Stewart v. The Univ. of Me. Sys.

1

HUNTER STEWART, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MAINE SYSTEM, Defendant.

Civil Action No. CV-20-537

Superior Court of Maine, Cumberland

September 8, 2023

ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Thomas R. McKeon, Justice

BACKGROUND

Before the court is the Motion for Class Certification filed in the above-captioned matter by Plaintiff Hunter Stewart ("Plaintiff').^[1] The Class Action Complaint pled various causes of action against Defendants The University of Maine System and Chancellor Dannel Malloy. By Order of this court on July 13, 2021, all of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed except for his breach of contract claim as pled against Defendant The University of Maine System. See Order, Stewart v. Univ, of Me. Sys., No. CV-20-537, slip op. at 1, 14 (Me. Super. Ct., Cum. Cnty., July 13, 2021).

By and through his Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiff requests this court issue a certification order that (1) certifies the breach of contract claim in this lawsuit as a class action; (2) confirms Plaintiff as class representative (3) appoints Plaintiff's Counsel Leeds Brown Law, P.C The Sultzer Law Group, P.C., and Ainsworth, Thelin &amp Raftice, P.A., as "Class Counsel"; and (4) that would permit Class Counsel to conduct notice to the defined classes for which certification is issued. The Motion for Class Certification is opposed by Defendant The University of Maine System (the "Defendant"). The court heard oral argument on the question of class certification on Thursday June 13, 2023. After hearing argument and reviewing the motion papers, for the reasons discussed below the Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The court summarized many of the factual allegations from Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint in the order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. See Order, Stewart, No. CV-20-537, slip op. at 1-2 (Me. Super. Ct., Cum. Cnty., July 13, 2021). The Class Action Complaint also alleges the following facts germane to certification of this lawsuit as a class action. The court accepts the allegations in the Class Action Complaint as true for the purpose of deciding the Motion for Class Certification. Millett v. Atlantic Richfield Co., No. Civ.A. CV-98-555, 2000 WL 359979, at *5 (Me. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2000), appeal dismissed 2000 ME 178, 760 A.2d250.

Defendant is a network of public universities in Maine with an enrollment of approximately 34,000 students as of Spring 2020. Compl. ¶ 29. The public research university at University of Maine Orono ("UM") is Defendant's flagship school. Compl. ¶ 30. Defendant manages and operates each of its member universities: UM, University of Maine at Augusta, University of Maine at Farmington, University of Maine at Fort Kent, University of Maine at Machias, University of Maine at Presque Isle, and University of Southern Maine. Compl. ¶ 32.

Plaintiff was an undergraduate student enrolled with UM for the Spring 2020 semester. Compl. ¶ 23. The Spring 2020 semester began on or around January 21,2020, and it was scheduled to end on or around May 1, 2020. Compl. ¶ 40. For that semester, Plaintiff paid the out-of-state rate of tuition to enroll for in-person, on-campus learning. Compl. ¶ 23; Mot. for Class Cert. Ex. C (Dep. Of Hunter Stewart), 24:16-23. He also paid a unified fee, a recreation fee, a student activity fee, and other fees associated with Defendant's in-person services. Compl. ¶ 23.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant stopped providing in-person services at each of its campuses and facilities beginning on March 23, 2020, and transitioned to an online learning modality for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester. Compl. ¶¶ 4-7, 52, 54. Many of the services for which Defendant charged tuition and assessed fees were terminated or cancelled, and consequently many benefits of in-person learning became unattainable to Defendant's students, like Plaintiff. Compl. ¶¶ 55, 63-65. Defendant did not refund any amount of the tuition, unified fee, student activity fee, recreation center fee, or other service-related fees paid by Plaintiff for the Spring 2020 semester. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 25, 56, 67-68. Defendant's refund offered to students like Plaintiff covered only unused portions of the fee paid towards the student's room and board. See, e.g., Mot. for Class. Cert. Ex. E (Dep. of Christopher Richards), 146:18-147:3.

Prior to Plaintiff's enrollment, Defendant highlighted how the in-person educational opportunities, experiences, and services it provided were invaluable to Plaintiff's educational experience. Compl. ¶ 47. Defendant offered these opportunities and services in exchange for Plaintiff's enrollment and registration for classes at one of Defendant's campuses for the Spring 2020 semester. Compl. ¶¶ 48-49. Plaintiff and the putative class members were provided similar materials and documents by each of Defendant's schools describing Defendant's in-person educational opportunities, experiences, and services.^[2] Compl. ¶¶ 51, 60. Plaintiff made tuition and fee payments to Defendant based on Defendant's representations regarding its in-person educational opportunities, experiences, and services. Compl. ¶ 50.

Defendant priced its tuition rate and fees charged to Plaintiff based on the in-person nature of the educational opportunities, experiences, and services it provided. Compl. ¶ 66. After Defendant's conversion to online learning, Plaintiff's and the putative class members' received educational opportunities, experiences, and services materially different from the opportunities, experiences, and services that they expected to receive in return for their payment of tuition and fees. Compl. ¶ 62.

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION STANDARD

In Maine, a putative class action may proceed "only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." M.R. Civ. P. 23(a); see Millett, 2000 WL 359979, at *4.^[3] "The test is conjunctive; if one element is not met, then the claim cannot be certified for class treatment." Garcia de Leon v. New York Univ., No. 21 Civ 05005, 2022 WL 2237452, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2022).

In addition to the four prerequisites supplied by Rule 23(a), a putative class action may be maintained only if one of the three requirements imposed by Rule 23(b) is satisfied. M.R. Civ. P. 23(b); Millett, 2000 WL 359979, at *5. A court may determine that Rule 23(b) is satisfied when a party demonstrates that "the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." M.R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). To find superiority, courts may consider (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions, (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class, (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum, or (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of the class. M.R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A)-(D).

Determination of class certification is committed to the trial court's discretion. Millett, 2000 WL 359979, at *5 (citations omitted). The court must conduct a "rigorous analysis" of the present record against the Rule 23 prerequisites and requirements without deciding the merits of the plaintiff's claims. Id. (citation omitted). However, the court may consider evidence presented to satisfy Rule 23 when that evidence also relates to the merits of the plaintiff's claims. Id. (citations omitted); see In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig, 522 E3d 6,17 (1st Cir. 2008) (a trial court may probe behind the pleadings at the class certification stage to test legal or factual premises that are dispositive of the viability of the class action). The party seeking class certification bears the burden to demonstrate, under a strict burden of proof and at least by a preponderance of the evidence, that the applicable Rule 23 prerequisites and requirements are satisfied. Millett, 2000 WL 359979, at *5 ("strict burden of proof') (citations omitted); Garcia de Leon, 2022 WL 2237452, at *9 ("at least a preponderance of the evidence") (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification requests certification of three classes:

1. Tuition Class (the "Tuition Class"): "All enrolled students during the Spring 2020 semester at the [UM], who paid tuition, or on whose behalf tuition was paid but had their classes and educational services moved to online only learning."

2. System Fee Class (the "System Fee Class"): "All enrolled students during the Spring 2020 semester at a University of Maine System university, who paid the 'Student Activity Fee' and the 'Unified Fee,' or on whose behalf such fees were paid, but had the related services, facilities, and campus access restricted or eliminated."

3. Orono Fee Class (the "Orono Fee Class"): "All students during the Spring of 2020 semester at the [UM], who paid, or was paid on their behalf, the 'Communications Fee' and 'Recreation Center Fee' but had the related services and access restricted or eliminated."

Mot for Class Cert. 1-2. The court addresses the Motion for Class Certification for each proposed class in the context of the prerequisites and...