UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

 

JENNIFER CICCONE, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff, 

v.

PREFERRED APARTMENT

COMMUNITIES, INC.,

Defendant. 

/

CASE NO.:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS COMPLAINT

1. Defendant Preferred Apartment Communities, Inc. owns and operates private 

student housing communities at or near colleges and universities throughout Florida, including 

The Retreat at Orlando next to the University of Central Florida, where Plaintiff, Jennifer

Ciccone, leased an apartment. The core offering of these apartments are the preferred student 

housing community including its leading resident life program offering a variety of educational, 

recreational, and social activities, clubhouse with social events, fitness center, technology center 

with computer stations, multiple sporting courts, sauna, club room with pool tables and coffee 

bar, golf simulator and close ties to the universities.

2. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, universities throughout Florida and the 

nation have ordered university campuses be vacated to preserve the safety of the students and the 

public. At university-run facilities, students have been asked to evacuate include dormitories 

similar in social layout to the facilities operated by the Defendant, which were recognized as 

unsafe due to the elevated risk of disease transmission inherent to high-density housing with 

extensive shared common areas. Furthermore, these universities, recognizing that it would be 

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 1 of 18
2

inequitable and improper to charge students for housing that became unsafe to occupy, have been 

refunding housing money to students and their families.

3. In contrast to the responsible actions of the universities, the Defendant, an 

investment company focusing on “student housing properties,” is retaining all funds that their 

tenants have paid — and continues to demand payment from those who pay month-to-month —

for room, board, and other services and amenities, even though the Defendant cannot safely 

provide them and the students have moved out.

4. Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons 

who executed Lease Agreements with the Defendant but are not receiving the bargained-for 

services.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Jennifer Ciccone is a citizen of Florida, residing in Coral Springs. Ms. 

Ciccone is a current guarantor and co-signer for her daughter’s room at The Retreat at Orlando

for the Fall 2019-Summer 2020 academic school year.

6. Defendant is a Georgia corporation headquartered in Atlanta. Defendant is the 

owner of dorm-like student housing apartment complexes, with 6,095 individual student leases for

“student housing,” throughout the United States. Defendant touts itself as “[a] real estate 

investment trust engaged primarily in the ownership and operation of high quality multifamily 

properties, with select investments in grocery anchored shopping centers, Class A office buildings, 

and student housing properties”. Defendant operates at least 2 locations with 1,573 individual 

student leases in Florida. 

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 2 of 18
3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), 

because this case is a class action where the aggregate claims of all members of the proposedClass 

are in excess of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and most members of the proposed 

Class are citizens of the state of Florida.

8. This Court has general jurisdiction over Defendant, which conducts substantial 

business within Florida, and thus has significant, continuous, and pervasive contacts with the State.

9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because the challenged 

fee practices have been committed in this District, Plaintiff suffered the alleged harm in this

District and Plaintiff resides in this District.

FACTS COMMON TO THE CLASS

A. Defendant Advertises and Sells “Student Housing” to College Students.

10. Student housing is in high demand at the University of Central Florida and nearby 

colleges. Students may choose to live in college-owned dormitories or private off-campus 

apartments. The Retreat at Orlando, owned by Defendant, offers a third option — a “preferred 

student living community in Orlando, Florida, serving attendees of the University of Central 

Florida.”

11. Defendant advertises its preferred student living community to its target 

demographic — college students — and touts amenities specifically geared to them, such as onsite leading resident life programs offering a variety of educational, recreational, and social 

activities, clubhouse with social events, fitness center, technology center with computer stations, 

multiple sporting activity courts, sauna, club room with pool tables and coffee bar, golf simulator

and close ties to the universities.

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 3 of 18
4

12. Defendant issued a letter to its student housing residents on March 13, 2020 

indicating PAC (Preferred Apartment Communities) “will be closing all fitness centers and other 

inside amenity spaces” and “for the foreseeable future, PAC service team members will only be 

performing emergency maintenance repairs in occupied units”.

13. A second letter was issued from the Defendant on March 18, 2020 recognizing that 

social distancing is the most effective method we can currently utilize to slow the spread of virus 

as advised by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) 

stating, effective March 19, 2020, “we will temporarily be closing the doors of our community 

office to in-person traffic and will use alternative methods of communication to include telephone, 

email, resident portal and website for all resident and prospect needs.” Defendant also emphasized 

“[a]s a reminder, our fitness centers, pools and other non-essential amenity spaces will remain 

closed until further notice and our service teams will only be performing emergency services

requests in occupied apartments.”

B. Allegations Regarding Plaintiff Jennifer Ciccone

14. Jennifer Ciccone’s daughter, Madison Ciccone, is a student at the University of 

Central Florida. Plaintiff evaluated the available housing options and selected The Retreat at 

Orlando based largely on its student housing amenities.

15. Plaintiff Jennifer Ciccone executed a housing contract for August 17, 2019 to July 

31, 2020 and Madison Ciccone moved into the dormitory on August 17, 2019 for Fall 2019, Spring 

and Summer 2020 school semesters.

16. Plaintiff Jennifer Ciccone returned home in March 2020 as directed by the 

University of Central Florida, the Florida Governor and the President of the United States.

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 4 of 18
5

17. Defendant refuses to return pro-rated monies paid for the month of March although 

this money was collected for services Defendant did not and could not perform. 

18. Plaintiff has always paid her monthly installments of $810.00. Her contract is for 

August 17, 2019 to July 31, 2020 and she paid on time every month. 

19. Since the COVID-19 pandemic hit and students were forced to evacuate the 

premises in March 2020.

20. Defendant feigns concern over the plight COVID-19 put students and their families 

in while at the same time is haranguing and harassing Plaintiff and her daughter concerning a debt 

that they do not owe.

21. Defendant collected rent for the month of March, April, May, and June 2020

although Plaintiff and her daughter do not owe these debts.

22. Defendant refuses to return monies paid for March (partial), April, May, and June

2020, although this money was collected for services Defendant did not and could not perform. 

C. University Campuses Shut Down in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, and 

Defendant Cannot Provide the Bargained-For Services.

23. On March 9, 2020 Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-52 

declaring a state of emergency for the entire state of Florida a result of COVID-19.

24. On March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump issued a Proclamation Declaring a 

National Emergency based upon the COVID-19 outbreak.

25. On March 16, 2020, President Trump and the Center for Disease Control and 

Prevention (“CDC”) issued the “15 days to slow the spread” guidance to slow the spread of the 

virus, advising individuals of social distancing measures such as avoiding gatherings of more than 

10 people, and recommending restrictions for establishments tending to attract mass gatherings

and congregations.

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 5 of 18
6

26. On March 17, 2020, the University of Central Florida announced that all classes 

would transition to remote learning through the end of the Spring 2020 semester, canceling all oncampus events due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

27. On March 19, 2020, the University of Central Florida encouraged all residential 

students to evacuate to their permanent residence and not return to campus, such that they had no 

meaningful choice but to comply. 

28. Further, because all classes were moved online, there was no reason for students to 

remain near campus if they had other housing available to them. This is particularly so in the 

face of the dangers, risks, and fear associated with the pandemic.

29. The vast majority of students left campus to be with their families, and to avoid 

exposure to COVID-19, and they have stayed off campus to comply with directives from the 

schools, as well as local, state and federal governments. 

30. On March 24, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-83, directing the 

State Surgeon General and State Health Officer to issue a public health advisory urging the public 

to avoid all social or recreational gatherings of 10 or more people, stating “it is necessary and 

appropriate to take action to ensure that the spread of COVID-19 is slowed, and that residents and 

visitors in Florida remain safe and secure.” 

31. On March 26, 2020, The Retreat at Orlando issued a statement to its residents and 

guarantors that they are aware of the impact the pandemic is having on all aspects of everyone’s 

lives and the cancellations and shutdowns in connection with this pandemic have created new 

burdens on our residents and guarantors. Furthermore, stating, “[a]lthough we are sympathetic to 

this situation and the hardship that this pandemic has caused, we are unable to change the terms of 

our Lease Agreement.” Please see Exhibit A attached hereto. 

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 6 of 18
7

32. On March 27, 2020, the University of Central Florida, recognizing that on-campus 

dormitory rooms, meal plans, and services could not be safely used by the students, the 

University’s Board of Trustees unanimously approved a plan to refund housing costs to students. 

The refunds were to include students’ housing costs from March 27, 2020 through April 28, 2020. 

33. On March 29, 2020 President Trump extended the guidelines to be in effect until 

April 30, 2020.

34. On March 31, 2020 the President updated the guidelines renaming it “30 Days to 

Slow the Spread” and along with the Coronavirus Task Force urged Americans to adhere to the 

guidelines. 

35. On March 31, 2020, the University of Central Florida issued a statement to all OffCampus Student Housing Managers advising the shift to all classes online for the spring and 

portion of the summer semesters and as such depopulated campus and requesting students to return 

to their permanent residences. Furthermore, respectfully requesting apartment and housing 

managers to consider granting early lease terminations.

36. Despite the fact that the dormitories cannot safely be occupied by the students, and 

the fact that the bargained-for amenities could not safely be provided, the Defendant has refused 

to return any portion of the rent and other fees it has collected. 

37. Defendant’s demand for payment and refusal to provide partial refunds defies

equity, common sense and is in diametrical opposition to the Governor and President’s directives

concerning the dangers of staying in their facilities.

38. The purpose of the parties’ lease agreement was to provide housing and services –

including on-site leading resident life program offering a variety of educational, recreational, and 

social activities, clubhouse with social events, fitness center, technology center with computer 

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 7 of 18
8

stations, multiple sport courts, sauna, club room with pool tables and coffee bar as well as a golf 

simulator.

39. Defendant touts in its promotional materials that the amenities are cutting-edge 

features and unrivaled, which far exceed those of typical student apartments, with leading 

residence life offering a variety of educational, recreational, and social activities to help your 

student make the most of their college experience.

40. This purpose was frustrated when the campus closed and students were ordered 

home no longer attending on-campus classes.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

41. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3) as a representative of the following Class:

All people who paid the costs rent and fees for and on behalf of 

students residing in Defendant’s Florida “campus living” complexes 

for the Spring and Summer 2020 semester who moved out prior to 

the completion of the semester because of school closures relating 

to COVID-19.

42. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the Class definition with greater 

specificity or further division into subclasses or limitation to particular issues, as discovery andthe 

orders of this Court warrant.

43. Excluded from the Class are the Defendant, the officers and directors of the

Defendant at all relevant times, members of Defendant’s immediate families and their legal

representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendant has or had a 

controlling interest.

44. Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to represent.

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 8 of 18
9

45. Defendant has thousands of customers that have paid room, rent and fees while 

schools were closed, and students ordered to return home. Accordingly, members of the Class are 

so numerous that their individual joinder herein is impracticable. The precise number of Class 

members and their identities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time but may be determined through 

discovery. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail and/or 

publication through the distribution records of Defendant.

46. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and predominate

over questions affecting only individual Class members. Common legal and factual questions

include, but are not limited to, whether Defendant has refused to offer refunds and whether it has 

breached its contracts with its customers or otherwise acted unlawfully.

47. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class in that the

named Plaintiff was charged rental fees and suffered losses despite their child being ordered to 

leave campus and return home by school and government officials.

48. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because Plaintiff’s interest does

not conflict with the interests of the Class members Plaintiff seeks to represent, Plaintiff has retained

competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this 

action vigorously. The interests of Class members will be fairly and adequately protected by 

Plaintiff and their counsel.

49. The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the claims of the Class members. Each individual Class member may lack the 

resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and 

extensive litigation necessary to establish Defendant’s liability. Individualized litigation increases 

the delay and expense to all parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial system presented by 

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 9 of 18
10

the complex legal and factual issues of this case. Individualized litigation also presents a potential 

for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. In contrast, the class action device presents far fewer 

management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and 

comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of Defendant’s liability. Classtreatment 

of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and claimants are before this Court for consistent 

adjudication.

COUNT I

RESCISSION

50. Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the 

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

51. Plaintiff, as well as all other Class members, were in contractual privity with the 

Defendant as tenants of the Defendant’s facilities. These contractual agreements involving the 

Class members and Defendant were evidenced in writing and signed by the parties.

52. As noted above, the purpose of the contractual undertaking between the Class 

members (including Plaintiff) and Defendant was to provide a “preferred student living 

community” living arrangement to student Class members. The living space provided by this 

arrangement was bundled with a number of amenities and conveniences that particularly catered 

to students attending university campuses, such as, an exercise center, monthly resident events, 

computer labs, shuttle services to the campus, and university involvement.

53. There has been a clear “equitable breach” in this case that warrants rescission

because issues of “impossibility of performance” and “frustration of purpose” have arisen. 

54. As to the “frustration of purpose”, Plaintiff executed the contract with the 

Defendant with the understanding that Defendant was obligated to provide the student Plaintiffs 

and other student Class members with benefits, to include, but is not limited to access to the resortCase 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 10 of 18
11

style pool, luxurious clubhouse, fitness center, technology center with computer stations, multiple 

sports courts, club room with pool tables and coffee bar as well as a golf simulator. Due to 

Defendant’s failure to provide Plaintiff with said benefits Plaintiff was substantially frustrated as 

the purpose and benefits of the bargain were breached. 

55. As to “impossibility of performance,” Defendant was obligated to provide the 

student Plaintiff and other student Class members with access to common areas, fitness center, 

technology center with computer stations, social activities, and other services. However, as a result 

of the COVID-19 pandemic, these common areas and services became both unsafe to provide and 

unsafe to use. 

56. To that end, it should be noted that the only private accommodation provided by 

Defendant, The Retreat at Orlando, was a bedroom and bathroom in a shared apartment. Each 

living unit had common space shared amongst multiple residents. As such, essential daily living 

and hygiene functions were necessarily performed in a shared common facility with other students 

that any individual student might not know well, thus presenting a great risk for COVID-19 

infection.

57. Indeed, it is noteworthy that very similar dorm facilities run by the universities 

were closed down and the students urged to leave because the living arrangements were unsafe to 

occupy. This was consistent with CDC guidelines which discouraged gatherings of more than 10 

people and advised that stringent “social distancing” measures be taken to avoid transmission of 

COVID-19. However, Defendant, because of its own profits-over-people pecuniary interests, 

refused to acknowledge that the particular form of high-density housing arrangement that it 

provided was inconsistent with prudent safety measures.

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 11 of 18
12

58. In addition to that, it was simply not possible for students to fully access common 

areas and amenities in a prudent manner. Places such as the fitness center, transit shuttles, and

computer stations would have required student Class members to group together beyond what was 

prudent. Even the heavily used common hallways presented such a risk.

59. For this reason, it was impossible for the Defendant to provide what was bargained 

for under the Class members’ contracts.

60. As to frustration of purpose, the student-style living arrangement was offered as 

part of a bundled package of amenities that were a fundamental part of Defendant’s performance 

under the contract. As noted above, Defendant’s living facilities and common amenities were 

rendered unsafe to use as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The provision of these living 

arrangements along with the coupled amenities were the fundamental purpose of the Class 

members’ agreements and became frustrated by the fact that they could not be safely provided or 

used.

61. In addition to its facilities being unsafe to use, the Defendant marketed its 

premises as being in close physical proximity to school and also marketed its services as being 

advantageous because of a high degree of integration with campus university activities. Given 

that the University campuses were closed, and no campus activities were taking place because of 

the COVID-19 pandemic, this frustrated an essential purpose of the Class members’ contracts with 

Defendant. Indeed, the very purpose of the Class members’ contracts with Defendant was to allow 

the student Class members to attend school on university campuses, which was of course not 

possible due to the closure of the university campuses.

62. Defendant has been provided with ample notice of the Class members’ desire for 

rescission. Indeed, not only did the Plaintiffs provide individual notice, but, as noted above, so 

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 12 of 18
13

many Class members contacted Defendant that it engaged in mass communications with Class

members to present its position that no rescission would be permitted. Additionally, the Defendant 

was put on notice by the governor, the President and the University of Central Florida.

63. This case is suitable for rescission because the parties can be equitably restored to 

their original position or, if that result would not be equitable, a balance of equities can otherwise 

be achieved.

64. This count for rescission is pleaded in the alternative to any claim for legal relief. 

To the extent no remedy at law is available, rescission is appropriate.

COUNT II

BREACH OF CONTRACT

65. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 

1-49 of this Complaint.

66. The lease agreement provided that each Plaintiff “. . . a non-exclusive license to 

use all driveways, walkways, hallways, landscaped areas, and other common areas of the 

Apartment Community (the “Common Areas”); such usage to be in common with other residents 

in the Apartment Community and their respective guests, invites, and licensees.”

67. The Defendants have breached the contract because they are unable to safely 

provide these services and amenities.

COUNT III

BREACH OF IMPLIED CONVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

68. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 1-49 of this 

Complaint. 

69. Plaintiff bring this claim on their own behalves and on behalf of the proposed Class 

against Defendant. 

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 13 of 18
14

70. In performing its leases with Plaintiff and the Class members, Defendant has 

breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by:

a. Unfairly and in bad faith asserting that remaining in shared space is 

a reasonable option for Plaintiffs and proposed Class members. Dormitories, 

whether on or off campus, are not designed to safely house students in the event of 

a pandemic, and, in order to stay safe, a vast majority of the students must move 

out in order to practice safe social distancing in accordance with CDC 

recommendations.

b. Unfairly and in bad faith representing that its properties serve as a 

preferred student living community and provide residence life programs to 

compliment students’ academics. However, once the schools have closed and the 

students it purports to serve have been forced to leave, the reality reveals itself that 

Defendant does not consider its provision of room, board, and services to be tied 

whatsoever to the schools or to the students’ academics, as it has failed to refund 

unearned payments for room, board, and fees.

c. Unfairly and in bad faith failing to refund any monies paid by the 

Plaintiffs and proposed Class that remain unused as a result of the COVID-19 

pandemic.

71. As a result of Defendant’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair 

dealing as set forth above, Plaintiff and the proposed Class members have been damaged.

COUNT IV

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

72. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 1-49 of this 

Complaint. 

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 14 of 18
15

73. Plaintiff brings this on her own behalf and on behalf of the proposed Class against 

Defendant. 

74. Plaintiff and members of the Class conferred benefits on Defendant by paying 

room, board, and fees, despite the closing of colleges and universities and attendant 

recommendations for social distancing and returning home. 

75. Defendant has knowledge of such benefits. 

76. Defendant has been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from 

Plaintiff and Class members’ payments. Retention of those moneys under these circumstances is 

unjust and inequitable because Defendant is charging its customers full price of a semester’s worth 

of room, board, and fees of which Plaintiff and Class members cannot reasonably avail themselves. 

77. Because Defendant’s retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred on it by 

Plaintiff and members of the Class is unjust and inequitable, Defendant must pay restitution to 

Plaintiff and members of the Class for their unjust enrichment, as ordered by the Court. 

COUNT V

CONVERSION

78. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 

1-49 of this Complaint. 

79. Plaintiff bring this claim on their own behalves and on behalf of the proposed Class 

against Defendant. 

80. Defendant deprived Plaintiff and the other members of the Class of the value they 

paid for themselves (or the students on whose behalf they paid for) of their right to the services 

and amenities provided in the lease agreement.

81. Plaintiff and members of the Class had a right to a refund of their room, board, and 

fees while the schools the dormitories catered to were and remain closed; Defendant intentionally 

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 15 of 18
16

refused issuance of any refund or credit after the schools were closed; Plaintiff and Class members 

were harmed through Defendant’s unlawful retention of room, board, and fees; Defendant’s 

conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff and Class members’ harm.

82. Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to the return of the prorated, unused 

amounts paid for room, board, and fees through the end of the semester.

COUNT VI

MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED

83. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 

1-49 of this Complaint. 

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

proposed Class against Defendant. 

85. Defendant received money in the form of room, board, and fee payments that was 

intended to be used for the benefit of Plaintiff and the Class; however, those fees were not used 

for the benefit of Plaintiff and the Class, and Defendant has not given back or refunded the 

wrongfully obtained money and fees to Plaintiff and the Class. 

COUNT VII

FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 

86. Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 

1 – 49 of this Complaint.

87. Plaintiff brings this claim on her own behalf and on behalf of the proposed Class 

against Defendant. 

88. At all times relevant to this action Defendant is subject to and must abide by the 

law of Florida, including Florida Statute § 559.72.

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 16 of 18
17

89. Defendant has violated Florida Statute § 559.72(7) by willfully engaging in other 

conduct which could reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the debtor Plaintiff or any member 

of her family, or willfully engage in other conduct which can be reasonably be expected to abuse 

or harass the debtor or any member of her or his family.

90. Defendant has violated Florida Statute § 559.72(9) by attempting to enforce adebt 

when Defendant knows that the debt is not legitimate, or to assert the existence of some legal right 

when Defendant knows that right does not exist.

91. Defendant’s actions have directly and proximately resulted in Plaintiff’s prior and 

continuous sustaining of damages as described by Florida Statute §559.77.

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 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 members; 

b. For an Order declaring that Defendant’s conduct violates the statutes and 

laws referenced herein; 

c. For an Order finding in favor of Plaintiff and the Class on all counts asserted 

herein; 

d. For statutory, compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be 

determined; 

e. For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded; 

f. For an Order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief; 

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 17 of 18
18

g. For injunctive relief as pleaded or as the Court may deem proper; and

h. For a declaration that the housing contract and agreements between 

Defendant and Plaintiff and the Class are unenforceable; and

i. For an Order awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable attorneys’ 

fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit. 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. 

Respectfully submitted,

 William “Billy” Peerce Howard

William “Billy” Peerce Howard, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 0103330

Heather H. Jones, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 0118974

Amanda J. Allen, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 0098228

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM

4030 Henderson Boulevard

Tampa, FL 33629

Telephone: (813) 500-1500

Facsimile: (813) 435-2369

Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

****************************************

John W. Barrett (pending pro hac vice admission)

Raymond S. Franks, II (pending pro hac vice 

admission)

BAILEY & GLASSER LLP

209 Capitol Street

Charleston, WV 25301

Telephone: (304) 345-6555

Facsimile: (304) 342-1110

JBarrett@baileyglasser.com

RFranks@baileyglasser.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2020 Page 18 of 18