{"id":201,"date":"2022-11-28T10:45:01","date_gmt":"2022-11-28T14:45:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=201"},"modified":"2023-12-01T17:36:27","modified_gmt":"2023-12-01T21:36:27","slug":"ohio-state-wins-more-than-just-games-as-the-ohio-court-of-appeals-reverses-class-certification-in-favor-of-the-university","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2022\/11\/28\/ohio-state-wins-more-than-just-games-as-the-ohio-court-of-appeals-reverses-class-certification-in-favor-of-the-university\/","title":{"rendered":"Ohio State Wins More Than Just Games, As The Ohio Court of Appeals Reverses Class Certification In Favor Of The University"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Shaina Wolfe<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Synopsis<\/em><\/strong> – <\/strong>In Smith v. Ohio State University<\/em>, 2022-Ohio-4101 (Ohio App. Nov. 17, 2022), The Ohio State University successfully appealed an Ohio Court of Claim\u2019s (\u201c\"\"<\/a>trial court\u201d) Order granting class certification in a lawsuit brought by a former undergraduate student.\u00a0 The former student alleged that when the university only offered online classes due to COVID-19, it breached its contract by keeping all the tuition payments from her and other students without giving them the robust in-person experience promised when they initially paid their tuition bills.\u00a0 The Ohio Court of Appeals held<\/a> that while the trial court has broad discretion in granting class certification, it failed to determine proof of injury and economic damages relative to the former student and potential class members.\u00a0 In crafting a class certification defense strategy, especially in a breach of contract case where the injury and damages typically are in play, employers should focus on the lawsuit basics when opposing class certification, i.e.,<\/em> demanding that plaintiffs show causation and injury in fact.<\/p>\n

Case Background <\/strong><\/p>\n

Plaintiff, a former college student, filed a lawsuit alleging that Defendant, The Ohio State University (\u201cOSU\u201d), breached its contract and received unjust enrichment in Spring 2020 by failing to partially refund students their tuition and fees after transitioning from their robust, in-person education to \u201csubpar\u201d online education during COVID-19.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 4-5.<\/p>\n

In June 2021, Plaintiff moved for class certification.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 5.\u00a0 After briefing and oral argument, the trial court granted Plaintiff\u2019s motion and certified a class consisting of all undergraduate students enrolled in classes at Defendant\u2019s Columbus campus during the Spring 2020 semester. Notably, the trial court found that the class suffered the same injury, i.e.,<\/em> losing the benefit of in-person classes and access to the campus.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 9-10.<\/p>\n

In appealing the trial court\u2019s decision, Defendant raised several arguments for why the trial court\u2019s decision was incorrect. Significantly, Defendant\u2019s main, and ultimately successful, arguments focused on the trial court\u2019s failure to conduct the \u201crigorous analysis\u201d required by Ohio Civil Rule 23 (like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23) in determining whether Plaintiff had satisfied the prerequisites for class certification.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 10-11.<\/p>\n

The Court Of Appeals\u2019 Ruling Reversing Class Action Certification<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ohio Court of Appeals agreed with Defendant and reversed the trial court\u2019s order granting class certification for three reasons.<\/p>\n

First, the Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of an economic injury.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 17-18.\u00a0 Instead, the trial court simply assumed that a \u201cbenefit\u201d was lost based only on the fact Defendant closed its campus and switched to remote classes and services in response to the pandemic.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 18.<\/p>\n

Second, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court failed to consider Defendant\u2019s arguments and evidence contesting proof of injury.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 18-19.\u00a0 Defendant submitted an expert report that included evidence that students paid the same for in-person and online learning and that the in-person teaching modality carried the possibility of substantial remote instruction even in a normal semester.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 19. Meanwhile, Plaintiff submitted no expert testimony regarding how and or whether other students were injured in this case.\u00a0 Id.<\/em>\u00a0 Indeed, Plaintiff\u2019s expert\u2019s report excluded any survey questions or consideration of market preferences during an emergency such as the pandemic that forced the closure.\u00a0 Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

Third, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court\u2019s analysis of Plaintiff\u2019s unjust enrichment claim was merely folded into the same generalized injury analysis without any individualized consideration.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 19-20.<\/p>\n

In holding that the trial abused its discretion, the Court of Appeals reasoned that, \u201c[t]he trial court, in assuming an injury from the fact of closure and termination of in-person classes, did not assess these complicated and difficult considerations, particularly as they relate to whether [Plaintiff] presented any common evidence \u2014 or even a method to possibly determine \u2014 that class members suffered an economic injury considering the effect of the pandemic.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 20.\u00a0 Further, the Court of Appeals opined that \u201chaving accepted the closure of campus and temporary termination of in-person classes and services as an injury per se, and having failed to consider how the pandemic affects class certification in this case at all, the trial court did not undertake a rigorous analysis with respect to the number and nature of individualized inquires that might be necessary to establish liability with respect to both tuition and fees.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

Implications<\/strong><\/p>\n

In class actions asserting breach of contract claims, it is not uncommon for plaintiffs to seek class certification before developing their case through affidavits from other individuals and expert testimony.\u00a0 Employers can use this to their advantage by attacking causation and damages. This strategy may not only hinder a plaintiff from notifying potentially thousands of other putative class members of the claims, but also potentially saving money through limited discovery.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Shaina Wolfe Duane Morris Synopsis – In Smith v. Ohio State University, 2022-Ohio-4101 (Ohio App. Nov. 17, 2022), The Ohio State University successfully appealed an Ohio Court of Claim\u2019s (\u201ctrial court\u201d) Order granting class certification in a lawsuit brought by a former undergraduate student.\u00a0 The former student … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Ohio State Wins More Than Just Games, As The Ohio Court of Appeals Reverses Class Certification In Favor Of The University”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[50,44],"ppma_author":[7,9],"class_list":["post-201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-certification-motions","tag-class-action","tag-class-certification"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Riley","first_name":"Jennifer A.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/jenniferriley.html","description":"Read Jennifer's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}