1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

SIMON PFEIFER, ISABEL BOTELLO, and 

KARI WHALEN, Individually and on Behalf 

of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 20-cv-03116 

Honorable Robert W. Gettleman 

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT 

(1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; and 

(2) UNJUST ENRICHMENT; 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiffs Simon Pfeifer, Isabel Botello, and Kari Whalen (“Plaintiffs”), individually and 

on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, bring this class action complaint against the 

Loyola University of Chicago (“Loyola,” the “University” or “Defendant”). Plaintiffs make the 

following allegations upon personal knowledge as to their own acts and upon information and 

belief and their attorneys’ investigation as to all other matters. 

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This action is brought on behalf of students of Loyola University of Chicago who 

seek a fair adjustment of the top-dollar tuition and fees that Defendant retains despite the 

termination of in-person instruction, and the loss of related access, benefits, and services in the 

middle of the Spring 2020 semester due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) 

pandemic. 

2. As set forth more fully below, during the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiffs and other 

similarly situated individuals (“the Class”) contracted with Defendant for certain services; namely, 

a full semester’s worth of live, on-campus instruction, along with access to campus facilities, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:2482
2 

communities, events, and other resources. 

3. Plaintiffs and Class members upheld their end of the bargain, collectively paying 

Defendant millions of dollars in tuition and mandatory fees. 

4. However, just over halfway into the Spring 2020 semester, Defendant abruptly 

denied Plaintiffs and Class members the on-campus instruction and access to campus resources 

for which they had contracted. On March 13, 2020, Defendant suspended “all in-person, face-toface classes.”1

 On March 19, 2020, barring exceptional circumstances, Defendant evicted Loyola 

students from on-campus housing.2 At 5 p.m. on March 20, 2020, Defendant closed “nearly all 

University buildings” to Loyola students.3 

5. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Class did not receive the full semester’s worth of inperson education and on-campus benefits for which they bargained. 

6. Plaintiffs and the Class therefore seek damages and/or restitution in the form of 

tuition and fee refunds of the tuition and fees they were responsible for paying for the Spring 2020 

semester for the period during which they were denied in-person, on-campus instruction and access 

to campus facilities and resources. 

II. PARTIES 

A. Plaintiffs 

7. Plaintiff Simon Pfeifer (“Plaintiff Pfeifer”) is a resident of Winter Springs, Florida. 

During the 2019-2020 academic year, Plaintiff Pfeifer was a second-year, full-time undergraduate 

student at Loyola, where he was majoring in History. During the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiff 

Pfeifer registered specifically and exclusively for Loyola’s in-person, on-campus courses. Prior to 

the campus closure, Plaintiff Pfeifer had access to, and regularly accessed, campus resources and 

1

 https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/previousmessages/2020-0312-1-coronaviruscovid-19update.shtml (last visited 

Jan. 5, 2023). 

2 Id.

3

https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/previousmessages/2020-0319-1-

campuschangesandclosurescovid19responseupdate.shtml (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:2483
3 

facilities, including gyms, libraries, and parking facilities. He also participated in a fraternity. In 

exchange for his on-campus studies during the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiff Pfeifer was 

responsible for paying Defendant $22,065 in tuition, a $125 Technology Fee, a $419 Student 

Development Fee, a $155 CTA U-Pass Fee, and a $50 Language Lab fee. Finally, in the fall of 

2019, Plaintiff Pfeifer paid Defendant $530 for an annual parking permit. 

8. Plaintiff Isabel Botello (“Plaintiff Botello”) is a resident of Itasca, Illinois. During 

the 2019-2020 academic year, Plaintiff Botello was a second-year, full-time undergraduate student 

at Loyola, where she was majoring in Psychology. During the Spring 2020 Semester, Plaintiff 

Botello registered specifically and exclusively for Loyola’s in-person, on-campus courses. Prior 

to the campus closure, Plaintiff Botello had access to, and regularly accessed, campus resources 

and facilities, including the Loyola campus library, as she did not have wireless internet at home. 

She also used the campus gym multiple times each week. In exchange for her on-campus studies 

during the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiff Botello was responsible for paying Defendant $22,065 

in tuition, a $125 Technology Fee, a $419 Student Development Fee, and a $155 CTA U-Pass Fee, 

which required her to take out loans. In the fall of 2019, she also paid Defendant $530 for an annual 

parking permit. 

9. Plaintiff Kari Whalen (“Plaintiff Whalen”) is a resident of Morris, Illinois. During 

the 2019-2020 academic year, Plaintiff Whalen was a senior, full-time undergraduate student at 

Loyola, where she majored in Criminal Justice/Criminology and Psychology. During the Spring 

2020 Semester, Plaintiff Whalen registered specifically and exclusively for Loyola’s in-person, 

on-campus courses. Prior to the campus closure, Plaintiff Whalen had access to, and regularly 

accessed, campus resources and facilities, and in fact used the campus gym nearly every day. She 

also worked at the gym as a manager—a job which she lost when Defendant closed its campuses, 

thus causing Plaintiff Whalen to lose her only source of income. In exchange for her on-campus 

studies during the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiff Whalen was responsible for paying Defendant 

$22,065 in tuition, a $125 Technology Fee, a $419 Student Development Fee, and a $155 CTA UCase: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:2484
4 

Pass Fee. 

B. Defendant 

10. Loyola University of Chicago is a private, not-for-profit corporation with its 

principal place of business is in Chicago, Illinois. 

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

11. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), as modified 

by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, because at least one Class member is of diverse 

citizenship from one Defendant, there are more than 100 Class members, and the aggregate amount 

in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest, and costs. 

12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant maintains 

its principal place of business in this judicial District. 

13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), because 

Defendant resides in this District and is a resident of Illinois. 

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

A. Background 

14. Prior to the Spring 2020 semester, Loyola University marketed itself to prospective 

undergraduate and graduate students as a diverse campus-based community that offered in-person 

and experiential learning on its physical campuses and other partner institutions. Loyola offered 

prospective undergraduate students a residential college experience, that, in addition to providing 

in-person classes and experiential learning, offered opportunities beyond the classroom to connect, 

learn, and engage on campus. It is those shared experiences and co-curricular activities that the 

University claimed differentiate it from other institutions and justify its high cost. Loyola also 

marketed similar in-person, campus-based instruction and opportunities to graduate students. 

15. Like other residential colleges and universities, Loyola does not merely sell credit 

hours and diplomas in exchange for money, as one would sell some common consumer 

commodity. Rather, Defendant sells an educational experience based on specific services, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:2485
5 

including live, in-person classes and access to campus facilities, events, opportunities, resources, 

and a rich tapestry of co-curricular experiences. 

16. Founded in 1870 and now based in Chicago, Illinois and the surrounding area, 

Loyola is a prestigious, private, Jesuit research university. During the Spring 2019-2020 academic 

year, Loyola catered to both undergraduate and graduate students, offering over 80 undergraduate 

majors in fields ranging from chemistry to dance, and over 140 graduate, professional, and 

graduate-level certificate programs, across 11 schools and colleges. 

17. In fall 2019, Loyola enrolled over 12,000 undergraduates and nearly 5,000 graduate 

students, for a total enrollment of more than 17,000.4

18. In 2019, Loyola had an endowment of more than $800 million.5

19. Loyola is considered a top-tier higher education institution, ranking 104th in the best 

“National Universities” category of the 2020 edition of U.S. News & World Report’s Best 

Colleges.” 

B. Before Spring 2020, Loyola Offered—and Distinguished Between—

On-Campus and Online Programs 

20. For the 2019-2020 school year, Loyola offered the vast majority its undergraduate 

students classes that would be taught in-person, on Loyola’s campuses, as well as access to Loyola 

campus facilities. It also offered the vast majority of Loyola graduate and professional students inperson classes in Loyola’s main campus and professional schools, such as the Law and Medical 

Schools, in addition to access to Loyola campus facilities and resources. 

21. Prior to the Spring 2020 semester, Loyola offered a few online class options, as 

well, primarily for nontraditional students. In the 2019-2020 academic year, Loyola offered seven 

adult degree completion programs, 21 graduate programs, and 18 certificate programs online.6

4

 https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/oie/Official_Statistics_2019_20.pdf (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

5

 https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/finance/pdfs/fy19_financial_statements.pdf (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

6

 https://web.archive.org/web/20200730140650/https://www.luc.edu/online/aboutloyolaonline/ (last visited Jan. 5, 

2023). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:2486
6 

22. Loyola’s on-campus and online options for the 2019-2020 school year were not 

interchangeable. Instead, depending on whether a student contracted for an in-person program or 

an online one, Defendant provided an entirely different experience and set of services. 

23. The distinctions were apparent at every step. For example, Defendant marketed its 

online programs—collectively referred to as “Online Learning at Loyola”—through both a unique 

website7 and course catalog.8 

24. Perhaps the greatest differences were in the format in which Defendant delivered 

instruction and resources depending on whether a student enrolled in an on-campus or online 

program—and the price Loyola charged for those services. 

25. Prior to the Spring 2020 semester, for students who enrolled in one of Defendant’s 

many traditional, in-person, on-campus programs, Defendant delivered 100% of the courses inperson at one of its physical campuses, as described in greater detail below. Notably, prior to 

Spring 2020, Defendant routinely acknowledged that certain classes—“includ[ing] labs, 

experiential learning classes, and research”—“requir[e] face-to-face interaction” and thus can only

be taught in-person.9 It is no doubt for this reason that, prior to COVID-19, the majority of 

Defendant’s undergraduate and graduate programs were offered exclusively on-campus, with no 

online option. 

26. Meanwhile, for students who enrolled in Online Learning at Loyola, Defendant 

provided instruction using a mix of online, hybrid, and blended courses. Online courses are those 

that require “no face-to-face meetings on campus,” hybrid courses are those where “at least 75% 

of the course is delivered online,” and blended courses are those where between 30 and 75% of 

the course is delivered online.10 Given the format of these classes, Defendant has historically 

7

 https://www.luc.edu/online/index.shtml (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

8

 https://lucapps.luc.edu/online/course.htm (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

9

 https://web.archive.org/web/20200828184501/https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/faqs/index.cfm (last visited Jan. 

5, 2023). 

10 https://www.luc.edu/online/online_definitions.html (last visited Jan. 5, 2023).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:2487
7 

offered only a fraction of its overall academic offerings online. 

27. For the 2019-2020 academic year, Loyola charged markedly different tuition and 

fee for online programs as opposed to on-campus ones.11

28. Specifically, Defendant charged on-campus, full-time 12 undergraduate students 

$22,065 in tuition per semester, or between $1,050.71 and $1,838.75 per credit hour. 13

Additionally, Defendant charged these students an array of mandatory fees14, including but not 

limited to: a Student Development Fee ($419 per semester for full-time students), which largely 

funds student programs and services, clubs, and special events15; and a Technology Fee ($125 per 

semester for full-time students), which funds, computer labs, software, student technology support, 

and more.16 In addition, Loyola students were responsible for paying a variety of mandatory course 

and supplies fees, and other miscellaneous fees. 

29. During the 2019-20 academic year, Loyola charged students enrolled in online 

bachelor’s and certificate programs far lower amount of tuition and fees—merely $693 in tuition 

per credit.17 Defendant also charged these online students, at most, a $92 Student Development 

Fee and a $78 Technology Fee—both markedly lower than the corresponding fees charged for oncampus students. 

30. These differences in tuition and mandatory fee charges reflect the fact that, for the 

Spring 2020 semester, Loyola students who enrolled in on-campus programs were to have access 

to facilities, events, activities, and other resources—coupled with face-to-face, live instruction—

11 https://www.luc.edu/bursar/tuitionfees/2019-2020/ (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 12 Those taking 12-21 credit hours per semester; see https://www.luc.edu/bursar/tuitionfees/2019-

2020/undergraduate/ (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

13 Part-time, on-campus undergraduate students were charged $814 in tuition per credit hour and fees based on 

how many credits in which they were enrolled. https://www.luc.edu/bursar/tuitionfees/2019-2020/undergraduate/ 

(last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

14 Id.

15 https://www.luc.edu/bursar/faqs.shtml (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

16 https://www.luc.edu/its/aboutits/itspoliciesguidelines/tech_fee_faq.shtml (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

17 https://www.luc.edu/bursar/tuitionfees/2019-2020/scps/ (last visited Jan. 5, 2023).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:2488
8 

that were simply unavailable to those who instead opted to pursue their degrees online. 

C. Plaintiffs Contracted with Loyola for In-Person, Face-to-Face Classes 

and Access to Campus Facilities, Resources 

31. For the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiffs each enrolled in in-person, on-campus 

classes, i.e., they registered (and were responsible to pay) to have access to in-person instruction 

and physical access to campus facilities and resources. In doing so, and unlike students enrolled in 

Online Learning at Loyola, they contracted with Defendant specifically for (1) courses that would 

be delivered 100% in-person and on-campus and (2) access to the many campus facilities and inperson resources and services that Loyola promised would be available to them. 

32. The contractual relationship between Plaintiffs (and the proposed Class members), 

on the one hand, and Loyola, on the other, is based on the terms and conditions set forth in Loyola’s 

catalogs, bulletins, circulars, and regulations made available to students, including, inter alia,

Defendant’s 2019-2020 Course Catalog (“Course Catalog”), Community Standards, Information 

Technology Services Policies, Office of the Bursar Policies, Facility Policies, and Student 

Organization Handbook, in addition to the statements made in the class registration process 

Plaintiffs and others followed prior to the Spring 2020 semester, and the parties’ prior course of 

conduct. As these and other Loyola materials set out, in exchange for enrolling in and paying for 

Defendant’s in-person courses and programs for the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiffs and Class 

members were promised on-campus instruction and access to specific campus resources for the 

full duration of that semester.

33. First, in describing courses, Loyola’s Course Catalog made numerous statements 

promising students courses that would be delivered on-campus. See Exhibit A.18 Additionally, the 

Course Catalog promises in-person instruction, with numerous course listings specifying, for 

18 The Course Catalog is also available at 

https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/registrationrecords/pdfs/Course_Descriptions_2019-2020.pdf (last visited Jan. 

5, 2023). On information and belief, Loyola’s online course registration portal, LOCUS, contained the same 

promises concerning the mode and nature of the instruction for which students were contracting with the 

university. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:2489
9 

example, that courses would involve “In person” or “Laboratory” elements and be held in oncampus facilities. 

34. The course descriptions in the Course Catalog impliedly or explicitly stated that 

courses would involve in-person, hands-on instruction. For example, the Course Catalog described 

a course titled “Ballet I: Introduction to Ballet Theory and Technique” as having: a “Component[]” 

of “Performance(In person)”; a “Room Requirement[]” of “Dance Studio(1)”; and an “Outcome” 

that “Students will improve their posture, flexibility and coordination. They will develop a 

reference for enjoying ballet performances and create a foundation for further dance training.” Ex. 

A at 388. 

35. As another example, the Course Catalog described a course titled “General Biology 

I Lab” as having: a “Component[]” of “Laboratory”; a “Room Requirement[]” of “Lab – 

Biology(1)”; and an explanation that the course will involve “ observation, experimentation, and 

when appropriate, dissection of representative organisms.” Id. at 200. There are hundreds of other 

examples of these types of promises of in-person instruction in physical, not virtual, classrooms, 

laboratories, and performance spaces. 

36. In addition to the Course Catalog’s promises of in-person instruction, Defendant 

promised that students who enrolled in on-campus courses would have access to campus facilities 

and resources. For example, Defendant’s Information Technology Services Policies promised that 

“[a]ccess and use of public-access facilities, e.g., computing centers and computer labs, are 

available to students.” See Exhibit B at 3.19 Additionally, Loyola’s Office of the Bursar Policies, 

promised that in exchange for students’ payment of the Student Development Fee, Defendant 

promised to “fund[] multiple programs and services for students,” including “the Wellness Center, 

Halas membership, shuttle bus, and 8-ride programs,” as well as “funding for clubs and 

organizations” and “a few special events organized by the students and administrators.” See

19 Also available at https://www.luc.edu/policy/informationtechnologyservicespolicies/ (last visited Jan. 5, 2023).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:2490
10 

Exhibit C at 1.20 

37. Other University catalogues, bulletins, circulars, and regulations promised to 

Plaintiffs and Class members, for example, a campus shuttle service and access to cultural and 

social events. See Exhibit D at 14, 15. 21 They also promised students a chance to participate in 

student organizations that, in turn, “are afforded the privilege of being able to request and use 

University space and facilities.” See Exhibit E at 20. 

38. Additionally, as set forth in Defendant’s regulation for tuition and fees and in its 

definitions for Online Learning at Loyola for the Spring 2020 semester, see Exhibit F at 1, when 

Plaintiffs and Class members registered and assumed the responsibility to pay the distinct and 

higher tuition and fees for on-campus programs—as opposed to online programs—Defendant 

promised them that their courses would not be delivered, in part or in full, online. 

39. All told, by registering and paying tuition and fees for Defendant’s on-campus 

courses for the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiffs and Class members did not merely hope to receive 

in-person instruction and campus resources for the full semester—they were contractually entitled 

to it. Indeed, the parties’ prior course of conduct supports this: Prior to the Spring 2020 semester, 

when Plaintiffs and other students registered and paid and/or made arrangements to pay tuition 

and fees for in-person, on-campus courses, Defendant provided them with in-person instruction 

and campus access for the full duration of the corresponding semester. 

40. In addition to its course of conduct, catalogs, bulletins, circulars, and regulations, 

Loyola also represented across a variety of materials that students who enrolled in in-person, oncampus courses for the Spring 2020 semester would receive in-person instruction and access to a 

robust “campus life.” Indeed, the navigation on Defendant’s website for on-campus programs 

prominently featured (and still does feature) an entire section titled “Campus Life”—a section that 

did not exist on the navigation for Defendant’s website for its online programs.22

20 Also available at https://www.luc.edu/bursar/faqs.shtml (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

21 Also available at https://www.luc.edu/hr/sweg/benefitsservices/ (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

22 https://www.luc.edu/ (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:2491
11 

41. Moreover, prior to the Spring 2020 semester, Defendant advertised that, across its 

two campuses—the Lake Shore Campus, the University’s main residential campus, and the Water 

Town Campus, which is home to most of Defendant’s graduate programs—in-person students 

could participate in hundreds of clubs, ranging from honors to political organizations and hobby 

to spiritual groups. “With over 250 clubs and student-run organizations on campus, there’s 

always someone to connect with, something to do, and somewhere to be. It’s easy to meet new 

friends and make new connections inside—and outside—the classroom,” Defendant’s website for 

on-campus programs stated.23 Defendant also boasted an active in-person Greek life, more than 30 

intramural and club sports, and more than 15 Division I sports. 

42. Indeed, Defendant indicated that the University’s mission involves offering its oncampus students “essential” co-curricular involvement and experiences “beyond the classroom”: 

Philosophy Statement 

We believe co-curricular involvement is an essential part of Loyola University 

Chicago. It provides students with a variety of opportunities to explore their 

interests across a multitude of disciplines and fields. Through a model of 

challenge and support, we are committed to helping students develop into strong 

leaders and positive agents of social change. 

... 

Student Activities & Greek Affairs Mission

The mission of Student Activities & Greek Affairs is to offer opportunities for 

students to connect, learn, and engage beyond the classroom. Through 

shared experiences students gain a greater sense of self and community to foster 

positive social change. 

Ex. E at 5. 

43. Additionally, Loyola represented that its on-campus Loyola students would have 

access to a wide range of campus facilities, including the Halas Recreation Center, Madonna della 

Strada Chapel, Arnold J. Damen Student Center, and the Loyola University Museum of Art. 

23 https://www.luc.edu/undergrad/featurecontent/canvases/residencelife/ (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:2492
12 

44. Throughout the website for Loyola’s on-campus programs, Defendant routinely 

highlighted the many unique benefits of enrolling in an in-person, rather than online, program. 

Here, you will explore what interests you, pursue your passions, and leave 

transformed. It’s about more than what classes you’ll take. It’s the research 

opportunities, the internships, the exploration in the city (or not in the city), 

and the time you spend with friends. Your time here will prepare you to launch 

your career with confidence.24

45. Altogether, on-campus facilities, services, opportunities, and resources were so 

critical that the University required full-time first-year and second-year students to live in campus 

housing. “As a residential campus committed to the education of the whole person, the 

residential experience is considered an integral part of a student’s education and the Loyola 

Experience,” Defendant proclaimed in its description of the “Residency Requirement.” See

Exhibit G at 1.25 Per this requirement, as set out in Defendant’s 2019-2020 Community Standards, 

“All full-time first-year and second-year students are required to live in Loyola University Chicago 

Residence Life housing and purchase a meal plan. Typically, this requirement requires four 

semesters of residency in Loyola’s residence halls (not including summer terms).” See Exhibit H 

at 66. 

46. As the Residency Requirement itself demonstrates, Defendant did not just market 

its on-campus programs and the in-person education and countless resources that go along with 

them. Instead, for students who enrolled in Defendant’s full-time, on-campus programs for the 

Spring 2020 semester—including Plaintiffs and Class members—promises of on-campus 

instruction and access to facilities and resources were part of the contractual agreement between 

them and Defendant. 

47. Indeed, prior to the Spring 2020 semester, Defendant recognized that it enters into 

contractual agreements with students. At that time, prior to the start of each semester, Loyola 

students enrolled in classes through LOCUS. On LOCUS, Loyola students selected the classes for 

24 https://www.luc.edu/undergrad/letsgetstarted/freshman/ (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

25 Also available at https://www.luc.edu/reslife/about/residencyrequirement/(last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:2493
13 

which they would register each term. When students were choosing their classes, students could 

search for classes by subject matter, meeting time, meeting day, instructor, campus, location, and 

mode of instruction. See generally Exhibit I. 

48. Before a student registered for a class through LOCUS, they could click on links 

detailing information about the class format, syllabus, textbooks, and materials used in the class. 

LOCUS included a description of each class and notes about how the course would be taught, 

including whether there were service-learning or other in-person requirements. 

49. After choosing classes in LOCUS, Loyola required students to click a button 

indicating that they accept financial responsibility for paying for the specific classes for which 

they enrolled. Id. at 16. 

50. The Financial Responsibility Disclaimer that Loyola required its students to sign 

indicated that there is an agreement between the student and Loyola. It stated that in order for a 

student to enroll in classes at the University, the student must click the “I Accept” button. 

Recognizing that by doing so Loyola has entered a contractual binding agreement with the student, 

the Financial Responsibility Disclaimer required a student to “only be required to do so once per 

term, unless the terms of the agreement are altered by the university between the time that you 

start enrolling for that term and your completion of that process.” Id. 

51. On information and belief, the Financial Responsibility Disclaimer Plaintiffs and 

other Loyola students signed before the start of the 2020 Spring semester indicated that the student 

was responsible for paying all tuition and other fees associated with the classes in which they 

enrolled. Each student agreed that Loyola could impose a 1.5% monthly late fee and place the 

student’s account with a collection agency if the student’s account was past due. The student was 

responsible for paying all fees and costs incurred by Loyola for collection of past due amounts. If 

an account was past due, Loyola blocked the student’s access to campus facilities. 

52. Loyola understands that it enters into contractual relationships with its students who 

register for courses and pay tuition and fees to the University. In fact, Loyola routinely files civil 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:2494
14 

actions alleging breach of contract against students who fail to pay the full amount of tuition and 

fees assessed to them for the classes in which they enroll. For example, in September 2017, Loyola 

sued a student in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Municipal Department, 1st District, 

No. 17M1 125565, alleging breach of contract for failure to pay tuition. In that case, Loyola 

indicated that it “performed all of the conditions and duties on their part” and sought the unpaid 

balance due and owing from the student in that case. See Exhibit J. 

D. Defendant’s Shift to Online Operations in Response to COVID-19 

53. On January 13, 2020, Loyola’s Spring 2020 semester began for undergraduate 

students who had enrolled in on-campus classes. 26 Final examinations for the Spring 2020 

semester for these students were scheduled to conclude on May 2, 2020. In other words, 

undergraduate students enrolled in on-campus courses at Loyola for the Spring 2020 semester 

contracted for 110 days of in-person instruction and access to facilities, services, and resources. 

54. Indeed, from January 13, 2020 through March 10, 2020, pursuant to the terms of 

their agreement with Defendant, Plaintiffs attended classes in-person on Loyola’s campuses and 

enjoyed full access to a myriad of campus facilities, events, services, and more. 

55. However, on March 9, 2020—the first day back from spring break—students’ 

access to in-person class and campus resources came to a screeching halt. First, the University 

advised faculty that courses could begin moving online. “Every class that can be moved online 

(and this includes all lecture classes) must begin preparations for this transition,” Defendant 

announced.27

56. Two days later, on March 11, 2020, the University canceled two events scheduled 

for later that week: the Climate Conference on March 12-13 and the Palmer Research Symposium 

26 Plaintiffs have been unable to locate the Spring 2020 semester academic calendar dates for Loyola graduate 

programs.

27 https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/previousmessages/2020-0309-preparingforonlineclasses.shtml (last visited 

Jan. 5, 2023). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:2495
15 

on March 13.28

57. The next day, on March 12, 2020, the University announced that, effective March 

13 and continuing through the end of the semester, “all in-person, face-to-face classes will be 

suspended.”29 All classes—including those that, per the University’s March 9 message, could not

be moved online—would commence virtually “as soon as possible but no later than Monday, 

March 23.”30 That is, during this transition, from March 13 to March 23, Loyola students were not 

guaranteed any instruction whatsoever. 

58. The University further announced on March 12, 2020 that all residential students 

were expected to leave campus for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester “as soon as 

possible,” and certainly by the end of day on March 19, 2020, when residence halls would close. 

Moreover, the University prohibited “[a]ll University-sponsored events with participation greater 

than 70 people” on Loyola campuses.31 Despite these restrictions, Defendant affirmed that the 

University would “remain[] open to ensure academic and research continuity in support of our 

students’ progress towards the completion of the term.”32

59. Yet, one week later, on March 19, Defendant announced that the entire campus 

would largely shut down the following day: “While the University remains open and will continue 

to offer online instruction and essential services, we expect to begin closing nearly all University 

buildings by 5 p.m. tomorrow (Friday, March 20).”33 Beginning on March 20, “ONLY essential 

personnel—such as life, safety, plant, and animal care personnel, among select others” were 

28 https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/previousmessages/2020-0311-vietnamcentereventsandcampusupdate.shtml 

(last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

29 https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/previousmessages/2020-0312-1-coronaviruscovid-19update.shtml (last visited 

Jan. 5, 2023). 

30 Id.

31 Id.

32 Id.

33https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/previousmessages/2020-0319-1-

campuschangesandclosurescovid19responseupdate.shtml (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:2496
16 

permitted to access campus buildings. 34 Additionally, in the March 19 announcement, the 

University also shared that the intercampus shuttle service would cease operations at 7 p.m. that 

evening. 35

60. Thus, although Defendant maintained that the University was technically “open,” 

for on-campus students, it was anything but. Beginning on March 9, 2020, just 56 days into what 

was supposed to be a 110-day-long semester, complete with campus access and what Defendant 

itself characterized as “in-person, face-to-face classes,” Plaintiffs and Class members began losing 

access to the in-person instruction and campus amenities for which they had contracted. By March 

20, 2020—eight days after the University vowed to remain open—Loyola’s physical campuses 

and in-person resources were completely closed off to students. 

E. Defendant Denied Plaintiffs and the Class the Benefit of Their Bargain 

61. As noted above, prior to COVID-19, Defendant offered students the opportunity to 

take online courses and receive certain degrees through Online Learning at Loyola. In Loyola’s 

online programs, at least 30% and as much as 100% of the courses were delivered online; 

meanwhile, Loyola’s on-campus programs were delivered fully in-person. 

62. Also noted above, during the 2019-2020 academic year, Defendant charged online 

undergraduate students $693 per credit hour in tuition, while charging full-time, on-campus, 

undergraduate students between $1,050.71 and $1,838.75 per credit hour. Additionally, regarding 

fees, Defendant charged online undergraduate students at most a $92 Student Development Fee 

(compared to $419 for full-time, on-campus, undergraduate students) and a $78 Technology Fee 

(compared to $125 for full-time, on-campus, undergraduate students). 

63. For the Spring 2020 semester, Defendant thus charged significantly more for inperson programs as it charged for online programs, recognizing that online courses are not the 

same as live classes and should cost less. 

34 Id.

35 Id.

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:2497
17 

64. But rather than contract for and pay less for Defendant’s online programs, Plaintiffs 

and the Class contracted for and were responsible for paying more for Loyola’s traditional, oncampus, in-person programs. They paid and/or made arrangements to pay increased costs in tuition 

and fees for live, in-person instruction and access to the University’s facilities, technology, and 

resources. 

65. The tuition and fees that Defendant charged Plaintiffs and Class members were 

predicated, for example, on students’ access to in-person instruction, which included hands-on and 

experiential learning opportunities and interaction with and feedback from peers, mentors, 

professors, and guest lecturers; access to technology, computer labs, libraries, and laboratories; 

ability to use recreational facilities, participate in sports, attend athletic and cultural events, use 

campus transportation services, participate in student government, access campus health services, 

join extracurricular groups, and much more. 

66. However, beginning on March 9, 2020, Defendant began suspending in-person, 

face-to-face classes for Plaintiffs and Class members. By March 23, 2020, Defendant had closed 

its physical campuses and shifted these students exclusively into courses that were delivered 100% 

online. 

67. Thus, just halfway into the Spring 2020 semester, Defendant ceased providing the 

education, services, facilities, technology, access, and opportunities that it had marketed and, 

indeed, promised to Plaintiffs and the Class. Instead, Plaintiffs and Class members were provided 

with an online substitute that deprived them of the benefits for which they had bargained and which 

Defendant’s own pricing structure acknowledges is worth significantly less than in-person 

instruction and full access to campus facilities and resources. 

68. Indeed, Defendant has all but admitted that students did not receive the in-person 

education for which Plaintiffs and Class members had bargained. Below is a revealing question 

and response from an FAQ posted by the University: 

Will my child be getting the same level of academic instruction through online 

classes? Every effort has been made to ensure a smooth transition to online 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:2498
18 

learning, and our faculty are being supported with training, resources, and tools to 

conduct their lessons online.36

69. That is, for families wondering if their children would get the academic instruction 

for which they had bargained, the University could not answer with a simple “yes.” 

70. Understandably, Plaintiffs and Class members are dissatisfied that, for nearly half 

of the Spring 2020 semester, they did not receive the specific services for which they had 

contracted—i.e., in-person instruction and access to campus facilities and resources—and, 

moreover, did not receive any commensurate refund from Loyola for the hefty tuition and fees that 

they had already paid and/or made arrangements to pay. 

71. Students’ dissatisfaction is independently evidenced by an online petition, “Lower 

tuition for Loyola University Chicago Spring semester after classes went online,” that was started 

by a Loyola student.37 The petition—which today has over 2,500 signatures—asks for a decrease 

in tuition for the Spring 2020 semester because “[o]nline classes are not what students signed up 

for, and therefore [students] should not be paying full tuition price.”38

72. Students who signed the petition were also given the opportunity to post a 

comment, explaining why they did so. These postings, a sample of which are quoted below, are 

revealing: 

a. “It’s not fair to pay full tuition when we are not able to access everything we would 

be able to on campus. Secondly we did not pay to take online courses and our 

room/board and meal plans are being altered so why shouldn’t our tuition be the 

same?” (posted by Luis Angel Martinez); 

b. “Tuition covers more than instruction, and students are not getting the on-campus 

resources they paid for.” (posted by Heather Cramond); 

c. “It’s the right thing. A virtual offering is a reasonable substitute given the 

circumstances. However, this changes what is being offered and so tuition should 

36 https://web.archive.org/web/20200828184501/https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/faqs/index.cfm (last visited Jan. 

5, 2023). 

37 https://www.change.org/p/loyola-university-chicago-lower-tuition-for-loyola-university-chicago-springsemester-after-classes-went-online (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 

38 Id.

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:2499
19 

adjust to reflect this.” (posted by Noah Arjam); 

d. “Everything about my last semester here was pretty much taken away from me: my 

favorite classes I’ve ever taken, the senior send-off activities, my last show with 

my a cappella group that I’ve been part of for all four years, and possibly 

graduation. It’s just not fair that we have to pay full price for online classes and no 

activities.” (posted by Baylee Corona); 

e. “We deserve money back because we never signed up for online classes. This is 

not what we paid for. If knowing so before I would’ve just went to the Cambridge 

website and took online classes for free.” (posted by Ryan Hong); 

f. “I want the tuition lowered to reflect the lack of resources.” (posted by Kiana 

Janson). 

73. The foregoing is just an illustrative sample of students’ postings. There are many 

other comments with similar sentiments by Loyola students, expressing the view that neither the 

online instruction nor the lack of campus facilities satisfy what students bargained for when they 

registered and paid and/or made arrangements to pay tuition and mandatory fees for the Spring 

2020 semester. 

74. Yet, despite denying Plaintiffs and Class members in-person instruction and oncampus resources for essentially half of the Spring 2020 semester, and despite pleas from 

thousands of students, Defendant has maintained that it will not issue refunds for tuition or most 

mandatory fees for the Spring 2020 semester. Instead, the University offered only partial credits 

for the Student Development Fee.39

75. While Plaintiffs recognize that, in closing its physical campuses and shifting all 

instruction to online, Defendant likely took measures it deemed necessary to protect public health, 

39 For a full-time undergraduate student who had was responsible for paying $419 for this fee, Defendant issued a 

$183 credit. Notably, for the 2020-2021 academic year—when most of Loyola classes continued to be delivered 

online—Defendant did not charge this fee at all. See

https://www.luc.edu/healthsafetyandwellbeing/generalinfo/communitymessages/2020-0626-

1fall2020tuitionfeesandhousing.shtml (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). This is essentially an admission that, when 

instruction is remote and campus access is severely limited, Defendant cannot and does not provide the many 

benefits meant to be covered by this fee; thus, students deserve a much greater refund for the Spring 2020 

semester than that which they have received to date.

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:2500
20 

the fact remains that the instruction and services that Defendant provided to students for the second 

half of the Spring 2020 semester were not that for which Plaintiffs and the Class had registered, 

bargained, and been responsible for paying. 

76. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek—for themselves and the other Class 

members—damages for Defendant’s breach of its agreement to provide live, in-person instruction 

and access to campus facilities, services, and resources for the full duration of the Spring 2020 

semester. Those damages take the form of, inter alia, a refund of a percentage of tuition and fees 

reflecting the fact that Plaintiffs and Class members were denied the in-person instruction and 

access to campus facilities, resources, and services for which they were responsible for paying. 

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

77. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and/or (c)(4), Plaintiffs bring this 

action on behalf of herself and the following Class: 

All students who enrolled in and were responsible for paying tuition and fees for 

in-person classes at Loyola University of Chicago for the Spring 2020 semester. 

78. A class action is a superior means to ensure the fair and efficient adjudication of 

this case. The damages suffered by individual Class members are relatively small compared to the 

burden and expense of individual litigation of the claims described herein against Defendant. 

Moreover, individualized actions would run the risk of creating inconsistent or contradictory 

judgments arising from the same set of facts and would increase the likely delay and expense to 

all parties involved and the Court itself. By contrast, by proceeding as a class action, the claims at 

issue can be adjudicated efficiently through economies of scale. 

79. Numerosity. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1), the members the 

proposed Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that individual joinder of all Class 

members is impracticable. Although the precise number of Class members is unknown presently 

to Plaintiffs, the Class is presumed to number more than 17,000 people and is easily ascertainable 

through enrollment and financial records maintained by Defendant. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:2501
21 

80. Commonality and Predominance. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P 23(a)(1) and 

(b)(3), this action involves questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over 

any individual questions specific to any Class member. These include: 

a. whether Defendant entered into a contract with the Class for the Spring 2020 

semester; 

b. the terms of any such contract; 

c. whether Defendant breached its contract with the Class; 

d. whether the Class is entitled to damages for any such breach; 

e. whether Defendant benefitted unjustly from the money it accepted from the 

Class for the Spring 2020 semester; 

f. whether certification of the Class is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; 

g. whether Class members are entitled to declaratory, equitable, or injunctive 

relief, and/or other relief; and 

h. the amount and nature of relief to be awarded to Plaintiffs and the other Class 

members. 

81. Typicality. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3), Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the 

other Class members’ claims because Plaintiffs and the other Class members were each responsible 

for paying tuition and fee costs associated with the Spring 2020 semester but were not provided 

the instruction and services that those costs were meant to cover. Each suffered damages in the 

form of their lost tuition, fees, and other monies paid to Defendant, and the claims all arise from 

the same Loyola University of Chicago practices and course of conduct. There are no defenses 

available that are unique to Plaintiffs. 

82. Adequacy of Representation. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P 23(a)(4), 

Plaintiffs are adequate Class representatives because their interests do not conflict with the 

interests of the other proposed Class members. Moreover, Plaintiffs have retained counsel 

competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and they intend to prosecute this 

action vigorously on behalf of their fellow Class members. Plaintiffs have no interests that are 

antagonistic to those of the Class and they will fairly and adequately protect the proposed Class’ 

rights along with counsel. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:2502
22 

COUNT I 

Breach of Contract 

83. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations in Paragraphs 1-82 above, as if fully 

alleged herein. 

84. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Class. 

85. For the Spring 2020 semester, Defendant offered two distinct types of academic 

programs: (1) online programs, in which anywhere from 0% to 70% of courses were to be delivered 

on-campus, with the remainder being delivered online; and (2) what Defendant referred to as “inperson, face-to-face classes,” which were to be delivered on Defendant’s physical campuses. 

86. For the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiffs and Class members registered specifically 

for the latter: Defendant’s on-campus courses and programs. 

87. Plaintiffs and Class members were therefore responsible for paying tuition and fees 

for the on-campus, in-person courses for which they registered. Defendant thereafter billed 

Plaintiffs and the Class tuition and fees for on-campus programs (as opposed to lower rates for 

online programs), which Plaintiffs paid and Class members paid and/or made arrangements to pay. 

88. Defendant required students to enter into a binding agreement to pay tuition and 

fees in exchange for specific types of on-campus classes for which they enrolled, along with access 

to appurtenant campus facilities and resources. 

89. Plaintiffs and Class members thereby entered into binding contracts with Defendant 

for on-campus programs for the Spring 2020 semester. 

90. The terms of these contracts are set forth in Defendant’s catalogues, bulletins, 

circulars, and regulations that were made available to students, as well as Defendant’s prior course 

of conduct, i.e., its practice of previously providing in-person instruction and access to campus 

resources to students who registered and paid and/or made arrangements to pay for such. Through 

Defendant’s materials and prior conduct, Defendant made specific promises to, among other 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:2503
23 

things, provide to Plaintiffs and Class members in-person, on-campus instruction and access to 

campus facilities and resources for the full duration of the Spring 2020 semester. 

91. However, beginning in mid-March 2020, roughly halfway into the contract term, 

Defendant ceased providing the agreed upon instruction and access to various campus amenities 

to Plaintiffs and Class members for which they were responsible for paying. By first altogether 

suspending in-person classes and, eventually, closing all campus buildings and facilities to 

students, Defendant failed to perform its contractually agreed-upon services at all for nearly half 

of the Spring 2020 semester. 

92. Defendant has breached its contract with Plaintiffs and the Class by failing to 

provide the promised in-person instruction and access to campus facilities and resources, yet has 

retained tuition and fee payments paid by Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class for these 

promised benefits. 

93. Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have therefore been denied the benefit of 

their bargain. 

94. Plaintiffs and members of the Class have performed all of the obligations on them 

pursuant to their agreement with Defendant, including by making tuition and fee payments to 

Defendant for the Spring 2020 semester, or securing students loans and/or scholarships to make 

such payments. 

95. Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have suffered damages as a direct and 

proximate result of Defendant’s breach, including being deprived of the in-person instruction and 

access to campus facilities, events, and resources that they were promised. 

96. Defendant has failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for the damages they 

have suffered as a result of Defendant’s actions. 

97. Specifically, Defendant has failed to refund or reimburse Plaintiffs and the Class 

the prorated portion of tuition and fees necessary to compensate them for the difference in value 

between what they bargained for and were responsible for paying, and what they received. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:2504
24 

98. To the extent the COVID-19 pandemic frustrated the purpose of Plaintiffs’ and the 

Class’s bargain and expectation to attend in-person classes and have access to campus activities, 

facilities, resources, and services, Plaintiffs and the Class are excused from paying full tuition and 

fees and are entitled to receive the prorated portion of tuition and fees necessary to compensate 

them for the difference in value between what they were responsible for paying, and what they 

received. 

99. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to damages representing the difference in value 

between what they contracted for and what they received. 

100. Plaintiffs and the Class seek all damages and equitable relief to which they may be 

entitled. 

COUNT II 

Unjust Enrichment 

101. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Class in the alternative to the breach of contract claim brought in Count I. 

102. Plaintiffs and the Class conferred a benefit on Defendant in the form of tuition and 

fees for the Spring 2020 semester. 

103. Defendant was aware of and voluntary accepted this benefit. 

104. Plaintiffs and Class members were responsible for paying Defendant tuition and 

fees in exchange for in-person, on-campus instruction, along with access to campus facilities and 

resources, for the full duration of the Spring 2020 semester. 

105. Beginning in mid-March 2020, as described above, Defendant failed to provide 

such instruction and access. 

106. Despite failing to provide the benefits owed, Defendant has retained and 

appreciated the benefit of the amount of tuition and fees that Plaintiffs and the Class provided, to 

the detriment of Plaintiffs and the Class. 

107. For the reasons set forth in this Complaint, the circumstances are such that 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:2505
25 

Defendant’s retention of this benefit violates fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good 

conscience. 

108. Defendant has thus been unjustly enriched by Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s payment 

of tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester. 

109. There is no justification or cause for Defendant’s failure to return the portion of the 

tuition and fees that Defendant has unjustly retained even though it failed to complete the services 

for which Plaintiffs and the Class conferred the benefit to Defendant. 

110. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to and seek 

disgorgement and restitution of the benefits unjustly retained, whether in whole or in part, 

including through refunds for tuition and fees. 

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

111. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the members of the Class, respectfully 

request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant as follows: 

a. Certifying the Class as requested herein, designating Plaintiffs as Class 

representatives, and appointing the undersigned counsel as Class Counsel; 

b. Declaring that Defendant is financially responsible for notifying the Class 

members of the pendency of this suit; 

c. Declaring that Defendant wrongfully kept the monies paid by the Class; 

d. Awarding injunctive relief and restitution as permitted by law or equity; 

e. Awarding Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses; 

f. Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; and 

g. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

VII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure on all causes of action so triable. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:2506
26 

Dated: January 6, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Elizabeth A. Fegan 

Elizabeth A. Fegan 

Fegan Scott LLC 

150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Tel: (312) 741-1019 

Email: beth@feganscott.com 

Ellen T. Noteware 

BERGER MONTAGUE PC 

1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Tel: (215) 875-3000 

Email: enoteware@bm.net 

E. Michelle Drake 

BERGER MONTAGUE PC 

1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 

Minneapolis, MN 55413 

Tel: (612) 594-5999 

Email: emdrake@bm.net 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:2507
27 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Elizabeth A. Fegan, an attorney, affirm that the foregoing Second Amended Complaint 

was filed on January 6, 2023 on ECF, which automatically served all counsel of record. 

Dated: January 6, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Elizabeth A. Fegan 

Elizabeth A. Fegan 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/23 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:2508