Pranger et al v. Oregon State University

Read more on govinfo.gov

Plaintiffs:

Harris, Garrett

Pranger, Danielle

Defendants:

Alexander, F.

Bailey, Mike

Bedient, Patricia

Borkar, Rani

Brim-Edwards, Julia

Callahan, Darald

Eder, Michele

Hurd, Lamar

Kelly, Paul

Manning, Julie

Oregon State University,

Pulliams, Preston

Schueler, Kirk

Smith, Stephanie

Thorne, Michael

2023-01-04: OPINION & ORDER: The Court exercises its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Court DENIES Defendants Motion for Reconsideration 31 and DENIES Defendants Motion to Certify a Question to the Oregon Supreme Court or Certify Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 32. Signed on 1/4/2023 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jp)

2022-01-25: OPINION & ORDER:The question presented at this stage in the proceedings is not whether OSU's decision to shift to an online learning environment was reasonable or justified. For the purpose of the Motion to Dismiss, the relevant question was whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts intheir complaint that, when accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in their favor, support their underlying legal claims. The Court concludes that the educational malpractice doctrine does not bar Plaintiffs' claims, and Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts supporting their breach of contract claims. However, Plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment are dismissed because both OSU and the Trustee Defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 16 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Signed on 1/25/2022 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jp)