1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ANDREEA GOCIMAN, SIMON PFEIFER, 

ISABEL BOTELLO, and JOSEPH HICKEY, 

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 

AMENDED CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT

(1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; and

(2) UNJUST ENRICHMENT;

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs Andreea Gociman, Simon Pfeifer, Isabel Botello, Joseph Hickey, 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 and parents 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, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:86
2

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

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 campus resources for which 

they had contracted. On March 13, 2020, Defendant suspended all in-person 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 in the form of tuition and fee 

refunds 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 Andreea Gociman (“Plaintiff Gociman”) is a resident of Cocoa Beach, 

Florida. She is the mother of Plaintiff Simon Pfeifer and was responsible for paying his tuition and 

fees, which were unique to his enrollment in an on-campus program at Loyola, during the Spring 

2020 semester. Specifically, for her son’s on-campus studies during the Spring 2020 semester, 

Plaintiff Gociman paid Defendant $22,065 in tuition, a $125 Technology Fee, a $419 Student 

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

August 28, 2020).

2 Id.

3

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

campuschangesandclosurescovid19responseupdate.shtml (last visited August 27, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:87
3

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

2019, Plaintiff Gociman paid Defendant $530 for an annual parking permit for her son.

8. Plaintiff Simon Pfeifer (“Plaintiff Pfeifer”) is a resident of Cocoa Beach, Florida. 

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

student at Loyola, where he is 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 regularly accessed resources and facilities, including gyms, 

libraries, and parking facilities, and also participated in a fraternity. 

9. 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 is 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 frequently used 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 paid

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.

10. Plaintiff Joseph Hickey (“Plaintiff Hickey”) is a resident of Orland Park, Illinois. 

He is the father of a current senior undergraduate pre-med student at Loyola, and was responsible 

for paying her tuition and fees, which were unique to her enrollment in an on-campus program at 

Loyola, during the Spring 2020 semester. Specifically, for his daughter’s on-campus studies during 

the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiff Hickey paid Defendant $13,925.00 in tuition, a $60 technology 

fee, a $50 German Lab fee, a $120 Physics Science Lab Fee, a $309 Student Development Fee,

and a $155 CTA U-Pass Fee.

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

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:88
4

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 regularly accessed 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 paid Defendant $22,065 in tuition, a $125 Technology Fee, a $419 

Student Development Fee, and a $155 CTA U-Pass Fee.

B. Defendant

12. 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

13. 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.

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

its principal place of business in this judicial District.

15. 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

16. Loyola University markets itself to students as a diverse community that offers 

students opportunities beyond the classroom to connect, learn, and engage. It is those shared 

experiences and co-curricular activities that the University claims differentiate it from other 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:89
5

institutions and justify its high cost.

17. 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, 

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

and a rich tapestry of co-curricular experiences.

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

Loyola is a prestigious, private, Jesuit research university. Loyola 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, across 11 

schools and colleges.

19. In 2018, Loyola enrolled nearly 12,000 undergraduates and roughly 5,000 graduate 

students, for a total enrollment of more than 17,000.

20. In 2019, Loyola had an endowment of more than $800 million.4

21. 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

22. Like many traditionally residential colleges and universities across the United 

States, for the 2019-2020 school year, Loyola offered the vast majority of its programs on-campus 

but offered a few online options, as well. 

23. After establishing its first online Computer Science program in 1998, Loyola now 

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

online.5

4 https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/finance/pdfs/fy19_financial_statements.pdf (last visited August 29, 2020).

5 https://www.luc.edu/online/aboutloyolaonline/ (last visited August 29, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:90
6

24. 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.

25. 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 

website6 and course catalog.

7

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

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

program – and the price Loyola charged for those services.

27. For students who enrolled in one of Defendant’s many traditional, in-person, oncampus programs, Defendant delivered 100% of the courses in-person at one of its physical 

campuses, as described in greater detail below. Notably, Defendant routinely acknowledges that 

certain classes—“includ[ing] labs, experiential learning classes, and research”—“require[e] faceto-face interaction” and thus can only be taught in-person.8 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 on-line option.

28. 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. 9 Given the format of these classes, Defendant has historically 

offered only a fraction of its overall academic offerings online.

29. Loyola charged markedly different tuition and fee for online programs as opposed 

6 https://www.luc.edu/online/index.shtml (last visited August 29, 2020).

7 https://lucapps.luc.edu/online/course.htm (last visited August 29, 2020).

8 https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/faqs/index.cfm (last visited August 29, 2020).

9 https://www.luc.edu/online/online_definitions.html (last visited August 29, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:91
7

to on-campus ones.10

30. For the 2019-2020 academic year, Defendant charged on-campus, full-time 11

undergraduate students $22,065 in tuition per semester, or between $1,050.71 and $1,838.75 per 

credit hour. 12 Additionally, Defendant charged these students an array of mandatory fees, 

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 events13; a Technology Fee 

($125 per semester for full-time students), which funds, computer labs, software, student 

technology support, and more14; and a CTA U-Pass ($155 per semester), which is Loyola students’ 

“ticket to unlimited riding aboard CTA buses and trains.”15 In addition, Loyola students paid a 

variety of mandatory course and supplies fees, and other miscellaneous fees.

31. Loyola charged students enrolled in online bachelor’s and certificate programs far 

lower amount of tuition and fees -- merely $693 in tuition per credit.

16 Defendant also charged 

these online undergraduate students far fewer fees -- no CTA U-Pass fee whatsoever and, at most,

a $92 Student Development Fee and a $78 Technology Fee—both markedly lower than the 

corresponding fees charged for on-campus students.

32. These differences in tuition and mandatory fee charges reflect the fact that Loyola 

students who enroll in on-campus programs have access to facilities, events, activities, and other 

resources—coupled with face-to-face, live instruction—that are simply unavailable to those who

instead opt to pursue their degrees online.

10 https://www.luc.edu/bursar/tuitionfees/ (last visited August 29, 2020).

11 Those taking 12-21 credit hours per semester; see https://www.luc.edu/bursar/tuitionfees/2019-

2020/undergraduate/ (last visited August 28, 2020).

12 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 August 29, 2020).

13 https://www.luc.edu/bursar/faqs.shtml (last visited August 29, 2020).

14 https://www.luc.edu/its/aboutits/itspoliciesguidelines/tech_fee_faq.shtml (last visited August 28, 2020).

15 https://www.luc.edu/upass/aboutu-pass/ (last visited August 29, 2020).

16 https://www.luc.edu/bursar/tuitionfees/2019-2020/scps/ (last visited August 29, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:92
8

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

Classes and Access to Campus Facilities, Resources

33. Against this backdrop, and despite the relatively high costs to them and their 

families, Plaintiffs Pfeifer, Botello, and Whalen each enrolled in an on-campus program at Loyola 

for the Spring 2020 semester. In doing so, and unlike students enrolled in Online Learning at 

Loyola, they contracted with Defendant specifically for courses that would be delivered 100% oncampus, and for the many in-person resources and services that go along with them.

34. That is, they and other similarly situated students contracted for the on-campus

“Loyola Experience” that Defendant marketed to them.

35. An integral part of the on-campus Loyola Experience is campus life. Indeed, and 

as the two screenshots bellow illustrate, the navigation on Defendant’s website for on-campus 

programs prominently features an entire section titled “Campus Life”—a section that does not 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:93
9

exist on the navigation for Defendant’s website for its online programs.

36. For example, Defendant advertises 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 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,” Defendant’s website for on-campus programs states. 17

Defendant also boasts an active Greek life, more than 30 intramural and club sports, and more than 

15 Division I sports.

37. Loyola’s website indicates that the University’s core mission involves offering its 

on-campus students “essential” co-curricular involvement and experiences “beyond the 

classroom:”

University Mission

We are Chicago's Jesuit Catholic University -- a diverse community seeking God in all things 

and working to expand knowledge in the service of humanity through learning, justice, and faith.

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.

17 https://www.luc.edu/undergrad/featurecontent/canvases/residencelife/ (last visited August 29, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:94
10

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.

38. Additionally, Loyola represents that its on-campus Loyola students 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.

39. Moreover, across the website for Loyola’s on-campus programs, Defendant 

routinely highlights 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.18

40. Altogether, on-campus facilities, services, opportunities, and resources are so 

critical to the Loyola Experience that the University requires 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 proclaims in its description of the “Residency 

Requirement.” See Exhibit A. 19 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 B.

41. As the Residency Requirement itself demonstrates, Defendant does not just market 

18 https://www.luc.edu/undergrad/letsgetstarted/freshman/ (last visited August 29, 2020).

19 Also available at https://www.luc.edu/reslife/about/residencyrequirement/(last visited August 29, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:95
11

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

them. Instead, for students who enroll in Defendant’s full-time, on-campus programs—including 

Plaintiffs Pfeifer, Botello, and Whalen and Class members—promises of on-campus instruction 

and access to facilities and resources are part of the contractual agreement between them and 

Defendant.

42. Indeed, Defendant recognizes that it enters into contractual agreements with 

students. At the start of each semester, Loyola students enroll in classes through an on-line portal 

called “LOCUS.” On LOCUS, Loyola students select the classes for which they will register each 

term. When students are choosing their classes, students search for classes by subject matter, 

meeting time, meeting day, instructor, campus, location, and mode of instruction. See Exhibit C.

43. Before a student registers for a class through LOCUS, a student can click on links 

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

LOCUS includes a description of each class and notes about how the course will be taught, 

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

44. After choosing classes in LOCUS, Loyola requires students to click a button 

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

they enrolled. 

45. The Financial Responsibility Disclaimer that Loyola requires its students to sign 

indicates that there is an agreement between the student and Loyola. It states 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 requires 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.”

46. 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 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:96
12

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

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

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

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

an account is past due, Loyola blocks the student’s access to campus facilities.

47. Loyola understands that it entersinto contractual relationships with its students who 

pay tuition and fees to the University. In fact, Loyola routinely files civil 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 D.

48. For students who register and pay for on-campus courses, the conditions and duties 

required on Loyola’s part include the provision of the in-person instruction and access to campus 

resources and facilitiesthat are promised. The contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and Class 

members, on the one hand, and the University, on the other, is based on the terms and conditions 

set forth not only in Loyola’s registration process, but also in Loyola’s catalogues, 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. As 

these and other Loyola materials set out, in exchange for enrolling in and paying for Defendant’s 

in-person courses and programs, Plaintiffs and Class members were promised on-campus 

instruction and specific campus resources.

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:97
13

49. First, as illustrated in the examples below, in describing courses, the Course Catalog

made numerous statements promising students that the courses for which Plaintiffs and Class 

members registered would be delivered on-campus. See Exhibit E.20 On information and belief, 

the 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. For example, 

under “Components,” many class descriptions specified that courses would involve “In person” or 

“Laboratory” elements. Additionally, for “Room Requirements,” course descriptions represented

that classes would be held in on-campus facilities, for example, in a “Seminar (1)” or “Lab –

Chemistry (1).”

50. Moreover, Defendant’s Information Technology Services Policies promise that 

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

available to students.” See Exhibit F.

21 Additionally, per the Office of the Bursar Policies, in 

exchange for students’ payment of the Student Development Fee, Defendant promises to “fund[] 

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

20 The Course Catalog is also available at 

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

September 2, 2020).

21 Also available at https://www.luc.edu/policy/informationtechnologyservicespolicies/ (last visited August 29, 

2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:98
14

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 Exhibit G.

22 Other University 

catalogues, bulletins, circulars, and regulations promise to Plaintiffs and Class members, for 

example, a campus shuttle service and access to cultural and social events. See Exhibit H. 23 They 

also promise 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 I.24

51. Finally, as set forth in Defendant’s regulation for tuition and fees and in its 

definitions for Online Learning at Loyola, when Plaintiffs and Class members registered and paid

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. See

Exhibit J.

52. All told, by registering and paying for Defendant’s on-campus courses, Plaintiffs 

and Class members did not merely hope to receive in-person instruction and campus resources—

they were contractually entitled to it.

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. 25 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 Pfeifer, Botello, and Whalen attended classes in-person 

22 Also available at https://www.luc.edu/bursar/faqs.shtml (last visited August 29, 2020).

23 Also available at https://www.luc.edu/hr/sweg/benefitsservices/ (last visited August 29, 2020).

24 Also available at 

https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/saga/docs/RSO%20Handbook%202.13.20_publishable%20version.pdf (last 

visited August 29, 2020).

25 Note that the Spring 2020 semester academic calendar dates for Loyola graduate students is no longer available 

online.

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:99
15

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.26

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 

on March 13.27

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.”28 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.”29 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.30 Despite these restrictions, Defendant affirmed that the 

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

August 28, 2020).

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

(last visited August 29, 2020).

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

August 28, 2020).

29 Id.

30 Id.

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:100
16

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

students’ progress towards the completion of the term.”31

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).”32 Beginning on March 20, “ONLY essential 

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

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

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

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 on-campus Loyola Experience, complete with what Defendant 

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

access to the in-person instruction and 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.

61. Moreover, the entire Summer Sessions I and II were held virtually, further denying

many students access to campus or campus-based services and facilities for which had already

paid.

E. Defendant Denied Plaintiffs and the Class with What They Bargained 

For

62. 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; 

31 Id.

32https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/previousmessages/2020-0319-1-

campuschangesandclosurescovid19responseupdate.shtml (last visited August 28, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:101
17

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

63. 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).

64. Defendant thus charged significantly more for in-person programs as it charged for 

online programs, recognizing that online courses are not the same as live classes and should cost 

less.

65. Even for the Fall 2020 semester, Defendant’s pricing structure acknowledges that 

an online-only undergraduate option is worth significantly less than its on-campus counterpart.33

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

and the Class contracted for and paid more for Loyola’s traditional, residential, in-person 

programs. They paid increased costs in tuition and fees for live, in-person instruction and access 

to the “Loyola Experience,” including the University’s facilities, technology, and resources. 

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

predicated, for example, on students’ in-person 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.

68. 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% 

33 https://www.luc.edu/bursar/tuitionfees/2020-2021/ (last visited August 29, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:102
18

online.

69. 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 the value of live 

classes.

70. 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 

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

conduct their lessons online.34

71. 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” and instead 

offered only vague hedging.

72. Understandably, Plaintiffs and Class members are dissatisfied with the education 

and services that they received—or, rather, did not receive—since March 9, 2020. This 

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.35 The petition—which quickly garnered 2,000 signatures36—asks for a decrease in tuition 

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

34 https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/faqs/index.cfm (last visited August 29, 2020).

35 https://www.change.org/p/loyola-university-chicago-lower-tuition-for-loyola-university-chicago-springsemester-after-classes-went-online (last visited September 2, 2020).

36 http://loyolaphoenix.com/2020/04/student-petition-calls-for-loyola-to-lower-tuition/ (last visited September 2, 

2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:103
19

therefore [students] should not be paying full tuition price.”37

73. 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 

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).

74. 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 equate with the bargained for service and 

instruction for which students signed up when they enrolled at Loyola.

75. 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 

37 Id.

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:104
20

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.

38

76. 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, 

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

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

and paid. 

77. 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. Those damages take the form of, inter 

alia, a refund of a percentage of tuition and fees reflecting the fact that students could no longer 

attend classes in-person and were instead given an online learning experience that is objectively 

worth less and that failed to provide access to resources and services for which Plaintiffs and Class 

members paid.

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

78. 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 persons who paid, on behalf of themselves or another, tuition or fees for oncampus programs at Loyola University of Chicago for the Spring 2020 semester.

79. 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 

38 For a full-time undergraduate student who had paid $419 for this fee, Defendant issued a $183 credit. Notably, 

for the Fall 2020 semester—when most of Loyola classes are being delivered online—Defendant is not charging 

this fee at all. See https://www.luc.edu/coronavirus/faqs/index.cfm (last visited August 29, 2020). This is 

essentially an admission that, when its campuses are closed, 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 #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:105
21

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.

80. 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.

81. 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 accepted money from the Class;

b. whether Defendant charged more at the beginning of the semester for inperson instruction and use of facilities than on-line instruction;

c. whether Defendant provided a full semester of in-person instruction and use of 

facilities to persons who paid for it;

d. whether Defendant retained money from the Class for services it did not 

render, or only partially rendered;

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

f. whether Defendant breached its contract with the Class;

g. whether Defendant benefitted from the money it accepted from the Class;

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

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

relief, and/or other relief; and

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

members.

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

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:106
22

the other Class members’ claims because Plaintiffs and the other Class members each paid for 

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.

83. 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. 

COUNT I

Breach of Contract

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

alleged herein. 

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

Class. 

86. Defendant offers two distinct types of academic programs: (1) online programs, in 

which anywhere from 0% to 70% of courses are delivered on-campus, with the remainder being 

delivered online; and (2) what Defendant refers to as “in-person, face-to-face classes,” which are 

delivered on Defendant’s physical campuses.

87. Plaintiffs and Class members registered specifically for the latter: Defendant’s oncampus programs.

88. Defendant billed Plaintiffs and the Class tuition and fees for on-campus programs 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:107
23

(as opposed to lower rates for online programs), which Plaintiffs paid and Class members paid.

89. 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.

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

for on-campus programs for the Spring 2020 semester.

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

circulars, and regulations that were made available to students. Through these materials, Defendant 

made specific promises to, among other things, provide to Plaintiffs and Class members in-person

instruction in campus facilities, along with access to campus building and resources for the full 

duration of the Spring 2020 semester.

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

Defendant ceased providing the agreed upon instruction, amenities, and access to Plaintiffs and 

Class members for which they paid. 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.

93. 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.

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

their bargain.

95. 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. 

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

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:108
24

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.

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

have suffered as a result of Defendant’s actions.

98. 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 and paid for and what they received.

99. 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 paid for and what they received.

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

between what they contracted for and what they received. 

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

entitled.

COUNT II

Unjust Enrichment

102. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations in Paragraphs 1-101, above, as if fully 

alleged herein.

103. 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. 

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

fees for the Spring 2020 semester.

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

106. Plaintiffs and Class members paid Defendant tuition and fees in exchange for inCase: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:109
25

person, on-campus instruction, along with access to campus facilities and resources, for the full 

duration of the Spring 2020 semester.

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

such instruction and access.

108. 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.

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

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

conscience.

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

of tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester.

111. 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.

112. 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

113. 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; 

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:110
26

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.

Dated: September 4, 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

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

43 Southeast Main Street, Suite 505

Minneapolis, MN 55414

Tel: (612) 594-5999

Email: emdrake@bm.net

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:111
27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

filed on September 4, 2020 on ECF, which automatically served all counsel of record.

Dated: September 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Elizabeth A. Fegan

Elizabeth A. Fegan

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:112