98 F. Supp. 3d 1030
E.D. Mo.2015Background
- Plaintiff Lily Robbe, a Swiss citizen, resides in Geneva and attended Webster University’s campus there.
- Plaintiff earned a BA in International Relations (2010) and enrolled in Webster’s Geneva MA program in Fall 2010.
- Before enrolling, Plaintiff was told she could prepare and defend a Master’s thesis as part of her degree requirements.
- Plaintiff maintained a 4.0 GPA and entered the final 6-credit thesis course in August 2011, with a defense planned for July 2012.
- Thesis committee was formed (Dr. Veuthey and Dr. Donati); defense date set for July 10, 2012; later events revealed miscommunications and refusals to appear.
- After multiple communications and alleged misrepresentations by campus officials, Plaintiff pursued remedies, culminating in a July 8, 2014 filing alleging MMPA violations, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, good faith and fair dealing, and educational malpractice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MMPA claim is cognizable | Robbe alleges geog. connection; facts satisfy MMPA elements. | MMPA does not reach Switzerland and requires fraud specifics and Commerce Clause concerns. | Denied; MMPA claim viable against alleged Missouri-based conduct. |
| Breach of contract sufficiency | There was a mutual promise to set a mid-August defense date and Plaintiff’s forbearance. | No definite date, vagueness, lack of consideration, and statute of frauds concerns. | Denied; pleadings sufficient to state a contract forming the basis for breach. |
| Promissory estoppel viability | Detrimental reliance on promises related to defense date and defense opportunities. | Plaintiff failed to allege detrimental reliance. | Denied; substantial detrimental reliance alleged; promissory estoppel stated. |
| Duty of good faith and fair dealing | Existence of a contract with implied obligation of fair dealing. | No enforceable contract exists between Plaintiff and Webster University. | Denied; contract_foundation implied; claim survives. |
| Educational malpractice claim viability | Challenge to the promised service based on defense-date failures. | Educational malpractice not cognizable under Missouri law. | Denied; claims are not barred as educational malpractice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleadings must present plausibly actionable claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading sufficiency)
- Intertel, Inc. v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Sens., 204 S.W.3d 183 (Mo.Ct.App. 2006) (elements of breach of contract claim in Missouri)
- State ex rel. Goldberg v. Barber & Sons Tobacco, Inc., 649 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. 1983) (consideration may consist of refraining from legal action)
- Duvall v. Duncan, 341 Mo. 1129, 111 S.W.2d 89 (Mo. 1937) (consideration and forbearance as contractual consideration)
- Brooks v. Midwest Heart Grp., 655 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2011) (pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6); Iqbal applicability)
- Alsides v. Brown Inst., Ltd., 592 N.W.2d 468 (Minn. 1999) (educational malpractice reluctance; different state law context)