UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

West Palm Beach Division

BRITTANY ROBERSON, REBECCA 

FREEMAN, BIANCA VIÑAS, and 

TIFFANY KING, individually and on behalf 

of others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff(s),

v. 

HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE LLC (dba

HCI COLLEGE LLC and HCI 

ACQUISITION LLC), and FLORIAN 

EDUCATION INVESTORS LLC, 

 Defendant(s).

Civil Action No._____________

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Brittany Roberson, Rebecca Freeman, Bianca Viñas, and Tiffany King

(“Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

(collectively referred to as “the Proposed Class” or “Proposed Class Members”) against HCI 

College, formerly known as Health Career Institute LLC (“HCI”); and its parent company 

Florian Education Investors LLC (“Florian”); and their agents (collectively with HCI,

“Defendant”), and pursuant to their investigation, upon knowledge as to themselves and their 

own acts and otherwise upon information and belief, allege the following:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This case arises from a deceitful pattern of behavior by the West Palm Beachbased for-profit nursing school HCI, which deliberately and consistently harmed its students in 

violation of federal and state law.

Jury Trial Demanded

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 1 of 67
2

2. HCI offers an Associate of Science in Nursing program at its West Palm Beach 

campus (the “RN Program”

1

), which it advertises on its website as being “designed to provide 

educational and clinical experiences preparing students for employment positions as a

Registered Nurse (RN) in hospitals or comparable facilities.” It also claims that the program is 

accelerated, offered at convenient schedules for working people, and includes tutoring 

assistance.

3. Plaintiffs allege that to avoid having its nursing program shut down due to poor 

student outcomes, Defendants imposed program-wide policies to block students from graduating 

and sitting for the nursing licensure examination, both requirements to become a registered nurse 

in Florida. 

4. Since 2013, Defendants have raked in millions of dollars in federal and private 

student loans, and through an institutional student loan program, by convincing aspiring nurses 

to pay $50,000 each for the sub-par RN Program—a program from which barely half of all

students who graduate, and far less than half of the students who enroll, ever go on to become 

licensed registered nurses. 

5. The Florida Board of Nursing (“BON”) placed the RN Program on probation in 

2016 and 2018 due to its graduates’ low passage rates on the National Council Licensure 

Examination for Registered Nursing (“NCLEX-RN”).

1 The terms ASN (Associate of Science in Nursing) and ADN (Associate Degree in Nursing) are 

often used interchangeably, including by Defendant. Both degree names are encompassed by the 

“RN Nursing Program” designation used herein. This designation does not encompass HCI’s fouryear nursing program, which culminates in a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (“BSN”) degree. Unless 

otherwise stated, this designation only applies to the program offered at HCI’s West Palm Beach 

campus.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 2 of 67
3

6. When it became clear that the RN Program was at risk of termination by the BON 

in 2018 for failure to achieve programmatic accreditation, Defendants designed and 

implemented a two-pronged scheme to continue enrolling students and taking their money, 

without actually improving the program or meeting BON requirements.

7. First, Defendants sought and received BON approval to offer a “new” nursing

program at HCI’s West Palm Beach campus. But there was nothing “new” about this program. 

It had the same instructors, curriculum, and facilities that led to it being put on probation in the 

first place. Both programs were run by the same Nursing Director. And both programs had nearly 

identical education plans and operated based on the exact same course catalog.

8. By hiding behind this “new” program, Defendants bought themselves five more 

years to come into compliance with BON requirements for accreditation and appeared to wipe 

the slate clean on the dismal pass rates graduates of the “old” program achieved. It also did not 

disclose the “old” program’s probationary status to prospective students.

9. The BON terminated the “old” RN Program on August 7, 2019, for failure to 

obtain programmatic accreditation.

10. On information and belief, Defendants began enrolling students in the “new” 

program by September 1, 2019. As required by Florida law, Defendants included in each 

student’s enrollment agreement a mandated disclosure about NCLEX-RN passage rates. Rather 

than stating the truth—that in 2018, fewer than 50 percent of the RN Program’s recent graduates 

passed the licensing exam, as compared to 76 percent of Florida takers and 86 percent of 

nationwide takers—each disclosure claimed that there simply were no graduate exam results to 

report for the “new” program.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 3 of 67
4

11. Defendants never disclosed to any nursing students enrolling after September 1, 

2019, that the RN Program had failed to achieve the programmatic accreditation required by 

Florida law.

12. Plaintiffs and hundreds of other working adults enrolled on the basis of these 

deceptive disclosures.

13. Second, while HCI’s website and advertising material focus on prospective 

students’ ability to sit for the NCLEX-RN exam upon completing the RN Program, Defendants

placed uniform, yet arbitrary and unannounced, obstacles in front of students that effectively 

blocked them from graduating from the “new” program, and therefore blocked them from sitting

for the licensure exam. 

14. Defendants systematically imposed unfair and arbitrary barriers on putative class 

members, as shown in excerpts from complaints filed online:

a. “Run far away from this school. 3⁄4 of the current graduating class is unable to 

graduate because of ONE test.” Julie L. (5/8/21).

2

b. “The most horrible experience of my academic life. I graduated 2 years ago and 

still unable receive my diploma . . . I’m conviced this school isn’t here [sic] to help 

anyone especially African Americans race or nursing students period!” Fablenne 

B. (4/18/21).

3

c. “The school advertises and markets to working class adults to attain an Associate's 

Degree in Nursing one day a week with one day of clinical. Educational standards 

were changed mid program which would cause otherwise passing ******** to fail 

and repeat entire semesters at their own expense. These standards were not in 

practice at the time of signing up for the program and is causing more than 90% of 

otherwise passing ******** to retake an entire semester at extra cost.” Name 

Withheld (8/20/21).4

2

https://nicelocal.com/florida/education/hci_college/

3

Id.

4

https://www.bbb.org/us/fl/west-palm-beach/profile/nursing-school/health-career-institute-0633-

92008557/complaints

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 4 of 67
5

15. By limiting the number of students who took the NCLEX-RN, and only graduating 

those students who had shown the highest likelihood of passing, Defendants were able to 

artificially inflate the RN Program’s passage rates.

16. Plaintiffs Rebecca Freeman and Brittany Roberson were told they would graduate 

in December 2021. Over 100 students were in their core nursing courses.

17. As of the date of this Complaint, 11 months after their cohort’s scheduled 

December 2021 graduation date, the BON’s records reveal that only nine December 2021 

graduates of the RN Program have sat for the NCLEX-RN.

18. The RN Program’s NCLEX-RN passage rates have miraculously increased to 

levels rarely achieved by even elite college programs, let alone a program with graduates failing 

at rates near 50 percent months earlier. 

19. Because the “new” program has not yet achieved programmatic accreditation,

credits from HCI do not transfer to other nursing schools. As a result, students who are barred from 

graduating from the RN Program must begin from scratch at a new school if they want to continue 

pursuing their dreams of being nurses. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 2022

NCLEX-RN Passage Rate for HCI RN Program Graduates 

(First-Time Test Takers) by Quarter

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 5 of 67
6

20. In addition to preventing students from graduating, Defendants committed unlawful 

acts towards nursing students, including:

a. Unjustly enriching themselves by charging students over $4,000 for a final

“Capstone” course, which was almost entirely administered by a third party and 

which students could have purchased independently for the mere price of about 

$525;

b. Steering students into retail installment contracts, whereby students borrowed 

money from Defendants and made monthly payments while in school. Neither HCI,

nor the loan servicer, Tuition Options, holds the license Florida law requires to offer 

retail installment contracts. § 520.32(1), Fla. Stat. And such installment contracts 

lack the protections of federal student loans, such as forbearance, income-driven 

repayment, and public service loan forgiveness.

c. Promising, but not providing, students with the clinical experience required by the 

Florida statute and BON regulations.

d. Employing a faculty that is largely adjunct, with little teaching experience, and 

lacking the level of credentials required by Florida statute and BON regulations.

e. Targeting for enrollment women of color by marketing towards first-generation 

college students and single mothers, as evidenced by the fact that 42 percent of 

HCI’s RN Program is Black,5 while census data for the surrounding Palm Beach 

County shows the area is only 17 percent Black. 

f. Withholding from prospective students the fact that HCI’s credits are generally not 

transferable; and

5 Data obtained from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 6 of 67
7

g. Representing the RN Program as being a three- to five- semester commitment but 

then taking actions that extend this to a five to seven semester burden that results 

in no degree and no opportunity to even take the licensure exam. 

21. Through this action, on behalf of themselves and all others who enrolled in the

“new” RN Program, Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants accountable for: (i) violations of the Florida 

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.; (ii) breach of contract; (iii) 

unjust enrichment; and, because Defendants intentionally targeted Black students with their subpar 

product and predatory lending policies, (iv) violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act

(“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.,, and (v) violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal ECOA and Title 

VI claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as those state law claims are so related to the federal claims 

within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

23. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court because they are 

authorized to transact and do transact business in Florida and because they maintain registered 

agents for service of process in Florida. Furthermore, Defendants regularly do business and solicit 

business in Florida, engage in persistent course of conduct in Florida, and derive substantial

revenue from their businesses within Florida.

24. This Court also has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) and 

(d). The Proposed Class consists of at least 400 individuals, and the aggregate of Proposed Class 

Members’ damages is approximately $12,000,000 (the number of Proposed Class Members times 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 7 of 67
8

the average tuition for three semesters). Finally, the Parties are diverse: the Named Plaintiffs and 

Proposed Class Members are citizens of Florida and Ohio, and Defendants are limited liability 

companies whose members are citizens of Connecticut and Delaware. 

25. Venue in this district in proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. 

PARTIES

26. Plaintiff Brittany Roberson is a resident of Amelia, Ohio. She was enrolled in HCI’s 

“new” RN Program from July 2020 to December 2021.

27. Plaintiff Rebecca Freeman is a resident of Port St. Lucie, Florida. She was enrolled 

in HCI’s “new” RN Program from January 2021 to December 2021. 

28. Plaintiff Bianca Viñas is a resident of West Palm Beach, Florida. She was enrolled 

in HCI’s “new” RN Program from January of 2021 to December of 2021. 

29. Plaintiff Tiffany King is a resident of Lake Worth, Florida. She was enrolled in 

HCI’s “new” RN Program from February of 2020 to December 2021. 

30. Defendant Health Career Institute LLC (“HCI”) is a registered limited liability 

company organized under the laws of Delaware. It is registered to transact business in Florida as 

HCI College LLC and, alternatively, HCI Acquisition LLC. HCI runs “HCI College,” a for-profit 

college in South Florida. The school has two campuses. The main campus and corporate office are 

located at 1764 N. Congress Ave. Ste. 203 in West Palm Beach, Florida. Its second campus, located 

at 1202 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Suite 101 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, operated as a “branch” campus 

until October 2017 when it received approval from the BON to operate as an independent program. 

In its Annual Reports to the BON, HCI has reported its owner to be “Steve Hart” or “HCI 

Acquisition LLC.”

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 8 of 67
9

31. Defendant Florian Education Investors LLC (“Florian”) is a Delaware corporation 

with its principal place of business in Darien, Connecticut. Florian is a managing member of 

Defendant Health Career Institute LLC. Florian’s CEO is listed in its SEC filings as Steven W. 

Hart, a resident of the state of Connecticut. 

32. Florida law requires that each institution’s catalog contain a “statement of legal 

control which includes the names of the trustees, directors, and officers of the corporation.” Fla. 

Admin. Code R. 6E-2.004(11)(b). 

33. Under “statement of legal control,” HCI’s college catalogs identify HCI College as

“a subsidy [sic] of Florian Education Investors LLC” and identify Steve Hart as “chairman.”

6

BACKGROUND

Rules Governing Nursing Programs and the Nursing Profession in Florida

34. There are two main categories of nursing professionals with a bachelor’s degree or 

less: RNs, or professional nurses, and licensed practical nurses (“LPNs”). In general, an RN has a 

broader scope of practice, can provide a higher level and more direct form of patient care, and is 

therefore better compensated than an LPN, who works in supportive roles and provides more basic 

levels of nursing care. 

35. To become an RN in Florida, an individual who is not already a licensed nurse in 

another state must, among other things, receive a passing score on the NCLEX-RN.7

6 The 2017, 2018, and 2019 college catalogs listed Steve Hart and Larry Brown as “Co-CEOs”;

the 2020 and 2021 college catalogs listed Steve Hart and Larry Brown as “Chairmen (Co-Chairs)”;

and the 2022 college catalog lists Steve Hart as “Chairman.” Upon information and belief, Larry 

Brown retired from HCI College in May 2022.

7 There are two versions of the NCLEX: the NCLEX-RN is the licensure exam for prospective 

RNs and the NCLEX-PN is the licensure exam for prospective LPNs.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 9 of 67
10

36. To sit for the NCLEX-RN in Florida, candidates are required to graduate from a 

nursing education program that has been issued a program code (“NCLEX code”) and that is either 

approved, accredited, recognized by the jurisdiction in which it is based. 

37. After graduating from one of the above nursing programs, a candidate may apply 

for the licensure examination, abiding by the requirements listed in Florida Statutes § 464.008. 

38. Part of the application process requires the candidate’s school to transmit their 

official transcript to the BON. The candidate’s transcript must reflect graduation from the nursing 

program. § 464.008(1)(c), Fla. Stat.

39. Institutions that offer nursing programs in Florida must seek and maintain BON

approval to operate and enroll students. All BON-approved nursing programs in Florida are issued 

a NCLEX code.

40. In 2009, in response to a shortage of qualified nurses to serve the state’s population, 

the Florida legislature enacted several statutory changes, through the Nurse Practice Act, with the 

intent to increase the number of approved nursing education programs. §§ 464.001-464.027, Fla. 

Stat. (2009).

41. The 2009 amendments to the Nurse Practice Act streamlined the process for

approving new nursing education programs, removing rulemaking authority from the BON and 

specifying the nursing education program approval process in statute.

42. Among the new statutory provisions were, inter alia:

a. a requirement that the program’s nursing curriculum consists of at least 50 percent 

clinic training and “[n]o more than 50 percent of the program’s clinical training 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 10 of 67
11

consists of clinical simulation,”

8

§§ 464.019(1)(b)(1), (2)(c), Fla. Stat.;

b. a requirement that “the program director and at least 50 percent of the program’s 

faculty members are registered nurses who have a master’s or higher degree in 

nursing or a bachelor’s degree in nursing and a master’s or higher degree in a field 

related to nursing,”

9

§ 464.019(1)(a)(1), Fla. Stat.; and

c. a requirement that a nursing program must achieve a graduate NCLEX passage rate 

that is not more than 10 percentage points lower than the average passage rate, 

during the same calendar year, for U.S.-educated graduates of comparable degree 

programs taking the NCLEX nationally for the first time (the “NCLEX 

requirement”), § 464.019(5)(a)1, Fla. Stat.

43. The 2009 amendments also specified when an approved program could face 

probation or termination. If a nursing program’s graduate NCLEX passage rate does not meet the 

required passage rates for two consecutive calendar years, the BON places the program on 

probationary status. The program must remain on probationary status until it achieves a graduate 

passage rate that equals or exceeds the required passage rate for any one calendar year. If it fails 

to achieve the required passage rate for any one calendar year, the BON may extend the 

program’s probationary status for an additional year. If the program is not granted the one-year 

extension or fails to achieve the required passage rate by the end of such extension, the BON 

must terminate the program. § 464.019(5)(a)(2), Fla. Stat.

8 Under prior regulations, the BON mandated that no more than 25 percent of clinical time could 

consist of simulations. See Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government 

Accountability, Report No. 07-04, “Florida Nurse Practice Act and Board of Nursing Rules Create 

No Unreasonable Barriers to Producing New Nurses,” 5, Jan. 2007, available at

https://oppaga.fl.gov/Documents/Reports/07-04.pdf.

9 Under prior regulations, the BON mandated that 60 percent or more of cursing faculty must 

hold a bachelor’s degree in nursing plus a master’s or doctoral degree in nursing. See id. at 2.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 11 of 67
12

44. As a result of the 2009 amendments, a total of 357 of 384 new nursing program 

applications were approved by the Florida BON between 2009 and January 2018, an approval rate 

of 93 percent.

45. Among the new nursing programs were exploitive and expensive for-profit 

institutions, including HCI (then named Health Career Institute).

46. In 2014, the Florida legislature further amended the Nurse Practice Act to require

nursing education programs to be accredited by one of three specialized nursing accrediting

agencies recognized by the United States Secretary of Education: Accreditation Commission for 

Education in Nursing (“ACEN”), Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (“CCNE”), or 

National League for Nursing Commission for Nursing Education Accreditation (“NLN CNEA”).

§ 464.003, Fla. Stat.

47. Nursing programs that were approved and that enrolled students before July 1, 

2014, were required to have become an “accredited program” by July 1, 2019. § 464.019(11)(a), 

Fla. Stat.

48. Nursing programs that enrolled students after July 1, 2014, are required to become 

an “accredited program” within five years after the date of first enrolling students.

§§ 464.019(11)(b)-(c), Fla. Stat.

49. Florida Statutes § 464.019(11)(e) specifies: “A nursing education program that 

fails to meet the accreditation requirements shall be terminated and is ineligible for reapproval 

under its original name or a new program name for a minimum of 3 years after the date of 

termination. An institutional name change or the creation of a new educational institution with the 

same ownership does not reduce the waiting period for reapplication.”

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 12 of 67
13

50. Florida law also requires the BON to “deny a program application for a new 

prelicensure nursing education program submitted by an educational institution if the institution 

has an existing program that is already on probationary status.” § 464.019(5)(a)(2), Fla. Stat.

51. Additionally, any nursing program placed on probation must disclose its 

probationary status in writing to the program’s students and applicants, along with an explanation 

of the implications of the probationary status on the students or applicants. § 464.019(5)(3)(c), Fla. 

Stat. 

52. Until it achieves programmatic accreditation, a Florida nursing program must 

annually submit to the BON a report disclosing information for the previous academic year, 

including information about applicants, enrollees, number of graduates, student retention rates, 

and accreditation. § 464.019(3), Fla. Stat.

53. The annual report must also contain an affidavit certifying continued compliance 

with state law, including: 

a. the requirement that at least 50 percent of the program’s nursing curriculum 

consists of at least 50 percent clinic training, § 464.019(1)(b)(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. 

Admin. Code R. 64B9-2.021(4)(b)(2);

b. the requirement that no more than 50 percent of each clinical training category 

(acute care, long-term care, and community-based care) may be simulated, 

§ 461.019(2)(b), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B9-2.022(5)(b) (defining

clinical simulation as “activities or events replicating clinical practice using 

scenarios, high-fidelity manikins, medium-fidelity manikins, standardized patients, 

role playing, skills stations, and computer-based critical thinking situations”);

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 13 of 67
14

c. and the requirement that the program director and at least 50 percent of the 

program’s faculty members are registered nurses who have a master’s or higher 

degree in nursing or a bachelor’s degree in nursing and a master’s or higher degree 

in a field related to nursing, § 464.019(1)(a)(1), Fla. Stat.

54. The Florida Commission for Independent Education (“CIE”), an administrative 

body within the state’s Department of Education, is responsible for licensing independent schools, 

colleges, and universities in the State of Florida. § 1005.31(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

55. HCI is licensed by the CIE.

56. Florida law and implementing rules governing fair consumer practices require that 

every institution under the jurisdiction of the CIE, or that directly or indirectly solicits students for 

enrollment, must:

a. At least one week prior to enrollment or collection of any tuition from the 

prospective student, disclose in writing its status regarding licensure and a 

statement regarding transferability of credits to and from other institutions;

b. “Provide to prospective and enrolled students accurate information regarding the 

relationship of its programs to state licensure requirements for practicing related 

occupations and professions in Florida”;

c. “Publish and follow procedures for handling student complaints, disciplinary 

actions, and appeals”;

d. “Ensure that all advertisements are accurate and not misleading”; and,

e. For nursing programs, provide written disclosures to students, prior to enrollment, 

that must be signed and dated by the prospective student and maintained in the 

student’s file, disclosing the NCLEX passage rates for first-time test takers and any 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 14 of 67
15

probationary status of the program for the most recent calendar year. 

§ 1005.04, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 6E-1.0032(11).

57. The BON provides a template, Form 609a, for the disclosures required for 

professional nursing programs.

Federal Requirements

58. Institutions must comply with a number of federal requirements in order for their 

students to receive federal student aid, including need-based grants and student loans, under Title 

IV of the Higher Education Act (“Title IV”) and its implementing regulations.

59. Such “Institutions of Higher Education” must be “legally authorized within such 

State to provide a program of education beyond secondary education.” 20 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). As 

defined by the U.S. Department of Education, they must be “legally authorized to provide an 

educational program beyond secondary education in the State in which the institution is physically 

located.” 34 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)(3).

60. There are two basic requirements for an institution to be considered “legally 

authorized” by a state for the purposes of Title IV funding eligibility: the state must explicitly 

authorize the institution for this purpose and the state must have a process to review and act on 

complaints concerning the institution. 34 C.F.R. § 600.9(a).

61. Institutions receiving Title IV funding generally must also be accredited by a 

nationally recognized accrediting agency; programmatic accreditation is not required. 20 U.S.C. 

§ 1001(a)(5); 34 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)(5). This includes proprietary (i.e. for-profit) institutions, like 

HCI, which must hold accreditation through at least a regional accrediting agency. 20 U.S.C. 

§ 1002(b)(1)(D).

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 15 of 67
16

62. Once an institution, proprietary or otherwise, has demonstrated that it satisfies all 

Title IV eligibility requirements, it is required to enter into a program participation agreement 

(“PPA”) with the Department of Education that defines the terms and conditions that must be met 

and upheld to maintain Title IV eligibility. 20 U.S.C. § 1094(a); 34 C.F.R. § 668.14.

63. Federal law also states that schools are responsible for the truthfulness of the 

information that students and their families might rely on in deciding whether or not to attend. The 

Secretary of Education is permitted to revoke Title IV eligibility from any institution deemed to 

have engaged in substantial misrepresentation. 34 C.F.R. §§ 668.71-668.74.

64. For-profit institutions, like HCI, are subject to additional statutory and regulatory 

requirements.

65. For-profit institutions are required to “prepare students for gainful employment in 

a recognized occupation.” 20 U.S.C. §§ 1001(b)(1), 1002(b)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1)(A). The principal 

measure of whether programs lead to gainful employment is the ratio of debt to income that a 

program’s typical student has upon graduation.

66. For-profit institutions must also adhere to the Department of Education’s 90/10 

rule, which caps the percentage of revenue that a school can receive from federal financial aid 

sources at 90 percent. 20 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(24); 34 C.F.R § 668.14(b)(16).

Evolution of HCI’s RN Program

67. HCI, as Health Career Institute, LLC, was founded as a nonprofit provider of 

emergency medical services training in 2002.

68. Health Career Institute was reincorporated as a for-profit corporation in 2012, and 

was purchased by Florian Education Investors LLC in 2013.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 16 of 67
17

69. In 2013, the BON first approved HCI to operate an RN program at its West Palm 

Beach campus. The BON issued this program NCLEX code 70755.

70. As seen below, in the years that followed, graduates of HCI’s initial RN Program

struggled to pass the NCLEX-RN.

71. The program’s graduates consistently, and dramatically, under performed first-time 

NCLEX-RN takers in Florida and the United States as a whole, as depicted in the following chart.10

72. While the national average for first-time test takers in 2014 was 81.78 percent, only 

26.32 percent of HCI’s graduates passed the exam that year. 

10 NCLEX passage rates obtained from the Florida Board of Nursing’s records found at: 

https://floridasnursing.gov/education-and-training-programs/ (last accessed Nov. 17, 2022) and 

the website for the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) at: 

https://www.ncsbn.org/nclex.page (last accessed Nov. 17, 2022).

19

84

55

80 71

136 149

45

5

48 38 47 39

57

84

14 18

36

17

33 32

79 65

27

0

50

100

150

200

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Results of HCI's First-Time NCLEX Test Takers

Sitting for NCLEX Passing NCLEX Failing NCLEX

30.00%

57.14%

69.09%

58.75% 54.93%

41.91%

56.38%

40.00%

0.00%

50.00%

100.00%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Comparison of Average NCLEX-RN Passage Rates 

for First-Time Test Takers

HCI Average Passage Rate

Florida Average Passage Rate

National Average Passage Rate

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 17 of 67
18

73. In 2015, the national average for first-time test takers was 84.53 percent. Only 57.14

percent of HCI’s graduates passed that year.

74. Based on these scores, in 2016, the first year it was subject to the NCLEX 

requirement—needing to attain a passage rate within 10 points of the national average—the BON 

placed HCI’s RN Program on probationary status.

75. In 2017, the BON found that the RN Program’s graduate passage rate “for firsttime test takers within six months of graduation” in 2016 was within 10 points of the national 

average, and removed the program from probationary status.

76. Because its graduates failed to achieve the NCLEX-RN passage rates required by 

Florida law in 2016 and 2017, the BON issued a Notice of Intent to place HCI’s RN Program on 

probationary status for the calendar year of 2018.

77. In March 2018, HCI challenged the BON’s Notice of Intent to place the RN 

Program on probation by filing an action with Florida’s Department of Administrative Hearings. 

HCI argued that the BON improperly calculated HCI’s passage rate using all test takers during the 

calendar year. HCI challenged this method of calculation, but nowhere established that it would 

otherwise have achieved the necessary passage rate under its preferred calculation methodology.

78. In May 2018, HCI applied to the BON for approval to operate a “new” RN Program

at its West Palm Beach campus. 

79. HCI’s May 2018 application did not explain, or even expressly acknowledge, the 

existence of its existing RN Program operating under NCLEX code 70755. However, the “Nursing 

Student Handbook” that was submitted as part of the application was the 2017-2018 handbook for 

students enrolled under NCLEX code 70755.

80. The details of the “new” program, as contained in HCI’s application to BON, were 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 18 of 67
19

substantively identical to those reported by HCI to the BON in its prior-year compliance report for 

the existing program. Those details include the name of the school and program, the identity of the 

nursing director, and the campus address and phone number. HCI also indicated that the “new” 

program was accredited under the same code (MO72133) issued by the Accrediting Commission 

of Career Schools & Colleges to the existing program.

81. By letter dated October 1, 2018, the BON approved HCI’s application for a new 

RN Program and issued it NCLEX code 704146.

82. Shortly thereafter, in February 2019, HCI voluntarily withdrew its action against 

the BON pending in the Florida Department of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law 

Judge released jurisdiction of HCI’s claims to the BON on or around February 26, 2019.

83. In March of 2019, the BON issued a Notice of Intent to place HCI’s “old” RN 

Program (NCLEX code 70755) on probationary status (again) due to its failure to achieve 

satisfactory NCLEX-RN passage rates in 2017 and 2018. 

84. This probationary status was imposed for the 2019 and 2020 calendar years.

85. In the spring of 2019, HCI received approval from the BON and the Florida 

Department of Education to change its name from “Health Career Institute” to “HCI College.” 

This name change applied to all of HCI’s NCLEX codes.

86. HCI is generally accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and 

Colleges (“ACCSC”), a national accreditor with no nursing specialization. Although HCI reported 

that it was seeking ACEN accreditation in its annual reports to the BON beginning in 2017, it 

never received accreditation from ACEN or any other programmatic accreditor.

87. Because it failed to obtain programmatic accreditation by July 1, 2019, as required 

by Florida law, the BON terminated HCI’s “old” RN Program on August 17, 2019. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 19 of 67
20

88. Students who had enrolled in the RN Program before September 2019 continued in 

the “old” RN Program through 2020 in what is referred to as a “teach-out,” whereby an institution

agrees to wind down an education program while fulfilling its contractual and educational 

obligations to the students still enrolled.11

89. However, Defendants continued to offer a substantively identical RN program at 

the West Palm Beach campus—the “new” RN Program operating under NCLEX code 704146. 

90. From the time HCI began enrolling students in its “new” RN Nursing Program 

through at least March 2021, HCI’s college catalogs stated that the RN Program was licensed by 

the Florida Department of Health and BON under the old NCLEX code, 70755.

Programs and Practices of HCI’s RN Program 

Advertising and Target Marketing

91. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants advertised the RN Program as 

a professional nursing program that prepares students for employment as RNs, as opposed to a 

practical nursing program that prepares students for employment as LPNs. 

92. HCI’s website advertising the RN Program as a “72-credit hour nursing course that 

may be completed in as little as 2 years . . . [and] is designed to provide educational and clinical 

experiences preparing students for employment positions as a Registered Nurse.” 

93. HCI advertises the RN Program as accessible to working people and promises 

immediate entry and no wait list to begin.

94. Much of the marketing for HCI’s RN Program is intentionally targeted toward 

working people of color, and especially Black women.

11 BON records show that from the date of termination through the third quarter of 2021, 

approximately 216 HCI graduates took the NCLEX-RN for the first time under the “old” 

NCLEX code, 70755.Only 50.1 percent of those test-takers passed the exam.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 20 of 67
21

 

 

95. For example, many Facebook advertisements—like the ones above—feature 

almost exclusively Black and Hispanic women as models and highlight the program’s “flexible 

schedule.”12

12 Ads not currently posted on HCI’s Facebook page, facebook.com/HCICollege/, can be found in 

the Facebook advertising archive at https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/, by searching for “HCI 

College.”

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 21 of 67
22

96. Effectively, there are no entry criteria for HCI’s RN Program. Defendants allow 

prospective students to take the entrance exam as many times as necessary until they achieve a 

satisfactory result, and Defendants do not require any prerequisites beyond those in the general 

education portion of the RN Program curriculum.

97. HCI advertises its RN Program as having a length of five semesters—less than two 

years—including general education, non-nursing specific courses.

98. HCI advertises its RN Program as having a cost of roughly $10,000 per semester.

99. Thus, a reasonable person would conclude that the RN program would cost no more 

than $50,000.

Enrollment Paperwork

100. On information and belief, HCI began enrolling students in the “new” RN Program

by September 1, 2019, with 198 students enrolled by June 2020.

101. As part of the enrollment process, each Plaintiff and Class Member entered into a 

contractual relationship with Defendants in the form of a standardized enrollment agreement, 

signed by the prospective student indicating his or her intent to begin the RN Program. 

102. While HCI’s enrollment agreement has undergone minor changes over time, the 

vast majority of its provisions remain consistent. 

103. Each Enrollment Agreement signed by Plaintiffs and Class Members contains the 

following provision, noting that the “Enrollment Agreement reflects the entire agreement between 

HCI College and the Student.”

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 22 of 67
23

104. The “Program Description” on page 1 of each enrollment agreement signed by 

Plaintiffs and Class Members contains the following provision:

105. The “VATI” referred to above is the Virtual-ATI, an online 12-week NCLEX prep 

course.

106. In each enrollment agreement signed by Plaintiffs and Class Members, HCI 

reserved the right to terminate a student’s enrollment agreement and to make changes to the rules 

and policies outlined in the HCI College Catalogue as seen in the following provision:

107. Notably, HCI did not reserve the right to modify the terms of students’ enrollment 

agreements.

108. Each enrollment agreement signed by Plaintiffs and Class Members stated that, “the 

program is designed to provide educational and clinical experiences leading to employment in 

beginning positions as registered nurses in hospitals or comparable facilities.”

109. Each enrollment agreement signed by Plaintiffs and Class Members contained a 

section titled “Graduation Requirements,” with two graduation requirements, the first of which 

stated:

I understand that in order to graduate from the program and to receive a 

certificate of completion, diploma or degree I must successfully complete the 

required number of scheduled credit/clock hours as specified in the Catalog 

and on the Enrollment agreement.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 23 of 67
24

110. All of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ their enrollment agreements contained 

“graduation requirements,” of which only one was an examination requirement: students would 

have to pass the ATI (Assessment Technologies Institute) Comprehensive Predictor exam with a 

stated minimum score, with one retake permitted.

111. Each college catalog applicable to Plaintiffs and Class Members stated the 

following:

A grade of (80%) or higher is required for all Nursing Core and (70%) or higher for 

General Education Courses. A 95% predictability score on the ATI Comprehensive 

predictor is required to pass course: NUR2943L. It is a 180-item test (three hours 

long) that offers assessment of the student’s comprehension and mastery of nursing 

content and integration of NCLEX Client Need categories similar to the percentage 

of items on the NCLEX-RN. Any student who receives anomaly warnings from 

ATI based on the ATI Predictor must retake an ATI Predictor on campus and 

achieve a minimum of 95%. Any student who receives anomaly warnings from 

ATI during enrollment in Virtual ATI (VATI) may be required to repeat 

additional remediation and exams online or on campus. as recommended by 

the Coach or Director of Nursing prior to release of the students name to the 

Florida Board of Nursing. If student is deemed to be 100% complete by their ATI 

Coach, but the Coach is unable to award Greenlight based on anomaly warnings, 

the student will be required to repeat, retest, or remediate as determined by the 

Director of Nursing and or the ATI Coach.”

112. Under Florida law, a student handbook or college catalog creates contractual 

obligations on the part of the school.

113. Page 45 of the 2020 college catalog states: “Students will normally follow the 

requirements in effect at the time of their admission. However, students and the Institution are 

bound by the agreement signed at the time of the student’s enrollment unless the student signs a 

new agreement.” 

114. Plaintiffs and Class Members signed one enrollment agreement.

Financial Aid

115. Individuals enrolled in HCI’s RN Program may be able to pay for a portion of the 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 24 of 67
25

program using federal student loans and grants.

116. Defendants encouraged students to supplement federal aid with institutional loans, 

which are made through retail installment contracts and require students to make monthly 

payments made while attending school.

117. HCI’s retail installment contracts are preassigned to be serviced by Tuition Options, 

a third-party processor.

118. Under Florida law, it is a misdemeanor of the first degree to engage in or transact 

the business of a retail seller engaging in retail installment transactions without a business license. 

§ 520.32(1), Fla. Stat.

119. Neither HCI nor Tuition Options is licensed to offer retail installment contracts in 

the state of Florida.

120. On information and belief, since at least 2017, Defendants have been in a 

contractual business relationship with Tuition Options for the servicing of retail installment 

contracts entered into by HCI students.

121. Tuition Options has lent money to Defendants, as “Florian Education Investors 

LLC DBA Health Career Institute LLC,” and in 2017 recorded a security interest in, inter alia, 

“[a]ny contract, promissory note, instrument, document, and/or other agreement evidencing, or 

securing or guaranteeing repayment of, any loan made by [Defendants] to any student or former 

student of [HCI] which is funded and/or serviced by [Tuition Options].” State of Florida UCC 

Financing Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

122. On information and belief, nearly every student who enrolls in the RN Program

enters into a retail installment contract with HCI, serviced by Tuition Options. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 25 of 67
26

123. On information and belief, HCI steers students into retail installment contracts even 

when other, more favorable financing options exist.

124. On information and belief, nearly all of the students who enrolled in the RN 

Program between September 2019 and the present entered into a retail installment contract with 

HCI, serviced by Tuition Options. 

125. The retail installment contracts require immediate payment while students are in 

school, do not offer income-sensitive repayment options, and have a risky acceleration clause that 

makes the entire balance due upon a single missed payment.

126. Evidencing the prevalence and predatory nature of the institutional loans is the 

following excerpt from HCI’s official student newsletter, “HCI Times,” which notes that students 

behind on their Tuition Options payments will not even be permitted to enter campus.

13

127. Additionally, HCI’s policy is to not release students’ education transcripts, official 

or otherwise, to students or the BON, for students with outstanding tuition balances.

13 HCI Times Student Newsletter, September 2019, located at https://www.hci.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2019/08/HCI_TIMES_SEPTEMBER.pdf (last accessed Nov. 21, 2022).

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 26 of 67
27

128. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has found that restricting students’ 

access to classes when they are late on their loan payments and withholding academic transcripts 

from students that owe the school a debt are “abusive” practices under the Consumer Financial 

Protection Act.

14

Concealment, Omission, and Misrepresentation of Program Attributes

129. On information and belief, every new student who enrolled in HCI’s “new” West 

Palm Beach RN Program after September 2019, until at least the end of January 2021, received a 

Form 609(a) disclosure.

130. Plaintiffs enrolled between February of 2020 and January of 2021. They each were

entitled to be provided with disclosures as required by the CIE and BON. 

131. On January 22, 2019, Pearson Vue published a report indicating that 39 of 71, or 

54.93 percent, of HCI West Palm Beach RN nursing program graduates taking the NCLEX-RN 

for the first time in 2018, passed. 

132. On January 21, 2020, Pearson Vue published a report indicating that 57 of 138, or 

41.30 percent, of HCI West Palm Beach RN nursing program graduates taking the NCLEX-RN 

for the first time in 2019, passed.

133. On January 20, 2021, Pearson Vue published a report indicating that 97 of 168, or 

57.74 percent, of HCI West Palm Beach RN nursing program graduates taking the NCLEX-RN 

for the first time in 2020, passed.

134. On January 20, 2022, Pearson Vue published a report indicating that 56 of 111, or 

14 Press Release, CFPB, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to Examine Colleges’ In-House 

Lending Practices (Jan. 20, 2022), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/aboutus/newsroom/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-to-examine-colleges-in-house-lendingpractices/.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 27 of 67
28

50.45 percent, of HCI West Palm Beach RN nursing program graduates taking the NCLEX-RN 

for the first time in 2021, passed.

135. On information and belief, every student who was recruited on or after September 

1, 2019, until at least the end of 2020 received a Form 609a disclosure that claimed zero graduates 

of the RN Program had taken the NCLEX-RN exam.

136. Upon information and belief, the CIE Form 609a disclosures HCI provided to new 

students enrolling after September 1, 2019, did not disclose the number of HCI West Palm Beach 

RN nursing program graduates who took or passed the NCLEX-RN in the previous academic year.

137. For example, the CIE Form 609a disclosures provided to students enrolling in 

HCI’s “new” RN Nursing Program as of May 27, 2020, stated the following:

138. Even when HCI’s CIE Form 609a disclosures purported to reflect testing 

information from the previous academic year, HCI failed to include in the disclosed number of 

first-time test takers who tested under the “old” HCI RN Nursing Program NCLEX code (70755).

139. This was misleading because the “new” program was substantively identical to the 

terminated program. The only difference in the programs was the NCLEX code.

140. Defendants did not disclose that the previous, substantively identical RN program 

had a 55 percent NCLEX passage rate in 2018—30 points lower than the national average.

141. Defendants did not disclose that the previous, substantively identical RN program 

was on probation in 2018 and would have still been on probation in 2020 had it not been 

terminated.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 28 of 67
29

142. Defendants did not disclose that the substantively identical program had been 

terminated for lack of programmatic accreditation in August 2019 and was barred from seeking 

reapproval and enrolling any students for a period of at least three years, until August 2022. 

143. Additionally, Defendants implicitly and explicitly represented to Plaintiffs and 

members of the Proposed Class that HCI’s RN Program fully complied with Florida’s faculty and 

curricular requirements.

144. In fact, HCI’s RN Program suffered from extremely high turnover. Instructors 

frequently quit and the program went through at least eleven Directors of Nursing (“DONs”) from 

2015 to 2021.

145. Many instructors were part-time or adjunct personnel who were not supported by 

the school and were retaliated against for raising concerns about student welfare and academic 

performance and standards. 

146. Upon information and belief, far fewer than 50 percent of the program’s faculty 

members were registered nurses who have a master’s or higher degree in nursing or a bachelor’s 

degree in nursing and a master’s or higher degree in a field related to nursing.

147. Additionally, Defendants do not, in reality, provide meaningful clinical instruction.

Students in the RN Program did not spend at least 50 percent of their class time in clinical training, 

and significantly more than 50 percent of the clinical training they did have was—at best—clinical 

simulation, in violation of Florida Statute § 464.019(1).

148. HCI’s clinical relationships are extremely limited because of the school’s poor 

reputation and standards. 

149. HCI’s clinical relationship with a Cleveland Clinic medical center in Weston, 

Florida, was terminated by Cleveland Clinic in the summer of 2021.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 29 of 67
30

150. Cleveland Clinic terminated the relationship because of HCI’s lack of 

programmatic accreditation. 

151. Once this clinical site was no longer available, students were directed to study hall 

settings to complete their required clinical hours. 

152. Clinical instructors routinely cancelled these sessions so that they did not have to 

drive to campus and sent students instructions to complete their clinical timesheets from home.

153. As a result, students received very little hands-on instruction; one of the only 

opportunities they had to practice real nursing skills was afforded when an instructor offered her 

own arm to students to practice drawing blood.

154. Regarding its lack of programmatic accreditation, HCI officials routinely lied to its 

student body about this material detail. 

155. In an email to the nursing student body, dated August 20, 2021, the campus 

president, Mr. D. Shelpman, addressed “some rumors going around regarding HCI’s Nursing 

Program...HCI College’s nursing program is approved by the Florida Board of Nursing...Upon 

graduation, the student is awarded an Associate Degree in Nursing (ADN) and is eligible to take 

the National Council Licensure Exam (NCLEX-RN) to become a registered nurse (RN) and

subsequently seek employment in the field. Further HCI College is licensed by the Commission 

of Independent Education (CIE) - Florida Department of Education (FLDOE), and it is 

institutionally accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges 

(ACCSC).” 

156. Nowhere in this email was there a disclosure about the RN Program’s probationary 

history or a truthful explanation of its accreditation status.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 30 of 67
31

157. Further, the RN Program has still not achieved programmatic accreditation, and its 

period of eligibility to seek ACEN accreditation expired on September 23, 2022. 

158. Despite this fact, HCI’s website stated that it was eligible to seek ACEN 

accreditation until at least October 19, 2022, when it was contacted by the accreditor and directed 

to remove the false information.

Defendants’ Imposition of Unfair and Arbitrary Requirements on Nursing Students

159. Beginning sometime before May of 2021, Defendants adopted a new grading policy 

as a way of weeding out students and forcing them to repeat semesters they had already taken. 

This increased the amount of money and time it took for the Proposed Class to complete their 

program, and also allowed Defendants to manipulate their NCLEX passage rates. 

160. Under the new policy, students were required to achieve both an 80 percent overall 

score and at least 50 percent in every subcategory of end-of-semester “predictor” exams in order 

to advance through the program. 

161. The new policy was not prompted by the requirements of HCI’s actual or potential 

accreditor, the BON, the CIE, or any other regulatory body.

162. The exams Defendants used generally have at least 14 different concept areas. 

Some of these concept areas are represented by only one or two questions on a single exam. 

Therefore, a student who achieved 95 percent on the overall exam could still fail and be required 

to retake the entire semester because of a single incorrect answer.

163. These predictor exams are usually a third-party test known as the ATI 

Comprehensive Predictor, as referenced in the Enrollment Agreement. The intended purpose of 

this test is to serve as a predictor of the student’s success on the NCLEX and a guide on what to 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 31 of 67
32

focus on before the NCLEX, not as high-stakes determination of a student’s ability, or as a bar to 

graduation.

164. Indeed, ATI’s website advises that “ATI tests are not designed for high stakes 

purposes such as a graduation requirement, and we do not recommend that they be used in this 

manner.”15

165. Students had to pass these predictor exams at the end of Nursing I, Nursing II, and 

Nursing III. In the final Capstone course, students had to pass at least one predictor to continue 

advancing through the semester before passing a final “exit exam.”

166. The pain this unfair rule brought to students was palpable in an email from a student 

to administrators, dated August 9, 2021: “Please reconsider this 50% rule, I was one of the students 

who got a level 3 but did not pass due to the 50% rule. It was one question in one category that 

threw my whole test. I do not believe that is fair for any of us who have worked so hard to get to 

this point to be failed or have to repeat because of the 50% rule.”

167. This new testing policy was inconsistent with Defendants’ enrollment agreements 

and college catalogs, which expressly state that all written and practical examinations, and each 

core nursing course, must be passed with a minimum score of 80 percent. 

168. Some students who failed to pass a course under the new high-stakes testing 

requirements were encouraged to repeat the semester. Others were expelled. Those who were 

expelled were told that they were being removed from the student body on the basis of “academic 

integrity.”

169. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ decision to expel certain students was 

15 ATI, “General Ordering Information,” https://www.atitesting.com/home/ordering-information

(last accessed Oct. 21, 2022).

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 32 of 67
33

based on the conclusion that, in certain cases, it was more cost-effective to cut a struggling 

student—after pillaging their Title IV funding and saddling them with institutional loans—and 

focus on enrolling replacements than it was to work to prepare that student to eventually pass the 

NCLEX.

170. Students who were able to advance to their final Capstone course despite the new 

testing requirements were met with additional, unexpected hurdles. 

171. Before 2021, the final semester of HCI’s RN Program was Nursing III/Capstone, a 

two-part semester designed to run concurrently. Nursing III consisted of coursework done inperson, including a “leadership” course, and ended with a predictor exam. The Capstone portion, 

which consisted of an online NCLEX prep course, was intended to be done at home.

172. At the end of 2020, Defendants first began pressuring students to split this final 

semester of Nursing III/Capstone into two separate semesters. Effective December 22, 2020, this 

change was made mandatory, and the full program went from five to six semesters.

173. The Capstone course consists almost exclusively of the Virtual-ATI (“VATI”), a 

12-week, online course published and administered by ATI.

174. The VATI course, designed and administered by ATI, is geared toward a 

comprehensive predictor exam also designed and administered by ATI.

175. The VATI is available for purchase on ATI’s website for $525. Defendants charge 

at least $4,300 for the Capstone course.

176. Defendants’ college catalogs and enrollment agreements include exit exam and 

graduation requirements. Between 2019 and 2022, none of these documents disclosed 

requirements such as the 50 percent rule, and all referenced the ATI comprehensive predictor.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 33 of 67
34

177. In the summer semester of 2021, despite the specifications in its enrollment 

agreements and college catalogs, Defendants abandoned the ATI Comprehensive Predictor as the 

final graduation requirement. Instead, regardless of a student’s score on the ATI predicator exam, 

Defendants would not allow a student to pass the Capstone course and graduate unless they took 

an exam designed by a different third party and achieved a benchmark set by Defendants. 

