UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

 

SHANNON CORINTI, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff, 

v.

ASSET PLUS CORPORATION,

Defendant. 

/

CASE NO.:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Shannon Corinti brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly 

situated against Defendant Asset Plus Corporation. Defendant is attempting to use the 

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic as a profiteering vehicle to steal college 

funds from parents and their children throughout Florida. The Defendant is one of the largest 

property management companies for college campuses in our country, and despite stay-at-home 

orders and “social distancing” directives has refused to refund moneys dedicated to campus living, 

which is effectively closed down. The Defendant is callously telling parents their children not 

being at the dorm during this world-wide pandemic is similar to the kids going on “spring-break.” 

Defendant admits their motivation for their position is money, stating they will not refund monies 

because they have expenses such as “property taxes.” If Defendant had their way, the students 

would remain on top of each other in their crowded dorms which would obviously exacerbate the 

spread of COVID-19.

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 13
2

Plaintiff makes the following allegations pursuant to the investigation of her counsel and

based upon information and belief, except as to the allegations specifically pertaining to herself,

which are based on personal knowledge.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

1. This is a class action brought on behalf of all people who paid the costs of room and board

and/or attendant service fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at private dormitories 

throughout the State of Florida, each managed by Defendant Asset Plus Corporation. Upon 

the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, these people lost the benefits of the room and board

and/or the services for which they had paid. Defendant has responded to the pandemic and the 

resultant constructive eviction of its tenants by retaining the unearned costs and fees, 

implementing a policy whereby it refuses to grant any refunds to its leaseholders.

2. In or around March 2020, Florida colleges and universities announced that, because of the 

global COVID-19 pandemic, all classes would be moved online for the remainder of the Spring 

2020 semester. Students who lived in on-campus housing were told they had to move out or 

were strongly encouraged to do so, such that they had no meaningful choice but to comply. 

Further, because all classes were moved online, there was no reason for students to remain near 

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

dangers, risks, and fear associated with the pandemic. Many students chose to leave campus 

to be with their families, or to avoid exposure to COVID-19, and they have stayed off campus 

to comply with directives from the schools, as well as local, state and federal governments. In

addition, the services that their fees were intended to cover are no longer available to them.

3. Despite the constructive eviction of students at the schools for the remainder of the semester 

and ending all campus activities for at least that same time period, Defendant has refused 

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 13
3

refunds to students for the unused portion of their room, board, and fees. Defendant is, in 

essence, profiting from this pandemic.

4. The decision to transition to online classes and to request or encourage students to leave 

campus were responsible decisions to make, but it is unfair and unlawful for Defendant to 

retain unearned fees and costs, passing the losses on to the students and their families. Other 

higher education institutions across the United States that likewise have switched to e-learning 

and have similarly requested that its students leave campus have recognized the upheaval and 

financial harm befalling students and their families from these decisions, and they have 

provided appropriate refunds. That’s the right thing to do. Defendant, unfortunately, has taken 

the opposite approach.

5. Accordingly, Defendant has improperly retained monies paid by Plaintiff and the other Class 

members for room, board, and fees, while otherwise not affording them the benefits for which 

they paid. Even if Defendant claims that it did not have a choice, it nevertheless has improperly 

retained funds for services it is not providing. No matter the excuse, Defendant’s actions are 

unlawful and unfair, and equity demands disgorgement of the fees and monies paid.

6. Plaintiff brings this class action for injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief, and for any 

available legal remedies resulting from Defendant’s illegal, unfair, or deceptive conduct related 

to retaining the costs of room, board, and fees paid by Plaintiffs and the other Class members

after they (or the students on behalf of whom Plaintiffs and Class members paid these 

expenses) were made or encouraged to vacate their campus residence to complete the semester.

7. This lawsuit seeks disgorgement of the prorated, unused amounts of room, board, and fees that 

Plaintiffs and the other Class members paid, but for which they (or the students on behalf of 

whom they paid) will not be provided the benefit.

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 13
4

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Shannon Corinti is a citizen of Florida, residing in Tampa. Ms. Corinti is a current 

guarantor and co-signer for her son’s room at SouthGate Campus Centre for the Fall 2019-

Spring 2020 academic school year.

