By Jeannie O'Sullivan

Law360 (April 19, 2021, 6:54 PM EDT ) Rider University urged a New Jersey state court on Monday to toss a student's proposed class action seeking tuition reimbursement after the COVID-19 pandemic forced last spring's in-person classes online, arguing that a Garden State federal court dismissed the same claims against another college last week.

During an oral argument highlighting New Jersey's pre- and post-coronavirus jurisprudence on college academic program terms, Rider University attorney Angelo A. Stio III of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP pointed to U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty's April 14 decision in Crista and Angel Dougherty v. Drew University.

Judge McNulty ruled that Drew's transition to virtual education during the 2020 school year was permitted under the school's reservation of rights clause allowing it to modify its academic program. Drew did so without breaching a contract, according to Judge McNulty's decision, which retained some fee-based claims.

"Here, Rider's reservation of rights is even stronger than Drew University's. Rider's say expressly there is no contract," Stio told Mercer County Superior Court Judge Douglas H. Hurd.

Rider also invoked Stephen Beukas et al. v. Board of Trustees of Fairleigh Dickinson University , in which the New Jersey state appeals court affirmed the dismissal of a tuition refund complaint based on the closure of a dental school, and Vanessa A. Gourdine et al. v. Felician College , in which the same court refused to revive a suit over the discontinued nursing doctorate program.

Stio noted that Judge McNulty's decision in the Drew case — the New Jersey federal court's first tuition refund class action opinion, according to court records — found that the Beukas and Gordine cases provided the appropriate standards to apply in the matter.

Like in the Dougherty case against Drew, Rider University student Joscelyn Quiroz and her father claimed that the school breached its contract and became unjustly enriched when it failed to refund tuition after it wasn't able to provide in-person instruction due to government orders.

In their November lawsuit, Quiroz and her father claimed that "remote learning options were in no way the equivalent of the in-person education that plaintiffs and the putative class members contracted and paid for."

An attorney for Quiroz, Philip L. Fraietta of Bursor & Fisher PA, argued Monday that the university acted in bad faith, not by closing the university due to the pandemic but for keeping the tuition money.

"If you bought tickets to go to Disney World and then Disney World closed down, then they can't say, 'We can keep the money' and offer Disney World on YouTube," Fraietta said.

Fraietta also argued that the Beukas case was distinguishable from Quirozes' claims because Fairleigh Dickinson assisted students by helping them find other programs and offered a tuition subsidy. He added that, unlike in Quirozes' case, the closure at the heart of the Beukas case wasn't made in the middle of the semester, so the students hadn't paid yet.

The Quirozes are represented by Philip L. Fraietta, Joseph I. Marchese and Scott A. Bursor of Bursor & Fisher PA and Sarah N. Westcot, James E. Cecchi and Caroline F. Bartlett of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC.

Rider University is represented by Angelo A. Stio III and Robyn R. English-Mezzino of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP.

The case is Joscelyn Quiroz et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Rider University, case no. MER-L-001982-20, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County.

--Editing by Steven Edelstone.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.