18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

500 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition students and former students of SNHU who paid, or on whose behalf payment was made, in connection with the spring 2020 semester for tuition and fees for in person educational services, and whose tuition and fees had not been refunded. The Court found that Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy were met. Specifically, as to commonality, the Court determined that there was no dispute that SNHU canceled its in-person spring 2020 semester classes for all class members, and neither refunded nor abated any class members’ tuition or fees. Moreover, each class member’s share of the settlement proceeds would be calculated according to the same formula. Thus, the Court concluded that these common issues were sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirements. Likewise, the Court opined that Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirements of predominance and superiority were also met, and the Court therefore preliminarily certified the proposed class for purposes of settlement. Pursuant to the proposed settlement agreement, Defendant agreed to pay $1,250,000 into a settlement fund to be held in escrow pending disbursement to class members. The Court found that the proposed payments to class members constituted provision of substantial relief to the settlement class without requiring class members to incur the risks, burdens, costs, or delay associated with continued litigation, trial, and possible appeal. Thus, the Court determined that the settlement proposal appeared fair, adequate, and reasonable at this preliminary stage of approval proceedings. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of the parties’ proposed settlement agreement. Zagoria, et al. v. New York University , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50329 (S.D.N.Y. March 17, 2021). Plaintiff, a university student, filed a class action alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and money had and received in connection with Defendant’s move to online remote learning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and the Court granted the motion. Defendant argued that the claims should be dismissed under the educational malpractice doctrine because Plaintiff’s claims required the Court to determine whether Defendant made the correct choice in moving to remote learning. Plaintiff contended that the claims were not for educational malpractice, but rather regarding Defendant’s contractual bargain with students that was broken following the move to remote learning. The Court agreed with Plaintiff that his claims were sufficiently grounded in the contractual relationship between the parties. Defendant also argued that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a breach of contract claim because he did not specify the contractual promises he sought to enforce. Plaintiff’s complaint asserted that Defendant’s marketing and recruitment materials and a course description equated to Defendant’s promise to provide students with in-person instruction. Specifically, under a title of "Networking" on the website of Defendant’s Shack Institute of Real Estate ("Shack"), it listed "Direct engagement with industry, through the nation’s leading conferences, regular speakers, internships, and more." Id . at *9. Plaintiff asserted that these statements, along with physical trips he was supposed to engage in in connection with his real estate degree, were evidence of a contract between the parties promising in person education. The Court found that these alleged statements did not rise to the level of a specific promise to provide in-person educational services. The Court reasoned that Plaintiff failed to provide any sufficient facts that there was a direct promise for in person learning or any express language that demonstrated Defendant relinquished its ability and authority to modify its method of academic instruction in the wake of a global pandemic. Plaintiff also contended that the parties’ conduct defined the terms of their implied contract because Shack offered some courses fully online, and thus Plaintiff’s decision not to select the online offering led to the "natural consequence" of Defendant agreeing to provide in-person instruction. Id . at *12. The Court rejected this argument. It explained that breach of contract actions between a student and a university "must be grounded in a text" and may not be inferred from the conduct of the parties. Id . Further, the Court ruled that under New York law, a party cannot recover on a quasi-contract claim such as unjust enrichment if the parties have a valid, enforceable contract that governs the same subject matter as the quasi-contract claim. Id . at *13. Since it was undisputed that the parties had a valid contract governing the relationship, Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim also failed. Finally, as to the money had and received claim, the Court opined that there was no claim for money had and received where a contract covered the same subject matter for which relief was sought. Id . at *14-15. Therefore, since Plaintiff’s relationship with NYU was governed by the contractual arrangement, the Court ruled that Plaintiff’s claim for money had and received also failed. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Zhao, et al. v. Counsel On International Education Exchange, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19170 (1st Cir. June 28, 2021). Plaintiff, a Harvard University graduate, filed a class action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with the cancellation of study abroad programs due to the COVID-19 pandemic.