A recent court filing has shed light on a contentious legal battle between students and a major university system over the transition to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. On June 25, 2024, plaintiffs Andrew Pham, Ashley Chen, and Maribelle Assaad Boutros filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County against The Regents of the University of California, alleging breach of contract for failing to provide an in-person education as promised.
The plaintiffs were students at various University of California campuses when the COVID-19 pandemic forced the institution to shift all classes online in March 2020. They argue that they paid tuition and fees with the expectation of receiving an in-person, on-campus education—a promise they claim was implied through the university's marketing materials, course catalogs, and other communications. According to the complaint, these materials highlighted the benefits of campus life and in-person instruction. For instance, UCLA's promotional content emphasized that "learning occurs not only in the classroom but also through engagement in campus life," while UCSD touted its "academic programs focused on linking classroom instruction with relevant, real-world experiences."
Plaintiffs contend that their contracts with The Regents were formed when they accepted offers of enrollment and paid their tuition and fees. They allege that by transitioning to remote learning without offering refunds or equivalent compensation for lost on-campus services, The Regents breached these implied contracts. The lawsuit details how each plaintiff registered for courses expecting them to be held in specific physical locations as indicated by their schedules and course catalogs. For example, Ashley Chen's schedule explicitly stated that all her Master's classes would be held on campus at UCLA.
The plaintiffs are seeking financial damages for what they describe as an alternative product—remote learning—that deprived them of access to facilities like libraries, labs, gyms, and other essential components of their educational experience. They are also asking for a refund or partial refund of tuition and fees paid for services they did not receive due to campus closures.
In response to these allegations, The Regents argued that no specific promise was made guaranteeing in-person instruction throughout any term or academic session. They also cited an administrative review process initiated by a letter from the UC System President on June 29, 2020, which directed individual campuses to analyze the feasibility of issuing refunds for certain fees. However, this argument was not sufficient to dismiss the case entirely.
Judge Yvette M. Palazuelos presided over this case at the Superior Court level before it moved up to appeal. Representing the plaintiffs are attorneys Joel D. Smith from Bursor & Fisher and Daniel L. Warshaw along with Neil Swartzberg from Pearson Warshaw LLP. Defending The Regents are Raymond A. Cardozo and Brian A. Sutherland from Reed Smith LLP.