IN THE UNITED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Now come Plaintiffs, Pamela M. Utley (“”Utley”), Andrea Utley (“AU”) and Alexandra 

C. Schrock (“Schrock”) (also referred to herein at times collectively as (“Plaintiffs”), by and 

PAMELA M. UTLEY

6085 Arlyne Lane

Medina, OH 44256

On behalf of herself and all those 

similarly situated

And

ANDREA UTLEY

6085 Arlyne Lane

Medina, OH 44256

On behalf of herself and all those 

similarly situated

And

ALEXANDRA C. SCHROCK

6020 Arlyne Lane

Medina, OH 44256

On behalf of herself and all those 

similarly situated

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, 

INC. AND UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

Also Serve – Statutory Agent

CT CORP.

1300 E. 9th Street

Cleveland, OH 44114

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.:

JUDGE: 

PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1
2

through their undersigned counsel, for their Class Action Complaint against Defendants United 

Airlines Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. (collectively referred to hereinafter as “United”

or “Defendant”) for breach of contract, and as grounds therefore allege as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. This is a claim for breach of contract and monetary relief for damages exceeding 

$5,000,000.00 exclusive of all interest, costs, and attorney's fees. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive 

relief.

2. Plaintiff Utley is an Ohio resident. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Utley

purchased airfare directly from United for travel within the United State of America and 

internationally, including airfare for travel between Ohio and Paris, France. Plaintiff Utley was 

injured as a result of the allegations alleged herein.

3. Plaintiff AU is an Ohio resident. During the Class Period, Plaintiff AU purchased 

airfare directly from United for travel within the United States of America and internationally, 

including airfare for travel between Ohio and Paris, France. Plaintiff AU was injured as a result of 

the allegations herein.

4. Plaintiff Schrock is an Ohio resident. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Schrock

purchased airfare directly from United for travel within the United States of America and 

internationally, including airfare for travel between Ohio and Paris, France. Plaintiff Schrock was 

injured as a result of the allegations alleged herein.

5. Defendant, United, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business 

located at 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606. United is one of the largest 

commercial airlines in the world and conducts air passenger services throughout the United States 

of America, including flights to and from this District.

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:2
3

6. At all material times and during the acts alleged herein, Defendant United

acted by and through its officers, agents, and employees including, and whose acts and conduct

alleged herein were known to, authorized, and ratified by Defendant United.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. As a result of regularly conducting business, promoting and/or selling, either 

directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities to consumers throughout the State of 

Ohio, Defendant obtained the benefits of the laws of Ohio

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims alleged herein pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), because there are at least 100 Class Members in the proposed Class

and/or sub-classes, the combined claims of the proposed Class Members, upon information and 

belief, exceeds $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs, and this is a class action in which 

certain of the Class Members and Defendants are citizens of different states.

9. Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because 

Defendant conducts business throughout this District, and a substantial part of the events or 

omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims took place within this District.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

10. On or about January 6, 2020 Plaintiffs Utley, AU and Schrock purchased airline 

tickets from United under Confirmation Number EMR4TP.

11. Plaintiffs were scheduled to depart Cleveland, Ohio on Sunday May 3, 2020 and 

arrive in Paris, France on May 4, 2020. In between, Plaintiffs had scheduled layover stops in 

Toronto, Canada.

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:3
4

12. Plaintiffs were scheduled to return on May 16, 2020, departing from Dublin, 

Ireland and arriving in Cleveland, Ohio.

13. The total amount paid by Plaintiffs was $12,343.34.

14. United has cancelled and/or effectively cancelled and/or caused Plaintiffs and 

Class Members to incur such significant delays regarding their contracted flights that United must 

provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with full and immediate refunds for the unused portion(s) 

of their respective flight tickets, but United refuses to offer and/or provide said full and immediate

refunds.

15. COVID-19 is a world-wide pandemic.

16. On January 31, 2020, under §319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

U.S.C.247d), The Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) declared a public health 

emergency in response to COVID-19.

17. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) announced that 

COVID-19 outbreak represented a pandemic.

18. On March 13, 2020 the President of the United States of America, Donald J. 

Trump, issued the Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak (“Proclamation”), proclaiming the COVID-19 

outbreak constituted a national emergency in the United States, beginning March 1, 2020 .

1

19. Various states, including the State of Ohio have issued and implemented 

mandatory Stay-At-Home Orders.2 They are:

1 See:https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerningnovel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/

2 Upon information and belief, all but nine (9) states have ordered and are currently under mandatory stay-at-home 

orders.

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:4
5

• Alabama, effective April 3, 2020

• Alaska, effective March 28, 2020

• Arizona, effective March 31, 2020

• California, effective March 19, 2020

• Colorado, effective March 26, 2020

• Connecticut, effective March 23, 2020

• Delaware, effective March 24, 2020

• District of Columbia, effective March 30, 2020

• Florida, effective April 3, 2020

• Georgia, effective April 3, 2020

• Hawaii, effective March 25, 2020

• Idaho, effective March 25, 2020

• Illinois, effective March 21, 2020

• Indiana, effective March 24, 2020

• Kansas, effective March 30, 2020

• Kentucky, effective March 26, 2020

• Louisiana, effective March 23, 2020

• Maine, effective April 2, 2020

• Maryland, effective March 30, 2020

• Massachusetts, effective March 24, 2020

• Michigan, effective March 24, 2020

• Minnesota, effective March 27, 2020

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:5
6

• Mississippi, effective April 3, 2020

• Missouri, effective April 3, 2020

• Montana, effective March 28, 2020

• Nevada, effective April 1, 2020

• New Hampshire, effective March 27, 2020

• New Jersey, effective March 21, 2020

• New Mexico, effective March 24, 2020

• New York, effective March 22, 2020

• North Carolina, effective March 30, 2020

• Ohio, effective, March 23, 2020

• Oklahoma, effective March 24, 2020

• Oregon, effective March 23, 2020

• Pennsylvania, effective April 1, 2020

• Rhode Island, effective March 28, 2020

• Tennessee, effective April 2, 2020

• Texas, effective April 2, 2020

• Virginia, effective March 30, 2020

• Vermont, effective March 25, 2020

• Washington, effective March 23, 2020

• West Virginia, effective March 24, 2020

• Wisconsin, effective March 25, 2020

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:6
7

20. On March 29, 2020 President Donald J. Trump announced the extension of his 

Administration’s social distancing guidelines until April 30, 2020.

21. On March 31, 2020 the United States Department of State issued a Global Level 

4 Health Advisory to not travel.3

22. Upon information and belief, all the states listed above have only extended their 

respective Stay-At-Home Orders; none have been lifted.

23. On April 3, 2020, the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) issued 

an Enforcement Notice Regarding Refunds By Carriers Given The Unprecedented Impact Of The 

COVID-19 Public Health Emergency On Air Travel (“Notice”) advising airlines, including United, 

to issue prompt refunds to customers whose flights are/were canceled or changed significantly by 

the airline during the COVID-19 crisis.4 The Notice states, in part, as follows:

“The Department is receiving an increasing number of complaints and inquiries from 

ticketed passengers, including many with non-refundable tickets, who describe having been 

denied refunds for flights that were cancelled or significantly delayed. In many of these 

cases, the passengers stated that the carrier informed them that they would receive 

vouchers or credits for future travel. But many airlines are dramatically reducing their 

travel schedules in the wake of the COVID-19 public health emergency. As a result, 

passengers are left with cancelled or significantly delayed flights and vouchers and credits 

for future travel that are not readily usable.

Carriers have a longstanding obligation to provide a prompt refund to a ticketed passenger 

when the carrier cancels the passenger’s flight or makes a significant change in the flight 

schedule and the passenger chooses not to accept the alternative offered by the carrier. 

The longstanding obligation of carriers to provide refunds for flights that carriers cancel 

or significantly delay does not cease when the flight disruptions are outside the carrier’s 

control (e.g. a result of government restrictions). The focus is not whether the flight 

disruptions are within or outside the carrier’s control, but rather on the fact that the 

cancellation is through no fault of the passenger.

3 See: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/ea/travel-advisory-alert-global-level-4-healthadvisory-issue.html

4 See Notice at:

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/202004/Enforcement%20Notice%20Final%20April%203%20202

0_0.pdf .

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:7
8

24. United’s Contract of Carriage5provides, in relevant part, that:

“This Contract of Carriage is subject to applicable laws, regulations, rules, and security 

directives imposed by governmental agencies, including but not limited to those imposed 

during or as a result of a national emergency, war, civil unrest or terrorist activities. In 

the event of a conflict between the Rules contained herein and such government laws, 

regulations, rules, security directives and their corresponding effects on UA’s operation, 

the latter shall prevail.”

6

“Unless specifically stated otherwise herein or where any limitation would expressly 

violate any applicable law, UA shall not be liable for any consequential, compensatory, 

indirect, incidental or punitive damages arising out of or in connection with the 

performance of its obligations under these rules.”7

25. Any attempt by United to invoke the Force Majeure provision of the Contract of 

Carriage and/or any similar provision that United uses, has used, or attempts to use to avoid a full 

and immediate refund to Plaintiffs and the Class Members directly conflicts with the DOT’s Notice 

to promptly provide customers full refunds as a result of the COVID-19 public health emergency

and, therefore, is void ab initio and/or otherwise unenforceable against the Plaintiffs and Class 

Members.

26. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have fully complied with their obligations under

the Contract of Carriage, but the various national and state guidelines, laws, rules and regulations, 

etc. have made it impossible for the Plaintiffs and Class Members to use their airline tickets to 

travel to their intended destinations.

27. Moreover, the various national and state guidelines, laws, rules and regulations, 

etc. have frustrated Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ ability to benefit from the Contract of Carriage 

and ability to travel, thus making domestic and/or foreign air travel impracticable.

5 See United’s Contract of Carriage at: https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html#tcm:76-6593

6 Contract of Carriage - Rule 3 Application of Contract at ¶ B.

7 Contract of carriage – Rule 3 Application of Contract at ¶ I.

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8
9

28. Moreover, United has engaged in an intentional scheme to confuse customers 

related to its refund policy – which so far has not resulted in the required immediate refunds,

29. Initially, Pre-Pandemic, if United changed a flight time by more than two hours, 

passengers were entitled to a full refund.

30. However, on March 7, 2020, the same day the WHO reported in excess of 100,000 

COVID-19 cases in 94 countries, United altered its policy to require a flight time change of at least 

25 hours to receive a refund.

31. Thereafter, on March 10, 2020, United instituted a policy offering refunds only if 

“departure or arrival time significantly changes.”

32. Next, on March 14, 2020 United instituted its current policy of providing credits 

– not refunds – until one year passes from the original date of purchase, at which time a refund 

“may” be issued.

33. United is refusing and/or failing to provide required full and immediate refunds to 

Plaintiffs and Class Members and required under the Contract of Carriage. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

34. Plaintiffs hereby restate the allegations and averments contained in the preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully rewritten herein, and further state as follows:

35. Plaintiffs bring this action both on behalf of themselves, and as a class action 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), on behalf of the following class (the 

“Class”):

“All persons and entities who purchased airline tickets from United or its 

affiliates between January 1, 2020 to the present and whose flights were 

cancelled either voluntarily, or involuntarily by United, due to the inability 

to travel domestically, internationally, or both as a result of the COVID-19 

pandemic, and who sought and/or are owed a refund.

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:9
10

36. Excluded from the Class are United’s employees, officers, directors, legal 

representatives, successors, and assigns; any entity in which United has a controlling interest; any 

Judge to whom the litigation is assigned; all members of the Judge’s family; and all persons who 

timely and validly request exclusion from the Class. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify the Class 

Definition throughout the course of this litigation to conform with the evidence and facts as they 

develop.

37. This action has been brought as a class action, and may properly be maintained, 

pursuant to Rule 23(B)(1), (2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law 

thereunder.

38. Numerosity: Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of the Members of the Class 

because such information is in the exclusive control of Defendant. Due to the nature of the trade 

and commerce involved, however, Plaintiffs believe that Class Members number at least in the 

many thousands and possibly millions and are sufficiently numerous and geographically dispersed 

throughout the United States of America so that joinder of all Class Members is impracticable.

39. Typicality: The Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Class Members’ claims. 

Like other Class Members, Plaintiffs are customers of United who purchased airline tickets that

were either voluntarily or involuntarily cancelled by United due to the COVID-19 pandemic 

National Health Crisis. United treated Plaintiffs consistently with other Class Members with regard 

to the wrongful and illegal policy of refusing an immediate refund. United’s imprudent, unfair,

wrongful, illegal and unjustified bad faith decisions affected all Plaintiffs and Class Members

similarly.

40. Adequacy: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:10
11

Plaintiffs’ interests are aligned with the Class that they seek to represent, and Plaintiffs have 

retained counsel experienced in complex class action litigation and who has previously been 

appointed lead and/or co-lead class action counsel in several previous class action matters.

Plaintiffs do not have any conflicts of interest with any Class Members that would impair or 

impede their ability to fully and adequately represent such Class Members.

41. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class Members 

and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual Class Members, including but not 

limited to:

a. Whether United owes Plaintiffs and the Class Members a full and immediate

refund;

b. Whether United failed to comply with DOT regulations and guidelines related to 

COVID-19, as it voluntarily expressed that it would in the Contract of Carriage;

c. Whether United breached its contract with Plaintiffs and the Class Members;

d. Whether United breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, thus 

damaging Plaintiffs and Class Members;

e. Whether, and to what extent, the conduct of Defendant caused injury to Plaintiffs 

and Members of the Class, and, if so, the appropriate measure of damages.

f. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to injunctive and/or equitable 

relief as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct;

g. The proper form of equitable and injunctive relief;

42. Class certification is appropriate under Ohio Civ. R. Proc. 23(b)(1)(A) because 

prosecuting separate actions against Defendant would create a risk of inconsistent or varying 

adjudications with respect to individual Class Members that would establish incompatible 

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:11
12

standards of conduct for Defendant.

43. Class certification is also appropriate under Ohio Civ. R. Proc. 23(b)(1)(B) 

because adjudications with respect to individual Class Members, as a practical matter, would be 

dispositive of the interests of the other persons not parties to the individual adjudications or would 

substantially impair or impeded their ability to protect their interests.

44. Class certification is also appropriate under Ohio Civ. R. Proc. 23(b)(2), because 

separate and distinct from the damages caused by Defendants’ wrongful conduct, final injunctive 

and declaratory class-wide relief is also appropriate because Defendants have acted or refused to 

act on grounds generally applicable to the Class.

45. Class certification is also appropriate under Ohio Civ. R. Proc. 23(b)(3) because 

questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting only 

individual Class Members, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for 

the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. Defendant’s conduct as described in this 

Complaint applies uniformly to all Members of the Class. Class Members do not have an interest 

in pursuing separate actions against Defendant, as the amount of each Class Members’ individual 

claim is relatively small compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution, and 

Plaintiffs are unaware of any similar claims brought against Defendants by any Class Members on 

an individual basis. Class certification also will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation 

that might result in inconsistent judgments concerning Defendants’ practices. Moreover, 

management of this action as a class action will not present any likely difficulties. In the interest 

of justice and judicial efficiency, it would be desirable to concentrate the litigation of all Class 

Members’ claims in a single forum.

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:12
13

46. Further, and in the alternative, Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(c)(4) permits an action to be 

maintained as a class action with respect to only particular issues, and the common questions of 

law and fact set forth above raise issues which are appropriate for class treatment pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. Proc. 23(c)(4).

COUNT ONE

COMMON LAW BREACH OF CONTRACT

47. Plaintiffs hereby restate the allegations and averments contained in the preceding 

paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully rewritten herein, and further states as follows:

48. Plaintiffs and Class Members, and United, entered into a Contract of Carriage for 

air travel.

49. United has an affirmative obligation and duty to perform its contractual 

obligations.

50. Plaintiffs and Class Members complied with all terms and conditions precedent 

under the terms and conditions of the subject contract and, therefore, were and are entitled to all 

benefits contracted for under the terms and conditions of the contract.

51. By no fault of their own, Plaintiffs and the Class Members cannot use the airline 

tickets purchased by them from United, due to the various federal and state governmental laws, 

guidelines, rules and regulations, etc., thus resulting in both forced cancellations by United and/or 

voluntary cancellations by Plaintiffs and the Class Members whose travel became impossible, 

impracticable and/or otherwise frustrated.

52. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have lost the benefit of their bargain.

53. On April 3, 2020 the DOT issued its Notice to all airlines, including United, 

wherein it advised that Plaintiffs and Class Members subject to travel cancellations or significantly 

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:13
14

delayed flights must promptly be provided full refunds by United; and that credits and/or vouchers 

that United was providing and/or attempting to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members in lieu of a 

full and prompt refund violated carriers’ “longstanding obligations to provide prompt refund to a 

ticketed passenger when the carrier cancels the passenger’s flight or makes a significant change in 

the flight schedule and the passenger chooses not to accept the alternative offered by the carrier.”

54. Plaintiffs and Class Members have chosen not to accept United’s alternative 

offerings and demand a full and immediate refund of their ticket costs.

55. The United Contract of Carriage specifically provides that:

“This Contract of Carriage is subject to applicable laws, regulations, rules, and security 

directives imposed by governmental agencies, including but not limited to those imposed 

during or as a result of a national emergency, war, civil unrest or terrorist activities. In 

the event of a conflict between the Rules contained herein and such government laws, 

regulations, rules, security directives and their corresponding effects on UA’s operation, 

the latter shall prevail.”

8

56. United’s contractual language providing that governmental laws, regulations, 

rules, etc. that conflict with its own Rules, “shall prevail,” is a self-imposed undertaking by United

grounded solely in the terms of the Contract of Carriage, which United is failing to comply with

regarding the provision of full and immediate refunds related to the COVID-19 national public 

health emergency.

57. United has refused and/or failed to fully and immediately refund and/or offer 

immediate refunds to Plaintiffs and Class Members in accordance with both its Contract of 

Carriage and the DOT Notice, which expressly prevails over the terms and conditions set forth in 

United’s Contract of Carriage, and which United is contractually obligated to comply with.

58. In addition, United has violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

8 Contract of Carriage - Rule 3 Application of Contract at ¶ B.

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14
15

Nonetheless, even absent the application of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, 

United still violated the express terms of the Contract of Carriage.

59. Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ breach of contract claim as asserted herein does

not undermine the purpose of the Airline Deregulation Act (“ADA”) to promote competition in 

the airline industry and, therefore, is not preempted.

60. As a direct and proximate cause of said breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have 

incurred monetary and other damages in excess of Five-Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00), subject 

to escalation and to be more fully ascertained at trial.

COUNT TWO

(INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

61. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the foregoing allegations as if fully 

rewritten herein.

62. At the time of filing of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, United is still misrepresenting and/or 

failing to disclose to its customers the true and accurate refund policy and requirement that full 

and immediate refunds must be offered and/or administered to Plaintiffs and Class Members.

63. Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members do not have a plain, speedy, and adequate 

remedy at law to stop or correct United’s unlawful conduct.

64. United has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Plaintiffs 

and the Class Members, as outlined in this herein Complaint, so that final injunctive relief or 

corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.

65. Accordingly, separate and apart from any damages awarded to Plaintiffs and the 

Class Members as a result of United’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs seek an order requiring United

to: (1) disclose the true refund policy related to COVID-19 that is consistent with the DOT Notice; 

(2) provide its customers with an offer of and/or full and immediate refund for the unused portion 

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:15
16

of their airline tickets within the Class Period; (3) agree to pay all United Customers who had their 

flights cancelled, had to voluntarily cancel their flights, or had significant delays in their flight 

plans resulting in involuntary and/or voluntary cancellation an immediate and full refund of the 

costs of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ airline tickets within the Class Period.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests of this Court the following relief, on 

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated:

a. An Order certifying the proposed Class herein pursuant to Rule 23(B)(1), (2), 

and (3) or, alternatively, 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing 

Plaintiffs and their counsel of record to represent the Class;

b. An Order awarding Plaintiffs and Class Members damages resulting from 

Defendant’s wrongful conduct;

c. Restitution and reimbursement of all moneys paid by Plaintiffs and Class 

Members because of Defendant’s wrongful conduct;

d. An Order of Declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ Proc. 

23(b)(2);

e. An award of any additional, compensatory, consequential, and incidental 

damages and costs suffered by Plaintiffs and Class Members because of Defendants’ wrongful 

conduct;

f. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

g. Plaintiff’s costs of suit, including, without limitation, their attorney’s fees, 

expert fees, and actual incurred and costs; and

h. Such other further relief, at law or in equity, as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 38, Plaintiff requests a jury trial of all issues alleged herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:16
17

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Thomas J. Connick 

Thomas J. Connick (0070527)

CONNICK LAW, LLC

25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101

Beachwood, OH 44122

PH: 216-364-0512 | FX: 216-609-3446

Email: tconnick@connicklawllc.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-03727 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/07/20 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:17