9. Defendant is a Texas corporation headquartered in Houston. Defendant is the manager of more 

than 122 “campus living” apartment complexes, which it calls “dormitories,” throughout the 

United States. Defendant touts itself as “The largest third party property management 

company in the nation for campus living,” https://www.assetliving.com/campus-1, and it 

operates at least 11 locations in Florida. Defendant advertises its dormitories to students across 

the country as an alternative to on-campus living, while offering amenities specifically geared 

to college students, such as on-site meal plans,

1 housekeeping,2 monthly resident events,3

computer labs,4 shuttle services to the campus,5 and university involvement.

10. SouthGate Campus Centre, managed by Defendant, is a “student-only private dormitory in 

Tallahassee, Florida, serving attendees of Florida State University, Tallahassee Community 

College, and Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University.”

11. Plaintiff executed the lease with Defendant on February 13, 2019, and her son moved into the 

SouthGate dormitory on July 1, 2019. 

12. In June 2019, Plaintiff paid a $200 security deposit, $500 parking fee, and $5,300 for boarding 

and unlimited meal plan for the Fall 2019 semester. In December 2019, Plaintiff paid another 

$5,300 for boarding and an unlimited meal plan for the Spring 2020 semester.

1 https://southgateattallahassee.com/amenities

2 Id.

3 http://liveuv.com/amenities; https://www.canopygville.com/amenities 4 http://liveuv.com/amenities; https://www.canopygville.com/amenities; https://4thstreetcommons.com/amenities 5 https://www.canopygville.com/amenities

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 4 of 13
5

13. On March 13, 2020, President Trump issued a Proclamation Declaring a National Emergency 

COVID-19 outbreak.

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

(“CDC”) issued guidance to slow the spread of the virus, advising individuals of social 

distancing measures such as avoiding gatherings of more than 10 people, and recommending 

restrictions for establishments tending to attract mass gatherings.

15. Between March 18, 2020, and March 20, 2020, three Florida universities served by SouthGate 

announced that all classes would transition to remote learning through the end of the Spring 

2020 semester, canceling all on-campus events due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

16. On March 18, 2020, SouthGate Campus Centre informed students that it would remain open 

despite the closure of all on-campus activities for its serviced schools, and notwithstanding 

official recommendations of social distancing and the avoidance of groups of 10 or more 

people. 

17. On March 25, 2020, Plaintiff was informed that the lease was a “binding contract” that would 

“not be terminated due to illness or extenuating circumstances.” She was further advised that 

decisions related to room, board and fees for the semester were “being discussed at levels 

higher than the property level.” 

18. Despite colleges and universities canceling all on-campus activities and transitioning to 

remote-only learning, Defendant’s dormitories have refused to issue any refunds of the room, 

board, and fees prepaid by residents at the beginning of the semester.

19. The purpose of the parties contract was to provide housing and services while on campus 

schooling is in session. This purpose was frustrated when the campus closed and students no 

longer attending on-campus classes.

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 5 of 13
6

20. Plaintiff continues to suffer imminent harm so long as Defendant refuses to refund any fees 

prepaid for the Spring 2020 semester.

21. In essence, Defendant is promulgating conduct that would increase the spread of COVID-19

and contradicts directives by local, state and federal governments.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

case is a class action where the aggregate claims of all members of the proposed Class are in 

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

are citizens of the state of Florida.

23. This Court has general jurisdiction over Defendant, which conducts substantial business within 

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

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

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

in this District.

CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS

25. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), 

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

All people who paid the costs of room, board, and fees for and on behalf of students 

residing in Defendant’s Florida “campus living” complexes for the Spring 2020

semester who moved out prior to the completion of the semester because of school 

closures relating to COVID-19.

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 6 of 13
7

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

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

this Court warrant.

27. Excluded from the Class are the Defendant, the officers and directors of the Defendant at all 

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

heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendant has or had a controlling interest.

