Warner v. Wartburg College, 6:21-cv-02029

Background

Wartburg College moved all in-person Spring 2020 classes online and closed campus effective March 18, 2020 due to COVID-19; plaintiff Sydney Warner was a full‑time undergraduate music student enrolled that semester.
Plaintiff paid Spring 2020 tuition/fees (approx. $21,750) and alleges Wartburg’s Academic Catalog, website, and marketing materials formed the contractual terms promising in‑person education, campus housing, field experiences, and access to facilities.
Wartburg did not refund tuition or fees after shifting to remote instruction; plaintiff sued for breach of contract and, alternatively, unjust enrichment in Iowa state court; the case was removed to federal court under CAFA.
Wartburg moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); key defenses: (1) claim is barred as educational malpractice, (2) no contractual promise to provide in‑person instruction, and (3) the Catalog reserves a right to modify courses/programs.
The court applied Iowa law and held: rejected the educational‑malpractice bar; found plaintiffs plausibly alleged contractual entitlements as to (a) in‑person field experiences for specific courses, (b) opportunity to live in residence halls, and (c) access to on‑campus facilities (e.g., dining); but dismissed the claim insofar as it sought entitlement to in‑person instruction for every class and dismissed unjust enrichment because the parties agree a contract exists.
The court denied plaintiff leave to amend to plead a broader entitlement to in‑person instruction for every class, concluding amendment would be futile.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the breach claim is an impermissible educational‑malpractice claim	Warner frames claim as breach of contract for switching from promised in‑person to online instruction	Wartburg contends plaintiff attacks education quality and thus alleges educational malpractice (non‑justiciable)	Court: Not educational malpractice; framed as contract claim about promised format, so viable at pleading stage
Whether the Catalog/marketing created a contractual promise of in‑person instruction for all classes	Warner: Catalog and promotional materials implicitly promised in‑person classes, campus life, and services	Wartburg: Catalog is aspirational and contains no identifiable promise to provide in‑person instruction	Court: No plausible entitlement to in‑person classroom instruction for every course; marketing/catalog language was too aspirational to create that broad promise
Whether the Catalog’s reservation‑of‑rights (modify courses/programs) defeats the breach claim	Warner: Reservation clause is limited, does not cover fundamental changes to field experiences, housing, or facilities; minor modifications only	Wartburg: Broad disclaimer allows modification and thus bars claims based on format changes	Court: Reservation right does not categorically bar claims concerning in‑person field experiences, residence‑hall occupancy, or access to dining/facilities; but it supports dismissal of a claim for in‑person instruction across all classes
Whether unjust enrichment may proceed when a contract governs the relationship	Warner: Pleads unjust enrichment as alternative remedy for retained tuition	Wartburg: Existence of a contract precludes unjust enrichment on same subject matter	Court: Dismissed unjust enrichment because parties agree a contractual relationship exists (plaintiff conceded it as to that relief)

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not presumed true; apply plausibility inquiry)
Sain v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 626 N.W.2d 115 (Iowa 2001) (educational malpractice doctrine explained under Iowa law)
Moore v. Vanderloo, 386 N.W.2d 108 (Iowa 1986) (Iowa refusal to recognize educational malpractice claims)
Alta Vista Props., LLC v. Mauer Vision Ctr., 855 N.W.2d 722 (Iowa 2014) (distinguishing interpretation of implicit contract terms from adding new obligations)
Warren v. Drake Univ., 886 F.2d 200 (8th Cir. 1989) (documents comprising student–university contract is a jury question)
Corso v. Creighton Univ., 731 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1984) (student–institution relationship is contractual)
Bissessur v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2009) (catalogues, codes, and handbooks may define academic contract terms)
Kaydon Acquisition Corp. v. Custum Mfg., Inc., 317 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Iowa 2004) (elements of a breach of contract claim under Iowa law)