Gibson v. Lynn University, Inc., 9:20-cv-81173

Background

Plaintiff Raymond Gibson, a Lynn University undergraduate, alleges Lynn moved in-person Spring 2020 instruction and campus services online due to COVID-19, depriving students of bargained-for benefits and seeking prorated refunds.
Gibson claims the contract terms promising in-person instruction arise from Lynn’s Academic Catalog, University Policies, invoices, and the parties’ course of conduct for Undergraduate Day and Graduate divisions.
Gibson filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserting breach of contract and unjust enrichment on behalf of all who paid tuition/fees for in-person Spring 2020 instruction; class definition covers payors for Undergraduate Day or Graduate divisions.
Lynn moved to dismiss or strike the class allegations, arguing (1) contractual issues and damages require individualized inquiries, (2) unjust enrichment is unsuitable for class treatment, and (3) the class includes members lacking standing.
The Court denied Lynn’s motion to dismiss the earlier complaint, and here concluded that dismissal/striking of class allegations at the pleading stage is premature because plaintiff plausibly pleaded Rule 23 elements and standing; factual issues better resolved at class-certification after discovery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether commonality/predominance defeat class treatment of breach claims	Gibson: a common contract exists (catalog, policies, invoices) for in-person education susceptible to class-wide proof	Lynn: contract terms are not uniform; proof requires individualized inquiries into each student’s expectations and state of mind	Denied dismissal; court finds commonality a low hurdle and premature to decide; factual record required at certification stage
Whether individualized damages (loss-of-experience) preclude class treatment	Gibson: damages can be proved or modeled on a class-wide basis (promises a class-wide damages model)	Lynn: damages are subjective and require individualized proof	Denied dismissal; individualized damages do not automatically defeat predominance at pleadings stage
Whether unjust enrichment is inherently unsuitable for class treatment	Gibson: common circumstances (retention of tuition after ceasing in-person services) permit class-wide proof	Lynn: unjust enrichment requires individualized equitable inquiries into each claimant	Denied dismissal; unjust enrichment may be class-appropriate where defendant’s conduct is uniform and equity issues are amenable to common proof
Whether the proposed class contains members lacking Article III standing	Gibson: he has individual and representative standing (injury, traceability, redressability)	Lynn: class includes non-student payors and others whom plaintiff cannot represent	Denied dismissal; plaintiff adequately alleged Article III standing for himself and as putative representative; typicality/adequacy issues reserved for certification

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to deference on a motion to dismiss)
Hunt v. Aimco Props., L.P., 814 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2016) (discussing pleading standards)
Mills v. Foremost Ins. Co., 511 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2008) (class certification often requires discovery; courts may need a developed record)
Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (analysis of commonality and predominance at class-certification stage)
Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) (individualized damages do not always defeat predominance)
Rutstein v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., 211 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2000) (generalized proof must predominate over individualized issues for Rule 23(b)(3))
In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 275 F.R.D. 666 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (commonality satisfied where defendant engaged in a standardized course of conduct)
Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 333 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2003) (overview of Rule 23 prerequisites)