Michel v. Yale Univ.

• Decision Date: 07 July 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-CV-01080 (JCH)
• Citation: 547 F.Supp.3d 179
• Parties: Jonathan MICHEL, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. YALE UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

547 F.Supp.3d 179

Jonathan MICHEL, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,

v.YALE UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-CV-01080 (JCH)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed July 7, 2021

David A. Searles, Edward Skipton, James A. Francis, John Soumilas, Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Sarah Poriss, Sarah Poriss Attorney at Law, LLC, Hartford, CT, Yvette Golan, The Golan Firm, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Benjamin M. Daniels, Robinson & Cole LLP Hartford, CT, Hannah J. Blonshteyn, Wiggin and Dana LLP, Stamford, CT, I. Jonathan Freiman, Wiggin and Dana LLP, Kim E. Rinehart, Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, CT, for Defendant.

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Janet C. Hall, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jonathan Michel ("Michel") brings this putative class action against Yale University ("Yale" or "the University") alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a et seq. A student at Yale, Michel brings claims arising out of Yale's decision not to partially refund his tuition and fees after the University transitioned from in-person to virtual instruction in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yale moves to dismiss Michel's Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

For the reasons set forth below, the court grants Yale's Motion.

II. BACKGROUND¹

Yale is a private, Ivy League educational institution located in Connecticut. See Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl.") ¶¶ 16, 19 (Doc. No. 37). Approximately 13,609 students are enrolled at the University across its fourteen constituent schools. Id. ¶ 19. The plaintiff numbers among them. Id. ¶ 1. A citizen and resident of Ohio, Michel paid tuition and fees and was enrolled as a full-time student at Yale for the Spring 2020 academic semester. Id. ¶¶ 18, 28.

For most of the Spring 2020 semester, Michel's classes were conducted in-person. See id. ¶ 5. However, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Yale ceased in-person instruction beginning March 10, 2020, and transitioned to virtual instruction for the remaining five weeks of the semester. Id. ¶¶ 6, 30-31. The University also closed its campus and facilities for the duration of the semester. Id. ¶¶ 5, 11, 30, 32.

Michel alleges that his payment of tuition and fees secured Yale's promise to provide in-person instruction and access the University's facilities. Id. ¶¶ 9, 12, 21. He points to various documents and publications as setting forth the terms of Yale's promise. First, each class in Yale's course catalog specifies the physical classroom in which the course will be held. Id. ¶ 22. Second, Yale's Handbook for Instructors of Undergraduates in Yale College 2020-2021 requires that changes in course format be reviewed and approved by a committee of University faculty. See id. ¶ 23. Third, Yale's Faculty Handbook states that teaching faculty are "expected" to be on campus "most days of the work week" and "must remain on campus during reading and examination periods." Id. ¶ 24. Fourth, Yale promotes its Residential College housing system as "the heart of the Yale experience." Id. ¶ 25. The University emphasizes that, through the residential colleges, undergraduate students will become part of an on-campus community and have access to facilities such as libraries, gyms, dining halls, and other spaces. Id. Finally, Yale's undergraduate regulations applicable to the Spring 2020 semester ("Undergraduate Regulations") stated that, if the University decided to suspend programs or operations due to public health or other safety concerns, it would issue "appropriate refunds ... as may in its judgment be warranted." Id. ¶ 26.

Michel alleges that the online education he received the final five weeks of the Spring 2020 semester was not as valuable as the in-person experience for which he paid. Id. ¶ 12 ("[R]emote online learning cannot provide the same value as in-person education."); id. ¶ 39 ("Yale's move to online-only classes deprived students of [the on-campus experience] ... which provided considerable value."); id. ¶ 43 ("In-person education is worth more than online education."). In support, the Amended Complaint cites a 2017 study that found that online courses do not "promote academic success" to the extent that in-person courses do. Id. ¶ 38. Yale also charges more for in-person instruction than it does for online instruction. Id. ¶¶ 44-45. For example, Yale offers an in-person Women's Leadership Program through its business school that costs $7,000, whereas the live, online version of that same program costs $4,950. Id. ¶ 46. The online version of the program that is not live costs even less, $2,800. Id. ²

Despite the difference in "value" between the educational experience promised and that provided, Yale has refused to refund any of Michel's tuition or fees for the Spring 2020 semester. Id. ¶¶ 7, 35, 49. The Amended Complaint makes no allegation as to whether the University refunded monies paid for room and board.

On July 1, 2020, Yale announced that it would continue with online instruction for nearly all courses for the Fall 2020 semester.

Id. ¶ 33. Fall semester classes began roughly two months later. Id. ¶ 34. Michel, who was enrolled as a full-time student during the Fall 2020 semester, id. ¶ 18, alleges that the timing of Yale's announcement "did not give students the time needed to make alternative arrangements" such as applying to another program, id. ¶ 34. Yale likewise did not refund any of the tuition or fees Michel paid for the Fall 2020 semester. See id. ¶¶ 14, 49.

On October 16, 2020, Michel filed an Amended Complaint alleging breach of contract (Count One), unjust enrichment (Count Two), and violation of CUTPA (Count Three). Id. ¶¶ 59-82. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, he seeks to certify a class defined as: "Any person who paid or caused to be paid tuition and/or fees to attend Yale University when classes and/or coursework were limited in whole or in part to online attendance as a result of or in connection with COVID-19." See id. ¶ 51. Yale has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint ("Mot. to Dismiss") (Doc. No. 41). Michel opposes Yale's Motion. Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint ("Opposition") (Doc. No. 46).³ In addition, both parties have submitted numerous additional authorities in support of their respective positions. See Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 49); Plaintiff's Second Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 54); Plaintiff's Third Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 59); Plaintiff's Fourth Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 62); Plaintiff's Fifth Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 66)⁴ ; Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 57); Defendant's Second Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 61); Defendant's Third Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 64); Defendant's Fourth Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 65); Defendant's Fifth Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 67); Defendant's Sixth Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 68); Defendant's Seventh Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 69).

III. LEGAL STANDARD

When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim by making allegations that, if true, would show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The court takes all factual allegations in a complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Crawford v. Cuomo, 796 F.3d 252, 256 (2d Cir. 2015). However, the tenet that a court must accept a complaint's allegations as true is inapplicable to "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when "it is clear from the face of the complaint, and matters of which the court may take judicial notice, that the plaintiff's claims are barred as a matter of law." Associated Financial Corp. v. Kleckner, 480 Fed. App'x 89, 90 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Conopco, Inc. v. Roll Int'l, 231 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2000) ).

"In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint." DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also United States v. Strock, 982 F.3d 51, 63 (2d Cir. 2020) (same).

IV. DISCUSSION

The court begins its discussion by noting that this case has company. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, colleges and universities across the country closed their doors in the middle of the Spring 2020 semester and migrated course instruction from in-person classrooms to virtual ones. Many of these institutions, however, chose not to refund any portion of students’ tuition or fees. Unhappy with these decisions, students (and parents)...