Koenigsberg v. The Board of Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New…
Koenigsberg v. The Board of Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:23-cv-01044
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
Koenigsberg v. Columbia: Judge Gardephe denied reconsideration because the proposed amendments could not overcome the deadline for plaintiffs’ New York claims.
The plaintiffs’ New York General Business Law and unjust-enrichment claims, and Columbia as the defendant, were affected by the denial of the motion to vacate or amend the judgment.
What happened
In Koenigsberg v. The Board of Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, the plaintiffs alleged that Columbia gave false information to U.S. News to improve its college ranking, causing them to apply and pay an $85 fee. They brought New York claims for deceptive business practices and unjust enrichment.
The court had previously dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs asked the court to change that judgment and allow an amended complaint, arguing that new allegations supported a higher-fee injury and delayed discovery of Columbia’s alleged deception. Columbia opposed the request, arguing that the claims were still too late.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the plaintiffs’ motion. He ruled that the deceptive-business-practice claims accrued in 2018, were subject to a three-year deadline, and were not saved by equitable tolling because the plaintiffs learned of the alleged deception by February or March 2022 but did not sue until February 7, 2023.
The detailed version
- Koenigsberg v. The Board of Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New… · No. 1:23-cv-01044
- Paul Gardephe
- Aug. 20, 2024
Background
Alexandra Koenigsberg and Maxwell Koenigsberg applied to Columbia University in fall 2018, and Olga Stambler paid the $85 application fee. The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action under the Class Action Fairness Act. They alleged that Columbia reported false or misleading information to U.S. News and World Report, which caused Columbia to receive a higher college ranking. They said they would not have applied or paid the application fee if they had known Columbia’s actual data and ranking.
The complaint asserted claims under Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law, along with a New York unjust-enrichment claim. Columbia moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. In a March 22, 2024 order, the court found that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged an injury for standing purposes but dismissed the General Business Law claims as time-barred. The court also ruled that the claims did not allege a legally cognizable injury and dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim as duplicative.
Motion for Reconsideration and Proposed Amendment
The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(6) to vacate or amend the judgment and allow a proposed amended complaint. The proposed amendment added allegations supporting a price-premium theory, under which Columbia allegedly charged more because of its ranking, and allegations that Columbia’s conduct concealed the deception.
Columbia opposed the motion on futility grounds. An amendment is futile when the proposed pleading would still be legally insufficient and could not survive a motion to dismiss. Because the judgment had already been entered, the plaintiffs first had to obtain relief from that judgment before amending their complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the proposed amendments would be futile because they did not solve the statute-of-limitations problem. The plaintiffs’ General Business Law claims were subject to a three-year limitations period. The court determined that the alleged injury occurred when the plaintiffs applied to Columbia and paid the application fee in fall 2018. The limitations period therefore expired in fall 2021, but the complaint was not filed until February 7, 2023.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ equitable-tolling argument. Equitable tolling is a doctrine that can suspend a filing deadline in exceptional circumstances when a plaintiff diligently pursues rights but an extraordinary obstacle prevents timely filing. The court explained that the plaintiffs relied on the same alleged misrepresentations both as the basis for their claims and as the basis for claiming that the deadline should be extended. It also found that the proposed amended complaint did not plausibly show that a reasonably careful person could not have learned of the alleged deception.
The court noted that Professor Michael Thaddeus’s article in February and March 2022 allegedly revealed Columbia’s false or misleading data using publicly available sources. The plaintiffs were therefore on notice of their possible claims by February or March 2022. Even if equitable tolling applied before that point, the court ruled that the plaintiffs waited nearly a year after learning of the alleged deception before filing suit and did not file within a reasonable time.
The court also found that the proposed allegations that Columbia’s conduct was self-concealing were conclusory and did not show that Columbia took affirmative steps after the alleged wrongdoing to prevent discovery of the claims. The new price-premium allegations did not address the statute-of-limitations defect.
Disposition
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate or amend the judgment. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.