2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

VALERIA DIMITRYUK, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI,

 Defendant.

Civil Action No. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY 

TRIAL

Plaintiff Valeria Dimitryuk (“Plaintiff”) brings this action on behalf of herself and all 

others similarly situated against Defendant University of Miami (“Defendant”). Plaintiff makes

the following allegations pursuant to the investigation of her counsel and based upon information 

and belief, except as to the allegations specifically pertaining to herself, which are based on 

personal knowledge.

NATURE OF THE ACTION AND FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

1. This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all people who paid tuition and fees for 

the Spring 2020 academic semester at the University of Miami, and who, because of Defendant’s 

response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic, lost the benefit of the 

education for which they paid, and/or the services or which their fees were paid, without having 

their tuition and fees refunded to them. 

2. The University of Miami is a private university with a total enrollment of 

approximately 17,331 students. The university offers over 180 undergraduate degree programs, 

as well as graduate level degree programs.

1

 The University of Miami also operates an online 

1 https://admissions.miami.edu/undergraduate/academics/majors-by-school-or-college/index.html

(last visited 4/24/20). 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 1 of 15
3

program called UOnline which offers various graduate-level degrees.

2

 

3. On March 12, 2020, Defendant, through a news release, announced that because 

of the global COVID-19 pandemic, spring break would be extended through March 22, and that 

classes would resume on March 23, “but strictly in online/remote/distance learning environments 

through at least April 4.”3 

4. On March 17, 2020, Defendant informed students that “the move to online 

instruction has been extended through the remainder of the spring semester, which will conclude 

on May 6.”4 Defendant also implemented a partial closing of on-campus housing beginning 

March 25, 2020. 

5. The University of Miami has not held any in-person classes since March 17, 

2020. Classes that have continued have only been offered in an online format, with no in-person 

instruction. 

6. As a result of the closure of Defendant’s facilities, Defendant has not delivered 

the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Plaintiff and the putative class 

contracted and paid for. The online learning options being offered to University of Miami

students are subpar in practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to 

faculty. Students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person 

dialogue, feedback, and critique. The remote learning options are in no way the equivalent of the 

in-person education that Plaintiff and the putative class members contracted and paid for.

7. Plaintiff and the putative class are therefore entitled to a refund of tuition and fees 

for in-person educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Defendant has not 

2 https://welcome.miami.edu/online (last visited 4/24/20).

3 https://coronavirus.miami.edu/updates-and-messages/index.html (last visited 4/24/20). 

4 https://coronavirus.miami.edu/updates-and-messages/index.html (last visited 4/24/2020).

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 2 of 15
4

provided. Even if Defendant claims it did not have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it 

nevertheless has improperly retained funds for services it is not providing.

8. Through this lawsuit Plaintiff seeks, for herself and Class members, Defendant’s 

disgorgement of the pro-rated portion of tuition and fees, proportionate to the amount of time 

that remained in the Spring Semester 2020 when classes moved online and campus services 

ceased being provided. Plaintiff seeks a return of these amounts on behalf of herself and the 

Class as defined below.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Valeria Dimitryuk is a citizen of Florida who resides in Broward County,

Florida. Ms. Dimitryuk is enrolled as an undergraduate architecture major at the University of 

Miami, and pre-paid her tuition for the Spring 2020 semester. Ms. Dimitryuk paid 

approximately $22,617 in tuition and fees to Defendant for Spring Semester 2020. Ms. 

Dimitryuk has not received any refund for tuition or fees, despite the fact that in-person classes 

have not been held since March 17, 2020. Online classes are particularly ineffective for 

architecture majors like Ms. Dimitryuk, as they are unable to participate in model making, and 

are unable to receive in-person feedback from instructors. Since the closure of Defendant’s 

campuses, Ms. Dimitryuk has also been unable to utilize school facilities such as libraries and 

study rooms. In addition to tuition, Ms. Dimitryuk also paid miscellaneous student fees, which 

services she did not receive the full benefit of due to suspension of online classes. These fees 

include a student center fee, a wellness center fee, an activity fee, an athletic fee, and a health 

and counsel center fee. 

10. Defendant University of Miami is a non-profit corporation duly organized and 

existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, and is an institution of higher education 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 3 of 15
5

with its principal place of business at 1320 S Dixie Hwy, Coral Gables, FL 33146. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), 

as modified by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, because at least one member of the Class, 

as defined below, is a citizen of a different state than Defendant, there are more than 100 

members of the Class, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of

interest and costs.

