Craig v. Nova Se. Univ.

1

TRISTAN CRAIG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

No. 20-CV-23818-RAR

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

May 23, 2023

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case presents the next chapter of ongoing litigation seeking to hold Nova Southeastern University liable for breach of contract or unjust enrichment following its campus closure at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Amended Complaint presently before the Court seeks to recover a portion of fees Plaintiff paid to the University for the January 2020 through May 2020 semester (“Winter Semester”). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 30], is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 28], is DISMISSED with prejudice.^[1]

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Tristan Craig brings this class action lawsuit against Defendant Nova Southeastern University (“NSU” or “University”) on behalf of all University students who paid certain fees for the school's Winter Semester, from January through May 2020. Am. Compl. ¶ 1. NSU is a private University in Broward County Florida. Id. ¶ 15. The University suspended classes on March 13, 2020 and began providing courses online starting on or around March 23, 2020 with no campus activities, facilities, or in-person educational services. Id. ¶ 3. The University did not refund students the fees paid for the Winter Semester after it implemented virtual education. Id.

Plaintiff was an undergraduate student during the Winter Semester and graduated in May 2020. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff paid a total of $2,391.00 in what Plaintiff refers to as “Mandatory Fees” for the Winter Semester. Id. ¶ 12. The fees Plaintiff paid include: (1) NSU Student Services Fee of $500; (2) Science Lab Fee Chemistry B of $80; (3) Science Lab Fee of $80; (4) “PVA Music Fee” of $265; (5) Insurance Fee of $1,336; (6) Graduation Fee of $100; and (7) Registration Fee of $30. Id. Plaintiff alleges that these Mandatory Fees were “for in-person educational services experiences, opportunities, and other related collegiate services and access to facilities.” Id. ¶ 14.

This Court's ruling in another related case, Ferretti v Nova Southeastern University, is an “essentially identical action” involving “substantially similar facts,” “nearly identical claims,” and “substantially the same parties” and governs the scope of permissible claims in this matter. See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay and Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (“Order Lifting Stay”) [ECF No. 26] (adopting Ferretti v. Nova Se. Univ., Inc., 604 F.Supp.3d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2022) (Ferretti II)).^[2] In Ferretti II, the Plaintiff- a different but similarly situated NSU student- “asserted that he and putative Class Members contracted with Defendant for live on-campus instruction and access to campus facilities in the Winter 2020 term.” Ferretti II, 604 F.Supp.3d at 1334. There, the complaint alleged students contracted with NSU for live, in-person classes in exchange for tuition and fees, and for access to campus activities, facilities, resources, and services in exchange for separately itemized fees. Id. The complaint further alleged that NSU breached its contract with students for in-person education by suspending all in-person classes and switching to online course delivery. Id. The complaint also alleged that NSU breached its contract for campus activities and facilities through the distinct action of cancelling or closing access to its facilities, events, and services. Id. In Ferretti II, the complaint alleged one count of breach of contract and one count of unjust enrichment. Defendant NSU moved to dismiss both counts.

This Court dismissed most, but not all, of Ferretti's complaint. Beginning with the breach of contract claim, this Court held that there was no contract for principally or exclusively in-person, on-campus course delivery between the University and its students. Id. at 1337. The Court acknowledged, “[u]nder Florida law, a private university's relationship with its students is an implied-in-fact contract arising from the university's rules, regulations, regimen, and publications at the time of enrollment.” Id. at 1334 (citing Jallali v. Nova Se. Univ., Inc., 992 So.2d 338, 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). Ferretti cited the course delivery summary, which states: “Face-to-face classes may also include some online instruction in addition to regular classroom instruction. Some assignments may be administered through internet-based sites associated with class textbooks or through the university's online course management system. Instructors will explain specific requirements for participation in online components.” Id. Based on this language, the Court concluded that the contractual language unambiguously provided for flexibility in the method of its course delivery. Id. Thus, by teaching the semester partly in person and partly online, NSU did exactly what it said it might do. Id.

However, at that juncture, the same could not be said for the fees Plaintiff alleged he paid in exchange for access to in-person activities and resources on campus. Unlike the language regarding course delivery, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant could point to specific unambiguous language in NSU's publications regarding payment of fees in exchange for live access to campus. The Court held, “where neither party can establish unambiguous terms, a factual inquiry is necessary to determine whether the parties' contract contemplated access to campus activities, facilities, resources, and services in exchange for separately itemized fees.” Id.

Regarding the unjust enrichment claim, the Court held that generally, Plaintiff may proceed with an unjust enrichment claim pled in the alternative to a breach of contract claim. Id. at 1338. Since the Court found a valid implied-in-fact contract which contemplated that NSU may hold an unspecified portion of face-to-face classes online, Plaintiff could not maintain an unjust enrichment claim on that issue. Id. But since the Court found no unambiguous terms creating a valid contract for live campus access, it would have been premature on that record to dismiss Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim as to the lack of access to campus activities, facilities, resources, and services. Id.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed both counts with prejudice “as to any claim for tuition, as well as any claim for fees to the extent they were paid in exchange for in-person, on-campus classroom instruction,” and the Court dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend “any claim for separately itemized fees to the extent they were paid in exchange for access to campus activities, facilities, resources, and services.” Id. at 1339. Plaintiff Ferretti elected not to amend his complaint.

Instead, after its ruling in Ferretti II, this Court lifted the stay of this case for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff Craig to file an Amended Complaint based on the Ferretti II ruling and allowing NSU to answer or move to dismiss. Order Lifting Stay ¶ 1. The Court adopted its ruling in Ferretti II and allowed Craig to “file an Amended Complaint in which Plaintiff is limited to asserting only any claim(s) for separately itemized fees to the extent they were paid in exchange for access to campus activities, facilities, resources, and services.” Id. ¶ 6. That is the Amended Complaint the Court considers here, which Defendant now moves to dismiss.

Thus, the Court is left to determine whether Craig's Amended Complaint pleads sufficient facts to allege a contract between Craig and the University for separately itemized fees paid in exchange for access to campus activities, facilities, resources, and services. The Court concludes the Amended Complaint fails to do so and dismisses the Amended Complaint with prejudice.

LEGAL STANDARD

Defendant raises its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(f). Mot. at 1. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Smith v. United States, 873 F.3d 1348, 1351 (11th Cir. 2017).

ANALYSIS

Defendant NSU moves to dismiss both of Plaintiff's claims in this action: breach of contract (Count I) and unjust enrichment (Count II). Mot. at 2. The Court addresses each Count in turn.

I. Breach of Contract

The Court previously stated the relevant law in Ferretti II. “The elements of a breach of contract action are (1) a valid contract; (2) a material breach; and (3) damages.” Beck v. Lazard Freres & Co LLC, 175 F.3d 913, 914 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Abruzzo v. Haller, 603 So.2d 1338, 1340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)). “[W]here the contract . . . terms are unambiguous, a court may properly consider a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for breach” of contract. Alhassid v. Bank of Am., N.A., 60 F.Supp.3d 1302, 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “Contract interpretation principles under Florida law require [courts] to look first at the words used on the face of the contract to determine whether that contract is ambiguous. It is well settled that the actual language used in the contract is the best evidence of the intent of the parties and, thus, the plain meaning of that language controls.” Rose v. M/V “Gulf Stream Falcon”, 186 F.3d 1345, 1350 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal...