UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

RICHARD PLACKO, CINDY PLACKO, and 

JOSHUA PLACKO, Individually And On Behalf 

Of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SYSTEM 

and RAMON CEPEDA, KAREEM DALE, 

DONALD J. EDWARDS, RICARDO 

ESTRADA, PATRICIA BROWN HOLMES 

NAOMI D. JAKOBSSON, STUART C. KING, 

EDWARD L. MCMILLAN, JILL B. SMART, 

ALI MIRZA, JOCELYN BRAVO, AUSTIN 

VERTHEIN, and GOVERNOR J.B. 

PRITZKER, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 1:20-cv-03451 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs Richard Placko, Cindy Placko, and Joshua Placko (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), 

allege on personal knowledge against Defendants University of Illinois System1 (“University”) 

and Ramon Cepeda, Kareem Dale, Donald J. Edwards, Ricardo Estrada, Patricia Brown Holmes, 

Naomi D. Jakobsson, Stuart C. King, Edward L. McMillan, Jill B. Smart, Ali Mirza, Jocelyn 

Bravo, Austin Verthein, and Governor J.B. Pritzker, individuals and members of the Board of 

Trustees of the University (the “Board” or collectively with the University, “Defendants”) as 

follows: 

1

 Including all Universities, branches and/or campuses within the System. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 1 of 44 PageID #:136
2 

NATURE OF THE CASE 

1. This is an action against Defendants for breach of contract, violation of the 

Constitutional takings and due process clause, unjust enrichment, conversion, and violation of 

Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (“ICFA”). 

2. Specifically, as set forth more fully below, Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Classes contracted with Defendants for certain services; namely, access to on-campus facilities 

and in-person educational instruction together with the on-campus college experience, and paid 

for those services in the form of tuition, room and board, and other fees. As a result of limitations 

Defendants have imposed, Defendants have not delivered the services that Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Class contracted and paid for. 

3. Alternatively, Defendants were unjustly enriched based upon monies received from 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes and restitution is owed to Plaintiffs and the members of 

the Classes. 

4. Alternatively, Defendants converted property belonging to Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes. 

5. As a result, Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes are entitled to a refund and/or 

restitution on tuition, room and board, and fees paid for services, facilities, access and/or 

opportunities not delivered. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness 

Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), 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 million, exclusive of interest and costs. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 2 of 44 PageID #:137
3 

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants conduct 

business in Illinois and have sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois. 

8. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. Specifically, all 

monies paid for tuition, room and board, and other fees that is the subject of this action were paid 

in this District. 

PARTIES 

9. Plaintiff Joshua Placko is a citizen and resident of Illinois and a student at The 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who attended Defendants’ institution during the 

Spring 2020 semester. 

10. Plaintiffs Richard Placko and Cindy Placko are the parents of Plaintiff Joshua 

Placko and are citizens and residents of Illinois. Plaintiffs Richard Placko and Cindy Placko were 

in good financial standing at Defendants’ institution having paid in whole or in combination 

tuition, fees, and costs assessed and demanded by Defendants for the Spring 2020 semester. 

11. Defendant University of Illinois System is a public university system consisting of 

University of Illinois – Chicago, University of Illinois – Springfield, and University of Illinois – 

Urbana-Champaign. 

12. Defendants Ramon Cepeda, Kareem Dale, Donald J. Edwards, Ricardo Estrada, 

Patricia Brown Holmes, Naomi D. Jakobsson, Stuart C. King, Edward L. McMillan, Jill B. Smart, 

Ali Mirza, Jocelyn Bravo, Austin Verthein, and Governor J.B. Pritzker are individuals and 

members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 3 of 44 PageID #:138
4 

FACTS 

University Background Information 

13. Plaintiffs bring this case as a result of Defendants’ decision not to issue appropriate 

refunds and/or restitution for the Spring 2020 semester after canceling in-person/on-campus 

classes and changing all classes to an online/remote format, closing most campus buildings, and 

requiring all students who could leave campus to leave. 

14. To encourage and solicit prospective students to enroll at the University for oncampus learning and to use the campus facilities, the University, through its website and other 

marketing materials promotes the benefits of its on-campus experience, encouraging prospective 

students to apply to the University and join its on-campus life and education experience. In fact, 

on its website, the University discusses its activities, culture and traditions, and states: “The college 

experience extends beyond the walls of the classroom . . . .” See Exhibit A (also at 

https://admissions.illinois.edu/Discover/Campus-Life/activities). 

15. Through its website, the University encouraged prospective enrollees to visit its 

campuses as part of its inducement of prospective students to apply to the University and join its 

on-campus life and education experience. See Exhibit B (also at 

https://web.archive.org/web/20190706073953if_/https://admissions.illinois.edu/visit). 

16. In order to attend the University for on-campus learning, prospective students are 

required to complete its application process which is explained on its website. See Exhibit C (also 

at https://admissions.illinois.edu/Apply/Freshman/process). 

17. After each prospective student of the University submits his/her application, on its 

website, the University describes its process for reviewing submitted applications. See Exhibit D 

(also at https://admissions.illinois.edu/Apply/Freshman/review). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 4 of 44 PageID #:139
5 

18. The process for admission for transfer students and other non-freshman applicants 

is virtually the same as described above. 

19. After completing the University’s application and after consideration by the 

University, successful applicants, including Plaintiff Joshua Placko, receive a letter of acceptance 

along with instructions to be followed in order to matriculate at the University for on-campus 

learning. Additionally, after a student has been accepted for admission to the University, its 

website sets forth the “...simple steps to complete your enrollment.” See Exhibit E (also at 

https://admissions.illinois.edu/Apply/admitted). 

20. Plaintiff’s application and acceptance letter to the University are not attached 

because the application was completed online, and Plaintiff was not able to locate his copies of 

these documents. Upon information and belief, the University is in possession of all applications 

and acceptance letters for prospective class members, including Plaintiff Joshua Placko. 

21. As a condition for prospective students at the University to receive access to 

campus facilities and on-campus learning, each person (including Plaintiff Joshua Placko) is 

required to pay tuition and fees, and for those that choose to live on campus and participate in the 

University’s meal plan, payment of those additional charges. Tuition at the University for the 

2019-2020 academic year starts at $12,036 for an in-state resident, starts at $29,178 for an out-ofstate resident, and starts at $30,052 for an international student. See Exhibit F. These rates may 

be higher depending on each student’s major. Room and Board costs (which includes a dining 

plan) at the University for the year were approximately $15,000 (see Exhibit G). The University 

also offers a stand-alone meal plan that costs between $2,192 and $6,202 for the 2019-2020 

academic year. See Exhibit H. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 5 of 44 PageID #:140
6 

22. The tuition charged by the University, as set forth above, is for in-person on-campus 

instruction. 

23. In addition to tuition, the University students may be charged various fees, 

including, but not limited to: (1) Academic Facility Maintenance Fund Assessment, (2) General 

Fee, (3) Service Fee, (4) Health Service Fee, (5) Health Insurance Fee, (6) Library and Information 

Technology Fee, (7) Transportation Fee, and (8) Student-Initiated Fees. See Exhibit I (also at 

https://registrar.illinois.edu/tuition-fees/fee-info/). The University estimated these fees at more 

than $4,000 for the Fall 2019-Spring 2020 school year.2

24. By way of example, because of the University’s entreaties to visit its campus, 

Plaintiff Joshua Placko did visit its campus in April 2018 to assist with his decision to apply to and 

attend the University. Plaintiff Joshua Placko submitted his application to the University in or 

around October 2018 and received his acceptance letter from the University in December 2018. 

25. Plaintiff Joshua Placko was enrolled as a full-time student for the Spring 2020 

semester at the University. 

26. As a precondition for enrollment, Plaintiffs were required to and did pay tuition, as 

did members of the Classes. 

27. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of institutions of higher learning in this 

country. 

28. Many institutions of higher learning offer curriculum and instruction that is offered 

on a remote basis through online learning which do not provide for physical attendance by the 

students, and generally charge lower tuition rates. 

29. The University offers an in-person, hands on curriculum. 

2

 See https://cost.illinois.edu/Home/Cost/R/U/Compare/FullTime/120198?ViewYearFirst=1 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 6 of 44 PageID #:141
7 

30. Plaintiff Joshua Placko and members of the Classes did not choose to attend another 

institution of higher learning, but instead chose to attend the University and enroll in an in-person 

basis at a significantly higher tuition. 

31. The tuition and fees for in-person instruction at the University are higher than 

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

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

(a) Face to face interaction with professors, mentors, and peers; 

(b) Access to facilities such as computer labs, study rooms, laboratories, and 

libraries; 

(c) Student governance and student unions; 

(d) Extra-curricular activities, groups, and intramurals; 

(e) Student art, cultures, and other activities; 

(f) Social development and independence; 

(g) Hands on learning and experimentation; and 

(h) Networking and mentorship opportunities. 

32. Plaintiff Joshua Placko enrolled at the University to earn a degree that included the 

receipt of taking courses at the campus with live teacher and peer interaction. 

33. Defendants use an educational calendar of two semesters, fall and spring. The 

Spring 2020 semester ran from January 21, 2020 through May 6, 2020, plus a period for final 

exams. 

The University’s Response to COVID-19 

34. On March 11, 2020, Defendants announced that all classes were moving to 

“alternative course delivery” (i.e., online) after Spring Break. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 7 of 44 PageID #:142
8 

35. Spring Break occurred on March 14, 2020 through March 22, 2020. 

36. On March 16, 2020, Defendants announced that they were suspending face-to-face 

instruction for the rest of the Spring 2020 semester. Defendants also announced they intended to 

resume instruction using “alternative delivery methods” beginning Monday, March 23, 2020. 

37. Also, on March 16, 2020, Defendants announced they were requiring all students 

who could safely do so, to return to their permanent home address to take their classes for the rest 

of the semester. No “move out by” date was included in this announcement. 

38. On or about March 17, 2020, Defendants announced that they had cancelled 

graduation ceremonies previously scheduled for May 16, 2020 and instead would be mailing 

diplomas to Spring 2020 graduates. 

39. On March 20, 2020, Defendants announced that all students living on campus 

needed to vacate campus by March 21, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. 

40. On March 24, 2020, Defendants announced that some courses would be switched 

to “pass/no pass” (also referred to as “PP/NP”) grading rather than standard course grading 

(A/B/C/D/F). As announced, for those courses switched to “pass/no pass” grading by Defendants, 

there was no option for Plaintiff Joshua Placko or other students at the University of Illinois to 

select standard course grading. 

41. As described in the Academic Policy Modifications – Spring 2020 from the Office 

of the Provost, “[c]ourses assessed as PP/NP will not affect student GPA. This could be 

detrimental to students who were expecting to earn a high grade in the course. Programs with 

licensure requirements might be affected by PP/NP grading.” This announcement also states: 

“Although we have indications that external stakeholders (employers, graduate schools) will not 

penalize students for PP/NP, we cannot guarantee that this will be universally true.” 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 8 of 44 PageID #:143
9 

42. Defendants suspended or restricted in-person on-campus activities. 

43. Plaintiff Joshua Placko and members of the Classes were deprived of the benefits 

of on-campus learning and the use of campus facilities as set forth more fully herein. 

44.

45. In their April 10, 2020 communication, Defendants discussed certain billing 

adjustments already in process related to University Housing (including dining), and certain 

downward adjustments to Student Service and Campus Transportation fees to reflect the loss of 

access. In this communication, Defendants admit that some campus fees are not being adjusted. 

46. Despite Defendants’ cancellation of live in-person instruction, its eviction of 

students from campus facilities for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester, and the cancellation 

of all campus activities, Defendants have not offered adequate refunds or restitution of tuition, 

room and board, and fees paid to cover the cost of on-campus services that were no longer provided 

to students. 

47. To date, Defendants have failed and continue to fail to refund any portion of 

Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ Spring 2020 semester tuition payment or to provide any 

restitution. 

48. Moreover, Plaintiff Joshua Placko and members of the Classes were deprived of 

fully utilizing services for which they already paid, including, but not limited to, access to campus 

facilities and other opportunities. 

49. To date, Defendants have failed to adequately and properly refund various fees to 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes for university services which Defendants failed to 

provide as previously agreed upon or to provide any adequate or proper restitution. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 9 of 44 PageID #:144
10 

50. To date, Defendants have failed to adequately and properly refund room and board 

payments made by Plaintiffs and the members of the Class for services which Defendants failed 

to provide as previously agreed upon or to provide any adequate or proper restitution. 

51. Regarding the Fall 2020 semester, the University’s website (as of August 21, 20203) 

states in relevant part: 

Fall 2020 will be an on-campus semester with as much in-person instruction as 

restrictions of space, health and safety allow. 

We will maximize in-person classes as much as possible, especially for courses 

such as labs and performance-based courses. 

*** 

How will I be able to tell if my classes moved online? 

In reviewing your schedule in Student Self-Service or my Illini on or after August 

1, courses will be identified as ‘online’ and they also will have no meeting location. 

You won’t be able to access the “Add/Drop” or “Register for Classes” menu options 

until your time ticket opens again, but you can see your schedule through Student 

Schedule-Detail or Concise or View Class Schedules menu options. 

The University’s Financial Resources 

52. The University of Illinois and U of I Foundation have a combined active 

endowment of $2.82 billion as of June 30, 2019 and raised $462.9 million in its fiscal year 2019 

fundraising campaign. 

53. In addition to its endowment, tuition income and other revenue, the Federal 

Government also responded to the COVID-19 pandemic in ways that benefited the University and 

covered costs associated with the disruption by instituting the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 

Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). 

3

 See https://covid19.illinois.edu/on-campus/on-campus-students/. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 10 of 44 PageID #:145
11 

54. To assist colleges and universities and their students, the CARES Act includes 

funding to assist college students whose lives and educations have been disrupted by COVID-19. 

Colleges and universities can distribute the cash grants to students to use on course materials, 

technology, food, housing, healthcare, and childcare. The funding flows to the states who then 

distribute the funds to colleges and universities (that have completed an application). The CARES 

Act requires that approximately half the funds received by colleges and universities be distributed 

to its students. The use of the other half of CARES Act funds received by colleges and universities 

is limited and specific, as stated in an April 21, 2020 letter from Betsy Devos, the Secretary of 

Education, to college and university presidents4: 

[T]he CARES Act allows your institution to use up to one-half of the total funds 

received... to cover any costs associated with significant changes to the delivery of 

instruction due to the coronavirus. 

55. Upon information and belief, through the CARES Act, the U.S. Department of 

Education (“DOE”) allocated $63,054,655 to the University of which the minimum allocation to 

be awarded for emergency financial aid grants to University students was $31,527.328. 

56. On or about April 15, 2020 the University signed, certified, and returned an 

assurance the school will use at least 50% of the funds received from the CARES Act to provide 

Emergency Financial Aid Grants to students.5

APPLICABLE SUBSTANTIVE LAW 

57. Defendants are obligated to uphold the Illinois and United States Constitution. 

58. By denying in-person learning and on-campus benefits and opportunities, 

Defendants have violated the Illinois Constitution, Article I, §§ 2 and 15, and the United States 

Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are 

4

 See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/heerfinstitutionalcoverletter.pdf. 

5

 See https://covid19.illinois.edu/more-information/reports/cares-act-reporting/ 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 11 of 44 PageID #:146
12 

entitled to a pro-rated refund or restitution of tuition, housing, and mandatory fees for the duration 

of the University’s COVID-19 related closures for the in-person education and on-campus services 

and opportunities that Plaintiff and members of the Classes have been denied. 

59. Illinois’s substantive laws apply to the proposed Classes, as defined herein. 

60. Illinois’s substantive laws may be constitutionally applied to the claims of Plaintiff 

and the Classes under the Due Process Clause, 14th Amend., § 1, and the Full Faith and Credit 

Clause, art. IV., § 1, of the U.S. Constitution. Illinois has significant contact, or significant 

aggregation of contacts, to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, thereby 

creating state interests that ensure that the choice of Illinois state law is not arbitrary or unfair. 

Furthermore, the circumstances that relate to the disputed transaction(s) occurred primarily and 

substantially in Illinois. 

61. The University is located in Illinois. 

62. All live in-person instruction occurs in Illinois, and all University housing for 

students is located in Illinois. 

63. Plaintiffs, as well as a substantial number of Class members, are residents of 

Illinois. 

64. All payments for Tuition, Fees, and Room and Board are sent to the University in 

Illinois. 

65. All of the University’s statements regarding Tuition, Fees, and Room and Board 

cited throughout this Complaint were made in and emanated from Illinois. 

66. The application of Illinois’s laws to the Classes is appropriate under Illinois’s 

choice-of-law rules because Illinois has significant contacts to the claims of Plaintiff and the 

Classes, and Illinois has a greater interest in applying its laws here than any other interested state. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 12 of 44 PageID #:147
13 

CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS 

67. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and for the following classes of 

persons defined as: 

The Tuition Class:

All people who paid tuition for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes at the 

University for the Spring 2020 semester but were denied access to campus facilities 

and live in-person instruction and forced to use online distance learning platforms 

for a portion of the time for which the tuition was paid. This Class includes all 

people who in addition to paying tuition for or on behalf of students enrolled in 

classes at the University for the Spring 2020 semester, paid tuition for or on behalf 

of students enrolled in classes at the University for subsequent semesters but were 

denied access to campus facilities and live in-person instruction and forced to use 

online distance learning platforms for a portion of the time for which the tuition 

was paid. 

The Fees Class: 

All people who paid fees for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes at the 

University for the Spring 2020 semester but were denied access to campus facilities 

and/or the items for which the fees were paid. This Class includes all people who 

in addition to paying fees for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes at the 

University for the Spring 2020 semester, paid fees for or on behalf of students 

enrolled in classes at the University for subsequent semesters but were denied 

access to campus facilities and/or the items for which the fees were paid. 

The Room and Board Class: 

All people who paid the costs of room and board (housing and meals) for students 

enrolled in classes at the University for the Spring 2020 semester who were 

instructed to move out of their on-campus housing prior to the completion of that 

semester by the University. This Class includes all people who paid the costs of 

room and board (housing and meals) for students enrolled in classes at the 

University for subsequent semesters and did not receive their full benefits during 

those semesters. 

The Illinois Tuition Class 

All Illinois residents who paid tuition for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes 

at the University for the Spring 2020 semester but were denied access to campus 

facilities and live in-person instruction and forced to use online distance learning 

platforms for a portion of the time for which the tuition was paid. This Class 

includes all residents who in addition to paying tuition for or on behalf of students 

enrolled in classes at the University for the Spring 2020 semester, paid tuition for 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 13 of 44 PageID #:148
14 

or on behalf of students enrolled in classes at the University for subsequent 

semesters but were denied access to campus facilities and live in-person instruction 

and forced to use online distance learning platforms for a portion of the time for 

which the tuition was paid 

The Illinois Fees Class: 

All Illinois residents who paid fees for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes 

at the University for the Spring 2020 semester and thereafter but were denied access 

to the campus facilities and/or items for which the fees were paid. This Class 

includes all Illinois residents who in addition to paying fees for or on behalf of 

students enrolled in classes at the University for the Spring 2020 semester, paid 

fees for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes at the University for subsequent 

semesters but were denied access to campus facilities and/or the items for which 

the fees were paid. 

The Illinois Room and Board Class: 

All Illinois residents who paid the costs of room and board (housing and meals) for 

students enrolled in classes at the University for the Spring 2020 semester who were 

instructed to move out of their on-campus housing prior to the completion of that 

semester by the University. This Class includes all Illinois residents who paid the 

costs of room and board (housing and meals) for students enrolled in classes at the 

University for subsequent semesters and did not receive their full benefits during 

those semesters. 

68. Excluded from the Classes are Ramon Cepeda, Kareem Dale, Donald J. Edwards, 

Ricardo Estrada, Patricia Brown Holmes, Naomi D. Jakobsson, Stuart C. King, Edward L. 

McMillan, Jill B. Smart, Ali Mirza, Jocelyn Bravo, Austin Verthein, and Governor J.B. Pritzker, 

and any of their respective members, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors, 

employees, successors, or assigns; and the judicial officers, and their immediate family members, 

and Court staff assigned to this case. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the Class 

definitions, as appropriate, during the course of this litigation. 

69. Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because 

Plaintiffs and members of the Classes can prove the elements of their claims on a class-wide basis 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 14 of 44 PageID #:149
15 

using the same evidence as would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging 

the same claims. 

70. This action has been brought and may be properly maintained on behalf of the 

Classes proposed herein under the laws of the State of Illinois. 

71. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and 

declaratory relief, as described herein, with respect to members of the Classes as a whole. 

Numerosity 

72. The members of the Classes are so numerous and geographically dispersed that 

individual joinder of all members of the Classes is impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and 

believe that there are thousands of members of the Classes and includes all students who enrolled 

at any school or department of Defendants for the 2020 Spring semester or thereafter, as defined 

above, the precise number being unknown to Plaintiffs, but such number being ascertainable from 

Defendants’ records. The members of the Classes may be notified of the pendency of this action 

by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include the use of 

Defendants’ own student records, U.S. mail, electronic mail, internet postings, and/or published 

notice. 

Commonality and Predominance 

73. This action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over 

any questions affecting individual members of the Classes, including, without limitation: 

(a) Whether Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged herein; 

(b) ; 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 15 of 44 PageID #:150
16 

(c) Whether Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs and the other 

members of the Tuition Class by retaining the portion of their tuition representing 

the difference between what was agreed upon and what was provided; 

(d) Whether Defendants complied with the Constitutional requirements for 

seizing and retaining Plaintiffs’ and the other members of the Tuition Classes 

property without providing the services that the tuition was intended to cover; 

(e) Whether Defendants afforded Plaintiffs and the other Tuition Class 

members notice and due process before seizing and retaining their property; 

(f) Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by retaining tuition payments 

of Plaintiffs and the Tuition Class representing the difference between what was 

agreed upon and what was provided; 

(g) Whether Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs and the other 

members of the Fees Class by retaining fees without providing the services the fees 

were intended to cover; 

(h) Whether Defendants complied with the Constitutional requirements for 

seizing and retaining Plaintiffs’ and the other members of the Fees Class property 

without providing the services that the fees were intended to cover; 

(i) Whether Defendants afforded Plaintiffs and the other Fees Class members 

notice and due process before seizing and retaining their property; 

(j) Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by retaining fees of Plaintiffs 

and the other members of the Fees Class without providing the services the fees 

were intended to cover; 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 16 of 44 PageID #:151
17 

(k) Whether Defendants breached their contracts with members of Plaintiffs 

and the Room and Board Class by retaining fees without providing the services the 

fees were intended to cover; 

(l) Whether Defendants complied with the Constitutional requirements for 

seizing and retaining Plaintiffs’ and the other members of the Room and Board 

Classes property without providing the services that the room and board was 

intended to cover; 

(m) Whether Defendants afforded Plaintiffs and the other Room and Board 

Class members notice and due process before seizing and retaining their property; 

(n) Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by retaining fees of Plaintiffs 

and members of the Room and Board Class without providing the services the fees 

were intended to cover; 

(o) Whether Defendants committed conversion as detailed herein against 

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Tuition Class; 

(p) Whether Defendants committed conversion as detailed above against 

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Fees Class; 

(q) Whether Defendants committed conversion as detailed herein against 

Plaintiffs and members of the Room and Board Class; 

(r) Whether Defendants’ conduct described herein constituted unfair trade 

practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; 

(s) Whether Defendants’ conduct described herein constituted deceptive trade 

practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 17 of 44 PageID #:152
18 

(t) Whether the Defendants should be compelled to provide restitution to the 

various Classes for monies paid for various services which were not fully provided; 

(u) Whether certification of any or all of the Classes proposed herein is 

appropriate; 

(v) Whether members of the Classes are entitled to declaratory, equitable, or 

injunctive relief, and/or other relief; and 

(w) The amount and nature of relief to be awarded to Plaintiffs and the other 

members of the Classes. 

Typicality 

74. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the other members of the Classes’ claims because, 

among other things, all members of the Classes were similarly situated and were comparably 

injured through Defendants’ wrongful conduct as set forth herein. 

Adequacy 

75. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Classes because their interests do not 

conflict with the interests of other members of the Classes they seek to represent. Plaintiffs have 

retained counsel competent and experienced in complex litigation; and Plaintiffs intend to 

prosecute the action vigorously. The Classes’ interests will be fairly and adequately protected by 

Plaintiffs and their counsel. 

Superiority 

76. A class action is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy, and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the 

management of this class action. The damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiffs 

and other members of the Classes are relatively small compared to the burden and expense that 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 18 of 44 PageID #:153
19 

would be required to individually litigate their claims against Defendants, so it would be 

impracticable for members of the Classes to individually seek redress for Defendants’ wrongful 

conduct. 

77. Even if Class members could afford individual litigation, the Court system likely 

could not. Individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments 

and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the class 

action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single 

adjudication, economy of scale, comprehensive supervision by a single court, and finality of the 

litigation. 

78. The prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the Classes 

would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would confront Defendants with 

incompatible standards of conduct. 

79. The dollar amount of the individual claims is insufficient to support separate 

actions; thus, a multitude of potential claimants have small potential damages that require 

aggregation in order to be pursued. 

80. This lawsuit is manageable as a class action because the proofs are essentially the 

same for all members of the Classes on all of the principal issues. 

81. Defendants’ conduct was the same as to all members of the Class. 

82. The members of the Classes do not have a significant interest in controlling the 

prosecution of separate actions involving the subject matter of this litigation, especially because 

the individual claims are too small individually to warrant litigating their claims on an individual 

basis. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 19 of 44 PageID #:154
20 

FOR A FIRST COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(BREACH OF CONTRACT) 

83. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

84. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Tuition Class. 

85. Plaintiffs and the Tuition Class entered into contracts with Defendants which 

provided that Plaintiffs and other members of the Tuition Class would pay tuition for or on behalf 

of students and, in exchange, Defendants would provide access to campus facilities and live inperson instruction in a physical classroom. 

86. The terms of this contract were set forth by Defendants through their website, 

academic catalogs, student handbooks, marketing materials and other circulars, bulletins, and 

publications. 

87. Defendants’ website and recruitment brochures are the primary means through 

which Defendants target prospective new students and attempt to influence such students to accept 

Defendants’ offer to attend their University as opposed to other institutions of higher learning. 

88. These publications, together with the custom and practice of the parties and the 

course of performance of the parties, form the basis of the bargain on which prospective students 

agree to accept Defendants’ offer and enroll in the University. 

89. Through these publications, together with the custom and practice of the parties and 

the course of performance of the parties, Defendants market and enroll students primarily in two 

separate and distinct products: (1) on-campus, and (2) online. 

90. Defendants specifically market certain classes and degree programs as being 

offered on a fully online basis. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 20 of 44 PageID #:155
21 

91. Indeed, Defendants dedicate an entire section of their website to these programs, 

known as “Illinois Online”. 

92. Conversely, Defendants’ publications with respect to non-online classes are full of 

references to the on-campus experience, including numerous references to student activities; 

campus amenities; arts and culture; athletics; and the like. 

93. Upon information and belief, there were no references or disclaimers in any of 

Defendants’ websites, circulars, bulletins, publications, brochures, or other advertisements that 

even referenced the possibility of in-person classes being changed to fully online classes at 

Defendants’ discretion or for any other reason whatsoever after the start of a given term. 

94. Defendants further emphasized the distinction between in-person and online class 

offerings through its academic catalogs and online course listings. 

95. Each of Defendants’ academic programs is listed separately on the University’s 

Office of the Registrar website with the specific tuition and fees charged for the specific program. 

96. The website relating to areas of study is found at 

http://catalog.illinois.edu/undergraduate/. The websites relating to tuition and fees is found at 

https://registrar.illinois.edu/tuition-fees/tuition-fee-rates/ug-tuition-rates-2021/. 

97. Students in many of Defendants’ schools and programs were subject to personal 

attendance requirements as set forth in various departmental policies and handbooks, evidencing 

Defendants’ requirement, and the student’s acceptance of the requirement, that such students 

physically attend such classes on campus. This policy includes: 

If, after receiving a notice ..., a student’s attendance continues to be irregular, the 

instructor may report this fact to the student’s college dean. The dean of the 

student’s college, in consultation with the instructor, may determine that the 

student’s attendance has become so irregular that the student’s scholarship is likely 

to be severely impaired. The dean may require the student to withdraw from the 

course with a grade of Withdrawal or Failure 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 21 of 44 PageID #:156
22 

98. That Defendants offered to provide, and members of the Tuition Class expected to 

receive, live in-person instruction is further evidenced by the parties’ prior course of conduct. 

99. Those classes for which students expected to receive in-person instruction began 

the semester by offering in-person instruction. 

100. Each day for the weeks and months leading up to the cancellation of in-person 

classes, students attended physical classrooms to receive in-person instruction, and Defendants 

provided such in-person instruction. 

101. Each day for the weeks and months prior to announced closures students had access 

to the full campus. 

102. Accordingly, it is clear that Defendants offered to provide live in-person education 

and that members of the Tuition Class accepted that offer by paying tuition and attending classes 

in the Spring 2020 semester. 

103. Based on this mutual assent, Plaintiffs and other members of the Tuition Class 

fulfilled their end of the bargain when they paid tuition for the Spring 2020 semester, either by 

paying out-of-pocket or by using student loan financing, or otherwise. 

104. However, Defendants breached the contract with Plaintiffs and the Tuition Class 

by moving all classes for the Spring 2020 semester to online distance learning platforms and 

restricting the on-campus experience without reducing or refunding tuition accordingly. 

105. Rather, it is clear from the facts and circumstances that Defendants offered two 

separate and distinct products, one being live, in-person education, with its ancillary and related 

services and the other being online distance education. 

106. Plaintiffs and members of the Tuition Class accepted Defendants’ offer for live inperson education and paid valuable consideration in exchange. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 22 of 44 PageID #:157
23 

107. However, after accepting such consideration from Plaintiffs and the Tuition Class, 

Defendants provided an entirely different product, which deprived Plaintiffs and the Tuition Class 

of the benefit of the bargain for which they had already paid. 

108. Defendants retained tuition monies paid by Plaintiffs and other members of the 

Tuition Class, without providing them the full benefit of their bargain. 

109. Plaintiffs and other members of the Tuition Class have suffered damage as a direct 

and proximate result of Defendants’ breach amounting to the difference in the fair market value of 

the services and access for which they contracted and the services and access which they actually 

received. 

110. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs and the Tuition 

Class are entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact in this action. 

FOR A SECOND COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(VIOLATION OF THE TAKINGS CLAUSE - 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 

111. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

112. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Tuition Class. 

113. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall 

not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. The Takings 

Clause is made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See U.S. Const. 

Amend. XIV; Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933, 1942, 198 L. Ed. 2d 497 (2017) (citing Chicago, 

B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 S. Ct. 581, 41 L. Ed. 979 (1897)). Similarly, Article 

I, § 15 of the Illinois Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken “for public use 

without just compensation as provided by law.” Illinois Const. Art. 1, § 15. Thus, the takings 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 23 of 44 PageID #:158
24 

clauses of the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions prohibit states, and state agencies like the Board and 

University, from taking private property for public use without just compensation. 

114. Takings claims may properly be brought against state agencies and are not barred 

by sovereign immunity. 

115. Common law has recognized that there is a property right by an owner in funds held 

in an account managed by another. Here, Defendants received payment of tuition from private 

citizens, as consideration for the benefit of receiving in-person course instruction and other oncampus benefits. The funds in issue are thus private in nature but held by a public entity. Plaintiffs 

and the other members of the Tuition Class have a protected property right in all sums they paid 

to the University. 

116. Defendants violated the takings clauses by failing to return to Plaintiffs and 

members of the Tuition Class that portion of the tuition for which they received nothing, or 

significantly less than what they bargained for in return. Neither Plaintiffs nor the other Tuition 

Class members have made a knowing and voluntary waiver of their constitutional right under the 

Fifth Amendment or under the Illinois Constitution to be paid just compensation for the taking of 

their property rights in those funds. 

117. Thus, Plaintiffs and the Tuition Class are entitled to just compensation for the 

taking of their property. 

FOR A THIRD COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS - 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 

118. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

119. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Tuition Class. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 24 of 44 PageID #:159
25 

120. Government actors must provide adequate due process procedures when depriving 

citizens of protected property interests. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; Illinois Const. Art. I, § 2. 

121. The due process clauses of the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions prohibit the State of 

Illinois and the governmental agencies that it creates, such as the Board and University, from 

depriving citizens of a protected property interest without due process of law. 

122. Plaintiffs and the Tuition Class members had a constitutionally protected property 

interest in the tuition they paid for in-person education and opportunities but were denied due to 

the actions of Defendants. 

123. Defendants took action affecting Plaintiffs and the other Tuition Class members’ 

constitutionally protected property interests by retaining amounts from Plaintiffs and the Tuition 

Class members’ payment of tuition. 

124. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other Tuition Class members of their 

protected property interests without due process of law by, for example, failing to provide notice 

of how refunds and/or restitution could be obtained from Defendants for the property belonging to 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Tuition Class but unlawfully retained by Defendants. 

125. Defendants’ failure to comply with the requirements of due process has resulted in 

substantial detriment to the Plaintiffs and the Tuition Class. 

FOR A FOURTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(UNJUST ENRICHMENT) 

126. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

127. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Tuition Class. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 25 of 44 PageID #:160
26 

128. This claim is pled in the alternative to, and to the extent it is determined a contract 

does not exist or otherwise apply to, the contract-based claim set forth in the First Cause of Action 

above. 

129. Plaintiffs and other members of the Tuition Class paid substantial tuition for live 

in-person instruction in physical classrooms on a physical campus. 

130. Plaintiffs and other members of the Tuition Class conferred a benefit on Defendants 

when they paid this tuition. 

131. Defendants have realized this benefit by accepting such payment. 

132. However, Plaintiffs and members of the Tuition Class did not receive the full 

benefit of their bargain. 

133. Instead, Plaintiffs and members of the Tuition Class conferred this benefit on 

Defendants in expectation of receiving one product, that being live in-person instruction in a 

physical classroom along with the on-campus experience of campus life as described more fully 

above, but were provided with a completely different product carrying a different fair market value. 

134. Defendants have retained this benefit, even though Defendants failed to provide the 

services for which the tuition was collected, making Defendants’ retention unjust under the 

circumstances, and restitution appropriate. 

135. Equity and good conscience require that Defendants return a portion of the monies 

paid in tuition to Plaintiffs and other members of the Tuition Class. 

FOR A FIFTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(BREACH OF CONTRACT) 

136. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 26 of 44 PageID #:161
27 

137. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Fees Class. 

138. In addition to tuition, Defendants charge a number of mandatory fees. 

139. In publications and, particularly on the website, Defendants specifically describe 

the nature and purpose of each fee. 

140. Some fees apply broadly to all or certain groups of students, while other fees are 

program or course based. 

141. In accepting these terms and paying these fees, a contract was formed between 

Plaintiffs, including the Fees Class, and Defendants, which provided that Plaintiffs and other 

members of the Fees Class would pay these fees for or on behalf of themselves and, in exchange, 

Defendants would provide the services related to those fees, as advertised. 

142. Plaintiffs and other members of the Fees Class fulfilled their end of the bargain 

when they paid these fees for the Spring 2020 semester, either by paying out-of-pocket or by using 

student loan financing, or otherwise. 

143. However, Defendants breached the contract with Plaintiffs and the Fees Class by 

moving all classes for the Spring 2020 semester to online distance learning platforms, 

constructively evicting students from campus, closing most campus buildings and facilities, and 

cancelling most student activities. 

144. Defendants have acknowledged such breach and have already refunded or offered 

to refund some of these fees. 

145. However, such refunds are arbitrary and wholly insufficient. 

146. Plaintiffs received a partial refund for only some of the fees paid. 

147. By retaining fees paid by Plaintiffs and other members of the Fees Class, without 

providing them the full benefit of their bargain, Defendants have not performed the contract. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 27 of 44 PageID #:162
28 

148. Plaintiffs and other members of the Fees Class have suffered damages as a direct 

and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, namely being deprived of the value of the benefits 

and services the fees were intended to cover. 

149. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs and the Fees Class 

are legally and equitably entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact in this action. 

FOR A SIXTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(VIOLATION OF THE TAKINGS CLAUSE - 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 

150. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

151. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Fees Class. 

152. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall 

not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. The Takings 

Clause is made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See U.S. Const. 

Amend. XIV; Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933, 1942, 198 L. Ed. 2d 497 (2017) (citing Chicago, 

B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 S. Ct. 581, 41 L. Ed. 979 (1897)). Similarly, Article 

I, § 15 of the Illinois Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken “for public use 

without just compensation as provided by law.” Illinois Const. Art. 1, § 15. Thus, the takings 

clauses of the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions prohibit states, and state agencies like the Board and 

University, from taking private property for public use without just compensation. 

153. Takings claims may properly be brought against state agencies and are not barred 

by sovereign immunity. 

154. Common law has recognized that there is a property right by an owner in funds held 

in an account managed by another. Here, Defendants received payment of fees from private 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 28 of 44 PageID #:163
29 

citizens, as consideration for the benefit of receiving on-campus benefits -- the funds are thus 

private in nature but held by a public entity. Plaintiffs and the other members of the Fees Class 

have a protected property right in all sums they paid to Defendants. 

155. Defendants violated the takings clauses by failing to return to Plaintiffs and 

members of the Fees Class that portion of the fees for which they received nothing, or significantly 

less than what they bargained for in return. Neither Plaintiffs nor the other Fees Class members 

have made a knowing and voluntary waiver of their constitutional right under the Fifth 

Amendment or under the Illinois Constitution to be paid just compensation for the taking of their 

property rights in those funds. 

156. Thus, Plaintiffs and the Fees Class are entitled to just compensation for the taking 

of their property. 

FOR A SEVENTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS - 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 

157. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

158. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Fees Class. 

159. Government actors must provide adequate due process procedures when depriving 

citizens of protected property interests. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; Illinois Const. Art. I, § 2. 

160. The due process clauses of the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions prohibit the State of 

Illinois and the governmental agencies that it creates, such as Defendants, from depriving citizens 

of a protected property interest without due process of law. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 29 of 44 PageID #:164
30 

161. Plaintiffs and the Fees Class members had a constitutionally protected property 

interest in the fees they paid for on-campus services and opportunities but were denied due to the 

actions of Defendants. 

162. Defendants took action affecting Plaintiffs and the other Fees Class members’ 

constitutionally protected property interests by retaining amounts from Plaintiffs and the Fee Class 

members’ payment of fees. 

163. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other Fees Class members of their protected 

property interests without due process of law by, for example: 

(a) Failing to provide timely notice to Plaintiffs and the Fees Class, whose 

identity and contact information Defendants either knew, or by exercise or reasonable 

diligence should have known, of the refundable nature of the fees; 

(b) Failing to design and implement criteria by which the fees can be refunded 

to Plaintiffs and the Fees Class in light of the University ceasing or severely limiting all 

on-campus activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and 

(c) Failing to design and implement a mechanism by which Plaintiffs and the 

other Fees Class members can obtain a refund of the fees in light of the University’s ceasing 

or severely limiting all on-campus in-person activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

164. Defendants’ failure to comply with the requirements of due process has resulted in 

substantial detriment to the Plaintiff and the Fees Class. 

FOR AN EIGHTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(UNJUST ENRICHMENT)

165. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 30 of 44 PageID #:165
31 

166. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Fees Class. 

167. This claim is pled in the alternative to, and to the extent it is determined a contract 

does not exist or otherwise apply to, the contract-based claim set forth in the Fifth Cause of Action 

above. 

168. Defendants have received a benefit at the expense of Plaintiffs and other members 

of the Fees Class to which it is not entitled. 

169. Plaintiffs and other members of the Fees Class paid substantial student fees for on 

campus benefits, access and services and did not receive the full benefit of the bargain. 

170. Plaintiffs and other members of the Fees Class conferred this benefit on Defendants 

when they paid the fees. 

171. Defendants realized this benefit by accepting such payment. 

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

provide the services for which the fees were collected, making Defendants’ retention unjust under 

the circumstances and restitution appropriate. 

173. Equity and good conscience require that Defendants return a pro-rata portion of the 

monies paid in fees to Plaintiffs and other members of the Fees Class. 

FOR A NINTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(BREACH OF CONTRACT) 

174. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

175. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Room and Board Class (including a meal 

plan). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 31 of 44 PageID #:166
32 

176. Plaintiffs and other members of the Room and Board Class entered into contracts 

in the form of agreements with Defendants, that provided that Plaintiffs and other members of the 

Room and Board Class would pay monies and, in exchange, Defendants would provide housing 

in its residence halls and other campus affiliated-housing and a meal plan. 

177. Plaintiffs and other members of the Room and Board Class fulfilled their end of the 

bargain when they paid monies due and owing for their residence hall or other housing for the 

semester and a meal plan. Plaintiffs and other members of the Room and Board Class were not 

provided housing for the entire semester or the agreed upon meal plan; accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

other members of the Room and Board Class are entitled to a refund. 

178. By retaining Room and Board fees paid by Plaintiffs and other members of the 

Room and Board Class, without providing them the full benefit of their bargain, Defendants have 

not performed the contract. 

179. Plaintiffs and other members of the Room and Board Class have suffered damage 

as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, namely being deprived of the value of the 

benefits and services the Room and Board fees were intended to cover. 

180. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs and the Room 

and Board Class are legally and equitably entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact in 

this action. 

FOR A TENTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(VIOLATION OF THE TAKINGS CLAUSE - 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 

181. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 32 of 44 PageID #:167
33 

182. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Room and Board Class (including a meal 

plan). 

183. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall 

not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. The Takings 

Clause is made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See U.S. Const. 

Amend. XIV; Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933, 1942, 198 L. Ed. 2d 497 (2017) (citing Chicago, 

B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 S. Ct. 581, 41 L. Ed. 979 (1897)). Similarly, Article 

I, § 15 of the Illinois Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken “for public use 

without just compensation as provided by law.” Illinois Const. Art. 1, § 15. Thus, the takings 

clauses of the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions prohibit states, and state agencies like the Board and 

University, from taking private property for public use without just compensation. 

184. Takings claims may properly be brought against state agencies and are not barred 

by sovereign immunity. 

185. Common law has recognized that there is a property right by an owner in funds held 

in an account managed by another. Here, Defendants received payment of Room and Board from 

private citizens. The funds are thus private in nature but held by a public entity. Plaintiffs and the 

other members of the Room and Board Class have a protected property right in all sums they paid 

to Defendants. 

186. Defendants violated the takings clauses by failing to return to Plaintiffs and 

members of the Room and Board Class that portion of the room and board for which they received 

nothing, or significantly less than what they bargained for in return. Neither Plaintiffs nor the 

other Room and Board Class members have made a knowing and voluntary waiver of their 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 33 of 44 PageID #:168
34 

constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment or under the Illinois Constitution to be paid just 

compensation for the taking of their property rights in those funds. 

187. Thus, Plaintiffs and the Room and Board Class are entitled to just compensation for 

the taking of their property. 

FOR AN ELEVENTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS - 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 

188. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

189. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Room and Board Class (including a meal 

plan). 

190. Government actors must provide adequate due process procedures when depriving 

citizens of protected property interests. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; Illinois Const. Art. I, § 2. 

191. The due process clauses of the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions prohibit the State of 

Illinois and the governmental agencies that it creates, such as Defendants, from depriving citizens 

of a protected property interest without due process of law. 

192. Plaintiffs and the Room and Board Class members had a constitutionally protected 

property interest in the Room and Board they paid but were denied due to the actions of the 

Defendants. 

193. Defendants took action affecting Plaintiffs and the other Room and Board Class 

members’ constitutionally protected property interests by retaining amounts from Plaintiffs’ and 

the Class members’ payment of room and board. 

194. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other Room and Board Class members of 

their protected property interests without due process of law by, for example: 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 34 of 44 PageID #:169
35 

(a) Failing to provide timely notice to Plaintiffs and the Room and Board Class, 

whose identity and contact information Defendants either knew, or by exercise or 

reasonable diligence should have known, of the refundable nature of the room and board; 

(b) Failing to design and implement criteria by which the room and board can 

be refunded to Plaintiffs and the Room and Board Class in light of the University ceasing 

housing and meal plan options due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and 

(c) Failing to design and implement a mechanism by which Plaintiffs and the 

other Room and Board Class members can obtain a refund room and board in light of the 

University’s ceasing housing and meal plan options due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

195. Defendants’ failure to comply with the requirements of due process has resulted in 

substantial detriment to the Plaintiffs and the Room and Board Class. 

FOR A TWELFTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(UNJUST ENRICHMENT) 

196. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

197. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Room and Board Class (including a meal 

plan), and in the alternative to the breach of contract claim brought on behalf of the other members 

of the Room and Board Class. 

198. Defendants have received a benefit to which it is not entitled at the expense of 

Plaintiffs and other members of the Room and Board Class. Plaintiffs and other members of the 

Room and Board Class paid for housing (including a meal plan) and did not receive the full benefit 

of their bargain. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 35 of 44 PageID #:170
36 

199. Accordingly, Defendants should return the unused monies paid for on-campus 

housing (including a meal plan) for the Spring 2020 semester by Plaintiffs and other members of 

the Room and Board Class. Equity demands the return of the prorated, unused amounts paid by 

Plaintiffs and other members of the Room and Board Class. 

200. Defendants have been unjustly enriched by retaining the monies paid by Plaintiffs 

and other members of the Room and Board Class for residence hall housing (including a meal 

plan) for the semester while not providing the housing (including a meal plan) for which those 

monies were paid. 

201. Equity and good conscience require that Defendants return to Plaintiffs and the 

other members of the Room and Board Class a pro-rata portion of the monies paid by Plaintiffs 

and other members of the Room and Board Class for their housing expenses (including a meal 

plan). 

FOR A THIRTEENTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(CONVERSION) 

202. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

203. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Tuition Class. 

204. The two key elements of conversion are (a) Plaintiffs’ legal ownership or an 

immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing and (b) Defendants’ 

unauthorized dominion over the thing in question or interference with it, to the exclusion of 

Plaintiffs’ right. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 36 of 44 PageID #:171
37 

205. Plaintiffs and members of the Tuition Class have an identifiable legal ownership to 

the right and services of an in-person, on-campus educational experience and paid tuition funds 

for the same. 

206. As set forth above, Defendants have not provided those services or access, to the 

exclusion of Plaintiffs’ and other members of the Tuition Class’s rights. 

207. As set forth above, Plaintiffs have not, to date, received from Defendants a proper 

reimbursement for tuition paid to Defendants for the Spring 2020 semester. 

208. Defendants have received and retained possession of Plaintiffs’ and other Tuition 

Class members’ full payments for tuition for the Spring 2020 semester. 

209. Defendants’ continued possession of the full payments for Spring 2020 semester 

tuition is adverse and in derogation of Plaintiffs’ and other Tuition Class members’ entitlement to 

such funds. 

210. Defendants refuse to remit to Plaintiffs and the Tuition Class reimbursement for 

tuition paid for the Spring 2020 semester. 

211. Defendants have therefore converted and continue to convert Plaintiffs’ and other 

Tuition Class members’ Spring 2020 semester tuition. 

FOR A FOURTEENTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(CONVERSION) 

212. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

213. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Fees Class. 

214. The two key elements of conversion are (a) Plaintiffs’ legal ownership or an 

immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing and (b) Defendants’ 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 37 of 44 PageID #:172
38 

unauthorized dominion over the thing in question or interference with it, to the exclusion of 

Plaintiffs’ right. 

215. Plaintiffs, and members of the Fees Class, have an identifiable legal ownership to 

the right and services of an in-person, on-campus educational experience and paid fees for the 

same. 

216. As set forth above, Defendants have not provided those services or access, to the 

exclusion of Plaintiffs’ and other members of the Fee Class’s rights. 

217. As set forth above, Plaintiffs and other Fees Class members have not, to date, 

received from Defendants a proper reimbursement for fees paid to Defendants for the Spring 2020 

semester. 

218. Defendants have received and retained possession of Plaintiffs’ and other Fees 

Class members’ payments for fees for the Spring 2020 semester. 

219. Defendants’ continued possession of the payments for Spring 2020 semester fees 

is adverse and in derogation of Plaintiffs’ and other Fees Class members’ entitlement to such funds. 

220. Defendants refuse to remit to Plaintiffs and other Fees Class members 

reimbursement for some fees paid for the Spring 2020 semester. 

221. Defendants have therefore converted and continue to convert Plaintiffs’ and other 

Fees Class members’ Spring 2020 semester fees. 

FOR A FIFTEENTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(CONVERSION) 

222. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 38 of 44 PageID #:173
39 

223. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of the Room and Board Class (including a meal 

plan). 

224. The two key elements of conversion are (a) Plaintiffs’ and the Room and Board 

Class members’ legal ownership or an immediate superior right of possession to a specific 

identifiable thing and (b) Defendants’ unauthorized dominion over the thing in question or 

interference with it, to the exclusion of Room and Board Class members’ right. 

225. Plaintiffs and the Room and Board Class has an identifiable legal ownership to the 

right and services of Room and Board (including a meal plan) supporting an in-person, on-campus 

educational experience and paid fees for the same. 

226. As set forth above, Defendants have not provided those services or access, to the 

exclusion of Plaintiffs and other members of the Room and Board Class’s rights. 

227. As set forth above, Plaintiffs and members of the Room and Board Class have not, 

to date, received from Defendants a proper reimbursement for fees paid to Defendants for the 

Spring 2020 semester. 

228. Defendants have received and retained possession of Plaintiffs and the Room and 

Board Class’ payments for those fees for the Spring 2020 semester. 

229. Defendants’ continued possession of the payments for Spring 2020 semester fees 

is adverse and in derogation of the Room and Board Class’ entitlement to such funds. 

230. Defendants refuse to remit to Plaintiffs and the Room and Board Class proper 

reimbursement for Room and Board (including a meal plan) fees paid for the Spring 2020 semester. 

231. Defendants have therefore converted and continue to convert the Room and Board 

Class’ Spring 2020 semester payments. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 39 of 44 PageID #:174
40 

FOR A SIXTEENTH COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 

(VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS 

PRACTICES ACT, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.) 

232. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

233. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the members of the Tuition 

Class, the Fees Class, and the Room and Board Class or, in the alternative, the Illinois Tuition 

Class, the Illinois Fees Class, and the Illinois Room and Board Class. 

234. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and 

Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (“ICFA”). The express purpose of the 

ICFA is to “protect consumers” “against fraud, unfair methods of competition and unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . . .” 815 ILCS 505/1. 

235. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are “consumers” within the meaning of 815 

ILCS 505/1(e) or otherwise sufficiently implicate consumer protection concerns under the ICFA 

236. Defendant was engaged in “trade or commerce” as defined by 815 ILCS 505/1(f). 

237. 815 ILCS 505/2 declares unlawful “unfair methods of competition and unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception 

fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission 

of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omissions 

of such material fact . . . in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” 

238. 815 ILCS 505/2 also states that “consideration shall be given to the interpretations 

of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to Section 5 (a) of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act.” Defendant’s unfair and deceptive practices are likely to mislead – and 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 40 of 44 PageID #:175
41 

have mislead – the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances and violate 815 ILCS 505/2 

and 21 U.S.C. § 352. 

239. Defendant has violated the ICFA by engaging in both unfair and deceptive 

practices as described herein which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, 

unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. 

240. Defendant’s failure to provide adequate refunds of tuition, room and board, and 

fees paid to cover the cost of on-campus services that were no longer provided to students, and its 

actions depriving members of the Classes of the use of services for which they already paid without 

adequate compensation, as detailed fully in the paragraphs above, constitute unfair practices under 

the ICFA. . 

241. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have been aggrieved by Defendant’s unfair 

and deceptive practices in that they purchased Defendants’ educational services, which they would 

not have purchased or would not have paid as much for had they known the true facts. 

242. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs and members of the Class were directly and 

proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and/or unfair practices of Defendant, as more 

fully described herein. 

243. Plaintiffs’ actions were akin to consumer actions insofar as Plaintiffs saw 

Defendant’s advertisements and accepted Defendant’s representations regarding the on-campus 

experience, instructional, and housing services, as detailed above, as truthful and accurate, and it 

influenced their decisions to attend Defendants’ institution. 

244. Defendants’ representations involved consumer protection concerns because 

Defendants made these representations specifically for the purposes of inducing enrollment and/or 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 41 of 44 PageID #:176
42 

appearing to be a more desirable educational institution. Further, Defendants’ representations 

were specifically used for marketing purposes and to increase its enrollment and profits. 

245. Plaintiffs’ requested relief would serve the public interest by protecting the 

members of the Classes and future prospective students from Defendants’ conduct by enjoining 

Defendants from their deceptive and/or unfair marketing practices and by discouraging other 

educational institutions from making such false and misleading representations. 

246. Pursuant to 815 ILCS 505/10a, Plaintiffs and the Illinois Class seek a court order 

enjoining the above-described wrongful acts and practices of Defendants and for restitution and 

disgorgement. 

247. Additionally, pursuant to 815 ILCS 505/10a, Plaintiffs and the Illinois Class make 

claims for economic damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

248. As required by 815 ILCS 505/10a(d), notice of this action will be mailed to the 

Illinois Attorney General upon filing. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of members of the Classes, pray for 

judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows: 

A. Certifying the Classes as proposed herein, designating Plaintiffs as Class 

representatives, and appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel; 

B. Declaring that Defendants are financially responsible for notifying the Class 

members of the pendency of this action; 

C. Declaring that Defendants have wrongfully kept monies paid for tuition and fees; 

D. Requiring that Defendants disgorge amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition and 

fees and/or compelling Defendants to make restitution to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes; 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 42 of 44 PageID #:177
43 

E. Awarding injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including enjoining 

Defendants from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition and fees; 

F. Awarding Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses, as permitted 

by law; 

G. Awarding pre and post judgment interest on any amounts awarded, as permitted by 

law; and 

H. Awarding such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Dated: August 28, 2020 

 CARLSON LYNCH LLP 

 

By: /s/ Kyle A. Shamberg

 Kyle A. Shamberg 

Katrina Carroll 

111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Telephone: (312) 750-1265 

Email: kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com

Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

CARLSON LYNCH LLP 

Edward Ciolko 

Nicholas Colella 

1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

Tel: (412) 322-9243 

Fax: (412) 231-0246 

Email: eciolko@carlsonlynch.com

Email: ncolella@carlsonlynch.com

GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 

Thomas J. McKenna 

Gregory M. Egleston 

Robert J. Schupler 

501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 43 of 44 PageID #:178
44 

New York, NY 10017 

Tel.: (212) 983-1300 

Fax: (212) 983-0381 

Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com

Email: gegleston@gme-law.com 

Email: rschupler@gme-law.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case: 1:20-cv-03451 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 44 of 44 PageID #:179