Page 3
Court of Appeal:
University Did Not Promise Students In-Person Instruction
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the First District Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed an order granting summary adjudication of three claims in a class action against a university over its failure to provide in-person instruction during portions of 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, finding that plaintiffs had failed to establish that such instruction was guaranteed by the implied contract between the university and the students.
The one remaining cause of action—under the Unfair Competition Law—was dismissed by the students in order to enable an immediate appeal.
Justice Iona Petrou wrote the opinion affirming the order by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Andrew Y.S. Yang. Acting Presiding Justice Carin T. Fujisaki and Justice Victor Rodriguez joined in the opinion.
Partial Tuition Refund
Samantha Berlanga, Joseph Oliva and Jasmine Moore were undergraduate students at the University of San Francisco (USF). Together with Moore’s mother, Amber Kaiser, the students sued the university on behalf of themselves and other USF students, seeking to recover a portion of the tuition paid for the Spring 2020 semester and the 2020-2021 academic year due to the failure of the university to offer exclusively in-person instruction.
USF moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of the individual causes of action.
Yang granted the motion as to the breach of contract, quasi-contract and promissory estoppel causes of action.
Petrou pointed out that no party was asserting the absence of a contractual agreement. She wrote:
“The parties do not dispute that an implied-in-fact contract existed between USF and the appellant students, created via the students’ matriculation and payment of tuition and based on some but not necessarily all the information USF provided to matriculants in its catalogs, bulletins, circulars, and/or regulations. Rather, the parties dispute whether that contract committed USF to provide exclusively in-person instruction.”
University Literature
The plaintiffs relied on statements made in university literature as evidence of a contractual obligation to provide in-person instruction. This included statements inviting them to “join a dynamic student body,” “develop amazing friendships,” “be surrounded by the best city ever” and “join…one of our admitted student visit days.” They also pointed to documents referring to the physical location of classrooms. Noting that courts are generally reluctant to apply contract law to general promises or expectations such as the kind found in university literature and that universities are entitled to some discretion in modifying their programs, Petrou found those statements to fall short of unequivocal promises.
She looked to the 2007 decision in Kashmiri v. Regents of the University of California, handed down by Div. Two of the First District Court of Appeal. It was held there that whether obligations are created by language in university materials depends on the acts and conduct of the parties, the subject matter and the “reasonableness of the student’s expectation” which is “measured by the definiteness, specificity, or explicit nature of the representation at issue.”
In the present case, Petrou said, there were no “‘unequivocal’ statements” that USF was promising to offer in-person learning.
She continued:
“At most, these statements, construed in a light most favorable to appellants, support the proposition that USF made sufficiently specific representations to infer a contractual promise to provide some in-person instruction and on-campus services in exchange for appellants’ tuition. But the record does not support an inference of exclusively in-person instruction under the circumstances of a global health and safety emergency.”
Past Conduct
Petrou similarly found that the past conduct and custom of the university in offering in-person instruction did not support the contractual inference of a requirement to do so.
She recognized that the pandemic created a unique experience, but found that the general expectations of in-person learning did not create an enforceable obligation, writing:
“While we recognize that all parties expected classes to be conducted in- person, those general expectations do not amount to an enforceable term of the parties’ contract.”
The justice explained that the expectation had to be put into context of a global health emergency, saying:
“While USF has generally provided in-person instruction and access to its campus, appellants have not identified any evidence that USF has historically provided in-person instruction during public health or safety emergencies. Nor do they identify any evidence indicating an expectation that USF would offer in-person instruction during such emergencies.”
She rejected arguments in support of a cause of action for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because there was no agreement to offer in-person instruction in the first place. Petrou wrote:
“USF’s switch from in-person to remote instruction, as required by state and local stay-at-home orders, did not frustrate appellants’ rights to any contract benefits and thus did not violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
The quasi-contract claim failed because both parties acknowledged that there was an implied contract between the parties. Petrou explained:
“Because a valid and enforceable contract existed between student appellants and USF regarding their enrollment, albeit without the terms they sought, appellants are precluded from pursuing their quasi-contract claim.”
Additionally, the court rejected the promissory estoppel claim because the record failed to establish a promise of exclusively in-person instruction, and because “actual consideration” in the form of the payment of tuition was provided.
2020-2021 Year
Specifically, as to the 2020-2021 academic year, USF notified all students that instruction would be conducted either entirely remotely or in a hybrid format. These notices went out before enrollment or payment of tuition for those semesters.
As to these semesters, Petrou declared that the plaintiffs’ “breach of contract claim fails because they have not identified any contract with USF for in-person instruction during those semesters.”
She said:
“[A]ppellants could not reasonably have believed USF contractually promised to provide an in-person education for the Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 semesters.”
Federal Cases
Petrou recognized that some federal authorities have found triable issues of fact regarding in-person instruction with similar evidence to that presented in this case, but said:
“We are not bound by these authorities and, in any event, find their reasoning flawed to the extent they rely on generalized statements regarding campus experiences or facilities. Such generalized statements fail to delineate the specific terms under which the universities were offering in-person instruction or campus access as required by California law.”
The case is Berlanga v. University of San Francisco, 2024 S.O.S. 767.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company