IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION

Background

The opinion addresses two related proposed class actions arising from universities’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Columbia University and Pace University moved classes online during the spring 2020 semester, closed certain campus facilities, canceled activities, and encouraged students living on campus to leave their residence halls.

Students alleged that these changes breached contractual promises to provide in-person instruction, campus facilities, activities, housing, and meals in exchange for tuition and mandatory fees. They also asserted alternative claims for unjust enrichment, conversion, and violations of Sections 349 and 350 of New York’s General Business Law.

Columbia sought dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Pace sought judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The court applied the same standard to both motions: assuming the complaint’s factual allegations were true, the claims had to contain enough facts to be legally plausible.

Contract claims

Under New York law, the relationship between a university and its students is contractual. A student asserting an implied contract claim must identify specific language in university publications that creates the claimed right or obligation. General statements about educational quality, campus experience, or academic practices are not enough. Claims that would require a court to evaluate the effectiveness of an education—often called educational-malpractice claims—are not recognized.

The Columbia students’ claim concerning the change from in-person to online instruction was dismissed. The court held that Columbia’s previous practice of offering in-person classes, references to classroom locations and attendance requirements, descriptions of certain programs as fully online, and general references to an on-campus experience did not specifically promise that their classes would remain exclusively in person.

The Pace student’s instructional-format claim survived. Pace’s course-registration portal stated that on-campus courses would be taught only through traditional in-person, on-campus meetings. The court held that this allegation plausibly identified a specific promise that Pace allegedly breached by moving classes online. Pace relied on a catalog disclaimer concerning adjustments to class schedules, but the court found it ambiguous whether that disclaimer covered changing classes from in person to online. The court also concluded that the claim, as pleaded, concerned receipt of a materially different service rather than the quality or effectiveness of online education.

The Columbia students’ claims concerning campus facilities and activities survived. They alleged that mandatory fees promised access to specified facilities, student activities, libraries, computer networks, health services, and related programs, and that Columbia closed or canceled those services. The court held that the students did not need to plead that Columbia acted in bad faith or arbitrarily because the claims concerned specific, non-academic services rather than academic standards.

Pace’s motion was also denied as to the claim concerning campus facilities and activities. Although the court described the allegations as close to conclusory, it found them sufficient at this stage because Pace allegedly charged mandatory fees for specified services and then closed facilities and canceled activities without refunding those fees.

Marbury’s Pace housing claim was dismissed. Pace had told students that housing would remain available, though limited, for students who needed to stay. Because Marbury did not allege that she sought to remain in campus housing, the court viewed the pleaded facts as showing that she voluntarily left. Marbury’s meal claim was also dismissed because she did not respond to Pace’s argument against it, and the court treated the claim as abandoned.

Other claims

The unjust-enrichment claims were dismissed because they relied on the same facts as the contract claims. Under New York law, unjust enrichment is an equitable claim used when no actual agreement governs the dispute; it cannot simply duplicate a contract claim.

The conversion claims were dismissed. Conversion is the unauthorized control of another person’s property. The students did not allege that the universities had to return specific, separately identifiable funds or handle the tuition and fees in a particular way. The claims also rested on alleged breaches of contract, which cannot by themselves support conversion claims.

The claims under Sections 349 and 350 of New York’s General Business Law were dismissed. Those provisions address materially misleading consumer-oriented conduct and false advertising. The students did not allege that the universities’ representations about spring 2020 services were materially misleading, and they did not allege that the universities knew in advance that the pandemic would require the operational changes.

Disposition

The court held that Columbia’s motion to dismiss and Pace’s motion for judgment on the pleadings were each granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Columbia instructional-format contract claim was dismissed; Marbury’s Pace instructional-format claim survived; the contract claims concerning campus facilities and activities survived in both cases; and Marbury’s housing and meal contract claims were dismissed. The unjust-enrichment, conversion, and New York General Business Law claims were dismissed in both cases.

The court declined to grant leave to amend the dismissed claims. It noted that the Columbia students did not request amendment, Marbury did not identify facts that would cure the pleading problems, and both sets of plaintiffs had already received an opportunity to amend after earlier motions. The court directed the clerk to terminate the two identified motions.