503 F.Supp.3d 986
N.D. Cal.2020Background
- Plaintiff Viney Saroya, an undergraduate at University of the Pacific (UOP), paid full tuition/fees for Spring 2020 and alleges UOP suspended in-person instruction effective March 23, 2020 and converted remaining weeks to online delivery.
- Plaintiff seeks a pro rata refund for the portion of the semester after in-person services ceased (roughly six weeks).
- Causes of action in the First Amended Complaint: breach of contract (Claim I), unjust enrichment (Claim II), conversion (Claim III), and money had and received (Claim IV); plaintiff also sought punitive damages.
- UOP moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike portions of the FAC; the court took judicial notice of UOP course catalogs and related public materials incorporated into the FAC.
- Rulings: breach of contract claim survives (denied dismissal); unjust enrichment dismissed with leave to amend; conversion and money had and received dismissed without leave to amend; motion to strike granted as to allegations about Fall 2020 plans and fee waivers; punitive damages allegation not resolved on 12(b)(6) grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Educational-malpractice bar: Are claims barred as academic malpractice? | Claims are contractual and seek return of fees for services promised (in-person access), not judicial review of pedagogy. | Suit impermissibly asks court to evaluate educational quality/decisions. | Not barred: court may adjudicate contract-based claims that do not require reviewing pedagogy or student outcomes. |
| Breach of contract: Did plaintiff plead an enforceable promise of in-person services? | Catalogs, syllabi, and representations created an implied-in-fact contract promising in-person instruction and campus services; billing created reasonable expectations. | Express Financial Agreement lacked a guarantee of in-person instruction; disclaimers/control over services defeat contract claim. | FAC plausibly alleges implied-in-fact contract and reasonable expectations; breach claim survives at pleading stage. |
| Quasi-contract claims (unjust enrichment / money had and received): Viability given an express contract? | Alternatively seeks restitution for benefits UOP unjustly retained if contract fails or is unenforceable. | Plaintiff expressly pleads an enforceable contract, so quasi-contract remedies are unavailable. | Both unjust enrichment (Claim II) dismissed with leave to amend; money had and received (Claim IV) dismissed without leave to amend for pleading an express contract and lacking sum-certain. |
| Conversion: Can plaintiff plead conversion for partial tuition refund? | Tuition payments were specific funds UOP wrongfully retained; seeks pro rata recovery. | Conversion requires specific, identifiable sum or tangible property; partial/indeterminate refund is not conversion. | Conversion dismissed without leave to amend: money obligation for partial refund is not sufficiently specific tangible property. |
| Motion to strike: Are paragraphs about Fall 2020 plans and fee waivers admissible/relevant? | Fall plans and fee waivers show UOP’s position on online learning and feasibility of refunds. | Allegations concern subsequent remedial measures and are immaterial to Spring 2020 pro rata claim; prejudicial. | Court struck language about Fall 2020 plans and the paragraph about waiving Fall fees as immaterial/impertinent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading).
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions need not be accepted as true on a 12(b)(6) motion).
- United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) (incorporation-by-reference doctrine).
- Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) (judicial notice and incorporation limits).
- Kashmiri v. Regents of Univ. of California, 156 Cal. App. 4th 809 (2007) (student billing and reasonable expectations about fees).
- Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 60 Cal. App. 3d 814 (1976) (refusal to recognize educational malpractice claims).
- Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation, 39 Cal. 4th 1164 (2006) (distinguishing contract/restitution claims from educational-malpractice inquiries).
- Zumbrun v. Univ. of S. California, 25 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1972) (student–university relationship is contractual; breach where instruction not provided).
- Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 202 Cal. App. 4th 1342 (2012) (quasi-contract unavailable when there is an enforceable agreement).
- Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., 783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) (unjust enrichment framed as restitution/quasi-contract).
- Lee v. Hanley, 61 Cal. 4th 1225 (2015) (elements and limits of conversion).