18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 497 dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which the Court granted. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s promotional and informational statements regarding the benefits of the campus location and facilities created an express or implied contract between themselves and Defendant such that they would receive in-person instruction and access to physical spaces in exchange for the payment of tuition, fees, and other related costs. Id at *5. Plaintiffs also alleged that their admission letters "promise live, in-person education at one of Northwestern’s actual campuses, not an ‘online’ education at a ‘virtual’ campus." Id . at *6. Additionally, Plaintiffs asserted that Northwestern’s Faculty Handbook differentiated between in-person and online learning. Plaintiffs thus asserted that: (i) Defendant breached an express contract providing for in-person instruction; (ii) that Defendant breached an implied contract providing for in-person instruction; and (iii) Defendant was unjustly enriched by not refunding any fees or tuition. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs ultimately were challenging the quality of education received and should be construed as an educational malpractice claim instead of a breach of contract or an unjust enrichment claim. Id . at *18. The Court disagreed. It reasoned that since it was not required to evaluate efforts to educate students, and only the contractual obligations entered into by each party, the claims did not convert to an educational malpractice claim. Id . at *19. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ evidence of the promise of in-person instruction were in portions of documents that extolled the benefits of entering into a contract with Defendant in broad terms and were not concrete enough to be actionable. Id . at *20. The Court therefore rejected Plaintiffs’ breach of express contract claim. Plaintiffs further argued that the sum of communications Defendant directed toward students, including its website, course catalog, and faculty handbook, created an implied contract of in-person instruction. The Court held that these sources did not have any language that indicated a guarantee of a specific promise to students. Finally, the Court explained that because Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims failed, the unjust enrichment claim must also fail. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Rosado, et al. v. Barry University, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169196 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2021). Plaintiff, a university student, filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s move to online instruction in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic without providing tuition refunds constituted breach of contract, or in the alternative, unjust enrichment. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which the Court granted. Prior to Plaintiff filing an amended complaint, the parties reached a settlement. The Court previously had granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for final settlement approval, which the Court also granted. The settlement covered a class of all students who were enrolled during the class period and those who were charged tuition or fees for a room, board, and healthcare services. The agreement would pay over 6,000 class members approximately 60% of their projected recoverable damages in exchange for releasing all claims against Defendant. The Court held that all class members were notified of the settlement and there were no objections. The Court also determined that the settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court found that: (i) the settlement was reached after an arm’s-length negotiation; (ii) the complexity, expense, and duration of litigation supported approving the settlement; (iii) Plaintiff was "sufficiently informed to negotiate, execute, and recommend approval of this Settlement;” (iv) it was not likely that Plaintiff would prevail at trial because of recent Florida legislation that may have precluded relief altogether; (v) in face of the litigation risk, the settlement was a fair compromise; and (vi) the opinions of class counsel, the class representatives, and the substance and amount of opposition to the settlement also weighed in favor of approval. Id . at *18. The Court further held that the settlement class met the requirement of Rule 23. Plaintiff’s counsel requested a service award of $5,000 for named Plaintiff, which the Court rejected. The Court explained the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that "[a] Plaintiff suing on behalf of a class can be reimbursed for attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in carrying on the litigation, but he cannot be paid a salary or be reimbursed for his personal expenses." Id. at *20. Finally, Plaintiff’s counsel requested an award of attorneys’ fees of $800,000, or 33.33% of the settlement fund, and costs and expenses of $8,494.79. The Court granted the fee and costs request. In support of its ruling, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s counsel faced significant threat of non-payment, and quickly obtained an excellent result for class members. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion for final settlement approval. Ryan, et al. v. Temple University, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77157 (E.D. Penn. April 22, 2021). Plaintiffs brought a class action as a result of Defendant’s decision to move classes to an online forum in the Spring semester of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs complaint alleged that Defendant breached an implied contractual duty to provide in-person instruction and allow students access to campus facilities. Likewise,