494 F.Supp.3d 24
D. Mass.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Manny Chong (graduate student) and Thane Gallo (undergraduate) paid full tuition and various student fees for Spring 2020 under Northeastern’s Annual Financial Responsibility Agreement (FRA).
- The FRA ties payment obligations to registration and the receipt of "educational services," but does not define "educational services."
- On March 12, 2020 Northeastern moved all Spring 2020 instruction online and closed campus facilities in response to COVID-19; plaintiffs allege reduced pedagogical value and loss of access to campus resources.
- Plaintiffs sought refunds and filed a putative class action asserting breach of contract (tuition; undergraduate fees; graduate fees) and, alternatively, unjust enrichment for each class.
- Northeastern moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the court dismissed the tuition breach and all unjust enrichment claims, dismissed fee-based breach claims in part, and allowed claims tied to the campus recreation fee to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FRA created a contractual right to in-person instruction (Tuition, Count I) | Students contend registration for courses described as on-campus created an entitlement to in-person instruction. | FRA ties tuition to registration/receipt of services and does not promise any particular mode of instruction. | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege the contract included a right to in-person instruction. |
| Whether payment of student activity, student center, and undergraduate student fees created contractual rights to facility access (Counts III & V, part) | Plaintiffs say fees were paid to support services/facilities and thus entitle access to those facilities. | Fee descriptions show these fees ‘‘support’’ facilities and services rather than guarantee specific access. | Dismissed as to these fees — no plausible contractual entitlement to access alleged. |
| Whether the campus recreation fee conferred contractual rights to use athletic/fitness facilities (Counts III & V, part) | Plaintiffs allege the campus recreation fee expressly grants the option to use fitness centers and attend athletic events; access was lost after March 12. | Northeastern relies on FRA but fee description specifically ties the recreation fee to optional access. | Survives — plausible breach claim as to campus recreation fee. |
| Whether unjust enrichment claims are available (Counts II, IV, VI) | Plaintiffs assert unjust enrichment because Northeastern retained tuition/fees after services/facilities were curtailed. | Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law (breach of contract under the FRA); unjust enrichment unavailable when an express contract applies. | Dismissed — unjust enrichment barred by existence of an express contract/adequate legal remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: legal conclusions not presumed true; need plausible factual allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bose Corp. v. Ejaz, 732 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2013) (elements of breach of contract under Massachusetts law)
- Singarella v. City of Boston, 342 Mass. 385 (1961) (breach of contract elements under Massachusetts law)
- Reed v. Zipcar, Inc., 883 F. Supp. 2d 329 (D. Mass. 2012) (elements of unjust enrichment under Massachusetts law)
- Shaulis v. Nordstrom, Inc., 865 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017) (availability of an adequate legal remedy bars unjust enrichment)
- Platten v. HG Bermuda Exempted Ltd., 437 F.3d 118 (1st Cir. 2006) (cannot use unjust enrichment to override an express contract)