UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

:

IN RE: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI COVID-19 : Case No.: 20-60851-CIV-SINGHAL

TUITION AND FEE REFUND LITIGATION :

: (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

:

CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Valeria Dimitryuk, Adelaide Dixon, Julie Gold, and Michael Weiss

(“Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned counsel, bring this action against the University 

of Miami (“Defendant” or the “University”) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated, and make the following allegations based upon information, attorney investigation and 

belief, and upon Plaintiffs’ own knowledge. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiffs bring this case as a result of Defendant’s decision not to issue 

appropriate refunds for the Spring 2020 semester after cancelling in-person classes and changing 

all classes to an online/remote format, closing most campus buildings, and requiring all students 

who could leave campus to leave as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease (“COVID-19”).

This decision deprived Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes from 

recognizing the benefits of on-campus enrollment, access to campus facilities, student activities, 

and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition. 

Defendant has either refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees, and 

other costs that Defendant failed to provide during the Spring 2020 semester, or has provided 

inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate Plaintiffs and 

members of the Classes for their loss. They have lost the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 1 of 45
2

out-of-pocket loss, and are entitled to recover compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, 

and attorney’s fees and costs.

This action seeks refunds of the amount Plaintiffs and other members of the 

Classes are owed on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages as pled herein.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

University of Miami is an institution of higher learning located in Coral Gables, 

Florida.

Upon information and belief, Defendant has an estimated endowment of 

approximately $997.4 million and approximately 17,000 enrolled students during the 2019–2020 

academic year. That same year, the University collected $560.4 million in tuition and fees (net), 

a $25.6 million increase from the prior fiscal year. The University also reported total operating 

revenues reaching $3.574 billion.

Over the last decade, the University has engaged in multiple record breaking 

campaigns, including the “Momentum” campaign, which amassed “$1.4 billion in donations at a 

time when no Florida school had ever before topped the billion-dollar mark”1 and the 

“Momentum2” campaign, through which the University surpassed $1.6 billion in donations.2

And more recently in FY2019, Miami “raised $321.8 million—more than $139 million over the 

previous year, and endowment giving increased by 62 percent, making [FY2019] one of the best 

fundraising years in the University’s 94-year history.”3

1 Michael Vasquez, UM Kicks off $1.6 billion campaign, The Miami Herald (2012).

2 https://news.miami.edu/stories/2015/05/um-surpasses-1.6-billion-m2-campaign-goal.html. 3 https://president.miami.edu/_assets/pdf/presidents-report-2019.pdf.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 2 of 45
3

Moreover, upon information and belief, Defendant has allocated more than $8.1

million of federal stimulus funds under the CARES Act. The CARES Act directs that institutions 

must use at least half of the funds they receive to provide emergency financial aid grants to 

students for expenses related to the disruption of campus operations due to COVID-19.

Plaintiff Valeria Dimitryuk is an individual and a resident and citizen of the state 

of Florida and was a student enrolled at University of Miami during the Spring 2020 term. 

Plaintiff Adelaide Dixon is an individual and a resident and citizen of the state of 

South Carolina and was a student enrolled at University of Miami during the Spring 2020 term. 

Plaintiff Julie Gold is an individual and a resident and citizen of the state of New 

York and was a student enrolled at the University of Miami during the Spring 2020 term.

Plaintiff Michael Weiss is an individual and a resident and citizen of the 

commonwealth of Virginia and his son was a student enrolled at University of Miami during the 

Spring 2020 term. 

Plaintiffs and/or their children are in good financial standing at the University, 

having paid in whole or in combination tuition, fees, costs, and/or charges assessed and 

demanded by Defendant for the Spring 2020 term.

While Plaintiffs and/or their children could have obtained their degrees online, 

they specifically selected an in-person, in-class experience for the variety of educational 

experiences and benefits that only an in-person program can deliver. Indeed, Plaintiffs selected 

the University of Miami for its numerous amenities, its campus, as well as the educational 

opportunities it would provide them.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 3 of 45
4

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness 

Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because at least one Class Member is of diverse citizenship 

from one Defendant, there are more than 100 Class Members, and the aggregate amount in 

controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant conducts 

business in Florida and has sufficient minimum contacts with Florida.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

Plaintiffs Dimitryuk and Dixon were enrolled as students for the Spring 2020 

academic semester at Defendant’s institution. Plaintiff Gold paid tuition and fees for her son who 

was a student for the Spring 2020 academic semester at University of Miami Los Angeles, in 

Burbank, California. Plaintiff Weiss paid tuition and fees for his son to attend the University of 

Miami campus in Coral Gables, Florida.

As a precondition for enrollment, Plaintiffs were required to—and did pay—

substantial tuition for the Spring 2020 semester either out-of-pocket or by utilizing student loan 

financing, as did all members of the putative Tuition Class (defined below).

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of institutions of higher learning in this 

country.

Some institutions of higher learning provide curriculum and instruction that are

offered on a remote basis through online programming which do not provide for physical 

attendance by the students.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 4 of 45
5

Defendant’s institution offers both in-person, hands-on programs, and a few fully 

online distance-learning programs, which it markets and prices as separate and distinct products.

Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Tuition Class did not choose to attend or 

enroll their children at another institution of higher learning, or to seek an online degree, but 

instead chose Defendant’s institution and specifically chose the on-campus program and enrolled 

on that basis.

Defendant has recognized and admitted the inherent difference between its inperson and online products, and markets them separately throughout its website and other 

publications and circulars, including its academic catalogs.

Defendant promotes itself as “one of the best research universities in the 

Americas,” supporting students with “mission-driven discoveries with cutting-edge technology, 

state-of-the-art equipment, and award-winning faculty.”4

Defendant notes that “[t]here is no substitute for the experience of visiting the 

University of Miami campus,” encouraging applicants to “[s]ee first-hand why students chose to 

live and learn on our Miami campus.”5

As reflected in its requirement that non-local first-year students live in University 

housing, Defendant recognizes the importance of living on (or near) campus and the experiences 

that result from such in-person interactions, noting “[l]iving on campus is a chance to live and 

interact with culturally diverse students and receive support and enhanced learning opportunities 

through live-in faculty and student affairs staff.”6

4 https://admissions.miami.edu/undergraduate/index.html. 5 https://admissions.miami.edu/undergraduate/student-life/visit/index.html. 6 https://admissions.miami.edu/undergraduate/about/FAQs/student-life/index.html.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 5 of 45
6

To that end, Defendant’s Housing & Residential Life team “focuses its efforts on 

developing students both personally and professionally throughout their time on campus. By 

living on campus, students are footsteps away from a variety of academic, cultural and social 

experiences that are hard to get elsewhere.”7 Thus, Defendant explains that “[a]s a result of the 

residential experience, resident students can expect to “[e]ngage and connect with the campus 

community,” “[l]earn ways to take care of yourself,” “discovery and discuss new ideas outside of 

the classroom”—including through interaction “with faculty and University leaders in the 

residential setting.” And in doing so, students develop “skills to thrive beyond UM” such as by 

“[d]iscovering tools and strategies promoting the advancement of interpersonal skills” and 

“[r]ecognizing the resources and behaviors that promote academic, intrapersonal and 

professional success.”8

Further, the University provides top facilities for student use. 

