Romankow v. New York University

Background

Jaclyn Romankow was a visiting student enrolled full time in New York University’s London study abroad program during the spring 2020 semester. On March 16, 2020, NYU announced that it would close residence halls and hold classes remotely through the end of the semester. Jaclyn returned from London, and her education continued online. She alleged that the online instruction was lower quality and disruptive and ineffective.

David and Jaclyn Romankow alleged that they paid NYU for opportunities and services Jaclyn would not receive, including on-campus education, facilities, services, and activities. They sought refunds of tuition and certain fees in a proposed class action asserting breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion.

NYU moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. NYU argued that David lacked constitutional standing and that the complaint otherwise failed to state a claim.

David Romankow’s standing

The court held that David lacked standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a concrete and personal injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury.

David argued that he had standing because he was responsible for and paid his daughter’s tuition and suffered an economic loss when NYU replaced in-person education with online education. The court found that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Jaclyn was a minor or that David was an intended third-party beneficiary of an agreement with NYU. It further held that David’s responsibility to pay arose from an arrangement between him and his daughter, not from a contractual relationship with NYU. The court therefore dismissed David’s claims in their entirety.

Jaclyn Romankow’s claims

The court held that Jaclyn failed to state a breach-of-contract claim. It explained that a student-university contract may support claims based on specifically identified promises, but does not provide a remedy for every student dissatisfied with the education received.

Jaclyn relied partly on NYU website statements about the London program, including time at Royal Academy of Dramatic Art facilities, combat training, theater visits, and certain course instruction. The court found that these statements either were not specific promises, were too vague to enforce, described intentions rather than guarantees, or were covered by NYU’s broad disclaimer. The disclaimer reserved NYU’s right to change, relocate, or modify courses, programs, activities, and academic offerings. The court also found that Jaclyn had not identified an express promise requiring continued in-person instruction.

The court found the allegations about fees insufficiently specific because the complaint did not clearly identify which fees were paid, refunded, or allegedly owed. It dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim for the reasons discussed in a prior related proceeding. It also dismissed the conversion claim because it was based on the same allegations as the contract claim, and conversion under New York law could not be based on a mere breach of contract.

Disposition and amendment

The court granted NYU’s motion to dismiss. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The plaintiffs had indicated that they wanted to amend their complaint, and the court allowed them to submit a letter application with a proposed amended complaint by May 4, 2021, if the amendment would not be futile. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions.