Gur-Ravantab v. Georgetown University
Civil Action No. 2022-1038
D.D.C.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (undergraduate students) sued Georgetown University after it shifted to virtual instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging breach of an implied contract and unjust enrichment for failure to provide in-person instruction after collecting tuition and fees.
- Original class certification was denied due to inadequacy of the then-named representative, but subsequent named plaintiffs (Morrison and Kazmi) moved to intervene and ultimately took over the case.
- After mediation, the parties reached a settlement; Morrison and Kazmi moved for settlement class certification, preliminary approval of the settlement, and appointment as class representatives.
- The proposed class comprises over 6,000 undergraduates enrolled in Spring 2020 who paid tuition/fees and were not refunded.
- The court previously indicated likely approval of both class certification and settlement, contingent on addressing concerns about average per-member recovery and service awards to non-class members.
- Following a fairness hearing and revised submissions, the court found Rule 23(a), (b) and (e) standards satisfied, approved the settlement (including service awards and attorney fees), and ordered class notice and disbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class Certification | Meets Rule 23 criteria | Initial challenge re: rep. | Class certified—criteria met |
| Adequacy of Representation | Morrison/Kazmi are fit | Gur-Ravantab was not fit | Morrison/Kazmi adequate reps |
| Fairness of Settlement | Fair, reasonable, adequate | Amount is adequate given litigation risk | Settlement approved |
| Service Awards (to non-class reps) | Compensate work/time | Unusual for non-class members | Service awards justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (certification of settlement classes requires same scrutiny as litigation classes)
- E. Texas Motor Freight Sys. Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395 (class reps must be typical and part of class)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (typicality and representativeness requirements for class actions)
- Cobell v. Salazar, 679 F.3d 909 (service/incentive awards for named plaintiffs may be justified by unusual effort)
- Chieftain Royalty Co. v. Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-A, L.P., 888 F.3d 455 (incentive awards to class reps for invested work)