582 F.Supp.3d 257
E.D. Pa.2022Background
- Plaintiff Sara Brezinski, a graduate student at Widener, paid $5,800 in tuition and mandatory fees for Spring 2020 courses that were listed as on-campus/in-person.
- In March 2020 Widener suspended in-person instruction due to COVID-19 and moved classes online for the remainder of the semester pursuant to public-health orders.
- Brezinski alleges the remote instruction was materially different and of lesser value than the in-person education she paid for and seeks partial refunds.
- She filed a putative class action asserting breach of contract (express and implied), unjust enrichment, conversion, and money had and received.
- Widener moved to dismiss; the court granted the motion in full, dismissing all claims under Pennsylvania law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract — implied/express promise of in-person instruction | Widener’s catalog, registration portal, syllabi, and marketing created an (express or implied) obligation to provide in-person classes; paid more for on‑campus education | No specific contractual language guaranteed in‑person instruction; catalogs/syllabi are tentative; Pennsylvania law does not recognize implied promises of in‑person instruction beyond degree expectation | Dismissed — no plausible express or implied contractual term promising in‑person instruction under Pennsylvania law |
| Unjust enrichment (alternative) | Plaintiff seeks quasi‑contractual recovery if contract term fails | Parties agree a contract governs relationship; unjust enrichment unavailable where written contract exists | Dismissed — unjust enrichment barred where an applicable contract governs |
| Conversion (tort claim for tuition) | Retention of tuition/fees for services not rendered constitutes conversion | Claim is essentially contractual/economic; barred by gist of the action and economic loss doctrines | Dismissed — conversion barred by gist/economic loss doctrines |
| Money had and received | Tuition was wrongfully retained; equitable restitution is appropriate | No mistake, compulsion, or diversion to third party; services (education) were provided albeit remotely | Dismissed — elements of money had and received not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (distinguishing fact from legal conclusions at pleading stage)
- Cavaliere v. Duff’s Bus. Inst., 605 A.2d 397 (Pa. Super. 1992) (distinguishing contractual claims from noncognizable educational malpractice)
- Swartley v. Hoffner, 734 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. 1999) (written materials can form the contractual basis between student and institution)
- Gat v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 91 A.3d 723 (Pa. Super. 2014) (implied contract in higher ed limited to expectation of degree)
- Bourke v. Kelly, 482 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 1984) (advertising/promotional materials generally not contractual offers)
- Scafer Elec. & Const. v. Mantia, 67 A.3d 8 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unjust enrichment unavailable where a written contract governs)
- eToll, Inc. v. Elias/Savion Advert., Inc., 811 A.2d 10 (Pa. Super. 2002) (gist of the action doctrine bars torts that are essentially contract claims)
- White v. Conestoga Title Ins. Co., 53 A.3d 720 (Pa. 2012) (elements for money had and received)