IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ALHIX OYOQUE, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DEPAUL UNIVERSITY and BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES OF DEPAUL UNIVERSITY, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Alhix Oyoque (“Plaintiff”) brings this action on behalf of herself and all others 

similarly situated against Defendants DePaul University and the Board of Trustees of DePaul 

University (“DePaul” or “Defendants”). Plaintiff makes the following allegations pursuant to the 

investigation of her counsel and based upon information and belief, except as to the allegations 

specifically pertaining to herself, which are based on personal knowledge. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all people who paid tuition and fees for 

the Winter and Spring 2020 academic quarters at DePaul or the Spring 2020 academic semester 

at DePaul’s School of Law (collectively, the “Spring 2020 Term”), and who, because of 

Defendants’ response to the novel Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic, lost the benefit of the 

education for which they paid, and/or the services or which their fees were paid, without having 

their tuition and fees refunded to them. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1
-2- 

2. DePaul is a private, Roman Catholic university with a total enrollment of over 

22,000 undergraduate and graduate students across ten colleges and schools, making it the 

largest Catholic university in the United States.1 DePaul offers over 130 undergraduate majors 

and 175 graduate degree programs.2

 DePaul also operates an online degree program, which 

offers undergraduate and graduate-level degrees.3

 All DePaul schools and colleges operate on a 

quarter system, with the exception of the School of Law, which operates on a semester system. 

3. On March 11, 2020, Defendants, via DePaul President A. Gabriel Esteban, Ph.D., 

announced that, because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, effective immediately, DePaul 

would suspend all in-person final exams for the Winter 2020 Quarter, cancel or postpone all 

University-sponsored events, and, “[w]henever possible,” deliver all classes remotely for the 

entirety of the Spring 2020 Quarter and, for students of DePaul’s School of Law, the remainder 

of the Spring 2020 Semester.4

 

4. Thus, DePaul has not held any in-person classes since March 11, 2020, prior to 

the end of the Winter 2020 Quarter. For the remainder of the Winter 2020 Quarter and the 

entirety of the Spring 2020 Quarter, classes that continued were only offered in an online format, 

with no in-person instruction. 

5. As a result of the closure of Defendants’ facilities, Defendants have not delivered 

the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities for which Plaintiff and the 

 

1

 DePaul enrolls around 14,500 undergraduates and about 7,930 graduate students. See 

https://www.depaul.edu/about/Pages/default.aspx (last accessed June 9, 2020). 

2

 https://www.depaul.edu/academics/Pages/default.aspx (last accessed June 9, 2020). 

3

 https://www.depaul.edu/academics/online-learning/Pages/default.aspx (last accessed June 9, 

2020).

4

 https://resources.depaul.edu/coronavirus-covid-19-updates/updates/Pages/03-11-2020-alluniversity.aspx (last accessed June 9, 2020); see also https://resources.depaul.edu/coronaviruscovid-19-updates/updates/Pages/3-13-2020-student.aspx (last accessed June 9, 2020) (“Students 

should plan on all Spring Quarter courses moving online.”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:2
-3- 

putative Class contracted and paid. The online learning options being offered to DePaul students 

are subpar in practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to faculty. 

Students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person 

dialogue, feedback, and critique. The remote learning options are in no way the equivalent of the 

in-person education that Plaintiff and the putative class members contracted and paid for. 

6. Indeed, as DePaul Interim Provost Salma Ghanem acknowledged in a “message to 

students with Spring course information” dated March 23, 2020, the “shift to remote delivery of 

courses certainly is an abrupt change from the usual way DePaul operates”5

 Further, recognizing 

that “remote instruction is a far different experience than the classroom instruction to which 

students are accustomed[,]” Interim Provost Ghanem warned students to “keep in mind that 

interactions with your class may happen in different ways.”6

 President Esteban echoed that 

sentiment in an announcement dated March 30, 2020, in which he acknowledged the “concerns 

[students have] brought to [Defendants’] attention” and, in particular, that “the decisions 

[Defendants] had to make carried a heavy weight of disappointment, especially for [DePaul] 

students [like Ms. Oyoque] who will be graduating soon.”7 

7. Yet, notwithstanding this recognition, Defendants have not refunded any tuition 

or fees for the Spring 2020 Term.8

 

5

 https://resources.depaul.edu/coronavirus-covid-19-updates/updates/Pages/3-23-20-provostmessage.aspx (last accessed June 9, 2020). 

6 Id. 

7

 https://resources.depaul.edu/coronavirus-covid-19-updates/updates/Pages/3-30-20-PresidentUpdate.aspx (last accessed June 9, 2020). 

8

 https://resources.depaul.edu/coronavirus-covid-19-updates/faqs/Pages/classes-academicsstudents.aspx (last accessed June 9, 2020) (“Will DePaul reduce tuition for Spring Quarter? 

(Added 3/20/20) * Tuition for Spring Quarter remains the same.”); see also 

https://resources.depaul.edu/coronavirus-covid-19-updates/updates/Pages/3-13-2020-

student.aspx (last accessed June 9, 2020) (noting that although “[s]tudents should plan on all 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:3
-4- 

8. Plaintiff and the putative class are therefore entitled to a refund of tuition and fees 

for in-person educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Defendants have 

not provided. Even if Defendants did not have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, they 

nevertheless have improperly retained funds for services they are not providing. 

9. Plaintiff seeks, for herself and Class members, Defendants’ disgorgement of the 

pro-rated portion of tuition and fees, proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the 

Spring 2020 Term when classes moved online and campus services ceased being provided. 

Plaintiff seeks a return of these amounts on behalf of herself and the Class as defined below. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), 

as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), because at least one member of 

the Class, as defined below, is a citizen of a different state than Defendants, there are more than 

100 members of the Class, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 

exclusive of interest and costs. 

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants’ 

principal place of business is located in this District, and the acts and transactions giving rise to 

this action occurred in this District. 

12. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, this Court is the proper venue for this action 

because Defendants’ principal place of business is located in this District, Plaintiff resides in this 

District, and a substantial part of the events, omissions, and acts giving rise to the claims herein 

occurred in this District. 

 

Spring Quarter courses moving online[,] ... [t]uition for Spring Quarter remains the same and is 

due on March 20.”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:4
-5- 

PARTIES 

13. Plaintiff Alhix Oyoque is a citizen of Illinois who resides in Cicero, Illinois. 

During the Spring 2020 Quarter, Ms. Oyoque was an undergraduate student at DePaul pursuing a 

bachelor’s degree in Health Science. Ms. Oyoque is currently an alumnus of DePaul, having 

completed her undergraduate degree requirements and graduated at the end of the Spring 2020 

Quarter. In-person classes are critical to Ms. Oyoque’s field of study, as it requires in-person 

instruction, feedback, and a high level of collaboration, which is made more feasible through inclass instruction. Ms. Oyoque paid approximately $3,800 in tuition to Defendants for the Spring 

2020 Quarter. Ms. Oyoque has not been provided a refund of any tuition monies paid, despite 

the fact that in-person classes have not been held since March 11, 2020. 

14. Defendant DePaul University is a private university organized under the Illinois 

General Not for Profit Corporation Act, 805 ILCS 105, et seq., with its principal place of 

business at 1 E. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

15. Defendant DePaul University is governed by Defendant Board of Trustees of 

DePaul University. The Board has approximately 35 voting members. The Board’s principal 

place of business is in Chicago, Illinois. 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 

Plaintiff And Class Members Paid Tuition And Fees For The Spring 2020 Term 

16. Plaintiff and Class members are individuals who paid the cost of tuition and other 

mandatory fees for the Winter and Spring 2020 Quarters at DePaul or the Spring 2020 Semester 

at DePaul’s School of Law (collectively, the “Spring 2020 Term”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:5
-6- 

17. All undergraduate and graduate degree programs at DePaul operate based on a 

four-term academic year,9 with the exception of the School of Law, which operates based on a 

two-term semester schedule. Winter 2020 Quarter classes at DePaul began on January 4, 2020, 

and classes and final exams for the quarter were scheduled to end on or around March 20, 2020. 

Spring 2020 Quarter classes at DePaul began on March 28, 2020, and classes and final exams for 

the quarter were scheduled to end on or around June 12, 2020.10 Spring 2020 Semester classes at 

DePaul’s School of Law began on or about January 13, 2020, and classes and final exams for the 

semester were scheduled to end on or around May 14, 2020.11

18. Plaintiff and Class members paid the cost of tuition for the Spring 2020 Term at 

DePaul, as well as associated fees and costs. 

19. Undergraduate tuition for the Winter and Spring 2020 Quarters at DePaul varies 

based on the student’s degree program and date of enrollment. For instance, DePaul’s Colleges 

of Communication, Education, and Arts & Sciences each charge $13,160 per quarter for 

undergraduate students who enrolled in 2016 (or $26,320 for the Winter and Spring 2020 

Quarters, cumulatively), and $13,517 per quarter for undergraduate students who enrolled in 

2019 (or $27,034 for the Winter and Spring 2020 Quarters, cumulatively). Along the same 

spectrum, the School of Music and the Theatre School charge from $12,727 to $13,938 per 

quarter (or $25,454 to $27,876 for the Winter and Spring 2020 Quarters, cumulatively).12 

20. The approximate costs of full-time graduate tuition and fees for the Winter and 

Spring 2020 Quarters at DePaul, cumulatively, are $28,666 for a Doctorate in Business 

 

9

 Defendants’ website refers to each term as an academic “quarter.” 

10 https://academics.depaul.edu/calendar/Pages/default.aspx (last accessed June 9, 2020). 

11 https://academics.depaul.edu/calendar/Pages/law-calendar.aspx (last accessed June 9, 2020). 

12 https://offices.depaul.edu/student-financial-accounts/cost-of-attendance/tuition/Pages/TuitionRates-2019-2020.aspx (last accessed June 9, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:6
-7- 

Administration, and range from $22,954 to $24,356 for a graduate degree from the Theatre 

School (depending on date of enrollment). The approximate costs of full-time graduate tuition 

and fees for the Spring 2020 Semester at DePaul’s College of Law range from $23,390 to 

$24,335 (depending on date of enrollment).13

21. The tuition and fees described above are provided by way of example; total 

damage amounts – which may include other fees that are not listed herein but that were not 

refunded – will be proven at trial. 

In Response To COVID-19, DePaul Closed Campuses And Cancelled All In-Person Classes 

22. On March 11, 2020, DePaul President Esteban announced that, because of the 

global COVID-19 pandemic, effective immediately, all in-person classes would be suspended 

through the remainder of the Winter 2020 Quarter. President Esteban further noted that, in lieu 

of in-person instruction, all classes at DePaul would be held in online/remote format through the 

entirety of the Spring 2020 Quarter, and, for students of DePaul’s School of Law, for the 

remainder of Spring 2020 Semester. 

23. As a result of the closure of Defendants’ facilities, Defendants have not delivered 

the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Plaintiff and members of the 

Class contracted and paid for. Plaintiff and the Class are therefore entitled to a refund of all 

tuition and fees for services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Defendants have not 

provided. Even if Defendants claim they did not have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, 

they nevertheless have improperly retained funds for services it is not providing. 

24. Plaintiff and the Class did not choose to attend an online institution of higher 

learning, but instead chose to attend Defendants’ institution and enroll on an in-person basis. 

 

13 Id. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:7
-8- 

25. Defendants market the DePaul on-campus experience as a benefit of enrollment 

on DePaul’s website:14

 

14 See, e.g., https://www.depaul.edu/student-life/Pages/default.aspx (last accessed June 9, 2020); 

https://offices.depaul.edu/student-affairs/student-life/living-on-campus/Pages/default.aspx (last 

accessed June 9, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:8
-9- 

26. The online learning options being offered to DePaul students are subpar in 

practically every aspect and a shadow of what they once were, from the lack of facilities, 

materials, and access to faculty. Students have been deprived of the opportunity for 

collaborative learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique. Moreover, office hours for 

professors are essentially non-existent given that professors are unable to see their students to 

provide in-person assistance. Email is simply no substitute for instances where additional 

teaching is required. 

27. The remote learning options are in no way the equivalent of the in-person 

education putative class members contracted and paid for. The remote education being provided 

is not even remotely worth the amount charged Class members in tuition for the Spring 2020 

Term at DePaul. The tuition and fees for in-person instruction at DePaul are higher than tuition 

and fees for other online institutions because such costs cover not just the academic instruction, 

but encompass an entirely different experience which includes but is not limited to: 

 Face to face interaction with professors, mentors, and peers; 

 Access to facilities such as libraries, laboratories, computer labs, and study 

room; 

 Student governance and student unions; 

 Extra-curricular activities, groups, intramural sports, etc.; 

 Student art, cultures, and other activities; 

 Social development and independence; 

 Hands on learning and experimentation; and 

 Networking and mentorship opportunities. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:9
-10- 

28. Through this lawsuit Plaintiff seeks, individually and on behalf of the Class, 

Defendants’ disgorgement of the pro-rated portion of tuition and fees, proportionate to the 

amount of time that remained in the Spring 2020 Term at DePaul, when classes moved online 

and campus services ceased being provided. Plaintiff seeks return of these amounts on behalf of 

herself and the Class as defined below. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

29. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all people who paid Defendants’ 

Spring 2020 Term tuition and/or fees for in-person educational services that DePaul failed to 

provide, and whose tuition and fees have not been refunded (the “Class”). Specifically excluded 

from the Class are Defendants, Defendants’ officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, 

corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners, joint ventures, or 

entities controlled by Defendants, and their heirs, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities 

related to or affiliated with Defendants and/or Defendants’ officers and/or directors, the judge 

assigned to this action, and any member of the judge’s immediate family. 

30. Plaintiff also seeks to represent a subclass consisting of Class members who 

reside in Illinois (the “Subclass”). 

31. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and 

discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class and Subclass may be expanded or narrowed by 

amendment or amended complaint. 

32. Numerosity. The members of the Class and Subclass are geographically 

dispersed throughout the United States and are so numerous that individual joinder is 

impracticable. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff reasonably estimates that there are tens of 

thousands of members in the Class and Subclass. Although the precise number of Class 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:10
-11- 

members is unknown to Plaintiff, the true number of Class members is known by Defendants and 

may be determined through discovery. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this 

action by mail and/or publication through the distribution records of Defendants and third-party 

retailers and vendors. 

33. Existence and predominance of common questions of law and fact. Common 

questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and Subclass and predominate over 

any questions affecting only individual Class members. These common legal and factual 

questions include, but are not limited to, the following: 

(a) whether Defendants accepted money from Class and Subclass members in 

exchange for the promise to provide services; 

(b) whether Defendants have provided the services for which Class and Subclass 

members contracted; 

(c) whether Class and Subclass members are entitled to a refund for that portion 

of the tuition and fees that was contracted for services that Defendants did not 

provide. 

(d) whether Defendants have unlawfully converted money from Plaintiff, the 

Class and Subclass; and 

(e) whether Defendants are liable to Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclass for unjust 

enrichment. 

34. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of 

the Class in that, among other things, all Class and Subclass members were similarly situated and 

were comparably injured through Defendants’ wrongful conduct as set forth herein. Further, 

there are no defenses available to Defendants that are unique to Plaintiff. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:11
-12- 

35. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the 

interests of the Class and Subclass. Plaintiff has retained counsel that is highly experienced in 

complex consumer class action litigation, and Plaintiff intends to vigorously prosecute this action 

on behalf of the Class and Subclass. Furthermore, Plaintiff has no interests that are antagonistic 

to those of the Class or Subclass. 

36. Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available means for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The damages or other financial detriment suffered 

by individual Class and Subclass members are relatively small compared to the burden and 

expense of individual litigation of their claims against Defendants. It would, thus, be virtually 

impossible for the Class or Subclass on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress for the 

wrongs committed against them. Furthermore, even if Class or Subclass members could afford 

such individualized litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation would create 

the danger of inconsistent or contradictory judgments arising from the same set of facts. 

Individualized litigation would also increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court 

system from the issues raised by this action. By contrast, the class action device provides the 

benefits of adjudication of these issues in a single proceeding, economies of scale, and 

comprehensive supervision by a single court, and presents no unusual management difficulties 

under the circumstances. 

37. In the alternative, the Class and Subclass may also be certified because: 

(a) the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class and Subclass members 

would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to 

individual Class members that would establish incompatible standards of 

conduct for Defendants; 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:12
-13- 

(b) the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class and Subclass members 

would create a risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a 

practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Class members not 

parties to the adjudications, or substantially impair or impede their ability to 

protect their interests; and/or 

(c) Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

Class as a whole, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and/or 

injunctive relief with respect to the members of the Class as a whole. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Breach Of Contract 

(On Behalf Of The Class And Subclass) 

38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all 

preceding paragraphs of this complaint. 

39. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the 

proposed Class and Subclass against Defendants. 

40. Through the admission agreement and payment of tuition and fees, Plaintiff and 

each member of the Class and Subclass entered into a binding contract with Defendants. 

41. As part of the contract, and in exchange for the aforementioned consideration, 

Defendants promised to provide certain services, all as set forth above. Plaintiff, Class, and 

Subclass members fulfilled their end of the bargain when they paid tuition monies due for the 

Spring 2020 Term at DePaul. Tuition for the Spring 2020 Term was intended to cover in-person 

educational services from January through May 2020. In exchange for tuition monies paid, Class 

and Subclass members were entitled to in-person educational services through the end of the 

Spring 2020 Term. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:13
-14- 

42. Defendants have failed to provide the contracted for services and have otherwise 

not performed under the contract as set forth above. Defendants have retained monies paid by 

Plaintiff and the Class for their Spring 2020 Term tuition and fees, without providing them the 

benefit of their bargain. 

43. Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass have suffered damage as a direct 

and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, including but not limited to being deprived of the 

education, experience, and services to which they were promised and for which they have 

already paid. 

44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff, the Class, and 

Subclass are entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact in this action, to include but no 

be limited to reimbursement of certain tuition, fees, and other expenses that were collected by 

Defendants for services that Defendants have failed to deliver. Defendants should return the prorated portion of any Spring 2020 Term tuition and fees for education services not provided since 

DePaul shut down on March 11, 2020. 

45. Defendants’ performance under the contract is not excused due to COVID-19. 

Indeed, Defendants should have refunded the pro-rated portion of any education services not 

provided. Even if performance was excused or impossible, Defendants would nevertheless be 

required to return the funds received for services they will not provide. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Unjust Enrichment 

(On Behalf Of The Class And Subclass) 

46. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all 

preceding paragraphs of this complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:14
-15- 

47. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the 

proposed Class and Subclass against Defendants. 

48. Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass conferred a benefit on 

Defendants in the form of monies paid for Spring 2020 Term tuition and other fees in exchange 

for certain service and promises. Tuition for Spring 2020 Term was intended to cover in-person 

educational services from January through May 2020. In exchange for tuition monies paid, Class 

members were entitled to in-person educational services through the end of the Spring Term. 

49. Defendants voluntarily accepted and retained this benefit by accepting payment. 

50. Defendants have retained this benefit, even though Defendants have failed to 

provide the education, experience, and services for which the tuition and fees were collected, 

making Defendants’ retention unjust under the circumstances. Accordingly, Defendants should 

return the pro-rated portion of any Spring 2020 Term tuition and fees for education services not 

provided since DePaul shut down on March 11, 2020. 

51. It would be unjust and inequitable for Defendants to retain the benefit, and 

Defendants should be required to disgorge this unjust enrichment. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Conversion 

(On Behalf Of The Class And Subclass) 

52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges herein all paragraphs alleged 

above. 

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

and Subclass against Defendants. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:15
-16- 

54. Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass have an ownership right to the 

in-person educational services they were supposed to be provided in exchange for their Spring 

2020 Term tuition and fee payments to Defendants. 

55. Defendants intentionally interfered with the rights of Plaintiff, the Class, and the 

Subclass when they moved all classes to an online format and discontinued in-person educational 

services for which tuition and fees were intended to pay. 

56. Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass demand the return of the prorated portion of any Spring 2020 Term tuition and fees for education services not provided since 

DePaul shut down on March 11, 2020. 

57. Defendants’ retention of the fees paid by Plaintiff and members of the Class and 

Subclass without providing the educational services for which they paid, deprived Plaintiff and 

members of the Class and Subclass of the benefits for which the tuition and fees paid. 

58. This interference with the services for which Plaintiff and members of the Class 

and Subclass paid damaged Plaintiff and Class members in that they paid tuition and fees for 

services that will not be provided. 

59. Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass are entitled to the return of prorated portion of any Spring 2020 Term tuition and fees for education services not provided since 

DePaul shut down on March 11, 2020. 

JURY DEMAND 

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of any 

and all issues in this action so triable as of right. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:16
-17- 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks 

judgment against Defendants, as follows: 

(a) For an order certifying the nationwide Class and the Subclass under Rule 

23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; naming Plaintiff as 

representative of the Class and Subclass; and naming Plaintiff’s attorneys 

as Class Counsel to represent the Class and Subclass members; 

(b) For an order finding in favor of Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass on all 

counts asserted herein; 

(c) For compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by 

the Court and/or jury; 

(d) For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded; 

(e) For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief; 

(f) For injunctive relief as pleaded or as the Court may deem proper; and 

(g) For an order awarding Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass their 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses and costs of suit. 

Dated: June 11, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Carl V. Malmstrom 

 Carl V. Malmstrom 

WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER 

 FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 

Carl V. Malmstrom 

111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Tel: (312) 984-0000 

Fax: (212) 686-0114 

malmstrom@whafh.com

L. Timothy Fisher (pro hac vice app. forthcoming) 

Neal J. Deckant (pro hac vice app. forthcoming)

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 

1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Tel.: (925) 300-4455 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:17
-18- 

Fax: (925) 407-2700 

ltfisher@bursor.com

ndeckant@bursor.com

 

Sarah N. Westcot (pro hac vice app. forthcoming)

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 

2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220 

Miami, FL 33133 

Tel.: (305) 330-5512 

Fax: (305) 676-9006 

swestcot@bursor.com

Attorneys for Plaintif and the Putative Classf 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/11/20 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:18