Saroya v. University of the Pacific
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-03196
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
Saroya v. University of the Pacific: Judge Davila dismissed Saroya’s unjust-enrichment claim with prejudice because the alleged student contract made that alternative claim legally insufficient.
Viney Saroya and the proposed class of people who paid tuition and fees for the University of the Pacific’s Spring 2020 semester were affected because the unjust-enrichment claim was dismissed with prejudice. The order addressed that claim and did not rule on the breach-of-contract claim.
What happened
In Saroya v. University of the Pacific, Viney Saroya brought a proposed class action claiming that the university breached its agreement with students or was unjustly enriched when it moved Spring 2020 classes online and kept tuition and fees. Saroya alleged that students had paid for in-person education and campus services.
The university asked the court to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claim. The court said Saroya could plead that claim as an alternative to breach of contract only if he alleged that no enforceable contract covered the subject. The court found that Saroya instead alleged that a contract existed and did not allege that it was invalid or unenforceable.
The court granted the university’s motion to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claim and dismissed that claim with prejudice because Saroya had already been allowed to amend and had not fixed the problem. Judge Edward J. Davila left the case’s breach-of-contract claim unaffected by this order.
The detailed version
- Saroya v. University of the Pacific · No. 5:20-cv-03196
- Edward Davila
- June 11, 2021
Background
Viney Saroya filed a proposed class action on behalf of people who paid tuition and fees for the University of the Pacific’s Spring 2020 semester and allegedly lost the benefit of in-person education and campus services after the university responded to COVID-19. Saroya alleged that the university stopped in-person classes on March 23, 2020, moved continuing classes online, and retained the full amount of tuition and fees.
The Second Amended Complaint asserted a breach-of-contract claim and, alternatively, an unjust-enrichment claim. Saroya alleged that the parties had a contract under which students paid tuition and fees in exchange for in-person educational services, experiences, opportunities, and related services. The unjust-enrichment claim alleged that, if no contractual obligation to provide in-person services existed or any such obligation was invalid or unenforceable, it would be unjust for the university to retain the students’ alleged overpayments.
The university moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally actionable claim. The court had previously dismissed Saroya’s earlier unjust-enrichment claim with leave to amend.
Issue
The issue was whether Saroya adequately pleaded an unjust-enrichment claim as an alternative to his breach-of-contract claim.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a plaintiff may generally plead unjust enrichment and breach of contract in the alternative. But an unjust-enrichment or quasi-contract claim cannot proceed when an enforceable express contract covers the same subject. To use unjust enrichment as an alternative theory, Saroya needed to allege facts showing that the parties did not have an enforceable contract covering the relevant subject matter.
The court found that Saroya had not done so. The Second Amended Complaint repeatedly alleged that the parties entered into a contractual agreement for tuition and in-person educational services. Saroya also acknowledged that a written agreement existed. The court concluded that alleging uncertainty about whether the contract specifically promised in-person classes was not the same as alleging that the contract was void, rescinded, invalid, or otherwise unenforceable.
Disposition
The court granted the University of the Pacific’s motion to dismiss Saroya’s unjust-enrichment claim. Because the claim had previously been dismissed with leave to amend and Saroya had not cured the deficiency, the court held that further amendment would be futile and dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim with prejudice. The order did not rule on the breach-of-contract claim.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.