1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ANDREEA GOCIMAN, Individually 

and on Behalf of All Others Similarly 

Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO,

Defendant.

Case No. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

(1)BREACH OF CONTRACT;

(2)RESTITUTION BASED ON 

QUASI CONTRACT; and

(3)CONVERSION.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Andreea Gociman (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all 

other similarly situated individuals (collectively, the “Class,” as more fully defined 

below), brings this class action complaint against the Loyola University Chicago

(“Loyola,” the “University” or “Defendant”). Plaintiff makes the following 

allegations upon personal knowledge as to her own acts and upon information and 

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

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a class action brought on brought on behalf of Plaintiff and other 

similarly situated individuals who paid tuition and fees for on-campus courses at 

Loyola University Chicago and who have not been refunded a prorated portion of 

those fees after Loyola abruptly closed its doors to students and hastily shifted from 

the in-person, on-campus classwork for which Plaintiff and others paid, to online 

courses due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”). 

2. Plaintiff and these other proposed Class members are students, families,

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:1
2

and student guarantors who paid millions of dollars in tuition and fees to Loyola (the 

“Class”) and who, as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts, (i) have not received 

refunds or reimbursements for the unused services for which they paid; and/or (ii) 

have not received any refund or reimbursement for the decreased value of the 

education that Defendant provided when classes transitioned from in-person 

instruction to an entirely online and far less valuable format.

3. Loyola University is a private Catholic research university comprised 

of 11 schools and colleges in Chicago, Illinois and the surrounding area. The 

University caters 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.

4. In 2018, Loyola University enrolled nearly 12,000 undergraduates and 

roughly 5,000 graduate students, for a total enrollment of more than 17,000. Loyola 

charges a fixed amount of tuition to students. In 2019, Loyola had an endowment of 

more than $800 million.

1

5. In early March 2020, in response to COVID-19, the University 

completely changed the way in which it provided instruction and services to 

students. On Monday, March 9, 2020—students’ first day back from spring break—

the University advised faculty that courses could begin moving online.

2 A few days 

later, on Thursday, March 12, the University announced that, effective March 13 and 

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

1 Loyola University Chicago – Consolidated Financial Statements And Independent Auditors’ Report: For the 

years ended June 30, 2019 and 2018, Deloitte & Touche LLP (September 19, 2019) 

https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/finance/pdfs/fy19_financial_statements.pdf (last visited May 26, 2020). 2 Loyola University Chicago – Message Sent To All Faculty from the Office of the Provost, “Preparing for Online 

Classes” (March 9, 2020, 5:38 pm CT) https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/previousmessages/2020-0309-

preparingforonlineclasses.shtml (last visited May 26, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 2 of 25 PageID #:2
3

be suspended.”3 All classes would move online “as soon as possible but no later than 

Monday, March 23.”4

6. On March 12, 2020, the University further announced that all 

residential students were expected to leave campus “as soon as possible” for the 

remainder of the Spring 2020 semester, and certainly by the end of day on March 

19, 2020, when residence halls would close.

7. On March 19, the University reported to faculty, staff, and students 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).

5

8. As a result, since mid-March, Loyola students have been denied the 

bargained-for in-person instruction and access to facilities, technology, services,

resources, and other benefits for which Plaintiff and Class members contracted when 

they paid Defendant tuition and mandatory fees for the Spring 2020 semester.

9. Despite failing to hold any in-person classes since March 12, 2020, 

forcing students into online classes that are a shadow of the in-person instruction

students and/or their families expected to receive and for which they paid, and 

denying students access to a wide range of on-campus services and benefits, 

Defendant has not refunded tuition or mandatory fees to Plaintiff and Class 

3 Loyola University Chicago – Message Sent To All Faculty, All Staff, All Students from the Office of the 

President, “Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update” (March 12, 2020, 8:24 am CT) 

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

May 26, 2020).

4 Id.

5 Loyola University Chicago – Message to All Faculty, All Staff, All Students “Campus Changes and Closures: 

COVID-19 Response Update” (March 19, 2020, 3:15 pm CT)

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

campuschangesandclosurescovid19responseupdate.shtml (last visited May 26, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 3 of 25 PageID #:3
4

members.

10. The University reportedly received more than $10 million in 

government funding through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 

Act (CARES) Act, half of which is federally mandated to go toward students who 

are in need of emergency financial assistance.

6 Although the University received this 

influx of federal funds, Defendant refuses to refund or reimburse Plaintiff and the 

Class for any portion of the Spring 2020 tuition or most of the mandatory fees they 

paid for the in-person education and services that were no longer provided to Loyola

students beginning in mid-March.

11. Plaintiff and other Class members have lost the benefits of the 

education, services, extra-curricular opportunities, and other experiences that 

Defendant promised them. Although it has failed to fulfill its obligations to students 

and their families, Defendant is currently unlawfully retaining and refusing to fully 

or partially refund Plaintiff’s tuition and mandatory fees, despite the dramatically 

lower quality and less valuable education and services Defendant provided for the 

second half of the Spring 2020 semester.

12. Essentially, Plaintiff and Class members paid Defendant for access to 

buildings and facilities that students were not permitted to enter, equipment and 

technology that they could not use, internships in which they could not participate,

and much more. Additionally, Plaintiff and Class members paid Defendant for a 

quality of instruction, which, due to the abrupt shift to online learning, Defendant 

did not deliver. Defendant is thus profiting from COVID-19, asking students and 

their families—many of whom have been laid off, become ill, lost loved ones, or are 

6 Madison Savedra, “Loyola Will Receive Over $10 Million From Federal Government, Half of Which Is 

Dedicated to Student Aid”, Loyola Phoenix (April 29, 2020 3:16 pm CT) 

http://loyolaphoenix.com/2020/04/loyola-will-receive-over-10-million-from-federal-government-half-of-whichis-dedicated-to-student-aid/ (last visited May 26, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 4 of 25 PageID #:4
5

otherwise suffering significantly—to bear the financial brunt of the pandemic. The 

result is an enormous windfall to Defendant. Both contract and equity demand that 

Defendant disgorge its ill-gotten funds.

13. Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals are entitled to have 

Defendant disgorge in full the portions of their payments for unused services and to 

refund a significant portion of their tuition payments for substandard classes. 

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

any other available remedies, resulting from Defendant’s illegal, inequitable, and 

unfair retention of the funds paid by Plaintiff and the other individuals in the 

proposed Class. 

14. Specifically, this lawsuit seeks disgorgement and monetary damages in 

the amount of prorated, unused amounts of tuition and fees that Plaintiff and the 

other Class members paid, the benefits of which were not provided by Defendant, 

including the difference in value between the live in-person classes for which 

students enrolled compared to the lesser online versions of classes that Defendant 

has provided to them for the duration of the campus closure.

II. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

15. Plaintiff Andreea Gociman is a resident of Skokie, Illinois. During the 

2019-20 academic year, Plaintiff’s son was a second-year undergraduate student at 

Loyola University Chicago, where he is majoring in History.

B. Defendant

16. 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

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

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 5 of 25 PageID #:5
6

as modified by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, because the matter in 

controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and because at 

least one member of the Class defined below is a citizen of a state other than 

California.

18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant 

maintains its principal place of business in this judicial District.

19. 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 the state in which the 

District is located.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

20. Based in Chicago, Illinois, Loyola is a prestigious, private, Jesuit 

research university, offering more than 80 undergraduate majors and 140 graduate, 

professional, and graduate-level certificate program across 11 schools and colleges.

21. In the 2020 edition of U.S. News & World Report’s Best Colleges, 

Loyola was ranked the 104th in the best “National Universities” category. It also 

tied for 49th for “Best Undergraduate Teaching.” Additionally, the University boasts 

that “[its] professional schools for business, law, and medicine are routinely ranked 

among the best in the nation.”7

22. The majority of Loyola programs and courses are offered on-campus. 

However, Loyola does offer seven adult degree completion programs, 21 graduate 

programs, and 18 certificate programs online.

8

23. Although Loyola markets its great value, the University is nonetheless 

7 Loyola University Chicago – “Begin Your Journey” Undergraduate and Graduate Student Admission, 

https://www.luc.edu/admission.shtml (last visited May 26, 2020).

8 Loyola University Chicago – About Loyola Online, https://www.luc.edu/online/aboutloyolaonline/ (last visited 

May 26, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 6 of 25 PageID #:6
7

expensive. For the 2019-20 academic year, on-campus, full-time undergraduate 

students (those taking 12-21 credit hours per semester) paid $22,065 in tuition per 

semester, while part-time undergraduate students paid $814 per credit hour.

Additionally, undergraduate students paid a dizzying array of mandatory fees, 

including but not limited to: a Student Development Fee ($419 per semester for fulltime students), which largely funds student programs and services, clubs, and special 

events9

; a Technology Fee ($125 per semester for full-time students), which funds, 

computer labs, software, student technology support, and more10; and a CTA U-Pass 

($155 per semester), which is Loyola students’ “ticket to unlimited riding aboard 

CTA buses and trains.”11 In addition, Loyola students paid a variety of mandatory 

course and supplies fees, and other miscellaneous fees.

24. A full-time student in the Loyola School of Law paid $24,285 in tuition, 

plus mandatory fees, each semester during the 2019-20 academic year. In the 

Quinlan School of Business, a graduate student paid $4,488 in tuition per course or 

$92,064.00 for the Executive MBA program, plus mandatory fees.

25. Before their COVID-19 closure, Loyola offered online bachelor’s 

programs that cost significantly less than its on-campus program. Run through the 

School of Continuing and Professional Studies, Loyola’s online bachelor’s degree 

and certificate programs cost $693 in tuition per credit during the 2019-20 academic 

year.

12 Each semester, students enrolled in these online programs paid at most a $92 

9 Loyola University Chicago – Office Of The Bursar FAQs, https://www.luc.edu/bursar/faqs.shtml (last visited 

May 26, 2020).

10 Loyola University Chicago – Technology Fee FAQs, 

https://www.luc.edu/its/aboutits/itspoliciesguidelines/tech_fee_faq.shtml (last visited May 26, 2020).

11 Loyola University Chicago – Office Of The Bursar – Graduation and Matriculation Fees (Undergraduate 

Student Graduation Fee and Graduate Student Matriculation Fee), 

https://www.luc.edu/bursar/Matriculation_Fee.shtml (last visited May 26, 2020).

12 Loyola University Chicago – Office Of The Bursar – School of Continuing and Professional Studies: Tuition & 

Fees 2019-2020, https://www.luc.edu/bursar/tuitionfees/2019-2020/scps/ (last visited May 26, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 7 of 25 PageID #:7
8

Student Development Fee and a $78 Technology Fee—both markedly lower than 

the fees charged for on-campus students.

26. Loyola justifies its high cost for its on-campus programs, by touting 

“The Loyola Experience”—an integrated, hands-on education in the vibrant city of 

Chicago. “Your time at Loyola—from the classes you take, to the people you 

meet, to the places you see—will shape you for the rest of your life,” the Loyola 

website proclaims.

27. An integral part of the Loyola Experience is campus life. The majority 

of Loyola’s in-person programs are offered at one of two Chicago campuses: (1) the 

University’s main residential campus, Lake Shore Campus, “set along the shore of 

Lake Michigan on Chicago’s North Side,” and (2) the Water Town Campus, located 

in downtown Chicago, which is home to most of the University’s graduate programs.

28. Across these campuses, in-person students can 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,” the Loyola website states. Loyola also boasts an active Greek life, more 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:8
9

than 30 intramural and club sports, and more than 15 Division I sports.

29. Additionally, Loyola advertises ample hands-on opportunities for 

students to work with one of the University’s 495 community internship partners, or 

to otherwise serve the residents of Chicago.

Our Loyola community isn’t afraid to get its hands dirty cleaning up 

neighborhood parks and gardens—or use its expertise to mentor girls 

interested in STEM programs. They research local food deserts and 

volunteer with our student-run farmers market to make healthy food 

more accessible. Here, we don’t talk about making the world a better 

place—we get to work. 

30. In fact, Loyola frequently stresses the opportunities—to volunteer, to 

intern, to explore, etc.—provided by the University’s unique Chicago backdrop. The 

city is featured prominently across Defendant’s marketing materials and is 

represented as a key component of students’ Loyola Experience.

Loyola and its students enjoy Chicago’s exceptional cultural and 

economic resources. In addition to providing an unparalleled 

setting for educational opportunities, Chicago is also one of the 

most prestigious cities in the world in terms of recreation and 

entertainment.

A hub of commerce and culture, Chicago serves as an expanded 

campus for Loyola students, offering a thriving economy, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 9 of 25 PageID #:9
10

impressive architecture, notable politicians, groundbreaking music, 

and innovative environmental policies.13

31. In particular, the University’s Water Town Campus, located in 

downtown Chicago, “place[s] students in the heart of the city, offering internship, 

networking, and career opportunities.” In addition to internships and service 

opportunities, the city also provides students the chance to conduct research and 

fieldwork at major institutions.

32. On-campus Loyola students also have access to a wide range of campus 

facilities. The Lake Shore Campus—which the University claims “helps make 

Loyola one of the most picturesque universities in the Midwest”—is home to over 

40 buildings, including the Halas Recreation Center, Madonna della Strada Chapel, 

and Arnold J. Damen Student Center. Meanwhile, the Water Town Campus includes 

most graduate buildings, the Loyola University Museum of Art, and other facilities.

33. In exchange for the promise of award-winning academic instruction, 

coupled with the robust on-campus activities, opportunities, services, and facilities

detailed above, among others for her son, Plaintiff paid Defendant $22,065 in tuition

for the Spring 2020 semester. Additionally, Plaintiff paid Defendant a $125 

Technology Fee, a $50 Language Lab fee, and a $419 Student Development Fee. 

13 Loyola University Chicago – Loyola and Chicago (Academic Opportunities and About the City),

https://www.luc.edu/about/chicago.shtml (last visited May 26, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:10
11

Finally, in the fall of 2019, Plaintiff paid Defendant $530 for an annual parking 

permit for her son.

34. Prior to the campus closure, Plaintiff’s son regularly accessed resources 

and facilities on both the Lake Shore Campus and the Water Town Campus, where 

he was taking Economics classes at the Quinlan School of Business.

35. Plaintiff’s son has not attended any in-person classes since March 11, 

2020. Instead, all of his classes moved online. 

36. Plaintiff’s son has not used or accessed any campus facilities, used his 

CTA U-Pass, or parked his car on-campus since moving home—at Defendant’s 

urging—on March 12, 2020.

37. At the time of filing, Plaintiff has neither received nor been offered any 

refund or reimbursement for the tuition and fees that she paid for her son’s oncampus education during the Spring 2020 semester.

38. In fact, although Loyola has offered partial refunds for room and board 

charges, it has maintained that it will not issue refunds for tuition or most mandatory 

fees. Instead, the University has explained that it will partially credit Plaintiff and 

Class members only for the Student Development Fee, in the following manner:

39. However, during the Spring 2020 semester, Loyola students lost out on 

much more than the events and clubs funded by this one fee. By paying tuition and 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 11 of 25 PageID #:11
12

all mandatory fees, Plaintiff and Class members contracted and paid for Loyola 

students to receive the holistic, integrated, in-person, high-quality educational 

experience in the heart of Chicago which Loyola marketed and guaranteed to them. 

Since the campus closure and forced shift to online learning, Loyola students have 

not received such an education.

40. First, when the campuses closed down, Defendant admitted that only 

“essential services” would continue, meaning that students lost access to nearly all 

of the technology, facilities, resources, services, activities, and other benefits 

covered by their tuition and fee payments. Yet, the University has only indicated that 

it will provide prorated refunds of the Student Development Fee. This fee “funds 

multiple programs and services for students,” including “the Wellness Center, Halas 

membership, shuttle bus, and 8-ride programs;” the fee also provides “funding for 

clubs and organizations” and “a few special events organized by the students and 

administrators.” By losing access to Loyola’s campuses and being forced to move 

home, students lost out on much more.

41. For example, students were denied access to computer labs and other 

services funded through the Technology Fee. For those who left Chicago, they also

lost the ability to use their CTA U-Pass. Moreover, because Loyola does not charge 

a separate facilities fee, the use of campus buildings—including the libraries, the 

Halas Recreation Center, Madonna della Strada Chapel, and Arnold J. Damen 

Student Center, among many others—was included in the cost of tuition. Thus, when 

Defendant closed its campuses, it denied Loyola students access to in-person 

resources and facilities for which Plaintiff and Class members had paid.

42. In addition to being denied tangible benefits, Loyola students were 

forced into online “classes” that were nowhere close in quality to the on-campus 

courses in which they had enrolled for the Spring 2020 semester. Rather, these 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 12 of 25 PageID #:12
13

classes were watered-down, overpriced substitutes that were shoehorned at the last 

minute into an online format. Although all students, who paid the same price for 

their campus educational experience received lower quality of instruction, 

disciplines where in-person instruction is critical, such as dance, music, engineering,

lab-based science courses, in particular were of markedly and obviously lower 

quality and usefulness to students.

43. The University did not provide a clear answer on how courses that 

required specific facilities would continue. In an FAQ, in response to the question, 

“How will classes that require specific facilities such as labs or studios continue 

online?” the University simply advised students of the following: “You can discuss 

this with your professor. Individual instructors will be working with their classes to 

find alternatives to in-person lab or studio components.” That is, although Loyola 

charged all students the same tuition, the University put the burden on students and 

faculty to find “alternatives,” without providing support—or refunds—if and when

those alternatives were inadequate.

44. Courses involving clinical placements and internships were also 

difficult, if not impossible, to recreate online. For students “participating in clinicals, 

internships, and other placement-based courses, such as service-learning, research, 

and fieldwork” during the Spring 2020 semester, the University provided the 

following “guidelines”:

If placement-based sites are open and running, and students will still be 

in the Chicago-area, placements can proceed as usual. Academic units 

may also make decisions regarding students’ participation in these 

learning activities.

If placement sites are open but students are being sent home from 

campus, faculty are encouraged to move to alternative 

activities/assessments as posted on the Academic Continuity/Engaged 

Learning webpage. Alternatively, faculty can make the decision that 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 13 of 25 PageID #:13
14

work already completed by students satisfies the requirements for 

credit. Faculty should be flexible in their expectations and give high 

priority to seniors completing their degree requirements in the Spring 

2020 semester.

If placement sites have been closed, faculty are encouraged to move 

to alternative activities/assessments as posted on the Academic 

Continuity/Engaged Learning webpage. Alternatively, faculty can 

make the decision that work already completed by students 

satisfies the requirements for credit. Faculty should be flexible in 

their expectations and give high priority to seniors completing their 

degree requirements in the Spring 2020 semester.14

45. In other words, many Class members contracted and paid for hands-on, 

experiential learning experiences for Loyola students, but, as placement-sites closed 

down, students (1) were transitioned into subpar “alternatives 

activities/assessments” or (2) had their experiences cut short entirely by nearly two 

months. Even if faculty concluded that students work “satisfie[d] the requirements 

for credit,” students did not get the experience for which Class members paid: a full 

semester of face-to-face, real-world experience through clinicals, internships, 

service-learning, research, or other fieldwork.

46. In fact, for all courses—no matter their nature—students did not get the 

education that Plaintiff and Class members had bargained for. 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 learning, and our faculty are being supported with 

training, resources, and tools to conduct their lessons online.

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

14 Loyola University Chicago – Frequently Asked Questions – Coronavirus, 

https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/faqs/index.cfm (last visited May 26, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 14 of 25 PageID #:14
15

instruction for which they had bargained, the University could not answer with a 

simple and resounding “yes.” Instead, Defendant offered only vague hedging, 

including an admission that faculty were only being trained as they were teaching 

students at the same time.

48. The reality is that Defendant’s efforts were not enough, and that Loyola 

students did not get the same level of academic instruction through online classes. 

For example, Plaintiff’s son—who was enrolled in six courses, for a total of 18 credit 

hours, during the Spring 2020 semester—experienced immense challenges as his 

courses transitioned online and his professors, many of whom had no training or 

experience in virtual instruction, struggled to adapt. In particular, his upper-level, 

conversational foreign language class simply could not be recreated over Zoom. 

Making matters worse, the professor refused to alter the course in any way for remote 

delivery. That instructor also failed to communicate clear expectations and deadlines 

to students. By the end of the semester, communication had broken down to the point 

that the professor alerted Plaintiff’s son and his classmates, for the first time, that 

they had a final just two days before it was administered.

49. As Plaintiff’s son story indicates, Loyola courses and faculty failed to 

successfully shift to online instruction – and this failure was pervasive. In an email 

to Loyola faculty on February 28, 2020, the University all but admitted this fact in 

discussing that online courses might be imminent:

One possibility is that we might not be able to hold in-person classes. 

In this event, we would move as many of our classes as possible to 

an online format. To this end, we ask that over spring break you give 

some thought to how you might be able to transition your course to an 

online format.15

15 Loyola University Chicago –Message Sent To All Faculty, All Staff, All Students from Office of Provost, 

(February 28, 2020, 2:41 pm CT) https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/previousmessages/2020-0228-1-

preparednessforpossiblecoronavirus-relateddisruptionofclasses.shtml (last visited May 26, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 15 of 25 PageID #:15
16

50. The University thus confirmed that it would not be “possible” for all 

classes to move online. In fact, prior to the March 2020 campus closure, Defendant 

indicated that most of its programs could not be delivered remotely, at least not to 

the University’s usual standards. Rather, Defendant had previously only offered 

seven adult degree completion programs, 21 graduate programs, and 18 certificate 

programs online. By providing such limited online offerings, Defendant 

acknowledged that it was not in a position to successfully deliver all of its programs 

online. Yet, after abruptly closing its campus in mid-March 2020, Defendant forced 

all students into online courses, no matter how inappropriate many courses might 

have been for such a format.

51. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the courses and programs 

which Defendant previously offered online—which were designed specifically for 

virtual delivery—were significantly less expensive than the on-campus offerings for 

which Plaintiff and Class members paid. For example, in the 2020 Spring semester, 

a student enrolled in 12 credits of online courses in a bachelor’s degree or certificate 

program in Defendant’s School of Continuing and Professional Studies would pay 

$8,316 in tuition. Meanwhile, an undergraduate student taking the same number of

credits on-campus would pay $22,065 in tuition—more than 265% more. 

52. Plaintiff and Class members thus paid a significant premium for Loyola 

students to receive on-campus instruction, and the resources and opportunities that 

went along with it. But, after the haphazard shift to online learning, which was 

unsuitable for many courses, Loyola’s on-campus students in fact received less than 

their online peers. While online Loyola students paid far less in tuition and fees, they 

received award-winning instruction in courses appropriate and designed for virtual 

delivery. Meanwhile, Plaintiff and Class members paid more in tuition and fees, and 

yet, since mid-March 2020, Loyola’s on-campus students received bubble gum and 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 16 of 25 PageID #:16
17

duct-tape Zoom lectures and meetings thrown together at the last minute.

53. The tuition and fees that Defendant charged Plaintiff and the Class for 

on-campus courses were higher than those for online courses because they were 

meant to cover the holistic, on-campus experience that Loyola marketed:

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.

54. The fees and tuition that Plaintiff and the Class paid to Defendant were 

thus predicated on students’ ability to: have constant, face-to-face interaction with 

and feedback from peers, mentors, professors, and guest lecturers; use technology, 

libraries, laboratories, and studios; conduct research; complete real-world clinics and 

internships; develop independence; build a professional network; explore the 

“expanded campus” the city of Chicago; and make friends, among other things. 

55. Plaintiff and Class members paid a premium for on-campus courses, 

and the unique benefits which were supposed to come with those in-person courses. 

By abruptly closing the University in March 2020, transitioning all in-person classes 

to online teaching, sending students home, and significantly reducing resources and 

opportunities available to students, Loyola simply failed to deliver the educational 

services, facilities, technology, activities, and other resources for which Plaintiff and 

Class members contracted and expected to receive. Plaintiff and the proposed Class 

are therefore entitled to a prorated refund of tuition and fees for the duration of 

Loyola’s COVID-19-related closure for the education and services that Defendant

did not provide, or which Defendant provided in a severely diminished manner.

56. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks—for herself and the other Class 

members—Defendant’s disgorgement and/or refund of (i) the prorated, unused 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 17 of 25 PageID #:17
18

portion of mandatory fees, proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the 

Spring 2020 semester when the campus was shut down, classes moved online and 

campus services ceased being provided in full; and/or (ii) a refund of a percentage 

of tuition based on students no longer being able to attend classes in-person and 

instead being offered a far inferior online learning experience. 

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

57. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and/or (c)(4), Plaintiff 

brings this action on behalf of herself and the following Class:

All persons who (i) paid tuition, mandatory fees, and/or other costs to 

Loyola University Chicago for an in-person class or classes to be 

conducted during the Spring 2020 semester and/or subsequent terms, 

and (ii) did not receive the in-person education for which they paid.

58. 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.

59. 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 Plaintiff, the Class is presumed to number more 

than 17,000 people and is easily ascertainable through enrollment and financial 

records maintained by Defendant.

60. Commonality and Predominance. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 18 of 25 PageID #:18
19

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 accepted money from the Class;

b. whether Defendant retained money from the Class for services it 

did not render, or only partially rendered;

c. whether Defendant entered into a contract with the Class;

d. whether Defendant breached its contract with the Class;

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

Class;

f. whether the educational and other services Defendant provided to 

the Class were commensurate with their value; 

g. whether certification of the Class is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23;

h. whether Class members are entitled to declaratory, equitable, or 

injunctive relief, and/or other relief; and

i. the amount and nature of relief to be awarded to Plaintiff and the 

other Class members.

61. Typicality. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3), Plaintiff’s claims are 

typical of the other Class members’ claims because Plaintiff and the other Class 

members each paid for tuition costs associated with the Spring 2020 semester but 

were not provided the services that those costs were meant to cover. Each suffered 

damages in the form of their lost tuition and other monies paid to Defendant, and the

claims all arise from the same Loyola University Chicago practices and course of 

conduct. There are no defenses available that are unique to the Plaintiff.

62. Adequacy of Representation. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P 

23(a)(4), Plaintiff is an adequate Class representative because her interests do not 

conflict with the interests of the other proposed Class members. Moreover, Plaintiff 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 19 of 25 PageID #:19
20

has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, 

and she intends to prosecute this action vigorously on behalf of her fellow Class 

members. Plaintiff has no interests that are antagonistic to those of the Class and 

she will fairly and adequately protect the proposed Class’ rights along with counsel. 

COUNT I

Breach of Contract

63. Plaintiff repeats and alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-62, above, 

as if fully alleged herein. 

64. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other 

members of the Class. 

65. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class entered into binding 

contracts with Loyola University Chicago through Defendant, for which Defendant

was the direct beneficiary, which provided that Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class would pay tuition and fees, to Defendant, in exchange for on-campus 

educational, extra-curricular, and social facilities and experiences.

66. These contracts were formed by multiple documents when students bid 

by formally registering for courses offered by Defendant, in light of the quoted 

tuition and fees pertaining to such registration, and Defendant thereafter accepted 

those bids, or registrations, by sending bills for tuition and fees to Plaintiff and Class 

members. At this time, written contracts arose.

67. As part of their contracts with the University, and, in exchange for 

adequate consideration that Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class provided, 

Defendant promised to provide on-campus educational services to Plaintiff and 

Class members.

68. Ever since closing its campus in mid-March 2020, Defendant has failed 

to provide the services that it was obligated to perform under its contracts with 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 20 of 25 PageID #:20
21

Plaintiff and the proposed Class. Defendant has retained tuition and fee payments 

paid by Plaintiff and the other members of the Class without providing them the 

promised benefits. 

69. By contrast, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class fulfilled their 

end of the bargain when they paid the monies due and owing for their full tuition

and fees. 

70. The tuition and fee payments that Plaintiff and the proposed Class paid 

were intended to cover in-person educational and extra-curricular services.

Defendant, however, has improperly retained the funds Plaintiff and the proposed 

Class paid without providing them the services and other benefits due under the 

contracts.

71. Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered damages as a direct 

and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, including being deprived of the 

education, experience, and services that they were promised and expected to obtain, 

and for which they have paid. They are entitled to damages including but not limited 

to prorated reimbursement of the tuition, fees, and other expenses that were collected 

by Defendant for services that Defendant failed to deliver fully.

72. Defendant’s performance under the contracts is not excused because of 

COVID-19. Even if performance was excused or impossible, Defendant would 

nevertheless be required to return the funds received for services and/or goods that 

it did not provide.

COUNT II

Restitution Based On Quasi-Contract

73. Plaintiff repeats and allege the allegations in Paragraphs 1-72, above, 

as if fully alleged herein.

74. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 21 of 25 PageID #:21
22

members of the Class in the alternative to the breach of contract claim brought in 

Count I. 

75. Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Class conferred a benefit 

or enrichment on Defendant by paying tuition and fees to Defendant, which was

beneficial to Defendant, at the expense of Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class. 

76. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class paid tuition and fees and 

did not receive the full benefit of their bargain from Defendant, thus resulting in their 

impoverishment.

77. Defendant has retained the benefit paid by Plaintiff and the Class 

despite its failure to provide the services for which the benefit was paid.

78. There is no justification or cause for Defendant’s failure to return the 

portion of the tuition and fees that Defendant has unjustifiably kept for itself even 

though it failed to complete the services for which Plaintiff and the Class provided 

the funds to Defendant.

79. Accordingly, Defendant has been unjustly enriched and should pay as 

restitution a prorated portion of the funds that Plaintiff and the proposed Class paid 

for tuition and fees for the duration of the campus closure.

COUNT III

Conversion

80. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-79,

above, as if fully alleged herein. 

81. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the Class. 

82. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have a right to the inperson educational and extra-curricular services that they were supposed to be 

provided in exchange for their payments to Defendant.

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 22 of 25 PageID #:22
23

83. Defendant intentionally interfered with the rights of Plaintiff and the 

other members of the proposed Class when it retained payments intended to pay for 

on-campus classes, facilities, and activities, while moving all classes to an online, 

remote learning format and discontinued or services and access to facilities for which 

Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class had paid. 

84. Defendant deprived Plaintiff and the other members of the Class of their 

tuition and fee payments or of the right to the services for which their payments were 

intended to be used.

85. Class members demanded the return of the prorated, unused tuition and 

fee payments for the duration of the campus closure.

86. Defendant’s retention of the tuition and fees paid by Plaintiff and the 

other members of the Class without providing the services for which they paid 

deprived Plaintiff and the other members of the Class of the benefits for which the 

payments were paid. This interference with the services for which Plaintiff and the 

other members of the Class paid damaged Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class in that they paid for services that were not and will not be provided.

87. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are entitled to the return of 

prorated unused portion of the tuition and fees paid, through the end of campus 

closure and forced transition to online learning.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

88. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the members of the Class, 

respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against 

Defendant as follows:

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

Class representative, and appointing the undersigned counsel as 

Class Counsel;

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 23 of 25 PageID #:23
24

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 Plaintiff’s 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

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure on all causes of action so triable.

Dated: May 26/, 2020 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

Shanon J. Carson*

Ellen T. Noteware*

BERGER MONTAGUE PC

1818 Market Street, Suite 3600

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Tel: (215) 875-3000

Email: scarson@bm.net

Email: enoteware@bm.net

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 24 of 25 PageID #:24
25

E. Michelle Drake*

BERGER MONTAGUE PC

43 Southeast Main Street, Suite 505

Minneapolis, MN 55414

Tel: (612) 594-5999

Email: emdrake@bm.net

*pro hac vice forthcoming

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 25 of 25 PageID #:25