Court Opinion

ID: 9412433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 13:01:41.312083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:22.537193
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10299    Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/31/2023   Page: 1 of 17

                                                              [PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-10299
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        ADELAIDE DIXON,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket Nos. 0:20-cv-60851-AHS,
                               1:20-cv-22594-AHS
USCA11 Case: 23-10299      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/31/2023     Page: 2 of 17

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10299

                             ____________________

        Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
        WILSON, Circuit Judge:
               This suit is one of many filed in the wake of the COVID-19
        pandemic. As the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread across the country in
        the spring of 2020, universities transitioned to remote, online learn-
        ing. The University of Miami (Miami), a private institution, was
        no exception. Adelaide Dixon filed suit against Miami, alleging the
        school should refund a portion of the payments that she made for
        the Spring 2020 semester, since she did not receive the expected
        benefit of in-person learning. Dixon marshals a number of claims,
        including breach of express contract, breach of implied contract,
        and unjust enrichment.
               Miami filed a motion for summary judgment on each of
        Dixon’s claims, which the district court granted in full. In re Univ.
        of Mia. COVID-19 Tuition & Fee Refund Litig., No. 20-60851, 2022
        WL 18034457 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2022). For the reasons below, we
        affirm.
                                  I. Background
        A. The Disputed Conduct
               In the spring of 2020, Dixon lived in an on-campus dormi-
        tory at Miami. On March 1, 2020, in response to COVID-19’s rapid
        spread, Florida’s Governor issued Executive Order 20-51, which di-
        rected the State Health Officer and Surgeon General to declare a
        public health emergency. About a week later, on March 9, the
USCA11 Case: 23-10299     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 07/31/2023    Page: 3 of 17

        23-10299              Opinion of the Court                       3

        Governor issued Executive Order 20-52, formally declaring a state
        of emergency in Florida.
               At that time, Dixon and other Miami students were on
        spring break, which was scheduled to end on March 15. However,
        taking into account the pandemic’s expansion and the Governor’s
        executive orders, Miami informed its students on March 12 that it
        was extending spring break through March 22. Miami further in-
        formed its students that it would transition to “distance learning”
        when classes resumed on March 23. At first, distance learning was
        scheduled through at least April 4.
               Then, on March 19, Miami-Dade County’s Mayor issued
        Emergency Order 7-20, which ordered Miami to close its campus,
        remaining open “only as needed to facilitate online or distance
        learning.” Later, this Order was amended to permit residence halls
        to remain open “to the extent needed to accommodate students
        who cannot return to their homes.” See Amendment No. 1 to Mi-
        ami Dade County Emergency Order 07-20 (Mar. 19, 2020). On
        March 30, the Florida Governor issued Executive Order 20-89,
        which essentially adopted the Miami-Dade County Order, thus re-
        quiring the closure of Miami’s campus for all purposes other than
        the facilitation of online learning and providing housing for stu-
        dents who could not travel home.
               On March 25, between the issuance of the Miami-Dade
        County and State of Florida Orders, Miami began closing on-cam-
        pus housing, which resulted in Dixon moving home. Miami tran-
        sitioned to online learning for the remainder of the Spring 2020
USCA11 Case: 23-10299      Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 07/31/2023     Page: 4 of 17

        4                      Opinion of the Court                23-10299

        semester. Dixon remained enrolled at Miami throughout the
        spring semester; earned the credits for which she paid; and, when
        given the choice, opted to take her classes online the following fall
        semester.
               On April 29, 2020, Miami announced that it would provide
        students with a prorated refund for the fees and services that could
        not be provided during the remote learning period. Those refunds
        included fees paid to Miami for housing, dining, parking, student
        and wellness center usage, counseling, athletic fees, and various
        student activities.
               Dixon alleges that she had either an express or implied con-
        tract with Miami that required the university to provide an in-per-
        son education, and Miami breached that contract when it transi-
        tioned to remote learning. Alternatively, Dixon alleges that Miami
        was unjustly enriched by taking her payments and transitioning to
        an online format. As to the fees that Miami refunded, Dixon con-
        tends they were insufficient.
        B. Procedural History
               Dixon’s case was consolidated with other class action suits
        against Miami in the Southern District of Florida. Four co-plaintiffs
        filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and Miami subse-
        quently filed a motion to dismiss. The district court determined
        that two of the plaintiffs—who were parents of Miami students—
        lacked standing, but otherwise let the case proceed. Following dis-
        covery, Miami filed a motion for summary judgment on the
USCA11 Case: 23-10299        Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 07/31/2023       Page: 5 of 17

