EXHIBIT 4 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 1 of 33
- 1 -

FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET

The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing

and service of pleadings or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the

plaintiff or petitioner with the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting uniform data pursuant

to section 25.075, Florida Statutes. (See instructions for completion.)

I. CASE STYLE

IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Maria F Soto Leigue

Plaintiff Case #

Judge

vs.

Everglades College Inc d/b/a Keiser University

Defendant

II. AMOUNT OF CLAIM

Please indicate the estimated amount of the claim, rounded to the nearest dollar. The estimated amount of

the claim is requested for data collection and clerical processing purposes only. The amount of the claim

shall not be used for any other purpose.

☐ $8,000 or less

☐ $8,001 - $30,000

☐ $30,001- $50,000

☐ $50,001- $75,000

☐ $75,001 - $100,000

☒ over $100,000.00

III. TYPE OF CASE (If the case fits more than one type of case, select the most

definitive category.) If the most descriptive label is a subcategory (is indented under a broader

category), place an x on both the main category and subcategory lines.

Filing # 149565254 E-Filed 05/13/2022 02:37:18 PM Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 2 of 33
- 2 -

CIRCUIT CIVIL

☐ Condominium

☐ Contracts and indebtedness

☐ Eminent domain

☐ Auto negligence

☐ Negligence—other

☐ Business governance

☐ Business torts

☐ Environmental/Toxic tort

☐ Third party indemnification

☐ Construction defect

☐ Mass tort

☐ Negligent security

☐ Nursing home negligence

☐ Premises liability—commercial

☐ Premises liability—residential

☐ Products liability

☐ Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure

☐ Commercial foreclosure

☐ Homestead residential foreclosure

☐ Non-homestead residential foreclosure

☐ Other real property actions

☐Professional malpractice

☐ Malpractice—business

☐ Malpractice—medical

☐ Malpractice—other professional

☒ Other

☐ Antitrust/Trade regulation

☒ Business transactions

☐ Constitutional challenge—statute or ordinance

☐ Constitutional challenge—proposed amendment

☐ Corporate trusts

☐ Discrimination—employment or other

☐ Insurance claims

☐ Intellectual property

☐ Libel/Slander

☐ Shareholder derivative action

☐ Securities litigation

☐ Trade secrets

☐ Trust litigation

COUNTY CIVIL

☐ Small Claims up to $8,000

☐ Civil

☐ Real property/Mortgage foreclosure

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 3 of 33
- 3 -

☐ Replevins

☐ Evictions

☐ Residential Evictions

☐ Non-residential Evictions

☐ Other civil (non-monetary)

COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT

This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the

Administrative Order. Yes ☐ No ☒

IV. REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply):

☒ Monetary;

☒ Nonmonetary declaratory or injunctive relief;

☐ Punitive

V. NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: [ ]

(Specify)

1

VI. IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT?

☒ yes

☐ no

VII. HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED?

☒ no

☐ yes If “yes,” list all related cases by name, case number, and court.

VIII. IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT?

☒ yes

☐ no

IX. DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE?

☐ yes

☒ no

I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of

my knowledge and belief, and that I have read and will comply with the requirements of

Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425.

Signature: s/ Manuel S Hiraldo Fla. Bar # 30380

Attorney or party (Bar # if attorney)

Manuel S Hiraldo 05/13/2022

(type or print name) Date

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 4 of 33
1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.

MARIA FERNANDA SOTO LEIGUE,

individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v.

EVERGLADES COLLEGE, INC. d/b/a

KEISER UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Maria Fernanda Soto Leigue brings this class action against Defendant Everglades

College, Inc. d/b/a Keiser University, and alleges as follows upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiff

and Plaintiff’s own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief,

including investigation conducted by Plaintiff’s attorneys.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a putative class action pursuant to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act

(“FTSA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.059.

2. Defendant is a private university that provides educational services.

3. Defendant charges consumers a tuition for its educational services.

4. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging.

Filing # 149565254 E-Filed 05/13/2022 02:37:18 PM Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 5 of 33
2

5. Defendant’s telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class members

harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and

invasion of their privacy.

6. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf

of herself and the Class members, as defined below, and any other available legal or equitable

remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual and a “called party”

as defined by Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(a) in that she was the regular user of telephone number ***-

***-1578 (the “1578 Number”) that received Defendant’s telephonic sales text messages. Plaintiff

is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

8. Defendant is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Florida corporation and a

“telephone solicitor” as defined by Fla. Stat. § 501.059(f). Defendant maintains its primary place

of business and headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Defendant directs, markets, and provides

business activities throughout the State of Florida and the United States.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure 1.220 and Fla. Stat. § 26.012(2). The matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$30,000 exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.

10. Defendant is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Florida because it is a

Florida corporation, and its principal place of business is in Florida.

11. Venue for this action is proper in this Court pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 47.051 because

the cause of action accrued in this County.

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 6 of 33
3

FACTS

12. Beginning on or about August 6, 2021, Defendant sent numerous unsolicited

telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number, including the following:

13. Defendant’s messages did not include instructions on how to opt-out of future

messages.

14. On September 23, 2021, Plaintiff responded with the words “Please remove me

from your contact list,” in an attempt to opt-out of any further text message communications with

Defendant:

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 7 of 33
4

15. Despite Plaintiff’s use of clear opt-out language, Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s optout demand and continued to send Plaintiff another promotional text message on October 12, 2021.

16. As demonstrated by the above screenshots, the purpose of Defendant’s telephonic

sales messages was to solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or services.

17. Defendant’s text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the

future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff educational

services in the form of university courses.

18. Defendant’s text messages contained language such as “...Keiser University

Classes starting 10/25/21 You still have time to enroll & process...”

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 8 of 33
5

19. Defendant’s texts were not made for an emergency purpose or to collect on a debt.

20. Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received the above

telephonic sales calls.

21. Upon information and belief, Defendant maintains and/or has access to outbound

transmission reports for all text messages sent advertising/promoting its services and goods. These

reports show the dates, times, target telephone numbers, and content of each message sent to

Plaintiff and the Class members.

22. Given Defendant’s use of generic text messages to solicit consumers, and given the

volume of messages sent by Defendant to Plaintiff, Plaintiff is informed and believes that

Defendant caused at least 100 similar sales calls.

23. The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant’s text messages, coupled with their

frequency, demonstrates that Defendant utilized a computer software system that automatically

selected and dialed Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ telephone numbers.

24. To send the text message, Defendant used a messaging platform (the “Platform”),

which permitted Defendant to transmit thousands of text messages automatically and without any

human involvement.

25. Defendant was not required to and did not need to utilize the Platform to send

messages to Plaintiff and the Class members. Instead, Defendant opted to use the Platform to

maximize the reach of its text message advertisements at a nominal cost to Defendant.

26. The Platform has the capacity to select and dial numbers automatically from a list

of numbers.

27. The Platform has the capacity to schedule the time and date for future transmission

of text messages.

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 9 of 33
6

28. The Platform also has an auto-reply function that results in the automatic

transmission of text messages.

29. Defendant was not required to and did not need to utilize the Platform to send

messages to Plaintiff and the Class members. Instead, Defendant opted to use the Platform to

maximize the reach of its text message advertisements at a nominal cost to Defendant.

30. Defendant would be able to conduct its business operations without sending

automated text messages to consumers.

31. Defendant would be able to send automated text messages to consumers, and in

compliance with the FTSA, by securing the proper consent from consumers prior to sending text

messages.

32. Defendant would be able to send text messages to consumers without consent by

utilizing a non-automated text messaging system.

33. Accordingly, it is not impossible for Defendant to comply with the FTSA in the

context of transmitting text messages.

34. The burden and cost to Defendant of securing consent from consumers that

complies with the FTSA is nominal.

35. Compliance with the FTSA will not result in Defendant having to cease its business

operations.

36. Compliance with the FTSA will not result in Defendant having the alter the prices

of any goods or services it provides in the marketplace.

37. Compliance with the FTSA will not force Defendant to seek regulatory approval

from the State of Florida before undertaking any type of commercial transaction.

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 10 of 33
7

38. Because a substantial part of Defendant’s FTSA violations occurred in Florida,

requiring Defendant’s compliance with the FTSA will not have the practical effect of regulating

commerce occurring wholly outside of Florida.

39. Plaintiff never provided Defendant with express written consent authorizing

Defendant to transmit telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number utilizing an

automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers.

40. More specifically, Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or

allowing the placement of a telephonic sales call by text message using an automated system for

the selection or dialing of telephone numbers.

41. The form utilized by Defendant to acquire Plaintiff’s and the Class members

telephone numbers is depicted below:

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 11 of 33
8

42. As demonstrated by the above, Defendant’s form fails to comply with the FTSA’s

“express written consent” requirements in the following ways:

(a) The disclosure language is not clear and conspicuous, but is instead concealed in

small font below a large yellow “REQUEST INFO” call to action button;

(b) The disclosure language fails to state that the consumer is agreeing to receive

telephonic sales calls;

(c) The disclosure language fails to advise consumers that they are not required to

directly or indirectly sign the written agreement or to agree to enter into such an

agreement as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services.

43. Since Plaintiff’s prior lawsuit, Defendant has conceded that its prior form was

deficient by attempting to remedy some of the deficiencies in the disclosure language:

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 12 of 33
9

44. As reflected by the above, Defendant’s new disclosure language makes reference

to “marketing” and that consumers are “not required to provide my phone number as a condition

of purchasing any property, goods, or service.”

45. Defendant’s telephonic sales calls caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm,

including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and

violation of their statutory privacy rights.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

PROPOSED CLASSES

46. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of herself individually and

on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action. The Classes that Plaintiff seeks

to represent are defined as:

FTSA Class: All persons within the United States who, (1) were sent

a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant’s property, goods,

and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment

utilized to call Plaintiff.

Internal Do Not Call Class: All persons within the United States

who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were

sent a text message from Defendant or anyone on Defendant’s

behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone number after making a

request to Defendant to not receive future text messages.

47. Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Classes.

NUMEROSITY

48. Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed telephonic sales calls to

telephone numbers belonging to at least 10 consumers. The members of the Classes, therefore, are

believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 13 of 33
10

49. The exact number and identities of the Classes members are unknown at this time

and can be ascertained only through discovery. Identification of the Class members is a matter

capable of ministerial determination from Defendant’s call records.

COMMON QUESTIONS OFLAW AND FACT

50. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Classes which

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Classes. Among the

questions of law and fact common to the Classes are:

(a) Whether Defendant initiated telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff and the Class

members;

(b) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it had prior express written

consent to make such calls;

(c) Whether Defendant sent solicitations to individuals who had requested not to

receive calls; and

(d) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages.

51. The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers, and

Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of being efficiently adjudicated

and administered in this case.

TYPICALITY

52. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all

based on the same factual and legal theories.

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 14 of 33
11

PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS MEMBERS

53. Plaintiff is a representative who will fully and adequately assert and protect the

interests of the Classes and has retained competent counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff is an adequate

representative and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.

SUPERIORITY

54. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this lawsuit because individual litigation of the claims of all members of the Classes

is economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. While the aggregate damages sustained

by the Classes are in the millions of dollars, the individual damages incurred by each member of

the Classes resulting from Defendant’s wrongful conduct are too small to warrant the expense of

individual lawsuits. The likelihood of individual Class members prosecuting their own separate

claims is remote, and, even if every member of the Classes could afford individual litigation, the

court system would be unduly burdened by individual litigation of such cases.

55. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Classes would create a risk

of establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. For

example, one court might enjoin Defendant from performing the challenged acts, whereas another

may not. Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the Classes,

although certain class members are not parties to such actions.

COUNT I

Violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.059

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FTSA Class)

56. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

55 as if fully set forth herein.

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 15 of 33
12

57. It is a violation of the FTSA to “make or knowingly allow a telephonic sales call to

be made if such call involves an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers

or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a number called without

the prior express written consent of the called party.” Fla. Stat. § 501.059(8)(a).

58. A “telephonic sales call” is defined as a “telephone call, text message, or voicemail

transmission to a consumer for the purpose of soliciting a sale of any consumer goods or services,

soliciting an extension of credit for consumer goods or services, or obtaining information that will

or may be used for the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or services or an extension

of credit for such purposes.” Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(i).

59. “Prior express written consent” means an agreement in writing that:

1. Bears the signature of the called party;

2. Clearly authorizes the person making or allowing the placement of a telephonic

sales call by telephone call, text message, or voicemail transmission to deliver

or cause to be delivered to the called party a telephonic sales call using an

automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers, the playing

of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a number called, or

the transmission of a prerecorded voicemail;

3. Includes the telephone number to which the signatory authorizes a telephonic

sales call to be delivered; and

4. Includes a clear and conspicuous disclosure informing the called party that:

a. By executing the agreement, the called party authorizes the person

making or allowing the placement of a telephonic sales call to deliver or

cause to be delivered a telephonic sales call to the called party using an

automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or

the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a

number called; and

b. He or she is not required to directly or indirectly sign the written

agreement or to agree to enter into such an agreement as a condition of

purchasing any property, goods, or services.

Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(g).

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 16 of 33
13

60. Defendant failed to secure prior express written consent from Plaintiff and the

FTSA Class members.

61. In violation of the FTSA, Defendant made and/or knowingly allowed telephonic

sales calls to be made to Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members without Plaintiff’s and the FTSA

Class members’ prior express written consent.

62. Defendant made and/or knowingly allowed the telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff

and the FTSA Class members to be made utilizing an automated system for the selection or dialing

of telephone numbers.

63. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, and pursuant to § 501.059(10)(a) of the FTSA,

Plaintiff and FTSA Class members were harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00

in damages for each violation.

64. Plaintiff requests for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the

Prayer for Relief below.

COUNT II

Violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.059

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class)

65. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

55 as if fully set forth herein.

66. It is a violation of the FTSA to initiate an outbound telephone call, text message, or

voicemail transmission to a consumer, business, or donor or potential donor who has previously

communicated to the telephone solicitor or other person that he or she does not wish to receive an

outbound call, text message, or voicemail transmission:

(a) Made by or on behalf of the seller whose goods or services are being offered; or

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 17 of 33
14

(b) Made on behalf of a charitable organization for which a charitable contribution is

being solicited.

Fla. Stat. § 501.059(5) (a), (b).

67. Plaintiff and the Class Members made requests to Defendant not to receive

messages from Defendant.

68. Defendant failed to honor Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members’

requests.

69. In violation of the FTSA, Defendant made and/or knowingly allowed outbound text

messages offering their services to be sent to Plaintiff and the Class members, after they had

previously communicated to Defendant that he or she did not wish to receive any more calls, text

messages, or voicemails from Defendant.

70. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, and pursuant to § 501.059(10)(a) of the FTSA,

Plaintiff and Class members were harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00 in

damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the Class members are also entitled to an injunction

against future calls.

71. Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members also suffered damages in the

form of invasion of privacy.

COUNT III

Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(a)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FTSA Class)

72. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

55 as if fully set forth herein.

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 18 of 33
15

73. Pursuant to section 501.059(10)(a), Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting

Defendant’s unlawful conduct in the future to protect Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members from

Defendant’s unsolicited calls and practices.

74. Defendant’s ongoing and continuing violations have caused, and in the absence of

an injunction will continue to cause, harm to Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members.

75. Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members suffer irreparable harm if Defendant is

permitted to continue its practice of violating the FTSA.

76. The injuries that the Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members will suffer if Defendant

is not prohibited from continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein far outweigh

the harm that Defendant will suffer if it is enjoined from continuing this conduct.

77. The public interest will be served by an injunction prohibiting Defendant from

continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein.

78. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the FTSA Class members seek an injunction requiring

Defendant to implement policies and procedures to secure express written consent before engaging

in any text message solicitations, and to follow such consent requirements.

79. Plaintiff requests for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the

Prayer for Relief below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Classes, prays for the following

relief:

a) An order certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Classes as defined above,

and appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Classes and Plaintiff’s counsel as

Class Counsel;

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 19 of 33
16

b) An award of statutory damages for Plaintiff and each member of the Classes as

applicable under the FTSA;

c) An order declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set out above, violate the FTSA;

d) An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all telephonic sales calls made without

express written consent, and to otherwise protect the interests of the Class; and

e) Such further and other relief as the Court deems necessary.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, hereby demand a trial by jury.

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND

Plaintiff demands that Defendant take affirmative steps to preserve all records, lists, electronic

databases or other itemization of telephone numbers associated with the communications or transmittal

of the calls as alleged herein.

DATED: May 13, 2022

Respectfully Submitted,

HIRALDO P.A.

/s/ Manuel S. Hiraldo

Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 030380

401 E. Las Olas Boulevard

Suite 1400

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

Telephone: 954.400.4713

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 20 of 33
17

SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.

/s/ Andrew Shamis

Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 101754

ashamis@shamisgentile.com

/s/ Garrett Berg_

Garrett O. Berg, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1000427

gberg@shamisgentile.com

14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705

Miami, Florida 33132

Telephone: 305-479-2299

EDELSBERG LAW P.A.

/s/ Scott Edelsberg_

Scott Edelsberg, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0100537

20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: 305-975-3320

Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class.

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 21 of 33
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2022-008872-CA-01

MARIA FERNANDA SOTO LEIGUE, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EVERGLADES COLLEGE INC. D/B/A KEISER

UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SUMMONS

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff/Certified Process Server of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the Complaint, in this

action on Defendant:

EVERGLADES COLLEGE INC. D/B/A KEISER UNIVERSITY

Attn: James Waldman- Registered Agent

1900 W Commercial Blvd, Suite 180 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the Complaint or petition on:

Andrew Shamis, Esq, Shamis & Gentile, P.A., 14 NE 1st Ave STE 705, Miami, Florida

33132, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons on that Defendant, exclusive of

the date of service, and to file the original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either

before service on Plaintiff's attorney or immediately thereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a

default will be entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint or

petition.

Dated this ______ day of ______________________.

As Clerk of the Court

By: ___________________

Filing # 150894520 E-Filed 06/06/2022 10:44:06 AM Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 22 of 33
As Deputy Clerk

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 23 of 33
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2022-008872-CA-01

MARIA FERNANDA SOTO LEIGUE, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EVERGLADES COLLEGE INC. D/B/A KEISER

UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SUMMONS

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff/Certified Process Server of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the Complaint, in this

action on Defendant:

EVERGLADES COLLEGE INC. D/B/A KEISER UNIVERSITY

Attn: James Waldman- Registered Agent

1900 W Commercial Blvd, Suite 180 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the Complaint or petition on:

Andrew Shamis, Esq, Shamis & Gentile, P.A., 14 NE 1st Ave STE 705, Miami, Florida

33132, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons on that Defendant, exclusive of

the date of service, and to file the original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either

before service on Plaintiff's attorney or immediately thereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a

default will be entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint or

petition.

Dated this ______ day of ______________________.

As Clerk of the Court

By: ___________________

Filing # 150894520 E-Filed 06/06/2022 10:44:06 AM

6/13/2022

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 24 of 33
As Deputy Clerk

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 25 of 33
Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 26 of 33
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2022-008872-CA-01

MARIA FERNANDA SOTO LEIGUE, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EVERGLADES COLLEGE INC. D/B/A KEISER

UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SUMMONS

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff/Certified Process Server of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the Complaint, in this

action on Defendant:

EVERGLADES COLLEGE INC. D/B/A KEISER UNIVERSITY

Attn: James Waldman- Registered Agent

1900 W Commercial Blvd, Suite 180 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the Complaint or petition on:

Andrew Shamis, Esq, Shamis & Gentile, P.A., 14 NE 1st Ave STE 705, Miami, Florida

33132, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons on that Defendant, exclusive of

the date of service, and to file the original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either

before service on Plaintiff's attorney or immediately thereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a

default will be entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint or

petition.

Dated this ______ day of ______________________.

As Clerk of the Court

By: ___________________

Filing # 150894520 E-Filed 06/06/2022 10:44:06 AM

6/13/2022

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 27 of 33
As Deputy Clerk

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 28 of 33
129089630

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2022-008872-CA-01

MARIA FERNANDA SOTO LEIGUE,

individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EVERGLADES COLLEGE, INC. D/B/A

KEISER UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Defendant Everglades College, Inc. d/b/a Keiser University (“Defendant”), by and through

its undersigned counsel, files this Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to

Plaintiff Maria Fernanda Soto Leigue’s (“Plaintiff”) Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”),

and in support states:

1. On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action.

2. Plaintiff served Defendant with the Complaint on June 23, 2022.

3. Defendant’s response to the Complaint is currently due on July 13, 2022.

4. Pursuant to Rule 1.090(b)(1)(A), this Court may, for cause shown and at any time

in its discretion, enlarge the time in which to respond if the request is made before the expiration

of the original time period. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b)(1)(A); see also Litwinski v. Weitzer Country

