Patel v. Univ. of Vt. & State Agric. Coll.

• Decision Date: 15 March 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 5:20-cv-61
• Citation: 526 F.Supp.3d 3
• Parties: Nilay Kamal PATEL and Rachel A. Gladstone, Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Vermont

526 F.Supp.3d 3

Nilay Kamal PATEL and Rachel A. Gladstone, Plaintiffs,

v.UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, Defendant.

Case No. 5:20-cv-61

United States District Court, D. Vermont.

Signed March 15, 2021

Amanda L. Lundergan, Esq., Pro Hac Vice, Lundergan Legal, LLC, Royal Palm Beach, FL, Ariane M. Ice, Esq., Ice Legal, P.A., Stratham, NH, for Plaintiffs.

Andrew B. Murphy, Esq., Pro Hac Vice, Sean R. Somermeyer, Esq., Pro Hac Vice, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, MN, John J. Collins, Esq., Sharon Reich Paulsen, Esq., University of Vermont Office of the General Counsel, Burlington, VT, for Defendant.

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Geoffrey W. Crawford, Chief Judge

In October 1918, Vermont media reported that the "Spanish Influenza

" was "spreading rapidly" throughout the state. The Burlington Free Press & Times , Oct. 7, 1918, at 8. The media reported on a shortage of health workers, the number of cases and deaths, and relayed advice from the United States Public Health Service, including isolating those with symptoms, use of masks and personal protective equipment when caring for the sick, opening windows for ventilation, and avoiding crowds. The University of Vermont postponed its fall semester. Id. Vermont state health officials gave blood to prepare an "anti-toxin" to be administered to university students. The Burlington Free Press & Times , Oct. 22, 1918, at 6. The Royall Tyler Theatre—still in use today—was pressed into service as a temporary infirmary.

A century later, a new virus afflicts Vermont and its educational institutions and students. Plaintiffs Nilay Kamal Patel and Rachel A. Gladstone filed this putative class action against the University of Vermont and State Agricultural College ("UVM") on April 21, 2020. (Doc. 1.) Alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs seek "remediation" of UVM's "refusal to provide restitution for tuition, housing, meals, fees, and other applicable costs after the Plaintiffs and similarly situated students were denied services from UVM due to the Novel Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (‘COVID-19’) pandemic." (Id. ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs seek "a refund of all or part of the tuition and fees for which Defendant has been unable to provide the contracted-for services, facilities, access and/or opportunities." (Id. ¶ 5.) They describe the measure of compensation as "the difference between the value of one half a semester of online learning versus the value of one half a semester of live in-person instruction." (Id. ¶ 56; see also id. ¶ 74.)

Currently pending is UVM's motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 11; see also Doc. 12 (memorandum of law).) Plaintiffs oppose the motion (Doc. 24) and UVM has filed a reply in support of its motion (Doc. 27). The court heard argument on the motion on November 6, 2020, and has also considered the cases cited in the parties’ subsequently-filed lists of supplemental authorities (Docs. 35, 36, 38, 40, 44, 46, 49, 51, 53, 55). The court understands that the parties have conferred regarding Plaintiffs’ claims for parking and other fees but have been unable to agree about whether UVM has already refunded these fees. (See Doc. 42.)

Background

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiffs object to the court's consideration of additional facts that do not appear within the complaint. The court addresses that dispute in its analysis below.

I. Spring Semester 2020 at UVM

Plaintiffs and the putative class members are "individuals who paid either or any combination of the cost of tuition, on-campus housing, meals, and/or fees" for UVM's spring 2020 semester. (Doc. 1 ¶ 13.) Spring semester classes at UVM began on January 13, 2020. (Id. ¶ 14.) Final exams for the semester ended in early May 2020. (Id. ) Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, students were scheduled to move out of their residences on May 9, 2020. (Id. )

Plaintiffs and the putative class members paid the cost of tuition, on-campus housing, meals, and fees for the semester in spring 2020. (Id. ¶ 15.) For 12–19 credit-hours, the tuition cost for UVM's 2019–2020 academic year was $16,392 for an in-state resident and starts at $41,280 for an out-of-state resident. (Id. ¶ 16.) Average room and board costs at UVM for the year were $13,354. (Id. ) UVM also charges a comprehensive fee and parking fees. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 38.)

Plaintiffs allege that in exchange for these fees, UVM promised a "unique learning and living environment" and a curriculum for which "only a fraction" involved online instruction. (See id. ¶¶ 18, 20.) In support of those propositions, the complaint cites two sources: the UVM undergraduate course catalogue and the UVM website. The UVM undergraduate course catalogue lists a variety of instructional methods, including "Lecture" (LEC), "Independent Study" (IS), "Practicum" (PRAC), "Laboratory" (LAB), "Research" (RSCH), "Hybrid" (HYBD), "Seminar" (SEM), and "Online" (ONL). (Id. ¶ 19.) Only a "small fraction" of the listed courses were "online." (Id. ¶ 18.)

