Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

This case involves a dispute between the University of Rhode Island Board of Trustees and the University of Rhode Island (plaintiffs) and the Hellenic Society Paideia – Rhode Island Chapter (defendant). The dispute arose from a breach-of-contract related to the construction of a Center for Hellenic Studies at the University of Rhode Island. The plaintiffs and defendant had entered into a Ground Lease Agreement that established the parameters for this construction project. The defendant failed to construct the Center for Hellenic Studies within the agreed timeframe, leading to litigation.The Superior Court stayed the litigation pending arbitration, as per the mandate. The arbitration proceedings were held, and the arbitrator issued a decision. The arbitrator found that the defendant had breached the lease agreement by failing to construct the Center for Hellenic Studies within the requisite timeframe, among other failures. The arbitrator also determined that a joint venture did not exist between the parties. The arbitrator directed the defendant to reimburse the plaintiffs for the cost and expenses that they will incur in their efforts to restore the construction site to its prior status.The plaintiffs filed a motion in Superior Court to confirm the arbitration award, which the defendant objected to and cross-moved to vacate. The trial justice granted the plaintiffs' motion to confirm the award and denied the defendant's cross-motion to vacate. The trial justice declined to review the arbitrator’s determination that the plaintiffs properly terminated the lease agreement and rejected the defendant’s objection to the arbitral remedy.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court concluded that the arbitrator's award drew its essence from the parties' lease agreement and lacked any indication that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority. The court affirmed the trial justice's order confirming the arbitration award. View "The University of Rhode Island Board of Trustees v. Hellenic Society Paideia-Rhode Island Chapter" on Justia Law

The case involves Jennifer Sugg, a student who was dismissed from her Certified Registered Nurse Anesthesiology (CRNA) program at Midwestern University after failing several required courses. Sugg sued Midwestern University and EmergencHealth (EH), alleging breach of contract and fraud. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all causes of action, and Sugg appealed.Sugg enrolled in Midwestern's CRNA program in 2016. She failed a course in her first semester and was placed on academic leave. After retaking the course and receiving a passing grade, she was placed on academic probation due to her low GPA. Sugg later failed her first clinical rotation course and was dismissed from the program. She appealed the decision, and the dismissal was overturned so she could retake the course. However, after failing another course, she was dismissed again. Sugg appealed this decision as well, but it was upheld by the university's Promotion and Graduation Committee and the Dean of the College of Health Sciences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Midwestern University did not breach the contract as it followed its guidelines and dismissed Sugg based on her academic performance. The court also found that Sugg failed to show that the university's decision was a substantial departure from accepted academic norms. Regarding the claims against EH, the court found that EH did not interfere with Sugg's contract with Midwestern University and did not make any false or misleading statements. Therefore, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Sugg v. Midwestern University" on Justia Law

John Doe sued the University of Denver (DU) after he was expelled for allegedly engaging in nonconsensual sexual contact with another student, Jane Roe. Doe claimed that DU breached its contract with him by failing to conduct a "thorough, impartial and fair" investigation into Roe's accusation, as promised in DU's Office of Equal Opportunity Procedures (OEO Procedures). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of DU, and Doe appealed. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the lower courts that the promise in DU's OEO Procedures of a "thorough, impartial and fair" investigation, when considered with the specific investigation requirements listed in those procedures, is enforceable under contract law. The court also agreed that the record does not permit the entry of summary judgment for DU on Doe’s general contract claim or on Doe’s contract claim premised on the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, the court disagreed with the lower courts on Doe’s tort claim, holding that DU does not owe its students an extra-contractual duty to exercise reasonable care in adopting and implementing fair procedures related to the investigation and adjudication of sexual-misconduct claims. Therefore, DU is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Doe’s tort claim. View "University of Denver v. Doe" on Justia Law