Such facilities include, but are not limited to, its library system which “rank[s] 

among the top research libraries in North America with a combined collection of over 4 million 

volumes, with over 100,000 current electronic and print serials”9 and which also contain 

extensive group study spaces, the Herbert Wellness Center, “[d]esigned to be one of the finest 

centers in the nation for recreational sports, fitness, and wellness education programs . . . .”10

Moreover, Defendant boasts the extensive, hands-on research and educational 

experiences to students. Miami offers a number of research centers and institutes which “reflect 

our broad interests and expertise and our commitment to raising awareness, finding solutions, 

7 https://hrl.studentaffairs.miami.edu/living-on-campus/what-to-expect/index.html. 8 Id.

9 https://welcome.miami.edu/academics/libraries/index.html. 10 https://wellness.studentaffairs.miami.edu/facilities/index.html.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 6 of 45
7

and creating connections through hands-on learning, scholarly research, and community outreach 

and education.”11 Similarly, its business school describes “[t]he School’s innovative 

undergraduate business curriculum takes on a global perspective with hands-on real-world 

learning from day one, providing students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in 

today’s increasingly competitive economy.”12

Accordingly, when individuals pay tuition in exchange for enrollment in the oncampus program, such students expect to receive, and Defendant has promised to provide, 

benefits and services above and beyond basic academic instruction, which include but are not 

limited to:

a. Face-to-face interaction with professors, mentors, and peers;

b. Access to facilities such as computer labs, study rooms, laboratories, libraries, 

etc.;

c. Student governance and student unions;

d. Extra-curricular activities, groups, intramurals, etc.;

e. Student art, cultures, and other activities;

f. Exposure to community members of diverse backgrounds, cultures, and schools 

of thought;

g. Social development and independence;

h. Hands-on learning and experimentation; and

i. Networking and mentorship opportunities.

11 https://welcome.miami.edu/research/index.html. 12 https://www.bus.miami.edu/academic-programs/undergraduate-business-education/index.html.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 7 of 45
8

To obtain such educational opportunities and activities, Plaintiffs and Class 

Members pay, in whole or in part, significant tuition, fees, and/or room and board. 

For the Spring 2020 term, Defendant assessed the following tuition and fee 

charges per semester to full-time undergraduates: $25,200 in tuition, $167 as a student activity 

fee, $99 as an athletic fee, $156 for wellness center fee, $186.00 for student health and 

counseling centers fee, and $166 for a student center fee. Furthermore, on-campus housing and 

meal charges reach $7,734 per semester. Defendant assessed graduate students at the rate of 

$2,100 per credit hour, along with various other fees depending on the course of study and 

course load. 

Schools delivering an online-only educational experience assess significantly 

discounted rates for delivering such educational services. For example, Western Governor’s 

University charges flat-rate tuition at $3,370 per term while Southern New Hampshire University 

charges $960 per course for online undergraduate programs and $1,881 per course for online 

graduate programs. 

Plaintiffs’ education was changed from in-person, hands-on learning to online 

instruction during the Spring 2020 term.

When this happened, Plaintiffs and their children were forced from campus and 

deprived of the benefit of their bargain for which they had paid, and in exchange for which 

Defendant had accepted tuition as set forth more fully above.

In addition to tuition, Defendant charges certain mandatory fees, including but not 

limited to:

• Student Activity Fee

• Athletic Fee

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 8 of 45
9

• Wellness Center Fee

• Student Health and Counseling Centers Fee

• Student Center Complex Fee

The Student Activity Fee is charged to all full-time students.13

The Athletic Fee is charged to all full-time undergraduate students.14

The Wellness Center Fee is charged to all full-time students.15

The Student Health and Counseling Centers Fee is charged to all students (full 

and part-time).16

The Student Center Complex Fee is charged to all full and part-time 

undergraduate students, as well as, all full-time graduate, Rosenstiel graduate, and medical 

graduate students.17

Plaintiffs were required to—and did—pay all mandatory fees associated with their 

Spring 2020 enrollment. 

In addition to the broad-based mandatory fees described above, Defendant 

charges a myriad of other program or specific fees. 

The University states that the Student Activity Fee is “used to support the 

availability of a wide range of programs, services, lectures, speakers, facilities and organizations 

including club sports, major events (e.g. Homecoming), and various forms of entertainment, 

concerts, student media, and student government.”18

13 bulletin.miami.edu/general-university-information/university-policies/financial-paymentpolicies/tuition-fees/. 14 Id.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 https://osas.miami.edu/tuition-and-fees/tuition-and-fees-information/fee-descriptions/index.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 9 of 45
10

The University states that the Athletic Fee “allows students to attend assigned 

home games for football, baseball, basketball and intercollegiate contests. Free transportation is 

included for events held at the Hard Rock Stadium.”19

The University states that the Wellness Center Fee “allows students to use the 

138,000 square-foot center which includes a 20,000 square-foot fitness room; a functional 

training studio, five racquetball courts; two squash courts; indoor lap pool; two dry saunas; a 

whirlpool spa; two gymnasiums for basketball, volleyball, badminton floor hockey and soccer;

indoor jogging track; four multipurpose rooms; juice bar; and locker rooms. The facility also 

includes a fitness lab, instructional kitchen, classrooms, and a conference room. Additionally, 

four outdoor basketball/volleyball courts and five intramural fields are available for use. The fee 

includes access to group exercise classes like Zumba and cardio kickboxing.”20

The University states that the Health and Counseling Center Fee “allows for 

primary medical care physician/nursing services, 24 hour on-call services, health counseling and 

community outreach/public health initiatives at the Student Health Service, and individual and 

group counseling, substance abuse and other addiction programs, crisis intervention, case 

management, and mental health education and other outreach programs at the Counseling 

Center.”21

The University states that the Student Center Complex Fee “provides funding for 

construction, operation, maintenance and programs of the Student Center Complex, consisting of 

html. 19 Id.

