533 F.Supp.3d 678
N.D. Ill.2021Background
- Plaintiff Brianna Miller, a Lewis University student who graduated spring 2020, paid roughly $16,860 for spring 2020 tuition and mandatory fees; Lewis switched spring/summer 2020 instruction to online and closed residence halls due to COVID-19.
- Miller sued for breach of contract (Count 1) and unjust enrichment (Count 2), alleging Lewis promised in-person classes and on-campus services and retained full tuition despite providing remote instruction.
- Miller relied on Lewis marketing materials, an executive summary of its strategic plan, website statements, and the spring 2020 course schedule (which labeled classes as "face-to-face") as the sources of contractual promises.
- Lewis moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (among other things) that promotional materials are non-contractual puffery, the course schedule reserved the right to change, and unjust enrichment is unavailable when an express contract governs.
- The court dismissed both counts: it found the complaint alleges a breach-of-contract theory (not educational malpractice) but that Miller failed to identify any definite contractual promise to provide in-person instruction; unjust enrichment was dismissed because an express contract governs the relationship.
- The court granted leave to amend by a specified date and set a status hearing; otherwise judgment for the University would be entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim is educational malpractice or breach of contract | Miller: She alleges Lewis failed to perform a promised in-person service (contract), not that instruction quality was deficient | Lewis: The claim attacks the quality/adequacy of education and thus is barred as educational malpractice | Court: Not educational malpractice — Miller alleges a failure to provide a promised service, which can state a breach claim |
| Whether marketing/website/strategic plan created contractual promises | Miller: Promotional materials and strategic-plan language show Lewis promised an on-campus experience | Lewis: Those materials are puffery or expressions of intent, not definite promises | Court: Marketing and strategic-plan statements are aspirational/puffery and not enforceable contract terms |
| Whether spring 2020 course schedule created a binding promise of face-to-face instruction | Miller: Course schedule listing instructional method ("face-to-face") created an enforceable expectation | Lewis: The schedule expressly reserved the right to change courses, times, locations, and make schedule changes without notice | Court: The schedule’s clear reservation ("subject to change" and "including") permits unilateral changes; not a binding promise |
| Whether unjust enrichment is available | Miller: Alternatively seeks restitution because Lewis retained tuition despite not providing on-campus services | Lewis: An express contract governs; unjust enrichment is unavailable where a contract covers the relationship | Court: Dismissed unjust enrichment as duplicative/alternative to a contractual claim when an express contract exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992) (distinguishes educational malpractice from breach; plaintiff must allege failure to perform a promised service)
- Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2009) (catalogues and bulletins may become part of the student–university contract)
- DiPerna v. Chicago Sch. of Prof'l Psychology, 893 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2018) (terms of college–student contract generally set forth in school catalogs/bulletins)
- Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2009) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory recitals insufficient to survive dismissal)
- Sevugan v. Direct Energy Servs., LLC, 931 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2019) (elements of breach of contract under Illinois law)
- Blythe Holdings, Inc. v. DeAngelis, 750 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2014) (elements of unjust enrichment; requires unjust retention and no adequate legal remedy)
- Guinn v. Hoskins Chevrolet, 361 Ill. App. 3d 575 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (unjust enrichment unavailable where an express contract governs the parties’ relationship)
- Abrams v. Illinois Coll. of Podiatric Med., 77 Ill. App. 3d 471 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979) (statements of intention/hope are unenforceable and not contractual)