Jumbo v. Ala. State Univ.

Decision Date23 January 2017
Docket NumberCASE NO. 2:16–CV–702–WKW [WO]
Citation229 F.Supp.3d 1266
Parties Success JUMBO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

Julian Lenwood McPhillips, Jr., Chase Elliot Estes, McPhillips Shinbaum L.L.P., Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiffs.

Joi Charisse Scott, Kenneth Lamar Thomas, Alabama State University Office of General Counsel, Ramadanah Maryum Salaam–Jones, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants.

Federal Republic of Nigeria, Atlanta, GA, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

W. Keith Watkins, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the court is the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Alabama State University ("ASU," "Alabama State," or the "University"). (Doc. # 9.) Because Plaintiffs' complaint (Doc. # 1) alleges facts sufficient to state each of their claims, the motion is due to be denied.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The court exercises subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court must take the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Resnick v. AvMed, Inc. , 693 F.3d 1317, 1321–22 (11th Cir. 2012). To survive Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "[F]acial plausibility" exists "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of a complaint; it is not a vehicle to litigate questions of fact. See Harper v. Lawrence Cty., Ala. , 592 F.3d 1227, 1232 (11th Cir. 2010). However, exhibits attached to the complaint are also properly considered in the 12(b)(6) inquiry. Weeks v. Wyeth, Inc. , 120 F.Supp.3d 1278, 1283 (M.D. Ala. 2015) (citing Thaeter v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office , 449 F.3d 1342, 1352 (11th Cir. 2006) ).

III. BACKGROUND

The Federal Republic of Nigeria offers its citizens sponsorship to attend school abroad. (Doc. # 1 ¶ 2.) These sponsorships cover the full cost of attendance: Nigeria foots the bill for the sponsored students' "tuition, fees, health insurance, room and board, textbooks, and miscellaneous personal costs." (Doc. # 1 ¶¶ 2, 4.) A few dozen of these sponsored students ended up at Alabama State University, leading to the dispute before the court today.

Under its arrangement with ASU, Nigeria remitted sponsorship money directly to the University with the proviso that any funds not used for tuition or other fees be disbursed to the sponsored students to cover their sundry personal expenses. (Doc. # 1 ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs, thirty-seven Nigerian citizens enrolled at Alabama State University (collectively, the "Students" or the "Plaintiff Students"), filed suit on August 25, 2016, claiming that the University wrongfully converted their sponsorship money for its own use. (Doc. # 1.) The Students bring four claims against the University: (1) national-origin discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) breach of fiduciary duty in the University's conversion of the sponsorship money; (3) breach of the University's contract with Nigeria, enforceable by the Students due to their status as third-party beneficiaries; and (4) unjust enrichment.

Assuming the truth of the Students' factual allegations, Resnick , 693 F.3d at 1321–22, the facts of the case are as follows. After depositing the Students' sponsorship money for the 2013–14 school year in their financial accounts with the University, Alabama State prevented the Students from accessing the money for any purpose other than to repay school expenses. (Doc. # 1 ¶ 10.) Not only did the University bar the free spending of the Students' sponsorship money, it allegedly used the Students' financial accounts as a slush fund to pay for expenses unrelated to the Students or their education. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 10.) Sometime around the fall semester of 2014, Alabama State went so far as to empty the Students' accounts of the sponsorship money, purportedly because Nigeria had not yet paid the University for the Students' 2014–15 enrollment. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 11.) But on its eventual receipt of the sponsorship money, the University continued to withhold the '13–14 sponsorship money and refused to deposit any of the '14–15 money in the Students' accounts. (Doc. # 1 ¶ 12.) Pockets empty, the Students reached out to Kingsley K. KuKu, Special Adviser to the President of the Niger Delta, asking him to right the University's wrongs. (Doc. # 1 ¶ 13.) Mr. KuKu duly wrote the University on May 15, 2015, asking that the credit balances earmarked for the Students' tuition be carried over to help pay for the next semester and that the remaining credit balances be refunded to the Students. (Doc. # 1–1.) The University ignored Mr. KuKu's request. (Doc. # 1 ¶ 14.)

In November of 2015, counsel for the Students wrote the President and Provost of the University, demanding that the Students be given their sponsorship money. (Doc. # 1 ¶ 15.) Two months later, University general counsel wrote back to the Students to inform them that, because "[t]here [wa]s no financial agreement between the University and the [Plaintiff Students]," they would get nothing. (Doc. # 1–3.) Plaintiffs filed suit later that year, but their case was dismissed without prejudice for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Jumbo v. Ala. State Univ. , No. 2:16–CV–312–KS–GMB (M.D. Ala. July 6, 2016). The Students filed a second complaint on August 25, 2016, which is before the court today. (See Doc. # 1.)

