Electrunically
b}- Su penur Court nf-Eallfarnm, Cnu nry n! San Maren EN 5/6/2020 3” m Kathlyn Lee Boyd (State Bar No. 189496) flguflifli“ [email protected] David L. Hecht (pro hac vice pending) [email protected] HECHT PARTNERS LLP 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (2 12) 85 1 -6821 Facsimile: (646) 492-51 1 1
Klary E. Pucci (State Bar No. 202058) [email protected] LAW OFFICES OF KLARY E. PUCCI, INC. 6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, California 90048 Telephone: (323) 301-4660 Facsimile: (323) 301-4676
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff MIRANDA MUELLER, individually and on behalf 0f all 11 others similarly situated.
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
14 20-ClV-O1 942 case NO' MIRANDA MUELLER, individually and on 15 b€ha1f Of all Oth61'S Similarly Situat6d, CLASS ACTION—COMPLAINT FOR: 16 Plaintiff, (1) Breach of Contract; 17 V. (2) Unjust Enrichment; 18 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (3) Conversion; 19 (4) Violation of Business and 20 Defendant. Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 21
22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 23
24
25
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff Miranda Mueller, on behalf 0f herself and all others similarly situated, brings
this action against Defendant the Regents 0f the University 0f California, alleging as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This action is brought 0n behalf of students at the University of California
campuses (collectively, the “University”) who seek a fair adjustment of the top-dollar tuition and
fee payments the University retains despite the termination 0f in-person instruction, and the loss
of related benefits, during Winter and Spring Quarter 2020 due to the health emergency caused
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Plaintiff understands that the disbanding of university life was an unavoidable
10 consequence 0f this emergency. However, the University’s campuses are collectively receiving
11 in excess 0f $259 million from the federal government through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
12 Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”).1
13 3. Students’ costs, meanwhile, remain the same. The University continues to charge
14 students full tuition, campus, and student services fees—even as students suffer the loss of the
15 full academic and extra-curricular on-campus college experience for which they enrolled at the
16 University.
17 4. The online courses that the University now provides as a replacement are not of
18 equivalent value t0 in-person courses. In addition, faculty had mere days to prepare these
19 “replacement” courses. And the extensive literature 0n the University campuses’ websites
20 emphasizes that an in—person University 0f California degree is valuable in part because of the
21 activities and resources available t0 students through each campus and in the immediate and
22 surrounding cities in Which those campuses are located. Students at the University rely on
23 campus facilities and resources t0 Which they no longer have the same access.
24 5. Research studies also reflect the lesser value of online instruction. Among other
25 consequences, students enrolled in online college courses receive lower grades not only in those
26 courses, but in courses during subsequent semesters as well.
27
1 28 See https://www.highlandernews.org/742 1 9/ucr—receives—29-7-million-from-the-coronavirus—aid-relief— and-economic-security-cares-act-t0-support-students-in-need-of—immediate-financial-support. 2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 6. Plaintiffs current experience may be unavoidable. The financial consequence,
however, is not. The University is failing to provide the benefits for which Plaintiff bargained
in paying tuition, campus, and student services fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action t0
recover her payments for services the University is failing to deliver. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant t0 Section 10 0f Article VI
0f the California Constitution. No statute gives jurisdiction over the claims brought in this action
t0 another court.
8. This is a class action brought pursuant t0 Section 382 of the California Code 0f
10 Civil Procedure. The damages sought exceed the minimal jurisdictional limits of this Court and
11 Will be established at trial.
12 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it is organized under
13 the laws of California, has its principal place 0f business in California, and the acts complained
14 of herein occurred in the California.
15 10. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, Plaintiff
16 accepted the offer 0f her contract With Defendant—the contract at issue in this action—in San
17 Mateo County.
18 PARTIES
19 Plaintifl
20 11. Plaintiff is a student at the Santa Cruz campus (“UC-Santa Cruz”) 0f the
21 University of California and a resident of California.
22 Defendant
23 12. Defendant is the governing body of the University of California? The University
24 0f California is “[t]he only world-class public research university for, by and of California,”3 and
25
26
27
2 See https://WWW.cityonahillpress.com/2016/09/29/rundown-on-the-regents. 28 3 See https://WWW.universityofcalifornia.edu/uc-system. 3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT is comprised 0f ten campuses.4 According t0 the University, these campuses do not constitute
separate legal entities and cannot be sued individually.5 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
13. Plaintiff is an undergraduate at the Santa Cruz campus of the University. She
plans to double-maj or in Legal Studies and Community Studies.
14. Plaintiff has made all tuition, campus, and student services fee payments due t0
the University for Winter and Spring Quarter 2020.
