Hart v. University of Scranton
838 F. Supp. 2d 324
M.D. Penn.2011Background
- Hart was an online student at the University of Scranton (Jan 2009–Aug 2010).
- Plaintiff’s plagiarism issue involved Professor George Jones and a zero grade leading to expulsion.
- Hart spent over $15,000 on her education at Scranton.
- She filed a diversity-based complaint alleging breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation (complaint filed Aug 23, 2011).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); court granted dismissal with leave to amend on contract and fraud claims.
- Court noted a private university-student relationship is contractual and requires identifiable written terms or breached promises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract—plaintiff must plead contract terms | Hart alleges a contract implied by school policies. | Hart failed to cite specific contract terms breached. | Contract claim dismissed; leave to amend granted. |
| Fraudulent misrepresentation—proper pleading and gist of action | Hart asserts misrepresentations regarding contract/academic code. | Claims lack specificity and rely on general allegations; gist of action not clear. | Fraud claim dismissed; leave to amend possible; part of dispute on contract terms remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swartley v. Hoffner, 734 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) (private university contract with student based on written materials)
- Gundlach v. Reinstein, 924 F. Supp. 684 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (breach requires identifying promised benefits and manner of breach)
- Furey v. Temple University, 730 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (contract elements: existence, terms, breach, damages)
- CoreStates Bank v. Cutillo, 723 A.2d 1053 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) (contractual breach framework for student claims)
- Behrend v. State, 55 Ohio App.2d 135, 379 N.E.2d 617 (Ohio App. 1977) (implied contract concepts discussed in context of reliance on assurances)