UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

DYLAN EGLESTON, Individually And On Behalf 

Of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES, AS THE PUBLIC BODY 

CORPORATE OF UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA, and FLORIDA BOARD OF 

GOVERNORS FOUNDATION, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 1:20-cv-106-AW/GRJ 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Dylan Egleston (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel, brings this 

action against University of Florida Board of Trustees and the Florida Board of Governors 

Foundation, Inc. (“Defendants”) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and makes 

the following allegations based upon information, attorney investigation and belief, and upon 

Plaintiff’s own knowledge: 

I. NATURE OF THE CASE 

1. This is an action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and 

violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, § 501.201 et seq., and violations 

of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, against Defendants. 

2. This is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the putative 

Classes who (i) paid for in-person educational services in the form of tuition and were forced to 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 53
2 

finish the Spring 2020 academic semester online (which is substantially cheaper than in-person 

education services) and (ii) services fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at the University 

of Florida (“UF”), Florida A&M University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida Gulf Coast 

University, Florida International University, Florida Polytechnic University, Florida State 

University, New College of Florida, University of Central Florida, University of North Florida, 

University of South Florida, and University of West Florida (collectively, the “Universities”) and 

who, because of Defendants’ response and policies relating to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 

(“COVID-19”) pandemic, are entitled to a refund on tuition and fees paid. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness 

Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because at least one class member is of diverse citizenship 

from one of the Defendants, there are more than 100 Class members, and the aggregate amount in 

controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. 

4. Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of civil 

rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

5. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (civil rights); 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides 

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law tort claims that arose from the same common nuclei 

of facts.

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants conduct 

business in Florida and have sufficient minimum contacts with Florida. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 53
3 

7. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. Specifically, the 

contract that is the subject of this action was formed in this District. 

III. PARTIES 

A. Plaintiff 

8. Plaintiff Dylan Egleston was a student at UF. 

B. Defendants 

9. Defendant University of Florida Board of Trustee (“Florida Board of Trustee”) are 

the trustees of UF, a public land-grant, sea-grant, and space-grant research university in 

Gainesville, Florida. The Florida Board of Trustee is a senior member of the State University 

System of Florida and traces its origins to 1853 and has operated continuously on its Gainesville 

campus since September 1906. 

10. Defendant Florida Board of Governors Foundation, Inc. (“Florida Board of 

Governors”) is the governing board created under the Florida Constitution as the governing body 

for the State University System of Florida, which includes all public universities in the state of 

Florida. Defendant Florida Board of Governors is located at 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1614, 

Tallahassee, Florida. 

11. Defendants operate state agencies under color of state law. 

IV. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

12. Plaintiff brings this case as a result of Defendants’ decision not to issue appropriate 

refunds for the Spring 2020 semester after canceling in-person classes and changing all classes to 

an online/remote format, closing most campus buildings, and requiring all students who could 

leave campus to leave as a result of COVID-19. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 3 of 53
4 

13. On or about March 11, 2020, Defendants issued an order directing all Universities 

to implement a process to transition to remote instruction immediately and encourage students to 

stay home (if they had left their campuses for spring break) or to return home. 

14. On or about March 17, 2020, Defendants extended remote learning through the end 

of the Spring semester at all Universities and directed all Universities to develop an alternate 

schedule or method of delivery for on-campus commencement ceremonies. On-campus and other 

co-curricular activities, including athletic events, were cancelled. 

15. On March 20, 2020, in a letter to students at the UF, the Vice-President of Student 

Affairs indicated that the UF was “developing plans for issuing refunds, rebates, or credits to 

students who may no longer be able to utilize their university residence hall and/or dining plan 

contracts.” No communications were made concerning the many fees students paid associated 

with the Spring 2020 semester or the difference in prices between in-person classes and on-line 

learning. 

16. On or about March 27, 2020, UF announced that it would soon begin distributing 

partial housing and dining refunds for students. Students who formally checked out of their oncampus housing before March 24, 2020 would be offered a housing refund based on their checkout 

date. Students who stopped using their meal plan after March 23, 2020 would also receive a 

refund for the unused portion of their meal plan, including flex bucks. These refunds would be 

automatically distributed to students’ accounts. Once again, no mention was made concerning 

students’ fees or reduction in tuition because classes were now held online versus in-person. 

17. On March 30, 2020, UF announced Regulation 3.0372, which states that Student 

Health, Athletic, Activity and Service and Transportation Access Fees, would be amended to 

reflect the proposed revised Student Fees per credit hour basis for Summer 2020. The Notice of 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 4 of 53
5 

Proposed Regulation to Amendment indicated that the UF would be reducing the Activity and 

Service, Athletic, Health, and Transportation Fees, but adding a “Distance Learning Fee,” for a 

total fee reduction from the Spring semester of eight cents. When explaining the proposed 

reduction in fees, W. Andrew McCollough, UF’s associate provost for teaching and technology 

stated: “The general rationalization was, with the students gone, it was no longer necessary for 

them to pay for access to services that will not be where they are.” This same rationale applies to 

this class action since the students have not had access to the services being charged or the 

difference in the amount paid in-person learning versus online learning. 

18. These decisions deprived Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes from 

recognizing the benefits of on-campus enrollment, access to campus facilities, student activities, 

and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid tuition and fees. 

19. Defendants have either refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and 

other costs that Defendants failed to provide during the Spring 2020 semester, or have provided 

inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate Plaintiff and members 

of the Classes for their loss. 

20. Defendants have retained the value of monies paid by Plaintiff and the other Class 

members for tuition and fees, while failing to provide the services for which those tuition and fees 

were paid. Even if Defendants have a legal right to cancel the in-person tuition and fee contracts 

and no longer provide the services for which the in-person tuition and fees were paid, they do not 

have the right to retain the monies that students and/or families paid for those services. The 

inequity is further highlighted by the fact that Defendants will be receiving hundreds of millions 

of dollars in governmental aid to help cover the costs associated with the COVID-19 disruption. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 5 of 53
6 

21. Class members have demanded the return of the unused portions of the fees that 

they paid through a number of channels, including through online forums. See, e.g., 

https://www.change.org/p/university-of-florida-provide-a-partial-refund-of-tuition-fees-for-ufstudents. 

V. THE CARES ACT ALLOCATION 

22. The Federal Government has also responded to the COVID-19 pandemic in ways 

that benefit the Universities and help the Universities cover the costs associated with the 

disruption. 

23. The CARES Act required that at least half of the funds needed to be spent in the 

form of emergency aid to students, which could include grants to defray the cost of food, housing, 

course materials or child care, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Upon information 

and belief, however, only half of the money provided to the Universities under the CARES Act 

will be allocated to the students. 

A. UF 

24. Upon information and belief, as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease 

(“COVID-19”), the U.S. Department of Education (“DOE”) allocated $31,046,411 to UF of which 

the minimum allocation to be awarded for emergency financial aid grants to UF students was 

$15,523,206. 

B. Florida A&M University 

25. Upon information and belief, as a result of COVID-19, the DOE allocated 

$13,051,325 to Florida A&M University of which the minimum allocation to be awarded for 

emergency financial aid grants to Florida A&M University students was $6,525,663. 

C. Florida Atlantic University 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 6 of 53
7 

26. Upon information and belief, as a result of COVID-19, the DOE allocated 

$22,429,874 to Florida Atlantic University of which the minimum allocation to be awarded for 

emergency financial aid grants to Florida Atlantic University students was $11,214,937. 

D. Florida Gulf Coast University 

27. Upon information and belief, as a result of COVID-19, the DOE allocated 

$11,143,620 to Florida Gulf Coast University of which $5,571,810 was allocated to Florida Gulf 

Coast students.