178. One such third-party test is the Health Education Systems, Inc. (“HESI”) exam. An 

institution, not HESI, sets the benchmark for passing the HESI. Rather than producing a percentage 

likelihood of a test taker passing the NCLEX-RN exam, the HESI establishes ranges of scores 

from 0 to 1000 and describes the likelihood of passing the NCLEX-RN for that range in qualitative 

terms (e.g., “outstanding probability,” “excellent probability,” “average probability”). 

179. Upon information and belief, Defendants inappropriately pre-selected the questions 

that would appear on the HESI predictor exam administered to Capstone students in the winter

semester of 2021.

180. Defendants also refused to tell students in Capstone which third-party exam they 

would administer. School officials simply told students to prepare for several different platforms

(including Saunders, HESI, ATI, and Kaplan), despite the major differences between these testing 

platforms.

181. In the fall of 2021, upon information and belief, only five students out of a class of 

over 100 passed the HESI exam and were permitted to graduate.

182. Students, like Plaintiffs Roberson, Freeman, and King, who achieved a passing

score on the ATI Comprehensive Predictor exam, the only exam-related graduation requirement 

for the RN Program listed in HCI’s enrollment agreements and college catalogs, were not allowed 

to graduate because they did not achieve the score HCI set as a passing score for the HESI exam.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 34 of 67
35

183. Students were not given an opportunity to retake the exam, in violation of their 

enrollment agreements and HCIs’ college catalog.

184. A student is only eligible to sit for the NCLEX-RN exam after HCI sends their 

name and certifies their graduation and eligibility to the BON.

185. HCI’s high-stakes testing rules were clearly designed to squeeze more money out 

of students who elected to retake the semester they supposedly failed and keep them from 

graduating and taking the NCLEX-RN. 

186. HCI unveiled these high-stakes testing requirements in surreptitious ways and 

never disclosed such unreasonably high bars to passing during the initial enrollment period. 

187. Defendants made arbitrary and capricious changes to the curriculum with these tests

and grading requirements that students were not aware of and did not agree to when they enrolled.

188. These changes were significant, disruptive, and served no educational or 

pedagogical purpose.

189. These changes were not prompted by the requirements of any regulatory bodies.

190. The major changes to curriculum and passing requirements were not communicated 

to students in a coherent or timely manner. 

191. Students’ attempts to communicate with HCI administrators were often futile, as 

complaints are frequently left unanswered by directors.

192. In violation of Florida law, there is no appeals process published and followed by 

HCI for students who cannot pass HCI’s unreasonable testing requirements. Appeals are uniformly 

rejected with boilerplate language and without meaningful explanation from HCI. 

193. When faced with legitimate complaints from cheated students, Defendants have

responded with paltry consolations, usually in the form of an offer to forward the student’s name 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 35 of 67
36

to the BON as a qualified candidate to sit for the NCLEX-PN, the licensure examination for 

licensed practical nurses.

194. An LPN credential is not comparable to that of an RN. An RN credential is a more 

sought-after professional designation that is harder and more expensive to achieve and results in 

higher pay and more responsibilities, including direct patient care. 

195. Students enrolled at HCI with the understanding that they were paying for and 

pursuing a career as an RN, not an LPN. 

196. Many students, such as Plaintiff Brittany Roberson, were working as LPNs even 

before their enrollment at HCI.

197. Out of the scores of people who enrolled at HCI’s RN Program in 2020/2021, only 

a tiny fraction passed Defendants’ enhanced testing requirements and were permitted to move on 

to take their NCLEX-RN. 

198. According to the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, only eight students 

who graduated from the RN Program in December 2021 took the NCLEX-RN in Q1 of 2022.

199. HCI is not so much a school as it is an expensive, capricious, and unyielding 

gatekeeper to the NCLEX-RN. HCI develops and implements unfair testing requirements designed 

to cut students in order to extract more money from them through retaken semesters and to 

maintain artificially high NCLEX scores that it can report to the BON.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING NAMED PLAINTIFFS

Brittany Roberson

200. Brittany Roberson is a Black 36-year-old single mother who lives in Cincinnati, 

Ohio.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 36 of 67
37

201. Before attending HCI, Ms. Roberson attended college and worked as an LPN for 

12 years.

202. Mrs. Roberson currently works in Cincinnati, Ohio, at a drug rehabilitation facility 

providing direct patient care. She also holds a remote position for Haven Health, a Florida-based 

drug rehabilitation program. 

203. Ms. Roberson’s admissions counselor was Lisa Sgherza.

204. On May 27, 2020, Ms. Roberson signed an enrollment agreement with HCI for 

enrollment in the RN Program with NCLEX code 704146. Roberson Enrollment Agreement, May 

27, 2020, attached hereto as Exhibit B.

205. Ms. Roberson never signed another enrollment agreement.

206. Mr. Roberson’s enrollment agreement contained the following “Graduation 

Requirements:”

I understand that in order to graduate from the program and to receive a certificate 

of completion, diploma or degree I must successfully complete the required number 

of scheduled credit/clock hours as specified in the Catalog and on the Enrollment 

Agreement, pass all written and practical examinations with a minimum score of 

80%, pass the ATI Predictor with a minimum score of 95% with only two attempts 

permitted (second attempt is at the sole cost of the student), complete all required 

clinical hours, achieve “Green Light” status with Virtual ATI (VATI), and satisfy 

all financial obligations to the College.

207. Ms. Roberson’s enrollment agreement also stated that, “Upon satisfactorily 

completion [sic] of the requirements for graduation and NCLEX preparation assessments 

(including VATI), the student is awarded an ASN Degree and must pass the National Council 

Licensure Exam (NCLEX-RN) to become a registered nurse.”

208. Ms. Roberson’s enrollment agreement stated that Ms. Roberson’s “Anticipated End 

Date” was 12/18/21.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 37 of 67
38

209. When she enrolled, Ms. Roberson was provided “CIE Form 609a,” which stated

that HCI’s RN Program had “0 students from this institution” take the NCLEX-RN for the first 

time in 2018. This form also explicitly stated that the school’s status with the Florida BON was 

“Not on probation.”

210. At her time of enrollment, no disclosure was made to Ms. Roberson about the 

NCLEX-RN exam passage rate for graduates of the RN Program that operated under NCLEX code 

70755, the fact that the “old” program was placed on probation for poor passage rates, or the fact 

that the “old” program had been terminated for failure to obtain programmatic accreditation. 

211. Defendants offered Ms. Roberson a retail installment contract agreement, which 

she signed on May 28, 2020. The retail installment contract specified Tuition Options as an 

assignee and servicer of the agreement.

212. Tuition Options was the only option presented to Ms. Roberson for financing her 

education expenses not covered by her federal student aid. 

213. Ms. Roberson started classes in HCI’s RN Program on July 6, 2020.

214. Ms. Roberson placed out of Nursing I using credits earned pursing her LPN, and 

successfully completed several general education courses. In the summer of 2021 she successfully 

passed Nursing II, despite the 50 percent rule.

215. Defendants provided Ms. Roberson with a different clinical setting experience than 

what they promised. Clinicals were on weekends for 12 hours of classroom time, which was 

essentially a mandatory study hall. Defendants never provided her with an official clinical 

placement at a care facility.

216. Ms. Roberson’s nursing program curriculum did not consist of at least 50 percent

of clinical training.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 38 of 67
39

217. More than 50 percent of Ms. Roberson’s clinical education featured simulated, not 

actual, clinical experience. 

218. In her final semester, Ms. Roberson took Nursing III and Capstone concurrently.

219. The content of the Capstone class that cost Ms. Roberson more than $4,000

consisted of little more than access to the VATI, an online prep course that Ms. Roberson could 

have independently purchased for approximately $500.

220. Ms. Roberson successfully completed the required number of scheduled 

credit/clock hours as specified in the course catalog and enrollment agreement. 

221. Ms. Roberson earned a grade of 80 percent or higher in all Nursing Core courses 

and 70 percent or higher in all General Education Courses.

222. Ms. Roberson passed all written and practicable examinations with a minimum 

score of 80 percent.

223. Ms. Roberson achieved the score required by her enrollment agreement on the ATI 

Predictor.

224. Ms. Roberson achieved “green light” status with VATI.

225. Despite having met the above graduation requirements, Ms. Roberson was not 

permitted to graduate.

226. On December 16, 2021, Defendants presented Ms. Roberson with an exit exam they 

claimed she had to pass to graduate.

227. This exam was unexpectedly the HESI exam.

228. Ms. Roberson was not told in advance that her exit exam would be the HESI exam.

229. Ms. Roberson was not familiar with the HESI format. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 39 of 67
40

230. Defendants did not tell Ms. Roberson, or her cohort, what score she needed to attain 

in order to pass the HESI.

231. Ms. Roberson received a score of 14.41, defined by HESI as “minimally 

acceptable.”

232. Defendants determined that this score was insufficient and told Ms. Roberson she 

would need to repeat the entire semester at additional cost.

233. Defendants did not offer Ms. Roberson a second opportunity to take the HESI 

exam.

234. Ms. Roberson filed an appeal with Defendants.

235. On December 20, 2021, Defendants informed her that her appeal was being denied.

236. Ms. Roberson was not permitted to graduate despite meeting the graduation 

requirements set forth in her enrollment agreement and college catalog. 

237. Ms. Roberson could not afford to retake classes and therefore she withdrew from 

HCI. 

238. Attending HCI’s RN Program left Ms. Roberson with about $20,000 in loans 

through Tuition Options as well as at least $20,000 more in federal student loans but no registered 

nursing license.

239. HCI is currently refusing to provide Ms. Roberson with a copy of her transcript 

because of her outstanding Tuition Options balance.

240. Because of the financial ruin that HCI brought to her life, Ms. Roberson moved 

back to Ohio to live with her brother to try and improve her financial situation. In addition to her 

two current jobs as an LPN, she also works part-time at a Lowe’s hardware store.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 40 of 67
41

Rebecca Freeman

241. Rebecca Freeman is a 37-year-old woman who lives in Port St. Lucie, Florida.

242. Before attending HCI, Ms. Freeman worked in a variety of professions and earned 

an associate degree in medical assisting from Indian River State College (“IRSC”). 

243. Ms. Freeman is currently enrolled in IRSC’s nursing program and works part-time

at an assisted living facility.

244. Ms. Freeman’s HCI recruiter was Krystal Zimbaldi.

245. Ms. Freeman considered several nursing programs, but ultimately chose HCI 

because her recruiter said that by transferring her existing college credits, she would be able to 

complete the HCI RN Program and become an RN in just one year and could do so without 

attending school in-person every day. By comparison, IRSC’s nursing program would take a full 

two years.

246. HCI’s advertising presented HCI’s RN Program as accommodating to working 

people, which appealed to Ms. Freeman. They leaned heavily on claims such as “one day a week 

on campus and clinicals in your area” and “flexible schedules” along with “individualized support” 

(i.e. tutoring services) and “plenty of scholarships.”

247. Defendants’ recruiter pursued Ms. Freeman relentlessly, constantly calling her

because she was viewed as an ideal student, given her previous academic success. Ms. Zimbaldi 

told Ms. Freeman that she needed to quickly commit and “reserve your seat” because classes were 

filling up fast for the January start date. 

248. During recruitment, Defendants told Ms. Freeman that students were allowed to 

choose their preferred clinical rotation days and location.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 41 of 67
42

249. Before Ms. Freeman enrolled, Ms. Zimbaldi claimed that the RN Program was “in 

the process” of receiving ACEN accreditation. 

250. When Ms. Freeman asked about graduation and NCLEX pass rates, Ms. Zimbaldi 

that told her that HCI’s NCLEX pass rate was “well over 80%.”

251. On September 16, 2020, Ms. Freeman signed an enrollment agreement with HCI 

for enrollment in the RN Program with NCLEX code 704146. Freeman Enrollment Agreement, 

September 16, 2020, attached hereto as Exhibit C.

252. Ms. Freeman never signed another enrollment agreement. 

253. Page 6 of Ms. Freeman’s enrollment agreement contained the following 

“Graduation Requirements:”

I understand that in order to graduate from the program and to receive a certificate 

of completion, diploma or degree I must successfully complete the required number 

of scheduled credit/clock hours as specified in the Catalog and on the Enrollment 

agreement. In the final semester, students are required to achieve a minimum raw 

score of 72.7 on the Predicted Probability of Passing NCLEX-RN ATI Proctored 

Exam – the Comprehensive Predictor Test (CPT). Students who score below a 72.7 

on the CPT will be permitted one re-take upon completing the two-week 

remediation program. Failure to achieve a raw score of 72.7 for the second time 

will result in repeating the Nursing Capstone (NUR2943L[)]. If a student fails to

meet the required score at the end of the second attempt of NUR2943L, the student 

will be dismissed.

254. Ms. Freeman’s enrollment agreement also stated that, “Upon satisfactorily 

completion [sic] of the requirements for graduation and NCLEX preparation assessments 

(including VATI), the student is awarded an ASN Degree and must pass the National Council 

Licensure Exam (NCLEX-RN) to become a registered nurse.”

255. Ms. Freeman’s enrollment agreement stated that Ms. Freeman’s “Anticipated End 

Date” was 12/18/21.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 42 of 67
43

256. At her time of her enrollment, no disclosure was made to Ms. Freeman about the 

NCLEX-RN exam passage rate for graduates of the RN Program that operated under NCLEX code 

70755, the fact that the “old” program was placed on probation for poor passage rates, or the fact 

that the “old” program had been terminated for failure to obtain programmatic accreditation.

257. The same day she signed her enrollment agreement, Ms. Freeman was rushed into 

the financial aid office where she was told by a financial aid officer, Ms. B. Simpson, that she was 

eligible for $18,000 in federal loans.

258. Defendants also offered Ms. Freeman a retail installment contract agreement for 

the remaining $30,000 in tuition costs and fees, which she signed on September 16, 2020. The 

retail installment contract specified Tuition Options as an assignee and servicer of the agreement.

259. Tuition Options was the only option presented to Ms. Freeman for financing her 

education expenses not covered by federal student aid.

260. Since she believed she would only be in school for a year, Ms. Freeman decided to 

pay $1,045 a month toward this $30,000 institutional loan.

261. Ms. Freeman was never given a detailed cost breakdown. She only ever saw lump 

sum costs associated with each class, as laid out in her enrollment agreement.

262. She was pressured to sign all documents during her campus tour because she was 

told that “seating is very limited.”

263. Ms. Freeman began classes at HCI in January 2021.

264. During Nursing I, Ms. Freeman was placed at a retirement facility for clinicals. She 

was placed at the same facility for Nursing III, when she was supposed to be in an ER and ICU 

clinical placement.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 43 of 67
44

265. Ms. Freeman’s clinical experience in Nursing II was cut short when Cleveland 

Clinic terminated its association with HCI in August 2021. 

266. She received an email from Cleveland Clinic on August 9, 2021, explaining that 

“since you are not employed by Cleveland Clinic Martin Health, we are unable to accept you for 

a preceptorship assignment. We can only honor those who are . . . currently employed by Cleveland 

Clinic Martin Health.” HCI’s Director of Nursing was cc-ed on this email.

267. Ms. Freeman’s only other on-site clinical experience consisted of a few short weeks 

at South County Mental Health, which was also cut short. Her maternity clinicals, for example, 

were entirely a study hall setting. 

268. Ms. Freeman’s limited clinical experience was more extensive than what most of 

her classmates received; however, her curriculum still did not consist of at least 50 percent of 

clinical training.

269. Additionally, more than 50 percent of Ms. Freeman’s clinical education featured 

simulated, not actual, clinical experience.

270. When Ms. Freeman was in Nursing II, Defendants implemented the 50 percent rule. 

This extra condition had its intended effect; almost all of the students in Ms. Freeman’s cohort

failed and were forced to repeat the semester.

271. Despite the 50 percent rule, Ms. Freeman successfully passed Nursing II.

272. In her final semester, Ms. Freeman took Nursing III and Capstone concurrently.

273. The content of the Capstone class that cost Ms. Freeman more than $4,000 

consisted of little more than access to the VATI, an online prep course that Ms. Freeman could 

have independently purchased for approximately $500.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 44 of 67
45

274. Ms. Freeman successfully completed the required number of scheduled credit/clock 

hours as specified in the course catalog and enrollment agreement.

275. Ms. Freeman earned a grade of 80 percent or higher in all Nursing Core courses 

and 70 percent or higher in all General Education Courses.

276. Ms. Freeman achieved the score required by her enrollment agreement on the ATI 

Predictor.

277. Ms. Freeman achieved “green light” status with VATI.

278. Despite having met the above graduation requirements, Ms. Freeman was not 

permitted to graduate.

279. On December 14, 2021, Defendants presented Ms. Freeman with an exit exam they 

claimed she had to pass to graduate.

280. This exam was unexpectedly the HESI exam.

281. Ms. Freeman was not told in advance that her exit exam would be the HESI exam.

282. Ms. Freeman was not familiar with the HESI format.

283. Defendants did not tell Ms. Freeman, or her cohort, what score she needed to obtain 

in order to pass the HESI.

284. Ms. Freeman received a score of 15.90, defined by HESI as “minimally 

acceptable.” 

285. The same day Ms. Freeman took the exam, Defendants determined that her score 

was insufficient and told Ms. Freeman she failed Capstone. 

286. Ms. Freeman was not given an opportunity to retake the HESI without repeating 

the final semester at the usual cost.

287. Ms. Freeman submitted an appeal on December 17, 2021.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 45 of 67
46

288. Defendants denied her appeal on December 20, 2021, with a four-sentence letter.

289. Defendants refused to submit Ms. Freeman’s name to the BON as eligible to sit for 

the NCLEX-RN. She was simply told that she was “eligible to reenroll in the Capstone Course for 

the Spring 2022 semester.”

290. Ms. Freeman was not permitted to graduate despite meeting the graduation 

requirements set forth in her enrollment agreement and college catalog.

291. After an unreasonable delay and sustained pressure from Ms. Freeman, Defendants 

finally agreed to release her transcript and permit her to sit for the NCLEX-PN, thereby allowing 

her to become an LPN.16

292. After wasting nearly one year of her life, and tens of thousands of dollars, at HCI, 

Ms. Freeman is now enrolled in another nursing program. Adding insult to injury, she had to start 

from scratch because her credits from HCI were not transferable. 

293. Attending HCI’s RN Program cost Ms. Freeman at least $12,000 in out-of-pocket 

expenses, paid through a retail installment contract with Tuition Options. It has also left her with

$18,000 in outstanding federal student loan debt.

Bianca Viñas

294. Bianca Viñas is a 30-year-old woman from West Palm Beach, Florida.

295. Ms. Viñas is currently attending nursing school full-time.

296. In January 2021, Ms. Viñas signed an enrollment agreement with HCI for 

enrollment in the RN Program with NCLEX code 704146. 

16 This consolation is in no way equivalent to the RN credential Ms. Freeman attended school and 

paid tens of thousands of dollars to receive. As Defendants readily admit on their website, “For 

the most part, LPN programs will not require college courses to be taken prior to admittance, but 

instead a high school diploma or a GED.” https://www.hci.edu/hci-news/459-licensed-practicalnurse.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 46 of 67
47

297. Ms. Viñas never signed another enrollment agreement.

298. At the time of her enrollment, no disclosures were made to Ms. Viñas about the 

NCLEX-RN passage rates for graduates of the RN Program that operated under NCLEX code 

70755, the fact that the “old” program was placed on probation for poor passage rates, or the fact

that the “old” program had been terminated for failure to obtain programmatic accreditation.

299. When meeting with Defendants’ recruiter, Ms. Viñas immediately stressed her 

concern over her financial situation and whether she could reasonably afford the HCI’s RN 

Program. After much coaxing, her recruiter agreed that if Ms. Viñas signed her enrollment 

paperwork, she could meet with the dean to discuss financial assistance—but only after she signed.

300. Defendants assured Ms. Viñas that financial assistance, including scholarship 

money, would be made available and that she would not be overly burdened by out-of-pocket 

expenses, something that she had repeatedly told her recruiter would be problematic for her. After 

enrolling, she learned that Defendants had lied and no scholarship money would be made available 

to her.

301. Defendants offered Ms. Viñas a retail installment contract agreement, which she 

signed in early 2021. The retail installment contract specified Tuition Options as an assignee and 

servicer of the loan.

302. Tuition Options was the only option presented to Ms. Viñas for financing her 

education expenses not covered by federal student aid.

303. Ms. Viñas’s monthly Tuition Options payments were over $800, far above the 

amount she was told to expect or that she could reasonably afford. She ended up paying around 

$8,000 out-of-pocket during her first semester.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 47 of 67
48

304. Ms. Viñas’s only hands-on clinical experience consisted of a placement with a 

psychiatric facility, Ambrosia Treatment Center, for just one day a week for five weeks of the 

semester.

305. The rest of her “clinical” experiences consisted of mandatory study hall, with 

occasional simulated work with mannequins and training videos.

306. Ms. Viñas’s nursing program curriculum did not consist of at least 50 percent of 

clinical training.

307. More than 50 percent of Ms. Viñas’s clinical education featured simulated, not 

actual, clinical experience. 

308. Ms. Viñas progressed in the HCI RN Program until the end of Nursing II, during 

which she took two ATI predictors in December of 2021. 

309. Ms. Viñas exceeded the benchmark for passage of the semester and exams overall; 

however, she achieved less than 50 percent in just one subject area of the second and final ATI 

predictor test and was therefore told she did not pass.

310. Defendants insisted that, under the 50 percent rule, Ms. Viñas could not continue

on to Nursing III, and that she was required to repeat Nursing II.

311. Ms. Viñas was discouraged to learn that very few institutions would credit any of 

her coursework if she were to transfer to a different program.

312. Administrators told her that it was entirely her fault that she failed and tried to prove 

it by subjecting her to an on-the-spot oral examination that went on until they falsely claimed that 

she had answered a question incorrectly, using that as proof that she needed to retake the entire 

semester. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 48 of 67
49

313. Not able to afford yet another semester of tuition, and with no reason to believe that 

her outcome would be different, Ms. Viñas left HCI at the end of 2021 and did not return. 

314. Ms. Viñas has paid over $8,000 to Defendants through Tuition Options already, but 

still owes more than $10,000 to Defendants and another $20,000 in federal student loans.

315. Currently, Ms. Viñas is attempting to start her nursing career from scratch. She is 

attending a different nursing school as a full-time student.

Tiffany King

316. Tiffany King is a 35-year-old Black single mother.

317. Before attending HCI, Ms. King was a full-time case worker for the West Palm 

Beach Housing Authority, working six days a week and she had earned all her nursing prerequisites 

at another school.

318. In February 2020, Ms. King signed an enrollment agreement with HCI for 

enrollment in the RN Program with NCLEX code 704146. 

319. Ms. King never signed another enrollment agreement. 

320. At the time of her enrollment no disclosures were made to Ms. King about the exam 

passage rates for graduates of the RN Program that operated under NCLEX code 70755, the fact 

that the “old” program was on placed probation for poor passage rates, or the fact that the “old” 

program had been terminated for failure to obtain programmatic accreditation.

321. During her enrollment, HCI presented Ms. King with a retail installment contract 

agreement, which she signed. The retail installment contract specified Tuition Options as an 

assignee and servicer of the agreement.

322. The retail installment contract was the only option presented to Ms. King to cover 

the portion of her education expenses not covered by federal student aid.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 49 of 67
50

323. Ms. King began classes at HCI the first week of May 2020.

324. Ms. King and her cohort were visited during classroom instruction by one of the 

directors of nursing, Mr. K. DeVevo, who falsely stated that HCI had a 100 percent NCLEX 

passing rate.

325. Ms. King’s clinical experience for Nursing II consisted entirely of limited practice 

on medical dummies.

326. Ms. King’s classroom experience included poor instruction and textbooks with 

conflicting information. Hands-on experience was very limited, with only a single training session 

for intramuscular injections and one other for intravenous injections. Training supplies, such as 

mannequins, catheters, and colostomy bags, were either unavailable or unusable. 

327. Ms. King’s nursing program curriculum did not consist of at least 50% of clinical 

training.

328. Of the minimal clinical education Ms. King did have, more than 50% featured 

simulated, not actual, clinical experience.

329. Ms. King was able to pass all predictor exams in both Nursing I and Nursing II. 

330. Defendants pressured Ms. King to split up her final semester (Nursing III/Capstone) 

into two semesters. She agreed after being told that she was far more likely to pass if she did.

331. Ms. King successfully got through Nursing III, passing the predictor exam at the 

end of the semester.

332. After completing Nursing III, Ms. King began Capstone, during which students had 

to pass one of two initial predictor exams before taking the VATI Comprehensive Assessment. 

After passing the VATI, students were subjected to one final exit exam.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 50 of 67
51

333. HCI did not tell Capstone students what exam they were taking or should prepare 

for. 

334. During her first attempt at Capstone, Ms. King failed her first predictor (a Kaplan 

exam) but passed her second predictor (an ATI exam). This gave her the “green light” to take the 

VATI Comprehensive Assessment, which she also passed.

335. Ms. King took her exit exam, a Kaplan adaptive exam. She was never given her 

score for this test. She was simply told by Professor A. Dennis that she had failed and would have 

to retake the semester.

336. Ms. King appealed this decision but Defendants never responded to her appeal, 

even though it was addressed to several instructors and the Dean of HCI’s West Palm Beach 

campus. 

337. When she presented herself at campus and demanded a response from someone in 

the school’s administration, Ms. King was told by Ms. C. Leandre that her appeal had been denied 

but that she should try again. Recognizing how close she had come to graduating, Ms. King 

decided to use the last bit of financial aid available to her to make one more attempt at passing 

Capstone. She re-enrolled at great personal and financial expense.

338. During her second attempt at Capstone, Ms. King had her best semester. She passed 

her first predictor (an ATI exam), her second predictor (a Kaplan), and her VATI Comprehensive 

Assessment. 

339. The only exam she was told she failed was, again, her exit exam, which was 

unexpectedly a HESI exam, a format with which Ms. King and her classmates were unfamiliar.

340. Ms. King was not offered an opportunity to retake the final exam despite the fact 

that her enrollment agreement provided for such an opportunity. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 51 of 67
52

341. Once again, she was never given a specific breakdown of her exit exam score or 

what a passing grade would have been. She was simply told by email that she had not passed.

342. Ms. King did not appeal again, understanding the appeals process to be futile. She 

declined to reenroll because the cost was prohibitive and would have required taking on significant 

institutional loans through Tuition Options. She was, therefore, effectively forced to drop out.

343. Ms. King was not permitted to graduate despite meeting the graduation 

requirements set forth in her enrollment agreement and college catalog. 

344. Specifically, Ms. King successfully completed the required number of scheduled 

credit/clock hours as specified in the college catalog and enrollment agreement, she met the 

required benchmark for the ATI predicator, and she passed all written and practical examinations 

with a minimum score of 80 percent.

345. When she complained to the Director of Nursing, she was merely told that the 

school would pass her name on to the BON to allow her to sit for the NCLEX-PN, but not for the 

NCLEX-RN.

346. Ms. King passed the NCLEX-PN and began working as an LPN at a Boynton Beach 

rehab center, earning less than she would be had Defendants fulfilled their promises and allowed 

her to sit for the NCLEX-RN.

347. Ms. King paid Defendants tens of thousands of dollars, through both Tuition 

Options loans and federal student loans, to become an RN and never achieved that goal.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

A. Class Definition

348. Named Plaintiffs seek an order certifying a Class consisting of “all students who 

enrolled at HCI West Palm Beach in the ADN program operating under NCLEX code 704146”; a 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 52 of 67
53

subclass (the “Unjust Enrichment Subclass”) consisting of “all students who enrolled in the 

Capstone course at HCI West Palm Beach in the ADN program operating under NCLEX code 

704146”; and a subclass (the “Targeting Subclass”) consisting of “all Black students who enrolled 

at HCI West Palm Beach in the ADN program operating under NCLEX code 704146”.

349. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the definition of the Proposed Class 

before the Court determines whether certification is appropriate.

B. Numerosity

350. The Proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members would be 

impracticable. The individual Class Members are ascertainable, as the names and addresses of all 

Class Members can be identified in the records maintained by Defendants. The precise number of 

Class Members can only be obtained through discovery, but the numbers are clearly more than can 

be consolidated in one complaint: in its 2020 annual report, HCI stated that 198 students were 

enrolled in the program operating under NCLEX code 704146.

C. Commonality and Predominance

351. The Class Members share common questions of law and fact. Such questions 

include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Whether representations made by Defendants describing the program 

operating under NCLEX code 704146 as a new program constituted an unfair 

or deceptive trade practice under FDUTPA;

b. Whether Defendants committed unfair or deceptive trade practice under 

FDUTPA, and/or committed a breach of contract when they failed to provide 

Class Members instruction by qualified faculty and/or practical clinical 

experience as required under Florida law;

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 53 of 67
54

c. Whether changes to testing and grading policies made by Defendants 

constituted unfair or deceptive trade practice under FDUTPA and/or a breach 

of contract;

d. Whether Defendants committed a per se violation of FDUTPA when they 

offered retail installment contracts without the required license;

e. Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by charging over $4,000 for the 

Capstone course that consisted of little more than the VATI test preparation 

program;

f. Whether Defendants engaged in racial targeting;

g. Whether Defendants are “Creditors” within the meaning of ECOA, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1691a(e); and

h. Whether, in the extension of credit for enrollment at WPB-ADN and/or for 

the provision of educational services by WPB-ADN, Defendants’ acts, 

policies, and practices intentionally discriminate against Black people.

352. These common issues will drive the outcome of every one of each Class Members’ 

claims, will be decided under identical legal standards, and can be resolved using common 

evidence. Common issues therefore predominate.

D. Typicality

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

354. Plaintiffs Roberson, Freeman, and King are members of the Unjust Enrichment 

Subclass.

355. Plaintiffs Roberson and King, Black women, are members of the Targeting

Subclass.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 54 of 67
55

356. Defendants provided each and every individual who enrolled in HCI’s WPB-ADN 

program on or after September 1, 2019, with false and misleading disclosures concerning the 

standing of the program vis-à-vis the BON, its ability to gain accreditation, and the exam passage 

rates of the program’s graduates.

357. During the entirety of the Class period, Defendants’ college catalog and enrollment 

agreements indicated that passage of a comprehensive ATI exam evidenced sufficient testing 

performance to qualify for graduation from the RN Program.

358. At no time during the Class period did Defendants’ nursing college catalog or 

enrollment agreements disclose that in order to progress through the RN Program, a student was 

required to achieve a 50 percent on each segment of a predictor exam. 

359. At no time during the Class period did Defendants possess the required license to 

offer retail installment contracts in the State of Florida.

360. During the entire Class period, Defendants used marketing, advertising, and 

recruiting techniques to target their nursing program to Black individuals on the basis of their race.

E. Superiority

361. A class action is superior to individual actions. It is extremely unlikely that 

individual Class Members—low-income workers overwhelmed with debt—have any interest in 

instituting or controlling their own individual actions. Concentrating the litigation in this forum is 

not only reasonable but also efficient, because the relevant HCI campus, many Class Members, 

and most witnesses are located in this venue. Finally, this class action is not difficult to manage.

Each of the claims here involves common issues of fact and law that can be resolved based on 

common proof; by contrast, separate actions by each Class Member would be repetitive, wasteful, 

and place an unnecessary burden on the courts.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 55 of 67
56

F. Adequacy of Representation

362. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class they seek to represent and will 

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. No substantial conflicts of interest exist 

between the Named Plaintiffs and the Class. All Class Members have the same interest in obtaining 

compensation and other relief for their injuries caused by Defendants’ deceptive and predatory 

acts. The Named Plaintiffs will not benefit in any way from actions that will prove harmful to the 

interests of the members of the Class.

363. Plaintiffs have retained competent counsel, experienced in litigation of this nature, 

to represent them. Undersigned counsel have represented hundreds of thousands of former students 

on predatory practices of for-profit colleges. They have significant experience representing 

plaintiffs in class actions and are thus uniquely qualified to prosecute this action. Moreover, they 

have invested significant time in identifying and investigating potential claims in this action and 

are committed to advancing the costs of this litigation.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count 1: Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, 

Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. Based on Deceptive Omissions and Unfair Trade 

Practices – “New” Program

364. At all material times, Defendants were engaged in “trade or commerce” within the 

meaning of §§ 501.204(1) and 501.203(8). 

365. In connection with the provision of educational services by HCI’s RN Program, 

Defendants committed “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and 

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce,” § 501.204(1), when 

they, among other things: 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 56 of 67
57

a. applied for a new NCLEX code for the West Palm Beach campus after being 

placed on probation and after failing to receive programmatic accreditation;

b. marketed and presented the new NCLEX code as a new ADN program; 

c. made misrepresentations about and/or failed to disclose the status of HCI’s 

RN Program ’s accreditation;

d. made misrepresentations about and/or failed to disclose HCI’s RN Program’s

probationary status with the BON; and

e. made misrepresentations about and/or failed to disclose HCI’s RN Program’s

graduates’ NCLEX passage rates. 

366. Under FDUTPA, these violations constitute “deception” because they are 

misrepresentations and/or omissions that are likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in 

the circumstances to the consumer’s detriment, or they constitute “unfair practices” because they 

offend established public policy or are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or 

substantially injurious to consumers.

367. Each of these violations caused Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members damages.

Because the education Defendants provided was functionally valueless, Plaintiffs’ and Proposed 

Class Members’ damages equal the price they paid for tuition.

Count 2: Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, 

Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. Based on Deceptive Omissions and Unfair Trade 

Practices – Grading and Advancement

368. At all material times, Defendants were engaged in “trade or commerce” within the 

meaning of §§ 501.204(1) and 501.203(8). 

369. In connection with the provision of educational services by HCI’s RN Program, 

Defendants committed “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 57 of 67
58

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce,” § 501.204(1), when 

they, among other things, changed the standards for passage without notice and in violation of the 

enrollment agreement in order to force students to retake, and pay again for, courses.

370. Under FDUTPA, these violations constitute “deception” because they are 

misrepresentations and/or omissions that are likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in 

the circumstances to the consumer’s detriment, or they constitute “unfair practices” because they 

offend established public policy or are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or 

substantially injurious to consumers. 

371. The changes were arbitrary and driven by HCI’s need to evade the consequences 

of its failure to attain programmatic accreditation and a sufficient pass rate of its graduates, not by 

any legitimate educational judgment.

372. These violations caused Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members damages. Because 

the education Defendants provided was functionally valueless, Plaintiffs’ and Proposed Class 

Members’ damages equal the price they paid for tuition.

Count 3: Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, 

Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. Based on Deceptive Omissions and Unfair Trade 

Practices – Misrepresentation of Educational Services Provided

373. At all material times, Defendants were engaged in “trade or commerce” within the 

meaning of §§ 501.204(1) and 501.203(8). 

374. In connection with the provision of educational services by HCI’s RN Program, 

Defendants committed “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and 

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce,” § 501.204(1), when 

they, among other things: 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 58 of 67
59

a. made misrepresentations and/or failed to disclose material facts regarding the 

terms and conditions of the education they were providing, including the 

quality and qualifications of instructors;

b. violated regulations pertaining to “ethical practices and procedures in the 

recruitment of students” by using, for example, high-pressure sales tactics to 

recruit students, Fla. Admin. Code R. 6E-2.004(5)(b)(2).

c. advertised HCI’s RN Program as offering clinical experience required by 

§ 464.019(1), Fla. Stat., when no such experience was available;

d. inflated the value of their product and used that valuation to inflate its tuition; 

and

e. offered an insufficient product that trapped their students in debt.

375. Under FDUTPA, these violations constitute “deception” because they are 

misrepresentations and/or omissions that are likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in 

the circumstances to the consumer’s detriment, or they constitute “unfair practices” because they 

offend established public policy or are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or 

substantially injurious to consumers. 

376. Each of these violations caused Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members damages. 

Because the education Defendants provided was functionally valueless, Plaintiffs’ and Proposed 

Class Members’ damages equal the price they paid for tuition.

Count 4: Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, 

Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. Based on Deceptive Omissions and Unfair Trade 

Practices – Unauthorized Retail Installment Contracts

377. At all material times, Defendants were engaged in “trade or commerce” within the 

meaning of §§ 501.204(1) and 501.203(8). 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 59 of 67
60

378. In connection with the provision of educational services by HCI’s RN Program, 

Defendants committed “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and 

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce,” § 501.204(1), when 

they, among other things, 

a. offered Plaintiffs retail installment contracts without first obtaining the 

required license; and

b. collected on illegal retail installment contracts.

379. These acts are per se violations of FDUTPA pursuant to Florida Statutes subsection 

501.203(3)(c), and further constitute “deception” because they are misrepresentations and/or 

omissions that are likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances to the 

consumer’s detriment or “unfair practices” because they offend established public policy or are 

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

380. Each of these violations caused Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members damages.

Plaintiffs’ and Proposed Class Members’ damages equal the amounts they paid pursuant to the 

illegal contracts, any amounts they purportedly owe on such contracts, and any associated fees.

Count 5: Breach of Contract – Grading and Advancement

381. Each Plaintiff and Proposed Class Member entered into an Enrollment Agreement 

with Defendants. The Enrollment Agreement states, “Upon satisfactorily completion [sic] of the 

requirements for graduation and NCLEX preparation assessments (including VATI), the student 

is awarded an ASN Degree and must pass the National Council Licensure Exam (NCLEX-RN) to 

become a registered nurse.” 

382. An Enrollment Agreement constitutes a contract between the student and 

Defendants. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 60 of 67
61

383. Defendants’ nursing college catalogue states specific graduation requirements and 

promises that upon completion of these specific requirements, Defendants will forward the 

student’s name to the Florida BON as eligible to sit for the NCLEX-RN exam. 

384. Defendants’ college catalog is a contract. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6E-2.004(11)(b)(2).

385. Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs and Class Members by making 

arbitrary and capricious changes to testing and grading requirements. 

386. Defendants’ breaches were material.

387. As a result of these actions, Defendants caused Plaintiffs and Proposed Class 

Members damages in the form of tuition paid toward an illusory promise of graduation upon 

completion of specific requirements.

Count 6: Breach of Contract –Clinical Placement

388. Each Plaintiff and Proposed Class Member entered into an Enrollment Agreement 

with Defendants. 

389. The Enrollment Agreement states that clinical rotations “[i]nclude[] a combination 

of medical facility, simulation lab and other field experience.”

390. An Enrollment Agreement constitutes a contract between the student and 

Defendants. 

391. Defendants’ nursing college catalog states: “The [ADN] program is designed to 

provide educational and clinical experiences leading to employment in beginning positions as 

registered nurses in hospitals or comparable facilities.”

392. Defendants’ college catalog is a contract. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6E-2.004(11)(b)(2). 

393. HCI maintains in its college catalog and on their website that HCI’s RN Program

is approved by the Florida BON. In order to maintain approval with the Florida BON, HCI s must 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 61 of 67
62

attest to its compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of professional nursing 

programs with respect to, inter alia, clinical placements. 

394. HCI breached its contracts with Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members by failing 

to provide clinical placements.

395. HCI’s breaches were material.

396. As a result of these actions, HCI caused Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members 

damages.

Count 7: Unjust Enrichment

(By Plaintiffs Roberson, Freeman, King, and the Unjust Enrichment Subclass)

397. Plaintiffs Roberson, Freeman, King, and Unjust Enrichment Subclass Members

conferred a benefit on HCI when they paid over $4,000 to enroll in the required Capstone course.

398. HCI knowingly and voluntarily accepted and retained this benefit.

399. In exchange, HCI provided Plaintiffs and Unjust Enrichment Subclass Members 

with little more than access to the Virtual-ATI, an online NCLEX preparation review course

developed and administered by a third party. As of October 2022, the VATI program is available 

for purchase on ATI’s website for $525.

400. Under the circumstances, it would be inequitable for HCI to retain the entire 

difference between the cost of the VATI and the amount it charged for the Capstone course.

Count 8: Violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.

(By Plaintiffs Roberson, King, and the Targeting Subclass)

401. In 1974, Congress enacted the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”). ECOA 

makes it unlawful for a creditor to discriminate against an applicant during “any aspect” of a credit 

transaction “on the basis of race, color, . . . [or] sex or marital status.” 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a).

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 62 of 67
63

402. ECOA defines “creditor” as “any person who regularly extends, renews, or 

continues credit; any person who regularly arranges for the extension, renewal, or continuation of 

credit; or any assignee of an original creditor who participates in the decision to extend, renew, or 

continue credit.” Id. § 1691a(e). 

403. ECOA defines “credit” as “the right granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer 

payment of debt or to incur debts and defer its payment or to purchase property or services and 

defer payment therefor.” Id. § 1691a(d). 

404. An applicant is defined as “any person who applies to a creditor directly for an 

extension, renewal, or continuation of credit, or applies to a creditor indirectly by use of an existing 

credit plan for an amount exceeding a previously established credit limit.” Id. § 1691a(b). 

405. Aspects of credit transactions that are encompassed by ECOA’s anti-discrimination 

mandate include the amount of credit extended, the repayment terms of that credit, and the denial 

of credit. For creditors who are also sellers, an aspect of the credit transaction includes the 

performance or delivery of the goods and services that are secured by credit, and the actions taken 

to secure the credit. 

406. ECOA also protects against “reverse redlining,” which occurs when a creditor 

extends credit to a protected class for a predatory product or arranges credit for a predatory product, 

and intentionally targets or has a disparate impact or effect on people who are members of a 

protected class. Predatory products include products that are financed by debt and disadvantage 

the borrower and/or prevent the borrower from repaying the loan. 

407. HCI is a “creditor” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1691a(e) because of its 

participation in making and arranging the extension, renewal, or continuation of student loans.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 63 of 67
64

408. HCI cause students to apply for and take out credit in the form of federal and private 

student loans, including retail installment contracts. 

409. Plaintiffs are “applicants” because they applied for an extension, renewal, or 

continuation of student loans within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1691a(b). 

410. HCI intentionally used marketing, advertising, and recruiting techniques to target 

their nursing program to individuals on the basis of their race, with the understanding that such 

individuals were highly likely to require an extension of credit in order to pay for HCI’s nursing 

program.

411. By extending credit to Plaintiffs Roberson, King, and the Targeting Subclass—

including federal student loans and in-house retain installment contracts—for an illusory program, 

HCI committed unlawful reverse redlining in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a).

412. As a result of these actions, HCI caused Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members 

damages.

Count 9: Violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et 

seq.

(By Plaintiffs Roberson, King, and the Targeting Subclass)

413. In 1964, Congress enacted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Title 

VI makes it unlawful for recipients of federal financial assistance under any federal program or 

activity to exclude, deny, or discriminate against a person “on the ground of race, color, or national 

origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

414. Under Title VI, the definition of “program or activity” includes “a college, 

university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education” or “an entire 

corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship—if 

assistance is extended to such corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 64 of 67
65

as a whole; or which is principally engaged in the business of providing education, health care, 

housing, social services, or parks and recreation.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-4a.

415. Federal agencies, including the Department of Education, are “empowered to 

extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract.” 

42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1.

416. Title VI provides redress to individuals who are excluded or discriminated against 

because of their membership in a protected class by an entity that receives financial assistance 

from the federal government; including when assistance is extended, rather than denied.

417. Reverse redlining violates Title VI.

418. Defendants, as recipients of federal financial aid, receive “Federal financial

assistance” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

419. Defendants have not complied with Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000d.

420. In connection with the making of federal student loans for enrollment at HCI’s RN 

Program or for the provision of educational services by HCI, Defendants’ acts, policies, and 

practices intentionally discriminated against Black people. By targeting Black people with their 

predatory product, Defendants engaged in reverse redlining violating 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

421. As a result of these actions, Defendants caused Plaintiffs and class members 

damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an Order and Judgment 

against the Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, Proposed Unjust 

Enrichment Class, and Proposed Targeting Subclass: 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 65 of 67
66

A. Certifying this case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

B. Declaring that the foregoing acts, policies, and practices of Defendants violate the 

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.; 

C. Declaring that the foregoing acts, policies, and practices of Defendants breached 

Defendants’ contracts with Proposed Class Members;

D. Declaring invalid each and every retail installment contract between Defendants 

and Proposed Class Members and Ordering Defendants to return all money paid 

under each contract;

E. Declaring that that the foregoing acts, policies, and practices of Defendants violate 

the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.;

F. Declaring that that the foregoing acts, policies, and practices of Defendants violate

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.;

G. Awarding actual damages, both economic and non-economic, to all members of the 

Proposed Class, Proposed Unjust Enrichment Subclass, and Proposed Targeting

Subclass for an amount as determined by a jury that would completely compensate 

all members of the Proposed Class and Proposed Subclasses, to the extent possible, 

for their injuries caused by the conduct of Defendants; 

H. In connection with Count 8 and other claims where permitted by law, awarding 

punitive damages to all members of the Proposed Class and Proposed Subclasses

for an amount as determined by a jury that would punish Defendants for their 

conduct and deter similar misconduct;

I. Enjoining Defendants from enrolling students in “new” program;

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 66 of 67
67

J. Enjoining Defendants or their agents or assignees from collecting on the retail 

installment contracts or reporting them to consumer credit reporting agencies;

K. Compelling specific performance of the graduation requirements as contained in 

the enrollment agreement and college catalog as to each member of the Proposed

Class;

L. Awarding costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1691e(d), and Fla. Stat. 

§ 501.2105; and 

M. Granting such other and further relief as is just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs request trial by jury as to all issues in this case.

Dated: 12/2/2022

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nicole Mayer

NICOLE MAYER 

Florida Bar No. 012035

Nicole@MayerLawFlorida.com

171 Dommerich Drive.

Maitland, Florida 32751

(352) 494-3657

REBECCA EISENBREY

(pro hac vice application forthcoming)

reisenbrey@ppsl.org

ERIC SCHMIDT

(pro hac vice application forthcoming)

eschmidt@ppsl.org

Project on Predatory Student Lending

769 Centre Street, Suite 166

Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

(617) 390-2669

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 67 of 67