UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. _________________ 

RAYMOND GIBSON, and on behalf of 

All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LYNN UNIVERSITY, INC., 

Defendant. 

/

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF AND PETITION FOR REMOVAL 

Defendant Lynn University, Inc. (“Defendant”), in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 

1446 and 1453, hereby files its Notice of and Petition for Removal (the “Notice”). Defendant 

requests that, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, this action filed by Raymond Gibson 

and all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”) be removed from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 

Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida to the United State District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida. The removal of this action is based on the following: 

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

1. On or about May 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a class action Complaint in the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida bearing Case No. 2020-CA-005378 

and styled Raymond Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lynn 

University, Inc. (hereinafter the “Circuit Court Case”). A true copy of the Complaint is attached 

hereto as Exhibit A. This document constitutes all pleadings and process served upon Defendant 

in this action. This document was the initial pleading served upon Defendant setting forth the 

claims upon which Plaintiffs’ action is based. 

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 13
2. On June 18, 2020, the undersigned counsel executed a waiver of service of process 

form under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070. This waiver is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Under that waiver 

and the Florida waiver rule, Defendant was not deemed to have accepted service until July 28, 

2020. See Exhibit B (explicitly stating that Defendant’s waiver was conditioned on accepting 

service 40 days after the waiver was signed); see also Romero v. Randle Eastern Ambulance Serv., 

No. 08-23170-Moreno, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129542 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2009) (evaluating 

compliance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070 to determine when 30 day period for removal started and 

denying motion for remand). Nonetheless, to avoid any possible argument that Defendant should 

have removed the case within 30 days of the return of the service waiver, instead of 30 days from 

July 28, 2020, Defendant is removing the case within 30 days of June 18, 2020. This Notice is 

thus clearly timely, having been filed within 30 days after Defendant waived service of the 

Complaint. Although under the waiver and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070 the Complaint will not be deemed 

served until July 28, 2020, in an effort to avoid confusion, Defendant will accept service as of 

today’s date and respond to the Complaint within 21 days of this Removal being filed. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2)(B). 

3. Defendant has not filed an answer or other pleading in the Circuit Court Case. 

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendant provided written notice of the removal 

to all adverse parties in this action by filing a copy of this Notice in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 

Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. 

5. Plaintiff Raymond Gibson is a resident of Boca Raton, Florida, and is an 

undergraduate at Lynn University. See Complaint, ¶ 3. 

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 2 of 13
6. Defendant is incorporated in the state of Florida, and maintains its principal place 

of business in the state of Florida. See id. at ¶ 4. Defendant operates Lynn University, a private 

institution of higher learning in Boca Raton, Florida. Id.

7. Specifically, Plaintiff and the putative class members bring this class action for a 

“proper prorated refund or reimbursement for the unused services for which they paid in the form 

of university fees” and a “proper prorated refund or reimbursement for the decreased value of the 

education they received as a result of classes transitioning from in-person and on-campus to an 

entirely remote virtual learning format.” See id. at ¶ 2. 

8. Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed as a class action pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil 

Procedure 1.220(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and/or (c)(4). See Compl. at ¶¶ 1, 64.

9. Plaintiff Gibson brings his class action on behalf of himself and: 

“All Florida residents who paid on behalf of themselves or another 

tuition or fees for in-person education at Lynn University for the 

Spring or Summer 2020 term, but who did not receive their 

bargained for educational experience and services for which they 

paid fees; and have not been refunded a properly prorated portion of 

their tuition and fees after Lynn University ceased operations in 

Spring 2020 due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).” 

Id. at ¶ 64 (emphasis added). 

10. Plaintiff and the putative class members are bringing this action for breach of 

contract, contract implied in law (Restitution/Quasi-contract), unjust enrichment, and conversion. 

11. Plaintiffs claim Lynn University is attended by approximately 3,200 students with 

the average cost of attendance exceeding $50,000 per academic year. See id. at ¶ 5. Although 

Plaintiffs are currently uncertain of the precise number of class members, the Complaint alleges 

that the class “certainly exceeds 3,000 members.” See id. at ¶ 67. 

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 3 of 13
12. As of Fall 2019, Lynn University had students enrolled from 97 countries and 46 

states and territories. See Declaration of Registrar Jenifer Neil-Scholl at ¶ 7, attached hereto as 

Exhibit C; see Compl. at ¶ 16, fn. 8 referring to https://www.lynn.edu/about/lynn-facts. 

13. Citizenship information of the domestic student population at Lynn University is 

maintained by Defendant according to the permanent address provided by the student at the time 

of enrollment, which is based on information on the student application. Neil-Scholl Decl. at ¶ 5. 

The application seeks not just the mailing address, but also the permanent address of students. See 

id.

14. Citizenship information for the international student population at Lynn University 

is maintained by Defendant according to the permanent address and citizenship information 

provided by the student at the time of enrollment, the information submitted by the student to 

request the creation of the Form I-20 as required by the Department of Homeland Security for 

international students, and entered into the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Student 

and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). See Declaration of Erin Garcia at ¶ 5, attached 

hereto as Exhibit D. Further, international students attending Lynn University on F-1 Visas are 

considered non-immigrants and must prove “non-immigrant intent” at the time of their visa 

application – meaning that they must show that they intend to return to their home country or plan 

on leaving the United States after they complete their F-1 Visa program. Id. at 7. Based on the 

data maintained by Lynn University and SEVIS, several hundred foreign citizens were students at 

Lynn University in the Spring 2020 semester. Id. at 10. These students, who temporarily reside 

in Florida but who clearly are not Florida citizens, are all part of Plaintiff’s currently proposed 

class. 

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 4 of 13
15. Approximately 3,021 students were enrolled in Lynn University for the Spring 

2020 semester. Neil-Scholl Decl. at ¶ 8. 

16. Approximately 1,526 students are enrolled in Lynn University for the Summer 

2020 semester. Id. at ¶ 9. 

17. Of the 3,021 students enrolled at Lynn University for the Spring 2020 semester, the 

majority maintained permanent addresses outside of the state of Florida. Id. at ¶ 10. 

18. Of the 1,526 students enrolled at Lynn University for the Summer 2020 semester, 

nearly a majority maintained permanent addresses outside of the state of Florida. Id. at ¶ 11. 

II. THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS 

ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), THE CLASS ACTION 

FAIRNESS ACT (“CAFA”) 

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) grants district courts original subject 

matter jurisdiction over any civil action involving a proposed class of at least 100 members “in 

which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and 

costs, and is a class action in which . . . any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State 

different from any defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B). A defendant 

seeking removal on grounds of CAFA jurisdiction must prove the jurisdictional elements by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir. 

2010). 

Removal of this matter is appropriate as all of the elements required to establish original 

subject matter jurisdiction over this action under CAFA are satisfied. 

A. There Is Minimal Diversity 

In order to meet the “minimal diversity” required by CAFA, any member of a class of 

plaintiffs must be a citizen of a state different from any defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Here, 

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 5 of 13
many of the putative class members are citizens of different states and countries from the 

Defendant. 

For individuals, citizenship is established by a person’s domicile, not simply residence. 

King v. Great Am. Chicken Corp, Inc., 903 F.3d 875, 879 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). 

Allegations of mere residence, therefore, may not be equated with citizenship. Reece v. AES Corp., 

638 F. App'x 755, 769 (10th Cir. 2016) citing Whitelock v. Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507, 514 (10th 

Cir. 1972). “For adults, domicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection with 

a certain state of mind concerning one's intent to remain there.” Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians 

v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48, 109 S. Ct. 1597, 1608, 104 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1989); see also Sunseri v. 

Macro Cellular Partners, 412 F.3d 1247, 1249 (11th Cir. 2005). Domicile is not synonymous 

with residence; one may temporarily reside in one location, yet retain domicile in a previous 

residence. Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1341-42 (11th Cir. 2011). 

Although physically present in the current residence, the person does not intend to remain in that 

state indefinitely. Id.

Further, courts in Florida have held that residents who reside in a state temporarily or parttime, such as the college students in the putative class, are not necessarily domiciliaries of the 

states where they reside. Alexion v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 6:18-cv-2112-Orl-22GJK, 2019 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 185668, at *16 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2019) (quoting Las Vistas Villas, S.A. v. Petersen, 778 

F. Supp. 1202, 1205 (M.D. Fla. 1991) (college student from Costa Rica who resided in Minnesota 

while attending law school did not "evince an intent to change domicile" where he had no 

postgraduation commitment to the state), aff'd sub nom. Las Vistas Villas v. Petersen, 13 F.3d 409 

(11th Cir. 1994)). Specifically, courts in Florida have held that even though students can be 

expected to engage in certain expediencies such as obtaining a local driver's license, opening bank 

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 6 of 13
accounts, or having mail delivered to a local address while attending university, these acts do not 

evince an intent to change domicile. See Las Vista Villas, 13 F.3d at 1205. 

Indeed, courts have consistently recognized that out-of-state college students are temporary 

residents and not domiciliaries of the states in which they attend college. Las Vistas Villas, S.A., 

supra (quoting Hakkila v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 988, 990 

(S.D.N.Y. 1990) (finding that college student was not domiciled at university even though she did 

not return to her mother’s home); Scoggins v. Pollock, 727 F.2d 1025, 1027 (11th Cir. 1984) 

(finding domicile did not change even though student did not intend to return to parents’ home 

after graduation)). 

For purposes of minimal diversity in this matter, therefore, the Court should look to the 

parties domiciles, including that of the putative class members, to establish citizenship. 

Defendant is incorporated in Florida, and maintains its principal place of business in the 

state of Florida. See Compl. at ¶¶ 4-5. Accordingly, it is a citizen of the state of Florida. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (“[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has 

been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.”). 

Plaintiffs, however, while potentially all Florida residents, mostly are citizens of states or 

countries other than Florida. Indeed, as explained above, out-of-state college students have 

traditionally been found to not be domiciliaries of the state in which they are attending college. 

See Scoggins, 727 F.2d at 1927 (“district court stated that out-of-state students are usually regarded 

only as temporary residents and "it is therefore usually presumed that they retain their domicile at 

their former place of abode."”); see also Las Vistas Villas, S.A. supra, at 1205. According to the 

information maintained by Lynn University, the majority of the students enrolled for the Spring 

2020 and Summer 2020 semesters maintain permanent addresses outside the state of Florida, and 

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 7 of 13
therefore are permanent residents and citizens of states and other countries outside the state of 

Florida. Neil-Scholl Decl. at ¶¶ 10-11; see Garcia Decl. at ¶ 10. Consequently, the putative class 

members are citizens of states and/or countries other than Florida, where Defendant is a citizen. 

Because Defendant is a citizen of Florida and at least one class member is a citizen of 

another state or foreign country the “minimal diversity” required under CAFA is established in 

this case, regardless of the fact that the Complaint purports to limit the class to Florida residents. 

B. The Amount In Controversy Is More Than $5,000,000, 

Exclusive of Interest and Costs 

The amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest 

and costs. While defendants are not required to prove an actual damage amount in order to 

establish the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, they must provide the Court with factual 

evidence from which the Court can conclude whether or not the jurisdictional amount is met. 

“Where, as here, the plaintiff has not pled a specific amount of damages, the removing defendant 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the 

jurisdictional requirement.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001); 

see also Tapscott v. MS Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1356-57 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[W]e hold 

where a plaintiff has made an unspecified demand for damages in state court, a removing defendant 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy more likely than 

not exceeds the [applicable] jurisdictional requirement.” (emphasis added)), overruled on other 

grounds by Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 2000). “When the 

complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is 

[jurisdictionally] proper if it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy 

exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.” Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754. 

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 8 of 13
Here, it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy clearly 

exceeds $5,000,000. Defendant’s calculation is preliminarily based on the number of students that 

Plaintiffs alleged in the Complaint paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester.1See Compl. 

at ¶¶ 12, 19, 67. Defendant’s calculation is likewise based on the approximate amount of tuition 

and fees paid by a regular undergraduate student enrolled in the Spring 2020 semester at Lynn 

University, as alleged in the Complaint, which is the basis for the amount in controversy. Id. at ¶ 

19. Defendant’s calculation assumes that the putative class members are seeking at least a 50% 

refund of their tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester per the allegation that “less than half 

the Spring 2020 term was held in person.”2Id. at ¶ 33. 

Thus, according to Plaintiffs’ own allegations, Plaintiffs are seeking a refund for 

approximately half of the amount of tuition and fees that they paid for the Spring 2020 semester 

for a class that consists of approximately 3,247 students as alleged in the Complaint, including 

graduate and doctorate students. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 67. Plaintiff allegedly paid $18,340 in tuition and 

another $1,200 in fees for the Spring 2020 semester. Id. at ¶ 19. Even assuming that the graduate 

and doctorate students pay the same amount of tuition as the undergraduate students at Lynn 

University, Plaintiffs are asserting breach of contract claims that total in excess of $31 million for 

the Spring 2020 term alone, without factoring in the amount Plaintiffs allege they are owed for the 

“decreased value of their education.” The breach of contract claims on behalf of the students 

enrolled for the Summer 2020 semester has the potential to further add millions of dollars to the 

amount in controversy. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that the base tuition and fee rate is 

1 While Plaintiffs’ putative class includes students enrolled in the Summer 2020 semester, 

on its face, the Complaint does not provide the tuition and fees amount for Summer 2020. For 

purposes of establishing the amount in controversy, Defendant will analyze claims for the Spring 

2020 term for which Plaintiff included specific amounts. 

2

 Defendant is taking as true the allegations in the Complaint for purposes of removal only.

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 9 of 13
approximately an average of $50,000 (far higher than the amount Plaintiff paid), id. at ¶ 5, which 

means that for students who did not receive financial aid (or received a lesser amount of aid than 

the named Plaintiff), their purported damages would be even greater. 

While Defendant disputes that Plaintiffs will ultimately prove they are entitled to any

damages, there can be no doubt that Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks damages exceeding $5 million by 

a substantial margin. 

Accordingly, CAFA’s “amount in controversy” element is satisfied. 

C. The Proposed Class Is Greater Than 100 Members 

Plaintiffs affirmatively allege in the Complaint that the proposed class “certainly exceeds 

3,000 members.” See id. at ¶ 67. As alleged in the Complaint, the proposed class includes Mr. 

Gibson and other similar-situated persons “who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic 

term to Lynn University.” See id. at ¶ 1. Approximately 3,021 students were enrolled in Lynn 

University for the Spring 2020 semester. Neil-Scholl Decl. at ¶ 8. Approximately 1,526 students 

are enrolled in Lynn University for the Summer 2020 semester. Id. at ¶ 9. As described, the 

putative class exceeds 3,000 members. 

Accordingly, Defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a 

potential class of at least 100 members. 

D. This Matter Is A “Class Action” 

The CAFA defines a “class action” as 

(B) the term “class action” means any civil action filed under 

rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar 

State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an 

action to be brought by 1 or more representative persons as 

a class action 

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 10 of 13
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B). This matter constitutes a “class action.” The Complaint was filed as 

a class action under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.220(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and/or (c)(4). Compl. 

at ¶¶ 1, 64. This is the state law counterpart to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Plaintiffs have sought to 

affirmatively allege the elements of a class action and have specifically pled the existence of a 

class of students at Lynn University. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 64-70. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there is (a) diversity of 

citizenship; (b) a potential class of at least 100 members; and (c) a controversy exceeding the 

jurisdictional minimum. Defendant has, therefore, established the necessary jurisdictional 

elements to assert federal jurisdiction under CAFA. For this reason, this Court has original 

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims by virtue of CAFA, and this case should be removed to this 

Court. 

The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, the place where the 

pending action was originally filed, is within the geographic boundaries of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Therefore, venue is proper in this Court. 

Defendant submits this notice and petition without waiving any defenses to the claims 

asserted by Plaintiffs or conceding Plaintiffs have pleaded claims upon which relief may be 

granted. Upon filing this Notice of Removal, Defendant will provide a written notification to 

Plaintiffs and will file a Notification of Removal with the clerk of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in 

and for Palm Beach County, Florida. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a true and correct copy 

of the Notification of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 11 of 13
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the within action, now pending in the 

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, be removed to the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

DATED: July 17, 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: s/ Mendy Halberstam

Mendy Halberstam, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 68999 

Email: mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com

Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 0523283 

Email: stephanie.adler-paindiris@jacksonlewis.com

Allison Gluvna Folk, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 041075 

Email: allison.folk@jacksonlewis.com 

Leslie Lagomasino Baum, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1007655 

Email: leslie.baum@jacksonlewis.com

JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 

Two South Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 577-7600 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document is being served on 

July 17, 2020, on all counsel of record on the Service List below via transmission of Notices of 

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. 

s/ Mendy Halberstam 

Mendy Halberstam, Esq. 

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 12 of 13
SERVICE LIST 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 

Gibson, et al. v. Lynn University, Inc. 

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-______________ 

Matthew D. Schultz 

Florida Bar No. 0640328 

Email: mschultz@levinlaw.com

Rebecca K. Timmons 

Florida Bar No. 121701 

Email: rtimmons@levinlaw.com

Brenton J. Goodman 

Florida Bar No. 126153 

Email: bgoodman@levinlaw.com

LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS 

MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 

316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600 

Pensacola, Florida 32502 

Telephone: (850)435-7140 

E. Michelle Drake 

(PHV Pending) 

Email: emdrake@bm.net

BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C. 

43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 

Minneapolis, MN 55414 

Telephone: (612)594-5900 

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class 

Mendy Halberstam, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 68999 

Email: mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com 

Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 0523283 

Email: stephanie.adlerpaindiris@jacksonlewis.com

Allison Gluvna Folk, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 041075 

Email: allison.folk@jacksonlewis.com 

Leslie Lagomasino Baum, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1007655 

Email: leslie.baum@jacksonlewis.com

JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 

Two South Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 577-7600 

Counsel for Defendant 

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 13 of 13