20 Id.

21 https://osas.miami.edu/tuition-and-fees/tuition-and-fees-information/fee-descriptions/index.

html.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 10 of 45
11

the Whitten University Center, the Shalala Student Center, the UC Pool, Rock, ‘U’ statue, UC 

Patio, and Stage.”22

As a result of the actions and announcements of Defendant during the Spring 

2020 term, Plaintiffs and members of the Fees Class (defined below) no longer had the benefit of 

the services for which these fees were paid. For example, the Wellness Center was closed and 

athletics were cancelled, student events and activities were cancelled, student organizations were 

no longer operational, and students who moved home no longer had the need for or access to the

Health and Counseling Center.

At Defendant’s request and direction, certain Plaintiffs and members of the 

Classes moved out of on-campus housing and lost access to any campus facilities and services 

thereon throughout the remainder of the Spring 2020 term.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

On December 31, 2019, governmental entities in Wuhan, China confirmed that 

health authorities were treating dozens of cases of a mysterious, pneumonia-like illness. Days 

later, researchers in China identified a new virus that had infected dozens of people in Asia, 

subsequently identified and referred to as the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19. 

By January 21, 2020, officials in the United States were confirming the first 

known domestic infections of COVID-19. 

22 Id.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 11 of 45
12

Due to an influx of thousands of new cases in China, on January 30, 2020, the 

World Health Organization officially declared COVID-19 as a “public health emergency of 

international concern.” 

By March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a 

pandemic. 

Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Spring term began with the first day of 

classes on or about January 13, 2020.23

Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Spring term was scheduled to conclude 

with the last day of examinations on or about May 6, 2020.24

Accordingly, Defendant’s Spring semester was scheduled and contracted to 

consist of approximately 114 days.

However, on March 12, 2020, Defendant announced that Spring break was to be 

extended through March 22, 2020 and classes were to resume on March 23, 2020 but strictly in 

online/remote/distance learning until at least April 4, 2020.25

Further, on March 17, 2020, Defendant announced that students would be 

receiving education strictly in online/remote/distance platforms and that students living on 

campus were encouraged to leave beginning on March 25, 2020.26 Also on March 17, 2020, 

Defendant closed most on-campus facilities, including the Wellness Center, pool, and university 

libraries.27

23 https://www.youcalenders.com/calendar-printable/University-Of-Miami-Academic-CalendarSpring-2020.jpg 

24 https://www.youcalenders.com/calendar-printable/University-Of-Miami-Academic-CalendarSpring-2020.jpg

25 https://messages.miami.edu/messages/2020/03/03-12-20-coronavirus.html. 26 https://messages.miami.edu/messages/2020/03/03-17-20-coronavirus.html. 27 Id.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 12 of 45
13

On or about March 25, 2020, the City of Coral Gables issued a “safer at home” 

order requiring residents and businesses to restrict non-essential activities.28

Also at this time, Defendant began to close on-campus student facilities such as 

libraries and other buildings and non-essential offices. 

Though the reasons for such closures are justified, the fact remains that such 

closures and cancellations present significant loss to Plaintiffs and Class Members.

Almost immediately, students began demanding refunds for the fees and charges 

demanded in this action. 

Indeed, the students at Defendant’s institution started a petition for the refund of 

the fees and charges demanded in this action.29

Upon information and belief, this petition has nearly 2,000 signatures.30

As highlighted in The Miami Hurricane student newspaper editorial titled “UM’s 

response to COVID-19: The good, the bad and the uncertain” the student editorial board opined: 

“We doubt this will actually happen, but it would be nice to receive some kind of tuition refund. 

UM has not yet spoken on this matter, even though student group chats have been buzzing about 

it. We understand that this is a strange situation, but we didn’t pay $25,000 this semester for 

online classes, which, to be frank, are just not as valuable as in-person classes. Plus, we’re not 

using any of UM’s on-campus facilities or resources, further devaluing our experience. We 

should pay for what we’re getting, not what we wish we were getting.”31

28 https://coronavirus.miami.edu/updates-and-messages/index.html. 29 https://www.change.org/p/university-of-miami-students-deserve-a-partial-refund-for-tuitionrequired-associated-fees-for-the-spring-2020-semester. 30 Id.

31 https://www.themiamihurricane.com/2020/04/03/ums-response-to-covid-19-the-good-the-badand-the-uncertain/.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 13 of 45
14

Based on the dates set forth above, upon information and belief, Defendant’s 

move to online classes and constructive eviction of students on March 12, 2020 deprived

Plaintiffs and other members of the Classes from access to campus facilities and in-person 

instruction for approximately 48% of the semester for which they had contracted.

Although Defendant continued to offer some level of academic instruction via 

online classes, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Tuition Class were deprived of the 

benefits of on-campus enrollment for which they paid as set forth more fully above.

These realities notwithstanding, Defendant has refused and continues to refuse to 

offer any refund whatsoever with respect to the tuition that has already been paid. 

Likewise, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Fees Class were deprived of 

utilizing services for which they have already paid, such as access to campus facilities, student 

activities, health services, room and board, and other programs.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action, pursuant 

to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following 

Classes:

The Tuition Class:

All people who paid tuition for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes at the 

University for the Spring 2020 semester but were denied live, in-person instruction 

and forced to use online distance learning platforms for the latter portion of that 

semester.

The Fees Class:

All people who paid fees for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes at the 

University for the Spring 2020 semester.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 14 of 45
15

The On-Campus Housing and Meals Class:

All people who paid the costs of on-campus housing and meals for or on behalf of 

students enrolled in classes at the University for the Spring 2020 semester.

Excluded from the Classes is the University of Miami, and any of its respective 

members, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, successors, or assigns; 

and the judicial officers, and their immediate family members, and Court staff assigned to this 

case. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the Class definitions, as appropriate, during 

the course of this litigation.

Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because 

Plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as 

would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims.

This action has been brought and may be properly maintained on behalf of the

Classes proposed herein under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Numerosity: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)

The members of the Classes are so numerous and geographically dispersed that 

individual joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that there 

are thousands of members of the Classes, the precise number being unknown to Plaintiffs, but 

such number being ascertainable from Defendant’s records. Members of the Classes may be 

notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination 

methods, which may include U.S. mail, electronic mail, internet postings, and/or published 

notice.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 15 of 45
16

Commonality and Predominance: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)

This action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over 

any questions affecting individual members of the Classes, including, without limitation:

(a) Whether Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged herein;

(b) Whether there is a difference in value between enrollment in an online 

distance learning program and enrollment in a live, on-campus instructional 

program;

(c) Whether Defendant breached its contracts with Plaintiffs and members of 

the Tuition Class by retaining the portion of their tuition representing the 

difference between the value of online distance learning and on-campus, inperson enrollment;

(d) Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining tuition payments of 

Plaintiffs and the Tuition Class representing the difference between the 

value of online distance learning and on-campus, in-person enrollment;

(e) Whether Defendant breached its contracts with Plaintiffs and members of 

the Fees Class by retaining fees without providing the services, benefits 

and/or programs the fees were contracted to cover;

(f) Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining fees of Plaintiffs and 

members of the Fees Class without providing the services, benefits and/or 

programs the fees were intended to cover;

(g) Whether Defendant breached its contracts with Plaintiffs and members of 

the On-Campus Housing and Meals Class by retaining fees without 

providing the housing, meals, and other amenities the fees were contracted 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 16 of 45
17

to cover;

(h) Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining fees of Plaintiffs and 

members of the On-Campus Housing and Meals Class without providing 

the meals, housing and other amenities the fees were intended to cover;

(i) Whether certification of any or all of the classes proposed herein is 

appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

(j) Whether members of the Classes are entitled to declaratory, equitable, or 

injunctive relief, and/or other relief; and

(k) The amount and nature of relief to be awarded to Plaintiffs and the other 

members of the Classes.

