Soueidan v. Saint Louis Univ., 4:17-CV-2777 RLW

• Decision Date: 27 April 2018
• Docket Number: No. 4:17-CV-2777 RLW,4:17-CV-2777 RLW
• Parties: AHMED SOUEIDAN, Plaintiff, v. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

AHMED SOUEIDAN, Plaintiff, v. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

No. 4:17-CV-2777 RLW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

April 27, 2018

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Saint Louis University's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 14). This matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition.

BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff Ahmed Soueidan ("Soueidan") was enrolled as a doctoral student at Saint Louis University ("SLU") in the Parks College of Engineering, Aviation and Technology in 2012. (Complaint ("Compl."), ECF No. 1, ¶¶1, 7). SLU represented to Soueidan that he would earn his Ph.D. in mechanical aerospace engineering in four years. (Compl., ¶8). Soueidan met with the department chair in August 2012, and together they drafted a plan for Soueidan to graduate with his doctoral degree in four years. (Compl., ¶9). Soueidan, however, was unable to find a Ph.D advisor who had research or funding to supervise his graduate studies. (Compl., ¶10). In December 2013, Professor Raymond Lebeau ("Lebeau") agreed to act as Soueidan's Ph.D. advisor. (Compl., ¶12). Lebeau indicated that he could get Soueidan through the program in two more years, even though he had no research or funding for him. (Compl., ¶12). Due to Lebeau's uncertainty regarding the requisite qualifying examination for Soueidan, Lebeau referred Soueidan to the SLU Graduate Student Handbook ("the Handbook"). (Compl., ¶13). Professor Lebeau later told Soueidan to disregard the Handbook. (Id.).

In August 2014, the graduate coordinator, graduate programs assistant, department chair (who drafted Soueidan's plan of study), and several professors within the department, left SLU simultaneously. (Compl., ¶14). By August 2015, the graduate programs' assistant and the Dean of the College of Engineering left their positions. (Id.). As of then, Soueidan had completed ten graduate-level courses to fulfill the course credits requirement for his Ph.D., as stated in the Handbook. (Id.).

In June 2015, Lebeau told Soueidan that he needed to attend a conference to prepare for his qualifying examination. Lebeau and Soueidan attended the AIAA SciTech 2016 conference in San Diego, California, where Soueidan presented his thesis work. (Compl., ¶15). In May 2016, Soueidan met with the graduate coordinator and Lebeau to discuss preparing for Soueidan's qualifying examination. (Compl., ¶16). A few months later, after Soueidan's practice examination, Lebeau told Soueidan that two of the committee members said Soueidan would not pass his examination. (Compl., ¶16). A third committee member said he would have passed Soueidan. (Compl., ¶16).

In August 2016, Soueidan took the actual qualifying examination. (Compl., ¶17). One committee member told Soueidan before the examination that he did not follow the guidelines for writing his paper and questioned his preparedness for the examination. (Id.) After Soueidan did not pass the examination, Soueidan was instructed to take another written examination and perform additional course work. (Compl., ¶18). In the fall of 2016, Soueidan downgraded to a Master's degree after over four years in the Ph.D. program. (Compl., ¶19).

Soueidan refers to several sections of the Handbook that he claims were not followed during his matriculation through the Ph.D. program:

• "You should have an advisor assigned within the first few weeks of classes starting." (Compl., ¶27).

• Students are to meet with their advisor in January to complete their Annual Student Review. This review provides an opportunity to "have a review of [his] work completed, create goals for the next year of studies and research, and ensure you are staying on track for graduation." (Compl., ¶29).

• For Engineering students, the Qualifying Exam is scheduled after 2 semesters," and that "[t]he Qualifying Exam is designed to determine if the student is prepared to continue Ph.D studies and carry on with research." (Compl., ¶31).

The 2015-2016 SLU Graduate Education Catalog ("the Catalog") indicates that the Parks College of Engineering has a Ph.D. program. (Compl., ¶22). Soueidan alleges, "[h]owever, in practice, students who register for the SLU College of Engineering Ph.D. program are faced with insurmountable hurdles that make it essentially impossible to actually obtain a Ph.D." (Compl., ¶34). Soueidan states that he has been damaged by nearly $200,000.00 in tuition payments, the difference in the value of a Ph.D. over his career, and the loss of four years or more of his career. (Compl., ¶¶36, 42, 43).