        23-10299                 Opinion of the Court                             5

        remaining claims, which the district court granted in its entirety.
        Dixon timely appealed. 1
                                II. Standard of Review
               “We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment
        de novo, viewing all facts and drawing all inferences in the light
        most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Ilias v. USAA Gen. Indem.
        Co., 61 F.4th 1338, 1344 (11th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks
        omitted). If a reasonable person “could draw more than one infer-
        ence from the facts, and that inference creates a genuine issue of
        material fact, then the court should refuse to grant summary judg-
        ment.” Khoury v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 4 F.4th 1118, 1125 (11th
        Cir. 2021).
               In diversity cases such as these, “we are required to apply the
        substantive law of the forum state.” Mesa v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co.,
        799 F.3d 1353, 1358 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). So here, we apply
        the laws of Florida.
                                   III. Breach of Contract
        A. Contract Law
              In Florida, a student’s relationship with his or her private
        university is contractual in nature. Jallali v. Nova Se. Univ., Inc., 992
        So.2d 338, 342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (citing John B. Stetson Univ.
        v. Hunt, 102 So. 637, 640 (Fla. 1924)). The terms of this contract

        1 The other plaintiff who remained after the motion-to-dismiss stage did not

        appeal the district court’s unfavorable summary judgment decision.
USCA11 Case: 23-10299       Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/31/2023      Page: 6 of 17

        6                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10299

        “may be derived from university publications such as the student
        handbook and catalog.” Fla. Int’l Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Alexandre, No.
        3D22-0072, 2023 WL 3485498, at *3 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May 17,
        2023) (quoting Rhodes v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ., Inc., 513 F.
        Supp. 3d 1350, 1357 (M.D. Fla. 2021)).
               To succeed on a breach-of-contract claim, a student-plain-
        tiff—like any other plaintiff—must establish “(1) the existence of a
        contract; (2) a material breach of that contract; and (3) damages re-
        sulting from the breach.” Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256,
        1272 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Friedman v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 985 So. 2d
        56, 58 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)).
               Courts endeavoring to interpret contracts under Florida law
        must give effect to the instrument’s plain language. Hahamovitch
        v. Hahamovitch, 174 So. 3d 983, 986 (Fla. 2015). Ordinarily, this is a
        legal exercise for the court. DEC Elec., Inc. v. Raphael Constr. Corp.,
        558 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 1990). However, when the terms of a con-
        tract are ambiguous, the parties’ intentions become a question of
        fact for the jury. See id.
        B. Dixon’s Claims
               Dixon argues that Miami should pay damages for its breach
        of an express or implied contract to provide in-person education
        and access to its campus facilities. The district court disagreed on
        two alternative bases. First, the district court concluded that Dixon
        had failed to prove the existence of a contract—express or implied.
        Second, the district court held that even if a contract did exist, Mi-
        ami retained “the express right to alter or amend its procedures or
USCA11 Case: 23-10299          Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 07/31/2023          Page: 7 of 17

        23-10299                   Opinion of the Court                                  7

        policies and to close its classrooms and facilities.” In re Univ. of Mia.,
        2022 WL 18034457, at *5. Because we agree with the district court
        on the second basis, we need not address the first. 2
                To support the proposition that it reserved the right to tran-
        sition classes to remote learning, Miami points to two provisions in
        the Student Handbook. First, Miami highlights a sentence in the
        Handbook’s “Foreword,” which states:

                From time to time it may be advisable for the Univer-
                sity to alter or amend its procedures or policies. Rea-
                sonable notice may be furnished to the University
                community of any substantive changes, but is not re-
                quired.

