1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

OSCAR FELIX, on behalf of himself and other individuals 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

against 

ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY; and other affiliated entities 

and individuals, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Named Plaintiff Oscar Felix (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, by his attorneys, against Defendant, Roosevelt University1 (the 

“University” or “Defendant”) alleges the following upon information and belief, except for those 

allegations pertaining to Plaintiff, which are based on personal knowledge. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This class action is brought on behalf of Named Plaintiff Oscar Felix and those 

similarly situated who paid, or will pay, tuition and/or fees to attend Roosevelt University (the 

“University”) for an in-person, hands on education for the Spring 2020 semester, Summer 2020 

semester, and any future semester, and had their coursework moved to online learning as a result 

of Defendant’s response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”). Plaintiffs did not 

receive the benefit and services that they bargained for when they provided payment for tuition 

and various mandatory student fees described herein (the “Mandatory Fees”). 

2. On or around March 12, 2020, Roosevelt University canceled all in-person 

1

 Including all campuses and branches. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:3
2 

education and in-person educational services, then transitioned to complete online education. 

3. Despite the University’s failure to provide the services and experiences as bargained 

for, Defendant has not offered any refund of the tuition or Mandatory Fees that Plaintiff and the 

Class paid, even though it ceased in-person learning since March 12, 2020. 

4. In short, as to tuition, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have paid tuition for a 

first-rate education and educational experience, with all the appurtenant benefits offered by a firstrate university, and were provided a materially deficient and insufficient alternative, which 

alternative constitutes a breach of the contracts entered into by Plaintiff and the Class with the 

University. 

5. As to the Mandatory Fees, Plaintiff and the Class have paid fees for services and 

facilities which were simply not provided; this failure also constitutes a breach of the contracts 

entered into by Plaintiff and the Class with the University.

6. Plaintiff seeks, for himself and Class members, the University’s disgorgement and 

return of the pro-rated portion of its tuition and Mandatory Fees proportionate to the decrease in 

benefit contracted for when the University switched to online distance learning. The return of such 

pro-rated amounts would compensate Plaintiff and the Class members for damages sustained by 

way of Defendant’s breach.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals that paid or will pay to attend 

Roosevelt University, including tuition and/or Mandatory Fees. 

8. Defendant accepted Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ payments in exchange for 

educational services, experiences, and opportunities as detailed in Defendant’s marketing, 

advertisements, and other public representations. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:4
3 

9. The Spring 2020 Semester at the University began on or about January 21, 2020 

and ended on or about May 18, 2020.2

 The Summer 2020 Semester began on or about May 26, 

2020 and was scheduled to end on or about August 3, 2020.3

10. Named Plaintiff Oscar Felix was a full-time graduate student in a human resources 

management program during the Spring 2020 semester. Roosevelt University charged plaintiff 

approximately $6,500.00 in tuition and Mandatory Fees during the Spring 2020 semester. 

11. Plaintiff paid tuition and Mandatory Fees for in-person educational services, 

experiences, opportunities, commencement exercises, and other related collegiate services for the 

entire semester. 

12. Tuition costs at the University for undergraduate students enrolled in the Spring 

2020 semester and Summer 2020 semester were as follows:4

13. Tuition costs at the University for graduate students enrolled in the Spring 2020 

semester were as follows:5

2 https://www.roosevelt.edu/news-events/events/academic-calendar-print. 3 Id. 

4 https://www.roosevelt.edu/tuition-aid/tuition/tuition-2019-2020. 5 Id. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:5
4 

14. The Mandatory Fees at the University consist of the following:6

15. Plaintiff and the members of the Class paid tuition for the benefit of on-campus 

live interactive instruction and an on-campus educational experience throughout the entire 

6 https://www.roosevelt.edu/tuition-aid/tuition/tuition-2019-2020. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:6
5 

semester. 

16. Plaintiff and the members of the Class paid the Mandatory Fees for the semester 

so they could benefit throughout the entire semester from on-campus organizations, clubs, 

recreational education, crime prevention, and health and wellness services. 

17. Members of the Class have taken to online petitions to demand the future discount 

of tuition and Mandatory Fees for the Fall 2020 semester and beyond, as the online education is 

lower in value than the traditional in-person education.7

18. Despite the demand, the University has not refunded or discounted tuition or 

Mandatory Fees for its students. 

