Lawson v. Pennsylvania College of Technology, No. CV-21-01134 (C.P. Lycoming March 13, 2023) (Linhardt, J.). On July 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint containing twelve counts. Plaintiffs brought counts for breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment relating to four separate topics: tuition, ancillary fees, housing, and meal plans. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately pied the existence and breach of an express contract. Plaintiffs highlight numerous written statements published by Defendant emphasizing the institution’s hands-on programs. Defendant contends that these statements are uniformly “descriptive” and “aspirational.” However, at this stage, reading the exhibits in conjunction, the Court cannot definitively conclude as a matter of law that repeated references to “comprehensive, hands-on technical education” are insufficient to form an objective, written expression of Defendant’s intent to contract. This is especially so in light of the repeated references throughout the exhibits highlighting Defendant institution’s specialty in technical skills and trades, which could be interpreted to add weight to Defendant’s assertions of its technical approach. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pied the existence and breach of express contracts concerning fees, meal plans, and housing. The exhibits reference each of these costs in concrete terms, asserting that the payment of the fees goes toward certain benefits (programs, food, housing) that return to the student. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately pied each of their breach of implied contract claims. Plaintiffs contend that all of these things, taken together, suggest that Defendant agreed to offer classes in person in exchange for the requisite tuition, offer on-campus benefits in exchange for specific fees, and offer meals and housing in exchange for certain defined payments. Inasmuch as “ultimate determinations of a contract’s existence and terms are for the finders of fact,” the Court finds that Plaintiffs have asserted sufficient facts and evidence to preclude the dismissal of their implied contract claims at this time. Here, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint requested attorney’s fees “as permitted by law”; however, Plaintiffs have not pled a legal justification for an award of attorney’s fees. Thus, under the American Rule, they are not entitled to recover attorney’s fees from Defendant. Therefore, the Court will strike Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees with prejudice. The Court overruled Defendant’s first, second, and third objections to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. The Court sustained Defendant’s fourth objection to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. All references to attorney’s fees were stricken from the Amended Complaint with prejudice.