E. Florida International University 

28. Upon information and belief, as a result of COVID-19, the DOE allocated 

$38,301,957 to Florida International University of which the minimum allocation to be awarded 

for emergency financial aid grants to Florida International University students was $19,150,979. 

F. Florida Polytechnic University 

29. Upon information and belief, as a result of COVID-19, the DOE allocated 

$1,253,303 to Florida Polytech University of which the minimum allocation to be awarded for 

emergency financial aid grants to Florida Polytech University students was $626,652. 

G. Florida State University 

30. Upon information and belief, as a result of COVID-19, the DOE allocated 

$29,339,828 to Florida State University of which the minimum allocation to be awarded for 

emergency financial aid grants to Florida State University students was $14,669,914.

H. New College of Florida 

31. Upon information and belief, as a result of COVID-19, the DOE allocated $837,170 

to the New College of Florida of which the minimum allocation to be awarded for emergency 

financial aid grants to New College of Florida students was $418,585.

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 7 of 53
8 

I. University of Central Florida 

32. Upon information and belief, as a result of COVID-19, the DOE allocated 

$51,071,250 to the University of Central Florida (“UCF”) “with a minimum of $25,535,625 to be 

awarded in emergency financial aid grants to UCF students . . . .”1 

J. University of North Florida 

33. Upon information and belief, as a result of COVID-19, the DOE allocated 

$11,770,196 to the University of North Florida of which the minimum allocation to be awarded 

for emergency financial aid grants to the University of North Florida students was $5,885,098.

K. University of South Florida 

34. Upon information and belief, as a result of COVID-19, the DOE allocated 

$34,839,748 to the University of South Florida of which the minimum allocation to be awarded 

for emergency financial aid grants to the University of South Florida students was $17,419,874.

L. University of West Florida 

35. Upon information and belief, as a result of COVID-19, the DOE allocated 

$6,801,388 million to the University of West Florida of which the minimum allocation to be 

awarded for emergency financial aid grants to the University of West Florida students was 

$3,400,694. 

M. DACA Students Will Not Receive Aid From The Cares Act 

36. Further, according to an article entitled “UF online, international and DACA 

students won’t receive aid from CARES Act”: 

While other UF students scrambled to arrange trips home, 21-year-old international 

student Anastasija Stevanovic was stranded in her dorm. All flights from the U.S. 

to Europe were canceled. 

1

 See http://www.nicholsonstudentmedia.com/news/ucf-awards-16-7-million-in-cares-act-fundsannounces-second-round/article_d18ad8c2-a76a-11ea-a4f5-df33bc0412d6.html (last visited on July 29, 

2020).

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 8 of 53
9 

On April 8, the Serbian government arranged a free flight home from Washington 

D.C. for Serbian international students like Stevanovic. She paid $440 for a flight 

and hotel, an unexpected cost she said was a little out of her family’s reach. She 

then set off from Gainesville to D.C. two days early, in case flights got canceled. 

“Because of the uncertainty of the situation in Serbia, all the decisions were 

basically on the spot,” Stevanovic said. 

Stevanovic is one of UF’s more than 6,000 international students who remain 

ineligible for the U.S. government’s COVID-19 emergency funding for students, 

which would have helped with expenses like Stevanovic’s last-minute flight.2

VI. IN-PERSON TUITION VS. ON-LINE TUITION 

A. UF In-Person Tuition 

37. The chart below lists the 2019-2020 Academic Year Undergraduate cost of 

attendance at UF on Campus: 

Expense Cost 

Tuition/Fees3 $6,380

Books and Supplies $850

Computer/Cell Phone $1,230

Housing $5,750

Food $4,470

Transportation $1,110

Clothing/Maintenance $1,000

Personal $420

Total Budget $21,210 

B. UF On-Line Tuition 

2

 See https://www.alligator.org/covid-19/uf-online-international-and-daca-students-won-t-receiveaid-from-cares-act/article_b0ac21dc-9a41-11ea-9437-bfc886f7e200.html (last visited on July 29, 2020); 

see also https://www.forbes.com/sites/wesleywhistle/2020/06/11/devos-finalizes-rule-blockingundocumented-students-from-cares-act-grants/#4aab5baf75a0 (“It’s been a roller coaster at the Department 

of Education since Congress passed the CARES Act and President Trump signed it into law in late March. 

After weeks of going back and forth, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos issued a regulation Thursday that 

blocked undocumented students from coronavirus relief grants provided under the CARES Act.”) (last 

visited July 29, 2020). 

3

 “Tuition/fee figures are projected estimates for 2019-2020 for incoming freshman entering UF for 

the first time. Tuition/fee for continuing students may be lower. Out-of-state undergraduates should add 

$22,278 to projected tuition/fees.” See https://www.sfa.ufl.edu/cost/ (last visited July 29, 2020) (emphasis 

in original). 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 9 of 53
10 

38. The chart below lists the 2019-2020 Academic Year Undergraduate On-Line cost 

of attendance at UF: 

Expense Cost 

Tuition/Fees4 $3,876

Books and Supplies $850

Computer/Cell Phone $1,230

Housing $5,750

Food $4,470

Transportation $130

Clothing/Maintenance $1,000

Personal $420

Total Budget $17,726 

C. UF On-Line Optional Fee Package 

39. UF offers undergraduate online students an optional fee package that allows these 

undergraduate online students in person access to “activities and services”, “health services”, 

“university athletics” and “transportation”. The UF Online Optional Fee Package provides the 

following: 

Designed with the undergraduate online student in mind, the UF Online Optional 

Fee Package is now available. All UF Online students, including Pathway to 

Campus Enrollment (PaCE) students in UF Online, are able to opt into this 

optional fee package for the same price as their on-campus peers. 

* * * 

WHAT IS IT? 

The UF Online Optional Fee Package is designed to give UF Online students 

(including PaCE students) who choose to reside in or frequently visit Gainesville 

access to on campus student services. The optional fee package consists of the 

following fees and services: 

4

 “Out-of-state undergraduates should add $12,704 to tuition/fees.” “UF Online students do not pay 

the Activity and Services Fee, the Health Services Fee, the University Athletics Fee, or the Transportation 

Fee as part of their standard cost of attendance. UF Online students who want to utilize all campus services 

and activities can purchase the UF Online Optional Fee Package.” See https://www.sfa.ufl.edu/cost/ufonline-cost/ (last visited July 1, 2020) (emphasis in original). 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 10 of 53
11 

Activities & Services – Participation in recreational sports and intramurals, access 

to recreation and fitness facilities, and participation in programs like Gator Nights 

Health Services – Access to the Student Health Care Center and Counseling and 

Wellness Center 

University Athletics – Access to student sections and discounted pricing for athletic 

events (based on ticket availability) 

Transportation – Fare-free service on the Regional Transit System (RTS) 

For full details and list of services, please visit the FAQ on the UF Online website 

(http://handbook.ufonline.ufl.edu/students/student-fees). 

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST? 

The optional fee package is billed on a per credit hour basis and is the same cost 

on-campus students pay as part of their cost of attendance. The cost may vary each 

academic year. For the 2019-20 year the cost is $46.21 per credit hour. [Emphasis 

added]. 

40. The following are the additional fees UF assesses: 

Activity and Service Fee -- All students must pay an activity and service fee that 

is assessed on a per credit-hour or semiannual basis. 

Athletic Fee -- All students must pay an athletic fee that is assessed on a per credithour or semiannual basis. Halftime graduate research and teaching assistants 

enrolled for eight (8) or more credit hours during the Fall or Spring Semester and 

all other students enrolled for nine (9) or more credit hours are eligible to purchase 

football tickets at the student rate. 

Audit Fee -- Tuition and fees for audited courses are assessed at the applicable 

resident or non-resident per credit hour cost. 

Diploma Replacement Fee -- Each diploma ordered after a student’s initial degree 

application can result in a diploma replacement charge, variable, not to exceed 

$10.00 per item. 

Distance Learning Fee -- Online courses may be assessed a per credit hour 

amount. 

Health Fee -- All students must pay a health fee that is assessed on a per credithour or semiannual basis. The health fee is not part of any health insurance a student 

may purchase. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 11 of 53
12 

Material and Supply and Equipment Use Fee -- Material and supply fees are 

assessed for certain courses to offset the cost of materials or supply items consumed 

in the course of instruction. A list of approved courses and fees is published in the 

Schedule of Courses each semester. 

Off-Campus Educational Activities -- The president or the president’s designee 

will establish fees for off-campus course offerings when the location results in 

specific identifiable increased costs to the university. These fees will be in addition 

to the regular tuition and fees charged to students enrolling in these courses on 

campus. The additional fees charged are for the purpose of recovering the increased 

costs resulting from off campus vis-à-vis on campus offerings. As used herein, off 

campus refers to locations other than main campus, branch and centers. 

Technology Fee-- All students must pay a technology fee that is assessed on a per 

credit-hour or semiannual basis. 

Transportation Access Fee -- All students must pay a transportation access fee 

that is assessed on a per credit-hour or semiannual basis. 

Late Registration Fee -- Any student who fails to register prior to the late 

registration date published in the academic calendar will be subject to the late 

registration fee of $100.00. 

Late Payment Fee -- Any student who fails to pay all tuition and fees due or to 

make appropriate arrangements for tuition and fee payment (deferment or third 

party billing) by the fee payment deadline published in the academic calendar will 

be subject to a late payment fee of $100.00. 

D. UF Admits The Clear Distinction Between In-Person And On-Line Degrees 

41. In tacit acknowledgment that there is a clear and distinct discount in online degrees, 

the UF advertises that you can earn a “greater degree, for less.” 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 12 of 53
13 

42. Plaintiff and members of the Classes 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 because the Universities transitioned to 

online only learning, and the services and experiences for which the tuition and fees were intended 

to pay were not provided. 

VII. FACTS 

43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set forth 

herein. 

44. Plaintiff was enrolled as a full-time student for the Spring 2020 academic semester 

at UF. 

45. As a precondition for enrollment, Plaintiff was required to and did pay substantial 

tuition for the Spring 2020 semester either out of pocket or by utilizing student loan financing, as 

did all members of the putative Tuition Class (defined below). 

46. Certain institutions of higher learning (like the Universities described herein) offer 

curriculum and instruction that is offered on a remote basis through online learning which do not 

provide for physical attendance by the students. 

47. Defendants’ Universities offer in-person, hands on curriculum. 

48. Defendants’ Universities also offer an on-line curriculum at substantially lower 

price. 

49. Plaintiff and members of the putative Classes did not choose to attend another 

institution of higher learning, but instead chose to attend UF (and the Universities) and enrolled 

on an in-person basis at a significantly high tuition. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 13 of 53
14 

50. The tuition and fees for in-person instruction at Defendants’ Universities (including 

UF) are higher than tuition and fees for online institutions because such costs cover not just the 

academic instruction, but encompass an entirely different experience which includes, but is not 

limited to: 

(a) Face to face interaction with professors, mentors, and peers; 

(b) Access to facilities such as computer labs, study rooms, laboratories, and libraries; 

(c) Student governance and student unions; 

(d) Extra-curricular activities, groups, and intramurals; 

(e) Student art, cultures, and other activities; 

(f) Social development and independence; 

(g) Hands on learning and experimentation; 

(h) Internships; and 

(i) Networking and mentorship opportunities. 

51. Plaintiff enrolled at UF to earn a degree that included the service of taking courses 

at the campus with live teacher interaction. 

52. Defendants suspended or restricted in-person on-campus activities during the 

Spring 2020 semester. 

53. Although Defendants offered some level of academic instruction via online classes, 

Plaintiff and members of the putative Classes have been and were deprived of the benefits of oncampus learning. 

54. Defendants have either refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and 

other costs that Defendants are no longer providing, or have provided inadequate and/or arbitrary 

reimbursement that does not fully compensate Plaintiff and members of the Classes for their loss. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 14 of 53
15 

55. Moreover, Plaintiff and members of the putative Classes have been and will be 

deprived of fully utilizing services for which they have already paid, including, but not limited to, 

access to campus facilities and other opportunities. 

56. To date, Defendants have failed and continue to fail to adequately and properly 

refund Plaintiff and the members of the Classes’ fees for on-campus services which Defendants 

are no longer providing as previously agreed upon. 

57. Plaintiff and members of the Classes paid tuition and fees for in-person educational 

services, experiences, opportunities, and other related collegiate services for the entire semester. 

58. According to the State University System of Florida, the average undergraduate 

tuition and fees per credit hour for a Florida State Resident during the Spring 2020 semester is 

approximately $197.97, and a similar type charge was applied for Summer 2020. Therefore, a 

full-time Florida resident student, taking at least 12 credits, paid approximately $2,375.64 in tuition 

and fees and a student taking at least 15 credits, paid approximately $2,969.55 in tuition and fees 

for the Spring 2020 semester. The average per credit hour cost for a non-Florida resident is 

approximately $561.80, meaning a full-time student taking at least 12 credits, paid approximately 

$6,741.60 in tuition and fees and a full-time student taking at least 15 credits, paid approximately 

$8,427.00 in tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester. 

59. While prices vary throughout the State University System of Florida, the average 

tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester for a Florida state resident was approximately 

$2,957.75. The average system wide tuition and fees for a non-Florida state resident was 

approximately $10,311.54. 

60. Similar billing practices were employed for the Summer 2020 semester. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 15 of 53
16 

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

opportunities for approximately 50% of the Spring 2020 semester. 

62. 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 for which Plaintiff and the Classes paid. 

63. Upon information and belief, under the guidance of the Board of Governors, all of 

the Universities followed a similar protocol and procedure for shutting down campuses, cancelling 

organizations, events, and the like, and cancelling in-person lectures by transitioning to remote 

online learning only. 

64. Plaintiff and the Classes did not enter into an agreement with Defendants for online 

education, but rather agreed to pay for and receive in-person education from Defendants’ 

Universities. 

A. UF Solicitation Brochures 

65. The Universities (UF included) do not sell merely credit hours and diplomas as one 

would sell some common consumer commodity. They sell an experience – one enriched both 

personally and academically through social interaction and involvement with faculty and with 

other students. 

66. UF is no different in this respect as UF’s solicitation brochure states: 

Where Will You Go From the Top? 

As a Gator, anything is possible. The University of Florida is a campus for big 

ideas. UF students are dreamers and realists, artists and athletes, entrepreneurs and 

engineers, front-line leaders and quiet volunteers. You will be a student today, but 

you’ll become a Gator for life. At UF, you’ll find a unique bond with individuals 

from all different parts of our country and globe who share a common purpose: to 

go further, go greater, and continually make the world better. 

Academics 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 16 of 53
17 

Learning is more than just knowing all the right answers. Great minds don’t always 

think alike. And they shouldn’t. If you’re seeking to be challenged, engaged and 

inspired, you belong at UF. At the University of Florida, you will choose from over 

100 undergraduate majors across 16 colleges. Beginning with your first day of 

class, you will be encouraged to think critically, form opinions and push beyond 

the status quo. We expect that of our students because we expect that of our 

university. Here, you’ll explore academic opportunities that are matched by few 

universities in the United States. Through our University Scholars Program, 

students may work one-on-one with UF faculty on select research projects. Learn 

about another culture when you travel abroad. UF has hundreds of study abroad 

options to choose from. Or join a community of students who want additional 

challenge through the UF Honors Program. Great things happen inside our doors 

so that greater things will happen outside them. 

Extracurricular Life 

With almost 1,000 student organizations, all sorts of leisure activities and 19 

Division I teams to cheer for, there’s never a dull moment on our campus. 

There’s also Gator Growl, the world’s largest student-run pep rally, and 

GatorNights, the leading late-night college entertainment and midnight breakfast 

program in the Southeast. The Reitz Union offers an art studio for those 

interested in artistic expression and a game room with its own bowling alley. If 

you are looking for more adventure, fresh-water springs are abundant near 

Gainesville, and many students spend their day tubing down the local rivers and 

enjoying some Florida sun. 

Residential Life 

At the University of Florida, we take your decision to choose us as your second 

home very seriously. On-campus housing options include apartment, suite and 

traditional-style residence communities. More than 8,500 Gators live on campus, 

including more than 75 percent of freshmen. Although first-year students are not 

required to reside on campus, most do because who wants to miss out on the 

starting point for long-term friendships, late night ice-cream runs, impromptu 

Netflix viewing or exposure to a wide range of diverse students as your new 

neighbors? Resident advisors reside on every floor to provide support to all students 

in their adjustment to college life. From your doorsteps, you can easily access 

everything else that makes college life complete: dining, Reitz Union activities, 

fitness programs and more. 

* * * 

A UNIVERSITY UNITED FOR A GREATER PURPOSE 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 17 of 53
18 

At UF, our students utilize more than 200 research, service and education 

centers, bureaus and institutes. With some of the most future-focused facilities led 

by some of the best minds in their fields, it’s no wonder UF is consistently ranked 

among the nation’s top universities. Rankings like second among Forbes “Best 

Value Public Colleges” (2016) and second in Kiplinger’s “Best Values in Public 

Colleges” (2015) are a result of UF’s commitment to provide the highest quality 

education at the best value. 

* * * 

* * * 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 18 of 53
19 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 19 of 53
20 

67. UF significantly enhances its value to students by offering a rich, communal social 

and academics experience. 

68. Plaintiff enrolled as a full-time student at UF during the Spring 2020 academic 

term, attending UF in-person rather than on-line. 

69. Plaintiff paid the full amount of tuition and fees charged by UF. 

B. UF’s Terms and Agreement – The Contract 

70. Plaintiff received, reviewed and agreed to the following Terms and Agreement 

upon his registering to attend UF. The Terms and Agreement state: 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 20 of 53
21 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 21 of 53
22 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 22 of 53
23 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 23 of 53
24 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 24 of 53
25 

VIII. CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS 

71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set forth 

herein. 

72. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and as a class action, pursuant to 

the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following 

Classes: 

The Tuition Class: 

All people who paid tuition for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes at the

Universities for the Spring 2020 semester but were denied live, in-person 

instruction and forced to use online distance learning platforms for the latter portion 

of that semester.

The Fees Class: 

All people who paid fees for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes at the

Universities for the Spring 2020 semester.

73. Excluded from the Classes are Defendants, and any of their respective members, 

affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, successors, or assigns; and the 

judicial officers, and their immediate family members, and Court staff assigned to this case. 

Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the Class definitions, as appropriate, during the 

course of this litigation. 

Numerosity: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) 

74. The members of the Classes are so numerous and geographically dispersed that 

individual joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes that there 

are thousands of members of the Classes, the precise number being unknown to Plaintiff, but such 

number being ascertainable from Defendants’ records. Members of the Classes may be notified 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 25 of 53
26 

of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which 

may include U.S. mail, electronic mail, internet postings, and/or published notice. 

Commonality and Predominance: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) 

75. This action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over 

any questions affecting individual members of the Classes, including, without limitation: 

(a) Whether Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged herein; 

(b) Whether there is a difference in value between enrollment in an online 

distance learning program and enrollment in a live, on-campus instructional program; 

(c) Whether Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiff and the other 

members of the Tuition Class by retaining the portion of their tuition representing the 

difference between the value of online distance learning and on-campus, in-person 

enrollment; 

(d) Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by retaining tuition payments 

of Plaintiff and the Tuition Class representing the difference between the value of online 

distance learning and on-campus, in-person enrollment; 

(e) Whether Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiff and the other 

members of the Fees Class by retaining fees without providing the services, benefits and/or 

programs the fees were contracted to cover; 

(f) Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by retaining fees of Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Fees Class without providing the services, benefits and/or 

programs the fees were intended to cover; 

(g) Whether Defendants committed conversion as detailed herein against 

Plaintiff and the other members of the Tuition Class; 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 26 of 53
27 

(h) Whether Defendants committed conversion as detailed herein against 

Plaintiff and the other members of the Fees Class; 

(i) Whether Defendants violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, 

through the Fourteenth Amendment as to Plaintiff and the other members of the Tuition 

Class; 

(j) Whether Defendants violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, 

through the Fourteenth Amendment as to Plaintiff and the other members of the Fees Class; 

(k) Whether Defendants violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade 

Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. as to Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Tuition Class; 

(l) Whether Defendants violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade 

Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. as to Plaintiff and the other members of the Fees 

Class; 

(m) Whether certification of any or all of the classes proposed herein is 

appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; 

(n) Whether Class members are entitled to declaratory, equitable, or injunctive 

relief, and/or other relief; and 

(o) The amount and nature of relief to be awarded to Plaintiff and the other 

members of the Classes. 

Typicality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) 

76. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Classes because, 

among other things, all such members were similarly situated and were comparably injured 

through Defendants’ wrongful conduct as set forth herein. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 27 of 53
28 

Adequacy: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) 

77. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Classes because his interests do not 

conflict with the interests of other members of the Classes he seeks to represent. Plaintiff has 

retained counsel competent and experienced in complex litigation and Plaintiff intends to 

prosecute the action vigorously. The interests of the Classes will be fairly and adequately protected 

by Plaintiff and his counsel. 

Superiority: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) 

78. A class action is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy, and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the 

management of this class action. The damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiff 

and other members of the Classes are relatively small compared to the burden and expense that 

would be required to individually litigate their claims against Defendants, so it would be 

impracticable for members of the Classes to individually seek redress for Defendants’ wrongful 

conduct. 

79. Even if members of the Classes could afford individual litigation, the Court system 

likely could not. Individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent or contradictory 

judgments and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, 

the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of 

single adjudication, economy of scale, comprehensive supervision by a single court, and finality 

of the litigation. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 28 of 53
29 

Certification of Specific Issues: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4) 

80. To the extent that any described Classes herein do not meet the requirements of 

Rules 23(b)(2) or (b)(3), Plaintiff seeks the certification of issues that will drive the litigation 

toward resolution. 

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) 

81. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Classes, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and 

declaratory relief, as described herein, with respect to the members of the Classes as a whole. 

IX. IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, DEFENDANTS’ SEIZED 

PLAINTIFF’S AND THE MEMBERS OF THE CLASSES PROPERTY 

WITHOUT NOTICE OR DUE PROCESS 

82. When Defendants elected to seize Plaintiff’s and the members of the Classes 

property, they did so without notice or due process.

83. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment, 

prohibits states from taking private property for public use without just compensation.

84. Core common law property rights that predate the Constitution are protected by the 

Takings Clause.

85. For hundreds of years, the common law has recognized that there is a property right 

by an owner in funds held in an account managed by another.

86. The common law rule is that when monies are paid in anticipation of receiving 

some service, but circumstances thereafter render it impossible for those services to be provided, 

the recipient is precluded from unjustly enriching themselves by seizing and retaining the 

proceeds.

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 29 of 53
30 

87. Based on these common law rules protected by the Constitution, Plaintiff and the 

Classes have a protected property right in all sums they paid to the Universities for which they 

received nothing, or significantly less than what they bargained for, in return.

88. Defendants elected to seize Plaintiff’s and the members of the Classes’ property 

under the color of state law, without notice or due process, which failure to provide the same 

violates due process standards set forth in the Florida and United States Constitutions.

89. Defendants are obligated to uphold the Florida and United States Constitutions.

90. No statute, rule, or practice could authorize Defendants to withhold that property 

from Plaintiff and the Classes without violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

91. Defendants’ conduct violated the Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 6(a) and 

the United States Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

92. Plaintiff’s and members of the Classes’ property remains in Defendants’ possession 

and can readily be returned upon Defendants directing the Universities to do so.

93. Plaintiff has never made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights 

to be paid just compensation for the taking of his property rights in those funds.

94. Consequently, Defendants, under the color of state law, have seized and retained 

property that is beyond their statutory and constitutional authority. These actions are ultra vires

and unconstitutional.

X. DEFENDANTS’ PRACTICE IS UNETHICAL 

AND VIOLATED ESTABLISHED ETHICAL STANDARDS 

95. Defendants’ practice of failing to provide reimbursements for tuition despite the 

monetary difference between on-line learning and in-person learning and the reduced benefits 

associated with the mandatory fees collected by the Universities, as alleged herein, violated 

generally accepted ethical principles of business conduct. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 30 of 53
31 

96. The basis for the allegation that it was unethical to engage in the above practices 

comes, in part, from established ethical principles recognized by the American Marketing 

Association. 

XI. AMA STATEMENT OF ETHICS

97. The American Marketing Association (“AMA”) “commits itself to promoting the 

highest standard of professional ethical norms and values. . . .”5 As such, it has published 

its “Statement of Ethics.” Id. AMA states that “marketers are expected to embrace the highest 

professional ethical norms and the ethical values implied by our responsibility toward multiple 

stakeholders (e.g., customers . . .).” Id. Thus, the Statement of Ethics contains “Ethical Norms,” 

which “are established standards of conduct that are expected and maintained by society and/or 

professional organizations.” Id.

98. The AMA’s Ethical Norms state that marketers must “consciously avoid [] 

harmful actions and omissions,” “striv[e] for good faith and fair dealing,” “avoid [] deception in 

. . . pricing, communication, and delivery of distribution,” and affirm “core values” of honesty, . . 

. fairness [and] transparency.” Id.

99. By not providing appropriate reimbursements to students despite offering a 

on-line learning (which costs substantially less money and provides a diminished educational 

experience) Defendants violated these Ethical Norms because, among other reasons, they did not 

strive (nor achieve) good faith and fair dealing and did not affirm the core values of honesty, 

fairness and transparency. 

5 See https://www.ama.org/codes-ofconduct/#:~:text=Preamble,practitioners%2C%20academics%20and%20students).&text=Values

%20also%20serve%20as%20the,and%20the%20actions%20of%20others (last visited July 29, 

2020). 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 31 of 53
32 

100. The AMA has also published “Ethical Values,” which “represent the collective 

conception of what communities find desirable, important and morally proper.” Id. These Ethical 

Values include honesty and “[h]onoring our explicit and implicit commitments and promises.” 

101. By not providing reimbursements to students despite offering a greatly diminished 

educational experience compared to what they promised, Defendants violated these Ethical 

Values, because, among other reasons, they did not honor their explicit and implicit commitments 

and promises. 

FOR A FIRST COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

BREACH OF CONTRACT 

(Plaintiff and Other Members of the Tuition Class) 

102. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 101. 

103. Plaintiff brings this count on behalf of himself and other members of the Tuition 

Class. 

104. Plaintiff and the other members of the Tuition Class entered into contracts with 

Defendants which provided that Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class would pay tuition 

for or on behalf of students and, in exchange, Defendants would enroll such students and admit 

them to the respective Universities; granting them the full rights and privileges of student status, 

including but not limited to access to campus facilities, access to campus activities, and live, inperson instruction in a physical classroom. 

105. Defendants define registration as: “1. formal enrollment in one or more credit 

courses approved and scheduled by the university; and 2. tuition and fee payments, or other 

appropriate arrangements for tuition and fee payment (deferment or third-party billing) for the 

courses in which the student is enrolled as of the end of the drop/add period.” See UF-3.037 

Regulations of the University of Florida. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 32 of 53
33 

106. The rights and privileges of student status that comprise the contractual terms are 

also set forth by Defendants through its “Terms and Agreement”, website, academic catalogs, 

student handbooks, correspondence, marketing materials and other circulars, bulletins, and 

publications. 

107. These rights and privileges form the basis of the bargain on which prospective 

students agree to accept Defendants’ offer of enrollment in exchange for the payment of tuition 

and fees. 

108. One such right is the ability to be physically present on campus, and fully enjoy the 

facilities, services, and opportunities provided thereon, including the campus’ location and 

surrounding opportunities at each of the respective Universities. 

109. Defendants do not deny that the physical location of its campuses is a main benefit 

of enrollment that attracts many students to the Universities. 

110. By way of example, UF’s website and recruitment brochures are the primary means 

through which Defendants target prospective new students and attempt to influence such students 

to apply for enrollment at UF as opposed to other institutions of higher learning. 

111. Through these publications, Defendants market to and enrolls students in two 

separate and distinct products. 

112. Defendants specifically market certain classes and degree programs as being 

offered on a fully online basis. 

113. Indeed, Defendants dedicate an entire section of the UF website to these programs, 

known as “UF Online” which can be accessed at https://ufonline.ufl.edu/. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 33 of 53
34 

114. Conversely, Defendants’ publications with respect to non-online classes are full of 

references to the on-campus experience, including numerous references to student activities; 

campus amenities; campus diversity, campus location, and the like. 

115. Upon information and belief, there were no references or disclaimers in any of 

Defendants’ websites, circulars, bulletins, publications, brochures, or other advertisements prior 

to January 1, 2020, that even referenced the possibility of in-person classes being changed to fully 

online classes at Defendants’ discretion or for any other reason whatsoever after the start of a given 

term. 

116. In fact, it is clear that, prior to the COVID-19 interruption, Defendants had no plans 

whatsoever to offer its in-person classes via an online delivery model. 

117. Those prospective students who were interested in enrolling at the Universities after 

consuming the marketing materials of each prospective Florida State university listed herein were 

invited to complete applications, and some were selected for and offered admission. 

118. Defendants have failed to fully provide those services and have otherwise not 

performed under the contract as set forth above. 

119. Plaintiff and members of the Tuition Class accepted Defendants’ offer for live inperson on-campus education and paid valuable consideration in exchange. 

120. However, after accepting such consideration from Plaintiff and other members of 

the Tuition Class, Defendants provided a materially different product, which deprived Plaintiff 

and other members of the Tuition Class of the benefit of the bargain for which they had already 

paid. 

121. Defendants retained tuition monies paid by Plaintiff and other members of the 

Tuition Class, without providing them the full benefit of their bargain. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 34 of 53
35 

122. Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class have suffered damage as a direct 

and proximate result of Defendants’ breach amounting to the difference in the fair market value of 

the services and access for which they contracted, and the services and access which they actually 

received. 

123. This cause of action does not seek to allege “academic malpractice.” 

124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff and other members 

of the Tuition Class are legally and equitably entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact 

in this action, to include disgorgement of the difference between the fair market value of the online 

learning provided versus the fair market value of the live, in-person instruction in a physical 

classroom on a physical campus with all the attendant benefits for which they contracted. 

FOR A SECOND COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

(Plaintiff and Other Members of the Tuition Class) 

125. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 101. 

126. Plaintiff brings this count on behalf of himself and other members of the Tuition 

Class. 

127. This claim is pled in the alternative to, and to the extent it is determined a contract 

does not exist or otherwise apply, the contract-based claim set forth in the First Cause of Action 

above. 

128. Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class paid substantial tuition for live, 

in-person instruction in physical classrooms on a physical campus with all the attendant benefits. 

129. Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class conferred a benefit on Defendants 

when they paid this tuition. 

130. Defendants have realized this benefit by accepting such payment. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 35 of 53
36 

131. However, Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class did not receive the full 

benefit of their bargain. 

132. Instead, Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class conferred this benefit on 

Defendants in expectation of receiving one product, i.e., live in-person instruction in a physical 

classroom along with the on-campus experience of campus life as described more fully above, but 

they were provided with a materially different product carrying a different fair market value, i.e., 

online instruction devoid of the on-campus experience, access, and services. 

133. Defendants have retained this benefit, even though Defendants have failed to 

provide the services for which the tuition was collected, making Defendants’ retention unjust under 

the circumstances. 

134. It is significantly cheaper for Defendants to provide the online product than the oncampus product. 

135. As a result of closing campus and moving classes online, Defendants saved 

significant sums of money in the way of reduced utility costs, reduced maintenance and staffing 

requirements, reduced or eliminated hours for hourly employees, reduced or eliminated hours for 

paid work study students, and otherwise. 

136. Simply put, it is significantly cheaper to operate a remote, on-line campus than a 

fully open physical campus. But even if it was not, it is not the product that students were offered 

and not the product the students expected to receive. 

137. Equity and good conscience require that Defendants return a portion of the monies 

paid in tuition to Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class. 

138. This cause of action does not seek to allege “academic malpractice.” 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 36 of 53
37 

139. Defendants should be required to disgorge this unjust enrichment to the extent that 

Defendants have retained more than the fair market value for the product that Defendants was able 

to provide. 

FOR A THIRD COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

BREACH OF CONTRACT 

(Plaintiff and Other Members of the Fees Class) 

140. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 101. 

141. Plaintiff brings this count on behalf of himself and other members of the Fees Class. 

142. In addition to tuition, Defendants charge a number of mandatory fees. 

143. In its publications and, particularly on its websites, Defendants specifically describe 

the nature and purpose of each fee. 

144. Some fees apply broadly to all or certain groups of students, while other fees are 

program or course based. 

145. Such fees are set forth not only in amount but also in description and purpose 

through the various academic catalogs and on the Universities’ websites. 

146. As such, it is axiomatic that the monies Plaintiff and other members of the Fees 

Class paid towards these fees were intended by both the students and Defendants to cover the 

services, access, benefits and programs for which the fees were described and billed. 

147. For example, UF describes certain fees as follows: 

Activity and Service Fee -- All students must pay an activity and service fee that 

is assessed on a per credit-hour or semiannual basis. 

Athletic Fee -- All students must pay an athletic fee that is assessed on a per credithour or semiannual basis. Halftime graduate research and teaching assistants 

enrolled for eight (8) or more credit hours during the Fall or Spring Semester and 

all other students enrolled for nine (9) or more credit hours are eligible to purchase 

football tickets at the student rate. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 37 of 53
38 

Health Fee -- All students must pay a health fee that is assessed on a per credithour or semiannual basis. The health fee is not part of any health insurance a student 

may purchase. 

Material and Supply and Equipment Use Fee -- Material and supply fees are 

assessed for certain courses to offset the cost of materials or supply items consumed 

in the course of instruction. A list of approved courses and fees is published in the 

Schedule of Courses each semester. 

Off-Campus Educational Activities -- The president or the president’s designee 

will establish fees for off-campus course offerings when the location results in 

specific identifiable increased costs to the university. These fees will be in addition 

to the regular tuition and fees charged to students enrolling in these courses on 

campus. The additional fees charged are for the purpose of recovering the increased 

costs resulting from off campus vis-à-vis on campus offerings. As used herein, off 

campus refers to locations other than main campus, branch and centers. 

Technology Fee-- All students must pay a technology fee that is assessed on a per 

credit-hour or semiannual basis. 

Transportation Access Fee -- All students must pay a transportation access fee 

that is assessed on a per credit-hour or semiannual basis. 

148. As such, in accepting these terms and paying these fees, a contract was formed 

between Plaintiff, including the Fees Class, and Defendants, which provided that Plaintiff and 

other members of the Fees Class would pay these fees for or on behalf of themselves and, in 

exchange, Defendants would provide or make available the services, access, benefits and/or 

programs related to those fees, as promised. 

149. It is undisputed that Defendants did not provide student activities, access to 

recreational facilities, access to campus-based information technology resources, or access to any 

of the Health departments for a portion of the Spring 2020 semester. 

150. Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class fulfilled their end of the bargain when 

they paid these fees for the Spring 2020 semester, either by paying out of pocket or by using student 

loan financing, or otherwise. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 38 of 53
39 

151. However, Defendants breached the contract with Plaintiff and other members of 

the Fees Class by moving all classes for the Spring 2020 semester to online distance learning 

platforms, constructively evicting students from campus, closing most campus buildings and 

facilities, and cancelling most student activities. 

152. By retaining fees paid by Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class, without 

providing them the full benefit of their bargain, Defendants have failed to perform their contractual 

obligations. 

153. Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class have suffered damage as a direct and 

proximate result of Defendants’ breach, namely being deprived of the value of the services, access, 

benefits and/or programs the fees were intended to cover. 

154. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff and other members 

of the Fees Class are legally and equitably entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact in 

this action, to include disgorgement of the pro-rata amount of fees that were collected but for 

which services were not provided. 

FOR A FOURTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

(Plaintiff and Other Members of the Fees Class) 

155. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 101. 

156. Plaintiff brings this count on behalf of himself and other members of the Fees Class. 

157. This claim is pled in the alternative to, and to the extent it is determined a contract 

does not exist or otherwise apply, the contract-based claim set forth in the Third Cause of Action 

above. 

158. Defendants have received a benefit at the expense of Plaintiff and other members 

of the Fees Class to which they are not entitled. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 39 of 53
40 

159. Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class paid substantial student fees for oncampus services, access, benefits and/or programs and did not receive the full benefit of the 

bargain. 

160. Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class conferred this benefit on Defendants 

when they paid the fees. 

161. Defendants realized this benefit by accepting such payment. 

162. Defendants have retained this benefit, even though Defendants have failed to 

provide the services, access, benefits and/or programs for which the fees were collected, making 

Defendants’ retention unjust under the circumstances. 

163. Equity and good conscience require that Defendants return a portion of the monies 

paid in fees to Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class. 

164. Defendants should be required to disgorge this unjust enrichment to the extent that 

Defendants have retained more than the fair market value for the product that Defendants were 

able to provide. 

FOR A FIFTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

CONVERSION 

(Plaintiff and Other Members of the Tuition Class) 

165. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 101. 

166. Plaintiff brings this count on behalf of himself and other members of the Tuition 

Class. 

167. The two key elements of conversion are (1) Plaintiff’s legal ownership or an 

immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing, and (2) Defendants’ 

unauthorized dominion over the thing in question or interference with it, to the exclusion of 

Plaintiff’s right. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 40 of 53
41 

168. Plaintiff and members of the Tuition Class have an identifiable legal ownership to 

the right and services of an in-person, on-campus educational experience and paid tuition funds 

for the same. 

169. As set forth above, Defendants have not provided those services or access to the 

exclusion of Plaintiff’s and other members of the Tuition Class’s rights. 

170. As set forth above, Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class have not, to 

date, received from Defendants a proper reimbursement for tuition paid to Defendants for the 2020 

Spring semester. 

171. Defendants have received and retained possession of Plaintiff’s and other members 

of the Tuition Class’s full payments for tuition for the 2020 Spring semester. 

172. Defendants’ continued possession of the full payments for the 2020 Spring semester 

tuition is adverse and in derogation of Plaintiff’s and the other members of Tuition Class’s 

entitlement to such funds. 

173. Defendants refuse to remit Plaintiff’s and the other members of the Tuition Class’s 

reimbursement for tuition paid for the 2020 Spring semester. 

174. Defendants have therefore converted and continue to convert Plaintiff’s and the 

other members of the Tuition Class’s 2020 Spring semester tuition. 

FOR A SIXTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

CONVERSION 

(Plaintiff and Other Members of the Fees Class) 

175. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 101. 

176. Plaintiff brings this count on behalf of himself and other members of the Fees Class. 

177. The two key elements of conversion are (1) Plaintiff’s legal ownership or an 

immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing, and (2) Defendants’ 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 41 of 53
42 

unauthorized dominion over the thing in question or interference with it, to the exclusion of 

Plaintiff’s right. 

178. Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class have an identifiable legal ownership 

to the services, access, benefits and/or programs paid for through their fees. 

179. As set forth above, Defendants have not provided or made available those services, 

benefits, programs and/or access thereto, to the exclusion of Plaintiff’s and other members of the 

Fee Class’s rights. 

180. As set forth above, Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class have not, to date, 

received from Defendants a proper reimbursement for fees paid to Defendants for the 2020 Spring 

semester. 

181. Defendants have received and retained possession of Plaintiff’s and other members 

of the Fees Class’s payments for fees for the 2020 Spring semester. 

182. Defendants’ continued possession of payments for 2020 Spring semester fees is 

adverse and in derogation of Plaintiff’s and other members of the Fees Class’s entitlement to such 

funds. 

183. Defendants refuse to remit to Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class a 

reimbursement for fees paid for the 2020 Spring semester. 

184. Defendants have therefore converted and continue to convert Plaintiff’s and other 

members of the Fees Class’s 2020 Spring semester fees. 

FOR A SEVENTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

VIOLATION OF FLORIDA’S DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES 

(Plaintiff and Other Members of the Tuition Class) 

185. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 101. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 42 of 53
43 

186. Plaintiff brings this count on behalf of himself and other members of the Tuition 

Class. 

187. Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act is found at Fla. Stat. § 501.201 

et seq. 

188. Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2) provides in pertinent part that: 

“(2) In any action brought by a person who has suffered a loss as a result of a 

violation of this part, such person may recover actual damages, plus attorney’s fees 

and court costs as provided in s. 501.2105.” 

189. A consumer claim for damages under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade 

Practices Act has three elements: (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) 

actual damages. 

190. An “unfair practice” is one that offends established public policy and one that is 

immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers. 

191. Whether particular conduct constitutes such an unfair or deceptive trade practice is 

a question of fact. 

192. A claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act is not defined 

by the express terms of a contract, but instead encompasses unfair and deceptive practices arising 

out of business relationships. 

193. The 2001 amendments to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act 

broadened the scope of the Act “to allow any person or entity who has suffered a loss as a result 

of unfair or deceptive acts or practices to commence a private action for actual damages.” 

194. Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class are consumers who have paid 

substantial tuition and fees to attend in-person, hands-on curriculum at Defendants’ Universities 

for the Spring 2020 semester. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 43 of 53
44 

195. Defendants’ efforts to sell its services to prospective students, which included 

Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class, were “consumer-oriented.” 

196. As part of their marketing practices and recruitment efforts, as described above, 

Defendants made numerous statements, representations and omissions to the public (including 

Plaintiff and members of the Tuition Class) with respect to the in-person educational opportunity 

and on-campus experience that students who enrolled at the Defendants’ Universities would 

receive. Such statements, representations and omissions, which were uniform and identical in 

nature, were intended to induce potential students to enroll at the University for the Spring 2020 

semester. 

197. With the reasonable expectation that students who enrolled at the Universities 

would receive in-person academic instruction with an on-campus experience for the entire 2020 

Spring semester, Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class paid tuition to Defendants. 

198. However, students did not receive an in-person academic instruction with oncampus experience, access and services for the entire 2020 Spring semester. As a result, Plaintiff 

and other members of the Tuition Class were proximately caused to pay inflated tuition because 

they were deprived of in-person academic instruction and an on-campus experience, access and 

services for the Spring 2020 semester. 

199. Therefore, the aforementioned statements, representations and omissions made by 

Defendants (in turn, each university named herein) were objectively false, misleading and 

deceptive to Plaintiff and the other Tuition Class Members, as well as the public at large. 

200. Defendants’ above-alleged actions constitute unfair business practices since the 

actions were deceptive and injurious to Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class because 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 44 of 53
45 

students enrolled for the Spring 2020 term did not benefit from on-campus academic instruction 

and a unique on-campus experience during the entire spring term. 

201. In fact, Plaintiff and other students were not permitted to receive and benefit from 

on-campus academic instruction and a unique on-campus experience during the entire Spring 2020 

semester. 

202. Defendants’ acts and practices were designed to lead potential students, and the 

public, to believe that if students enrolled at the Universities then they would be entitled to receive 

in-class instruction and a unique campus experience for the entire Spring 2020 semester. 

203. Plaintiff and other members of the other Tuition Class Members were deceived and 

injured because students did not receive in-class instruction and a unique campus experience for 

the entire Spring 2020 semester. 

204. As a result of Defendants’ foregoing violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair 

Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.), Defendants have directly and proximately caused 

damage to Plaintiff and other members of the Tuition Class and are entitled to recover actual 

damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, 

expenses, costs and disbursements. 

FOR AN EIGHTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

VIOLATION OF FLORIDA’S DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES 

(Plaintiff and Other Members of the Fees Class) 

205. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 101. 

206. Plaintiff brings this count on behalf of himself and other members of the Fees Class. 

207. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act is found at Fla. Stat. § 

501.201 et seq. 

208. Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2) provides in pertinent part that: 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 45 of 53
46 

“(2) In any action brought by a person who has suffered a loss as a result of a 

violation of this part, such person may recover actual damages, plus attorney's fees 

and court costs as provided in s. 501.2105.” 

209. A consumer claim for damages under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade 

Practices Act has three elements: (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) 

actual damages. 

210. An “unfair practice” is one that offends established public policy and one that is 

immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers. 

211. Whether particular conduct constitutes such an unfair or deceptive trade practice is 

a question of fact. 

212. A claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act is not defined 

by the express terms of a contract, but instead encompasses unfair and deceptive practices arising 

out of business relationships. 

213. The 2001 amendments to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act 

broadened the scope of the Act “to allow any person or entity who has suffered a loss as a result 

of unfair or deceptive acts or practices to commence a private action for actual damages.” 

214. Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class were required to pay certain fees as 

a condition to student enrollment at the Universities for the Spring 2020 semester, including, but 

not limited to, a Technology Fee, Student Activity Fee, and a Health and Related Services Fee. 

215. As discussed above, Defendants made statements, representations and omissions to 

the public, including Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class, with respect to such fees. 

216. These statements, representations and omissions, which were uniform and identical 

in nature, were intended to induce potential students, including Plaintiff and members of the Fees 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 46 of 53
47 

Class, to enroll at the Universities and pay or cause to have paid mandatory fees for the Spring 

2020 semester. 

217. With the reasonable expectation that students who enrolled at the Universities 

would be entitled to receive services, programs and/or benefits for which fees were charged for 

the entire Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class agreed to pay such 

fees. 

218. However, students did not receive the services, programs and/or benefits for which 

fees were charged for the entire Spring 2020 semester. As a result, Plaintiff and other members of 

the Fees class were proximately caused to overpay such fees because the related services, programs 

and/or benefits were not available to students for the entire Spring 2020 semester. 

219. Therefore, the aforementioned statements, representations and omissions made by 

Defendants (in turn, each university named herein) were objectively false, misleading and 

deceptive to Plaintiff and the other Fee Members, as well as the public at large. 

220. Defendants’ above-alleged actions constitute unfair business practices since the 

actions were deceptive and injurious to Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class because 

students enrolled at the Universities did not receive services, programs and/or benefits for which 

fees were paid for the entire Spring 2020 semester. 

221. Defendants’ acts and practices were designed to lead potential students, and the 

public, to believe that if students enrolled at the Universities and paid the mandatory fees then they 

would be entitled receive the services, programs and/or benefits for which such fees were charged 

and paid for the entire Spring 2020 semester. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 47 of 53
48 

222. Plaintiff and the other Fees Class members were deceived and injured because 

students were not entitled to receive the services, programs and/or benefits for which the 

mandatory fees were charged and paid for the entire Spring 2020 semester. 

223. As a result of Defendants’ foregoing violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair 

Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.), Defendants have directly and proximately caused 

damage to Plaintiff and other members of the Fees Class and are entitled to recover actual damages 

in an amount to be determined at trial, and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses, costs 

and disbursements. 

FOR AN NINTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

VIOLATION OF THE TAKINGS CLAUSE 

(Plaintiff and Other Members of the Tuition Class) 

224. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 101. 

225. As set forth above, Defendants seized Plaintiff’s and the members of the Tuition 

Class’s property and did so without notice or due process.

226. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment, 

of the United States Constitution prohibits states from taking private property for public use 

without just compensation.

227. Defendants operate state agencies under color of state law.

228. Core common law property rights that predate the Constitution are protected by the 

Takings Clause.

229. For hundreds of years, the common law has recognized that there is a property right 

by an owner in funds held in an account managed by another.

230. The common law rule is that when monies are paid in anticipation of receiving 

some service, but circumstances thereafter render it impossible for those services to be provided, 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 48 of 53
49 

the recipient is precluded from unjustly enriching themselves by seizing and retaining the 

proceeds.

231. Based on these common law rules protected by the Constitution, Plaintiff and the 

Tuition Class have a protected property right in all tuition they paid to the Universities for which 

they received nothing, or significantly less than what they bargained for, in return.

232. Defendants elected to seize Plaintiff’s and the members of the Tuition Class’s 

property under the color of state law, without notice or due process, which failure to provide the 

same violates due process standards set forth in the United States Constitution and is a violation 

of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

233. Defendants are obligated to uphold the laws of the United States.

234. No statute, rule, or practice could authorize Defendants to withhold that property 

from Plaintiff and the Tuition Class without violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment 

and 42 U.S.C Sec. 1983.

235. Defendants’ conduct violated the United States Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

236. The property of Plaintiff and members of the Tuition Class remains in Defendants’ 

possession and can readily be returned upon Defendants directing the Universities to do so.

237. Plaintiff has never made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights 

to be paid just compensation for the taking of his property rights in those funds.

238. Consequently, Defendants, under the color of state law, have seized and retained 

property that is beyond their statutory and constitutional authority. These actions are ultra vires

and unconstitutional. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 49 of 53
50 

239. As a result of Defendants’ foregoing violations of the laws of the United States, 

Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and the members of the Tuition Class. 

240. In addition, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and the members of the Tuition Class 

for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988.

FOR AN TENTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

VIOLATION OF THE TAKINGS CLAUSE 

(Plaintiff and Other Members of the Fees Class) 

241. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 101. 

242. As set forth above, Defendants seized Plaintiff’s and the members of the Fee 

Class’s property and did so without notice or due process.

243. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment, 

of the United States Constitution prohibits states from taking private property for public use 

without just compensation.

244. Defendants operate state agencies under color of state law.

245. Core common law property rights that predate the Constitution are protected by the 

Takings Clause.

246. For hundreds of years, the common law has recognized that there is a property right 

by an owner in funds held in an account managed by another.

247. The common law rule is that when monies are paid in anticipation of receiving 

some service, but circumstances thereafter render it impossible for those services to be provided, 

the recipient is precluded from unjustly enriching themselves by seizing and retaining the 

proceeds.

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 50 of 53
51 

248. Based on these common law rules protected by the Constitution, Plaintiff and the 

Fees Class have a protected property right in all the fees they paid to the Universities for which 

they received nothing, or significantly less than what they bargained for, in return.

249. Defendants elected to seize Plaintiff’s and the members of the Fee Class’s property 

under the color of state law, without notice or due process, which failure to provide the same 

violates due process standards set forth in the United States Constitution and is a violation of 42 

U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

250. Defendants are obligated to uphold the laws of the United States.

251. No statute, rule, or practice could authorize Defendants to withhold that property 

from Plaintiff and the Fees Class without violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment 

and 42 U.S.C Sec. 1983.

252. Defendants’ conduct violated the United States Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

253. The property of Plaintiff and members of the Fee Class remains in Defendants’ 

possession and can readily be returned upon Defendants directing the Universities to do so.

254. Plaintiff has never made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights 

to be paid just compensation for the taking of his property rights in those funds.

255. Consequently, Defendants, under the color of state law, have seized and retained 

property that is beyond their statutory and constitutional authority. These actions are ultra vires

and unconstitutional. 

256. As a result of Defendants’ foregoing violations of the laws of the United States, 

Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and the members of the Fee Class. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 51 of 53
52 

257. In addition, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and the members of the Fee Class for 

attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. 

XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 

(A) Certifying the Classes as proposed herein, 

(B) Designating Plaintiff as Class representative, and appointing Gainey 

McKenna & Egleston as Class Counsel; 

(C) Declaring that Defendants are financially responsible for notifying the Class 

members of the pendency of this action; 

(D) Declaring that Defendants have wrongfully kept monies paid for tuition and 

fees; 

(E) Requiring that Defendants disgorge amounts wrongfully obtained for 

tuition and fees; 

(F) Awarding injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including 

enjoining Defendants from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition and fees; 

(G) Scheduling a trial by jury in this action; 

(H) Awarding Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses, as 

permitted by law; 

(I) Awarding pre and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded, as 

permitted by law; and 

(J) Awarding such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 52 of 53
53 

XIII. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 

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

Dated: July 31, 2020 

 SHEPPARD, WHITE, KACHERGUS, & 

DEMAGGIO, P.A. 

By: /s/Bryan DeMaggio

 Bryan DeMaggio 

215 Washington Street 

Jacksonville, FL 32202 

Tel: (904) 356-9661 

Fax: (904) 356-9667 

Email: sheplaw@sheppardwhite.com

GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 

Thomas J. McKenna 

Gregory M. Egleston 

501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor 

New York, NY 10017 

Tel.: (212) 983-1300 

Fax: (212) 983-0383 

Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com

Email: gegleston@gme-law.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/31/20 Page 53 of 53