1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JULIE GOLD, on behalf of herself and other individuals 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

against

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI; and other affiliated entities 

and individuals, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Named Plaintiff Julie Gold (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, by her attorneys, alleges the following upon information and belief, except for 

those allegations pertaining to Plaintiff, which are based on personal knowledge.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This class action is brought on behalf of Named Plaintiff Julie Gold and those 

similarly situated who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester at the University of 

Miami. As a result of Defendants’ response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID19”), Plaintiffs did not receive the benefit and services that they bargained for when they provided 

payment for tuition and fees.

2. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a contract where Plaintiffs would provide 

payment in the form of tuition and fees and Defendants would provide in-person educational 

services, experiences, opportunities, and other related services.

3. On or around March 11, 2020, the University of Miami canceled all in-person 

Case 1:20-cv-22316-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 1 of 11
2

education and in-person educational services, then transitioned to complete online education. 

4. Based on these closures, Defendants have failed to uphold their end of the contract 

to provide in-person educational services, experiences, and opportunities. 

5. Despite Defendants’ failure to provide the services and experiences as bargained 

for, Defendants have not offered any refund of the tuition and fees that Plaintiff and the Class paid.

FACTS

6. Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals that paid tuition and fees for the Spring

Semester 2020 at the University of Miami.

7. Defendants accepted Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ payments in exchange for 

educational services, experiences, and opportunities as detailed in Defendants’ marketing, 

advertisements, and other public representations. 

8. Based on the academic schedule, the Spring 2020 semester at the University of 

Miami commenced on or around Jan. 13, 2020, and it was scheduled to conclude on or around May

20, 2020.

9. Named Plaintiff Julie Gold’s son was a full-time undergraduate student during 

Spring 2020 semester. The University of Miami charged Plaintiff more than $30,000.00 in tuition

and fees during the Spring 2020 semester, including $25,200 in undergraduate tuition.

10. Named Plaintiff paid the Spring 2020 semester tuition and fee bill such that her 

son was provided with educational experiences, opportunities, and services. 

11. Plaintiffs paid tuition and fees for in-person educational services, experiences, 

opportunities, and other related collegiate services for the entire period beginning in or around 

January 2020 through May 2020.

12. On or around March 11, 2020, the University of Miami announced that because of 

Case 1:20-cv-22316-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 2 of 11
3

COVID-19 they would suspend and cancel all in-person classes and college experiences for the 

remainder of the Spring Semester 2020 beginning on or around March 22, 2020 (following Spring

Break recess) and that all learning would transition to online.

13. Defendants were unable to provide in-person educational experiences, services, 

and opportunities for approximately 59% of the Spring 2020 semester. 

14. Prior to the suspension of in-person classes for the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiff 

Gold’s son attended campus events and was involved in student activities and/or clubs.

15. Additionally, Plaintiff Gold’s son was a part of a program called University of 

Miami Los Angeles which took place in Burbank, California for his major. This was an in-person 

activity which included an additional fee for abroad room, board, and learning that was also not 

refunded to Plaintiff.

16. As a result of Defendants’ closure, Defendants have not complied with their

obligation to provide in-person educational services along with other experiences, opportunities,

and services Plaintiff and the Class paid for. 

17. Plaintiff and the Class did not enter into an agreement with Defendants for online 

education, but rather sought to receive in-person education from Defendants’ institution.

18. Therefore, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to a pro-rata refund of the 

tuition and fees they paid to Defendants for in-person educational services as well as other 

marketed collegiate experiences and services that were not provided.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

33. This Court has jurisdiction over the 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22316-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 3 of 11
4

member of the Class, as defined below, is a citizen of a different state than Defendants, there 

are more than 100 members of the Class, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds 

$5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

34. This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants 

maintains its principal place of business in this District.

35. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants’ 

operate their primary campus within this district. 

PARTIES

36. Named Plaintiff Julie Gold’s son is a student and a resident of Old Westbury, New 

York. Plaintiff’s son was enrolled as a full-time undergraduate student at the University of Miami 

during the Spring 2020 semester. Plaintiff graduated at the conclusion of the semester. Plaintiff 

has not received any refund for tuition and fees paid to Defendants, despite the fact that the 

University has been shut down since on or about March 11, 2020.

37. Defendant University of Miami is a private institution and entity whose principal 

place of business is located in Miami, Florida.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

38. Plaintiff brings this matter on behalf of herself and those similarly situated. As 

detailed in this Complaint, Defendants failed to provide the in-person education services the 

Plaintiffs paid tuition and fees to receive during the Spring Semester 2020.

39. Plaintiffs were impacted by and damaged by this misconduct.

40. Accordingly, this action is ideally situated for class-wide resolution.

Case 1:20-cv-22316-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 4 of 11
5

41. The Class is defined as all individuals who paid tuition and fees to the

University of Miami to receive in-person educational services, experiences, and opportunities

during the Spring Semester 2020. (“Class”). 

42. The Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under 

FRCP 23 satisfying the class action prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and 

adequacy because:

43. Numerosity: Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable. Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of individuals who are Class 

Members described above who have been damaged by Defendants breach of contract.

44. Commonality: The questions of law and fact common to the Class Members 

which predominate over any questions which may affect individual Class Members include, 

but are not limited to:

a. Whether Defendants accepted money from Plaintiff and Class Members 

in exchange for a promise to provide services;

b. Whether Defendants provided those services as bargained for;

c. Whether Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to a pro-rata portion 

of the tuition and fees paid for services that were not provided.;

d. Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched;

e. Whether Defendants converted money from the Plaintiff and Class 

Members.

45. Typicality: Plaintiff is a member of the Class. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the 

claims of each Class Member in that every member of the Class was subject to Defendants breach 

of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion. Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the same causes 

of action as the other Class Members.

46. Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate Class representative because her interests do not 

conflict with the interests of the Class Members she seeks to represent; her claims are common to 

all members of the Class, and she has a strong interest in vindicating her rights; she has retained 

Case 1:20-cv-22316-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 5 of 11
6

counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation and they intend to vigorously 

prosecute this action. Plaintiff has no interests which conflict with those of the Class. The Class 

Members’ interests will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and her counsel. Defendants 

have acted in a manner generally applicable to the Class, making relief appropriate with respect to 

Plaintiff and the Class Members. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members 

would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications.

47. The Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under 

FRCP 23 because a class action is superior to traditional litigation of this controversy. Common 

issues of law and fact predominate over any other questions affecting only individual members of 

the Class. The Class issues fully predominate over any individual issue because no inquiry into 

individual conduct is necessary; all that is required is a narrow focus on Defendants’ deceptive and 

misleading practices. 

48. In addition, this Class is superior to other methods for fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy because, inter alia:

49. Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available methods for the 

fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because:

a. The joinder of thousands of individual Class Members is impracticable, 

cumbersome, unduly burdensome, and a waste of judicial and/or 

litigation resources;

b. The individual claims of the Class Members may be relatively modest 

compared with the expense of litigating the claim, thereby making it 

impracticable, unduly burdensome, and expensive-if not totally impossible-to 

justify individual actions;

c. When Defendants’ liability has been adjudicated, all Class Members' claims can 

be determined by the Class and administered efficiently in a manner far less 

burdensome and expensive than if it were attempted through filing, discovery, 

and trial of all individual cases;

d. This class action will promote orderly, efficient, expeditious, and 

appropriate adjudication and administration of Class claims;

e. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the management of 

Case 1:20-cv-22316-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 6 of 11
7

this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action;

f. This class action will assure uniformity of decisions among Class Members;

g. The Class is readily definable and prosecution of this action as a class action 

will eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation;

h. Class Members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution of 

separate actions are outweighed by their interest in efficient resolution by 

single class action; and

i. It would be desirable to concentrate in this single venue the litigation of all 

plaintiffs who were induced by Defendants’ deceptive and discriminatory 

consumer practices. 

50. Accordingly, this Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class 

action under FRCP 23 because questions of law or fact common to Class Members predominate 

over any questions affecting only individual members, and because a class action is superior to 

other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy.

51. Plaintiff and the Class can maintain this action as a class action under FRCP 

23(b)(1), (2), and (3). 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF CONTRACT

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)

52. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other members of the class, brings a common law 

claim for Breach of Contract.

53. By accepting payment, Defendants entered into contractual arrangements with 

Plaintiff and Class Members to provide educational services, experiences, opportunities, and 

related services for the Spring Semester 2020. 

54. Plaintiff and Class Members’ payment of tuition and fees were intended to cover 

in-person education, experiences, and services from January through May 2020. 

55. Defendants received and retained the benefits without providing those benefits to 

Plaintiff and Class Members.

Case 1:20-cv-22316-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 7 of 11
8

56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiff and 

Class Members have been harmed by not receiving the educational experiences, opportunities, and 

services they paid for during the Spring Semester 2020. 

57. Defendants are required to perform under the contract and COVID-19 does not 

excuse such performance. Therefore, Defendants should be required to return pro-rata shares of 

the tuition and fees paid by Plaintiff and Class Members that related to services that were not 

provided for after the University of Miami shut down on or around March 11, 2020.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

CONVERSION

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)

58. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other members of the Class, brings a common 

law claim for Conversion.

59. Plaintiff and Class Members have an ownership right to the in-person educational 

services based on their payment of tuition and fees for the Spring Semester 2020.

60. Defendants intentionally interfered with Plaintiff and the Class Members 

ownership right when they canceled in-person instructions for the remainder of the Spring

Semester 2020.

61. Plaintiff and the Class Members were damaged by Defendants’ interference as they 

paid for educational, experience, and services for the entirety of the Spring Semester 2020 which 

were not provided.

62. Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to a pro-rata share of the tuition and 

fees they paid for but were not provided resulting from Defendants’ interference.

Case 1:20-cv-22316-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 8 of 11
9

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

COMMON LAW UNJUST ENRICHMENT

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members in the Alternative)

63. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other members of the class, brings a common law 

claim for unjust enrichment.

64. Plaintiff and Class Members conferred financial benefits and paid substantial 

tuition and fees to Defendants for educational and related services for the Spring Semester 2020.

As bargained for these tuition and fee payments were intended to cover in-person education 

throughout the entire Spring Semester 2020 of January through May 2020.

65. Defendants accepted the obligation to provide such services when they accepted 

payment.

66. Defendants retained these payments, despite Defendants’ failing to provide the 

bargained for educational, experiences, and services for which the tuition and fees were collected 

to cover. Defendants should be required to return a pro-rate share of any Spring Semester 2020 

tuition and fees, of which services were not provided as bargained for, since the University of 

Miami shut down on or around March 11, 2020.

67. Under common law principles of unjust enrichment, it is inequitable for Defendants

to retain the benefits conferred by Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ overpayments.

68. Plaintiff and Class Members seek disgorgement of all profits resulting from such 

overpayments and establishment of a constructive trust from which Plaintiff and Class Members 

may seek restitution.

DEMANDS FOR RELIEF

69. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues.

Case 1:20-cv-22316-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 9 of 11
10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, pray for judgment as follows:

(a) Declaring this action to be a proper class action and certifying 

Plaintiff as the representative of the Class under FRCP 23;

(b) Awarding monetary damages, including damages;

(c) Awarding punitive and treble damages;

(d) Awarding Plaintiff and Class Members their costs and expenses incurred in this 

action, including a reasonable allowance of attorney’s fees for Plaintiff’s 

attorneys and experts, and reimbursement of Plaintiff’s expenses; and

(f) Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.

Dated: June 03, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joshua H. Eggnatz

Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No.: 0067926

Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 0083397

EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI

7450 Griffin Rd, Ste. 230

Davie, FL 33314

Tel: (954) 889-3359

Fax: (954) 889-5913

JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com

Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. 

Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-22316-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 10 of 11
11

Brett R. Cohen, Esq. 

LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.

One Old Country Road, Suite 347 

Carle Place, NY 11514 

Tel: (516) 873-9550

jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com

mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com

bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

(To be admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class

Case 1:20-cv-22316-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 11 of 11