{"id":2065,"date":"2025-02-28T10:21:06","date_gmt":"2025-02-28T14:21:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2065"},"modified":"2025-02-28T10:21:06","modified_gmt":"2025-02-28T14:21:06","slug":"unjust-enrichment-defeated-colorado-supreme-court-rules-unjust-enrichment-class-claim-cannot-stand","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/02\/28\/unjust-enrichment-defeated-colorado-supreme-court-rules-unjust-enrichment-class-claim-cannot-stand\/","title":{"rendered":"Unjust Enrichment Defeated: Colorado Supreme Court Rules Unjust Enrichment Class Claim Cannot Stand"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Tiffany E. Alberty and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong> On February 24, 2025, in CSU Board of Governors v. Alderman, Case No. 23-SC-565, 2025 CO 9 (Colo. Feb. 24, 2025), the Colorado Supreme Court reversed <\/a>the Court of Appeals in finding that an unjust enrichment class claim over COVID-19 tuition reimbursement may proceed even though it contained the same subject matter in which a breach of contract claim was dismissed. As a result, a plaintiff cannot properly state a claim for unjust enrichment if an enforceable contract covers the same subject matter as those claims.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong>

In April 2020, Renee Alderman (\u201cAlderman\u201d) filed a putative class action against Colorado State University (\u201cCSU\u201d) in state court, accusing the university of taking tuition and student fees and failing to refund the tuition and fees, when the university was closed for six-weeks due to the pandemic in Spring of 2020, and thus breaching their contract or in the alternative, enriching itself with student money. 2025 CO 9, at 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alderman argued that CSU had a contractual obligation to provide \u201clive, in person classroom instruction in a physical classroom\u201d and \u201caccess to on-campus athletic events, on-campus computers and technology, and other in-person events\u201d in exchange for student payments inclusive of tuition and fees. Id<\/em>. at 6. However, CSU noted that it offered \u201cfully online distance-learning programs\u201d which were priced differently than in-person classes in Fort Collins.  As such, CSU moved to dismiss Alderman\u2019s complaint under 12(b)(5) \u2013 failure to state a claim, citing it had authority to temporarily<\/em> cease operations under C.R.S. \u00a7 23-30-111, which covers exigent circumstances such as in the event of \u201cthe prevalence of fatal diseases of other unforeseen calamity.\u201d Id<\/em>. at 7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, the district court agreed with CSU and dismissed the case in agreeing with the language of C.R.S. \u00a7 23-30-111, stating there was no breach because the statute allows for temporary suspensions such as that of Spring 2020. The district court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim based upon the same statute and contract, concluding it covered the same subject matter.\u00a0Id<\/em>. at 8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alderman appealed both rulings. The Colorado Court of Appeals (\u201cCOA\u201d) upheld the dismissal of the breach of contract claims but reversed the district court\u2019s ruling on the unjust enrichment claim. The COA emphasized that \u201cthe contract obligations were obviated when it invoked the statute,\u201d leaving Plaintiffs with no enforcement rights because the statute made her contract claims unenforceable. Id<\/em>. at 13. CSU then petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court on her unjust enrichment claim in July 2023, which the Supreme Court accepted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong>

The Colorado Supreme Court focused on whether an unjust enrichment claim can be properly asserted when it mirrors a contract that: (1) covers the same subject matter; and (2) remains legally enforceable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The focus on unjust enrichment was determinative a \u201cquasi-contract or contract implied-in-law that does not depend on a promise or privity between the parties,\u201d but when an unjust enrichment claim and breach of contract involve the same subject matter, it is \u201cmutually exclusive.\u201d Id<\/em>. at 18. The Supreme Court emphasized that this means \u201ca party may not assert a claim for unjust enrichment is a valid contract covers the same subject matter,\u201d which also holds true even if a party is unable to recover under the contract. Id. <\/em>at 18-19. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, there are two exceptions to this rule for unjust enrichment and same subject matter of a breach of contract: (1) when the express contract fails or (2) the claim covers matters which are outside (or arose after) the contract. Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court held that breach of contract and unjust enrichment claim involved the same subject matter (i.e.,<\/em> tuition and fees for educational services). Id<\/em>. at 19. It reasoned that the COA conflated the \u201cbreach of contract claim with the failure of the contract itself,\u201d meaning that even though Alderman\u2019s inability to prove CSU breached the contract by temporarily suspending in-person operations did not render the whole contract void or unenforceable. Id<\/em>. In sum, all other contractual rights existed between both Alderman and CSU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that Alderman\u2019s unjust enrichment arguments merely serves as \u201cgap-filler provision to provide a remedy\u201d where a contract is silent about her \u201cdesired term\u201d is not grounded in case law or principle; thus, Alderman\u2019s approach for the Court to expand its reach of unjust enrichment jurisprudence is unfounded. Id. <\/em>at 21. For these reasons, the Supreme Court opined that Alderman\u2019s unjust enrichment claims fail as a matter of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications Of The Ruling<\/strong>

The Colorado Supreme Court\u2019s ruling underscores the importance evaluating all claims raised by plaintiffs in both breach of contract and equity principles (such as unjust enrichment) to ensure those claims rise from the same subject matter to ultimate defeat the same claim raised through different legal theories at the outset of a lawsuit. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Tiffany E. Alberty and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. Duane Morris Takeaways: On February 24, 2025, in CSU Board of Governors v. Alderman, Case No. 23-SC-565, 2025 CO 9 (Colo. Feb. 24, 2025), the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in finding that an unjust enrichment class claim over COVID-19 tuition reimbursement may … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Unjust Enrichment Defeated: Colorado Supreme Court Rules Unjust Enrichment Class Claim Cannot Stand”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":685,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[43],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[121,7],"class_list":["post-2065","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-procedural-issues"],"authors":[{"term_id":121,"user_id":685,"is_guest":0,"slug":"tealberty","display_name":"Tiffany E. Alberty","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/06\/albertytiffany-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"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","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2065","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\/685"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2065"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2065\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2065"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}