By Hannah Albarazi

Law360 (March 31, 2021, 7:39 PM EDT) -- A California federal judge has dismissed a putative class action brought by three law students demanding Santa Clara University reimburse their tuition and fees after their classes moved online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, ruling that the institution never explicitly promised students in-person classes.

The law students have inadequately pled that Santa Clara University made a specific promise to them and then broke that promise, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh wrote in her order Monday, finding that the university didn't make an "unequivocal" and specific promise to continue to hold on-campus instruction despite a global pandemic.

At most, Judge Koh said, Santa Clara University made general promises or created expectations. However, the university's statements do not impose contractual duties on the university, the judge said.

Judge Koh dismissed with leave to amend the law students' claims that the university breached an implied-in-fact contract and violated the California Unfair Competition Law, but dismissed the students' unjust enrichment claim with prejudice.

The three students sued the university in June, claiming its decision to halt in-person education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the university's failure to issue them a tuition refund violated California law.

Initially, the three students brought their suit under pseudonyms, but in an amended complaint filed in October, the students revealed their identities as full-time law students Lilas Abuelhawa, Kelly Wynne and Leonardo Kim.

Abuelhawa, Wynne and Kim claim the university advertised "campus life" and promised — via course materials, student bulletins and its website — to provide in-person instruction. But when the pandemic began, the university moved classes online and failed to deliver on their promise, the students claimed.

Saying they didn't receive what they paid for, the students sought to represent students at Santa Clara University School of Law and the university's Jesuit School of Theology who paid for spring 2020 in-person educational services that the university failed to provide.

Santa Clara University, represented by Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, moved to dismiss the amended complaint in November, arguing that the students had inadequately pled a specific promise. But even if they had, the university argued, the students' implied contract claim is barred by financial disclaimers in the university's tuition refund schedule and student bulletins.

In her order Monday, Judge Koh agreed that the law students hadn't adequately pled that Santa Clara University put forth a specific promise to provide an educational service and then broke that promise.

Judge Koh said the law students had agreed to terms and conditions stating that the university would not issue tuition refunds as a result of "curtailed services resulting from strikes, acts of God, civil insurrection, riots or threats thereof, or other causes beyond the control of the university."

Ascribing contractual duties to universities' course catalogues or their other published materials would bring rigidity to the academic relationship, the judge warned.

And a breach of implied contract claim in California requires a specific and explicit promise, Judge Koh added, noting that "the case law shows that plaintiffs inadequately plead a specific promise." The lack of a specific promise "is fatal to implied contract claims," the judge said.

Judge Koh said the students' Unfair Competition Law claim fails for the same reasons as their breach of implied-in-fact contract claim, but gave the students leave to amend both of those claims.

But Judge Koh dismissed the students' unjust enrichment claim with prejudice stating, "California law is clear: Unjust enrichment is not a cause of action." Judge Koh said amendment of that claim would be futile.

Since the pandemic prompted nationwide virus closures, students have been launching reimbursement suits against universities and colleges across the country. Schools ranging from private Ivy League colleges such as Harvard and Dartmouth to public universities across the U.S. have been hit with lawsuits.

So far, the Regents of the University of California and the Arizona Board of Regents escaped lawsuits lodged against them for allegedly withholding campus fee refunds. And in mid-March, George Washington University dodged a suit seeking tuition refunds after its classes went virtual, as did New York University.

But around the same time, a Florida federal judge ordered Lynn University to face claims from students seeking partial tuition and fee refunds after their classes moved online. And in early March, a New York federal judge trimmed students' claims against Columbia and Pace universities, finding that the students had plausibly alleged the universities breached a contract to provide access to certain campus facilities and activities in exchange for student fees. 

Counsel and representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

The students are represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Joel D. Smith and Sarah N. Westcot of Bursor & Fisher PA.

Santa Clara University is represented by Marc Shapiro, Karen Johnson-McKewan, Sarah Mullins and Haley Jankowski of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Lilas Abuelhawa et al. v. Santa Clara University, case number 5:20-cv-04045, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Editing by Alanna Weissman.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.