Homes, Inc., 711 So. 2d 1390, 1391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“When a litigant seeks an extension of

time before the period expires, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1.090(b)(1) requires only

Filing # 152901511 E-Filed 07/07/2022 05:03:33 PM Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 29 of 33
2

129089630

‘cause shown.’”). Thus, when a litigant asserts reasonable grounds before the expiration of the

time period, “the trial judge has broad discretion to extend the time limitation.” Litwinski, 711 So.

2d at 1391.

5. In light of the timing and procedural issues presented by this new filing, Defendant

needs additional time to prepare its response.

6. Defendant requests and enlargement of time of thirty (30) days—through and

including August 12, 2022—to respond to the Complaint.

7. This is Defendant’s first request for an enlargement of time. The requested

enlargement of time will not prejudice any party because the case is still in its early stages, and

Defendant does not request this enlargement of time for the purpose of delay.

8. Defendant’s counsel conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.,

and Plaintiff’s counsel represented that Plaintiff does not object to the enlargement of time

requested in this Motion.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order

enlarging Defendant’s time to respond to the Complaint through and including August 12, 2022,

and granting any other relief this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: July 7, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

BLANK ROME LLP

500 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 2100

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

Telephone: (954) 512-1809

Facsimile: (813) 433-5564

E-mail Service: BRFLeservice@BlankRome.com

/s/ Maria K. Vigilante _

Maria K. Vigilante

Florida Bar No. 98822

Maria.Vigilante@BlankRome.com

Counsel for Defendant

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 30 of 33
3

129089630

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed

on July 7, 2022, with the Clerk of the Circuit Court using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and

served by an automatic e-mail generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to: Andrew J.

Shamis, Esq., Shamis & Gentile, P.A., 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705, Miami, Florida 33132,

ashamis@shamisgentile.com; Garrett O. Berg., Esq., Shamis & Gentile, P.A., 14 NE 1st Avenue,

Suite 705, Miami, Florida 33132, gberg@shamisgentile.com; Scott Edelsberg, Esq., Edelsberg

Law, P.A., 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417, Aventura, Florida 33180, scott@edelsberglaw.com;

and Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq., Hiraldo P.A., 401 East Last Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400, Fort

Lauderdale, Florida 33301, MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com.

/s/ Maria K. Vigilante

Maria K. Vigilante

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 31 of 33
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 2022-008872-CA-01

SECTION: CA13

JUDGE: Gina Beovides

MARIA FERNANDA SOTO LEIGUE

Plaintiff(s)

vs.

EVERGLADES COLLEGE INC

Defendant(s)

____________________________/

AGREED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF 

TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court upon Defendant Everglades College, Inc. 

d/b/a Keiser University’s (“Defendant”) Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond 

to Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint (the “Motion”), and the Court having reviewed the Motion 

and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

 The Motion is GRANTED. Defendant is granted an enlargement of time through and 

including August 12, 2022, to file a response to Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint.

1. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 8th day of July, 2022.

2022-008872-CA-01 07-08-2022 10:52 AM

Hon. Gina Beovides

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Electronically Signed

Case No: 2022-008872-CA-01 Page 1 of 2

Filing # 152934512 E-Filed 07/08/2022 11:07:10 AM Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 32 of 33
No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT

Electronically Served:

Andrew Shamis, ashamis@shamisgentile.com

Andrew Shamis, aelsayed@shamisgentile.com

Andrew Shamis, gberg@shamisgentile.com

Angelica Gentile Gentile, efilings@shamisgentile.com

Christopher Chagas Gold, chris@edelsberglaw.com

Garrett O. Berg, gberg@shamisgentile.com

Manuel S Hiraldo, mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

Maria Vigilante, Maria.Vigilante@BlankRome.com

Maria Vigilante, BRFLeservice@BlankRome.com

Maria Vigilante, MBuitrago@BlankRome.com

Scott Edelsberg, scott@edelsberglaw.com

Scott Edelsberg, aaron@edelsberglaw.com

Physically Served:

Case No: 2022-008872-CA-01 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2022 Page 33 of 33