UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

West Palm Beach Division

BRITTANY ROBERSON, REBECCA 

FREEMAN, BIANCA VIÑAS, TIFFANY 

KING, and TRESHA THOMPSON, 

individually and on behalf of others similarly 

situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE LLC (dba

HCI COLLEGE LLC and HCI 

ACQUISITION LLC), FLORIAN 

EDUCATION INVESTORS LLC, and 

STEVEN W. HART,

 Defendants.

Civil Action No. 9:22-cv-81883-RAR

Jury Trial Demanded

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

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

Thompson (“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 

Health Career Institute LLC, dba HCI College LLC and HCI Acquisition LLC (“HCI”); its 

parent company, Florian Education Investors LLC (“Florian”); HCI’s Chairman and Florian’s 

CEO, Steven W. Hart (“Hart”); and their agents (collectively with HCI, “Defendants”), and 

pursuant to their investigation, upon knowledge as to themselves and their own acts and 

otherwise upon information and belief, allege the following:

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 1 of 85
2

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This case arises from a deceitful pattern of behavior by the Florida-based forprofit nursing school HCI, which deliberately and consistently harmed its students in violation 

of federal and state law.

2. HCI offers an Associate of Science in Nursing degree (the “RN Program”1) at its 

two campuses in South Florida: the main campus in West Palm Beach (“HCI-WPB”) and a 

branch campus in Ft. Lauderdale (“HCI-FTL”).

3. On its website, HCI advertises the RN Program 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, and includes tutoring assistance.2

4. Plaintiffs allege that to avoid having the RN 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. 

5. 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 

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.

2 https://www.hci.edu/programs/associate-degree-in-nursing (last accessed Feb. 8, 2023).

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 2 of 85
3

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

licensed registered nurses. 

6. The Florida Board of Nursing (“BON”) placed the HCI-WPB 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”).

7. When it became clear that the HCI-WPB 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.

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

program at HCI-WPB. 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.

9. By hiding behind this “new” program, Defendants bought the West Palm campus 

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 at HCI-WPB 

achieved. It also did not disclose the “old” program’s probationary status to prospective students.

10. The BON terminated the “old” HCI-WPB RN Program on August 7, 2019, for 

failure to obtain programmatic accreditation.

11. 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 3 of 85
4

than stating the truth—that in 2018, fewer than 50 percent of the HCI-WPB 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.

12. Defendants did not provide written disclosure to the nursing students enrolling 

after September 1, 2019, that the HCI-WPB RN Program had failed to achieve the programmatic 

accreditation required by Florida law.

13. Plaintiffs and hundreds of other prospective students enrolled on the basis of 

these deceptive disclosures and omissions.

14. 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 at HCI-WPB or from the program at HCIFTL, and therefore blocked them from sitting for the licensure exam. 

15. Defendants systematically imposed unfair and arbitrary barriers on Proposed 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., HCI-WPB (5/8/21).

3

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., HCI-WPB (4/18/21).

4

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 

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

4 Id.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 4 of 85
5

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, HCI-WPB (8/20/21).5

d. “[S]ince day one of the last semester, the mentality of the administration staff was 

to make us fail. . . . They implemented several measures to flunk you in a way or 

another. . . . They tried implementing a 50% in subcategories, what does this mean. 

That even if you had a A+ in a class and A+ in the final exam, if you dont get all 

subcategories in your final exam above 50% you would fail. . . . Administration 

does not care about you, they dont give you information written they implement 

stuff with out written proof. . . . Please look somewhere else if you dont want to be 

stressed and with a limited chance of graduating.” Andres R., HCI-FTL 

(4/6/2022).6

16. 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.

17. Plaintiff Brittany Roberson’s Enrollment Agreement cited an “Anticipated End 

Date” from HCI-WPB of December 18, 2021.

18. Plaintiff Rebecca Freeman’s Enrollment Agreement cited an “Anticipated End

Date” from HCI-WPB of December 18, 2021. 

19. Over 100 students at HCI-WPB had Enrollment Agreements reflecting an 

“Anticipated End Date” of December 2021.

20. As of the date of this Amended Complaint, nine December 2021 graduates of HCIWPB’s RN Program had sat for the NCLEX-RN,

21. As seen in the chart below, soon after the graduation limitations were imposed, 

HCI-WPB’s NCLEX-RN passage rates miraculously increased to levels rarely achieved by even 

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

92008557/complaints. 6 https://www.yelp.com/user_details?userid=5Y6svk4X8qE_HNyjVBsZNQ.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 5 of 85
6

elite college programs, let alone a program with graduates failing at rates near 50 percent months 

earlier. 

22. Meanwhile, although HCI-FTL has severely restricted the number of students 

graduating from its RN Program and further suppressed the number of graduates taking the 

NCLEX-RN—only 41 students who graduated in 2022 sat for the exam that year—its passage 

rates have stagnated.

23. HCI-FTL has been enrolling students since no later than January 2018 and has, on 

average, enrolled 145 students per year for a three- to five-semester program. Yet through Q4 of 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 2022 2022

Percent of HCI-WPB First Time 

NCLEX-RN Test Takers (704146) 

Passing by Quarter

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2021 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2022

NCLEX-RN Passage Rate for HCI-FTL RN Program 

Graduates 

(First-Time Test Takers) by Quarter

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 6 of 85
7

2022, only 156 HCI-FTL graduates have taken the NCLEX. Of those only 98—62.8 percent—

have passed.

24. Because neither the “new” program at HCI-WPB nor the program at HCI-FTL has 

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. 

25. Of course, by that time they have lost precious years of their lives and have often 

maxed out most of the federal student aid available to them for undergraduate education.

26. 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 7 of 85
8

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,7 while census data shows that Palm Beach County is 

only 17 percent Black and Broward County is only 27 percent Black.

8

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

transferable; and

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. 

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

Program after September 2019, 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

28. 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 

7 Data obtained from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

8 Data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 8 of 85
9

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.

29. Defendant Health Career Institute LLC (“HCI”) is subject to personal jurisdiction 

in this Court because it is authorized to transact and does transact business in Florida and because 

it maintains registered agents for service of process in Florida. Furthermore, Defendant HCI

regularly does business and solicits business in Florida, engages in a persistent course of conduct 

in Florida, and derives substantial revenue from its business within Florida.

30. Defendant Florian Education Investors LLC (“Florian”) is subject to jurisdiction in 

this Court under Florida’s long-arm statute § 48.193, Fla. Stat. because it transacts business in 

Florida, engages in a persistent course of conduct in Florida, and derives substantial revenue from 

its business within Florida.

31. For example, Florian took on debt from Tuition Options LLC that was secured by 

“[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]”; Tuition Options registered 

its security interest in the State of Florida. State of Florida UCC Financing Statement, attached 

hereto as Exhibit A.