Typicality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)

Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Classes 

because, among other things, all such members were similarly situated and were comparably 

injured through Defendant’s wrongful conduct as set forth herein.

Adequacy: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)

Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Classes because their interests do not 

conflict with the interests of other members of the Classes they seek to represent. Plaintiffs have 

retained counsel competent and experienced in complex litigation and Plaintiffs intend to 

prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the Classes will be fairly and adequately 

protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 17 of 45
18

Superiority: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)

A class action is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy, and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the 

management of this class action. The damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiffs

and members of the Classes are relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would 

be required to individually litigate their claims against Defendant, so it would be impracticable 

for members of the Classes to individually seek redress for Defendant’s wrongful conduct.

Even if members of the Classes could afford individual litigation, the Court 

system likely could not. Individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent or 

contradictory judgments and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system.

By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the 

benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, comprehensive supervision by a single court, 

and finality of the litigation.

Certification of Specific Issues: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4)

To the extent that any described Class herein does not meet the requirements of 

Rules 23(b)(2) or (b)(3), Plaintiffs seek the certification of issues that will drive the litigation 

toward resolution.

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiffs 

and members of the Classes, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and declaratory 

relief, as described herein, with respect to the members of the Classes as a whole.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 18 of 45
19

FOR A FIRST COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Plaintiffs and Members of the Tuition Class)

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of themselves and members of the Tuition 

Class.

Plaintiffs and members of the Tuition Class entered into contracts with Defendant 

which provided that Plaintiffs and members of the Tuition Class would pay tuition for or on 

behalf of students and, in exchange, Defendant would enroll such students and admit them to 

campus; granting them the full rights and privileges of student status, including but not limited 

to, access to campus facilities, access to campus activities, and live, in-person instruction in a 

physical classroom.

The rights and privileges of student status that comprise the contractual terms are 

set forth by Defendant through its website, academic catalogs, student handbooks, 

correspondence, marketing materials and other circulars, bulletins, and publications.

One such right is the ability to be physically present on campus, and fully enjoy 

the facilities, services, and opportunities provided thereon, including the campus’ location and 

surrounding opportunities within Miami. 

Defendant does not deny the advantages of its location. See e.g. ¶ 86.

Defendant’s website and recruitment brochures are the primary means through 

which Defendant targets prospective new students and attempts to influence such students to 

apply for enrollment at the University as opposed to other institutions of higher learning.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 19 of 45
20

Through these publications, Defendant markets to and enrolls students in two 

separate and distinct products.

Defendant specifically markets certain classes and degree programs as being 

offered on a fully online basis.

Indeed, Defendant dedicates an entire section of its website to these programs, 

known as “UOnline” which can be accessed at https://uonline.miami.edu.

Conversely, Defendant’s publications with respect to non-online classes are full 

of references to the on-campus experience, including numerous references to student activities; 

campus amenities; class size and student/teacher ratios; campus diversity, campus location, and 

the like.

For example, Defendant boasts “With an average student-faculty ratio of 12:1, our 

classes are more focused and personal than classes at larger universities.”32

When prospective students visit Defendant’s “Student Life” website, they are 

immediately greeted with a picture of the Donna E. Shalala Student Center.33

32 https://welcome.miami.edu/academics/index.html. 33 https://welcome.miami.edu/student-life/index.html

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 20 of 45
21

Just below this grand image, Defendant specifically markets to prospective 

students its on-campus product, emphasizing its location and amenities.

34

Defendant supplies prospective students further benefits of its on-campus product

such as palm trees, beautiful views, study lounges, and transportation.

35

34 https://welcome.miami.edu/student-life/index.html. 35 Id.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 21 of 45
22

On Defendant’s “About” page, Defendant boasts “our campus community is a 

plurality of races, ethnicities, customs, and faiths located within one of the most dynamic and 

multicultural cities in the world.”36

Although Defendant has locked the fact page for Spring 2020, upon inspection of 

the Fall 2019 Fact Page, and upon information and belief, Defendant markets the facilities at the 

School of Architecture “include studio workspace for each student within both the historic studio 

buildings and the new Thomas P. Murphy Design studio building, an architecture reference 

library linked to university-wide resources, a computer laboratory, a digital fabrication 

36 https://welcome.miami.edu/student-life/index.html.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 22 of 45
23

laboratory, a model shop. RAD-UM research lab providing expertise for project-based research 

on the spatial ramifications of embedded technology, the new B.E. & W.R. Miller Build Lab, 

and the Jorge M. Perez Architecture Center housing lecture and exhibit facilities.”37

Additionally, upon information and belief, the College of Arts and Sciences 

provides “numerous community outreach activities, including student musical theatre products at 

the Jerry Herman Ring Theatre and Alvin Sherman Family Stage; student, faculty, and visit artist 

exhibitions in the Wynwood Gallery in the design district of downtown Miami; lectures and 

faculty-curated exhibitions at the Lowe Art Museum . . . volunteer activities in the public

schools, hospitals and community clinics for developmentally disabled children; technology 

workshops for Miami-Dade public school teachers sponsored by the Department of Modern 

Languages and Literatures Laboratory; summer art camps for children ages 5-12 through the 

Department of Theatre Arts and the Lowe Art Museum . . . .”38

Moreover, upon information and belief, The Miami Herbert Business School 

offers undergraduate students the opportunity for “hands on experience in a variety of programs 

ranging from the Student Managed Investment Fund to the Entrepreneurship Consulting 

Program. . .”39

Further, upon information and belief, The College of Engineering “promotes proactive and hands-on learning environments. Students and faculty have access to state-of-the-art 

facilities such as the Johnson & Johnson 3D Printing Center of Excellence Collaborative 

Laboratory (J&J Collab).”40

37 Id.

38 https://www.irsa.miami.edu/_assets/pdf/Documents/fbfa2019.pdf. 39 https://www.irsa.miami.edu/_assets/pdf/Documents/fbfa2019.pdf. 40 Id.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 23 of 45
24 

When prospective students go to Defendant’s “Undergraduate Admission” 

website, they are met with more information about Defendant’s on-campus product.41

Here, Defendant offers prospective students the opportunities for internships by 

virtue of its Miami location:42

Upon information and belief, there were no references or disclaimers on any of 

Defendant’s websites, circulars, bulletins, publications, brochures, or other advertisements prior 

to January 29, 2020, that even referenced the possibility of in-person classes being changed to 

fully online classes at Defendant’s discretion or for any other reason whatsoever after the start of 

a given term.43

In fact, it is clear that, prior to the COVID-19 interruption, Defendant had no 

plans whatsoever to offer its in-person classes via an online delivery model. This is evident from 

the fact that the University had to extend spring break for an additional week while its professors 

hurriedly and ineffectively scrambled to make the switch. 

