Goldberg v. Pace University

Background

Brett Goldberg was a third-year student in Pace University’s Master of Fine Arts program at The Actors Studio Drama School. He alleged that Pace’s materials described an in-person, collaborative program in which students worked together on plays, including a final-year Repertory Season production and a Process Lab course. He also alleged that Pace charged mandatory General Institution, University Health Care, and Technology Fees for student services and facilities.

In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Pace moved classes online and placed the spring 2020 Repertory Season on hold. Pace said it intended to reschedule the production and the remaining Process Lab sessions when feasible. Goldberg alleged that Pace did not refund tuition or the mandatory fees and sought damages for the change in instruction, the postponed production and course, and the unavailable services.

Pace moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Under the standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court treated well-supported factual allegations as true and asked whether they plausibly stated legal claims.

Educational-Malpractice Argument

The court declined to dismiss the lawsuit as an impermissible educational-malpractice case. New York law bars claims requiring a court to evaluate the quality of teaching or the professional judgments of educators. But the court determined that Goldberg’s central theory was different: he alleged that Pace promised specific in-person services and failed to provide some of them. The court therefore examined whether the alleged promises were specific and enforceable.

Breach of Contract

The court dismissed the contract claim based on a promise of in-person instruction. Although Pace’s materials described collaboration, attendance, classroom practices, and the program’s in-person character, the court found that they did not make a specific promise that Goldberg’s classes would be held exclusively in person. The court also found that Pace’s offering of separate online programs and the Process Lab syllabus did not create such a contractual guarantee. This claim was dismissed with prejudice under the order’s conclusion.

The court found that Goldberg adequately alleged a specific promise concerning the Repertory Season. Pace’s marketing described the opportunity for students to develop and present full-length plays to the public and professional theater community. But the court found no present breach because Pace had postponed the production rather than refused to provide it, and the Graduate Catalog allowed schedule adjustments for unforeseen circumstances. Any future claim that the rescheduled production would not satisfy Pace’s promise depended on events that had not yet occurred. The court therefore denied this claim as unripe and, in the conclusion, dismissed it without prejudice to a future claim based on a ripe showing of breach.

The court similarly found that the Process Lab claim did not presently state a breach. Pace had said it would hold the remaining sessions when the Repertory Season was rescheduled, and the Graduate Catalog allowed classes to be deferred because of unforeseen circumstances. The court dismissed this claim without prejudice to a future claim.

The court allowed Goldberg’s contract claim concerning the mandatory fees to proceed. Goldberg alleged that he paid the General Institution, University Health Care, and Technology Fees but lost practical access to at least some corresponding facilities and activities, including libraries, student activities, in-person health-care services, and computer labs. The court held that these allegations narrowly stated a plausible claim that Pace failed to provide some promised services in exchange for the fees. It therefore denied Pace’s motion as to this claim.

Other Claims

The court dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim because an implied contract governed Goldberg’s education and the claim sought the same payments for the same alleged conduct as the contract claims. The court also found that the allegations did not show that fairness required restitution, given the pandemic-related reasons for the move online, Goldberg’s receipt of instruction and academic credit, his timely graduation, and Pace’s stated intention to provide the postponed offerings. The claim was dismissed with prejudice under the order’s conclusion.

The court dismissed the promissory-estoppel claims. They duplicated the contract claims, did not identify a specific promise of in-person instruction, and did not plausibly allege a clear promise, reasonable reliance, or a present injury concerning the postponed production and course. The claims were dismissed with prejudice under the order’s conclusion.

The court dismissed Goldberg’s claim under New York General Business Law § 349, which addresses materially misleading consumer-oriented conduct. The court found no coherent allegation that Pace acted deceptively before the pandemic or that its pandemic response and move to remote instruction were misleading. This claim was dismissed with prejudice under the order’s conclusion.

Disposition

Judge Engelmayer’s order denied in part and granted in part Pace’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The mandatory-fee breach-of-contract claim remained pending. The in-person-instruction, unjust-enrichment, promissory-estoppel, and New York General Business Law § 349 claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Repertory Season and Process Lab contract claims were dismissed without prejudice because the alleged breaches were not yet ripe.