Hassan v. Fordham University

Background

Kareem Hassan, an undergraduate student at Fordham University, brought a proposed class action seeking refunds of tuition and fees for the portion of the Spring 2020 semester when Fordham suspended in-person instruction and conducted classes online. The complaint alleged that in-person instruction stopped on March 9, 2020, students were asked to leave campus by March 22, and remote instruction continued through May 12. Hassan alleged that the remote instruction was substantially inferior to in-person education and that Fordham had not refunded tuition, although it had reduced some non-tuition fees.

Hassan asserted four theories: breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and money had and received. He sought a prorated refund of tuition and fees for the period from March 9 through May 12 and sought to represent people who paid tuition and other fees for the Spring 2020 semester and lost the benefit of the education for which they paid. Fordham moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally recognized claim.

Educational-Malpractice Doctrine

Fordham argued that the claims were barred by New York’s educational-malpractice doctrine, which generally prevents courts from evaluating the quality of education or substituting their judgment for that of educational professionals. The court rejected dismissal on that basis at this stage. It held that the claims were sufficiently tied to alleged contractual promises about educational services rather than being solely a demand for judicial evaluation of the quality of remote instruction.

The court cautioned that it could not measure whether remote instruction was less valuable than in-person instruction or determine by how much. It nevertheless proceeded to evaluate the pleaded claims.

Breach of Contract

The court held that Hassan failed to plead two essential parts of a contract claim: a sufficiently specific promise to provide in-person educational services and a breach of that promise. Under New York law, a university-student contract may be based on university publications, but a student must identify specific promised services rather than general descriptions, policies, or expectations.

Hassan relied on Fordham’s course catalog, which listed instructors, schedules, campus buildings, rooms, and whether courses were in person or online. He also relied on attendance policies, a policy concerning credit for online courses taken elsewhere, Fordham’s marketing of the on-campus experience, and his prior experience attending in-person classes. The court held that these materials did not specifically promise that classes would remain in person throughout the semester or that Fordham could not change the method of instruction. It also held that prior in-person instruction did not create a contractual entitlement to continued in-person instruction.

The court separately held that Hassan had not adequately pleaded breach. Because Fordham changed to remote instruction because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court applied a deferential standard requiring allegations that Fordham acted in bad faith or in an arbitrary or irrational manner. The complaint did not allege such conduct. The court also found that the complaint did not adequately allege arbitrary treatment concerning tuition and other fees, identify the specific non-tuition fees at issue, or identify promises connected to those fees.

Because the complaint failed to plead a specific contractual promise and breach, the court did not reach the parties’ arguments about damages, acceptance, or impossibility of performance.

Quasi-Contractual Claims

The court dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim because the complaint did not allege facts showing tortious or fraudulent conduct, did not identify sufficiently specific statements about in-person services, and did not show that fairness required Fordham to return the money. The court also dismissed the conversion claim because Hassan did not identify a specific, identifiable fund of money over which he had an immediate right of possession; the tuition payments had been pooled with Fordham’s other funds.

The court dismissed the money-had-and-received claim for similar reasons. Hassan had freely paid tuition with the expectation that Fordham would provide educational services, not with the expectation that Fordham would repay the money. The court also held that the allegations did not show that fairness required restitution. The court did not decide Fordham’s separate argument that these claims duplicated the contract claim.

Disposition and Amendment

Judge Kimba M. Wood granted Fordham’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court did not immediately state that the First Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Instead, it allowed Hassan to seek leave to file another amended complaint by February 11, 2021, provided that he explain how the proposed amendment would state a claim consistent with the opinion and attach a redlined draft. The court stated that if Hassan did not seek leave to amend, it would dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice and direct the Clerk to close the case.