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.” FAC 

§ 6E-2.004(11)(b)(2)(d).

33. HCI’s catalogs dated May 2, 2019; January 27, 2020; March 17, 2021; and August 

4, 2022, include the following:

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 9 of 85
10

34. Florian was co-founded by Steve Hart and Larry Brown and was “established to 

build a multi-campus and online school group focused on the allied health sector.”9

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

(d). The Proposed Class consists of at least 700 individuals, and the aggregate of Proposed Class 

Members’ damages is approximately $21,000,000 (the number of Proposed Class Members times 

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. 

36. 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

37. Plaintiff Brittany Roberson is a resident of Amelia, Ohio. She was enrolled in HCIWPB’s “new” RN Program from July 2020 to December 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 Profile of Steven Hart, Mergr.com, https://mergr.com/private-equity/hart-capital-llc/steven-hart

(last accessed Feb. 14, 2023).

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 10 of 85
11

41. Plaintiff Tresha Thompson is a resident of Margate, Florida. She was enrolled in 

HCI-FTL’s RN Program from July of 2021 to September of 2022.

42. Defendant 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 a separate program. In its Annual Reports to the 

BON, HCI has reported its owner to be “Steve Hart” or “HCI Acquisition LLC.”

43. Defendant 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. 

HCI’s college catalogs state that HCI College is “a subsidy [sic] of Florian Education Investors 

LLC.”

44. Defendant Steven W. Hart is a resident of Connecticut. Mr. Hart is the Chairman

of HCI and the CEO of Florian. In his role as Chairman of HCI, Hart directs HCI’s President and 

CEO.

45. Mr. Hart is also the founder of Hart Capital LLC, a Connecticut Corporation 

described as a “family office which invests in a diversified portfolio of assets” which operates 

under the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) code 611310, which is the 

NAICS code reserved for “Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools.”

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 11 of 85
12

BACKGROUND

Rules Governing Nursing Programs and the Nursing Profession in Florida

46. 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. 

47. 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.10

48. 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. 

49. 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. 

50. 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.

51. 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.

10 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 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 12 of 85
13

52. 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).

53. 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.

54. 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 

consists of clinical simulation,” 11 §§ 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,”12 § 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 

11 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.

12 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 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 13 of 85
14

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

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

55. 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.

56. 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.

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

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

58. 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 14 of 85
15

59. 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.

60. 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.

61. 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.”

62. 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.

63. 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. 

64. 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 15 of 85
16

65. 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”);

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.

66. 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.

67. HCI is licensed by the CIE.

68. 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:

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 16 of 85
17

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 

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

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

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

professional nursing programs.

Federal Requirements

70. 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.

71. 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 17 of 85
18

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

located.” 34 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)(3).

72. 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).

73. 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).

74. 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.

75. 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.

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

requirements.

77. 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 18 of 85
19

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

program’s typical student has upon graduation.

78. 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

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

emergency medical services training in 2002.

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

was purchased by Defendant Florian Education Investors LLC in 2013.

81. On information and belief, Florian is an active owner and has been intimately 

involved in the operation of HCI since 2013.

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

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

19

84

55

80

71

136

149

45

5

48

38

47

39

57

84

18 14

36

17

33 32

79

65

27

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Results of HCI-WPB's First-Time NCLEX Test Takers

Sitting for NCLEX Passing NCLEX Failing NCLEX

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 19 of 85
20

83. As seen below, in the years that followed, graduates of the WPB-HCI RN Program

struggled to pass the NCLEX-RN.

84. 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.13

85. 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. 

86. 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.

87. 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-WPB’s RN Program on probationary status.

13 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).

30.00%

57.14%

69.09%

58.75% 54.93%

41.91%

56.38%

40.00%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

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 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 20 of 85
21

88. 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.

89. In October of that same year, the BON approved HCI to operate an RN program at 

its Ft. Lauderdale branch campus. The BON issued the program NCLEX code 704135.

90. 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 original RN 

Program on probationary status for the calendar year of 2018.

91. 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. 

92. While HCI challenged the BON’s method of calculation, it did not establish that it 

would otherwise have achieved the necessary passage rate under its preferred calculation 

methodology.

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

at its West Palm Beach campus. 

94. 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. 

95. The details of the “new” HCI-WPB program, as contained in Defendants’

application to the BON, were substantively identical to those reported by Defendants to the BON 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 21 of 85
22

in HCI-WPB’s 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. Defendants 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.

96. By letter dated October 1, 2018, the BON approved Defendants’ application for a 

new HCI-WPB RN Program and issued it NCLEX code 704146.

97. 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.

98. In March of 2019, the BON issued a Notice of Intent to place HCI-WPB’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. 

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

100. 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.

101. Graduates of the HCI-FTL RN Program first took the NCLEX in 2019. Of 15 

graduates who took the exam for the first time that year, 12 passed—a passage rate of 80 percent. 

In 2020, another 35 HCI-FTL graduates took the NCLEX for the first time; 21, or 60 percent,

passed. In 2021, 60 HCI-FTL graduates took the NCLEX for the first time and 42, or 70 percent,

passed. In 2022, 46 HCI-FTL graduates took the NCLEX for the first time and 23, or 50 percent,

passed.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 22 of 85
23

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

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

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

2017 and HCI-FTL reported that it was seeking ACEN accreditation in its annual reports beginning 

in 2019, neither program ever received accreditation from ACEN or any other programmatic 

accreditor.

103. 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. 

104. Students who had enrolled in the HCI-WPB 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.14

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

the West Palm Beach campus—the “new” HCI-WPB RN Program operating under NCLEX code 

704146. 

106. From the time HCI-WPB 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.

107. HCI’s FTL-RN Nursing Program had a deadline of October 2022, to obtain 

programmatic accreditation for its nursing program; however, college President and CEO, Pedro 

DeGuzman, appeared before the BON on October 6, 2022, asking for an extension.

14 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 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 23 of 85
24

108. During the BON’s questioning about why accreditation has not been obtained in 

the past five years, Mr. DeGuzman offered the following, “We have a sister school in West Palm 

Beach, very similar, they’ve had literally five quarters straight of 85% or plus; we have that same 

template in place for this campus it’s just a matter of you know, working with the consistency of 

our faculty to keep – to get those scores coming back up again.”

109. As of October 6, 2022, Person Vue data showed the followed NCLEX passage rates 

for the previous five quarters of first-time test takers who graduated from the HCI-WPB RN 

Nursing Program: 60% (2nd quarter 2021, with 5 test-takers); 42.11% (3rd quarter 2021, with 19 

test-takers); 77.78% (4th quarter 2021, with 18 test-takers); 90% (1st quarter 2022, with 10 test 

takers); and 85.71% (2nd quarter 2022, with 7 test-takers).

Programs and Practices of HCI’s RN Program 

Advertising and Target Marketing

110. 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. 

111. HCI’s website advertises 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.” 

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

immediate entry and no wait list to begin.

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

working people of color, and especially Black women.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 24 of 85
25

 

 

114. For example, many Facebook advertisements—like the ones above—prominently 

feature Black women as models and highlight the program’s “flexible schedule.”15

15 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 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 25 of 85
26

115. 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.

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

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

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

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

than $50,000.

Enrollment Paperwork

119. On information and belief, Defendants began enrolling students in the HCI-FTL 

RN Program in late 2017. In the program’s first annual report to the BON, submitted on November 

16, 2018, Defendants reported that 125 students were enrolled in the HCI-FTL RN Program in the 

2017-2018 academic year. 

120. On information and belief, Defendants began enrolling students in the “new” HCIWPB RN Program by September 1, 2019, with 198 students enrolled by June 2020.

121. As part of the enrollment process, each Plaintiff and Proposed 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. 

122. While HCI’s enrollment agreements have undergone minor changes over time, the 

vast majority of its provisions remain consistent. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 26 of 85
27

123. Each Enrollment Agreement signed by Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members 

contains the following provision, noting that the “Enrollment Agreement reflects the entire 

agreement between HCI College and the Student.”

124. The “Program Description” on page 1 of each Enrollment Agreement signed by 

Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members contains the following provision:

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

course.

126. In each Enrollment Agreement signed by Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members, 

Defendants 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:

127. Notably, Defendants did not reserve the right to modify the terms of students’ 

Enrollment Agreements.

128. Each Enrollment Agreement signed by Plaintiffs and Proposed 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.”

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 27 of 85
28

129. Each Enrollment Agreement signed by Plaintiffs and Proposed 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.

130. All of Plaintiffs’ and Proposed Class Members’ Enrollment Agreements contained 

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

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

a stated minimum score, with one retake permitted.

131. All of Plaintiffs’ and Proposed Class Members’ Enrollment Agreements stated that 

students would have up to two attempts to achieve the minimum score on the ATI exam.

132. Each college catalog applicable to Plaintiffs and Proposed 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.”

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

obligations on the part of the school.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 28 of 85
29

134. 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.” 

135. Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members signed one Enrollment Agreement.

Financial Aid

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

program using federal student loans and grants.

137. 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.

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

a third-party processor.

139. 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.

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

the state of Florida.

141. Upon information and belief, at no time prior to the filing of this lawsuit did either 

HCI or Tuition Options apply for a license to offer retail installment contracts in Florida.

142. By failing to apply for a license to offer retail installment contracts as required by 

Florida law, HCI was free to lend enormous sums of money to vulnerable students, who HCI knew 

could not afford the charges, without oversight or fear of recourse. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 29 of 85
30

143. The retail installment contracts that Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class entered into 

with Defendants contained a promise to pay a specific amount of money.

144. The retail installment contracts that Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class entered into 

with Defendants were signed and/or executed in Florida.

145. Florida’s Office of Financial Regulations requires completion of applications for 

licenses under Chapter 520, Florida Statutes, including for initial applications as well as 

applications for Change of Control and for Amendments to initial applications (“the 

Applications”).

146. The Applications seek information regarding the applicants to ensure, among other 

things, the safety of consumers. 

147. The Applications ask whether an applicant has previously engaged in an unlicensed 

activity, been the subject of a pending criminal prosecution or government action, or been named 

as a defendant in any civil litigation or arbitration.

148. The Applications require provision of a biographical summary for each control 

person, including Criminal Disclosure, Regulatory Action Disclosure, Civil Litigation/Arbitration 

Disclosure, and Financial Disclosure.

149. By failing to apply for a Retail Installment Contract, HCI avoided disclosure of 

critical information about its control persons. 

150. For example, the Applications require provision of a biographical summary for 

each chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief operations officer, chief legal officer, 

chief compliance officer, director, member, sole proprietor, and control person. 

151. In 2021, Defendant HCI’s former President and Chief Operating Officer, Brenda 

Green, plead guilty to money laundering, organized scheme to defraud, and grand theft in 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 30 of 85
31

connection with her handling of financial matters for Defendant HCI between at least 2015 and 

2017.

152. Had HCI completed an Application while Ms. Green was still employed at HCI, or 

filed an amendment to such Application when she left HCI, Ms. Green’s biographical summary 

would have revealed red flags to the Florida Department of Financial Services prohibiting HCI 

from obtaining a license to offer retail installment contracts.

153. Additionally, Florida law requires payment of documentary stamp tax on retail 

installment contracts at the rate of $0.35 for each $100 (or portion thereof) of the obligation 

evidenced by the contract. See FAC § 12B-4.052. Such tax is due on a document that contains a 

promise to pay a specific amount of money that is signed, executed, or delivered in Florida.

154. The Tuition Options program involved retail installment contracts that were signed, 

executed, and/or delivered by Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members in Florida.

155. As of initial filing of this lawsuit, December 2, 2022, HCI had not paid documentary 

stamp tax to the state of Florida on the retail installment contracts signed by Plaintiffs Brittany 

Roberson, Rebecca Freeman, Bianca Viñas, Tiffany King, or Tresha Thompson at the rate of $0.35 

per $100 of the amount of the indebtedness reflected in the retail installment contracts.

156. As of initial filing of this lawsuit, December 2, 2022, HCI had not paid documentary 

stamp tax to the state of Florida on the retail installment contracts signed by the Proposed Class at 

the rate of $0.35 per $100 of the amount of the indebtedness reflected in the retail installment 

contracts.

157. If HCI had applied for, and maintained, a license to offer retail installment contracts

in Florida it would have been subject to oversight, examination, and investigation by the Florida 

DFS.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 31 of 85
32

158. Had it been subject to oversight, examination, and investigation by the Florida DFS, 

the Department would have been put on notice that HCI did not pay the documentary stamp taxes 

required by law, which would have prevented HCI from engaging in retail installment sales 

contract transactions.

159. Operating without a licensed therefore enabled HCI to front hundreds of thousands 

of dollars in retail installment contracts to students.

160. 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.

161. 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].” Exhibit A.

162. On information and belief, Defendants steer students into retail installment 

contracts even when other, more favorable financing options exist.

163. 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 

Defendants, serviced by Tuition Options. 

164. 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 32 of 85
33

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

below 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.

16

166. The August 2019 edition of the HCI Times explicitly stated that “Tuition Options 

monthly payments must be paid each month to avoid being dismissed from your program.”17

167. The financial hold HCI had over its students via the Tuition Options loan program 

was further evidenced in a September 12, 2022, email that Plaintiff Thompson received from 

HCI’s business Office Manager, which stated that she was not permitted to reenroll in Nursing II 

until she paid the past due balance on her Tuition Options payment plan.

16 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).

17 HCI Times Student Newsletter, August 2019, located at 

https://courses.hci.edu/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=46242 (last accessed Feb. 14, 2023).

