Durbeck v. Suffolk Univ.

547 F.Supp.3d 133

Julia DURBECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

Mary Ann Foti and Anna Francesca Foti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.Suffolk University, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-10985-WGY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-11581-WGY

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Filed June 23, 2021

David Pastor, Pastor Law Office, LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs.

Crystal Nix-Hines, Pro Hac Vice, Shon Morgan, Pro Hac Vice, T. Scott Mills, Pro Hac Vice, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Alexander H. Loomis, Harvey J. Wolkoff, Phillip Allen Syers, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

YOUNG, D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Earlier this year, this Court had occasion to recognize a few of the consequences of COVID-19 in Massachusetts. See generally Delaney v. Baker, Civil Action No. 20-11154-WGY, 511 F.Supp.3d 55, (D. Mass. Jan. 6, 2021). This matter involves another: defendant Suffolk University's ("Suffolk") mid-semester transition to an entirely virtual experience.

In two putative class actions, Julia Durbeck, Mary Ann Foti, and Anna Francesca Foti (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") bring breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Suffolk based on its decision to close its campus and transition to online learning in the wake of COVID-19. Pending before the Court are Suffolk's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons elucidated below, the motions are DENIED.

A. Factual Background

The Plaintiffs allege that Suffolk offers two types of degree programs: "in-person, hands-on programs" and "fully online distance-learning programs." Pl.’s Am. Class Action Compl. & Demand Jury Trial ("Durbeck's Am. Compl.") ¶ 21, ECF No. 20 (Civil Action No. 20-10985-WGY); First Am. Class Action Compl. & Demand Jury Trial ("Fotis’ Am. Compl.") ¶ 27, ECF No. 6 (Civil Action No. 20-11581-WGY). Suffolk allegedly charges more for the in-person option than for the online option. Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶ 26; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶ 31. According to the Plaintiffs, that is because the in-person option involves more than the "basic academic instruction" included in the online option. Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶ 28; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶ 12. Specifically, the Plaintiffs plead that in exchange for the higher cost of attendance, Suffolk "promised" to provide benefits and services unique to the in-person option, including corporeal interactions with faculty, peers, academic and athletic facilities, affinity and extracurricular groups, and hands-on experiential opportunities, for the entire spring 2020 semester. Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28-30; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 72. Based on these alleged benefits and services, the Plaintiffs opted for the in-person experience and paid fees and a higher tuition rate to enroll as undergraduate students for the spring 2020 semester. Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18, 32-41, 120; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 19, 46-50, 68.

The Plaintiffs do not assert that a written contract provided for these benefits and services. See Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶ 72; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶ 25. Instead, the Plaintiffs allege that "[t]he terms of this contract are as implied or set forth by [Suffolk] through its website, academic catalogs, student handbooks, marketing materials and other circulars, bulletins, and publications." Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶ 72; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶ 26 ("The contractual relationship between Suffolk and Plaintiffs and Class members is based on various written materials, including, without limitation, course descriptions, academic catalogs, student handbooks, account statements, emails, representations and statements made by Suffolk through various media, including its website, and other materials.").

Specifically, Durbeck quotes a series of Suffolk's "publications with respect to non-online classes," which describe "the on-campus experience, including numerous references to student activities; campus amenities; class size and student/teacher ratios; campus diversity, campus location, and the like." Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶ 80; see id. ¶¶ 75-110. For their part, the Fotis quote a series of Suffolk's statements with respect to "its on-campus experience," including: "Distinguished [f]aculty provide individual attention to their students in small classes while encouraging open, independent thinking and an appreciation of diverse cultures, perspectives and peoples"; "Students find many opportunities to combine their academic experience with hands-on experience through internships, service learning and a broad range of extracurricular activities"; "Days, night and weekends -- Suffolk students are part of an immersive living and learning experience in the heart of an international city"; "change your perspective and deepen your knowledge as you learn in our classrooms and at the city's top employers. A world of academic possibilities awaits at the College, all just steps away from everything that makes Boston the ideal place to learn and live"; "The Suffolk University campus is located right in the heart of downtown Boston and brings one-of-a-kind city experiences into the classroom"; and "Since 1906, Suffolk University has been woven into Boston's thriving urban landscape, offering a truly immersive environment in which to live, learn and explore. It's the ideal location for Suffolk to provide students with the keys to successful lives and careers; access, opportunity and experience." Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶ 33 (footnotes omitted). The Plaintiffs allege that the implied-in-fact contract also derives from their payment of fees and tuition, Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶¶ 71, 150; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24, 46, 64, 70, and their registration for and attendance at on-campus classes, Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶¶ 111-117; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29, 68-69.