The case involves John Doe, a student who was expelled from Loyola University Chicago after the university concluded that he had engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with Jane Roe, another student. Doe sued the university under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and Illinois contract law, alleging that the university discriminates against men.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Loyola. Doe appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court, however, raised questions about the use of pseudonyms by the parties and the mootness of the case, given that Doe had already graduated from another university and the usual remedy of readmission was not applicable.The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the district court to address these issues. The court questioned whether compensatory damages were an option for Doe, and if not, the case may not be justiciable. The court also questioned the use of pseudonyms, stating that while anonymity may be common in Title IX suits, it must be justified in each case. The court noted that the public has a right to know who is using their courts and that a desire to keep embarrassing information secret does not justify anonymity. The court also raised concerns about whether revealing Doe's identity would indirectly reveal Roe's identity. The court concluded that these issues should be addressed by the district court. View "Doe v. Loyola University Chicago" on Justia Law

In 2020, Luke Hogan, a graduate student at Southern Methodist University (SMU), found his final semester disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many institutions, SMU shifted to online classes in response to government lockdown orders. Hogan, feeling cheated out of the in-person educational experience he had paid for, sued SMU for breach of contract. He sought a refund of his tuition and fees, arguing that the shift to online learning constituted a breach of SMU's promise of in-person education.The federal district court sided with SMU, and Hogan appealed. The Fifth Circuit then certified a question to the Supreme Court of Texas: Does the application of the Pandemic Liability Protection Act (PLPA) to Hogan’s breach-of-contract claim violate the retroactivity clause in article I, section 16 of the Texas Constitution? The PLPA, enacted in 2021, protects schools from monetary liability for altering their activities in response to the pandemic.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the application of the PLPA to Hogan's claim does not violate the Texas Constitution's prohibition on retroactive laws. The court reasoned that Hogan did not have a settled expectation of recovering damages from SMU under these circumstances. The court noted that the common law has traditionally excused a party from performing a contract when performance is rendered impossible by an act of God or government. The court also pointed out that Hogan voluntarily accepted SMU's offer to complete his degree online without a corresponding offer of tuition refunds or reduced fees. Therefore, any right of recovery that might have existed for Hogan was speculative and untested prior to the PLPA's enactment. The court concluded that the PLPA, enacted to resolve legal uncertainty created by the pandemic, did not upset Hogan's settled expectations and thus did not violate the constitutional prohibition on retroactive laws. View "HOGAN v. SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY" on Justia Law

A medical resident, Dr. Jacquelyn Mares, was dismissed from Wright State University’s (WSU) obstetrics and gynecology residency program due to ongoing complaints and escalating disciplinary actions related to her unprofessional behavior. Following her dismissal, Mares was also terminated from her position at Miami Valley Hospital, where she was employed during her residency. As a result, Mares sued WSU, the hospital, its owner-operator Premier Health Partners, and several WSU employees, alleging violations of her procedural and substantive due process rights, as well as various contract-based state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.In its ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that WSU did not violate Mares' procedural due process rights when it dismissed her from the residency program. The court found that WSU had followed its internal procedures closely and that Mares was afforded more than enough process. Also, the court held that WSU did not violate Mares' substantive due process rights. It determined that WSU's decision to dismiss her was not arbitrary or capricious, nor was it conscience-shocking. Finally, the court held that Miami Valley Hospital did not breach its contractual duties when it terminated Mares after her dismissal from WSU’s residency program. The court concluded that the hospital acted within the scope of the employment contract. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to grant the defendants' summary judgment. View "Mares v. Miami Valley Hospital" on Justia Law

In a dispute between tenured faculty members and Tufts University, the faculty members alleged that the university's policies requiring them to cover half of their salary with external research funding and reducing their laboratory space violated their tenure rights to economic security and academic freedom. These policies, instituted between 2016 and 2019, led to a decrease in the plaintiffs' salaries and full-time status, and their laboratory space was reduced or closed entirely when they failed to meet the external funding requirements.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts noted that tenure contracts are defined by their specific terms and must be understood in the context of the academic community's norms and expectations. The court found that the term "economic security" in the tenure contracts was ambiguous and further evidence was needed to determine whether the reductions in salary and full-time status violated the economic security provided in the tenure contracts. However, the court concluded that neither economic security nor academic freedom guaranteed the plaintiffs specific lab space.The court reversed the lower court's judgment in favor of Tufts on the compensation policies, remanding the case for further proceedings. However, it affirmed the lower court's judgment that the laboratory space guidelines did not violate the plaintiffs' tenure rights. The court also left unresolved the plaintiffs' claims under the Wage Act, as it was dependent on the outcome of the compensation dispute. View "Wortis v. Trustees of Tufts College" on Justia Law

In the case, a group of students from the University of San Francisco (USF) sued the university for breach of contract, alleging that the university did not deliver on its promise to provide in-person instruction and should refund a portion of their tuition fees due to the transition to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three affirmed the trial court's decision, which granted USF's motion for summary adjudication, concluding that the students failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether USF promised to provide exclusively in-person instruction.The court determined that there was an implied-in-fact contract between USF and the student appellants, established through matriculation and the payment of tuition. However, the court found that the contract did not explicitly promise exclusively in-person instruction. The court also distinguished between general expectations of in-person classes and enforceable contractual promises for exclusively in-person instruction. The court held that the students failed to establish a breach of contract based on the transition to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.The court further held that the students could not pursue quasi-contract claims, as a valid and enforceable contract existed between the students and USF. The students' promissory estoppel claim also failed, as they did not establish any clear and unequivocal promises from USF for in-person instruction. The court stated that the record did not reflect any such promise.The court dismissed the students' claims relating to the Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 semesters, as they were aware these semesters would be conducted either entirely remotely or in a hybrid format prior to enrolling or paying tuition for those semesters. Thus, the students could not reasonably have believed USF contractually promised to provide in-person education for these semesters. View "Berlanga v. University of San Francisco" on Justia Law

The case involves Pablo Abreu, a student who was expelled from Howard University College of Medicine. Abreu appealed his expulsion, arguing that the university violated his rights under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1972 by refusing to grant him additional opportunities to retake a required examination, in light of his diagnosed test-taking-anxiety disability. The district court dismissed his complaint, applying a one-year statute of limitations and ruling that his claims were time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed with the lower court's application of a one-year statute of limitations to Abreu’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. The court pointed to its decision in another case, Stafford v. George Washington University, in which it concluded that a three-year statute of limitations should apply to civil rights claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since Abreu's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims were also civil rights claims alleging discrimination, the court ruled that the three-year statute of limitations should apply. This made Abreu’s claims timely since he filed the suit less than three years after his expulsion.The court then remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. However, it affirmed the dismissal of Abreu's contractual claims, agreeing with the district court that Abreu failed to state a claim for breach of contract. View "Abreu v. Howard University" on Justia Law

In this case, a doctor, Dr. Gabriel Fine, sued the University of Utah School of Medicine, alleging that the University deprived him of his clinical privileges without following the procedures required by its bylaws. The University moved for summary judgment, pointing to a provision in its bylaws where Dr. Fine had agreed not to sue "for any matter relating to appointment, reappointment, clinical privileges, or the individual’s qualifications for the same." The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the University, agreeing that Dr. Fine had released his claims against the University.Dr. Fine appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred in interpreting the release to apply to his case. He asserted that the release only applied to actions taken during a formal review process and his claims arose from actions taken during an informal process.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah disagreed with Dr. Fine's argument. The court interpreted the release using its traditional tools of contract interpretation and found no textual justification for limiting the release's application only to actions taken during the formal review process. The court held that Dr. Fine’s claims against the University fell within the scope of the release and therefore affirmed the district court's decision. View "Fine v. University of Utah" on Justia Law