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 33 of 85
34

168. Additionally, Defendants’ policy is to withhold students’ education transcripts, 

official or otherwise, from students and the BON, for students with outstanding Tuition Options

balances.

169. Defendants have refused to release transcripts to Plaintiffs Roberson and Thompson 

because of outstanding tuition balances.

170. 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.18

Misrepresentation of “New” Program at HCI-WPB

171. On information and belief, every new student who enrolled in the “new” HCI-WPB

RN Program after September 2019, until at least the end of January 2021, received a Form 609(a) 

disclosure.

172. Plaintiffs Robertson, Freeman, Viñas, and King enrolled in the HCI-WPB program 

between February of 2020 and January of 2021. They each were entitled to be provided with 

disclosures as required by the CIE and BON. 

173. Plaintiff Thompson enrolled in the FTL-HCI program in July of 2021, and was 

similarly entitled to receive such disclosures.

174. On January 22, 2019, Pearson Vue, an international professional testing authority, 

published a report indicating that 39 of 71, or 54.93 percent, of HCI-WPB RN Program graduates 

taking the NCLEX-RN for the first time in 2018 passed. 

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

Lending Practices (Jan. 20, 2022), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/ 

consumer-financial-protection-bureau-to-examine-colleges-in-house-lending-practices/.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 34 of 85
35

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

41.30 percent, of HCI-WPB RN Program graduates taking the NCLEX-RN for the first time in 

2019 passed.

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

57.74 percent, of HCI-WPB RN Program graduates taking the NCLEX-RN for the first time in 

2020, passed.

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

50.45 percent, of HCI-WPB RN Program nursing program graduates taking the NCLEX-RN for 

the first time in 2021, passed.

178. On information and belief, every student who was recruited to the HCI-WPB RN 

Program on or after September 1, 2019, until at least the end of 2020 received a Form 609a

disclosure that claimed zero graduates of the program had taken the NCLEX-RN exam.

179. Upon information and belief, the CIE Form 609a disclosures Defendants provided 

to “new” HCI-WPB RN Program students enrolling after September 1, 2019, did not disclose the 

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

180. 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:

181. Even when HCI-WPB’s CIE Form 609a disclosures purported to reflect testing 

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

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 35 of 85
36

of first-time test takers those who tested under the “old” HCI-WPB RN Program NCLEX code 

(70755).

182. This was misleading because the “new” HCI-WPB RN Program was substantively 

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

183. Defendants did not disclose that the previous, substantively identical HCI-WPB RN 

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

average.

184. Defendants did not disclose that the previous, substantively identical HCI-WPB RN 

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

terminated.

185. Defendants did not disclose that the substantively identical HCI-WPB RN 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. 

Concealment, Omission, and Misrepresentation of Program Attributes

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

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

curricular requirements.

187. In fact, the RN Program suffered from extremely high turnover. Instructors 

frequently quit; the HCI-WPB RN Program went through at least eleven Directors of Nursing 

(“DONs”) from 2015 to 2021, and the HCI-FTL RN Program went through at least five DONs

from 2017 to 2021.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 36 of 85
37

188. 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. 

189. Upon information and belief, far fewer than 50 percent of the faculty members at 

either campus 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.

190. 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).

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

reputation and standards. 

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

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

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

programmatic accreditation. 

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

settings to complete their required clinical hours. 

195. 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.

196. 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 37 of 85
38

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

student body about this material detail. 

198. In an email to the student body dated August 20, 2021, David Shelpman, the 

campus president for HCI-WPB and HCI-FTL, 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).” 

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

history or a truthful explanation of its accreditation status.

200. Further, neither the HCI-WPB nor the HCI-FTL RN Program has achieved 

programmatic accreditation. 

201. Although HCI was a candidate for ACEN accreditation, its candidacy was not 

successful. The period of eligibility for HCI-WPB to apply for ACEN accreditation expired 

September 23, 2022, and for HCI-FTL it expired September 20, 2022.

202. Despite this fact, until at least October 19, 2022, HCI’s website stated that the RN 

Program “was deemed eligible to participate in the candidacy process” for ACEN accreditation.

This statement was deleted after HCI was contacted by the accreditor and directed to remove the 

erroneous information.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 38 of 85
39

Defendants’ Imposition of Unfair and Arbitrary Requirements on Nursing Students

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

which had the effect of either weeding students out of the program or coercing 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 Defendantsto manipulate HCI-WPB’s 

and HCI-FTL’s NCLEX passage rates. 

204. 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 specialty exams in order to 

advance through the program. 

205. 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.

206. The “specialty exams” Defendants use generally have at least a dozen 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.

207. These specialty exams are usually third-party tests created by the Assessment 

Technologies Institute (“ATI”) or Kaplan, Inc.

208. These third-party tests are not intended to be used as high-stakes determinators of 

student success. Indeed, ATI’s website advises that “ATI strongly discourages the use of the 

Concept-Based Assessments as a sole criterion for students’ progression or graduation.”19

19 ATI, “Concept-Based Assessments: Educator Implementation Guide,” at 10, available at 

https://atitesting.com/docs/default-source/assessments/concept-based-curriculum/atin-cb-assesseig_20190129.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (last accessed Feb. 14, 2023).

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 39 of 85
40

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

Nursing III. 

210. The pain this unfair rule brought to students was palpable in an email from an HCIWPB 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.”

211. 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. 

212. 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.”

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

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.

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

testing requirements were met with additional, unexpected hurdles. 

215. Before 2021, the final semester of HCI’s RN Program consisted of Nursing III and 

Capstone courses taken concurrently. Nursing III consisted of coursework done in-person, 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 40 of 85
41

including a “leadership” course, and ended with a specialty exam. The Capstone portion, which 

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

216. 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.

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

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

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

comprehensive predictor exam also designed and administered by ATI.

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

at least $4,300 for the Capstone course.

220. 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.”

221. 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.

222. The intended purpose of the ATI exam is to serve as a predictor of the student’s 

success on the NCLEX and a guide on what to focus on before the NCLEX, not as high-stakes 

determination of a student’s ability or as a bar to graduation.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 41 of 85
42

223. ATI’s website advises that ATI’s predictor exams “are not designed for high stakes 

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

manner.”20

224. Between 2019 until at least June 6, 2022, Defendants’ enrollment agreements 

identified the Predicted Probability of Passing NCLEX-RN ATI Proctored Exam – the 

Comprehensive Predictor Test (CPT)” as the exit exam for which a minimum stated score was 

required to graduate.

225. Between 2019 until at least August 3, 2022, Defendants’ catalogs specifically 

identified a “Nursing Exit Exam Policy” that included achieving a minimum score on the 

“Predicted Probability of Passing NCLEX-RN” exam.

226. 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 predictor 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. 

227. 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”). 

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

(last accessed Feb. 14, 2023).