        2 Miami also defends against Dixon’s breach-of-contract claims by correctly

        noting that Florida does not recognize claims of educational malpractice. See
        Armstrong v. Data Processing Inst., Inc., 509 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
        1987). As the name suggests, these claims are typically packaged in state tort
        law and allege that a student’s educational experience fell beneath an objec-
        tively reasonable standard of care. See, e.g., Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v.
        B.J.M., 656 So.2d 906, 908, 914–16 (Fla. 1995) (claiming a state agency acted
        negligently in deciding where to place a juvenile offender and choosing what
        services to offer him); Tubell v. Dade Cnty. Pub. Schs., 419 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla.
        Dist. Ct. App. 1982) (per curiam) (alleging a school negligently tested and clas-
        sified a student, resulting in the student’s improper placement in a special ed-
        ucational program). Although it poses an interesting question, we need not
        address whether this doctrine applies to Dixon’s claims—Miami’s reservation
        of rights is sufficient for us to affirm the district court’s judgment.
USCA11 Case: 23-10299      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/31/2023     Page: 8 of 17

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10299

                Second, Miami cites a provision from the “General Admin-
        istrative Policies and Guidelines” in the “Student Code of Conduct”
        (also located in the Student Handbook). That section reads:
               A.9 Restriction/Revocation of Facilities Use

               The University of Miami reserves the right at any
               time to deny, revoke, or modify authorization to use
               any University facility or premises.

               Decisions to authorize use of University facilities are
               made by the appropriate facility coordinator. Deci-
               sions to deny, revoke, or modify the authorization to
               use University facilities, because of potential danger,
               are made by the President of the University upon rec-
               ommendation by the Vice President and/or the ap-
               propriate administrator involved with use of such
               University facilities. When possible, such decisions
               will be made only after review of a written recom-
               mendation by the appropriate facility coordinator.
               Decisions made in accordance with the policy are ﬁ-
               nal and may not be appealed.

               We agree that these provisions standing together unambig-
        uously give Miami the authority to temporarily close its campuses
        in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, even if a contract
        did include rights to an in-person education and access to on-cam-
        pus facilities, those rights were qualified by provisions that permit-
        ted Miami to modify its procedures and access to its facilities.
        Thus, Miami did not breach any agreement by temporarily transi-
        tioning to remote learning.
USCA11 Case: 23-10299      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/31/2023      Page: 9 of 17

        23-10299               Opinion of the Court                          9

                 Looking at the “Foreword” section of the Handbook, it is true
        that the identified sentence is embedded between paragraphs that
        discuss university regulations and disciplinary procedures, which,
        at first glance, might suggest it has nothing to do with the contrac-
        tual right to in-person learning. See City of Homestead v. Johnson, 760
        So. 2d 80, 84 (Fla. 2000) (requiring courts “to read provisions of a
        contract harmoniously in order to give effect to all portions
        thereof”). But Dixon relies on these Handbook regulations and pro-
        cedures to prove a contractual promise of in-person education. So,
        if Miami has the ability to change the underlying policies and pro-
        cedures that create the implied contractual term, it follows that the
        implied term itself is subject to change.
                 The provision regarding the “Restriction/Revocation of Fa-
        cilities Use” in the Handbook’s “Student Code of Conduct” provides
        Miami with more direct authority to temporarily switch to remote
        learning. Dixon alleges that Miami broke its implied contractual
        obligations to provide “on-campus classes” and to provide access
        to its campus facilities. Yet, both of these implied obligations nec-
        essarily require access to Miami’s facilities, usage of which Miami
        explicitly reserved the right to deny “because of potential danger.”
        We have no reason to second-guess Miami’s decision to close its
        facilities in response to 1) the spread of a deadly global pandemic
        that resulted in a state of emergency in Florida, see Executive Order
        20-52; 2) an emergency order from Miami-Dade County that or-
        dered the closure of the campus, see Emergency Order 7-20; and 3)
        an executive order from the Governor of Florida ordering the clo-
        sure of the campus, see Executive Order 20-89. See also Jallali, 992
USCA11 Case: 23-10299        Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 07/31/2023         Page: 10 of 17

