Weizeng Liu, a citizen of China, applied for admission to The Grier School, a private all-girls boarding school in Pennsylvania in January 2023 while residing in California. She was granted admission in March 2023, and her mother signed various documents, including an international enrollment contract in April. Liu paid $53,592.50 in tuition and fees and began attending Grier in August 2023.
Shortly after classes began, Liu received a “final warning before expulsion” letter on September 10, 2023, detailing alleged violations of school rules and stated that Liu was at risk of expulsion if the violations were not addressed. On September 22, 2023, Liu was accused of sexual assault by another student and was subsequently expelled. During this process, school officials discovered Liu’s passport, which sparked a confrontation between Grier employees and Liu, during which Liu was accused of lying about her age and her gender. Liu explained that she identified as a girl and had medical documentation regarding her gender transition. The School’s director allegedly threatened to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if Liu did not leave immediately. Liu’s mother also allegedly attempted to contact school officials as many as 30 times but was unsuccessful.
Liu vacated the campus within 24 hours and stayed in a hotel for 46 nights before leasing an apartment in Centre County, Pennsylvania. She then filed a lawsuit against the School in federal court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging breach of contract for failing to refund a portion of her tuition, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a claim for punitive damages.
The School moved to dismiss the complaint, primarily arguing that venue was improper due to a forum selection clause in the enrollment contract that designated the courts of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, as the sole venue for disputes arising from the contract.
The Court’s analysis focused on the validity and enforceability of the forum selection clause. First, the Court addressed whether the provision in question constituted a valid forum selection clause. Despite the use of the word “jurisdiction” rather than “venue” in the clause, the Court determined that it was indeed a valid forum selection clause. The Court cited precedent from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously held that similar language created a forum selection clause.
The Court then examined whether the clause was enforceable. Liu argued that the clause should not be enforced due to unequal bargaining power between the parties. She contended that the contract contained boilerplate language, and her parents, who signed the contract, were not represented by counsel and did not understand American laws and procedures.
The Court rejected Liu’s arguments on several grounds. First, it noted that the lack of actual negotiations over the clause does not affect its validity, citing precedent that allows for reasonable forum clauses in form contracts. The Court also addressed Liu’s claim about unequal bargaining power, stating that Liu had not shown that the parties’ unequal positions resulted in the parties being deceived or coerced into accepting the provision. The Court emphasized that general allegations of being induced to enter the contract due to fraud are insufficient to invalidate a forum selection clause; rather, the fraud must specifically relate to the inclusion of the forum selection clause itself.
Furthermore, the Court noted that Liu did not argue that enforcement would violate public policy or that litigation in Huntingdon County would be unreasonably inconvenient. These factors are typically considered when determining whether enforcing a forum selection clause would be unreasonable.
Based on this analysis, the Court granted the School’s motion to dismiss for improper venue. The case was dismissed without prejudice, allowing Liu the opportunity to refile the lawsuit in the appropriate state court in Huntingdon County.
Weizeng Liu v. Grier Sch. (M.D.Pa. Oct. 21, 2024) 2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 190482.
Note: This decision underscores the importance of considering whether to include a forum selection clause in an enrollment contract.