18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

496 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition in-person instruction for the Spring 2020 semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs contended that students had registered and paid for in-person courses and expected to receive the benefits of being in classes and on campus for their instruction. On March 11, 2020, Defendant moved all classed to online learning and closed all campus facilities. Defendant offered students prorated refunds of room and board but declined to refund tuition and other fees. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of contract, either express or implied, because they had identified no legal basis for any contractual right to in-person instruction. Id . at *6. Plaintiffs asserted that statements in Defendant’s publications, academic bulletins, and course listings constituted a specific promise to provide in-person instruction and on-campus opportunities. Id . at *7. The Court agreed that Defendant’s materials that stated that students would have a "hands-on experience" and "state-of-the-art studios," among other things, to reasonably be an offer of in-person instruction and on-campus facilities and experience. Id . The Court therefore found that Plaintiff’s complaint plausibly alleged that the students paid a premium for these services and registered for on-campus courses in consideration for receiving such services, and hence formed a contract. Id . Accordingly, the Court held that Plaintiffs stated a viable claim for breach of contract and denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss on that claim. In addition, Defendant contended that as a matter of law Plaintiffs could not state a claim for unjust enrichment because they had an adequate remedy at law, namely, a breach of contract action. However, the Court opined that because Plaintiffs plead unjust enrichment only to the extent that the parties did not have a contractual relationship, Defendant’s argument failed. The Court found that Plaintiffs stated plausibly that they conferred a benefit on Defendant in the form of their tuition and fees and that Defendant did not provide the benefit of on-campus experience for which Plaintiffs paid. Finally, as to Plaintiff’s conversion claim, the Court determined that to the extent Plaintiffs contended that Defendant converted their right to in-person education, those allegations likewise could not support a claim for conversion because such rights did not constitute "personal property" for the purpose of that tort. Id . at *12. For these reasons, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the conversion claim, and denied it as to all other claims. Oyoque, et al. v. DePaul University , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31722 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of university students, filed a class action alleging that breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with Defendant moving to remote instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant filed motion for dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion. In March of 2020, due to emergence of COVID-19, Defendant notified students that instruction would be held remotely. Plaintiffs contended that the value of the education they received relative to the tuition they paid was not the same, and that under the terms of the contractual agreement between the parties, Defendants were required to provide in person instruction in exchange for the tuition. Plaintiffs asserted that with remote learning, they did not receive their contractually agreed upon terms. Plaintiffs sought a refund "proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the Spring 2020 Term when classes moved online and campus services ceased being provided." Id . at *4. Defendant asserted that Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed because they were premised upon allegations of education malpractice. The Court agreed with Plaintiffs’ argument that the claim was for breach of contract, and not an allegation of education malpractice. The Court, however, determined the claims should still be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court explained that in Illinois, a Plaintiff claiming breach of contract must allege: "(i) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract; (ii) substantial performance by Plaintiff; (iii) a breach by Defendant; and (iv) resultant damages." Id . at *7. The Court reasoned that although Plaintiffs cited to Defendant’s academic catalog as the basis for the existence of a promise to provide in-person instruction, that document did not actually contain any promises that classes would be held in-person or even on campus. Plaintiffs also alleged that contractual provisions existed in Defendant’s student handbooks. The Court, however, determined that even viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the statements, without more, were informing students of campus resources and not indicating a promise to students. The Court found that there was not a concrete contractual promise to provide in-person educational services, experiences, or opportunities. In addition, the Court noted that when an unjust enrichment claim was premised on a failure to fulfill contractual terms, then dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim would be appropriate. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Polley, et al. v. Northwestern University, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175822 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 16, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of university students, filed a class action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with Defendant’s move to online instruction in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant filed a motion to