523 F.Supp.3d 228
N.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Consolidated putative class action by Cornell students/parents challenging Cornell's Spring 2020 campus closure and shift to online instruction; plaintiffs allege breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and GBL claims.
- Cornell suspended in-person classes March 13, 2020 and required most students to leave campus by March 29, 2020; online instruction began in April.
- Cornell issued pro-rated room-and-board refunds effective March 29 but refused tuition and many fee refunds.
- Plaintiffs point to Cornell publications (course listings, mission statement, marketing materials, handbooks) to allege an implied promise of in-person/on-campus education and access to fee-supported facilities.
- Court held in part for plaintiffs and in part for defendant: breach-of-contract claims for tuition and certain fees survive; claims dismissed include Espejo's claim for lack of standing, room-and-board breach, unjust enrichment, conversion, and GBL 349/350 claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Espejo | He paid tuition for his child and thus suffered injury | No direct contract, not an intended third-party beneficiary, and child’s status (minor) not alleged | Espejo lacks Article III standing; claim dismissed |
| Breach — Tuition (in-person instruction) | Cornell materials (incl. mission statement referencing "in the classroom" and "on campus") create a specific promise of in-person education | No specific, enforceable promise for in-person instruction or refund; general materials not binding | Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a specific promise; breach claim survives |
| Breach — Room & Board (refund start date) | Constructive eviction began March 13 so refunds should be pro-rated from then | Cornell refunded from March 29; students were not required to vacate before March 29 | Claim dismissed — plaintiffs did not plausibly allege breach for room & board |
| Breach — Student/Optional Fees | Fees purchased access to on-campus facilities/services which were curtailed; refunds owed | Allegations are too vague to tie fees to discrete services/facilities | Claim plausibly pleaded as to fees that grant access to specific facilities; survives |
| Unjust Enrichment | Cornell benefited at students’ expense by retaining tuition/fees | A contract governs the subject matter; no tortious/fraudulent conduct alleged | Dismissed — equitable restitution not warranted given contract framework and no alleged bad faith |
| Conversion | Tuition/fees are identifiable funds converted by Cornell | Claim duplicates contract remedies; money not specifically identifiable as chattel | Dismissed — duplicative and funds not sufficiently specific |
| GBL §§ 349/350 (consumer deception) | Marketing induced reasonable expectation of in-person, on-campus experience | Pandemic was unforeseeable; materials not deceptive under the circumstances | Dismissed — no plausible consumer deception given unforeseeable pandemic and government orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, traceability, redressability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (court need not accept legal conclusions)
- Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharmacy, 633 F.3d 81 (student-university implied contract principles)
- Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., 584 F.3d 487 (implied-in-fact contracts from conduct/governing student relationships)
- Clark–Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382 (unjust enrichment barred where valid contract governs)
- Nick's Garage, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins., 875 F.3d 107 (elements for breach of contract under New York law)