Longo v. Campus Advantage, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-2651-KKM-TGW

588 F.Supp.3d 1286

Joseph LONGO, Justin Longo, Lois Spatz, Eaven Spatz, Raina Pomeroy, and Maxwell Nassar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 8:20-cv-2651-KKM-TGW

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.

Signed March 1, 2022

Heather Helaine Jones, Amanda J. Allen, William Peerce Howard, The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Justin B. Levine, Katherine Eileen Herald, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant.

ORDER

Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Joseph Longo, Justin Longo, Lois Spatz, Eaven Spatz, Raina Pomeroy, and Maxwell Nasar, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, sued Campus Advantage, Inc.,¹ a private company that provides off-campus, residential housing to college students around the country, alleging a variety of claims rooted in Campus Advantage's refusal to release them from their lease obligations after the onset of COVID-19. Plaintiffs are tenants (and their parents) who lived at a Campus Advantage residential student housing facility near the University of Central Florida (UCF) during the 2019–2020 academic year. Campus Advantage moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims based on the lease agreements, which it argues remained enforceable despite the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Doc. 43.) The students also move for class certification. (Doc. 69.)

The Court grants Campus Advantage's motion to dismiss in its entirety. Plaintiffs’ claims either fail to meet the pleading standards or fail due to the undisputed existence of valid lease agreements between the parties. As a general matter, the lease agreements never conditioned Campus Advantage's private student housing facilities on the nearby college's administrative decisions. It is the terms of the leases—rather than the decisions of nearby university administrators—that govern the legal obligations of these parties. Therefore, the Court grants Campus Advantage's motion to dismiss and denies as moot the motion for class certification.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts²

In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Campus Advantage, Inc., a Texas corporation, is "one of the largest property managers for private dormitory housing" in the country. (Doc. 34 ¶ 1.) Campus Advantage's facilities seek to provide a "college dormitory life" for residents, which includes multi-bedroom apartments, often with shared bathrooms, and various amenities such as organized social events through the residence life program, shuttle services to the campus, swimming pools, game rooms, fitness centers, golf simulators, 24-hour coffee bars, and more. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 18.) Campus Advantage has eight properties near college campuses in Florida. (Id. ¶ 16.) These properties include two private, off-campus residential student housing facilities located near UCF: The Verge and Northgate Lakes. (Id. ¶ 15.)

The named Plaintiffs in this action include Joseph Longo and his son Justin Longo. Justin signed a lease agreement (which his father co-signed) for a room at Northgate Lakes for the 2019–2020 academic year; Eaven Spatz signed a lease agreement (which his mother Lois Spatz co-signed) for a room at The Verge for the 2019–2020 academic year; Maxwell Nassar also signed a lease agreement (which his mother Raina Pomeroy co-signed) for a room at The Verge for the Fall 2019-Spring 2020 academic year. (Id. ¶¶ 5–7.)

In early March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic struck the United States, prompting both the federal government and the State of Florida to declare states of emergency. (Id. ¶¶ 49–50.) By March 17, all the public universities and colleges in Florida announced that classes would transition to remote learning through the end of the Spring 2020 semester and that all on-campus events were canceled due to COVID-19. (Id. ¶ 52.)

The Florida universities encouraged students who lived on campus to move out of their dormitories and "agreed to return a fair portion of the students’ room and board." (Id. ¶¶ 53, 59.) On April 3, 2020, following approval by the board of trustees, UCF began "issuing housing refunds for a portion of the spring semester's rent to resident's that were not able to return to campus or have left their rooms." (Id. ¶ 68.) UCF urged the surrounding private housing companies to do the same. (Id. ¶ 69.) But Campus Advantage elected a different course.

