520 F.Supp.3d 1058
N.D. Ill.2021Background
- Three DePaul students (Oyoque, Chavez, Sheikh) sued after DePaul moved from in-person to remote instruction in Spring 2020 due to COVID-19, seeking partial tuition refunds.
- Plaintiffs alleged a contract existed based on DePaul catalogs, student handbooks, and marketing materials promising in-person instruction, campus facilities, and experiential opportunities.
- Plaintiffs pleaded breach of contract (Count 1) and unjust enrichment (Count 2); a conversion claim was voluntarily dismissed.
- DePaul moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- The court found the complaint did not identify a concrete contractual promise to provide in-person instruction and dismissed Count 1; it also dismissed Count 2 because an express contract governed the parties’ relationship.
- The court allowed leave to amend by a set date and scheduled a status conference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims are barred as educational malpractice | Plaintiffs assert contract claims for promised in-person services, not challenges to academic quality | DePaul argues claims impermissibly ask court to second-guess academic judgments | Court: Not educational malpractice; plaintiffs framed breach-of-contract claim, not an attack on academic decisions |
| Whether catalogs/handbooks/marketing created an enforceable promise of in-person instruction | Catalogs, handbooks, and marketing conveyed concrete promises of on-campus classes, facilities, and experiential opportunities | Those materials are aspirational, informational, or promotional and do not guarantee in-person delivery in all circumstances | Court: Alleged materials are not sufficiently specific or definite to form a contractual promise to provide in-person instruction |
| Sufficiency of breach-of-contract pleading | Plaintiffs paid tuition expecting in-person performance and thus alleged DePaul breached by moving online | DePaul: plaintiffs failed to identify an identifiable contractual term promising in-person instruction | Court: Dismissed Count 1 for failure to allege an identifiable, enforceable promise to provide in-person education |
| Availability of unjust enrichment when an express contract exists | Plaintiffs plead unjust enrichment as alternative remedy for deprivation | DePaul: An express contract governs; unjust enrichment unavailable where contract covers the relationship | Court: Dismissed Count 2 because plaintiffs allege an express contract governing the parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (threadbare conclusions insufficient)
- Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992) (educational malpractice doctrine; must allege failure to perform promised service)
- Bissessur v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2009) (catalogs and bulletins may form part of student–school contract)
- DiPerna v. Chicago Sch. of Prof'l Psychology, 893 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2018) (contract terms generally set forth in catalogs/bulletins)
- 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)
- Nesby v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 346 Ill. App. 3d 564 (2004) (unjust enrichment unavailable where an express contract governs)