12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is 

incorporated and has its principal place of business in this District.

13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant is 

incorporated and has its principal place of business in this District. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff And Class Members Paid Tuition And Fees For Spring Semester 2020

14. Plaintiff and Class members are individuals who paid the cost of tuition and other 

mandatory fees for the Spring 2020 Semester at the University of Miami.

15. Spring Semester 2020 classes at the University of Miami began on or about 

January 13, 2020. Final exams for the semester are scheduled to take place between April 29, 

2020 and May 6, 2020.

5

16. Plaintiff and Class members paid the cost of tuition for the Spring Semester 2020, 

as well as associated fees and costs.

17. Examples of approximate tuition costs at University of Miami for the Spring 

5 https://registrar.miami.edu/dates-and-deadlines/final-exams/spring-2020-final-exam.pdf (last 

visited 4/24/20). 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 4 of 15
6

Semester 2020 are as follows:

• Undergraduate: $26,040 (plus fees)

• School of Law, JD: $27,067 (plus fees)

• School of Law, LLM: $27,067 (plus fees)

• Graduate School: $19,454 (plus fees)

18. Fees paid by or on behalf of University of Miami students vary based on program 

of study.

19. The tuition and fees described in the paragraphs above are provided by way of 

example; total damage amounts – which may include other fees that are not listed herein but that 

were not refunded – will be proven at trial. 

In Response To COVID-19, The University of Miami Closed Campuses And Cancelled All InPerson Classes

20. On March 12, 2020, Defendant, through a news release, announced that because 

of the global COVID-19 pandemic, spring break would be extended through March 22, and that 

classes would resume on March 23, “but strictly in online/remote/distance learning environments 

through at least April 4.”6 

21. On March 17, 2020, Defendant informed students that “the move to online 

instruction has been extended through the remainder of the spring semester, which will conclude 

on May 6.”7

 Defendant also implemented a partial closing of on-campus housing beginning 

March 25, 2020. 

22. The University of Miami has not held any in-person classes since March 17, 

2020. Classes that have continued have only been offered in an online format, with no in-person 

instruction. 

6 https://coronavirus.miami.edu/updates-and-messages/index.html (last visited 4/24/20). 

7 https://coronavirus.miami.edu/updates-and-messages/index.html (last visited 4/24/2020).

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 5 of 15
7

23. As a result of the closure of Defendant’s facilities, Defendant has not delivered 

the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Plaintiff and the putative class 

contracted and paid for. Plaintiff and the putative class are therefore entitled to a refund of all 

tuition and fees for services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Defendant has not 

provided. Even if Defendant claims it did not have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it 

nevertheless has improperly retained funds for services it is not providing. 

24. Plaintiff and members of the Class did not choose to attend an online institution of 

higher learning, but instead chose to attend Defendant’s institution and enroll on an in-person 

basis. 

25. Defendant markets the University of Miami on-campus experience as a benefit of 

enrollment on the University of Miami’s website:

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 6 of 15
8

26. The online learning options being offered to University of Miami students are 

subpar in practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to faculty. 

Students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person 

dialogue, feedback, and critique. 

27. The remote learning options are in no way the equivalent of the in-person 

education putative class members contracted and paid for. The remote education being provided 

is not even remotely worth the amount charged class members for Spring Semester 2020 tuition. 

The tuition and fees for in-person instruction at the University of Miami are higher than tuition 

and fees for other online institutions because such costs cover not just the academic instruction, 

but encompass an entirely different experience which includes but is not limited to:

• Face to face interaction with professors, mentors, and peers; 

• Access to facilities such as libraries, laboratories, computer labs, and 

study room;

• Student governance and student unions;

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 7 of 15
9

• Extra-curricular activities, groups, intramural sports, etc.; 

• Student art, cultures, and other activities;

• Social development and independence;

• Hands on learning and experimentation; 

• Networking and mentorship opportunities.