        10                        Opinion of the Court                      23-10299

        So. 2d at 343 (noting that a “court will not interfere with a private
        university’s enforcement of its regulations unless the university has
        acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in violation of a constitution or
        statute, or for fraudulent purposes”); John B. Stetson Univ., 102 So.
        at 640 (holding that “college authorities stand in loco parentis” as
        to the “welfare of the pupils” and that courts may not interfere with
        university regulations so long as they “do not violate divine or hu-
        man law”).
               Accordingly, even if Miami’s contract included a provision
        for in-person classes and access to campus facilities, we agree with
        the district court that Miami cannot be held liable for switching to
        remote learning at the time and under the conditions that it did. 3
                                IV. Unjust Enrichment
        A. The Law
               Florida recognizes that claims for unjust enrichment may be
        appropriate when no contract exists, but the defendant nonetheless
        received something of value from the plaintiff. See Fulton v.

        3 To the extent that giving effect to these broad reservations of rights raises

        concerns about an illusory contract, we note that Miami still provided Dixon
        with instruction in her selected courses and credits that counted toward her
        degree. Whatever terms were contained within Dixon’s contract with Miami,
        we are certain that the obligation to provide instruction and class credit upon
        Dixon’s payment of tuition and satisfactory completion of her courses were
        included. Thus, Dixon’s contract with Miami was not entirely illusory under
        Florida law. See Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep’t of Corr., 471 So. 2d 4, 5 (Fla.
        1984).
USCA11 Case: 23-10299      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/31/2023      Page: 11 of 17

        23-10299                Opinion of the Court                         11

        Brancato, 189 So. 3d 967, 969 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016); Ocean
        Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bubeck, 956 So. 2d 1222, 1225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
        2007).
                A plaintiff pursuing an unjust enrichment claim must estab-
        lish three elements: “(1) plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the de-
        fendant, who has knowledge thereof; (2) defendant voluntarily ac-
        cepts and retains the benefit conferred; and (3) the circumstances
        are such that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the
        benefit without first paying the value thereof to the plaintiff.” Doral
        Collision Ctr., Inc. v. Daimler Tr., 341 So. 3d 424, 429 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
        App. 2022) (quoting Duty Free World, Inc. v. Mia. Perfume Junction,
        Inc., 253 So. 3d 689, 693 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)).
              Reflecting on the theory of unjust enrichment, Florida
        courts have noted that the phrase “‘equitable in nature’ . . . has
        been used in the sense of ‘fairness,’ to describe that quality which
        makes an enrichment unjust.” Com. P’ship 8098 Ltd. P’ship v. Equity
        Contracting Co., Inc., 695 So. 2d 383, 390 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
        (en banc).
        B. Dixon’s Claims
               As an alternative to her breach-of-contract claims, Dixon ar-
        gues that Miami was unjustly enriched by retaining her full tuition
        payment for the Spring 2020 semester. Looking to the elements of
        an unjust enrichment claim, Doral Collision, 341 So. 3d at 429, the
        parties do not dispute the first two: 1) Dixon paid Miami the stand-
        ard, full tuition payment for the Spring 2020 semester, and 2) Mi-
        ami voluntarily accepted and retained that tuition payment. The
USCA11 Case: 23-10299         Document: 42-1          Date Filed: 07/31/2023          Page: 12 of 17