Those prospective students who were interested in enrolling at the University 

after consuming the marketing materials described above were invited to complete applications, 

and some were selected for and offered admission. 

41 https://admissions.miami.edu/undergraduate/academics/experiential-learning/index.html. 

42 Id.

43 January 29, 2020 is the approximate date that students were permitted to withdraw from the 

University for the Spring 2020 term and receive a full tuition refund. 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 24 of 45
25

When a student is offered admission to the University, that student receives a 

number of further communications and has a number of additional interactions with Defendant.

Admitted students are invited to attend a “Future ‘Cane Day” (which is hosted on 

Defendant’s campus) where Defendant again attempts to sell such students to accept their offers 

of admission by highlighting the University’s location and the many benefits of being on 

campus.

During this time, the students also receive an “Admitted Student Handbook” from 

their respective school or program.

When students officially accept their offers, they are flooded with a number of 

other communications from the school. 

Once students make it through orientation [and for returning students], it comes 

time to register for classes. This is another area where Defendant specifically emphasizes the 

distinction between its in-person and online class offerings through the academic catalogs and 

course listings on the website.

Each of Defendant’s academic programs is listed separately on the University’s 

student financial services website with the specific tuition and fees charged for the specific 

program. 

That website can be found at https://m.canelink.miami.edu/. 

Each online program is specifically delineated as such, with the in-person 

programs not so delineated. 

When students log onto “Cane Link” registration portal to select their in-person 

classes, each class is listed not only by description, but also by meeting time and physical 

classroom location.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 25 of 45
26

For example:

44

As shown in the screenshot above, Defendant’s registration portal specifically 

lists each course’s “Instruction Mode,” which includes an option for “In Person.”

Upon registration, students in many of Defendant’s on-campus schools and 

programs were subject to strict personal attendance requirements as set forth in various 

departmental policies and handbooks, evidencing Defendant’s requirement and the student’s 

acceptance of the requirement that such students physically attend such classes on campus.

That Defendant offered to provide, and members of the Tuition Class expected to 

receive, instruction on the physical campus is further evidence by the parties’ prior course of 

conduct. 

Those classes for which students expected to receive in-person instruction began 

the Spring 2020 semester by offering in-person instruction.

44 https://m.canelink.miami.edu/app/catalog/classsection/MIAMI/2201/2724.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 26 of 45
27

Each day for the weeks and months leading up to March 7, 2020, students 

attended physical classrooms to receive in-person instruction, and Defendant provided such inperson instruction.45

Likewise, upon information and belief, most students were provided with syllabi 

and other documents that referenced class meeting schedules, locations, and physical attendance 

requirements.

Each day for the weeks and months prior to announced closures, students had 

access to the full campus.

Accordingly, it is clear that Defendant offered to provide live, in-person 

education, together with a full on-campus experience and members of the Tuition Class accepted 

that offer by paying tuition and attending classes during the beginning of the Spring 2020 

semester. 

This distinction is highlighted further by Defendant’s own transfer credit policy. 

For example, for the Miami Herbert Business School, “Online math classes are 

not transferable to UM without prior approval of the math department.”46

Defendant’s transfer credit policy clearly articulates Defendant’s position: that 

online classes are not analogous to University of Miami classes, because University of Miami

classes are taught face-to-face in person in a classroom setting.

45 March 7, 2020 was the date on which Spring Recess began. https:// youcalendars.com/calendar

-printable/University-Of-Miami-Academic-Calendar-Spring-2020.jpg. 46 https://admissions.miami.edu/undergraduate/application-process/admission-requirements/

transfer/index.html.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 27 of 45
28

Based on this mutual assent, Plaintiffs and members of the Tuition Class fulfilled 

their end of the bargain when they paid tuition for the Spring 2020 semester, either by paying 

out-of-pocket or by using student loan financing, or otherwise.

However, the University breached the contract with Plaintiffs and members of the 

Tuition Class by moving all classes for the Spring 2020 semester to online distance learning 

platforms, and restricting the on-campus experience without reducing or refunding tuition 

accordingly.

This cause of action does not seek to allege “academic malpractice.” 

Rather, it is clear from the facts and circumstances that Defendant offered two 

separate and distinct products, one being live, in-person, on-campus education, with its featured 

ancillary and related services, and the other being online distance education.

Plaintiffs and members of the Tuition Class accepted Defendant’s offer for live 

in-person on-campus education and paid valuable consideration in exchange.

However, after accepting such consideration from Plaintiffs and members of the 

Tuition Class, Defendant provided a materially different product, which deprived Plaintiffs and 

members of the Tuition Class of the benefit of the bargain for which they had paid. 

Defendant retained tuition monies paid by Plaintiffs and members of the Tuition 

Class, without providing them the full benefit of their bargain.

Plaintiffs and members of the Tuition Class have suffered damage as a direct and 

proximate result of Defendant’s breach amounting to the difference in the fair market value of 

the services and access for which they contracted, and the services and access which they 

actually received. 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 28 of 45
29

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiffs and members of 

the Tuition Class are legally and equitably entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact 

in this action, to include disgorgement of the difference between the fair market value of the 

online learning provided versus the fair market value of the live, in-person instruction in a 

physical classroom on a physical campus with all the attendant benefits for which they 

contracted.

FOR A SECOND COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT

(Plaintiffs and Members of the Tuition Class)

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–89 as though fully 

set forth herein.

Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of themselves and on behalf of members of 

the Tuition Class.

Plaintiffs plead this Count in the alternative to the First Collective Cause of 

Action above.

Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members entered into an implied contract by 

accepting Defendant’s offer to register for on-campus classes and use of Defendant’s facilities in 

accordance with Defendant’s usual and customary practice of providing on-campus courses. 

Under the implied contract, Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members registered for 

on-campus courses.