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

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.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., v. Twombly, 550 U.S 544, 570 (2007). A "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" will not suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

II. Discussion

A. Educational Malpractice

Soueidan purports to allege a breach of contract claim against SLU. "'In order to make a submissible case of breach of contract, the complaining party must establish the existence of a valid contract, the rights of plaintiff and obligations of defendant under the contract, a breach by defendant, and damages resulting from the breach.'" Lucero v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 400 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (citing C. Am. Health Sciences Univ., Belize Med. College v. Norouzian, 236 S.W.3d 69, 84 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) (internal citation omitted)). Soueidan states that he has alleged a valid contract (both express and implied). (ECF No. 16 at 6). Soueidan alleges that SLU, in exchange for tuition, promised Soueidan a course of study that would yield a doctorate in mechanical and aerospace engineering. (ECF No. 16 at 7). The alleged terms of the contract were derived from SLU's Handbook, Catalog, "policies and procedures," and the specific course of study SLU's Department chair drafted in August of 2012. (ECF No. 16 at 7). Soueidan alleged SLU breached its contract with Soueidan by

inter alia, (1) failing to timely provide the services of a Ph.D. advisor to ... Soueidan within the first few weeks of him starting the program pursuant to the official policy to set forth in its handbook; (2) failing to timely provide an advisor to meet with ... Soueidan in January each year to compete an Annual Student Review altering ... Soueidan as to his progress or the timing for other necessary requirements to complete his degree; (3) failing to timely schedule the Qualifying Examination; and (4) failing to award ... Soueidan the doctorate degree he was promised after ... Soueidan complied with Defendant's directive and completed the course of study laid out by SLU.

(ECF No. 16 at 7 (citing Compl., ¶¶37-39)).

Soueidan also attempts to assert a claim for breach of the contract of good faith and fair dealing. Missouri law implies a duty of good faith and fair dealing in every contract. Countrywide Servs. Corp. v. SIA Ins. Co., 235 F.3d 390, 393 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Acetylene Gas Co. v. Oliver, 939 S.W.2d 404, 410 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996); Slone v. Purina Mills Inc., 927 S.W.2d 358, 368 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)). This implied duty "prevents one party to a contract to [sic] exercise a judgment conferred by the express terms of the agreement in such a manner that evades the spirit of the transaction or denies the other party the expected benefit of the contract." Acetylene Gas, 939 S.W.2d at 410. Put another way, "[i]t is the duty of one party to a contract to cooperate with the other to enable performance and achievement of the expected benefits." Slone, 927 S.W.2d at 368. Soueidan asserts that SLU breached the contract of good faith and fair dealing when it failed to provide the promised course of study and resources necessary to complete his Ph.D. (ECF No. 16 at 8).

Soueidan asserts that his claims are not barred by the educational malpractice doctrine because he has alleged that SLU failed to provide specifically promised educational services. In turn, SLU maintains that all of Plaintiff's claims invoke the educational malpractice doctrine and require dismissal.

In Gillis v. Principia Corporation, the Eighth Circuit recognized that Missouri has adopted the educational malpractice doctrine. Id., 832 F.3d 865, 872 (8th Cir. 2016). "Generally, courts have refrained from recognizing educational malpractice claims, either in tort or contract, on the premise that '[u]niversities must be allowed the flexibility to manage themselves and correct their own mistakes.'" Lucero, 400 S.W.3d at 8 (alteration in original) (quoting Miller v. Loyola Univ. of New Orleans, 829 So.2d 1057, 1061 (La. Ct. App. 2002)). "Missouri ... has found that educational malpractice claims are not cognizable because there is no duty." Dallas Airmotive, Inc. v. FlightSafety Int'l, Inc., 277 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (citations omitted). "In refusing to recognize a claim for educational malpractice, [Missouri courts have] emphasized that it is not [the court's] place to micromanage a university's daily operations." Lucero, 400 S.W.3d at 8 (citing Dallas Airmotive, 277 S.W.3d at 700). A breach-of-contract claim that "'raises questions concerning the reasonableness of the educator's conduct in providing educational services' ... 'is one of educational malpractice,' which Missouri courts have recognized as a non-cognizable claim." Id. (quoting Dallas Airmotive, 277 S.W.3d at 700).

To determine whether Soueidan has stated a breach-of-contract claim, the Court must necessarily identify the promises that Soueidan relies upon and determine whether these purported promises create rights...