Harris v. St. Joseph's Univ.

BRIAN HARRIS v. SAINT JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-3937

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

May 12, 2013

MEMORANDUM

RESTREPO, J.

This case arises from an internal administrative disciplinary investigation and student conduct hearing at Saint Joseph's University ("SJU") resulting in plaintiff, Brian Harris, being found responsible for sexually assaulting defendant Jane Doe, both of whom were SJU students at the time. Plaintiff brought this action against defendants: SJU; Joseph Kalin, a Public Safety Officer at SJU; and Jane Doe. Against SJU only, plaintiff alleges: breach of contract (Count I); violation of Title IX of the Education Act Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (Count II); negligence (Count III); and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), 73 Pa. C.S.A. § 201-1, et seq. (Count IV). Against all defendants, plaintiff alleges: defamation (Count V); making public statements about plaintiff placing him in a false light (Count VI); and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") (Count VII). Finally, against Jane Doe only, plaintiff alleges intentional interference with contractual relations (Count VIII).¹

Pending before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

filed by defendants, SJU and Joseph Kalin (collectively, "University Defendants") (ECF Doc. 23) and defendant Jane Doe (Doc. 24), under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons which follow, defendants' motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in part.

1. LEGAL STANDARD UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper where the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, such as where the plaintiff is unable to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Conclusory allegations are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009).

The Court must consider only those facts alleged in the complaint and accept all of those allegations as true. Wiest v. Lynch, 2014 WL 1490250, *8 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (citing ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 (3d "Cir. 1994)). However, the Court "need not accept as true unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences," see id. (citing Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 232 F.3d 173, 183-84 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)), and "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions," see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

2. DISCUSSION

(A) Count I - Breach of Contract

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges:

At all times material hereto, a contractual relationship purportedly existed between SJU and [plaintiff]. The [Student] Handbook,² the terms of which were unilaterally drafted by SJU, was deemed part of that contract. Pursuant thereto, SJU was required to act in accordance with the Handbook in resolving complaints of misconduct and violations of SJU's policies and regulations, in the investigation of those complaints, in the process of adjudicating complaints of sexual misconduct, and in resolving appeals brought challenging disciplinary decisions.

Pl.'s Am. Compl. (Document 20), ¶ 81 (footnote added). The Amended Complaint further alleges: "SJU breached its contract with Harris by failing to comply with the Handbook, a contract between Harris and SJU, including, without limitation, SJU's implicit duties of good faith and fair dealing in connection therewith, by: . . . " Id. ¶ 83 (emph. added). Paragraph 83 of the Amended Complaint then includes 23 general averments regarding policies and procedures for investigation and adjudication of complaints of alleged sexual misconduct wherein plaintiff alleges SJU breached its contract with plaintiff. Id. ¶ 83(a)-(w). Finally, the Amended Complaint alleges damages as a result of SJU's alleged breach of contract including:

having [plaintiff's] SJU school record improperly include a conviction and/or other finding of guilt of sexual misconduct (assault) based upon the unfounded charges brought against him, marring [his] ability to enroll in another college or university of similar or greater stature as SJU, stigmatizing [plaintiff] with a finding of guilt for an act he did not commit, and monetary losses.

Id. ¶ 84. Thus, although the Amended Complaint states that "a contractual relationship purportedly existed between SJU and Harris" and that the "Handbook . . . was deemed part of that contract," id. ¶ 81, the specific allegations of breach of contract assert that "SJU breached its contract with [plaintiff] by failing to comply with the Handbook." Id. ¶ 83 (emph. added). The breach alleged was "failing to comply with the Handbook." Id.

The parties acknowledge that to state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must plead the following elements: (1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms; (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract; and (3) resulting damages, see Dempsey v. Bucknell Univ., 2012 WL 1569826, *17 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (citing Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 30 (Pa. Super. 2006)). See Univ. Defs.' Br. 8; Pl.'s Br. 10. Initially, it is noted that University Defendants "concede[] that 'the relationship between a private educational institution and an enrolled student is contractual in nature,' Swartley v. Hoffner, 734 A.2d 915, 919 (Pa. Super. 1999), and here the terms of that contract are outlined in the Handbook."³ See Univ. Defs.' Br. 8 (footnote omitted). Thus, it appears that for purposes of the motions to dismiss, the parties agree that if plaintiff has sufficiently and properly pled a violation by SJU of the rules and regulations set forth in the Handbook, plaintiff's claim of breach of contract survives the motion to dismiss with regard to the breach of contract claim.

Indeed, under Pennsylvania law, "[t]he relationship between a private educational institution and an enrolled student is contractual in nature; therefore, a student can bring a causeof action against said institution for breach of contract where the institution ignores or violates portions of the written contract." Dempsey, 2012 WL 1569826, at *17 (quoting Swartley, 734 A.2d at 919). "The contract between a private institution and a student is comprised of written guidelines, policies, and procedures as contained in the written materials distributed to the student over the course of their enrollment in the institution." Kimberg v. Univ. of Scranton, 2007 WL 405971, *3 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (quoting Swartley, 734 A.2d at 919). Thus, it appears that plaintiff has sufficiently pled the existence of a contract between plaintiff and SJU, and the remaining issue is whether plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to support a finding that SJU breached the terms of the contract as contained in the Handbook.⁴ See, e.g., id.; Reardon v. Allegheny College, 926 A.2d 477, 480 (Pa. Super. 2007) ("The relationship between a privately funded college and a student has traditionally been defined in this Commonwealth as strictly contractual in nature. . . . As such, we review the agreement between the parties concerning disciplinary procedures, contained within a portion of the student handbook . . . as we would any other agreement between two private parties.") (citations omitted).

In evaluating whether allegations in a Complaint survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plausibility standard "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully," see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, and conclusory allegations are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, see Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210. Here, plaintiff's breach of contract claim in the Amended Complaint relies on conclusory and insufficient allegations. See, e.g., Pl.'s Am. Compl. ¶ 83(a)-(w). For example, plaintiff alleges that SJU "breached its contract with Harris by failing to comply with the Handbook" in "[f]ailing to provide adequate policies and procedures for the investigation and adjudication of complaints," "[f]ailing to provide adequate notice of the polices and procedures," and "failing to provide fair notice of the parameters of the charged offense." Id. ¶ 83(a), (b), and (e) (emph. added). Conclusory allegations such as these, with no clear averments as to what statement or regulations included in the Handbook (which the parties appear to agree for present purposes was a contract) were violated or breached, are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Bradshaw v. Pa. State Univ., 2011 WL 1288681, *2 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (giving plaintiff former student opportunity to amend her complaint to "allege specifically the terms of the contract in dispute").

To survive a motion to dismiss, Iqbal explains, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter," that if accepted as true, states a claim for relief "that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 556. In this case, plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient factual content to support his claim that SJU breached the contract. See Am. Compl. ¶ 83(a)-(w). For example, it is not at all clear which policy(ies) or procedure(s) in theHandbook plaintiff is alleging SJU breached.

"[I]f a [claim] is vulnerable to 12(b)(6) dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile." Wiest, 2014 WL 1490250, at *8 (quoting Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, ...