It was the reasonable expectation of Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members that 

Defendant would provide them with on-campus—as opposed to online—classes and instruction 

and use of Defendant’s facilities as mutually agreed and intended in accordance with 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 29 of 45
30

Defendant’s publications including, brochures, advertisements, and other promotional materials 

and Defendant’s usual and customary practice of providing on-campus courses.

Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members accepted and intended to use and enjoy 

Defendant’s on-campus classes and facilities.

Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members have fulfilled all expectations of their 

mutual agreement, by registering and paying for on-campus courses and access to on-campus 

facilities and services for the Spring 2020 semester. Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members have 

paid Defendant for all Spring 2020 semester financial assessments.

However, Defendant breached the implied contract, failed to provide those oncampus classes and/or services, and has not otherwise performed as obligated and required by 

the implied-in-fact contract between Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members and Defendant. 

Defendant moved all classes to online classes, restricted or eliminated Tuition Class Members’ 

ability to access university facilities, and/or evicted Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members from 

campus housing. In doing so, Defendant has deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiffs and 

Tuition Class Members from the benefit of their bargains with Defendant.

Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members have been damaged as a direct and 

proximate result of Defendant’s breach. The online classes provided by Defendant are 

objectively different from and less valuable than the on-campus classes for which the parties 

entered into an implied contract.

Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members are entitled to damages, including but not 

limited to tuition refunds, fee refunds, and/or room and board refunds. As a direct and proximate 

result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiffs and members of the Tuition Class are legally and 

equitably entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact in this action, to include 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 30 of 45
31

disgorgement of the difference between the fair market value of the online learning provided 

versus the fair market value of the live, in-person instruction in a physical classroom on a 

physical campus with all the attendant benefits for which they entered into an implied contract

FOR A THIRD COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

(Plaintiffs and Members of the Tuition Class)

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–89 as though fully set forth 

herein.

Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of themselves and members of the Tuition 

Class.

This claim is pled in the alternative to, and to the extent it is determined a contract 

does not exist or otherwise apply, the contract-based claim set forth in the First Cause of Action 

above.

Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members paid substantial tuition for live, in-person 

instruction in physical classrooms on a physical campus with all the attendant benefits.

Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members conferred a benefit on Defendant when they 

paid this tuition.

Defendant has realized this benefit by accepting such payment.

However, Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members did not receive the full benefit of 

their bargain.

Instead, Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members conferred this benefit on Defendant 

in expectation of receiving one product, i.e., live in-person instruction in a physical classroom 

along with the on-campus experience of campus life as described more fully above, but they 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 31 of 45
32

were provided with a materially different product carrying a different fair market value, i.e., 

online instruction devoid of the on-campus experience, access, and services.

Defendant has retained this benefit, even though Defendant has failed to provide 

the services for which the tuition was collected, making Defendant’s retention unjust under the 

circumstances. 

It is significantly cheaper for Defendant to provide the online product than the oncampus product.

As a result of closing campus and moving classes online, Defendant saved 

significant sums of money in the way of reduced utility costs, reduced maintenance and staffing 

requirements, reduced or eliminated hours for hourly employees, reduced or eliminated hours for 

paid work study students, and otherwise.

Simply put, it is significantly cheaper to operate a remote, on-line campus than a 

fully open physical campus. But even if it was not, it is not the product that students were offered 

and not the product the students expected to receive.

Equity and good conscience require that the University return a portion of the

monies paid in tuition to Plaintiffs and Tuition Class Members. 

FOR A FOURTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Plaintiffs and Other Members of the Fees Class)

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–89 as though fully set forth 

herein.

Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of themselves and members of the Fees Class.

In addition to tuition, Defendant charges a number of mandatory fees.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 32 of 45
33

In its publications and, particularly on its website, Defendant specifically 

describes the nature and purpose of each fee for which students pay.

Some fees apply broadly to all or certain groups of students, while other fees are 

program or course based.

Such fees are set forth not only in amount but also in description and purpose 

through the various academic catalogs and on the website.

As such, it is axiomatic that the monies Plaintiffs and Fees Class Members paid

towards these fees were intended by both the students and Defendant to cover the services, 

access, benefits, and programs for which the fees were described and billed.

By way of example, The University states that the Student Activity Fee is “used 

to support the availability of a wide range of programs, services, lectures, speakers, facilities and 

organizations including club sports, major events (e.g. Homecoming), and various forms of 

entertainment, concerts, student media, and student government.”47

The University states that the Athletic Fee “allows students to attend assigned 

home games for football, baseball, basketball and intercollegiate contests. Free transportation is 

included for events held at the Hard Rock Stadium.”48

The University states that the Wellness Center Fee “allows students to use the 

138,000 square-foot center which includes a 20,000 square-foot fitness room; a functional 

training studio, five racquetball courts; two squash courts; indoor lap pool; two dry saunas; a 

whirlpool spa; two gymnasiums for basketball, volleyball, badminton floor hockey and soccer; 

indoor jogging track; four multipurpose rooms; juice bar; and locker rooms. The facility also 

47 https://osas.miami.edu/tuition-and-fees/tuition-and-fees-information/fee-descriptions/index.

html. 48 Id.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 33 of 45
34

includes a fitness lab, instructional kitchen, classrooms, and a conference room. Additionally, 

four outdoor basketball/volleyball courts and five intramural fields are available for use. The fee 

includes access to group exercise classes like Zumba and cardio kickboxing.”49

The University states that the Health and Counseling Center Fee “allows for 

primary medical care physician/nursing services, 24 hour on-call services, health counseling and 

community outreach/public health initiatives at the Student Health Service, and individual and 

group counseling, substance abuse and other addiction programs, crisis intervention, case 

management, and mental health education and other outreach programs at the Counseling 

Center.”50

The University states that the Student Center Complex Fee “provides funding for 

construction, operation, maintenance and programs of the Student Center Complex, consisting of 

the Whitten University Center, the Shalala Student Center, the UC Pool, Rock, ‘U’ statue, UC 

Patio, and Stage.”51

As such, in accepting these terms and paying these fees, a contract was formed

between Plaintiffs, including the Fees Class, and Defendant, which provided that Plaintiffs and 

Fees Class Members would pay these fees for or on behalf of themselves and, in exchange, 

Defendant would provide or make available the services, access, benefits, and/or programs 

related to those fees, as promised.

49 https://osas.miami.edu/tuition-and-fees/tuition-and-fees-information/fee-descriptions/index.

html. 50 https://osas.miami.edu/tuition-and-fees/tuition-and-fees-information/fee-descriptions/index.

html. 51 Id.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 34 of 45
35

It is undisputed that Defendant did not provide student activities, on-campus 

printing facilities, access to recreational facilities, access to campus-based information 

technology resources, access to any Health Facilities for a portion of the Spring 2020 term. 

