UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ARICA KINCHELOE, Individually And On 

Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-03015

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Arica Kincheloe (“Plaintiff”), alleges against Defendant The University of 

Chicago (“Defendant”) as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is an action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the 

Defendant.

2. Specifically, as set forth more fully below, Plaintiff and the putative Class members 

contracted with Defendant for certain services and paid for those services in the form of tuition 

and other fees. As a result of limitations Defendant has imposed, Defendant has not delivered the 

services that Plaintiff and the putative Class contracted and paid for. Alternatively, the Defendant 

has been unjustly enriched.

3. As a result, Plaintiff and the putative Class are entitled to a refund on tuition and 

fees paid for services, facilities, access and/or opportunities not delivered.

Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. 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.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant conducts 

business in Illinois and has sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois.

6. 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, the 

contract that is the subject of this action was formed in this District.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Arica Kincheloe is a student at The University of Chicago.

8. Defendant The University of Chicago is a private research university located in 

Chicago, Illinois. 

FACTS

9. Plaintiff was enrolled as a full-time student for the 2020 third and fourth academic 

quarters at Defendant’s institution.

10. As a precondition for enrollment, Plaintiff was required to and did pay tuition, as

did members of the putative Class.

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

country.

Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
3

12. 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.

13. Defendant’s institution offers in-person, hands on curriculum.

14. Plaintiff and members of the putative Class did not choose to attend another 

institution of higher learning, but instead chose to attend Defendant’s institution and enroll on an 

in-person basis at a significantly higher tuition.

15. The tuition and fees for in-person instruction at Defendant’s institution are higher 

than tuition and fees for online institutions because the former’s 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.

16. Plaintiff enrolled at Defendant’s institution to earn a degree that included the 

benefit of taking courses at the campus with live teacher interaction.

17. Defendant uses an educational calendar of four quarters rather than two semesters.

18. On March 12, 2020, Defendant announced that all class were moving online.

Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
4

19. On March 12, 2020, Defendant also announced that all students living on campus 

needed to vacate campus by March 22, 2020 at 5 p.m., unless they were granted an extension 

through Spring Break.

20. Spring Break was scheduled to be from March 21, 2020 to March 29, 2020. 

21. These announcements were made on the last week of the third quarter.

22. On March 16, 2020, Defendant announced that classes for the fourth quarter would 

not resume as scheduled on March 30, 2020, but instead would resume one week late on April 6, 

2020. 

23. Defendant also announced that the fourth quarter, though starting one week late, 

would not be extended for an additional week.

24. On April 7, 2020, Defendant cancelled its graduation Convocation previously 

scheduled for June 13, 2020. 

25. Defendant has suspended or restricted in-person on-campus activities.

26. Although Defendant offered some level of academic instruction via online classes, 

Plaintiff and members of the putative Class were deprived of the benefits of on-campus learning 

as set forth more fully above.

27. To date, Defendant has failed and continues to fail to refund any portion of 

Plaintiff’s and the putative Class members’ third and fourth quarter 2020 tuition payment.

28. Moreover, Plaintiff and members of the putative Class were deprived of fully 

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

facilities and other opportunities.

Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
5

29. To date, Defendant has failed to adequately and properly refund various fees to 

Plaintiff and the putative Class members’ for university services which Defendant failed to provide

as previously agreed upon.

30. The University of Chicago has an $8.2 billion endowment and raised $5 billion in 

a 2019 fundraising campaign. 

31. The University of Chicago has received $6,207,010 in Cares Act funding.

CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS

32. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and for a class of persons defined as:

All students who enrolled at The University of Chicago for 

the 2020 third and fourth quarters, and who paid tuition, 

mandatory fees, or voluntary fees for services and privileges 

that The University of Chicago has failed to fully provide, 

and whose tuition and/or fees have not been refunded.

33. The exact number of members of the Class is believed to be so numerous that 

joinder of all members into one action is impractical. Upon information and belief, the Class 

includes all students who enrolled at any school or department of Defendant for the 2020 third and 

fourth quarters.

34. The claims raised by Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class and all claims 

are based on the same general legal theories and claims for relief.

35. There are common questions of law and fact that relate to and affect the rights of 

each member of the Class and these questions predominate over any questions affecting only 

individual members. The common issues include, but are not limited to:

(a) Whether Plaintiff and the other members of the Class paid tuition and other 

fees to Defendant for the third and fourth quarters of the 2020 academic year;

Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
6

(b) Whether Defendant accepted the tuition and other fees from Plaintiff and 

the other members of the Class for the third and fourth quarters of the 2020 academic year;

(c) Whether Defendant failed to deliver what it agreed to deliver to Plaintiff

and the other members of the Class;

(d) Whether Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have been deprived 

of the benefit of their bargain with Defendant;

(e) Whether Defendant breached its agreement with Plaintiff and the other 

members of the Class;

(f) Whether in the alternative, Defendant has been unjustly enriched by its 

retention of the tuition and other fees it received while it simultaneously failed to deliver 

to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class what it promised and represented it would 

deliver; and

(g) Whether in equity and good conscience Defendant should be compelled to 

refund to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class all or a portion of the tuition and 

fees it is holding.

36. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Each Class 

claim arises from the same facts, circumstances, and Defendant’s course of conduct and practices. 

Plaintiff’s legal theories are the same that will be asserted on behalf of the Class; namely, money 

damage claims arising from breach of contract or, in the alternative, for unjust enrichment.

37. There is no conflict between Plaintiff and other members of the Class with respect 

to this action or with respect to the claims for relief set forth herein.

38. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all Class members in the 

prosecution of this action and in the administration of all matters relating to the claims raised in 

Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
7

this lawsuit. Plaintiff is similarly situated with all Class members who paid tuition and other fees 

for the third and fourth quarters of the 2020 academic year, and Plaintiff has sustained damages 

similar to those sustained by the members of the Class sought to be represented. 

39. Plaintiff has retained the services of attorneys who are experienced and capable in 

prosecuting class action lawsuits. Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel have any interests which 

might prevent them from vigorously pursuing this action.

40. Maintaining this action as a class action is superior to all other available methods 

of adjudication because it will promote the convenient administration of justice and will achieve a 

fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy in this matter, which will affect the interests of 

tens of thousands of potential class members.

41. The prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the Class 

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

incompatible standards of conduct.

42. 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.

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

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

44. Defendant’s conduct was the same as to all members of the Class.

45. The Class members 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-03015 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
8

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract)

46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set forth 

herein.

47. Plaintiff brings this count on behalf of herself and the putative Class.

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

putative Class members entered into a binding contract with Defendant.

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

Defendant promised to provide certain services.

50. Defendant failed to fully provide those services and has otherwise not performed 

under the contract as set forth above.

51. Plaintiff and the putative Class members have suffered damage as a direct and 

proximate result of Defendant’s breach, including but not limited to, being deprived of the 

experience and services to which they were promised and for which they already paid.

52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff and the Class are 

entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact in this action, to include but not be limited 

to, reimbursement of certain tuition, fees, and other expenses that were collected by Defendant for 

services that Defendant failed to fully deliver.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unjust Enrichment)

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set forth

herein.

54. Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of herself and the putative Class.

Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
9

55. Plaintiff and members of the putative Class conferred benefits on Defendant by, 

inter alia, paying tuition and other fees in exchange for provision of certain services and promises.

56. Defendant hasrealized this benefit by accepting such payments.

57. Defendant has retained these benefits, even though Defendant failed to fully 

provide the services for which the fees were collected, making Defendant’sretention of the full 

payments unjust under the circumstances.

58. It is against equity and good conscience to allow Defendant to retain 100% of the 

tuition and fees paid to it by Plaintiff and the other members of the Class despite having reduced 

the services it provided to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

59. Defendant has been unjustly enriched in an amount to be decided by the trier of fact 

at trial, and Plaintiff and the other members of the Class seek the disgorgement of these funds, plus 

interest. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:

(A) Certifying this action as a class action and appointing Plaintiff as class 

representative and Gainey McKenna & Egleston as class counsel;

(B) For a judgment awarding Plaintiff and members of the Class damages against 

Defendant for breach of contract, together with prejudgment interest at the maximum rate 

allowable by law;

(C) For a judgment, in the alternative, determining that Defendant has been unjustly 

enriched;

(D) For a judgment, in the alternative, awarding Plaintiff and the members of the Class 

a sum of money sufficient to ensure that Defendant does not remain unjustly enriched;

Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
10

(E) For a judgment imposing a constructive trust on all monies wrongfully retained by 

Defendant;

(F) Awarding to Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action, including 

reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses; and 

(G) Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: May 20, 2020

LAW OFFICE OF JULIE O. HERRERA

By: /s/ Julie O. Herrera

Julie O. Herrera

Law Office of Julie O. Herrera

53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1615

Chicago, IL 60604

Tel: 312-834-7150 

Email: jherrera@julieherreralaw.com

GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON

Thomas J. McKenna

Gregory M. Egleston

501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor

New York, NY 10017

Tel.: (212) 983-1300

Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com

Email: gegleston@gme-law.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10