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 42 of 85
43

228. 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.

229. 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.

230. In the fall of 2021, upon information and belief, no more than ten students out of a 

class of over 100 passed the HESI exam and were permitted to graduate from HCI-WPB.

231. The same semester, upon information and belief, a similarly miniscule number of 

students were permitted to graduate from HCI-FTL.

232. 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 their corresponding HCI 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.

233. Students were not given an opportunity to retake their specialty exams or final exit 

exams, in violation of their Enrollment Agreements and HCIs’ college catalog.

234. 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.

235. 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 to keep them from 

graduating and taking the NCLEX-RN. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 43 of 85
44

236. HCI unveiled the new testing requirements in surreptitious ways and never 

disclosed to Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members such unreasonably high bars to passing during 

the initial enrollment period. 

237. 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.

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

pedagogical purpose.

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

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

to students in a coherent or timely manner. 

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

complaints are frequently left unanswered by directors.

242. In violation of Florida law, HCI lacks a bona fide appeals process for students who 

cannot pass HCI’s unreasonable testing requirements. Appeals are uniformly rejected with 

boilerplate language and without meaningful explanation from HCI. 

243. 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 

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

licensed practical nurses.

244. 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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 44 of 85
45

245. Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members enrolled at HCI with the understanding that 

they were paying for and pursuing a career as an RN, not an LPN. 

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

before their enrollment at HCI.

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

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

to take their NCLEX-RN. 

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

who graduated from the HCI-WPB program in December 2021 took the NCLEX-RN in Q1 of 

2022.

249. Zero students who graduated from the HCI-FTL program in December 2021 took 

the NCLEX-RN in Q1 of 2022.

250. 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 extract more money from students through retaken semesters and then cut them from the 

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

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING NAMED PLAINTIFFS

Brittany Roberson

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

Ohio.

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

12 years.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 45 of 85
46

253. 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. 

254. Ms. Roberson’s HCI admissions counselor was Lisa Sgherza.

255. 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.

256. Ms. Roberson never signed another enrollment agreement.

257. 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.

258. 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.”

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

Date” was 12/18/21.

260. 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 46 of 85
47

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

“Not on probation.”

261. 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. 

262. 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.

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

education expenses not covered by her federal student aid. 

264. Ms. Roberson agreed to these loans with the understanding that she would have the 

opportunity to complete her program of study in the projected time and that, by granting her entry 

into the nursing profession, the RN Program would provide her with the ability to pay them back.

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

266. 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.

267. 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 47 of 85
48

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

of clinical training.

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

actual, clinical experience. 

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

271. 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.

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

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

273. 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.

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

score of 80 percent.

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

Predictor.

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

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

permitted to graduate.

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

claimed she had to pass to graduate.

279. This exam was unexpectedly the HESI exam.

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

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 48 of 85
49

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

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

in order to pass the HESI.

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

acceptable.”

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

would need to repeat the entire semester at additional cost.

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

exam.

286. Ms. Roberson filed an appeal with Defendants.

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

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

requirements set forth in her enrollment agreement and college catalog. 

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

HCI. 

290. 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.

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

because of her outstanding Tuition Options balance.

292. 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 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 49 of 85
50

Rebecca Freeman

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

294. 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”). 

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

at an assisted living facility.

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

297. 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.

298. 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.”

299. 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. 

300. 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 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 50 of 85
51

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

the process” of receiving ACEN accreditation. 

302. 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%.”

303. 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.

304. Ms. Freeman never signed another enrollment agreement. 

305. 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.

306. 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.”

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

Date” was 12/18/21.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 51 of 85
52

308. 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.

309. 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.

310. 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.

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

education expenses not covered by federal student aid.

312. 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.

313. Ms. Freeman agreed to these loans with the understanding that she would have the 

opportunity to complete her program of study in the projected time and that, by granting her entry 

into the nursing profession, the RN Program would provide her with the ability to pay them back.

314. 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.

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

told that “seating is very limited.”

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

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 52 of 85
53

317. 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.

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

Clinic terminated its association with HCI in August 2021. 

319. 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.

320. 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. 

321. 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.

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

simulated, not actual, clinical experience.

323. 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.

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

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

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 53 of 85
54

326. 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.

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

hours as specified in the course catalog and enrollment agreement.

328. 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.

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

Predictor.

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

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

permitted to graduate.

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

claimed she had to pass to graduate.

333. This exam was unexpectedly the HESI exam.

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

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

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

in order to pass the HESI.

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

acceptable.” 

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

was insufficient and told Ms. Freeman she failed Capstone. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 54 of 85
55

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

the final semester at the usual cost.

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

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

342. 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.”

343. Ms. Freeman was not permitted to graduate despite meeting the graduation 

requirements set forth in her enrollment agreement and college catalog. 

344. 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.21

345. After wasting nearly one year of her life, and tens of thousands of dollars, at HCI, 

Ms. Freeman is now enrolled in another RN program. Adding insult to injury, she had to start from 

scratch because her credits from HCI were not transferable. 

346. 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

about $20,000 in outstanding federal student loan debt.

Bianca Viñas

347. Bianca Viñas is a 30-year-old Hispanic woman from West Palm Beach, Florida.

21 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 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 55 of 85
56

348. Ms. Viñas is currently attending nursing school full-time.

349. In January 2021, Ms. Viñas signed an enrollment agreement with HCI for 

enrollment in the RN Program with NCLEX code 704146. 

350. Ms. Viñas never signed another enrollment agreement.

351. 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.

352. 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.

353. 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.

354. 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.

355. Tuition Options was the only option presented to Ms. Viñas for financing her 

education expenses not covered by federal student aid.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 56 of 85
57

356. Ms. Viñas agreed to these loans with the understanding that she would have the 

opportunity to complete her program of study in the projected time and that, by granting her entry 

into the nursing profession, the RN Program would provide her with the ability to pay them back.

357. 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.

358. Ms. Viñas’s only hands-on clinical experience consisted of an unofficial visit to a 

psychiatric facility, Ambrosia Treatment Center, for just one day out of the entire semester.

359. The rest of her “clinical” experiences consisted of mandatory study hall, with 

occasional simulated work with mannequins and training videos.

360. Ms. Viñas’s nursing program curriculum did not consist of at least 50 percent of 

clinical training.

361. More than 50 percent of Ms. Viñas’s clinical education featured simulated, not 

actual, clinical experience. 

362. Ms. Viñas progressed in the HCI RN Program until the end of Nursing II, at which 

point she took an ATI predictor as an end-of-semester exit exam.

363. Ms. Viñas exceeded the benchmark for passage of the exam overall; however, she 

achieved less than 50 percent in just one subject area of the test and was therefore told she did not 

pass.

364. 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.