28. Through this lawsuit Plaintiff seeks, for herself and Class members, Defendant’s 

disgorgement of the pro-rated portion of tuition and fees, proportionate to the amount of time 

that remained in the Spring Semester 2020 when classes moved online and campus services 

ceased being provided. Plaintiff seeks return of these amounts on behalf of herself and the Class,

as defined below.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

29. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all people who paid University of 

Miami Spring Semester 2020 tuition and/or fees for in-person educational services that the 

University of Miami failed to provide, and whose tuition and fees have not been refunded (the 

“Class”). Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendant, Defendant’s officers, directors, 

agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, principals, 

servants, partners, joint ventures, or entities controlled by Defendant, and their heirs, successors, 

assigns, or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendant and/or Defendant’s 

officers and/or directors, the judge assigned to this action, and any member of the judge’s 

immediate family. 

30. Plaintiff also seeks to represent a subclass consisting of Class members who 

reside in Florida (the “Subclass”). 

31. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 8 of 15
10

discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class and Subclass may be expanded or narrowed by 

amendment or amended complaint.

32. Numerosity. The members of the Class and Subclass are geographically 

dispersed throughout the United States and are so numerous that individual joinder is 

impracticable. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff reasonably estimates that there are tens of

thousands of members in the Class and Subclass. Although the precise number of Class 

members is unknown to Plaintiff, the true number of Class members is known by Defendant and 

may be determined through discovery. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this 

action by mail and/or publication through records in Defendant’s possession. 

33. Existence and predominance of common questions of law and fact. Common 

questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and Subclass and predominate over 

any questions affecting only individual Class members. These common legal and factual 

questions include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) whether Defendant accepted money from Class and Subclass members in 

exchange for the promise to provide services;

(b) whether Defendant has provided the services for which Class and Subclass 

members contracted; 

(c) whether Class and Subclass members are entitled to a refund for that portion of 

the tuition and fees that was contracted for services that Defendant did not 

provide;

(d) whether Defendant has unlawfully converted money from Plaintiff, the Class and 

Subclass; and

(d) whether Defendant is liable to Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclass for unjust 

enrichment.

34. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of 

the Class in that, among other things, all Class and Subclass members were similarly situated and 

were comparably injured through Defendant’s wrongful conduct as set forth herein. Further, 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 9 of 15
11

there are no defenses available to Defendant that are unique to Plaintiff. 

35. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the 

interests of the Class and Subclass. Plaintiff has retained counsel that is highly experienced in 

complex consumer class action litigation, and Plaintiff intends to vigorously prosecute this action 

on behalf of the Class and Subclass. Furthermore, Plaintiff has no interests that are antagonistic 

to those of the Class or Subclass.

36. Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available means for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The damages or other financial detriment suffered 

by individual Class and Subclass members are relatively small compared to the burden and 

expense of individual litigation of their claims against Defendant. It would, thus, be virtually 

impossible for the Class or Subclass on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress for the 

wrongs committed against them. Furthermore, even if Class or Subclass members could afford 

such individualized litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation would create 

the danger of inconsistent or contradictory judgments arising from the same set of facts.

Individualized litigation would also increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court 

system from the issues raised by this action. By contrast, the class action device provides the 

benefits of adjudication of these issues in a single proceeding, economies of scale, and 

comprehensive supervision by a single court, and presents no unusual management difficulties 

under the circumstances.

37. In the alternative, the Class and Subclass may also be certified because:

(a) the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class and Subclass members 

would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to 

individual Class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct 

for the Defendant;

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 10 of 15
12

(b) the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class and Subclass members 

would create a risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical 

matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Class members not parties to the 

adjudications, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their 

interests; and/or

(c) Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class

as a whole, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and/or injunctive relief 

with respect to the members of the Class as a whole.

COUNT I

Breach Of Contract

(On Behalf Of The Class And Subclass)

38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all 

preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

39. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class

and Subclass against Defendant.

40. Through the admission agreement and payment of tuition and fees, Plaintiff and 

each member of the Class and Subclass entered into a binding contract with Defendant. 

41. As part of the contract, and in exchange for the aforementioned consideration, 

Defendant promised to provide certain services, all as set forth above. Plaintiff, Class, and 

Subclass members fulfilled their end of the bargain when they paid monies due for Spring 

Semester 2020 tuition. Tuition for Spring Semester 2020 was intended to cover in-person 

educational services from January through May 2020. In exchange for tuition monies paid, Class 

and Subclass members were entitled to in-person educational services through the end of the 

Spring Semester.

42. Defendant has failed to provide the contracted for services and has otherwise not 

performed under the contract as set forth above. Defendant has retained monies paid by Plaintiff 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 11 of 15
13

and the Class for their Spring Semester 2020 tuition and fees, without providing them the benefit 

of their bargain.

43. Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass have suffered damage as a direct 

and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, including but not limited to being deprived of the 

education, experience, and services to which they were promised and for which they have 

already paid. 

44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff, the Class, and 

Subclass are entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact in this action, to include but no 

be limited to reimbursement of certain tuition, fees, and other expenses that were collected by 

Defendant for services that Defendant has failed to deliver. Defendant should return the prorated portion of any Spring Semester 2020 tuition and fees for education services not provided 

since the University of Miami shut down on March 17, 2020. 

45. Defendant’s performance under the contract is not excused due to COVID-19. 

Indeed, Defendant should have refunded the pro-rated portion of any education services not 

provided. Even if performance was excused or impossible, Defendant would nevertheless be 

required to return the funds received for services it will not provide.

COUNT II

Unjust Enrichment

(On Behalf Of The Class And Subclass)

46. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all 

preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

47. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class

and Subclass against Defendant.

48. Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass conferred a benefit on Defendant 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 12 of 15
14

in the form of monies paid for Spring Semester 2020 tuition and other fees in exchange for 

certain service and promises. Tuition for Spring Semester 2020 was intended to cover in-person 

educational services from January through May 2020. In exchange for tuition monies paid, Class 

members were entitled to in-person educational services through the end of the Spring Semester.

49. Defendant voluntarily accepted and retained this benefit by accepting payment.

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

the education, experience, and services for which the tuition and fees were collected, making 

Defendant’s retention unjust under the circumstances. Accordingly, Defendant should return the 

pro-rated portion of any Spring Semester 2020 tuition and fees for education services not 

provided since the University of Miami shut down on March 17, 2020.

51. It would be unjust and inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefit, and 

Defendant should be required to disgorge this unjust enrichment. 

COUNT III

Conversion

(On Behalf Of The Class And Subclass)

52. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all 

preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

53. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class 

and Subclass against Defendant.

54. Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass have an ownership right to the

in-person educational services they were supposed to be provided in exchange for their Spring 

Semester 2020 tuition and fee payments to Defendant. 

55. Defendant intentionally interfered with the rights of Plaintiff, the Class, and 

Subclass when it moved all classes to an online format and discontinued in-person educational 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 13 of 15
15

services for which tuition and fees were intended to pay.

56. Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass demand the return of the prorated portion of any Spring Semester 2020 tuition and fees for education services not provided 

since the University of Miami shut down on March 17, 2020.

57. Defendant’s retention of the fees paid by Plaintiff and members of the Class and 

Subclass without providing the educational services for which they paid, deprived Plaintiff, Class 

and Subclass members of the benefits for which the tuition and fees paid.

58. This interference with the services for which Plaintiff and members of the Class 

and Subclass paid damaged Plaintiff and Class members in that they paid tuition and fees for 

services that will not be provided.

59. Plaintiff, Class and Subclass members are entitled to the return of pro-rated 

portion of any Spring Semester 2020 tuition and fees for education services not provided since 

the University of Miami shut down on March 17, 2020.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks

judgment against Defendant, as follows:

(a) For an order certifying the Class and Subclass under Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and naming Plaintiff as representative of 

the Class and Plaintiff’s attorneys as Class Counsel to represent the Class 

and Subclass;

(b) For an order finding in favor of Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass on all 

counts asserted herein;

(c) For compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by 

the Court and/or jury;

(d) For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded;

(e) For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief;

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 14 of 15
16

(f) For injunctive relief as pleaded or as the Court may deem proper; and

(g) For an order awarding Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass her reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and expenses and costs of suit.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of any 

and all issues in this action so triable of right.

Dated: April 26, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

By: /s/ Sarah N. Westcot 

 Sarah N. Westcot

Sarah N. Westcot

2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220

Miami, FL 33133

Telephone: (305) 330-5512

Facsimile: (305) 676-9006

Email: swestcot@bursor.com

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

Andrew J. Obergfell (pro hac vice forthcoming)

888 Seventh Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Telephone: (646) 837-7150

Facsimile: (212) 989-9163

Email: aobergfell@bursor.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2020 Page 15 of 15