United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Darnell Jones, II J.
David Levin brings the above-captioned action against
Defendant Strayer University, LLC (“Strayer”),
alleging Misrepresentation/Fraud (Count I),
“Contract” (Count II), and violations of Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (Count III).
Plaintiff's claims center around an alleged oral
“promise” made by Strayer through Strayer
personnel, in which said personnel said the University would
provide him with job placement services after graduation in
exchange for his enrollment. Currently before this Court is
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's
Motion shall be granted and Plaintiff shall be granted leave
about February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Specifically, Plaintiff
asserted claims against Strayer for Misrepresentation / Fraud
(Count I), Punitive Damages (Count II), and
“Contract” (Count III). On February 28, 2018,
Strayer removed the matter to this Court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On
March 6, 2018, Strayer filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) and in response, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint alleging Misrepresentation/Fraud (Count I),
“Contract” (Count II), and violations of Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (Count III). The
instant Motion followed.
2009, Plaintiff enrolled in one of Strayer's campuses
located in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. (Am. Compl. ¶
3.) In 2013, Plaintiff took a three-semester hiatus to
recuperate from injuries sustained in a motor vehicle
accident. (Am. Compl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff re-enrolled in
2014, at which time he was informed that the course
requirements had changed and he was required to complete
additional courses that were not a part of the 2009
curriculum. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5-6.)
alleges that a major reason he initially enrolled at Strayer
was based on an oral promise made to him by personnel on
behalf of Strayer that the University would assist Plaintiff
with job placement services after graduation. (Am. Compl.
¶¶ 9, 21.) However, upon graduating, Plaintiff
attempted to obtain job placement services from Strayer and
was informed that the University did not offer same. (Compl.
¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges Strayer was aware of his
reliance on this information and knowingly made these false
representations to convince him and other students to enroll
in order to increase enrollment statistics and enrich
Strayer. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15-17, 30.) As a result,
Plaintiff alleges he incurred financial detriment and loss in
the form of at least $77, 793.00 in debt and several thousand
dollars in “other” expenses. (Am. Compl.
Standard of Review
deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
courts must accept all factual allegations as true, construe
the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,
and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the
complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233
(3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
After the Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). This
standard asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Accord Fowler v. UPMC
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009)
(“[A]ll civil complaints must contain more than an
accusation.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
preliminary matter, Defendant argues its Motion should be
treated as unopposed because Plaintiff failed to file his
response in a timely manner. Def.'s Reply Mot. Dismiss
2.) Although Local Rule 7.1(c) permits the court to treat
Strayer's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint as
uncontested, it shall not do so in this case. E.D. Pa. R.
Civ. P. 7.1(c). Plaintiff's opposition was filed on April
17, 2018, six days after the fourteen (14) day deadline. A
court may deny a request that a motion be treated as
unopposed if the untimely briefing “is helpful to our
determination of the issues in [the] matter.” See
McNiff v. Asset Mgmt. Specialists, Inc., 337 F.Supp.2d
685, 687 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 2004). As considering the untimely
opposition assists this Court in reaching a determination
regarding the instant Motion and results in no prejudice to
Defendant, this Court shall deny Defendant's request to
treat its Motion as unopposed.
Count I: ...