15. In a March 8, 2020 message to the UC-Santa Cruz community, Chancellor
Cynthia Larive said: “[t]o ensure that we are prepared, I am calling 0n all members of our
10 community t0 take steps now to prepare for the possibility that we Will need to shift to working,
11 teaching, and learning remotely and Virtually in the near future.”6
12 16. The University moved in-person instruction to online three days later, on March
13 11, 2020.
14 17. In addition to in-person instruction, Plaintiff relied on the availability 0f the
15 University’s library, student center, and computer labs, all of Which are now closed.
16 18. The University charges undergraduates, 0n average, $14,000 per year in tuition
17 and mandatory campus and student services fees for California residents, and $43,800 per year
18 in tuition and mandatory campus and student services fees for non-California residents.7
19 19. The University reported its endowment in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 as
20 $21.1 billion.8
21 20. The University sells itself to students by emphasizing its campuses, campus
22 facilities, and surrounding locations. On the “Why UCSC?” portion 0f the admissions website
23 for the Santa Cruz campus, for example, the University describes its Santa Cruz campus as a
24 4 1d.
5 25 See “Service of Process 0n the Regents of the University 0f California” at 1, https://Www.ucop.edu/general-counse1/_files/servproc.pdf. 26 6 See https://news.ucsc.edu/2020/03/chancellor—update-covid-19.htm1. 7 See https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/tuition-financial-aid/tuition-cost—of—attendance.
27 8 See “University of California Annual Endowment Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019” at 3-4,
28 https ://Www.ucop.edu/investment—office/investment-reports/annual-reports/annual-endowment—rep0rt— 201 8- 1 9 .pdf. 4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT “world-class research and teaching university featuring interdisciplinary learning and a
979 distinctive residential college system, advertises students’ access t0 “valuable internships and
jobs in companies in Silicon Valley, 0r in the nearby Monterey Bay National Marine
”10 Sanctuary, and tells prospective students that “[t]he city 0f Santa Cruz, With a population 0f
about 56,000, is a Vibrant community with cosmopolitan appeal. Art exhibits, local theater
companies, a symphony orchestra, fine restaurants, and a lively contemporary music scene
combine t0 make Santa Cruz an enviable place t0 work and live.”“
2 1. A report from the Brookings Institution” comparing online and in-person learning
in higher education found that:
10 a. Students taking a course in person averaged roughly a B-, whereas
11 students taking that course online averaged roughly a C;13
12 b. Taking a course online reduces a student’ s overall GPA the following term
13 by 0.15 points;14
14 c. Taking a course online reduces a student’s GPA the following term for
15 courses in the same subject area by 0.42 points;15
16 d. Taking a course online reduces a student’s GPA the following term for
17 courses for Which the online course is a prerequisite by 0.32 points;16 and
18 e. Taking a course online, as opposed to in person, reduces by roughly 9
19 percent the likelihood of a student remaining enrolled. 17
20
21
22 9 See https://admissi0ns.ucsc.edu/Why-ucsc/indexhtml. 10 23 See https://admissi0ns.ucsc.edu/Why-ucsc/sc-area.html. 11 1d.
24 12 See Eric Bettinger & Susanna Loeb, Promises and Pitfalls OfOnZine Education, Economic Studies at Brookings, Evidence Speaks Reports, V01. 2, #15 (June 9, 2017), https://Www.brookings.edu/wp- 25 content/uploads/ZOI7/06/ccf_20170609_loeb_evidence_speaks1.pdf (the “Brookings Report”). 13 26 See Brookings Report at 3. 14 1d.
15 27 1d.
16 1d. 28 17 Id.
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 22. In addition, a 2015 Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis Working
Paperlg found that:
a. Students in an online course are 8.4 percent less likely to pass the course
than are students taking the course in person;19 and
b. Students in an online course are 12.3 percent less likely to receive an A
minus or above than are students taking the course in person.”
The Stanford Paper concludes that its analysis “pr0Vide[s] evidence that students in online
courses perform substantially worse than students in traditional in—person courses, and these
findings are robust across a number 0f specifications.”21
10 23. Plaintiff has not received a refund of her Winter or Spring Quarter 2020 tuition,
11 campus fee, or student services fee payments.
12 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
13 Class Definition
14 24. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Section 382 0f the California Code of Civil
15 Procedure 0n behalf 0f a proposed class 0f persons (the “C1ass”) defined as:
16 A11 students at a University 0f California campus
17 Who paid tuition and mandatory campus and
18 student services fees for Winter and/or Spring
19 Quarter 2020 for classes scheduled for in—person
20 instruction Who were denied that instruction for any
21 part 0f Winter and/or Spring Quarter 2020, and all
22 persons who paid tuition and mandatory campus
23 and student services fees on behalf of such students.
