21

- 353

- cv Madej v. Yale University



## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT


# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’ S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NO TATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ” ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 2 New York, on the 1 0 t h da y of M a r c h , two thousand twenty

- two

. 3 4 PRESENT: 5 PIERRE N. LEVAL , 6 MICHAEL H. PARK , 7 MYRNA PÉREZ
, 8 Circuit Judges. 9

_____________________________________ 10 11 JAKUB JONASZ MADEJ , 12 13 Plaintiff

- Appellant , 14 15

v. 21

- 353 16 17 YALE UNIVERSITY , MARVIN CHUN , 18 MARK SCHENKER , PETER SALOVEY , 19 JESSIE ROYCE HILL , 20 21 Defendant s -

Appellees

. 22 23

_____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PLAINTIFF

- APPELLANT: Jakub Madej
, pro se , Milford
, 26 CT

. 27 28 FOR DEFENDANTS

- APPELLEES: Patrick M. Noonan
, Donahue, 29 Durham & Noonan, PC, 30 Guilford
, CT

. 312 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Cou rt for the District of Connecticut 1
( Hall
, J

. )

. 2

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 3

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. 4
Jakub Madej, a former Yale College student proceeding pro se , sued Yale University
, as 5

well as its president and various deans ( together, “ Defendants”) , after he was involuntarily 6
withdrawn from Yale’s undergraduate program for failing a class while on A cademic W arning. 7
In his suit, Madej asserted claims of fraudulent misrepr esentation, fraud, negligence, breach of 8

contract, and interference with contract , all stemming from his involuntary withdrawal from Yale

. 9
The district court permitted Madej to amend his complaint twice, but eventually granted 10

Defendants’ motion to dismis s the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Madej 11
did not ask to amend his complaint for a third time

. The district court then dismissed Madej’s 12
claims with prejudice because he had already amended twice and because Defendants would be 13
prejudiced by further delay. On appeal, Madej argues that the district court (1) erred by 14
dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim
, (2) abused its discretion by failing to grant 15

him l eave to amend a third time , and (3) abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with 16
prejudice sua sponte

. We assume the parties ’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 17
history, and the issues on appeal

. 18

I. Failure to State a Claim 19

First , the district court did not err by dismissing Madej’s complaint for failure to state a 20

claim. We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6 )

. See Darby v. 21

Greenman , 14 F.4th 124, 127 (2d Cir. 2021)

. To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must 223 plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 1
Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 2
(“[Although] a c ourt must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint,” this tenet 3
is “inapplicable to legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action 4
. . . do not suffice.”). 5
Madej’s second amended complaint contained five causes of action: (1) fraudulent 6
misrepresentation
, (2) fraud
, (3) breach of contract
, (4) negligence
, and (5) interference with 7

contract. We agree with the district court that Madej failed to plausibly allege these claims. 8

A. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Fraud Claims 9
The elements of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud under Connecticut law are 10
essentially identical: “(1) a false representation was made as a statement of fact; (2) it was untrue 11
and known to be untrue by the party making it; (3) it was made to induce the other party to act 12
upon it; and (4) the other party did so act upon the false representation to his injury.” Manzo

- Ill 13

v. Schoonmaker , 204 A.3d 1207, 1211 n.5 (Con n. App. Ct. 2019 ) ( citation omitted) (fraudulent 14
misrepresentation); accord Longbottom v. Longbottom , 231 A.3d 310, 316 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020) 15
(fraud). 16
Madej alleged that Mark Schenker, C hairman of the Committee on Honors and Academic 17
Standing (the “Committ ee”)
, made the following false statements in emails and a letter informing 18
Madej that the Committee had denied his petition appealing his involuntary withdrawal : (1) “ the 19
Committee on Honors and Academic Standing met on January 13, 2020 and voted without d issent 20
not to approve Madej’s petition
, ” App’x 36 ; (2) “ the Committee . . . is made up of tenured and 21

non

- tenured members of the Yale College Faculty, representatives of the Yale College Dean’s 22
Office, and undergraduate students
, ” id . at 37 ; and (3) “each of the members of the Committee 234 received requisite documents before the alleged meeting
, ” id

. Madej also alleged that Yale made 1
the following fraudulent statements on its website: (1) “ matters related . . . to withdrawals from 2
Yale College were considered and adjudicated by [the] Committee on Honors and Academic 3
Standing, a deliberative body within Yale College
, ” id . at 40 ; (2) “the Committee meets about 4
twice a month during the regular academic year
, ” id . (internal quotation marks omitted) ; and 5
(3) “the Committee is composed of representatives of the Yale College Dean’s Office, tenured and 6

non

- tenured faculty members, as well as undergraduate students
, ” id

. 7
Madej asserted that these statements “created a misleading impression that a collect ive 8
body existed within Yale College that was charged with adjudicating Madej’s application” and 9
that they were made to prevent Madej from discovering that Schenker was actually the only 10

Committee member. Id . at 38. According to Madej, Schenker repeated the false statements to 11
Yale’s registrar and knew that Madej would not be able to challenge the statements because he 12
had to leave the country after being withdrawn. 1 As a result, Madej suffered unspecified 13
“damages in an amount to be proven at trial.” Id . at 39. 14
The district court did not err in dismissing these claims

. E ven assuming that these 15

statements about the Committee’s make

- up and decision process were unt rue and that Defendants 16
knew they were untrue, Madej failed to plausibly allege how the statements induced him to act or 17
injured him. See Manzo

- Ill , 204 A.3d at 1211 n.5; Longbottom , 231 A.3d at 316. Although 18
Madej alleged that the statements prevented h im from contesting his withdrawal earlier, that claim 19

is in tension with Madej’s own claim that he acted expediently to contest his withdrawal as soon 20
as he became aware of it and availed himself of the Committee’s processes. He did not allege 21

1 According to Madej’s operative complaint, he was in the United States on a student visa and he thus had to leave the country within 15 days after being withdrawn from Yale.5 what other action he could have taken but for the alleged falsities. Moreover, Madej’s claim that 1
he suffered money damages was conclusory

— he offered no explanation how the statements 2

caused any such injury. See Ashcroft , 556 U.S. at 678 (“Threadbare recitals of th e elements of a 3
cause of action . . . do not suffice” to state a claim.). Thus, Madej failed to state a claim for 4
fraudulent misrepresentation or fraud. 5

B. Breach of Contract Claim 6
Connecticut law recognizes “ a cause of action for institutional breach of a contract for 7

educational services” where the plaintiff makes a showing that “the educational institution failed 8
to fulfil[l] a specific contractual promise distinct from any overall obligation to offer a reasonable 9

program.” Gupta v. New Britain Gen

. Hosp

. , 687 A.2d 111, 119

– 20 (Conn. 1996)

. 10
Madej alleged that Yale breached a contract that had purportedly been formed upon his 11

enrollment by “ not implement[ing] any procedures or policies to provide procedural safeguards to 12
student[s] who have been in the p rocess of being involuntarily withdrawn from Yale.” App’x 42. 13
Madej alleged that Yale further breached that contract by “not following or disclosing guidelines 14
for protecting [Madej’s] fundamental rights,” which breached “ the implied covenant of good fai th 15
and fair dealing. ” Id . at 42

– 43. Finally, Madej asserted that Yale breached by “failing to provide 16
[Madej] with timely information he needed to make reasonable decisions regarding his academic 17

choices
, ” “creating [a] hostile atmosphere in his resident ial college
, where he felt alienated and 18
unwelcome by his college dean
, ” “providing conflicting, illogical answers to all questions 19
regarding his [ involuntary withdrawal] situation, and refusing to provide reasonable support
, ” and 20
“refusing to consider whe ther the Committee’s decision [wa]s arbitrary, [or] supported by the 21

evidence
, and not providing any way to request such action.” Id

. 22
Even accepting these allegations as true, they fail to state a breach of contract claim under 236 Connecticut law because Madej did not allege that his contract with Yale included a specific 1
promise that the school would provide such information or processes. Instead, he merely alleged 2

that “[i]t is well

- settled that a relationship between a student and a university in which he enrolls 3
is contractual in nature,” and “[a] material part of that contract is the conditions, procedures, and 4
policies in which a student may be involuntarily withdrawn from the university.” App’ x 42. 5
Madej point s to no specific contractual promise that Yale allegedly breached, so his breach of 6

contract claim fails. See , e.g. , Faigel v. Fairfield Univ. , 815 A.2d 140, 144 ( Conn. 2003) (holding 7
alleged promise that plaintiff “would be allowed ‘man y credits’ from her prior engineering studies 8
. . . is too imprecise to qualify for consideration as a ‘specific contractual promise’”). 9

C. Negligence Claim 10

“ The essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are . . . duty; breach of that duty; 11
causation; and actual injury.” Osborn v. City of Waterbury , 220 A.3d 1, 6 (Conn. 2019). A 12

negligence claim against a university is cognizable 

### “ [i]f the duty al leged to have been breached is 13

the common

- law duty not to cause physical injury by negligent conduct,” Doe v. Yale Univ. , 748 14

A. 2 d 834, 847 (Conn. 2000)

. 15
Madej alleged that D efendants were negligent when they knowingly failed to adopt a 16

