010920-21/1267930 V1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

MICHAEL WEISS, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI,

 Defendant.

Case No. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 1 of 24
010920-21/1267930 V1 - i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. NATURE OF ACTION .......................................................................................................1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..........................................................................................2

III. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................3

IV. FACTS .................................................................................................................................5

A. Background..............................................................................................................5

B. The Novel Coronavirus Shutdowns And Defendant’s Campus Closure .................9

C. Defendant’s Refusal To Issue Tuition Refunds.....................................................13

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................14

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION......................................................................................................18

COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT.............................................................................18

COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT..............................................................................19

COUNT III CONVERSION.............................................................................................20

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................21

JURY DEMAND...........................................................................................................................21

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 2 of 24
-1- 010920-21/1267930 V1

Plaintiff, MICHAEL WEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

for his Class Action Complaint against Defendant UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI (“Miami”), based 

upon personal knowledge as to his own actions and based upon the investigation of counsel 

regarding all other matters, complains as follows:

I. NATURE OF ACTION

1. This Class Action Complaint comes during a time of hardship for so many 

Americans, with each day bringing different news regarding the novel coronavirus COVID-19.1

Social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and efforts to ‘flatten the curve’ prompted colleges and 

universities across the country to shut down their campuses, evict students from campus 

residence halls, and switch to online “distance” learning.

2. Despite sending students home and closing its campus(es), Defendant continues 

to charge for tuition and fees as if nothing has changed, continuing to reap the financial benefit 

of millions of dollars from students. Defendant does so despite students’ complete inability to 

continue school as normal, occupy campus buildings and dormitories, or avail themselves of

school programs and events. So while students enrolled and paid Defendant for a comprehensive 

academic experience, Defendant instead offers Plaintiff and the Class Members something far 

less: a limited online experience presented by Google or Zoom, void of face-to-face faculty and 

peer interaction, separated from program resources, and barred from facilities vital to study.

Plaintiff, students, and the Class Members did not bargain for such an experience.

1 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are mindful of the severe impact of the coronavirus on all 

aspects of society. To minimize the burden on the Court and to reasonably accommodate 

Defendant, Plaintiff will work with Defendant to reach an agreeable schedule for its response to 

this Class Action Complaint.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 3 of 24
-2- 010920-21/1267930 V1

3. While some colleges and universities have promised appropriate and/or 

proportional refunds, Defendant excludes itself from such other institutions treating students 

fairly, equitably and as required by the law. And for some students and families, Defendant does 

so based on outdated financial aid equations and collections without taking into account 

disruptions to family income, a particular concern now where layoffs and furloughs are at record 

levels.

4. As a result, Defendant’s actions have financially damaged Plaintiff and the Class

Members. Plaintiff brings this action because Plaintiff, students, and the Class Members did not 

receive the full value of the services paid, did not receive the benefits of in-person instruction. 

They have lost the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss, and are entitled to 

recover compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, and attorney’s fees and costs.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter presented by this Complaint 

because it is a class action arising under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub. 

L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), which explicitly provides for the original jurisdiction of the 

Federal Courts of any class action in which any member of the Class is a citizen of a State 

different from any Defendant, and in which the matter in controversy exceeds in the aggregate 

sum of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff alleges that the total claims of 

individual Class Members in this action are in excess of $5,000,000.00 in the aggregate, 

exclusive of interest and costs, as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2) and (6), and at least one 

class member is a citizen of a state different from Defendant. Therefore, diversity of citizenship 

exists under CAFA as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). Further, general diversity exists as 

Plaintiff is a citizen of Virginia, whereas Defendant is a citizen of Florida for purposes of

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 4 of 24
-3- 010920-21/1267930 V1

diversity. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that the total number of members of the proposed Class 

is greater than 100, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B).

6. Venue is appropriate in this District because Defendant is located within the 

Southern District of Florida. And on information and belief, events and transactions causing the 

claims herein, including Defendant’s decision-making regarding its refund policy challenged in 

this lawsuit, has occurred within this judicial district.

III. PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Michael Weiss is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia. Plaintiff 

is the parent of a current Miami student and paid his son’s tuition and fees for Defendant’s 

Spring 2020 academic term.

8. Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s son is in good financial standing at Defendant, having paid in 

whole or in combination tuition, fees, costs, and/or charges assessed and demanded by Defendant 

for the Spring 2020 term. Plaintiff paid Defendant for opportunities and services that his son will 

not receive, including on-campus education, facilities, services and activities.

9. While Plaintiff’s son could have obtained his degree online, Plaintiff’s son 

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, Plaintiff selected Miami for its 

numerous amenities, its campus, as well as the educational opportunities it would provide him.

10. With Miami’s campus closure and transition to an online-only educational 

experience, Plaintiff’s son has suffered a decreased quality of experience, education, and lost 

access to important university facilities and experiences that were bargained for by selecting inperson experiences.

11. For example, Defendant has barred Plaintiff’s son from the use of the student 

athletic center, classroom instruction, as well as university library facilities, which Plaintiff’s son 

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 5 of 24
-4- 010920-21/1267930 V1

regularly utilized for study and group project work. Defendant also prevented Plaintiff’s son 

from participating in extracurricular activities, including club athletics.

12. And with the transition to online-only classes, Plaintiff’s son noticed a shift in and 

loss of academic rigor.

13. While Plaintiff paid Miami for an in-class experience that would enable his son to 

communicate directly with his professors, attend office hours, and work through issues inperson, such experiences are non-existent following Defendant’s campus closure.

14. Some classes resulted in less course assignments, with planned quizzes and exams 

outright cancelled. Another exam, shifted to online administration was riddled with 

typographical and other errors.

15. Numerous group projects, an important aspect of Plaintiff’s son’s core classes, 

were cancelled and transitioned to individual papers. With such a transition, Plaintiff’s son lost 

out on the ability to interact with peers, develop his network, and friendship.

16. Plaintiff’s son also lost in-person interactions with his academic advisors. But 

with the transition, Plaintiff’s son finds it difficult if not impossible to obtain such advising 

remotely due to communication difficulties.

17. And for one of Plaintiff’s son’s classes, a key component to the class required 

Plaintiff to explore local Miami cultural venues and write about the experience. Instead, 

Plaintiff’s son watched internet videos and consulted websites.

18. On top of these difficulties, some professors struggle with online educational 

delivery technology, with Plaintiff’s son observing their difficulties in logging into live chats, 

trouble sharing presentation screens, locking presentation screens, and countless other technical 

difficulties.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 6 of 24
-5- 010920-21/1267930 V1

19. Defendant University of Miami is an institution of higher learning located in 

Coral Gables, Florida among other locations within this judicial district. Defendant provides 

Class Members with campus facilities, in-person classes, as well as a variety of other facilities 

for which Defendant charges Plaintiff and the Class Members.

IV. FACTS

A. Background

20. Founded in 1925, University of Miami has a current enrollment of more than 

17,000 students in 11 schools and colleges serving undergraduate and graduate students in more 

than 180 majors and programs.

21. For fiscal year 2019, Miami’s endowment totaled $997 million, with net assets of 

$2.392 billion. That same year, Miami collected $560.4 million in tuition and fees (net), a $25.6 

million increase from the prior fiscal year. Miami also reported total operating revenues reaching 

$3.574 billion.

22. Over the last decade, Miami 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”2 and the “Momentum2” 

campaign, through which Miami surpassed $1.6 billion in donations.3 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.”4

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

3 https://news.miami.edu/stories/2015/05/um-surpasses-1.6-billion-m2-campaign-goal.html.

4 https://president.miami.edu/_assets/pdf/presidents-report-2019.pdf.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 7 of 24
-6- 010920-21/1267930 V1

23. Recently, Miami received an estimated $8.1 million from the Federal Government 

as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”).

5

24. While many schools nationwide offer and highlight remote learning capabilities 

as a primary component of their efforts to deliver educational value (see, e.g., Western 

Governors University, Southern New Hampshire University, University of Phoenix-Arizona),

Defendant is not such a school.

25. Rather, a significant focus of Defendant’s efforts to obtain and recruit students 

pertains to the campus experience it offers along with face-to-face, personal interaction with 

skilled and renowned faculty and staff.

26. A few examples of such efforts to promote that experience follow.

27. Miami promotes itself as “one of the best research universities in the Americas,” 

supporting students with “mission-driven discoveries with cutting-edge technology, state-of-theart equipment, and award-winning faculty.”6

28. Miami 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.”7

29. As reflected in its requirement that non-local first-year students to live in 

University housing, Miami 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 

5 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/04/10/listing-funds-each-college-can-expectreceive-under-federal-stimulus.

6 https://admissions.miami.edu/undergraduate/index.html.