365. Ms. Viñas considered leaving HCI, but she learned that very few institutions would 

credit any of her coursework if she were to transfer to a different program.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 57 of 85
58

366. HCI’s Director of Nursing, Ms. C. Leandre, assured Ms. Viñas that if she reenrolled, her graduation was guaranteed. 

367. Ms. Viñas paid HCI an additional $12,000 to repeat the semester. 

368. Ms. Viñas again “failed” the end-of-semester exam because of the 50 percent rule

in December 2021.

369. Administrators told her that it was entirely her fault 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. 

370. 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. 

371. 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.

372. 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

373. Tiffany King is a 35-year-old Black single mother.

374. 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.

375. In February 2020, Ms. King signed an enrollment agreement with HCI for 

enrollment in the RN Program with NCLEX code 704146. 

376. Ms. King never signed another enrollment agreement. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 58 of 85
59

377. 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.

378. 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.

379. 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.

380. Ms. King agreed to these loans with the understanding that she would have the 

opportunity to complete her program of study in the projected time and that, by granting her entry 

into the nursing profession, the RN Program would provide her with the ability to pay them back.

381. Ms. King began classes at HCI the first week of May 2020.

382. 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.

383. Ms. King’s clinical experience for Nursing II consisted entirely of limited practice 

on medical dummies.

384. 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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 59 of 85
60

385. Ms. King’s nursing program curriculum did not consist of at least 50% of clinical 

training.

386. Of the minimal clinical education Ms. King did have, more than 50% featured 

simulated, not actual, clinical experience.

387. Ms. King was able to pass all specialty exams in both Nursing I and Nursing II. 

388. 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.

389. Ms. King successfully got through Nursing III, passing the predictor exam at the 

end of the semester.

390. 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.

391. HCI did not tell Ms. King or her fellow Capstone students what final exam they 

were taking or should prepare for. 

392. During her first attempt at Capstone, Ms. King failed her first comprehensive 

predictor (a Kaplan exam) but passed her second comprehensive predictor (an ATI exam). This 

gave her the “green light” to take the VATI Comprehensive Assessment, which she also passed.

393. Ms. King was then given a Kaplan comprehensive predictor 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.

394. Ms. King appealed this decision on the grounds that she had met all graduation 

requirements stated in her Enrollment Agreement and in HCI’s college catalog, but Defendants 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 60 of 85
61

never responded to her appeal, even though it was addressed to several instructors and the Dean 

of HCI’s West Palm Beach campus. 

395. 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.

396. During her second attempt at Capstone, Ms. King had her best semester. She passed 

her first comprehensive predictor (an ATI exam), her second comprehensive predictor (a Kaplan), 

and her VATI Comprehensive Assessment. 

397. Despite having met all graduation requirements, she was given another exam, 

which was unexpectedly a HESI exam, a format with which Ms. King and her classmates were 

unfamiliar.

398. Ms. King was told that she failed the HESI exam and was not offered an opportunity 

to retake any failed exams despite the fact that her Enrollment Agreement provided for such an 

opportunity. 

399. Once again, she was never given a specific breakdown of her exam score or what a 

passing grade would have been. She was simply told by email that she had not passed.

400. 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 

additional institutional loans through Tuition Options. She was, therefore, effectively forced to 

drop out.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 61 of 85
62

401. Ms. King was not permitted to graduate despite meeting the graduation 

requirements set forth in her enrollment agreement and college catalog. 

402. 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.

403. 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.

404. 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.

405. 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.

Tresha Thompson

406. Tresha Thompson is 38 years old. She is Black, lives in Margate, Florida, and is a 

mother to one child.

407. Ms. Thompson earned a bachelor’s degree in public administration and sociology 

from Florida International University in 2013.

408. Ms. Thompson earned her CNA license in 2015. She has worked in this role on a 

contract basis through a placement agency in Florida.

409. Her primary form of employment, both currently and upon entering HCI, is in 

aviation as an air hostess for JetBlue.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 62 of 85
63

410. Ms. Thompson first heard about HCI from acquaintances and decided to enroll 

because of the convenience the school offered. Although she had intended to enroll in the night 

program, at orientation HCI pushed her into day classes, which were less convenient for her to 

manage. She wanted a flexible schedule so that she could continue working. 

411. During her initial visit to HCI-FTL, Ms. Thompson met with an admissions 

representative named Raquel Garcia. Ms. Garcia pressured Ms. Thompson to take HCI’s nominal 

entrance exam, the Test of Essential Academic Skill (“TEAS”), immediately in order to save her 

spot for that semester.

412. When Ms. Thompson asked about credit transferability and accreditation, she was 

told that the school was accredited – implying that it had full, programmatic accreditation. Had 

Ms. Thompson known that the school did not have programmatic accreditation, she would not 

have attended.

413. Ms. Thompson was also told that some of her previously earned credits could be 

applied to her transcript, but most would not. Similarly, a financial aid representative told her that 

she would have to primarily use financing to pay for HCI’s tuition because she had used most of 

her Title IV eligibility earning her bachelor’s degree.

414. The financial aid representative who worked with Ms. Thompson was Chelsie 

Bernades. Ms. Bernades told Ms. Thomspon that tuition would cost her $46,000. Part of her 

financing agreement involved a loan through Tuition Options. 

415. Throughout her time at HCI-FTL, Ms. Thompson was also expected to make 

minimum monthly payments of about $400 on her Tuition Options account. Ms. Thompson 

currently owes Tuition Options $11,000.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 63 of 85
64

416. Ms. Thompson agreed to these loans with the understanding that she would have 

the opportunity to complete her program of study in the projected time and that, by granting her 

entry into the nursing profession, the RN Program would provide her with the ability to pay them 

back.

417. Ms. Thompson signed her enrollment agreement on May 28, 2021, attached hereto 

as Exhibit D. Her start date at HCI-FTL was July 12, 2021, with an anticipated completion date 

of June 24, 2023. 

418. Ms. Thompson began with online courses in July 2021, retaking some prerequisites 

that she previously had earned credits for but that HCI would not honor. 

419. After completing her online prerequisites, Ms. Thompson moved into Nursing I in 

November of 2021, which she completed without issue. 

420. Ms. Thompson was not given any on-site clinical training in Nursing I, just 

classroom and simulation instruction. 

421. The 50% rule applied to the specialty exams at the end of Nursing I; Ms. Thompson 

passed despite this additional hurdle.

422. At the end of Nursing I, HCI-FTL instituted a required 75% overall grade to 

advance to the end-of-semester proctored exam, which would be graded according to the 50% rule. 

These rules applied to Ms. Thompson as she began Nursing II.

423. Nursing II saw a marked decline in the quality of instruction. Ms. Thompson’s 

instructors, while qualified on paper, were not experienced in teaching. In particular, medical 

surgery, which is a key course for any nursing student, became an exercise in self-instruction for 

Ms. Thompson and her classmates.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 64 of 85
65

424. Clinical instruction during Nursing II was, once again, essentially nonexistent. Ms. 

Thompson was scheduled for clinical rotations on Saturdays, but HCI failed to place her with an 

outside facility. Instead, she was almost exclusively provided simulation clinicals on-campus at 

HCI, with inadequate supplies and faulty software. She attended on-site training for no more than 

two days the entire semester for her mental health rotation at a facility called Road2Recovery.

425. Ms. Thompson’s nursing program curriculum did not consist of at least 50 percent 

of clinical training.

426. More than 50 percent of Ms. Thompson’s clinical education featured simulated, not 

actual, clinical experience. 

427. Despite the poor quality of instruction, Ms. Thompson achieved a sufficiently high 

grade (over 80%) during Nursing II to allow her to advance to the ATI specialty exam at the end 

of the semester, which she sat for on June 7, 2022. 

428. Although according to the Enrollment Agreement and College Catalog, her score 

on the specialty exam was sufficient to allow her to advance to Nursing III, HCI failed her on the 

basis of the 50% rule: she got a 40% in one category that consisted of just five questions.

429. During her retake of this ATI exam, on June 21, 2022, Ms. Thompson performed 

even better. HCI, however, once again claimed that she failed because she earned a 50% in one 

category consisting of just two questions.

430. At least one third of Ms. Thompson’s class failed the ATI specialty exam and was 

prevented from advancing to Nursing III.

431. At the close of Nursing II, Ms. Thompson had an overall grade of 89.13%. Despite 

this, and on the basis of no more than four incorrect answers between two separate tests, HCI told 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 65 of 85
66

her that she would have to pay to retake the course and sit again for the ATI exam at the end of 

her repeated semester.

432. When she asked about appealing this result, Ms. Thompson was told by HCI 

officials that appeals were really only ever granted in the event of exceptional or extenuating 

circumstances, which would not apply to her.

433. Ms. Thompson decided her best course of action was to retake the semester and 

accept the extra cost to keep moving ahead with her RN program. She had to pay about $5,000 to 

retake Nursing II.

434. In addition to charging Ms. Thomspon to retake the semester, HCI would not let 

her retake Nursing II until she paid up her outstanding balance with Tuition Options. Doing this 

required her to cash out approximately $18,000 from her 401(k). 

435. Ms. Thompson started Nursing II again in the fall of 2022. As before, she succeeded 

academically until she contracted COVID-19. 

436. HCI’s policies understandably disallowed her from attending classes while she was 

positive with COVID-19. However, this caused Ms. Thompson to surpass the maximum limit of 

missed class days, a policy that was not stated in the Enrollment Agreement or college catalog and 

that she was not aware of until HCI informed her that she would again be dropped due to her 

supposed violation of this attendance rule.

437. Ms. Thompson appealed to HCI-FTL’s administrators and wrote personal letters to 

both Campus President David Shelpman and Dean Edwards to contest this unfair and illogical 

contradiction in HCI’s policies. Neither of these requests were acknowledged.

438. Eventually, HCI told Ms. Thompson that if she were willing to pay $5,800 in cash, 

they would consider allowing her to return in March of 2023 to once again take Nursing II.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 66 of 85
67

439. Unable to shoulder the financial burden, and with no guaranty that she would move 

forward in her program, Ms. Thompson decided not to reenroll.

440. When she started looking for other nursing schools to try and continue toward her 

goal of becoming an RN, Ms. Thompson learned that almost none of her nursing credits earned at 

HCI would be transferable. 

441. When Ms. Thompson requested her transcript from HCI on or around November 

2022, she was told that it would not be provided to her until she paid the balance of her Tuition 

Options loan, amounting to about $11,000.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

A. Class Definition

442. Named Plaintiffs seek an order certifying: 

i. a Class (the “Primary Class”) consisting of “all students who enrolled in the RN

Program at HCI after September 1, 2019”;

ii. a subclass (the “WPB Subclass”) consisting of “all students who enrolled at HCI in 

the RN Program operating under NCLEX code 704146”;

iii. a subclass (the “Withholding Subclass”) consisting of “all HCI students who 

enrolled in HCI’s RN Programs after September 1, 2019, signed retail installment 

contracts, and were denied advancement in the RN Program and/or had their 

transcripts or other HCI records withheld or delayed for any period of time as a 

result of their Tuition Options balance”; 

iv. a subclass (the “Unjust Enrichment Subclass”) consisting of “all HCI students who 

enrolled in the Capstone nursing course and paid for VATI after September 1, 

2019”; and

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 67 of 85
68

v. a subclass (the “Targeting Subclass”) consisting of “all Black students who enrolled

in the RN Program at HCI after September 1, 2019 and who took out student loans 

to pay for their education.”

443. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the definition of the Class and 

Subclasses before the Court determines whether certification is appropriate.

B. Numerosity

444. The 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 and 118 students were enrolled in the program operating 

under NCLEX code 704135.

C. Commonality and Predominance

445. 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 

Proposed Class Members instruction by qualified faculty and/or practical

clinical experience as required under Florida law;

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 68 of 85
69

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 HCI and/or for the 

provision of educational services by HCI, Defendants’ acts, policies, and 

practices intentionally discriminate against Black people.

446. These common issues will drive the outcome of every one of each Class Member’s 

claims, will be decided under identical legal standards, and can be resolved using common 

evidence. Common issues therefore predominate.

D. Typicality

447. All named Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to represent, defined as 

individuals who enrolled in HCI’s RN Program between September 1, 2019 and the present. 

448. Plaintiffs Roberson, Freeman, Viñas, and King are members of the WPB Subclass.

449. Plaintiffs Roberson and Thomspon are members of the Withholding Subclass.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 69 of 85
70

450. Plaintiffs Roberson, Freeman, and King are members of the Unjust Enrichment 

Subclass.

451. Plaintiffs Roberson, King, and Thompson, all Black women, are members of the 

Targeting Subclass.

452. 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.

453. 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. 

454. Defendants provided each and every individual who enrolled in HCI-WPB’s RN 

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.

455. At no time during the Class period did Defendants possess the required license to 

offer retail installment contracts in the State of Florida.

456. 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

457. 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 main HCI campus, many Class Members, and 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 70 of 85
71

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.

F. Adequacy of Representation

458. 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.

459. 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 – Grading and Advancement

(By All Plaintiffs and the Primary Class)

460. 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 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 71 of 85
72

461. 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, 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.

462. 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. 

463. 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.

464. 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 – Misrepresentation of Educational Services Provided

(By All Plaintiffs and the Primary Class)

465. At all material times, Defendants were engaged in “trade or commerce” within the 

meaning of §§ 501.204(1) and 501.203(8). 

466. 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 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 72 of 85
73

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce,” § 501.204(1), when 

they, among other things: 

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 

F.S. § 464.019(1) 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.

467. 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. 

468. 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 73 of 85
74

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 – Unauthorized Retail Installment Contracts

(By All Plaintiffs and the Primary Class)

469. At all material times, Defendants were engaged in “trade or commerce” within the 

meaning of §§ 501.204(1) and 501.203(8). 

470. 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.

471. 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.

472. Absent these violations, Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members would not have 

entered into or paid amounts toward unenforceable, illegal contracts.

473. Because of these violations, the State of Florida was prevented from performing 

necessary oversight that could have prevented damaged to Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 74 of 85
75

474. 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 4: Breach of Contract – Grading and Advancement

(By Plaintiffs and the Primary Class)

475. 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.” 

476. An Enrollment Agreement constitutes a contract between the student and 

Defendants. 

477. Defendants’ college catalogue statesspecific 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. 

478. Defendants’ college catalog is a contract. Fla. Admin. Code r. 6E-2.004(11)(b)(2).

479. Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs and Class Members by making 

arbitrary and capricious changes to testing and grading requirements. 

480. Defendants’ breaches were material.

481. 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 75 of 85
76

Count 5: Breach of Contract – Clinical Placement

(By All Plaintiffs and the Primary Class)

482. Each Plaintiff and Proposed Class Member entered into an Enrollment Agreement 

with Defendants. 

483. The Enrollment Agreement states that clinical rotations “[i]nclude[] a combination 

of medical facility, simulation lab and other field experience.”

484. An Enrollment Agreement constitutes a contract between the student and 

Defendants. 

485. Defendants’ college catalog states: “The [RN] program is designed to provide 

educational and clinical experiences leading to employment in beginning positions as registered 

nurses in hospitals or comparable facilities.”

486. Defendants’ college catalog is a contract. Fla. Admin. Code r. 6E-2.004(11)(b)(2). 

487. Defendants maintain in HCI’s 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 attest to its compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of professional 

nursing programs with respect to, inter alia, clinical placements. 

488. Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members

by failing to provide clinical placements.

489. Defendants’ breaches were material.

490. As a result of these actions, HCI caused Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members 

damages.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 76 of 85
77

Count 6: 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

(By Plaintiffs Roberson, Freeman, Viñas, King, and the WPB Subclass)

491. At all material times, Defendants were engaged in “trade or commerce” within the 

meaning of §§ 501.204(1) and 501.203(8). 

492. In connection with the provision of educational services by WPB-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. 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. 

493. 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 77 of 85
78

494. Each of these violations caused Plaintiffs and the Proposed WPB Subclass 

damages. Because the education Defendants provided was functionally valueless, Plaintiffs’ and 

Proposed Subclass Members’ damages equal the price they paid for tuition.

Count 7: Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, 

Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. Based on Unfair Trade Practices – Withholding 

Advancement and Transcripts from Students for Defendant’s Financial Gain

(By Plaintiffs Roberson, Thompson, and the Withholding Subclass)

495. At all material times, Defendants were engaged in “trade or commerce” within the 

meaning of §§ 501.204(1) and 501.203(8). 

496. The United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently deemed it 

unlawful when “in-house lenders employ a practice of withholding transcripts when a student 

borrower has an outstanding debt” and explained that this practice “is designed to gain leverage 

over borrowers and coerce them into making payments, as it is difficult to seek employment or 

transfer education credits to another school without an official transcript.”22

497. 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. refused to let students progress through the RN Program until they paid the 

balance on their retail installment contracts; and

b. refused to send former students copies of their transcripts until they paid the 

balance on their retail installment contracts.

22 https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_student-loan-servicing-supervisoryhighlights-special-edition_report_2022-09.pdf

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 78 of 85
79

498. Under FDUTPA, these violations constitute “unfair practices” because they offend 

established public policy, including the CFPB policy outlined above, or are immoral, unethical, 

oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.

499. Each of these violations caused Plaintiffs and the Proposed Withholding Subclass 

damages. Plaintiffs’ and Proposed Subclass Members’ damages equal any amounts they paid on 

their retail installment contracts in order to access their education or to obtain their academic 

transcripts.

500. The delay caused by these violations also cost Plaintiffs Roberson, Thompson, and 

the Withholding Subclass precious time during which they could have explored entering other 

nursing programs. 

Count 8: Unjust Enrichment

(By Plaintiffs Roberson, Freeman, King, and the Unjust Enrichment Subclass)

501. 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.

502. HCI knowingly and voluntarily accepted and retained this benefit.

503. In exchange, HCI did not provide the promised course. Instead, HCI provided 

Plaintiffs and Unjust Enrichment Subclass Members with little more than access to the VirtualATI, 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.

504. Defendants did not disclose to Plaintiffs and Class Members the actual cost of the 

VATI program.

505. Neither Defendants’ Enrollment Agreements nor Defendants’ college catalogs 

contained express provisions relating to the charges for the VATI program.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 79 of 85
80

506. 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 9: Violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et 

seq.

(By Plaintiffs Roberson, King, Thompson, and the Targeting Subclass)

507. 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).

508. 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). 

509. 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). 

510. 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). 

511. 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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 80 of 85
81

512. 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. 

513. 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.

514. HCI caused students to apply for and take out credit in the form of federal and 

private student loans, including retail installment contracts. 

515. 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). 

516. As Black applicants, members of the Targeting Subclass are members of a protected 

class. Id. § 1691(a)(1).

517. 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.

518. By extending and arranging for the extensions of credit to Plaintiffs Roberson, 

King, Thompson, and the Targeting Subclass for an illusory program, HCI committed unlawful 

reverse redlining in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a).

519. As a result of these actions, HCI caused Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed 

Targeting Subclass damages.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 81 of 85
82

Count 10: Violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 

2000d et seq.

(By Plaintiffs Roberson, King, Thompson, and the Targeting Subclass)

520. 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.

521. 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 

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.

522. 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.

523. 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.

524. Reverse redlining violates Title VI.

525. Defendants, as recipients of federal financial aid, receive “Federal financial 

assistance” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

526. Defendants have not complied with Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000d.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 82 of 85
83

527. 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.

528. As a result of these actions, Defendants caused Plaintiffs and members of the 

Proposed Targeting Subclass 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 Primary Class, Proposed HCIWPB Subclass, Proposed Withholding Subclass, Proposed Unjust Enrichment Class, and Proposed

Targeting Subclass: 

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.;

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 83 of 85
84

G. Awarding actual damages, both economic and non-economic, to all members of the 

Proposed Primary Class, Proposed WPB Subclass, Proposed Withholding 

Subclass, 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 9 and other claims where permitted by law, awarding 

punitive damages to all members of the Proposed Primary 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” RN Program at HCI-WPB;

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.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 84 of 85
85

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs request trial by jury as to all issues in this case.

Dated: 2/21/2023

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)

reisenbrey@ppsl.org

ERIC SCHMIDT

(pro hac vice)

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 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 85 of 85