain his ideas. Johnson was told by Schmitz that in order to complete his dissertation and pass his qualifying exam, he would have to trust the faculty. See id. at ¶¶ 30-31. Johnson subsequently explained the Theory to Schmitz. See id. at ¶ 32. Schmitz thought highly of the Theory, and recommended that Johnson prepare a grant to obtain funding for further research.

Johnson expressed concern to Kristina Vogt, a Yale faculty member who was the other co-chair of his dissertation committee, that Schmitz would misappropriate his ideas; Vogt assured him that this would not happen. See id. at ¶ 35. However, unbeknownst to Johnson, during that year Schmitz planned to take credit for the Theory and began steering his research in that direction. See id. at ¶ 44-45. As this was occurring, Johnson continued to work on his research, incorporating a novel technology called the Reaction Norm Approach into the Theory, and submitted a paper for publication in a well-known journal describing certain aspects of the theory. The Reaction Norm Approach was later appropriated by Skelly. See id. at ¶¶ 38, 66.

In mid-August 1996, Johnson took the written part of his doctoral qualifying exam, and was advised by Vogt that he had done very well. See id. at ¶ 48. In Fall 1996, Johnson appeared before the members of his "doctoral dissertation committee" for the oral part of his qualifying exam. During the exam, Johnson was aggressively criticized by Schmitz and Skelly in order to discourage him from pursuing his ideas and to allow them to misappropriate the Theory. Johnson was told that his "thinking was flawed," "he could not see the big picture," and his ideas were "ridiculous and unoriginal." See id. at ¶¶ 50-54.

Following the exam, Schmitz told Johnson that he was relieving him of his ideas and subsequently, Schmitz and Skelly published Johnson's Theory and Reaction Norm Approach without attribution to Johnson. See id. at ¶¶ 57, 77. This publication precluded Johnson from pursuing further research on the Theory, as he was no longer able to obtain funding, and he was forced to abandon the Theory as his dissertation topic.

In January 1997, Vogt assured Johnson that she would stop Schmitz from further appropriating the Theory. However, afraid that she would not do so effectively, Johnson also submitted a formal letter to the Director of Doctoral Studies complaining of academic fraud. He did not receive a formal response, and in September, Yale stopped delivering his monthly salary supplement and his funding. See id. at ¶¶ 65, 71-72.

Johnson then wrote to the Dean of Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies who informed him that an Inquiry Committee would be formed. Five months later, the Committee informed Johnson that they had not found any reasonable grounds for believing his allegations of academic fraud. See id. at ¶¶ 79-80, 87. The investigation consisted of a keyword search to determine originality and did not include either intellectual analysis of Johnson' ideas, or personal interviews with plaintiff. See id. at ¶¶ 85, 88. Johnson appealed to the Provost who declined to reevaluate his claim. See id. at ¶¶ 94-95.

Defendants move to dismiss nine of plaintiff's remaining sixteen counts:¹ (5) breach of express contract against Yale; (6) breach of implied contract against Yale; (7) breach of fiduciary duty against Schmitz, Skelly and Yale; (8) negligence against Schmitz and Skelly; (9) negligence against Yale; (11) defamation against Schmitz and Skelly; (12) defamation against Yale; (17) Unfair Trade Practices against Schmitz and Skelly; and (18) Unfair Trade Practices against Yale.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) may be granted only "when it appears beyond doubt that there [is] no set of facts in support of plaintiff's claim which would entitle plaintiff to relief." Harsco Corp. v. Segui, 91 F.3d 337, 341 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). "A complaint should not be dismissed simply because a plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits." Harsco Corp., 91 F.3d at 341 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974)). When deciding a motion to dismiss, "the complaint is to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff," and all the factual allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true. Harsco Corp., 91 F.2d at 341. However, consideration is limited to the facts stated in the complaint and documents attached to the complaint as exhibits or incorporated by reference. See Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2d Cir. 1991).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Breach of Express and Implied Contracts by Yale (Counts Five and Six)

Johnson's complaint alleges that Yale made specific express and implied contractual promises to him, and failed to deliver on these commitments. He claims that the express contract is based on distributed documents, including admissions literature and matriculation representations given to all doctoral students. The implied contract is founded on an alleged agreement by Yale to grant him all of the rights, privileges and protections to which Yale doctoral students are entitled in exchange for Johnson's agreement to become a graduate student. See Compl. ¶ 11.

In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff outlines the specific contractual breaches claimed, although without delineation as to which promises are express and which are implied. Johnson's allegations include breaches of Yale's contractual duties to safeguard students from academic misconduct, to investigate and deal with charges of academic misconduct, and to address charges of academic misconduct in accordance with its own procedures. See Pl.'s Oppn. at 13. In addition, plaintiff claims that Yale violated the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing inherent in each of these contracts. See Compl. ¶¶ 117, 120-121. Defendants, in return, argue that Johnson's contractual claims are not cognizable under Connecticut law. For the reasons discussed below, this Court disagrees.

"[T]he basic legal relation between a student and a private university or college is contractual in nature." Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir.1992); accord Zumbrun v. University of Southern California, 25 Cal.App.3d 1, 10, 101 Cal.Rptr. 499 (1972); Wickstrom v. North Idaho College, 111 Idaho 450, 725 P.2d 155, 157 (1986); CenCor, Inc. v. Tolman, 868 P.2d 396, 398 (Colo.1994). "[T]here seems to be `no dissent' from [the] proposition" that the "catalogues, bulletins, circulars, and regulations of the institution" determine the contractual relationship between the student and the educational institution. Ross, 957 F.2d at 416 (quoting Wickstrom, 725 P.2d at 157); accord Zumbrun, 25 Cal.App.3d at 10, 101 Cal.Rptr. 499; CenCor, Inc., 868 P.2d at 398. "[A] court that is asked to enforce an asserted `contract' between a student and his university must examine the oral and written expressions of the parties in light of the policies and customs of the particular institution." Banerjee v. Roberts, 641 F.Supp. 1093, 1106 (D.Conn.1986). Because a student bases his or her decision to attend a college or university, in significant part, on the documents received concerning core matters, such as faculty, curriculum, requirements, costs, facilities and special programs, application of contract principles based on these documents and other express or implied promises, consistent with the limitations expressed in Gupta v. New Britain General Hospital, 239 Conn. 574, 687 A.2d 111 (1996), appears sound.

In Gupta, the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the viability of a cause of action for breach of contract challenging the "overall quality of educational programs," concluding that such a general challenge implicates the same jurisprudential and policy considerations that led the courts to reject claims alleging the tort of educational malpractice, in which a student sues her academic institution for tortiously failing to provide adequate educational services or failing to diagnose educational impediments. See 239 Conn. at 590-91 & n. 15, 687 A.2d 111. The plaintiff in Gupta was a former medical resident who had been dismissed from his residency program due to his lack of academic abilities; he sued, alleging that any inadequacies on his part were due to a...