        12                          Opinion of the Court                        23-10299

        parties do, however, dispute the third element: whether it would
        be inequitable under the circumstances for Miami to retain the full
        tuition payment.
               The district court rejected Dixon’s unjust enrichment claim
        on two grounds. First, the court concluded that, as a matter of law,
        Dixon failed to show that the “payment of full tuition for the Spring
        2020 semester violate[d] good conscience and fundamental princi-
        ples of justice or equity.” In re Univ. of Mia., 2022 WL 18034457, at
        *7. Second, the district court concluded that to the extent Dixon
        claimed her remote education was less valuable than the education
        for which she paid, her claim was barred by the doctrine of educa-
        tional malpractice. Id. Following the pattern from above, because
        we agree with the district court on the first basis, we need not reach
        the second.4
               To start, we note that the decision to transition to remote
        learning was largely out of Miami’s hands. Had Miami continued
        to provide in-person education throughout the Spring 2020

        4 Miami also contends that its relationship with Dixon was governed by an

        express contract—a Financial Responsibility Statement (FRS). Under this con-
        tract, Miami argues, Dixon agreed to pay tuition in exchange for educational
        services. As Miami rightly notes, Florida courts have held that “[a]s a general
        principle, a plaintiff cannot pursue an implied contract theory, such as unjust
        enrichment or quantum meruit, if an express contract exists.” F.H. Paschen,
        S.N. Nielsen & Assocs. LLC v. B&B Site Dev., Inc., 311 So. 3d 39, 49 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
        App. 2021). While, on its face, it is far from clear that this FRS is the sole,
        integrated instrument governing the relationship between the parties, we
        need not address this argument today. Our holding regarding the fairness of
        the full tuition payment is sufficient to carry the day for Miami.
USCA11 Case: 23-10299         Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 07/31/2023        Page: 13 of 17

        23-10299                   Opinion of the Court                            13

        semester, it would have violated not one, but two separate execu-
        tive orders—one from Miami-Dade County and another from the
        Florida Governor. 5 To complete the switch to online courses, Mi-
        ami expended $7.1 million and ultimately experienced a net finan-
        cial loss of roughly $50 million from the change in operations. As
        a result of Miami’s efforts and additional expenditures, though,
        Dixon successfully completed her spring courses, received credits
        toward her graduation, and obtained a university education from a
        location that the State of Florida impliedly considered to be safer
        than a populated campus in Coral Gables.
               Further, under Florida law, “an unjust enrichment claim
        cannot exist where payment has been made for the benefit con-
        ferred.” Murphy v. Pankauski, 357 So. 3d 149, 152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
        2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the district court
        pointed out, Miami provided students a choice in the Fall 2020 se-
        mester—they could take their courses online or attend in-person.
        In an arms-length transaction, Dixon opted for the former, and she
        has not alleged that she paid (or should have paid) any less for that
        Fall 2020 online experience than she did for her Spring 2020 semes-
        ter. Thus, the value of the benefit that Dixon provided to Miami—
        her tuition payment—does not appear to be out of step with the
        value that she places on the benefit she received in return—a (tem-
        porarily remote) Miami education.

        5 The legal alternative to remote learning, then, may have been to cancel stu-

        dents’ classes entirely.
USCA11 Case: 23-10299     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/31/2023     Page: 14 of 17

        14                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10299

                For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s conclusion
        that, as a matter of law, Dixon failed to show that her “payment of
        full tuition for the Spring 2020 semester violate[d] good conscience
        and fundamental principles of justice or equity.” In re Univ. of Mia.,
        2022 WL 18034457, at *7.
                   V. Adequacy of Prorated Reimbursements
        A. Additional Facts
                On April 29, 2020, Miami emailed its student body (includ-
        ing Dixon) to inform them that it would be refunding their ac-
        counts “with a prorated amount for any Spring 2020 fees and ser-
        vices that cannot be provided in an online or virtual format.” Mi-
        ami explained that these services included “housing, dining, park-
        ing, student center, wellness center, health and counseling, student
        activities, and athletics fees.” The fees were ultimately prorated to
        “March [23,] when classes transition[ed] to an online format.” In
        total, this amounted to a refund for the 42 days remaining in the
        115-day semester, equating to roughly 36.5% of the fee totals.
        B. Dixon’s Claims
                Dixon contends that this refund was inadequate. More spe-
        cifically, she argues that the prorated refund should have extended
        back to March 12, 2020, when Miami announced to its students that
        spring break would be extended by one week. Doing so, Dixon
        maintains, would amount to a refund of roughly 48% of total fees
        for the Spring 2020 semester. Dixon supports her claim with the
        deposition of, and the unsworn report from, economist Charles
        Cowan, Ph.D.
USCA11 Case: 23-10299       Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 07/31/2023        Page: 15 of 17

