UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION

UNIR, LLC, a Florida limited liability 

company, and MARCONI 

INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, INC., 

a Florida corporation, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LAURA RICCI, a foreign national, 

MIA GLOBAL BUSINESS SCHOOL, 

S.L. d/b/a MIA DIGITAL UNIVERSITY, 

a foreign entity, and RENATO 

BEVILACQUA, a foreign national, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 

COMPLAINT 

 Plaintiffs, UNIR, LLC and Marconi International University, Inc. (collectively 

“Plaintiffs”) sue Defendants, Laura Ricci, MIA Global Business School, S.L. d/b/a MIA Digital 

University, and Renato Bevilacqua (collectively “Defendants”), and allege as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiff UNIR, LLC (“UNIR”) is part of a well-respected private online university 

system based in Spain. In an effort to expand the university system, UNIR purchased Marconi 

International University, Inc. (“Marconi”), a Miami-based private online university, from its sole 

owner, Defendant Lauri Ricci (“Ricci”). Through a series of warranties and representations, Ricci 

assured UNIR that Marconi was in compliance with all accreditation and regulatory requirements. 

All of that, it turned out, was grossly false. 

2. To make matters worse, after UNIR took over, Ricci chose to violate her continuing 

fiduciary duties to Marconi when she and Defendant Renato Bevilacqua owned, operated, or at the 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 1 of 19
2

very least worked for, Defendant MIA Global Business School, S.L., which publicly holds itself 

out as MIA Digital University (“MIA”), and is a competing online university. Defendants 

recruited prospective students to MIA by falsely representing MIA as associated with Marconi, 

even going so far as to use Marconi’s letterhead and trademark, as well as providing Certificates 

of Completion that included Marconi’s trademark. 

3. UNIR and Marconi file this action against Ricci, MIA, and Bevilacqua to recover 

damages, as well as put a stop to Defendants’ willful and wonton unfair competition and deceptive 

trade practices. 

THE PARTIES 

4. Plaintiff UNIR LLC (“UNIR”) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a limited 

liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Its sole member 

is Proeduca Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of 

Delaware, with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.

5. Plaintiff Marconi International University, Inc. (“Marconi”) is, and at all times 

relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, 

with its principal place of business is in Miami, Florida.

6. Defendant Laura Ricci (“Ricci”) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an 

individual domiciled in the country of Italy.

7. Defendant MIA Global Business School, S.L. d/b/a MIA Digital University 

(“MIA”) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Sociedad Limitada organized and existing under 

the laws of the country of Spain.

8. Defendant Renato Bevilacqua (“Bevilacqua”) is, and at all times relevant hereto 

was, an individual domiciled in the country of Spain.

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 2 of 19
3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims for relief in this complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) because it is an action where the matter in controversy exceeds 

the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of a state and 

citizens of a foreign state. 

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Ricci pursuant to section 

48.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as she

a. Committed a tortious act within this state,

b. Breached a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the 

contract to be performed in this state, and

c. Entered into a contract (the Stock Purchase Agreement between UNIR and 

Ricci) by which she consented to jurisdiction in this state and in this District.

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant MIA pursuant to section 

48.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as it

a. Committed a tortious act within this state, and

b. Caused injury to persons or property within this state arising out of an act or 

omission by MIA outside this state, when, at the time of the injury, MIA was 

engaged in solicitation or service activities within this state.

12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Bevilacqua pursuant to section 

48.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as he

a. Committed a tortious act within this state,

b. Breached a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the 

contract to be performed in this state, and

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 3 of 19
4

c. Operated, conducted, engaged in, or carried on a business or business venture 

in the State of Florida, or had an office or agency in the State of Florida. 

13. Based on the foregoing conduct, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the 

Defendants satisfies traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice under the Fourteenth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

14. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. Moreover, 

Defendant Ricci consented to venue in this District for any proceeding seeking to enforce a 

provision of the Stock Purchase Agreement between UNIR and Ricci, as well as any proceeding 

based on any right arising out of said Stock Purchase Agreement.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

UNIR and Ricci Enter into a Stock Purchase Agreement for Marconi Shares 

15. On or about March 21, 2019 (“the Closing Date”), Plaintiff UNIR and Defendant 

Ricci entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) whereby UNIR exercised its option to 

purchase from Ricci 1,126 shares of common stock of Marconi International University, Inc. (i.e., 

Plaintiff Marconi), which shares represented 100% of Marconi’s issued and outstanding capital 

stock. A true and correct copy of the SPA is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.1

16. A primary reason UNIR decided to purchase 100% of Marconi’s shares from Ricci 

is because UNIR believed Marconi possessed all of the required licenses and accreditations for 

operation in the State of Florida. 

1

 Because the SPA contains a confidentiality provision, the SPA and other exhibits to the 

Complaint will be filed separately under seal (with the Court’s permission), along with the 

unredacted version of this Complaint. 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 4 of 19
5

Ricci’s False Representations and Warranties as to License Compliance 

17. In Section 2.3 of the SPA, Ricci represented and warranted that, as of the Closing 

Date, 

” listed in the Schedule A attachment to the SPA. See Ex. A at § 2.3. She also represented 

and warranted that, as of the Closing Date, 

.” Id.

18. Included in the Licenses listed in the Schedule A attachment to the SPA were the 

(i) Florida Commission of Independent Education (“FCIE”) and (ii) Accrediting Council for 

Independent Colleges & Schools (“ACICS”) licenses. 

19. Contrary to Ricci’s representation and warranty in Section 2.3 of the SPA, as of the 

Closing Date, Marconi was engaged in several practices that amounted to a violation of, or 

nonconformity with, or otherwise threatened the revocation of the ACICS license, including (a) 

failure to follow ACICS’ Foreign Credential Evaluation Protocols (“FCE”) with regard to the 

enrollment of European students in its online courses, (b) improperly offering dual degree 

programs in conjunction with Università degli Studi "Guglielmo Marconi" when that university 

did not authorize Marconi authorization to do so, (c) failing to register its students in ACICS’ 

Campus Accountability Report (“CAR”), and (d) improperly offering doctorate degrees without 

authorization from ACICS. 

Ricci’s False Representations and Warranties as to Regulatory Matters 

20. Next, under Section 2.5 of the SPA, Ricci represented and warranted that, as of the 

Closing Date, 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 5 of 19
6

has .” See

Ex. A at § 2.5 

21. Contrary to Ricci’s representation and warranty, prior to the Closing Date, ACICS 

had been closely evaluating and reviewing Marconi’s practices as part of ACICS’ audit and license 

renewal procedures. In fact, prior to the Closing Date, Ricci had even received notices for 

information and to show cause from ACICS. 

22. However, Ricci failed to disclose to UNIR the extent of the information that ACICS 

had requested prior to the Closing Date. 

Ricci’s Violations of Her Employment Agreement and Fiduciary Duties to Marconi 

23. On or about June 1, 2019, Ricci entered into an Employment Agreement with 

Marconi (“Employment Agreement”). A true and correct copy of the Employment Agreement is 

attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 

24. Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Ricci was employed as Marconi’s Chief 

Executive Officer (CEO) and was to “

” See Ex. B 

at § 1.3(a). She was also required to “

.” Id. at § 1.3(b). 

25. Under the Employment Agreement, she “

.” Id. at § 3.1. She “

.” Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 6 of 19
7

26. Under the Employment Agreement, she “

.” Id. at § 3.2. 

27. Under the Employment Agreement, the prevailing party in any litigation “ 

.” Id. at § 5.15. 

28. Ricci served as Marconi’s President until she resigned from her position and 

terminated her Employment Agreement on November 21, 2019. Yet despite resigning, Ricci kept 

her seat on the Marconi Board of Directors, and still holds a seat to this day. 

29. In violation of the Employment Agreement and her fiduciary duties to Marconi, 

Ricci worked with Defendant Bevilacqua and others outside Marconi to operate, work for, or assist 

a competing online university, Defendant MIA. 

Ricci and MIA Deceive Students Into Enrolling in MIA Rather Than Marconi 

30. Upon information and belief, Ricci and MIA utilized Marconi resources, trade 

secrets, intellectual property, and other materials to recruit prospective students away from 

Marconi and to MIA by deceiving the students into believing they were registering in Marconi, 

when in fact, they were registering with, and paying registration fees to, MIA. 

31. For example, on June 26, 2019, just 25 days after Ricci executed the Employment 

Agreement with Marconi, Ricci registered an Italian student for a Data Protection Officer Training 

Course with Marconi. The cost of the course was 1800 euros. The registration form included 

Marconi letterhead and listed Marconi’s address in Miami, yet the wire instructions on the form 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 7 of 19
8

directed the student to wire the registration funds to an account in the name of “MIA GLOBAL 

BUSINESS SCHOOL.” This account is not in any way related to Marconi. 

32. Upon information and belief, the Italian student paid the registration fee and 

enrolled in the course under the belief that he was enrolling in a course at Marconi. 

33. In fact, the Italian student was actually enrolling in a course at MIA. 

34. Neither UNIR nor Marconi ever received this student’s registration form and 

payment, nor did Marconi have any records that this student ever enrolled or attended any courses. 

35. Upon information and belief, Ricci and MIA recruited this student, and several 

other students, by deceptively using Marconi’s name, trademark, address, and marketing materials 

for their benefit. 

36. Upon information and belief, Ricci and MIA have also been issuing Marconi 

Certificates of Completion, which bear Marconi’s name and trademark, to MIA’s students who 

have completed their course work with MIA. 

Bevilacqua’s Violations of His Consultancy Agreement With Marconi 

37. On or about June 1, 2019, Bevilacqua entered into a Consultancy Agreement with 

Marconi (“Consultancy Agreement”). A true and correct copy of the Consultancy Agreement is 

attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. 

38. As CEO of Marconi at the time, Ricci executed the Consultancy Agreement on 

behalf of Marconi. See Ex. C. 

39. Pursuant to the Consultancy Agreement, Bevilacqua was engaged as an 

independent contractor consultant and was to “

” See Ex. B at § 1(a). He also warranted and represented 

to Marconi that he was “

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 8 of 19
9

” of his responsibilities under the Consultancy Agreement. Id. at § 1(d). 

40. Bevilacqua further agreed that 

” Id. at § 6(a). 

41. Bevilacqua also agreed that “ ” of the 

Consultancy Agreement, Bevilacqua would not “

.” Id. at § 6(b). 

42. Bevilacqua terminated the Consultancy Agreement on November 21, 2019, the 

same day Ricci terminated her Employment Agreement. 

43. Nonetheless, Bevilacqua violated the Consultancy Agreement by owning, 

operating, and/or working for MIA, a business that directly, or indirectly, competes with Marconi, 

without Marconi’s prior written consent. His violations occurred both during the term of the 

agreement, and within one year of the termination. 

44. Bevilacqua also violated the Consultancy Agreement by diverting, or assisting in 

the diversion of, prospective Marconi students to MIA. 

45. Additionally, Bevilacqua violated the Consultancy Agreement by employing Ricci, 

soliciting Ricci for employment, or recommending Ricci for employment with MIA while she was 

employed with Marconi. 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 9 of 19
10

46. Upon information and belief, at the time both Ricci and Bevilacua executed the 

Consultancy Agreement, the pair had already agreed to advance the business interests of MIA to 

the detriment of Marconi. 

47. Under the Consultancy Agreement, the prevailing party in any litigation 

.” Id. at § 21. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT (SPA) 

(Against Ricci) 

48. UNIR re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 47 as if 

fully set forth herein. 

49. UNIR and Ricci entered into a valid and binding contract, the SPA. 

50. Ricci breached the SPA by failing to fulfill her obligations under the representations 

and warranties, and by making false representations and warranties, as outlined above. 

51. Specifically, she represented/warrantied that, as of the Closing Date, 

” attached to 

the SPA in a schedule entitled Schedule A. In truth, as of the Closing Date, Marconi was engaged 

in several practices that threatened the revocation of the ACICS license, including (a) failure to 

follow ACICS’ Foreign Credential Evaluation Protocols (“FCE”) with regard to the enrollment of 

European students in its online courses, (b) improperly offering dual degree programs in 

conjunction with Università degli Studi "Guglielmo Marconi" when that university had not given 

Marconi authorization to do so, (c) failing to register its students in ACICS’ Campus 

Accountability Report (“CAR”), and (d) improperly offering doctorate degrees without 

authorization from ACICS. 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 10 of 19
11

52. She also represented and warrantied that, as of the Closing Date, 

.” 

53. In truth, prior to the Closing Date, Ricci had received notices for information and 

to show cause from ACICS. Prior to the Closing Date, ACICS had been closely evaluating and 

reviewing Marconi’s practices as part of ACICS’ audit and license renewal procedures, and Ricci 

failed to disclose the extent of the information ACICS had requested and share the communications 

Marconi received from ACICS with UNIR prior to the execution of the SPA. 

54. As a result of Ricci’s breaches, UNIR has been damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff UNIR requests judgment against Ricci for compensatory 

damages, interest as allowed by law, attorney’s fees, and costs, as well as any other relief this 

Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT II – BREACH OF CONTRACT (EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT) 

(Against Ricci) 

55. Marconi re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 47 as 

if fully set forth herein. 

56. Ricci and Marconi entered into a valid and binding contract, the Employment 

Agreement. 

57. Ricci breached the Employment Agreement by working with Defendant 

Bevilacqua and others outside Marconi to create and manage a competing online university, 

Defendant MIA, as well as recruiting students to MIA by deceptively using Marconi’s name, 

trademark, address, and marketing materials in a way that gave students the impression that they 

were registering for Marconi when, in fact, they were registering for MIA. 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 11 of 19
12

58. As a result of Ricci’s breach, Marconi has been damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Marconi requests judgment against Ricci for compensatory 

damages, interest as allowed by law, attorney’s fees, and costs, as well as any other relief this 

Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT III – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 

(Against Ricci) 

59. Marconi re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 47 as 

if fully set forth herein. 

60. As a result of her role as Marconi’s Chief Executive Officer and a member of 

Marconi’s Board of Directors, Ricci had a fiduciary duty to Marconi. 

61. Ricci breached that fiduciary duty by working with Defendant Bevilacqua and 

others outside Marconi to create and manage a competing online university, Defendant MIA, as 

well as recruiting students to MIA by deceptively using Marconi’s name, trademark, address, and 

marketing materials in a way that gave students the impression that they were registering for 

Marconi when, in fact, they were registering for MIA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Marconi requests judgment against Ricci for compensatory 

damages, interest as allowed by law, attorney’s fees, and costs, as well as any other relief this 

Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT IV – FRAUD 

(Against Ricci) 

62. UNIR re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 47 as if 

fully set forth herein. 

63. Ricci knowingly and intentionally made several false material representations of 

fact to UNIR, including representing that, as of March 21, 2019, 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 12 of 19
13

a. Marconi was not in material violation of, nonconformity with or default under, 

the ACICS license; 

b. no notice, demand, summons, or similar request for information, or complaint 

or order regarding any regulatory liabilities had been issued or served on 

Marconi and no penalty had been assessed, no investigation or review was 

pending, or was threatened against Marconi; and 

64. Upon information and belief, Ricci made the statements in Rome, Italy via a written 

document transmitted via email to UNIR on or around March 21, 2019. 

65. Ricci intentionally made the aforementioned misrepresentations knowing that they 

were false. 

66. In truth, as of March 21, 2019, Marconi was engaged in several practices that 

threatened the revocation of the ACICS license, including (a) failure to follow ACICS’ Foreign 

Credential Evaluation Protocols (“FCE”) with regard to the enrollment of European students in its 

online courses, (b) improperly offering dual degree programs in conjunction with Università degli 

Studi "Guglielmo Marconi" when that university had not given Marconi authorization to do so, (c) 

failing to register its students in ACICS’ Campus Accountability Report (“CAR”), and (d) 

improperly offering doctorate degrees without authorization from ACICS. 

67. In truth, as of March 21, 2019, Ricci had received notices for information and to 

show cause from ACICS. Prior to the Closing Date, ACICS had been closely evaluating and 

reviewing Marconi’s practices as part of ACICS’ audit and license renewal procedures, and Ricci 

failed to disclose the extent of the information ACICS had requested and share the communications 

Marconi received from ACICS with UNIR prior to the execution of the SPA. 

68. Ricci intended that UNIR rely on her misrepresentations to its detriment. 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 13 of 19
14

69. UNIR did, in fact, rely on the misrepresentations to its detriment when it entered 

into the SPA and took control of Marconi. 

70. As a result of Ricci’s breaches, UNIR has been damaged. UNIR has invested 

significant sums of money investigating Ricci’s misrepresentations, as well as attempting to 

correct the administrative and regulatory problems she created in order to preserve Marconi’s 

licensing and accreditation. Moreover, the value of the Marconi stock UNIR purchased from Ricci 

has been significantly diminished since the time the SPA was executed given the reputational 

damage Ricci’s actions have caused Marconi. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff UNIR requests judgment against Ricci for compensatory 

damages, interest as allowed by law, attorney’s fees, and costs, as well as any other relief this 

Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT V – VIOLATION OF FLORIDA’S DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE 

PRACTICES ACT, CHAPTER 501, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES 

(Against Ricci and MIA) 

71. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 47 as if 

fully set forth herein. 

72. Florida Statutes Section 501.204(1) provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.” The provisions 

of the Act shall be “construed liberally to promote” the protection of the “consuming public and 

legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 

unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” § 

501.202, Fla. Stat. 

73. Defendants Ricci and MIA were, and are, at all material times to the allegations 

herein, engaged in “trade or commerce” as defined by the Act. § 501.203, Fla. Stat. Specifically, 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 14 of 19
15

they operate(d) a for-profit online university, Defendant MIA. 

74. Despite her obligations to Marconi, Ricci started MIA while still on the Marconi 

Board of Directors and while serving as its CEO. Defendant MIA competes in the online 

educational marketplace with Marconi. 

75. Upon information and belief, Ricci and MIA utilized Marconi resources, 

intellectual property, and other materials to recruit prospective students away from Marconi and 

to MIA by deceiving the students into believing they were registering in Marconi, when in fact, 

they were registering with, and paying registration fees to, MIA. 

76. For example, on June 26, 2019, just 25 days after Ricci executed the Employment 

Agreement with Marconi, Ricci – while acting in her capacity as agent for MIA – registered an 

Italian student for a Data Protection Officer Training Course with Marconi. The cost of the course 

was 1800 euros. The registration form that Ricci sent to the Italian student included Marconi 

letterhead and listed Marconi’s address in Miami, yet the wire instructions on the form directed 

the student to wire the registration funds to an account in the name of “MIA GLOBAL BUSINESS 

SCHOOL.” This account is not in any way related to Marconi. Upon information and belief, 

Ricci sent the registration form bearing the false designation of affiliation with Marconi to the 

student electronically from Rome, Italy on or about June 26, 2019. 

77. Upon information and belief, the Italian student paid the registration fee, as well as 

the tuition, and enrolled in the course under the belief that he was enrolling in a course at Marconi. 

78. In fact, the Italian student was actually enrolling in a course at MIA. 

79. Neither UNIR nor Marconi ever received this student’s registration form and 

payment, nor did Marconi have any records that this student ever enrolled or attended any courses. 

80. Upon information and belief, Ricci and MIA recruited this student, and several 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 15 of 19
16

other students, by deceptively using Marconi’s name, trademark, address, and marketing materials 

for their benefit. Upon information and belief, they have done this via electronic means from Spain 

and Italy since the Spring of 2019 until present date in an effort to divert business from Marconi 

to MIA. 

81. Upon information and belief, Ricci and MIA have also been issuing Marconi 

Certificates of Completion, which bear Marconi’s name and trademark, to MIA’s students who 

have completed their course work with MIA. 

82. Ricci and MIA’s conduct is likely to be, and indeed, was injurious to consumers. 

It is also likely to cause, and indeed did cause, confusion to consumers in the marketplace. 

83. Ricci and MIA’s conduct is, and was, deceptive, immoral, unethical, oppressive, 

unconscionable, and unscrupulous. 

84. As a result of Ricci and MIA’s actions, Plaintiffs have been damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Marconi requests judgment against Ricci and MIA for actual 

damages, a declaratory judgment that Ricci’s and MIA’s actions violate the Florida Deceptive and 

Unfair Trade Practices Act, entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting all such 

further conduct, interest as allowed by law, attorney’s fees, costs, as well as any other relief this 

Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT VI – COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION 

(Against Ricci and MIA) 

85. Marconi re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 47 as 

if fully set forth herein. 

86. Ricci and MIA are using Marconi’s “Marconi International University” trademark 

and trade name to indicate or identify some or all of the products and services that MIA offers. 

MIA offers its products and services in the same trade area – that is, education – in which Marconi 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 16 of 19
17

has already established its trade name and mark. 

87. Marconi used the “Marconi International University” trademark and trade name in 

the marketplace since 2014, long prior to Ricci and MIA’s usage of said trademark and trade name. 

88. The “Marconi International University” trademark and trade name are arbitrary and 

have acquired secondary meaning. 

89. Moreover, Ricci and MIA – while acting as Marconi’s competitors – have engaged 

in deceptive and fraudulent conduct. 

90. Specifically, upon information and belief, Ricci and MIA have utilized the Marconi 

trade name and mark to recruit prospective students away from Marconi and to MIA by deceiving 

the students into believing they were registering in Marconi, when in fact, they were registering 

with, and paying registration fees to, MIA. 

91. For example, on June 26, 2019, just 25 days after Ricci executed the Employment 

Agreement with Marconi, Ricci – while acting in her capacity as agent for MIA – registered an 

Italian student for a Data Protection Officer Training Course with Marconi. The cost of the course 

was 1800 euros. The registration form that Ricci sent to the Italian student included Marconi 

letterhead (with Marconi’s trademark) and listed Marconi’s address in Miami, yet the wire 

instructions on the form directed the student to wire the registration funds to an account in the 

name of “MIA GLOBAL BUSINESS SCHOOL.” This account is not in any way related to 

Marconi. Upon information and belief, Ricci sent the registration form bearing the false 

designation of affiliation with Marconi to the student electronically from Rome, Italy on or about 

June 26, 2019. 

92. Upon information and belief, the Italian student paid the registration fee and 

enrolled in the course under the belief that he was enrolling in a course at Marconi. 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 17 of 19
18

93. In fact, the Italian student was actually enrolling in a course at MIA. 

94. Neither UNIR nor Marconi ever received this student’s registration form and 

payment, nor did Marconi have any records that this student ever enrolled or attended any courses. 

95. Upon information and belief, Ricci and MIA recruited this student, and several 

other students, by deceptively using Marconi’s trade name and mark for their benefit. Upon 

information and belief, they have done this via electronic means from Spain and Italy since the 

Spring of 2019 until present date in an effort to divert business from Marconi to MIA. 

96. Upon information and belief, Ricci and MIA have also been issuing Marconi 

Certificates of Completion, which bear Marconi’s trade name and mark, to MIA’s students who 

have completed their course work with MIA. 

97. Consumer confusion is likely to result, and indeed has resulted, from Ricci and 

MIA’s use of the Marconi trademark and trade name. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Marconi requests judgment against Ricci and MIA for 

compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits, damages, entry of a preliminary and permanent 

injunction prohibiting all such further conduct, interest as allowed by law, as well as any other 

relief this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT VII – BREACH OF CONTRACT (CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT) 

(Against Bevilacqua) 

98. Marconi re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 47 as 

if fully set forth herein. 

99. Bevilacqua and Marconi entered into a valid and binding contract, the Consultancy 

Agreement. 

100. Bevilacqua breached the Consultancy Agreement by 

a. owning, operating, and/or working for MIA, a business that directly, or 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 18 of 19
19

indirectly, competes with Marconi, without Marconi’s prior written consent; 

b. by diverting, or assisting in the diversion of, prospective Marconi students to 

MIA. 

c. by employing Ricci, soliciting Ricci for employment, or recommending Ricci 

for employment with MIA while she was employed with Marconi. 

101. As a result of Bevilacqua’s breaches, Marconi has been damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Marconi requests judgment against Bevilacqua for compensatory 

damages, interest as allowed by law, attorney’s fees, and costs, as well as any other relief this 

Court deems just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable. 

Dated: June 18, 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

 SANCHEZ FISCHER LEVINE, LLP 

1200 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 750 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Tel.: (305) 925-9947 

By: /s/ Fausto Sanchez 

Fausto Sanchez, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 86229 

Email: fsanchez@sfl-law.com 

Secondary: eservice@sfl-law.com 

 Chad S. Purdie, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No.: 41965 

 Email: cpurdie@sfl-law.com 

David M. Levine, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 84431 

Email: dlevine@sfl-law.com 

 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 19 of 19