In March 2020, approximately halfway through the spring 2020 semester, see Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43-44; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶ 20, Suffolk asked its students (including those who, like the Plaintiffs, had already paid fees and tuition for the entire spring 2020 semester) not to return to campus after spring break, Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶ 46; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶ 34. Suffolk subsequently closed all on-campus facilities, suspended all in-person services and activities, and moved all classes to virtual platforms. Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶¶ 46-49; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶¶ 34-36.

Around the same time, Suffolk announced, "Because students will be receiving academic credit and grades for virtual classes and will have access to support and guidance from both faculty and staff, no refunds of tuition will be made." Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶ 51; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶ 7. Suffolk has not refunded the Plaintiffs’ fees or tuition for the spring 2020 semester. Durbeck's Am. Compl. ¶¶ 51, 54; Fotis’ Am. Compl. ¶ 7.

B. Procedural History

Durbeck and the Fotis filed the operative complaints on October 1, 2020 and October 23, 2020, respectively. Durbeck's Am. Compl.; Fotis’ Am. Compl. Suffolk moved to dismiss these complaints on October 29, 2020 and November 18, 2020, respectively. Def. Suffolk University's Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 25 (Civil Action No. 20-10985-WGY); Def. Suffolk University's Mot. Dismiss First Am. Compl., ECF No. 16 (Civil Action No. 20-11581-WGY).

The parties have fully briefed both motions. As to Durbeck, Civil Action No. 20-10985-WGY, see generally Def.’s Am. Mem. Law Supp. Its Mot. Dismiss Am. Compl. ("Def.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss Durbeck"), ECF No. 29; Pl.’s Mem. Opp'n Def.’s Mot. Dismiss Am. Compl. ("Durbeck's Opp'n"), ECF No. 27; Reply Mem. Supp. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss Am. Class Action Compl. ("Def.’s Reply Supp. Mot. Dismiss Durbeck"), ECF No. 41. As to the Fotis, Civil Action No. 20-11581-WGY, see generally Def.’s Mem. Law Supp. Mot. Dismiss First Am. Compl. ("Def.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss Fotis"), ECF No. 17; Pl.’s Opp'n Def.’s Mot. Dismiss ("Fotis’ Opp'n"), ECF No. 19; Reply Mem. Supp. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss Consolidated Compl. ("Def.’s Reply Supp. Mot. Dismiss Fotis"), ECF No. 28. The parties later filed notices of supplemental authority.

This Court heard argument on February 2, 2021 and took the matter under advisement. See Elec. Clerk's Notes, ECF No. 49 (Civil Action No. 20-10985-WGY); Elec. Clerk's Notes, ECF No. 35 (Civil Action No. 20-11581-WGY).

II. ANALYSIS

To withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The complaint must include sufficient factual allegations which, when accepted as true, "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The Court will "draw every reasonable inference" in favor of the plaintiff, Berezin v. Regency Sav. Bank, 234 F.3d 68, 70 (1st Cir. 2000), but it will disregard statements that "merely offer legal conclusions couched as fact or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action," Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011) (alterations and quotations omitted).

Suffolk moves to dismiss on two grounds. First, Suffolk asserts that the Plaintiffs impermissibly seek to recover for educational malpractice and invade Suffolk's academic freedom. Second, Suffolk argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of contract or unjust enrichment. This Court is not persuaded by either contention.

A. Educational Malpractice

Claims for educational malpractice challenge "the sufficiency or quality of education provided by educational intuitions." Zagoria v. N.Y. Univ., 20 Civ. 3610(GBD)(SLC), 2021 WL 1026511, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2021). Despite "the number of institutions of higher learning in the Commonwealth, Massachusetts’ position regarding the viability of educational malpractice claims is unclear." Moran v. Stonehill Coll., Inc., 2077CV00431, ...