Rather than allowing its residents to break their leases and returning "a fair portion" of the already-paid rent like the Florida universities, Campus Advantage "refused to return any portion of the room, board, and other fees" to the residents and "continue[d] to actively collect" rent payments from its residents during the pandemic. (Doc. 34 ¶¶ 57, 60.) As Campus Advantage's UCF Resident Director put it in a mass email to the residents, COVID-19 is "outside of our control, and while we realize that you and your family may be facing uncertainty with employment or source of income, which can result in challenges making rent payments, we are not able to release residents from lease obligations at this time. " (Id. ¶ 63 (emphasis added).) While Campus Advantage continued to demand that the residents fully honor the rent payments they had agreed to in their leases, Campus Advantage closed or limited the residents’ access to the various on-site amenities (e.g., swimming pools, game rooms, fitness centers, etc.) for safety reasons related to COVID-19. (Id. ¶ 101.)

On April 6, 2020, the Longos advised Campus Advantage that Justin (student) had moved out and that the Longo parents had lost their jobs and could no longer pay his rent. Campus Advantage responded that it would continue to collect rent and that "many people are in the same position" as the Longos. (Id. ¶ 70.) On April 13, 2020, Lois Spatz informed Campus Advantage that her son Eaven had moved out and "requested to be released from the lease[,] or, in the alternative, to apply lease credits to a future lease." (Id. ¶ 72.) Campus Advantage refused, citing the policy decisions made by "upper management at our corporate office." (Id. if 73 (emphasis omitted).) Both the Longos and the Spatzs paid rent for March but not for April, May, and June, which they claim they do not owe to Campus Advantage. (Id. ¶¶ 26, 42.) They further allege that Campus Advantage is improperly retaining part of their March rent, despite not providing the bargained-for amenities during that time due to COVID-19 safety concerns. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 43.)

Maxwell Nassar, the third student Plaintiff, paid rent through July when his lease ended. (Id. ¶¶ 46–47.) Additionally, Nassar and his mother (Pomeroy) claim Campus Advantage has continually refused to return the money they paid for the second part of March through July, despite not providing the bargained-for amenities during that time. (Id. ¶ 48.)

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs Amended Complaint asserts eleven causes of action against Campus Advantage and BYL Collection Services. (Doc. 34.) After Plaintiffs settled with BYL Collection Services and stipulated to its dismissal from this action, (Doc 76; Doc. 86), only the eight counts asserted against Campus Advantage remain in the action—seven counts by all Plaintiffs and one separately by only the Spatz Plaintiffs. (Doc. 34.) In their Amended Complaint, all Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a proposed class, assert seven claims against Campus Advantage: (1) rescission (Count I); (2) breach of contract (Count II); (3) implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count III); (4) unjust enrichment (Count IV); (5) conversion (Count V); (6) money had and received (Count VI); and (7) a Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) claim (Count VII). (Doc. 34.) Separately, the Spatz Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a proposed subclass, raise one claim against Campus Advantage under the FCCPA (Count X). (Id. )

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to state a claim that is "plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quotation omitted). A claim is plausible on its face when a plaintiff "pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. When considering the motion, the court accepts all factual allegations of the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Pielage v. McConnell , 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008). This tenet, of course, is "inapplicable to legal conclusions." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. When reviewing a motion to dismiss, courts should limit their "consideration to the well-pleaded factual allegations, documents central to or referenced in the complaint, and matters judicially noticed." La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc. , 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004).

The Court may consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss "without converting the motion into one for summary judgment if they are central to the plaintiff's claim and their authenticity is not challenged." Crowder v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. , 963 F.3d 1197, 1202 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Day v. Taylor , 400 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2005) ). Campus Advantage requests that the Court consider the lease agreements between Plaintiffs and Campus Advantage. (Doc. 43 at 5–6; Doc. 43-1; Doc. 43-2; Doc. 43-3.) Because the existence and validity of the lease agreements are central to Plaintiffs’ claims and the authenticity of the lease agreements is undisputed, the Court will consider them along with Plaintiffs’ complaint.

III. ANALYSIS

Campus Advantage moves to dismiss all counts in the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 43.) The Court...