Morales v. New York University

Background

Serina Morales, Adriana Guidry, and Erika Chambers sued New York University individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. They were enrolled as full- or part-time students during NYU’s Spring 2020 semester. On March 16, 2020, NYU announced that it would close residence halls and conduct classes remotely through the end of the semester. The students acknowledged that these measures were justified, but alleged that they lost the benefit of in-person education and services for which they had paid without receiving refunds.

The students sought refunds of tuition and fees for in-person educational services, facilities, access, and opportunities. NYU moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which address certain jurisdictional defects and insufficiently pleaded claims.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the complaint had the same deficiencies as an earlier round of related litigation and applied the same analysis. It held that the students had not identified specific contractual language promising exclusively in-person instruction. The course catalog identified buildings, classroom numbers, and an instruction mode of “In Person,” but the court found that these references did not create a contractual entitlement to continued instruction in the same location and manner. The court also found that statements in NYU’s website and brochures were opinions or general promotional statements too vague to enforce as contractual promises.

The court further held that the students had not identified specific language in NYU’s publications showing that NYU had given up its authority to change the method of instruction. Regarding fees, the court found the complaint unclear about which fees the students paid, which fees they may have received back, and which fees they claimed should have been refunded. The complaint specifically discussed “Registration and Services Fees,” but the court found that the students’ general assertion that those fees related to on-campus experiences did not identify a specific promise to provide particular in-person services in exchange for payment.

The court dismissed the unjust-enrichment and money-had-and-received claims for the reasons identified in the earlier related proceeding. It also dismissed the conversion claim because it was based on the same allegations as the breach-of-contract claim, and New York law does not allow a conversion claim to be based on merely failing to perform a contract.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The students said in their briefing that they intended to seek permission to file an amended complaint if their claims were denied. The court explained that amendment may be allowed when justice requires it and that district courts have discretion over such requests. It did not grant leave to amend outright. Instead, it stated that the students could submit a letter application with a proposed amended complaint if amendment would not be futile, and required that application to be filed by April 1, 2021.

Judge George B. Daniels granted NYU’s motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.