The UVM website includes the following statement on a page entitled "Campus Life":

What's it like here? It's an intimate and diverse community of thinkers and doers. It's a bustling campus with something always going on. It's an outdoor paradise located in one of America's best college towns. At UVM, we're balanced in mind, body and spirit because UVM students seek out opportunities for work, service and play.

(Id. ¶ 20.)¹ The complaint cites this statement in support of the contention that UVM promises students "a unique learning and living environment." (Id. )

II. COVID-19 and UVM's Response

At UVM, spring break for 2020 was from March 8 through 12; most students were not on campus at that time, but they were expecting to return. (Id. ¶ 23.) On March 11, in response to COVID-19, UVM announced it would be shifting to remote learning starting Wednesday, March 18, and encouraged students not to return to residence halls. (See id. ) The announcement stated that "the university will remain open." (Id. ) On March 23, 2020, UVM announced that remote instruction would continue for the remainder of the spring semester and said that "[u]ndergraduate students who currently reside on campus in the residence halls, as well as non-local students who live off-campus, should return to their homes." (Id. ¶ 24.) Most UVM buildings were closed and all student activities were canceled for the remainder of the spring 2020 semester. (Id. ¶ 39.)

III. Tuition, Housing, Meals, Fees

Members of the putative class have "demanded the return of the unused amounts of funds paid for tuition, for on-campus housing, for meals and for fees, through a number of channels." (Id. ¶ 28.) But UVM has retained the value of payments made by Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class for tuition, on-campus housing, and meals and fees. (Id. ¶ 25.) According to Plaintiffs, "UVM has made clear its policy that it will not return any tuition or fees, and will only provide a minimal credit (not a full return of the pro-rated, unused amounts) for housing and an inadequate future credit for meals." (Id. ¶ 28.) Additional allegations regarding each category of expense are set forth below.

A. Tuition

UVM did not offer its students a partial refund of tuition "representing the value of the portion of the academic year that they were forced to use online distance learning platforms in lieu of live in-person instruction in brick-and-mortar classrooms." (Id. ¶ 30.) According to Plaintiffs, "[s]tudies have shown that students do not perform as well in an online setting such that their grades, as well as their performance in future classes are negatively affected." (Id. ¶ 31.) Plaintiffs acknowledge UVM's efforts to continue delivering their education "in some format," but Plaintiffs allege that their "learning experiences have been stymied and disrupted." (Id. ¶ 32.) According to Plaintiffs, they did not get "the full benefit of what they bargained for" when they paid tuition for the spring 2020 semester. (Id. ¶ 33.)

B. On-Campus Housing

The UVM Housing and Meal Plan Contract includes "Terms and Conditions" stating that the University may terminate the contract "[i]n the event of calamity or catastrophe that would make continued operation of student housing infeasible, such as an influenza

pandemic." (Doc. 1 ¶ 26.) The "Terms and Conditions" also include the following provision regarding "Emergency Closing":

In the event that the University of Vermont closes due to a calamity or catastrophe beyond its control that would make continued operation of student housing infeasible, such as a natural disaster, a national security threat, or widespread pandemic flu, room and meal plan fees will not be refunded.

(Id. ¶ 27.)

UVM offered affected students a "minimal credit (not a full return of the pro-rated, unused amounts) for housing." (Doc. 1 ¶ 28.) UVM offered students a $1,000 credit to their student account if they moved out of their residence hall by March 30, 2020. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 35.)

C. Meals

Plaintiffs allege that they and members of the putative class paid for on-campus meals and that, after UVM asked students to leave campus in the spring, they lost access to the food being served on campus. (Id. ¶ 36.) They allege that UVM "failed to adequately reimburse students with a refund of the amounts paid (on a pro-rated basis) for meals." (Id. ) As noted above, UVM offered only a "future credit" for meals, which Plaintiffs characterize as inadequate. (Id. ¶ 28.) The same Housing and Meal Plan Contract quoted above applies to costs paid for meals.

D. Fees

Plaintiffs allege that UVM "failed to offer students a refund of any of the fees they paid for the semester that were unused or for which they had not received a benefit." (Doc. 1 ¶ 37.) According to Plaintiffs, examples of such fees are "the comprehensive fees and parking fees." (Id. ¶ 38.)

Analysis

I. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a pleading "must contain sufficient factual...