28. Plaintiff is a member of the Class she seeks to represent.

29. Defendant has thousands of customers that have paid room, board, and fees while schools were 

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

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

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

through discovery. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail 

and/or publication through the distribution records of Defendant.

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

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

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

has breached its contracts with its customers or otherwise acted unlawfully.

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

Plaintiff was charged rental fees and suffered losses despite her son being ordered to leave 

campus and return home by school and government officials.

32. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict 

with the interests of the Class members Plaintiff seek to represent, Plaintiff has retained 

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

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 7 of 13
8

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

by Plaintiff and her counsel.

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

of the claims of the Class members. Each individual Class member may lack the resources to 

undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and extensive 

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

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

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

potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. In contrast, the class action device 

presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, 

economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of Defendant’s 

liability. Classtreatment of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and claimants are 

before this Court for consistent adjudication of the liability issues.

COUNT I

Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act

34. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs 

of this Complaint.

35. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Class 

against Defendant. 

36. At all times relevant to this action Defendant is subject to and must abide by the law of Florida, 

including Florida Statute § 559.72.

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

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

her family.

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 8 of 13
9

38. Defendant has violated Florida Statute § 559.72(9) by attempting to enforce a debt when 

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

when Defendant knows that right does not exist.

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

sustaining of damages as described by Florida Statute §559.77.

COUNT II

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

40. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs 

of this Complaint. 

41. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Class 

against Defendant. 

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

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by:

a. Unfairly and in bad faith asserting that remaining in private dormitories is a

reasonable option for Plaintiff and proposed Class members. Dormitories, whether 

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

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

in order to practice safe social distancing in accordance with CDC 

recommendations.

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

and provide residence life programs to complement students’ academics. However,

once the schools have closed and the students it purports to serve have been forced 

to leave, the reality reveals itself that Defendant does not consider its provision of 

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 9 of 13
10

room, board, and services to be tied whatsoever to the schools or to the students’ 

academics, as it has failed to refund unearned payments for room, board, and fees.

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

proposed Class that remain unused as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

43. As a result of Defendant’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as set 

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

COUNT III

Unjust Enrichment

44. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs 

of this Complaint. 

45. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Class 

against Defendant. 

46. Plaintiff and members of the Class conferred benefits on Defendant by paying room, board, 

and fees, despite the closing of colleges and universities and attendant recommendations for 

social distancing and returning home. 

47. Defendant has knowledge of such benefits. 

48. Defendant has been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from Plaintiff and Class 

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

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

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

themselves. 

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

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

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

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 10 of 13
11

COUNT IV

Conversion

50. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs 

of this Complaint. 

51. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Class 

against Defendant. 

52. Defendant deprived Plaintiff and the other members of the Class of the value they paid for 

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

amenities provided in the lease agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

54. Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to the return of the prorated, unused amounts 

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

COUNT V

Money Had and Received

55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs 

of this Complaint. 

56. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Class 

against Defendant. 

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

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

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 11 of 13
12

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

obtained money and fees to Plaintiff and the Class. 

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks 

judgment against Defendant, as follows: 

a. For an Order certifying the Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and naming Plaintiff as representative of the Class, and Plaintiff’s attorneys as Class 

Counsel to represent the Class members; 

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

herein; 

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

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

e. For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded; 

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

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

h. For an Order awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable attorneys’ fees,

litigation expenses, and costs of suit. 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 

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

Respectfully submitted,

 Billy Howard, Esq.

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 12 of 13
13

William “Billy” Peerce Howard, Esquire

Amanda J. Allen, Esquire

Heather H. Jones, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 0098228

Florida Bar No. 0103330

Florida Bar No. 0118974

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM

4030 Henderson Boulevard

Tampa, FL 33629

Telephone: (813) 500-1500

Facsimile: (813) 435-2369

Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

John W. Barrett (pending pro hac vice admission)

Raymond S. Franks, II (pending pro hac vice 

admission)

BAILEY & GLASSER LLP

209 Capital Street

Charleston, WV 25301

Telephone: (304) 345-6555

Facsimile: (304) 342-1110

JBarrett@baileyglasser.com

rfranks@baileyglasser.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 13 of 13