7 https://admissions.miami.edu/undergraduate/student-life/visit/index.html.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 8 of 24
-7- 010920-21/1267930 V1

to live and interact with culturally diverse students and receive support and enhanced learning 

opportunities through live-in faculty and student affairs staff.”8

30. To that end, Miami’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.”9 Thus, Miami 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.”10

31. Further, Miami provides top facilities for student use.

32. 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”11 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 . . . ”12

8 https://admissions.miami.edu/undergraduate/about/FAQs/student-life/index.html.

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

10 Id.

11 https://welcome.miami.edu/academics/libraries/index.html.

12 https://wellness.studentaffairs.miami.edu/facilities/index.html.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 9 of 24
-8- 010920-21/1267930 V1

33. Moreover, Miami 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, 

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

and education.”13 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.”14

34. To obtain such educational opportunities and activities, Plaintiff and the Class 

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

35. 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.

36. 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 

13 https://welcome.miami.edu/research/index.html.

14 https://www.bus.miami.edu/academic-programs/undergraduate-businesseducation/index.html.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 10 of 24
-9- 010920-21/1267930 V1

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

graduate programs.

B. The Novel Coronavirus Shutdowns And Defendant’s Campus Closure

37. 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.

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

known domestic infections of COVID-19.

39. 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.”

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

pandemic.

41. Travel and assembly restrictions began domestically in the United States on 

March 16, 2020, with seven counties in the San Francisco, California area announcing shelter-inplace orders. Other states, counties, and municipalities have followed the shelter-in-place orders 

and as of April 6, 2020, 297 million people in at least 38 states, 48 counties, 14 cities, the District 

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico are being urged or directed to stay home.

42. On or about March 12, 2020, Defendant extended students’ spring break through 

March 22, 2020, with classes to resume on March 23, 2020 “strictly in online/remote/distance 

learning environments through at least April 4.”

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 11 of 24
-10- 010920-21/1267930 V1

43. 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.15

44. On or about March 17, 2020, Defendant effectively closed its campus migrating 

all, or substantially all, classes online beginning March 23, 2020.

16 That day Defendant closed 

most on-campus facilities, including the Wellness Center, pool, and university libraries.17

Defendant also “strongly encourage[d] all students to return to their permanent residence and not 

remain in on-campus housing.”

45. Defendant’s implantation of online learning required “hours of training, 

reworking of courses and syllabi, and translating your teaching into digital platforms—all 

accomplished in a single week.”18

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

closures and cancellations present significant loss to Plaintiff’s son and the Class Members.

47. College students across the country have offered apt descriptions of the loss they 

have experienced as a result of the pandemic, highlighting the disparity between students’ 

bargained for educational experience and the experience that colleges and universities, including 

Defendant, now provide.

48. For example, as reported in The Washington Post, one student “wonders why he 

and others . . . are not getting at least a partial tuition refund. Their education, as this school year 

ends in the shadow of a deadly pandemic, is nothing like the immersive academic and social 

experience students imagined when they enrolled. But tuition remains the same: $27,675 per 

15 https://coronavirus.miami.edu/updates-and-messages/index.html.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 Id.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 12 of 24
-11- 010920-21/1267930 V1

semester . . . ‘Our faculty are doing a good job of working with us,’ said Patel, 22, who is from 

New Jersey. ‘But at the end of the day, it’s not the same as in-person learning . . . It shouldn’t 

just be a part of the business model where, no matter what happens, you have to pay the same 

amount. The cost needs to reflect some of the realities.’”19

49. As another example, as reflected in a Change.org petition, with nearly 5,000 

supporters, students at another major university highlight the loss experienced by students: “As a 

result of the COVID-19 global pandemic crisis, Governor Pritzker has declared a state of 

emergency in Illinois. In response, Northwestern University made the sensible decision to offer 

all Spring 2020 courses online for the start of the quarter and will likely extend this to the rest of 

the quarter as the situation worsens. While this is certainly the right call to ensure the health and 

safety of all students, Northwestern’s tuition and fees do not accurately reflect the value lost by 

switching to online education for potentially an entire term. For the following reasons, we are 

seeking a partial refund of tuition and full refund of room and board for the Spring 2020 quarter.

Since Northwestern is a top private university, the estimated annual cost of attendance of 

$78,654 goes towards a comprehensive academic experience that cannot be fully replicated 

online. Due to the COVID-19 crisis, students paying for the Northwestern experience will no 

longer have access to invaluable face-to-face interaction with faculty, resources necessary for 

specific programs, and access to facilities that enable learning.”20

50. Another university’s student newspaper reflects another example: “At this time, 

most of the campus and dorms need not be rigorously maintained. No events will be held, nor 

speakers hosted. The world-class education that consists in having opportunities to work and 

19 https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/04/16/college-students-are-rebellingagainst-full-tuition-after-classes-move-online/.

20 https://www.change.org/p/northwestern-university-tuition-fees-reduction-for-spring-2020.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 13 of 24
-12- 010920-21/1267930 V1

interact with academics and peers (not to mention the vast numbers of innovators, creators, 

doctors, organizers, and more that congregate on our campus) will no longer be provided.”21

51. Miami students share such sentiments. 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.”22

52. Another article from the Miami Hurricane recognized “Remote learning just isn’t 

the same, students say.”23 As the article explained the student-experience:

In-person lectures and discussions turned into virtual classes 

mostly held either through Zoom or Blackboard Collaborate Ultra. 

Hands-on classes such as chemistry labs now require students to 

watch videos of the labs taking place rather than performing the

experiments themselves. For students with back-to-back classes, 

this can mean spending several consecutive hours of their day 

staring at screens. Nearly a month into remote classes with just two 

weeks left in the semester, many students are finding that learning 

from their homes isn’t the same.

21 https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2020/3/19/uchicago-lower-tuition-spring-2020/.

22 https://www.themiamihurricane.com/2020/04/03/ums-response-to-covid-19-the-good-thebad-and-the-uncertain/.

23 https://www.themiamihurricane.com/2020/04/22/remote-learning-just-isnt-the-samestudents-say/.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 14 of 24
-13- 010920-21/1267930 V1

“When I go onto Zoom classes it’s really hard to pay attention and 

learn,” Sleeman said. “I’m very discouraged because I don’t feel 

like I’m learning anything.”

Sleeman said that while he appreciates his professors’ efforts, the 

online format is not as conducive to learning, especially when 

students aren’t used to it.

On top of all of his classes, Sleeman is a workshop leader for 

organic chemistry, which he continues to host virtually. There too, 

he has noticed a similar trend among students.

“Less people show up to workshops and I think that’s indicative of 

less motivation,” Sleeman said. “I used to have 10 people show up 

and now I have two or three. Even though there is more time in the 

day, people aren’t going to things like this involving school.”

***

Students, professors and administrators alike agree that virtual 

learning is not an ideal format. Meeting over Zoom or Collaborate 

Ultra has changed classroom dynamics, Kain said.24

C. Defendant’s Refusal To Issue Tuition Refunds

53. Given Defendant’s transition to online classes and COVID-19 concerns, 

Defendant asked students to vacate student housing. 

54. While Defendant has agreed to provide some refunds to certain fees and services, 

i.e., housing, dining, parking, student center, wellness center, health and counseling, student 

activities, and athletics fees, with such fees prorated to March 25, 2020, when classes 

transitioned to an online format.25

55. However, Defendant has refused to issue students or parents partial tuition 

refunds.

24 https://www.themiamihurricane.com/2020/04/22/remote-learning-just-isnt-the-samestudents-say/.

25 https://coronavirus.miami.edu/updates-and-messages/index.html.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 15 of 24
-14- 010920-21/1267930 V1

56. Defendant’s refusal to refund tuition comes as even the university’s president 

confirmed the lower quality of the online-only education provided to students as reflected in 

Miami’s student newspaper’s discussion regarding the potential return to online learning in Fall 

2020: “UM students have shared misgivings about the value of online classes, but [Miami 

President] Frenk assured that any online format in the fall would be a much higher quality than 

the emergency online instruction given this semester.”26

57. As Miami President Frenk described the rushed shift to online classes “in the end 

we had 10 days to migrate every single course” but that the university is now working of “taking 

full advantage of all the capacities of high quality online instruction . . . .”27

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

58. Plaintiff sues under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, on behalf of himself and a Class defined as follows:

All people paying Defendant, in whole or in part, personally and/or 

on behalf of others, for Spring 2020 tuition and fees for in-person 

instruction and use of campus facilities, but were denied use of 

and/or access to in-person instruction and/or campus facilities by 

Defendant.

Excluded from the Class is Defendant, any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest, 

and Defendant’s legal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, and employees. Further 

excluded from the Class is this Court and its employees. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or 

amend the Class definition including through the creation of sub-classes if necessary, as 

appropriate, during this litigation.

26 https://www.themiamihurricane.com/2020/05/04/president-frenk-outlines-his-plan-for-areturn-this-fall-2/.

27 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L-U_izBha8.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 16 of 24
-15- 010920-21/1267930 V1

59. The definition of the Class is unambiguous. Plaintiff is a member of the Class 

Plaintiff seeks to represent. Class Members can be notified of the class action through contact 

information and/or address lists maintained in the usual course of business by Defendant.

60. Per Rule 23(a)(1), Class Members are so numerous and geographically dispersed 

that their individual joinder of all Class Members is impracticable. The precise number of Class 

members is unknown to Plaintiff but may be ascertained from Defendant’s records. However, 

given the thousands of students enrolled at Defendant in a given year, that number greatly 

exceeds the number to make joinder possible. Class Members 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.

61. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff

and the Class Members, making appropriate final injunctive relief and declaratory relief 

regarding the Class under Rule 23(b)(2).

62. Consistent with Rule 23(a)(2), Defendant engaged in a common course of conduct 

giving rise to the legal rights sought to be enforced by the Class Members. Similar or identical 

legal violations are involved. Individual questions pale by comparison to the numerous common 

questions that predominate. The injuries sustained by the Class Members flow, in each instance, 

from a common nucleus of operative facts—Defendant’s campus closure and student evictions, 

its complete transition to online classes, and Defendant’s refusal to fully refund tuition, fees,

and/or room and board.

63. Additionally, common questions of law and fact predominate over the questions 

affecting only individual Class Members under Rule 23(a)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3). Some of the 

common legal and factual questions include:

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 17 of 24
-16- 010920-21/1267930 V1

a. Whether Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged; 

b. Whether Defendant has a policy and/or procedure of denying refunds, in 

whole or in part, to Plaintiff and the Class Members;

c. Whether Defendant breached identical contracts with Plaintiff and the 

Class Members;

d. Whether Defendant violated the common law of unjust enrichment; 

e. Whether Defendant converted Plaintiff and the Class Members refunds 

and/or rights to refunds; and 

f. The nature and extent of damages and other remedies to which the conduct 

of Defendant entitles the Class Members.

64. The Class Members have been damaged by Defendant through its practice of

denying refunds to Class Members.

65. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other Class Members under Rule 

23(a)(3). Plaintiff is the parent of a student enrolled at Defendant in the Spring 2020 term. Like 

other Class Members, Plaintiff’s son was instructed to leave Defendant’s campus, forced to take 

online classes, and has been completely or partially denied a refund for tuition and fees.

66. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of 

the Class as required by Rule 23(a)(4). Plaintiff is familiar with the basic facts that form the 

bases of the Class Members’ claims. Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the interests of the 

other Class Members he seeks to represent. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and 

experienced in class action litigation and intends to prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiff’s 

counsel has successfully prosecuted complex class actions, including consumer protection class 

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 18 of 24
-17- 010920-21/1267930 V1

actions. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

Class Members.

67. The class action device is superior to other available means for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of the claims of Plaintiff and the Class Members under Rule 23(b)(3). The 

relief sought per individual members of the Class is small given the burden and expense of 

individual prosecution of the potentially extensive litigation necessitated by the conduct of 

Defendant. It would be virtually impossible for the Class Members to seek redress individually.

Even if the Class Members themselves could afford such individual litigation, the court system 

could not.

68. In addition under Rule 23(b)(3)(A), individual litigation of the legal and factual 

issues raised by the conduct of Defendant would increase delay and expense to all parties and to 

the court system. The class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and 

provides the benefits of a single, uniform adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive 

supervision by a single court.

69. Under Rule 23(b)(3)(C), it is desirable to concentrate the litigation of the claims 

of Plaintiff and the Class Members in this forum given that Defendant is located within this 

judicial district and discovery of relevant evidence will occur within this district.

70. Given the similar nature of the Class Members’ claims and the absence of 

material differences in the state statutes and common laws upon which the Class Members’

claims are based, a nationwide Class will be easily managed by the Court and the parties per 

Rule 23(b)(3)(D).

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 19 of 24
-18- 010920-21/1267930 V1

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

BREACH OF CONTRACT

71. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference, the 

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

72. Plaintiff and the Class Members entered into identical, binding contracts with 

Defendant.

73. Under their contracts with Defendant, Plaintiff and the members of the Class paid 

Defendant tuition, fees, and/or room and board charges for Defendant to provide in-person 

instruction, access to Defendant’s facilities, and/or housing services.

74. Plaintiff and the Class Members have fulfilled all expectations, having paid 

Defendant for all Spring 2020 term financial assessments.

75. However, Defendant has breached such contracts, failed to provide those services 

and/or has not otherwise performed as required by the contract between Plaintiff and the Class 

Members and Defendant. Defendant has moved all classes to online classes, has restricted or 

eliminated Class Members’ ability to access university facilities, and/or has evicted Plaintiff’s 

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

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

76. Plaintiff and the Class Members have been damaged as a direct and proximate 

result of Defendant’s breach.

77. Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to damages, including but not 

limited to tuition refunds, fee refunds and/or room and board refunds.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 20 of 24
-19- 010920-21/1267930 V1

COUNT II

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

78. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference, the 

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

79. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff and the Class Members directly conferred 

non-gratuitous benefits on Defendant, i.e., monetary payments for tuition, fees, and/or room and 

board, so that Plaintiff’s son and the Class Members could avail themselves of in-person 

educational opportunities and utilize campus facilities, including campus dormitories.

80. Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits conferred upon it by Plaintiff and the 

Class Members.

81. Defendant appreciated or knew of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred upon it by 

Plaintiff and members of the Class.

82. Defendant accepted or retained the non-gratuitous benefits conferred by Plaintiff 

and members of the Class, with full knowledge and awareness that, because of Defendant’s

unjust and inequitable actions, Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to refunds for 

tuition, fees, and/or room and board.

83. Retaining the non-gratuitous benefits conferred upon Defendant by Plaintiff and 

members of the Class under these circumstances made Defendant’s retention of the nongratuitous benefits unjust and inequitable.

84. Because Defendant’s retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred by 

Plaintiff and members of the Class is unjust and inequitable, Plaintiff and members of the Class 

are entitled to, and seek disgorgement and restitution of, the benefits unjustly retained, whether 

in whole or in part, including through refunds for tuition, fees, and/or room and board.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 21 of 24
-20- 010920-21/1267930 V1

COUNT III

CONVERSION

85. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference, the 

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

86. Plaintiff’s son and the other members of the Class have an undisputed right to

receive educational services, activities, and access Defendant’s facilities for the Spring 2020 

term. Plaintiff’s son and the Class Members obtained such rights by paying Defendant tuition, 

fees, and/or room and board and by otherwise remaining in good standing with Defendant.

87. Defendant wrongfully exercised control over and/or intentionally interfered with 

the rights of Plaintiff’s son and members of the Class by effectively closing its campus to inperson education and switching to an online-only format, discontinuing paid-for services, and 

evicting students from campus housing. All the while, Defendant has unlawfully retained the 

monies Plaintiff and the Class Members paid Defendant as well as barred Plaintiff’s son from 

Defendant’s facilities.

88. Defendant deprived Plaintiff and the other Class Members of the rights and 

benefits for which they paid Defendant tuition, fees, and/or room and board.

89. Plaintiff and/or Class Members have requested and/or demanded that Defendant 

issue refunds.

90. Defendant’s interference with the rights and services for which Plaintiff and 

members of the Class paid damaged Plaintiff and the members of the Class, in that they paid for 

rights, benefits, services and/or facility access, but Defendant has deprived Plaintiff and 

members of the Class of their rights, benefits, services and/or facility access.

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 22 of 24
-21- 010920-21/1267930 V1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Class Members request that the Court enter an order or 

judgment against Defendant including:

A. Certification of the action as a Class Action under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative and 

his counsel of record as Class Counsel;

B. Damages in the amount of unrefunded tuition, fees, and/or room and board;

C. Actual damages and all such other relief as provided under the law;

D. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief;

E. Other appropriate injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including an 

order enjoining Defendant from retaining refunds for tuition, fees, and/or room and board;

F. The costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees; and

G. All other relief to which Plaintiff and members of the Class may be entitled by

law or in equity.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on his own behalf and on behalf of Class Members.

Dated: May 27, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Stuart Z. Grossman

Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq.

FBN: 156113

GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, PA

2525 Ponce De Leon, Suite 1150

Coral Gables, FL 33134

(305) 442-8666

szg@grossmanroth.com

Steve W. Berman, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming)

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 23 of 24
-22- 010920-21/1267930 V1

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 623-7292

steve@hbsslaw.com

Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming)

Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming)

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410

Chicago, IL 60611

(708) 628-4949

dank@hbsslaw.com

whitneys@hbsslaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated

Case 1:20-cv-22207-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 24 of 24