18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 495 damages. Id . at *10. In addition, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim as it pertained to tuition as there was no breach of contract. The Court determined that as to the fee-based claim, Plaintiff could pursue unjust enrichment as a quasi-contract theory. The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s conversion claim for tuition as it merely restated her claim for breach of contract. Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Montesano, et al. v. Catholic University Of America, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127844 (D.D.C. July 9, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of students in two consolidated actions, brought claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Defendants, Howard University and Catholic University of America following the universities’ cancellation of in person classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss. The Court denied Catholic University’s motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part Howard University’s motion. Plaintiffs alleged that the universities moved classes to an online format, closed campus buildings, and ordered students to leave campus without providing reimbursement for in-person tuition and campus-related fees. The Court found that Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to establish an enforceable contract between the parties that included access to the campuses and in- person education. Plaintiffs offered evidence from the course catalog and the website and described numerous communications from the university to its prospective and admitted students regarding the vibrant campus life and opportunities in Washington, D.C. Id. at *8. As a result, the Court held that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the universities contracted, through their communications to prospective students, to provide access to campus and in-person education in exchange for in-person tuition and fees. Defendants argued that they either reserved their rights to make changes as need or disclaimed reliance on any alleged promises in the course catalogs. Id . While it agreed that the reservations of rights clearly permitted the universities to make some changes to course programming and educational services, the Court reasoned that certain assumptions of the broader implied contract between the universities and their students were so fundamental that the reservations of rights could not reasonably be interpreted to waive them. Id . at *9. The Court thus found that a more established record would be needed in order to determine whether the reservations of rights provisions allowed the move to remote learning or whether it was a breach of contract. The Court also determined that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged each of the elements of unjust enrichment, including: (i) Plaintiffs conferred a benefit on the universities when they paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 Semester; (ii) the universities retained the benefit; and (iii) this retention was unjust. The Court therefore denied both motions to dismiss as to the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. Finally, the Court granted Howard University’s motion to dismiss as to the Howard Plaintiffs claim for conversion, because they failed to allege that they were entitled to "a specific identifiable fund of money." Id . at *12. Ninivaggi, et al. v. University Of Delaware, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157709 (D. Del. Aug. 20, 2021). Plaintiffs, groups of university students and their parents in two consolidated class actions, alleged breach of contract in connection with Defendant’s move to online instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaints, which the Court denied. Following the move to online instruction and shuttering its campus, Defendant partially refunded the charges for housing, dining, and parking, but declined to refund the tuition fees. Plaintiffs contended that prior to the pandemic, Defendant treated in-person and online classes "as two separate and distinct products,” and that in person instruction was charged at a higher rate than online. Id . at *4. The Court determined that without an express contract outlining the agreement between the parties, it must look to whether Defendant impliedly promised in-person classes and services. The Court opined that if Plaintiffs could provide evidence that Defendant promised in-person classes, but the school showed that the promise was impossible to keep, Plaintiffs could recover restitution. The Court reasoned that if Defendant saved money by substituting online for in-person classes, it might have to give those savings back to Plaintiffs. The Court reasoned that Defendant would not be liable for restitution unless going online enriched it. Accordingly, if the online classes were cheaper to offer, then Defendant would be liable for that measure of restitution. The Court opined that whether or not Defendant was enriched could not be answered on a motion to dismiss, and rather must await discovery and summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Omori, et al. v. Brandeis University , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11012 (D. Mass. April 13, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of university students, filed a class action alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion in connection with Defendant’s decision to not reimburse students for providing only online instruction instead of