In re Univ. of Miami COVID-19 Tuition & Fee Refund Litig.

524 F.Supp.3d 1346

IN RE: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI COVID-19 TUITION AND FEE REFUND LITIGATION

CASE NO. 20-60851-CIV-SINGHAL

CASE NO. 20-22207-CIV-SINGHAL

CASE NO. 20-22316-CIV-SINGHAL

CASE NO. 20-22594-CIV-SINGHAL

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed March 4, 2021

Entered March 5, 2021

ORDER

RAAG SINGHAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon University of Miami's Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action Complaint with Prejudice (DE [52]). The parties have fully briefed the Motion and the matter is ripe for review. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended 21st century life, causing a worldwide shut-down of commercial, religious, cultural, and educational institutions. On March 17, 2020, the University of Miami ("UM") closed most of its on-campus facilities and announced that classes would be conducted in online/remote/distance platforms. (DE [49], ¶ 65). The school's physical plant remained closed and students attended online or remote classes for the remainder of the semester. Several UM students and parents of students filed class-action lawsuits¹ seeking a proportionate refund of tuition, fees, and other semester expenses.

Plaintiffs allege that UM breached an express or implied contract to provide in-person education (Counts I and II). Alternatively, Plaintiffs allege that UM was unjustly enriched by retaining tuition paid for in-person education while offering only on-line education (Count III). Plaintiffs also allege breach of an express or implied contract with respect to student fees paid for activities and facilities during the semester (Counts IV and V). Plaintiffs allege that UM breached the fees contracts by making the activities and facilities unavailable for use but not refunding the money paid for those activities or facilities. Alternatively, Plaintiffs allege that UM was unjustly enriched by retaining fees paid for activities or facilities that were not utilized (Count VI). Finally, Plaintiffs allege that certain students contracted and paid for UM to provide housing and meals on campus, but UM required students to move out of on-campus housing and cancelled meals without refunding a pro rata portion of the amounts paid. Plaintiffs allege that the failure to refund a portion of the amounts paid for housing and meals is a breach of contract (Count VII) or, alternatively, unjust enrichment (Count VIII).²

UM moves to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint with prejudice³ on the grounds that (1) the Complaint is a shotgun pleading; (2) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3) Plaintiffs Julie Gold and Michael Weiss lack jurisdictional standing.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Shotgun Pleading

Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires the complaint to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The opposite of a short and plain statement of the claim is what is known as a "shotgun" pleading. " ‘Shotgun’ pleadings are cumbersome, confusing complaints that do not comply with these pleading requirements. We have repeatedly condemned shotgun pleadings." See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office , 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015).

There are four basic types of shotgun pleadings: (1) those in which each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts; (2) those that do not re-allege all preceding counts but are replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action; (3) those that do not separate each cause of action or claim for relief into different counts; and (4) those that assert multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which applies to which. Id. at 1321–23 (quotations omitted). "The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they fail to ... give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests." Id. at 1323. "Courts in the Eleventh Circuit have little tolerance for shotgun pleadings." Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets , 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018).

UM argues the Complaint is a shotgun pleading because each count incorporates by reference 89 paragraphs of general allegations and as a result, many of the incorporated allegations have no relation to the count into which they are incorporated. UM contends that charges for student fees and housing/meal fees are not relevant to plaintiffs’ claims for tuition refunds but are nevertheless incorporated into those claims and, thus, the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.⁴

The Court has carefully reviewed the Complaint and concludes that it is not a shotgun pleading. Although the Complaint does incorporate allegations of tuition and fee payments into each of the counts, the Complaint is not so "replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial allegations [that] a defendant who reads the complaint would be hard-pressed to understand the grounds upon which each claim against him rests." Barmapov v. Amuial , 986 F.3d 1321, 1325 (11th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). Indeed, each of the counts contains factual allegations specific to that count. The bases for each count are clear in the Complaint. The motion to dismiss for being a shotgun pleading is denied.

B. Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted

Although Rule 8(a) does not require "detailed factual allegations," it does require "more than labels and conclusions;" a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and must be sufficient "to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. "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." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). "The mere possibility the defendant acted unlawfully is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss." Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1261 (11th Cir. 2009), abrogated on other grounds by Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority , 566 U.S. 449, 132 S. Ct. 1702, 182 L.Ed.2d 720 (2012).

In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court's review is generally "limited to the four corners of the complaint." Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc. , 555 F.3d 949, 959 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting St. George v. Pinellas County , 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002) ). The court must review the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and it must generally accept the plaintiff's well-pleaded facts as true. See Hishon v. King & Spalding , 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez , 480 F.3d 1043, 1057 (11th Cir. 2007). But "[c]onclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal." Jackson v. Bellsouth Telecommunications , 372 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 ("[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions").

UM moves to dismiss the Complaint arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to allege any plausible claims for relief. As a preliminary matter, UM contends that the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in their entirety as a matter of law by Florida's educational malpractice doctrine. Alternatively, UM argues the Plaintiffs have failed to state claims for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, or unjust enrichment.

1. Educational Malpractice

Florida courts grant educational institutions wide deference in determining degree requirements and appropriate levels or methods of instruction. See e.g., Jallali v. Nova Se. Univ., Inc., 992 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (university did not breach contract by refusing to issue degree to student who did not meet degree requirements); Tubell v. Dade Cty. Pub. Sch. , 419 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (affirming summary judgment for school board on plaintiff's claims that he was inappropriately placed in special education classes for years to his detriment); Simon v. Celebration Co., 883 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (affirming dismissal of claim under Article IX, section 1 of the Florida Constitution which guarantees a high quality free public education because constitution does not create a private cause of action). UM argues that its decision to offer only remote instruction due to COVID-19 should be given the same deference given to educational institutions in these cases. More precisely, UM argues that Plaintiffs’ breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims are actually claims for educational malpractice and thus barred under Florida law. The Court disagrees.

Florida courts recognize that colleges and universities have a legal relationship with their students that is "contractual in nature." Jallali , 992 So. 2d at 342 (quoting John B. Stetson Univ. v. Hunt, 88 Fla. 510, 102 So. 637, 640 (1924) ). "Under this contract implied in fact, the student ‘pays a fee for services’ and the private university provides ‘an educational experience designed to lead to a ... degree.’ " Id. (quoting Gross v. Family Servs. Agency, Inc., 716 So. 2d 337, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ). The university has the right to determine "the terms under which it will admit and subsequently graduate students who will subject themselves to the rules, regulations, and regimen of the college." Id. (quoting Univ. of Miami v. Militana, 184 So. 2d 701, 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966))....