568 F.Supp.3d 350
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- University of Tampa moved spring 2020 classes online in March 2020 due to COVID-19; students continued and received online instruction and credit.
- Two student plaintiffs and two parent plaintiffs paid tuition, mandatory fees, housing and meal charges for spring 2020 and allege they paid for in-person instruction based on UT course catalog, course-schedule delivery-mode listings, syllabi, and promotional materials.
- Plaintiffs sued seeking pro-rated refunds for tuition/fees (claims: breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion); suit filed May 14, 2020 and amended Sept. 2020.
- Florida enacted Fla. Stat. § 768.39 (June 2021) granting COVID-era immunity to educational institutions and changing evidentiary and burden rules; defendant argued the Statute bars plaintiffs’ claims.
- Court held the Statute was intended to apply retroactively but found retroactive application would impair plaintiffs’ vested rights and thus could not be applied to bar these accrued/pending claims; addressed standing and merits under Florida law.
- Court dismissed Parent Plaintiffs for lack of Article III standing; denied dismissal of tuition-based breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims; dismissed fee-based breach/unjust-enrichment claims with leave to amend; dismissed conversion claim with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive application of Fla. Stat. § 768.39 | Statute is unconstitutional and should not apply retroactively to pending suits | Legislature intended the Statute to cover existing COVID tuition suits and grant immunity | Court: text and purpose show retroactive intent, but retroactive application would impair vested rights and thus cannot be applied to extinguish these accrued/pending claims |
| Standing of parent plaintiffs | Parents paid tuition and thus suffered economic injury warranting suit | No contractual relationship between parents and UT; benefits flow to students, not parents | Court: Parents lack Article III standing; claims by Parent Plaintiffs dismissed |
| Existence of contract for in-person tuition (role of FRS) | University publications, schedule delivery-mode listings and syllabi created an implied contract promising in-person instruction | Financial Responsibility Statement (FRS) signed by students is the entire agreement and contains no promise of in-person instruction | Court: On this record the FRS lacks essential terms to be the entire integrated agreement; publications plausibly allege an implied contract for in-person instruction; tuition-based breach survives dismissal |
| Material breach, damages, and ratification | Switching to online materially breached bargain; students paid a premium and seek pro-rated refund; continued enrollment did not ratify breach | Providing instruction and credit defeats materiality; students ratified breach by continuing classes instead of withdrawing | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged material breach and ascertainable damages; continued enrollment during a pandemic is not sufficient to find ratification at this stage |
| Fee-based breach and unjust enrichment (student-service/government fees) | Fees funded on-campus programs and access that became unavailable; unjust enrichment alternative relief | Fee descriptions state fees "support" programs (not access); no facts that fees were misused or tied to specific denied access | Court: Fee-based claims dismissed for failure to plead specificity, but plaintiffs given leave to amend to plead facts showing fees purchased access or were not used as represented |
| Conversion claim | Retention of tuition/fees deprived plaintiffs of property (in-person education / funds) | Money obligation and intangible right to education are not proper subjects of conversion | Court: Conversion claim fails as a matter of law (money and in-person education not properly convertible property); dismissal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2010) (retroactive statutes that impair vested rights violate due process)
- Metropolitan Dade County v. Chase Fed. Hous. Corp., 737 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1999) (test for legislative retroactivity: intent then constitutionality)
- Maronda Homes, Inc. of Fla. v. Lakeview Rsrv. Homeowners Ass'n, 127 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 2013) (distinguishing substantive versus procedural retroactive changes)
- In re Univ. of Miami COVID-19 Tuition & Fee Refund Litig., 524 F. Supp. 3d 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (Florida-law COVID tuition precedent on implied contract and university publications)
- Salerno v. Fla. S. Coll., 488 F. Supp. 3d 1211 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (tuition refund class action precedent recognizing implied contract from university materials)
- Rosado v. Barry Univ., 499 F. Supp. 3d 1152 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (online instruction vs. in-person analogy; damages and unjust enrichment analysis)
- Bel-Bel Int’l Corp. v. Cmty. Bank of Homestead, 162 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 1998) (money obligations generally not subject to conversion; narrow separate-identification exception)