In Response to COVID-19, the University Closed Campus, Preventing Access to its 

Facilities, Services, and Cancelled All In-Person Classes 

19. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the University created a new section on 

its website to post news alerts and updates.8

20. On or around March 12, 2020, Roosevelt University announced that because of 

COVID-19, they would suspend and cancel all in-person classes and college experiences for the 

remainder of the Spring Semester 2020 (following Spring Break recess) and that all learning would 

transition to online beginning on March 23, 2020.9

21. On March 19, 2020, the University cancelled its in-person commencement 

ceremony and conferral of degrees.10 On March 20, 2020 the University announced cancellations 

and/or restrictions to campus facilities and student services, including the counseling center, fitness 

7 https://www.change.org/p/roosevelt-university-ask-ccpa-at-roosevelt-university-to-lower-tuition-rates-for-the-fallsemester; 

8 https://blogs.roosevelt.edu/coronavirus/. 9 https://blogs.roosevelt.edu/coronavirus/2020/03/12/roosevelt-classes-postponed-until-monday-march-23/. 10 https://blogs.roosevelt.edu/coronavirus/student-services/. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:7
6 

centers, career services, libraries, dining centers, and study areas.11

22. On April 27, 2020, the University announced that all courses for the Summer 2020 

semester would be conducted solely in a remote online learning format.12

23. Defendant was unable to provide in-person educational experiences, services, and 

opportunities for approximately 59% of the Spring 2020 semester. 

24. Prior to the suspension of in-person classes for the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiff 

Oscar Felix attended campus events and was involved in student activities and/or clubs. 

25. As a result of Defendant’s closure, Defendant has not complied with its obligation 

to provide in-person educational services along with other experiences, opportunities, and services 

Plaintiff and the Class paid for. 

The University’s Online Courses Are Sub-par to In-Person Instruction, For Which Plaintiff 

and the Class Members Contracted with the University to Receive by Paying Tuition and Fees 

26. Plaintiff and the Class did not enter into an agreement with Defendant for online 

education, but rather sought to receive in-person education from Defendant’s institution. 

27. On its website, the University markets its on-campus experience as a benefit of 

enrollment:13

11 Id. 12 https://blogs.roosevelt.edu/coronavirus/2020/04/27/weekly-recap-4-24-2020/. 13 https://www.roosevelt.edu/. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:8
7 

28. The University uses its website, promotion materials, circulars, admission papers, 

and publications to tout the benefit of being on campus and the education students will receive in 

its facilities. 

29. The online learning options being offered to the University’s students are sub-par 

in practically every aspect as compared to what the educational experience afforded Plaintiff and 

the members of the Class once was. During the online portion of the semesters, the University 

offered some classes through Zoom or through pre-recorded lectures for students to watch on their 

own. Some classes, however, provided no live or recorded lectures and provided only self-teaching 

assignments. Therefore, there was a significant lack of classroom interaction among teachers and 

students, and among individual students that is instrumental in interpersonal skill development. 

30. The online formats being used by the University do not require memorization or 

the development of strong study skills given the absence of any possibility of being called on in 

class and the ability to consult books and other materials when taking exams. 

31. Students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative learning and inCase: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:9
8 

person dialogue, feedback, and critique. 

32. Access to facilities such as libraries, laboratories, computer labs, and study rooms, 

are also integral to a college education, and access to the myriad activities offered by campus life 

fosters social development and independence, and networking for future careers, all substantial and 

material parts of the basis upon which Roosevelt University can charge the tuition it charges, are 

not being provided. 

33. The University has not made any refund of any portion of the tuition Plaintiff and 

the members of the Class paid for the semester for the period it moved to sub-par online distance 

learning. 

34. Nor has the University refunded any portion of the Mandatory Fees it collected 

from Plaintiff and the members of the Class for the semesters even though it limited access to or 

ceased the services and facilities for which the Mandatory Fees were intended to pay.

35. Therefore, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to a pro-rata refund of the 

tuition and fees they paid to Defendant for in-person educational services as well as other marketed 

collegiate experiences and services that were not provided. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

33. This Court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(d)(2)(A), as modified by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, because at least one 

member of the Class, as defined below, is a citizen of a different state than Defendant, there are 

more than 100 members of the Class, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds 

$5,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. 

34. This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant maintains 

its principal place of business in this District. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:10
9 

35. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant 

operates its primary campus within this district. 

PARTIES

36. Plaintiff Oscar Felix was a student and a resident of Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff was 

enrolled as a full-time graduate student at Roosevelt University during the Spring 2020 semester. 

Plaintiff graduated at the conclusion of the semester. 

37. Plaintiff has not been provided a pro-rated refund of the tuition or Mandatory Fees 

paid to Defendant, despite the fact that the University has been shut down since on or about March 

12, 2020. 

38. Defendant Roosevelt University is a private university founded in 1945, with 

campuses in Chicago, Peoria, and Schaumburg, Illinois. The University’s principal place of 

business is located in Chicago, Illinois. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

39. Plaintiff brings this matter on behalf of himself and those similarly situated. As 

detailed in this Complaint, Defendant failed, or will fail, to provide the in-person education 

services the Plaintiffs paid tuition and fees to receive during the Spring 2020, Summer 2020, 

and future semesters. 

40. Plaintiff was impacted by and damaged by this misconduct. 

41. Accordingly, this action is ideally situated for class-wide resolution. 

42. The Class is defined as all individuals who paid tuition and fees to attend any 

campus of Roosevelt University in order to receive in-person educational services, 

experiences, and opportunities during the Spring 2020 semester, Summer 2020 semester, and 

any future semester, but had their class(es) moved to online learning. (the “Class”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:11
10 

43. The Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under 

FRCP 23 satisfying the class action prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and 

adequacy because: 

44. Numerosity: Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable. Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of individuals who are Class 

Members described above who have been damaged by Defendant’s breach of contract. 

45. Commonality: The questions of law and fact common to the Class Members 

which predominate over any questions which may affect individual Class Members include, 

but are not limited to: 

a. Whether Defendant accepted money from Plaintiff and Class Members 

in exchange for a promise to provide services; 

b. Whether Defendant provided those services as bargained for; 

c. Whether Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to a pro-rata portion 

of the tuition and fees paid for services that were not provided; 

d. Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched; and, 

e. Whether Defendant converted money from the Plaintiff and Class 

Members. 

46. Typicality: Plaintiff is a member of the Class. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the 

claims of each Class Member in that every member of the Class was subject to Defendant’s breach 

of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion. Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the same causes 

of action as the other Class Members. 

47. Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate Class representative because his interests do not 

conflict with the interests of the Class Members he seeks to represent; his claims are common to 

all members of the Class, and he has a strong interest in vindicating his rights; he has retained 

counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation and they intend to vigorously 

prosecute this action. Plaintiff has no interests which conflict with those of the Class. The Class 

Members’ interests will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and his counsel. Defendant 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:12
11 

has acted in a manner generally applicable to the Class, making relief appropriate with respect to 

Plaintiff and the Class Members. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members 

would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications. 

48. The Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under 

FRCP 23 because a class action is superior to traditional litigation of this controversy. Common 

issues of law and fact predominate over any other questions affecting only individual members of 

the Class. The Class issues fully predominate over any individual issue because no inquiry into 

individual conduct is necessary; all that is required is a narrow focus on Defendant’s deceptive and 

misleading practices. 

49. In addition, this Class is superior to other methods for fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy because, inter alia:

50. Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available methods for the 

fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because: 

a. The joinder of thousands of individual Class Members is impracticable, 

cumbersome, unduly burdensome, and a waste of judicial and/or 

litigation resources; 

b. The individual claims of the Class Members may be relatively modest 

compared with the expense of litigating the claim, thereby making it 

impracticable, unduly burdensome, and expensive-if not totally impossible-to 

justify individual actions; 

c. When Defendant’s liability has been adjudicated, all Class Members' claims can 

be determined by the Class and administered efficiently in a manner far less 

burdensome and expensive than if it were attempted through filing, discovery, 

and trial of all individual cases; 

d. This class action will promote orderly, efficient, expeditious, and 

appropriate adjudication and administration of Class claims; 

e. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the management of 

this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action; 

f. This class action will assure uniformity of decisions among Class Members; 

g. The Class is readily definable and prosecution of this action as a class action 

will eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation; 

h. Class Members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution of 

separate actions are outweighed by their interest in efficient resolution by 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:13
12 

single class action; and 

i. It would be desirable to concentrate in this single venue the litigation of all 

plaintiffs who were induced by Defendant’s deceptive and discriminatory 

consumer practices. 

51. Accordingly, this Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class 

action under FRCP 23 because questions of law or fact common to Class Members predominate 

over any questions affecting only individual members, and because a class action is superior to 

other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy. 

52. Plaintiff and the Class can maintain this action as a class action under FRCP 

23(b)(1), (2), and (3). 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

BREACH OF CONTRACT

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)

53. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the factual allegations above, as if fully alleged 

herein. 

54. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other members of the class, brings a common 

law claim for Breach of Contract. 

55. By accepting payment, Defendant entered into contractual arrangements with 

Plaintiff and Class Members to provide educational services, experiences, opportunities, and 

related services for entire semester. 

56. Defendant is in possession of all contracts, materials, circulars, advertisements, and 

the like between the Plaintiff and members of the Class, on one hand, and the University on the 

other. 

57. Defendant received and retained the benefits without providing those benefits to 

Plaintiff and Class Members. 

58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of contract, Plaintiff and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:14
13 

Class Members have been harmed by not receiving the educational experiences, opportunities, and 

services they paid for during the semesters. 

59. Defendant is required to perform under the contract and COVID-19 does not excuse 

such performance. Therefore, Defendant should be required to return pro-rata shares of the tuition, 

and fees paid by Plaintiff and Class Members that related to services that were not provided for 

after Roosevelt University shut down on or around March 12, 2020. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

CONVERSION

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members) 

60. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the factual allegations above, as if fully alleged 

herein. 

61. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other members of the Class, brings a common 

law claim for Conversion. 

62. Plaintiff and Class Members provided the University with property in the form of 

funds (tuition and Mandatory Fees), to be in exchange for in-person and on campus services, 

facilities and face to face instruction. 

63. The University exercises control over Plaintiff’s and Class members’ property. 

64. The University intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ 

property when it unilaterally moved all in-person classes to a remote online format, cancelled all 

on-campus events, strongly encouraged students to stay away from campus, and discontinued 

services for which the Mandatory Fees were intended to pay, all while retaining the tuition and 

Mandatory Fees paid by Plaintiff and the Class. 

65. Class members demanded the return of their property proportionate to the reduction 

in benefit for education and services during remainder of the Spring 2020 semester, or the entirety 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:15
14 

of the Summer 2020 or any future semesters, when in-person and on-campus live education, and 

access to the University’s services and facilities were unavailable. 

66. The University’s retention of the tuition and Mandatory Fees paid by Plaintiff and 

the Class without providing the services for which they paid, deprived Plaintiff and Class of the 

benefits for which the tuition and Mandatory Fees were paid, and of their funds paid for those 

benefits. 

67. Plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to the return of the pro-rated amounts 

of tuition and Mandatory Fees each paid equal to the reduction in benefit for education and services 

during the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester, or the entirety of the Summer 2020 or any future 

semesters, when in-person and on-campus live education, and access to the University’s services 

and facilities were unavailable. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

COMMON LAW UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members in the Alternative) 

68. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other members of the class, brings a common 

law claim for unjust enrichment. 

69. Plaintiff and Class Members conferred financial benefits and paid substantial 

tuition and Mandatory Fees to Defendant for educational and related services for the semesters. 

As bargained for, these tuition and Mandatory Fee payments were intended to cover in-person 

education and experiences throughout the entire semesters. 

70. Defendant accepted the obligation to provide such services when they accepted 

payment. 

71. Defendant retained these payments, despite Defendant’s failing to provide the 

bargained for educational, experiences, and services for which the tuition and fees were collected 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:16
15 

to cover. Defendant should be required to return a pro-rate share of any Spring 2020, Summer 

2020 semesters, and/or future semesters tuition and Mandatory Fees, of which services were not 

provided as bargained for, since Roosevelt University shut down on or around March 12, 2020. 

72. Under common law principles of unjust enrichment, it is inequitable for Defendant 

to retain the benefits conferred by Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ overpayments. 

73. Undoubtedly, the costs incurred for having an online only program is significantly 

lower than the overhead needed to provide classes and services on campus. 

74. Plaintiff and Class Members seek disgorgement of all profits resulting from such 

overpayments and establishment of a constructive trust from which Plaintiff and Class Members 

may seek restitution. 

DEMANDS FOR RELIEF

75. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, pray for judgment as follows: 

(a) Declaring this action to be a proper class action and certifying 

Plaintiff as the representative of the Class under FRCP 23; 

(b) Awarding monetary damages, including damages; 

(c) Awarding punitive and treble damages; 

(d) Awarding Plaintiff and Class Members their costs and expenses incurred in this 

action, including a reasonable allowance of attorney’s fees for Plaintiff’s 

attorneys and experts, and reimbursement of Plaintiff’s expenses; and 

(f) Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:17
16 

Dated: August 14, 2020 

 Chicago, Ill 

CARLSON LYNCH LLP 

/s/ Katrina Carroll 

Katrina Carroll 

Nicholas R. Lange 

111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240 

Chicago, IL 60602 

P (312) 750-1265 

kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com 

nlange@carlsonlynch.com 

Gary F. Lynch 

Edward W. Ciolko 

1133 Penn Avenue 

5th Floor 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

P (412) 322-9243 

F. (412) 231-0246 

glynch@carlsonlynch.com 

eciolko@carlsonlynch.com 

 & 

THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 

Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. (to apply pro hac vice) 

Jeremy Francis, Esq. (to apply pro hac vice) 

sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com 

85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 

Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 

Telephone: (854) 705-9460 

 

& 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:18
17 

LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 

Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. (to apply pro hac vice) 

Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. (to apply pro hac vice) 

Brett R. Cohen, Esq. (to apply pro hac vice) 

One Old Country Road, Suite 347 

Carle Place, NY 11514 

(516) 873-9550 

jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com 

mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com 

bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com 

 Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Class 

Case: 1:20-cv-04793 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:19