        23-10299                  Opinion of the Court                             15

               The district court rejected Dixon’s claim because “the undis-
        puted facts establish that [Miami] made a pro rata refund of the fees”
        and “neither [Dixon] nor [her] expert provide factual support” for
        the greater percentage that they claim Dixon is owed. In re Univ. of
        Mia., 2022 WL 18034457, at *6. We agree.
                It is entirely valid for Dixon to take the position that Miami
        should have based its prorated refunds on a diﬀerent day than it did.
        The problem, however, is that Dixon fails to present “more than a
        scintilla” of evidence to support her contention that Miami should
        have refunded 48% of the fees for the Spring 2020 semester. Mata-
        moros v. Broward’s Sheriﬀ’s Oﬀ., 2 F.4th 1329, 1336 n.5 (11th Cir.
        2021). 6
              Dixon points us to Miami’s March 12, 2020, email that in-
        formed students that spring break would be extended by one week.
        However, an announcement extending spring break by itself does
        not support the contention that all fee-based facilities and services
        were suddenly unavailable to students such that Miami’s refund
        was inadequate. And while Dixon oﬀers Dr. Cowan’s input as evi-
        dence, Dixon cannot rely on Dr. Cowan’s report to show there is a
        genuine issue of material fact about this point. Unsworn reports
        may not be taken into account by a district court when it rules on
        a motion for summary judgment. See Carr v. Tatangelo, 338 F.3d

        6 Dixon does not argue that Miami erred in conducting its mathematical cal-

        culation to reach the 36.5% refund. Instead, Dixon argues that the calculation
        should have covered more days.
USCA11 Case: 23-10299        Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 07/31/2023        Page: 16 of 17

        16                        Opinion of the Court                     23-10299

        1259, 1273 n. 26 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). 7 With-
        out more, Dixon’s allegations are merely conclusory, and “[t]his
        court has consistently held that conclusory allegations without spe-
        ciﬁc supporting facts have no probative value.” Myers v. Bowman,
        713 F.3d 1319, 1327 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Evers v. Gen. Motors
        Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir. 1985)); see also TocMail, Inc. v. Mi-
        crosoft Corp., 67 F.4th 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2023) (per curiam) (not-
        ing that to survive summary judgment, “speculation does not suf-
        ﬁce”).
                 Consequently, on this point, we again affirm the district
        court.
                                     VI. Conclusion
               The pandemic forced students of all ages to learn from be-
        hind their computer screens for a period of time, and we certainly
        harbor a great deal of sympathy for those students whose educa-
        tions and relationships were affected by the transition. Yet, for the
        reasons outlined above, we agree with the district court and hold
        that Dixon is not entitled to damages stemming from any alleged
        breach of contract, unjust enrichment, or inadequate refunds on
        the part of Miami. We hope that some comfort can be found, how-
        ever, in our certainty that despite enduring the hardships created
        by the pandemic, any student who has earned a degree from a

        7 We also note that it does not appear Dr. Cowan had personal knowledge of

        which facilities and services actually were unavailable to students during the
        days that would constitute the difference between a 48% and 36.5% refund.
USCA11 Case: 23-10299     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 07/31/2023   Page: 17 of 17

        23-10299              Opinion of the Court                      17

        school like the University of Miami retains the unspoiled potential
        for a fulfilling and prosperous future.
              AFFIRMED.