IV. DISCUSSION

Before reaching the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' complaint, the analysis begins with the numerous exhibits attached to the parties' briefing. Both parties build their arguments on a pile of letters, emails, declarations, affidavits, and other papers attached to their briefs. (See generally Docs. # 9, 14, 17.) In so doing, they aim to litigate factual questions beyond the scope of 12(b)(6). Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc. , 816 F.3d 686, 701 (11th Cir. 2016) ("The clear rule in this Circuit is that consideration of material falling outside the pleadings converts a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.") (citing Trustmark Ins. Co. v. ESLU, Inc. , 299 F.3d 1265, 1267 (11th Cir. 2002) ). While trial courts may consider matters outside the pleadings on conversion of the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment,1 the court enjoys near-absolute discretion to take such a procedural detour. 5C Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1366 (3d ed. 2016) ("[F]ederal courts have complete discretion to determine whether or not to accept the submission of any material beyond the pleadings that is offered in conjunction with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and rely on it, thereby converting the motion, or to reject it or simply not consider it."). "A judge need not convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment as long as he or she does not consider matters outside the pleadings." Harper , 592 F.3d at 1232. This is the path the court will follow. Summary judgment should not be entered absent adequate opportunity for discovery. See Jones v. City of Columbus, Ga. , 120 F.3d 248, 253 (11th Cir. 1997) ; Snook v. Trust Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah, N.A. , 859 F.2d 865, 870 (11th Cir. 1988). And, somehow, missing among the mounds of extra-pleading materials is the document at the heart of this matter—the contract between Nigeria and Alabama State. In light of this underdeveloped factual record, the court will consider only the matters in the pleadings and will not convert the motion to dismiss.

Each of the Students' four claims will be discussed in turn.

A. National–Origin Discrimination

In the first count of their complaint, the Students allege that the University discriminated against them on account of their national origin, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq. (Doc. # 1, ¶¶ 21–25.) Title VI breaks down into two parts: sections 601 and 602. Section 601 mandates that no person shall "be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" on account of their "race, color, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. "[T]he Supreme Court has recognized a private cause of action to enforce section 601," see Burton v. City of Belle Glade , 178 F.3d 1175, 1202 (11th Cir. 1999), but a plaintiff must prove intentional discrimination to prevail on a section 601 claim, Alexander v. Sandoval , 532 U.S. 275, 280, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001). By contrast, section 602 "proscribe[s] activities that have a disparate impact on racial groups," id. at 281, 121 S.Ct. 1511, and authorizes administrative rulemaking "to effectuate the provisions of § 601," id. at 288, 121 S.Ct. 1511 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000d–1 ) (alteration omitted). No private remedy exists for violations of section 602. Id. at 293, 121 S.Ct. 1511. Although Plaintiffs do not specify whether they seek redress under section 601 or 602 (see Doc. # 1 ¶¶ 21–25), as private parties they can only sue to enforce section 601. Therefore, the inquiry is whether Plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under section 601, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

To state a claim under section 601, a plaintiff need only allege intentional discrimination by a federally funded entity. At this early stage in the proceeding, this is a notably light burden. Pryor v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Carn v. Heesung Pmtech Corp., CASE NO. 1:16–cv–703–TFM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • September 27, 2017
    ...a motion for summary judgment, the court has near-absolute discretion to take such a procedural detour. Jumbo v. Alabama State Univ. , 229 F.Supp.3d 1266, 1270–71 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (citing 5C Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1366 (3d ed. 2016) ("[F]ederal ......
  • William C. Carn, Iii, of Specalloy Corp. v. Heesung Pmtech Corp., CASE NO. 1:16-cv-703-TFM (WO)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • September 27, 2017
    ...a motion for summary judgment, the court has near-absolute discretion to take such a procedural detour. Jumbo v. Alabama State Univ., 229 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1270-71 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (citing 5C Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1366 (3d ed. 2016) ("[F]ederal......
  • Prudential Mutual Fund Services, LLC v. Meredith, Civil Action 1:20-00309-JB-N
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Southern District of Alabama
    • July 21, 2021
    ...which show that it was founded on intimate personal and business relations between the parties.'” Jumbo v. Alabama State Univ., 229 F.Supp.3d 1266, 1273 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (citation omitted). In the present case, Prudential and Paul do not have a confidential or fiduciary relationship. They a......
  • Qureshi v. Ala. Coll. of Osteopathic Med., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • June 9, 2021
    ...(N.D. Ga. July 28, 2008). Qureshi's burden is not onerous at this early a stage in the proceeding, see Jumbo v. Alabama State Univ., 229 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1272 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (citing Pryor v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 288 F.3d 548, 565 (3d Cir. 2002), as "'issues involving state of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT