523 F.Supp.3d 414
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Two putative class actions by students: Columbia (multiple plaintiffs) and Pace (Xaviera Marbury) challenging tuition/fee retention after universities moved classes online and closed facilities in Spring 2020 due to COVID-19.
- Columbia moved classes online, closed facilities, and issued some fee refunds; Pace did likewise and issued limited housing refunds but moved all classes online beginning mid-March 2020.
- Plaintiffs allege breach of contract (promises in catalogues/registration portals/syllabi for in-person instruction, facility access, housing/meals), and alternatively unjust enrichment, conversion, and violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349 & 350.
- Procedural posture: Columbia moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Pace moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). Court applied New York contract principles and federal pleading standards.
- Court’s controlling approach: student–university relationship is contractual only to the extent specific language in university publications creates enforceable promises; generalized marketing/opinion/puffery or educational-malpractice claims fail.
- Disposition in part: Some contract claims survive (facility/activity access; Pace’s instructional-format claim), others dismissed (Columbia’s instructional-format claim; Pace housing and meals; unjust enrichment; conversion; GBL §§349/350).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether shifting from in-person to online instruction breached contract (Columbia) | Columbia promised in-person instruction via syllabi/registration entries/marketing; plaintiffs paid for that product | Columbia: no specific contractual promise to continue in-person instruction; academic prerogatives and custom do not create contractual rights | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to identify a specific, enforceable promise to exclusively in-person instruction |
| Whether shifting to online breached contract (Pace/Marbury) | Pace’s course-registration portal expressly stated on-campus courses are taught only with traditional in-person meetings | Pace: catalog disclaimer allows schedule/format adjustments for unforeseen circumstances; claim is educational malpractice | Survives — portal language plausibly created a specific promise; disclaimer ambiguous and must be construed for plaintiff at pleading stage |
| Whether closures/cancellations of campus facilities/activities breached contract (both cases) | Mandatory fees (facilities, student life, activities, health) purchased access to specified services and facilities | Universities: actions were reasonable responses to pandemic; bad-faith or arbitrariness required | Survives — plaintiffs alleged discrete, fee-linked promises to provide specific non-academic services; bad-faith not required for such claims |
| Whether Pace’s housing and meal obligations were breached | Marbury alleges contract for on-campus housing and meal plans for semester duration that was cut short by Pace’s move | Pace: notified students housing would be limited but available upon request; Marbury voluntarily vacated and accepted available options; meal claim abandoned | Housing claim dismissed (no allegation she sought to remain); meal claim abandoned by plaintiff |
| Unjust enrichment (both) | Universities were unjustly enriched by retaining tuition/fees for services not rendered | Universities: contractual relationship exists; unjust enrichment duplicative of contract claim | Dismissed — unjust enrichment not available where the parties’ relationship is governed by an (alleged) contract |
| Conversion (both) | Universities converted plaintiffs’ tuition/fees by withholding funds for promised services | Universities: money not specifically identified/segregated; claim is mere contract breach | Dismissed — money not specifically identifiable and claim duplicates contract theory |
| NY GBL §§ 349/350 (both) | University marketing/representations about on-campus experience were deceptive/misleading | Universities: could not have known pandemic would force mid-semester operational changes; no materially misleading conduct alleged | Dismissed — no plausible allegation that representations were materially misleading or that defendants knew representations were false when made |
Key Cases Cited
- Prusack v. State, 498 N.Y.S.2d 455 (2d Dep't 1986) (student–university relationship is contractual; school publications may form terms)
- Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharmacy of Union Univ., 633 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2011) (same: educational relationship analyzed as contract)
- Gertler v. Goodgold, 487 N.Y.S.2d 565 (1st Dep't 1985) (custom/practice does not create enforceable contractual entitlements against academic prerogatives)
- Paladino v. Adelphi Univ., 454 N.Y.S.2d 868 (2d Dep't 1982) (breach claims must be tied to specific promised services; educational-malpractice claims not cognizable)
- Corsello v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 967 N.E.2d 1177 (N.Y. 2012) (unjust enrichment is unavailable where a contract governs the parties’ relationship)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must contain factual content allowing plausible inference of liability)
- Kaye v. Grossman, 202 F.3d 611 (2d Cir. 2000) (elements of unjust enrichment under New York law)