Plaintiffs and Fees Class Members fulfilled their end of the bargain when they 

paid these fees for the Spring 2020 semester, either by paying out-of-pocket or by using student 

loan financing, or otherwise.

However, Defendant breached the contract with Plaintiffs and Class Members by 

moving all classes for the Spring 2020 semester to online distance learning platforms, 

constructively evicting students from campus, closing most campus buildings and facilities, and 

cancelling most student activities.

Defendant has acknowledged such breach and has already refunded or offered to 

refund some of these fees.

Although Defendant’s admissions serve as a starting point for the analysis and 

support of this cause of action, there are yet other fees that Defendant has refused and continues 

to refuse to refund in full.

By retaining fees paid by Plaintiffs and Fees Class Members, without providing 

them the full benefit of their bargain, Defendant has failed to perform its contractual obligations.

Plaintiffs and Fees Class Members have suffered damage as a direct and 

proximate result of Defendant’s breach, namely being deprived of the value of the services, 

access, benefits and/or programs the fees were intended to cover.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiffs and Fees Class 

Members are legally and equitably entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact in this 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 35 of 45
36

action, to include disgorgement of the pro-rata amount of fees that were collected but for which 

services were not provided.

FOR A FIFTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT

(Plaintiffs and Members of the Fee Class)

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–89 as though fully 

set forth herein.

Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the members 

of the Fees Class.

Plaintiffs plead this Count in the alternative to the Fourth Cause of Action above.

In addition to tuition, Defendant charges a number of mandatory fees.

Plaintiffs and Fees Class Members entered into an implied contract by accepting 

Defendant’s offer to register for on-campus classes and use of Defendant’s facilities in 

accordance with Defendant’s usual and customary practice of providing on-campus courses and 

access to facilities.

Under the implied contract, Plaintiffs and Fees Class Members registered for an

on-campus experience.

It was the reasonable expectation of Plaintiffs and Fees Class Members that 

Defendant would provide them with an on-campus—as opposed to online—classes and 

instruction and use of Defendant’s facilities as mutually agreed and intended in accordance with 

Defendant’s publications including, brochures, advertisements, and other promotional materials 

and Defendant’s usual and customary practice of providing on-campus courses and facilities.

In its publications and, particularly on its website, Defendant specifically 

describes the nature and purpose of each fee for which students pay.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 36 of 45
37

Some fees apply broadly to all or certain groups of students, while other fees are 

program or course based.

Such fees are set forth not only in amount but also in description and purpose 

through the various academic catalogs and on the website.

As such, the monies Plaintiffs and Fees Class Members paid towards these fees 

were intended by both the students and Defendant to cover the services, access, benefits, and 

programs for which the fees were described and billed.

By way of example, The University states that the Student Activity Fee is “used 

to support the availability of a wide range of programs, services, lectures, speakers, facilities and 

organizations including club sports, major events (e.g. Homecoming), and various forms of 

entertainment, concerts, student media, and student government.”52

The University states that the Athletic Fee “allows students to attend assigned 

home games for football, baseball, basketball and intercollegiate contests. Free transportation is 

included for events held at the Hard Rock Stadium.”53

The University states that the Wellness Center Fee “allows students to use the 

138,000 square-foot center which includes a 20,000 square-foot fitness room; a functional 

training studio, five racquetball courts; two squash courts; indoor lap pool; two dry saunas; a 

whirlpool spa; two gymnasiums for basketball, volleyball, badminton floor hockey and soccer; 

indoor jogging track; four multipurpose rooms; juice bar; and locker rooms. The facility also 

includes a fitness lab, instructional kitchen, classrooms, and a conference room. Additionally, 

52 https://osas.miami.edu/tuition-and-fees/tuition-and-fees-information/fee-descriptions/index.

html. 53 Id.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 37 of 45
38

four outdoor basketball/volleyball courts and five intramural fields are available for use. The fee 

includes access to group exercise classes like Zumba and cardio kickboxing.”54

The University states that the Health and Counseling Center Fee “allows for 

primary medical care physician/nursing services, 24 hour on-call services, health counseling and 

community outreach/public health initiatives at the Student Health Service, and individual and 

group counseling, substance abuse and other addiction programs, crisis intervention, case 

management, and mental health education and other outreach programs at the Counseling 

Center.”55

The University states that the Student Center Complex Fee “provides funding for 

construction, operation, maintenance and programs of the Student Center Complex, consisting of 

the Whitten University Center, the Shalala Student Center, the UC Pool, Rock, ‘U’ statue, UC 

Patio, and Stage.”56

Plaintiffs and Fees Class Members accepted and intended to use and enjoy 

Defendant’s on-campus facilities including the services, access, benefits and/or programs related 

to the fees they paid.

It is undisputed that Defendant did not provide student activities, on-campus 

printing facilities, access to recreational facilities, access to campus-based information 

technology resources, access to any Health Facilities for a portion of the Spring 2020 term. 

54 https://osas.miami.edu/tuition-and-fees/tuition-and-fees-information/fee-descriptions/index.

html. 55 https://osas.miami.edu/tuition-and-fees/tuition-and-fees-information/fee-descriptions/index.

html. 56 Id.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 38 of 45
39

Plaintiffs and Fess Class Members have fulfilled all expectations of their mutual 

agreement, when they paid these fees for the Spring 2020 semester, either by paying out-ofpocket or by using student loan financing, or otherwise.

However, Defendant breached the implied contract, failed to provide those oncampus classes and services, and has not otherwise performed as obligated and required by the 

implied-in-fact contract between Plaintiffs and Class Members and Defendant. Defendant moved 

all classes to online classes, restricted or eliminated Fees Class Members’ ability to access 

university facilities, cancelled student events and activities, and/or evicted Plaintiffs and Fees

Class Members from campus housing. In doing so, Defendant has deprived and continues to 

deprive Plaintiffs and Fess Class Members from the benefit of their bargains with Defendant.

Defendant has acknowledged such breach and has already refunded or offered to 

refund some of these fees.

Although Defendant’s admissions serve as a starting point for the analysis and 

support this cause of action, there are yet other fees that Defendant has refused and continues to 

refuse to refund in full.

Plaintiffs and Fees Class Members have suffered damage as a direct and 

proximate result of Defendant’s breach, namely being deprived of the value of the services, 

access, benefits, and/or programs the fees were intended to cover for which the parties entered 

into an implied contract.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiffs and Fees Class 

Members are legally and equitably entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact in this 

action, to include disgorgement of the pro-rata amount of fees that were collected but for which 

services were not provided.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 39 of 45
40

FOR A SIXTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

(Plaintiffs and Members of the Fees Class)

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–89 as though fully set forth 

herein.

Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of themselves and members of the Fees Class.