“ mechanism or avenu e for appeal” of his involuntary withdrawal. App’x 44. This failure 17
allegedly breached several duties of care
, including: (1) the “duty to provide him with information 18

that might materially impact [ his academic choices ]
, ” (2) the “duty to protect him fro m reasonable 19

harm, ” and (3) t he “duty of reasonable care. ” Id

. But none of these allegations amount s to a 20

breach of “the common

- law duty not to cause physical injury by negligent conduct.” Doe , 748 21

A. 2 d at 847. Moreover, Madej does not allege that he suffered physical injury due to D efendants’ 22
failure to implement adequate processes for contesting with drawal. Thus, Madej failed to state a 237 negligence claim. 1
To the extent that Madej claims that he asserted a claim for negligent infliction of emotional 2

distress, he also failed to state a claim. A negligent infliction of emotional distress claim requires 3
a showing that “(1) the defendant’s conduct created an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff 4
emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s distress was foreseeable; (3) the emotional distress was severe 5
enough that it might result in illness or bodily harm; and (4) the defendant’s conduct was the cause 6
of the plaintiff’s distress.” Carrol v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 815 A.2d 119, 127 (Conn. 2003). Madej 7
alleged that “Defendants knew that [Madej] had been treated for depression, and that [he] 8
reasonably relie d on their duty to protect him from harm.” App’x 44. He further alleged that 9
“[a] reasonable person would have suffered severe emotional distress under the same or similar 10

circumstances.” Id

. Accepting these allegations as true, they are conclusory and do not 11
sufficiently address injury. T he district court thus correctly determined that Madej failed to state 12

a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. 13

D. Interference with Contract Claim 14
“A claim for intentional interference with contractual relations requires the plaintiff to 15
establish: (1) the existence of a contractual or beneficial relationship; (2) the defendant’s 16
knowledge of that relationship; (3) the defendant’s intent to interfere with the relationship; (4) that 17
the interference was tortious; and (5) a loss suffered by the plaintiff that was caused by the 18

defendant’s tortious conduct.” Bai Haiyan v. Hamden Public Schs. , 875 F. Supp. 2d 109, 133 (D. 19
Conn. 2012). 20
Madej alleged that he “was in an employment contract with Professor Edward A. Snyder” 21

while enrolled at Yale and that “Mark Schenker knew about [Madej’s] contract because [he] 22
specifically indicated so in his petition [to the Committee] .” App’x 44 . Madej also alleged that 238 “Mark Schenker engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation” and “acted with reckless disregard to 1
[Madej’s] employment and cause[d] its termination,” and that “[h]ad it not been for Schenker’s 2
conduct, Madej would not have suffered a loss of employment and em ployment authorization.” 3

Id . at 45. 4
Missing from the complaint is an allegation that any D efendant intended to interfere with 5
Madej’s employment contract, an essential element of an intentional interference with contractual 6

relations claim. See Bai Hai yan , 875 F. Supp. 2d at 133. Madej thus failed to state a claim for 7

interference with contract

. 8

II. Leave to Amend 9

Second
, Madej argues that the district court abused its discretion by not granting him leave 10

to amend his complaint for the third time. We generally review the denial of leave to amend for 11

abuse of discretion. See Pasternak v. Shrader , 86 3 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2017). Although 12
courts “should freely give leave when justice so requires,” Fed. R. C iv. P. 15(a)(2), it “may 13
properly be denied for

. . . ‘undue delay, . . . repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 14
previously allowed, [or] undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 15

amendment .’” Ruotolo v. City of New York , 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Foman v. 16

Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 17

The district court did not abuse its discretion because Madej never requested leave to 18
amend his complaint for a third time

. E ven if he had done so, the district court would have acted 19
well within its discretion by declining the request . The district court had already permitted Madej 20

to amend his complaint twic e, but he still failed to state plausible claims for relief despite h aving 21
the benefit of some discovery, the district court’s ruling on Madej’s preliminary injunction motion, 22

and review of Defendants’ first motion to dismiss. See Ruotolo , 514 F.3d at 191 ; Bellikoff v. 239 Eaton Vance Corp. , 481 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2007) (n o abuse of discretion in denying leave to 1
amend where plaintiff had “two previous opportunities” to do so). Moreover, granting leave to 2

amend would unduly prejudice D efendants by further delay ing the litigation. See id

. 3

III. Sua Sponte Dismissal with Prejudice 4

Third
, Madej argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint 5
with prejudice sua sponte

. We ordinarily review a district court’s decision to dismiss with 6
prejudice for abuse of discretion. See Grain Traders, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A. , 160 F.3d 97, 106 (2d 7
Cir. 1998). Madej argues that the district court abused its discretion because D efendants had not 8

reques ted dismissal with prejudice, and because he never amended in bad faith or “with the benefit 9
of a ruling.” Even if Madej never amended in bad faith, he did amend with the benefit of 10
discovery, the order resolving the preliminary injunction motion, and Def endants’ first motion to 11

dismiss
, and he still failed to state a claim

. Madej points to no authority suggesting that a court’s 12
dismissal with prejudice sua sponte is in itself improper , and we do not conclude that it was an 13

abuse of discretion in these circumstances

. 14

* * * 15 16 We have considered Madej’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. 17
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 18

FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 20