24
25 18 See Eric Bettinger, Lindsay Fox, Susanna Loeb & Eric Taylor, Changing Distributions: How Online 26 College Classes Alter Student and Professor Performance, CEPA Working Paper No. 15-10 (October 2015), https://files.eric.ed.g0V/fulltext/ED580370.pdf (the “Stanford Paper”). 19 27 See Stanford Paper at 16. 2° 1d. 28 21 Id. at 18. 6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 25. Excluded from the Class is Defendant, any 0f its past or present officers, directors,
agents, or affiliates, any judge Who presides over this action, and all counsel of record.
26. Plaintiff reserves the right t0 expand, limit, modify, 0r amend the definitions of
the Class as may be desirable 0r appropriate during the course 0f this litigation.
Numerosity and Ascertainability
27. The Class is so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder of all Class
members is impracticable. Class members may be identified through objective means, such as
the University’s records, and notified of this action by recognized methods of notice, such as by
mail 0r email, 0r publication in print or 0n the internet.
10 Commonality and Predominance
11 28. Questions of law and fact that have common answers for the Class predominate
12 over questions affecting only individual Class members. These questions include, Without
13 limitation:
14 a. What tuition and mandatory fees were paid to Defendant by Plaintiff and the other
15 members of the Class;
16 b. What tuition and mandatory fee refunds, if any, Defendant has issued t0 Plaintiff and
17 the other members 0f the Class;
18 c. Whether Defendant breached its agreements with Plaintiff and the other members of
19 the Class when it failed to deliver to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class the
20 services for which they paid tuition and mandatory fees and refused to refund any of
21 said tuition 0r mandatory fees;
22 d. Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining tuition and mandatory fee
23 payments when Plaintiff and the other members of the Class did not receive the
24 services for Which they paid tuition and mandatory fees;
25 e. Whether Defendant engaged in unfair business practices in Violation of California law
26 in refusing to refund any portion of the tuition and fees paid for services not offered
27 Plaintiffs;
28
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT f. Whether Defendant is misrepresenting the value 0f the replacement online classes it
is providing as equivalent t0 in—person instruction in Violation 0f California law; and
g. The qualitative and quantitative difference in value between in-person learning and
online learning.
Typicality
29. Plaintiff’ s claims are typical 0f the claims 0f other Class members and arise from
the same course of conduct by Defendant. The relief Plaintiff seeks is typical 0f the relief sought
for the other Class members.
Adequacy
10 30. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests 0f the Class.
11 Plaintiff has retained counsel With substantial experience in prosecuting class actions.
12 3 1. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed t0 vigorously prosecuting this action 0n
13 behalf of the Class. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel has interests adverse to those of the Class.
14 Superiority
15 32. A class action is superior t0 other available methods for the fair and efficient
16 adjudication 0f this controversy. The common questions of law and fact regarding Defendant’s
17 conduct and responsibility predominate over any questions affecting individual Class members.
18 33. A class action also is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
19 adjudication of this controversy because it eliminates the risk of inconsistent outcomes.
20 34. Because the damages suffered by each individual Class member may be relatively
21 small, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it very difficult 0r impossible
22 for individual Class members to redress the wrongs done to each 0f them individually, such that
23 most or all Class members would have no rational economic interest in individually controlling
24 the prosecution 0f specific actions, and the burden imposed 0n the judicial system by individual
25 litigation by the Class would be significant, making class adjudication the superior option.
26 35. The conduct of this action as a class action presents far fewer management
27 difficulties, far better conserves judicial resources and the parties” resources, and far more
28 effectively protects the rights 0f each Class member than would piecemeal litigation. Compared
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT to the expense, burdens, inconsistencies, economic infeasibility, and inefficiencies of
individualized litigation, any challenge 0f managing this action as a class action is substantially
outweighed by the benefits to the legitimate interests of the parties, the Court, and the public of
class treatment, making class adjudication superior to other alternatives. CAUSES OF ACTION
First Cause 0f Action: Breach 0f Contract
36. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs, as if
fully set forth herein.
37. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other Class members.
10 38. Plaintiff is enrolled as a student at the University. A contract, either written 0r
11 implied-in—fact, existed between Plaintiff and Defendant. In exchange for tuition and mandatory
12 campus and student services fee payments by Plaintiff, Defendant was to provide to Plaintiff in-
13 person classroom instruction and related academic activities, and access t0 campus facilities and
14 t0 in—person extracurricular, athletic, and other student activities.