This claim is pled in the alternative to, and to the extent it is determined a contract 

does not exist or otherwise apply, the contract-based claim set forth in the Fourth Cause of 

Action above.

Defendant has received a benefit at the expense of Plaintiffs and Fees Class

Members to which it is not entitled.

Plaintiffs and Fees Class Members paid substantial student fees for on-campus 

services, access, benefits, and/or programs and did not receive the full benefit of the bargain.

Plaintiffs and other members of the Fees Class conferred this benefit on 

Defendant when they paid the fees.

Defendant realized this benefit by accepting such payment.

Defendant has retained this benefit, even though Defendant has failed to provide 

the services, access, benefits, and/or programs for which the fees were collected, making 

Defendant’s retention unjust under the circumstances. 

Equity and good conscience require that Defendant return a portion of the monies 

paid in fees to Plaintiffs and Fees Class Members.

Defendant should be required to disgorge this unjust enrichment to the extent that 

Defendant has retained more than the fair market value for the product that Defendant was able 

to provide.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 40 of 45
41

FOR A SEVENTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Plaintiffs and Members of the On-Campus Housing and Meals Class)

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–89 as though fully 

set forth herein.

Certain Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of themselves and members of the 

On-Campus Housing and Meals Class.

Certain Plaintiffs and the On-Campus Housing and Meals Class Members entered 

into contracts with the University which provided that certain Plaintiffs and On-Campus Housing 

and Meals Class Members would pay certain fees for or on behalf of students and, in exchange, 

the University would provide on-campus housing and meals to those students.

As part of this contract, the University was to provide housing and meals for a 

specified period of time, and students were to retain the right of quiet enjoyment in such housing 

so long as they complied with the University’s student housing policies and procedures.

Certain Plaintiffs and On-Campus Housing and Meals Class Members fulfilled 

their end of the bargain when they paid these fees for the Spring 2020 semester either out-ofpocket or by using student loan financing, or otherwise.

The University breached the contract with Plaintiffs and On-Campus Housing 

Class Members by moving all classes for the Spring 2020 semester to online distance learning 

platforms, and requiring students to move out of on-campus housing facilities, and cancelling the 

offering of meals to students.

The University retained fees paid by certain Plaintiffs and other members of the 

On-Campus Housing and Meals Class, without providing them the full benefit of their bargain.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 41 of 45
42

Certain Plaintiffs and On-Campus Housing and Meals Class Members have 

suffered damage as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, including but not limited 

to being deprived of the value of the housing that the room fees were intended to cover, and the 

meals that the meal fees were intended to cover.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiffs and On-Campus 

Housing and Meals Class Members are legally and equitably entitled to damages, to be decided 

by the trier of fact in this action, to include but not be limited to disgorgement of the pro-rata 

amount of fees that were collected but for which services were not provided.

FOR AN EIGHTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION

ENRICHMENT WITHOUT CAUSE

(Plaintiffs and Members of the On-Campus Housing and Meals Class)

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–89 as though fully 

set forth herein.

Certain Plaintiffs brings this count on behalf of themselves and members of the 

On-Campus Housing and Meals Class.

This claim is pled in the alternative to the contract-based claim set forth in the 

Seventh Cause of Action above to the extent it is determined a contract does not exist or 

otherwise apply.

The University has received a benefit at the expense of Plaintiffs and members of 

the On-Campus Housing and Meals Class to which it is not entitled.

Certain Plaintiffs and On-Campus Housing and Meals Class Members paid 

substantial room fees for the right to occupy on-campus housing and receive meals and did not 

receive the full benefit of the bargain.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 42 of 45
43

Certain Plaintiffs and On-Campus Housing and Meals Class Members conferred 

this benefit on Defendant when they paid the fees.

Defendant has realized this benefit by accepting such payment.

Defendant has retained this benefit, even though Defendant has failed to provide 

the meals, housing, and other amenities for which the fees were collected, making Defendant’s 

retention unjust under the circumstances. 

Equity and good conscience require that the University return a pro-rata portion of 

the monies paid in fees to Plaintiff and On-Campus Housing and Meals Class Members.

Defendant should be required to disgorge this unjust enrichment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of members of the Classes, pray for 

judgment in their favor and against Defendant as follows:

A. Certifying the Classes as proposed herein and designating Plaintiffs as Class 

representatives;

B. Declaring that Defendant is financially responsible for notifying the Class members 

of the pendency of this action;

C. Declaring that Defendant has wrongfully kept monies paid for tuition and fees;

D. Requiring that Defendant disgorge amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition and 

fees;

E. Awarding injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including enjoining 

Defendant from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition and fees;

F. Scheduling a trial by jury in this action;

G. Awarding Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses, as permitted 

by law;

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 43 of 45
44

H. Awarding pre and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded, as permitted by 

law; and

I. Awarding such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs demand trial by jury 

in this action of all issues so triable.

Dated September 1, 2020 BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

By: /s/ Sarah N. Westcot

Sarah N. Westcot

Sarah N. Westcot (FBN: 1018272)

701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 330-5512

Facsimile: (305) 676-9006

Email: swestcot@bursor.com

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

Andrew J. Obergfell (admitted pro hac vice)

888 Seventh Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Telephone: (646) 837-7150

Facsimile: (212) 989-9163

Email: aobergfell@bursor.com

ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC

Roy T. Willey IV (admitted pro hac vice)

Eric M. Poulin (admitted pro hac vice)

32 Ann Street

Charleston, SC 29403

Telephone: (843) 614-8888

Email: roy@akinlawfirm.com

GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, P.A.

Stuart Z. Grossman (FBN:156113)

2525 Ponce De Leon, Suite 1150

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telephone: (305) 442-8666

Email: szg@grossmanroth.com

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 44 of 45
45

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Steve W. Berman (admitted pro hac vice)

1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000

Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: (206) 623-7292

Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Daniel J. Kurowski (admitted pro hac vice)

Whitney K. Siehl (admitted pro hac vice)

455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410

Chicago, IL 60611

Telephone:(708) 628-4949

Email: dank@hbsslaw.com

Email: whitneys@hbsslaw.com

Joshua H. Eggnatz (FBN: 0067926)

Michael J. Pascucci (FBN: 0083397)

7450 Griffin Rd, Ste. 230 

Davie, FL 33314 

Telephone: (954) 889-3359 

Fax: (954) 889-5913 

Email: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com 

Email: Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com

Jeffrey K. Brown (pro hac vice forthcoming)

Michael A. Tompkins (pro hac vice forthcoming)

Brett R. Cohen (pro hac vice forthcoming)

One Old Country Road, Suite 347 

Carle Place, NY 11514 

Telephone: (516) 873-9550 

Email: jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com 

Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com 

Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 45 of 45