Nguyen v. Stephens Institute

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Nguyen v. Stephens Institute

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DUY NGUYEN, Case No. 20-cv-04195-JSW Plaintiff, 11 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. REGARDING STANDING 13 STEPHENS INSTITUTE D/B/A ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY and 14 DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. 15 16 Article III of the Constitution requires courts to adjudicate only actual cases or 17 controversies. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “A suit brought by a plaintiff without Article III 18 standing is not a ‘case or controversy,’ and an Article III federal court therefore lacks subject 19 matter jurisdiction over the suit.” Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush,

386 F.3d 1169, 1174

(9th Cir. 2004) 20 (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment,

523 U.S. 83, 101

(1998)). A plaintiff must 21 clearly allege facts demonstrating each element.

Id.

22 Plaintiff, a student at the Academy of Art University, must support his allegation that he 23 was injured as a result of the school’s alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff claims that he suffered 24 harm as a result of his on-campus classes going online in Spring 2020 due to the shut-down during 25 the COVID-19 pandemic and San Francisco’s shelter-in-place order which prohibited universities 26 from providing in-person instruction. In his complaint, Plaintiff maintains that he was harmed by 27 1 Spring Semester 2020.” (Dkt. No. 1, Complaint ¶ 57.) He further alleges that Defendants are 2 required “to return pro-rata shares of the tuition and fees paid by Plaintiff and Class Members that 3 related to services that were not provided for after Academy of Art University shut down on or 4 around March 11, 2020.” (Id. ¶ 58.) 5 In the course of the parties’ briefing on the pending motion for class certification, however, 6 it became clear that the undergraduate students enrolled at the school paid the same tuition rate for 7 on-campus and online courses – which during the 2019-2020 academic year was $963 per 8 unit/hour. (See Dkt. No. 63-6, Declaration of Jacob Shorter, Ex. 5, Spring 2020 Catalog 9 Addendum at AAU-000045.) Neither the students nor the school differentiated the price or value 10 of tuition based on whether the classes were held in-person or online. 11 In addition, in Spring of 2020, Defendant charged a $30 Student Activity Fee to offset 12 costs of various campus-based services, facilities, and activities. (Id. at AAU-000046.) It is also 13 evident that Defendant credited students the $30 Student Activity fee when the school went 14 entirely online and Plaintiff himself admits that he received reimbursement. (Id., Ex. 10, 15 Admission No. 6.) 16 Lastly, the only other measure of damages are course fees which varied significantly 17 among the courses depending upon the content of the required coursework and specific activities 18 and equipment needed to complete course projects. (Id. at Ex. 7, Spring 2020 Course Fees and 19 Prerequisites at AAU-005139-5301.) 20 If there is no difference in the cost of a unit of tuition between online and in-person classes 21 and the Student Activity Fee was returned, the only remaining claim for damages would be 22 Defendant’s alleged failure to reimburse course fees. It is unclear whether Plaintiff would be 23 qualified to receive reimbursement for course fees as he failed to request reimbursement. It is also 24 clear from the record before the Court on class certification that the measure of those course fee 25 damages varies significantly from course to course and may not present sufficient basis for class- 26 wide treatment. 27 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing by no later 1 pursue his only remaining claim for breach of contract. See, e.g., Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,

578 U.S. 2

|| 330, 338 (2016) (holding that to establish standing, a plaintiff must show he “(1) suffered an 3 || injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is 4 |} likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”). Defendant may file a response by no 5 later than September 13, 2023. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: August 24, 2023 \ | he / AL 9 i j eo i / JEFEFILEY S. WAITE 10 | / United States Bistrict Judge 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown