537 F.Supp.3d 8
D.D.C.2021Background
- Two putative class actions by Georgetown and American University spring 2020 students sought partial refunds of tuition and mandatory fees after both schools suspended in-person instruction and moved online due to COVID-19.
- Plaintiffs alleged university publications (catalogs, handbooks, syllabi, marketing, acceptance letters) created contractual promises to provide an on-campus, in-person semester; they paid full tuition and fees and received online instruction for the latter part of the term.
- Universities’ official materials included broad reservation-of-rights clauses (e.g., to change policies, curricula, tuition) and did not contain express promises guaranteeing uninterrupted in-person instruction.
- Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and (for American) violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act; universities moved to dismiss.
- Court treated relevant catalogs/handbooks as integral, applied D.C. law, and examined whether alleged representations plausibly created an enforceable promise of continuous in-person education.
- Holding: Court dismissed all claims (tuition and fees) against both universities—no plausible implied promise to provide in-person instruction regardless of circumstances; universities retained reasonable discretion to modify delivery in response to the pandemic.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract (tuition) | Plaintiffs: catalogs, syllabi, marketing, acceptance letters created an implied promise of an on‑campus semester. | Universities: no express promise; reservation-of-rights and written terms show no contractual right to uninterrupted in‑person instruction. | Dismissed — allegations do not plausibly show universities surrendered discretion to switch formats; at most an obligation to make good‑faith efforts. |
| Unjust enrichment (tuition) | Plaintiffs: universities were unjustly enriched by keeping full tuition when services were diminished. | Universities: contract governs; unjust enrichment unavailable absent allegation contract is invalid. | Dismissed — valid contract exists and plaintiffs allege no invalidity; retention not shown unjust under alleged terms. |
| Conversion (tuition) | Plaintiffs: universities unlawfully exercised dominion over tuition funds. | Universities: no identifiable, segregated fund or sum certain; claim seeks pro rata share of a pooled amount. | Dismissed — conversion requires right to specific identifiable funds; plaintiffs seek unspecified prorated amount. |
| CPPA (tuition, American only) | Plaintiffs: American misled consumers by advertising in‑person experience then providing online instruction. | American: no false or misleading representation; reasonable consumer would expect adaptation; no guarantee of uninterrupted in‑person instruction. | Dismissed — no plausible deceptive representation to a reasonable consumer. |
| Breach of contract (fees) | Plaintiffs: mandatory activity, tech, sports, U‑Pass fees funded on‑campus services that were curtailed. | Universities: fee descriptions do not promise continuous on‑campus access; many fees fund broad purposes (maintenance, organization support) and services continued in other forms. | Dismissed — fee language does not create promise of uninterrupted on‑campus access; no breach. |
| Unjust enrichment (fees) | Plaintiffs: universities unjustly retained fees for services no longer provided on campus. | Universities: contract governs; fees supported ongoing obligations or universal services; no invalid contract alleged. | Dismissed — alternative unjust enrichment unavailable and retention not shown unjust under alleged terms. |
| Conversion (fees) | Plaintiffs: conversion of fee payments. | Universities: same defenses as tuition conversion (no specific, segregated funds or sum certain). | Dismissed — conversion requires identifiable funds or sum certain. |
| CPPA (fees, American only) | Plaintiffs: fee-related representations were deceptive. | American: no misleading representation; reservations and context defeat a reasonable‑consumer deception claim. | Dismissed — no actionable deception about fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must plausibly state a claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Basch v. George Washington Univ., 370 A.2d 1364 (D.C. 1977) (university‑student relationship is contractual; bulletin can become part of contract)
- Emerine v. Yancey, 680 A.2d 1380 (D.C. 1996) (express and implied‑in‑fact contracts; conduct can manifest assent)
- Dantley v. Howard Univ., 801 A.2d 962 (D.C. 2002) (handbook language can give rise to implied contractual obligations)
- McConnell v. Howard Univ., 818 F.2d 58 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (university practices may create enforceable obligations)
- Falconi‑Sachs v. LPF Senate Square, LLC, 142 A.3d 550 (D.C. 2016) (unjust enrichment barred where an actual contract covers the subject)
- Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, 984 A.2d 181 (D.C. 2009) (elements of breach of contract under D.C. law)
- Allworth v. Howard Univ., 890 A.2d 194 (D.C. 2006) (courts must avoid substituting judicial judgment for academic judgment)
- Paul v. Howard Univ., 754 A.2d 297 (D.C. 2000) (implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in contracts)