Gociman v. Loyola University of Chicago

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-University’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs-students’ class action, alleging that defendant breached contract by shutting down its campus and its in-person instruction, as well as deprived them of access to on-campus facilities during 2020 pandemic and shifted all coursework to online instruction only, where defendant had promised them in-person instruction and access to on-campus facilities in exchange for tuition and fees. While Dist. Ct. based dismissal, in part, on holding that plaintiffs had essentially pleaded educational malpractice action, Ct. of Appeals found that plaintiffs could proceed on instant action, where: (1) instant case was not educational malpractice claim, since plaintiffs’ lawsuit did not require analysis of quality of their education; and (2) lawsuit alleged existence of implied contract that was formed by defendant’s publications that promised in-person instruction and access to on-campus facilities in exchange for tuition and fees. Ct. further noted that plaintiffs, who sought refund of tuition and fees, had enrolled in on-campus program and had paid higher tuition and fees than students enrolled in defendant’s online program. Dist. Ct., though, did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim, where plaintiff had improperly alleged existence of contract between parties. Plaintiff, though, will be permitted on remand to file amended complaint on their unjust enrichment claim that omits allegations of existence of contract. (Partial dissent filed.)