15 39. Plaintiff has paid tuition and mandatory campus and student services fees for
16 Winter and Spring Quarter 2020, thus performing her obligations under the contract.
17 40. Defendant has breached its obligations by failing to provide to Plaintiff in—person
18 classroom instruction and related academic activities, as well as access to campus facilities and
19 to in—person extracurricular, athletic, and other student activities.
20 41. Defendant’s breach, coupled With its refusal to refund any portion 0f the tuition
21 and mandatory campus and student services fees it has been paid, has caused Plaintiff damage in
22 the amount 0f the tuition improperly retained by Defendant.
23 Second Cause 0f Action: Unjust Enrichment
24 42. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs, as if
25 fully set forth herein.
26 43. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf 0f the other Class members.
27 44. Defendant received benefits from Plaintiff in the form of tuition and mandatory
28 campus and student services fee payments, in exchange for Which Defendant was to provide in-
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT person classroom instruction and related academic activities, as well as access to campus
facilities and t0 in—person extracurricular, athletic, and other student activities.
45. Defendant did not provide in-person classroom instruction and related academic
activities, as well as access t0 campus facilities and t0 in—person extracurricular, athletic, and
other student activities, thus unjustly retaining these benefits at Plaintiff’s expense. Plaintiff is
thus entitled t0 recover the improperly retained tuition and mandatory campus and student
services fees as a remedy from Defendant for its unjust enrichment.
Third Cause 0f Action: Conversion
46. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs, as if
10 fully set forth herein.
11 47. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf 0f the other Class members.
12 48. Plaintiff had rightful possession 0f the sums used to pay Defendant tuition and
13 mandatory campus and student services fees for Winter and Spring Quarter 2020.
14 49. Defendant failed to provide t0 Plaintiff the benefits—such as in-person classroom
15 instruction and related academic activities, as well as access t0 campus facilities and to in-person
16 extracurricular, athletic, and other student activities—that Plaintiff paid this tuition and
17 mandatory campus and student services fees to secure. Defendant thus wrongfully retained this
18 tuition and mandatory campus and student services fees as its own.
19 50. Defendant’s actions have damaged Plaintiff in the amount 0f the tuition and
20 mandatory campus and student services fees improperly Withheld by Defendant.
21 Fourth Cause 0f Action: Violation 0f California Unfair Competition Law —
22 California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
23 51. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs, as if
24 fully set forth herein.
25 52. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, violates the California Unfair Competition
— 26 Law (“UCL”) California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. The UCL prohibits
27 unfair competition by prohibiting, inter alia, any unlawful 0r unfair business acts or practices.
28
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 53. Defendant engaged in unfair competition by, inter alia, promising t0 provide
services to Plaintiff that it ultimately did not provide and making representations that those
services would be provided in return for tuition and mandatory fees collected from students.
54. Defendant wrongfully denied Plaintiff a refund 0f the tuition and mandatory
campus and student services fees, thereby injuring Plaintiff.
55. Defendant’s acts significantly threaten or harm competition. DEMAND FOR RELIEF
Therefore, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
demands judgment against Defendant for the following relief:
10 a. Certification of this action as a class action, proper and maintainable pursuant t0
11 Section 382 0f the California Code of Civil Procedure;
12 b. A declaration that Plaintiff is a proper class representative;
13 c. Appointment 0f the undersigned as Class Counsel;
14 d. Judgment that Plaintiff and the other members 0f the Class were damaged by
15 Defendant’s breach of contract;
16 e. Judgment that Defendant was unjustly enriched;
17 f. Judgment that Plaintiff s tuition and mandatory campus and student services fee
18 payments t0 Defendant should be held in a constructive trust on Plaintiff” s
19 behalf;
20 g. Judgment that Defendant wrongfully converted Plaintiff’ s tuition and mandatory
21 campus and student services fee payments;
22 h. Judgment that Defendant violated California Business and Professions Code §§
23 17200, el‘ seq.;
24 i. Compensatory, consequential, general, and punitive damages in an amount to be
25 determined at trial;
26 j. Statutory damages, treble damages, and punitive or exemplary damages, t0 the
27 extent permitted by law;
28 k. Reasonable attorneys” fees and costs, including expert fees;
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate; and
A11 such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Plaintiff demands a trial by juryW0n all claims so triable.
Dated: May 6, 2020 HECHT PARTNERS LLP LAW OFFICES OF KLARY E. PUCCI, INC.
By: /s/ Klarv E. Pucci Klary E. Pucci
Attorneys for Plaintiff MIRANDA 10 MUELLER, individually and on behalf 0f all others similarly situated. 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT