10.  Student housing is in high demand at the University of Central Florida and nearby  colleges. Students may choose to live in college-owned dormitories or private off-campus  apartments. The Retreat at Orlando, owned by Defendant, offers a third option — a “preferred  student living community in Orlando, Florida, serving attendees of the University of Central  Florida.”   12.  Defendant issued a letter to its student housing residents on March 13, 2020  indicating PAC (Preferred Apartment Communities) “will be closing all fitness centers and other  inside amenity spaces” and “for the foreseeable future, PAC service team members will only be  performing emergency maintenance repairs in occupied units”.   13.  A second letter was issued from the Defendant on March 18, 2020 recognizing that  social distancing is the most effective method we can currently utilize to slow the spread of virus  as advised by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO)  stating, effective March 19, 2020, “we will temporarily be closing the doors of our community  office to in-person traffic and will use alternative methods of communication to include telephone,  email, resident portal and website for all resident and prospect needs.”  Defendant also emphasized  “[a]s a reminder, our fitness centers, pools and other non-essential amenity spaces will remain  closed until further notice and our service teams will only be performing emergency services  requests in occupied apartments.”  B. Allegations Regarding Plaintiff Jennifer Ciccone   14.  Jennifer Ciccone’s daughter, Madison Ciccone, is a student at the University of  Central Florida. Plaintiff evaluated the available housing options and selected The Retreat at  Orlando based largely on its student housing amenities.   15.  Plaintiff Jennifer Ciccone executed a housing contract for August 17, 2019 to July  31, 2020 and Madison Ciccone moved into the dormitory on August 17, 2019 for Fall 2019, Spring  and Summer 2020 school semesters.   17.  Defendant refuses to return pro-rated monies paid for the month of March although  this money was collected for services Defendant did not and could not perform.    18.  Plaintiff has always paid her monthly installments of $810.00.  Her contract is for  August 17, 2019 to July 31, 2020 and she paid on time every month.    19.  Since the COVID-19 pandemic hit and students were forced to evacuate the  premises in March 2020.   20.  Defendant feigns concern over the plight COVID-19 put students and their families  in while at the same time is haranguing and harassing Plaintiff and her daughter concerning a debt  that they do not owe.    21.  Defendant collected rent for the month of March, April, May, and June 2020  although Plaintiff and her daughter do not owe these debts.   22.  Defendant refuses to return monies paid for March (partial), April, May, and June  2020, although this money was collected for services Defendant did not and could not perform.   C. University Campuses Shut Down in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, and  Defendant Cannot Provide the Bargained-For Services.   23.  On March 9, 2020 Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-52  declaring a state of emergency for the entire state of Florida a result of COVID-19.   24.  On March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump issued a Proclamation Declaring a  National Emergency based upon the COVID-19 outbreak.   26.  On March 17, 2020, the University of Central Florida announced that all classes  would transition to remote learning through the end of the Spring 2020 semester, canceling all on- campus events due to the COVID-19 pandemic.    27.  On March 19, 2020, the University of Central Florida encouraged all residential  students to evacuate to their permanent residence and not return to campus, such that they had no  meaningful choice but to comply.     28.  Further, because all classes were moved online, there was no reason for students to  remain near campus if they had other housing available to them.  This is particularly so in the  face of the dangers, risks, and fear associated with the pandemic.     29.  The vast majority of students left campus to be with their families, and to avoid  exposure to COVID-19, and they have stayed off campus to comply with directives from the  schools, as well as local, state and federal governments.     30.  On March 24, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-83, directing the  State Surgeon General and State Health Officer to issue a public health advisory urging the public  to avoid all social or recreational gatherings of 10 or more people, stating “it is necessary and  appropriate to take action to ensure that the spread of COVID-19 is slowed, and that residents and  visitors in Florida remain safe and secure.”    32.  On March 27, 2020, the University of Central Florida, recognizing that on-campus  dormitory rooms, meal plans, and services could not be safely used by the students, the  University’s Board of Trustees unanimously approved a plan to refund housing costs to students.   The refunds were to include students’ housing costs from March 27, 2020 through April 28, 2020.    33.  On March 29, 2020 President Trump extended the guidelines to be in effect until  April 30, 2020.   34.  On March 31, 2020 the President updated the guidelines renaming it “30 Days to  Slow the Spread” and along with the Coronavirus Task Force urged Americans to adhere to the  guidelines.       35.  On March 31, 2020, the University of Central Florida issued a statement to all Off- Campus Student Housing Managers advising the shift to all classes online for the spring and  portion of the summer semesters and as such depopulated campus and requesting students to return  to their permanent residences. Furthermore, respectfully requesting apartment and housing  managers to consider granting early lease terminations.    36.  Despite the fact that the dormitories cannot safely be occupied by the students, and  the fact that the bargained-for amenities could not safely be provided, the Defendant has refused  to return any portion of the rent and other fees it has collected.    37.  Defendant’s demand for payment and refusal to provide partial refunds defies  equity, common sense and is in diametrical opposition to the Governor and President’s directives  concerning the dangers of staying in their facilities.     39.  Defendant touts in its promotional materials that the amenities are cutting-edge  features and unrivaled, which  far exceed those of typical student apartments, with leading  residence life offering a variety of educational, recreational, and social activities to help your  student make the most of their college experience.   40.  This purpose was frustrated when the campus closed and students were ordered  home no longer attending on-campus classes.   41.  Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3) as a representative of the following Class:  All people who paid the costs rent and fees for and on behalf of  students residing in Defendant’s Florida “campus living” complexes  for the Spring and Summer 2020 semester who moved out prior to  the completion of the semester because of school closures relating  to COVID-19.   42.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the Class definition with greater  specificity or further division into subclasses or limitation to particular issues, as discovery and the  orders of this Court warrant.   43.  Excluded from the Class are the Defendant, the officers and directors of the  Defendant at all relevant times, members of Defendant’s immediate families and their legal  representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendant has or had a  controlling interest.   45.  Defendant has thousands of customers that have paid room, rent and fees while  schools were closed, and students ordered to return home. Accordingly, members of the Class are  so numerous that their individual joinder herein is impracticable. The precise number of Class  members and their identities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time but may be determined through  discovery. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail and/or  publication through the distribution records of Defendant.   46.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and predominate  over questions affecting only individual Class members. Common legal and factual questions  include, but are not limited to, whether Defendant has refused to offer refunds and whether it has  breached its contracts with its customers or otherwise acted unlawfully.   47.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class in that the  named Plaintiff was charged rental fees and suffered losses despite their child being ordered to  leave campus and return home by school and government officials.   48.  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because Plaintiff’s interest does  not conflict with the interests of the Class members Plaintiff seeks to represent, Plaintiff has retained  competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this  action vigorously. The interests of Class members will be fairly and adequately protected by  Plaintiff and their counsel.   50.  Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   51.  Plaintiff, as well as all other Class members, were in contractual privity with the  Defendant as tenants of the Defendant’s facilities.  These contractual agreements involving the  Class members and Defendant were evidenced in writing and signed by the parties.   52.  As noted above, the purpose of the contractual undertaking between the Class  members (including Plaintiff) and Defendant was to provide a “preferred student living  community” living arrangement to student Class members.  The living space provided by this  arrangement was bundled with a number of amenities and conveniences that particularly catered  to students attending university campuses, such as, an exercise center, monthly resident events,  computer labs, shuttle services to the campus, and university involvement.   53.  There has been a clear “equitable breach” in this case that warrants rescission  because issues of “impossibility of performance” and “frustration of purpose” have arisen.    55.  As to “impossibility of performance,” Defendant was obligated to provide the  student Plaintiff and other student Class members with access to common areas, fitness center,  technology center with computer stations, social activities, and other services.  However, as a result  of the COVID-19 pandemic, these common areas and services became both unsafe to provide and  unsafe to use.     56.  To that end, it should be noted that the only private accommodation provided by  Defendant, The Retreat at Orlando, was a bedroom and bathroom in a shared apartment.  Each  living unit had common space shared amongst multiple residents.  As such, essential daily living  and hygiene functions were necessarily performed in a shared common facility with other students  that any individual student might not know well, thus presenting a great risk for COVID-19  infection.   58.  In addition to that, it was simply not possible for students to fully access common  areas and amenities in a prudent manner.  Places such as the fitness center, transit shuttles, and  computer stations would have required student Class members to group together beyond what was  prudent.  Even the heavily used common hallways presented such a risk.   59.  For this reason, it was impossible for the Defendant to provide what was bargained  for under the Class members’ contracts.   60.  As to frustration of purpose, the student-style living arrangement was offered as  part of a bundled package of amenities that were a fundamental part of Defendant’s performance  under the contract.  As noted above, Defendant’s living facilities and common amenities were  rendered unsafe to use as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.  The provision of these living  arrangements along with the coupled amenities were the fundamental purpose of the Class  members’ agreements and became frustrated by the fact that they could not be safely provided or  used.   61.  In addition to its facilities being unsafe to use, the Defendant marketed its  premises as being in close physical proximity to school and also marketed its services as being  advantageous because of a high degree of integration with campus university activities.  Given  that the University campuses were closed, and no campus activities were taking place because of  the COVID-19 pandemic, this frustrated an essential purpose of the Class members’ contracts with  Defendant.  Indeed, the very purpose of the Class members’ contracts with Defendant was to allow  the student Class members to attend school on university campuses, which was of course not  possible due to the closure of the university campuses.   63.  This case is suitable for rescission because the parties can be equitably restored to  their original position or, if that result would not be equitable, a balance of equities can otherwise  be achieved.   64.   This count for rescission is pleaded in the alternative to any claim for legal relief.   To the extent no remedy at law is available, rescission is appropriate.  65.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs  1-49 of this Complaint.   66.  The lease agreement provided that each Plaintiff “. . . a non-exclusive license to  use all driveways, walkways, hallways, landscaped areas, and other common areas of the  Apartment Community (the “Common Areas”); such usage to be in common with other residents  in the Apartment Community and their respective guests, invites, and licensees.”   67.  The Defendants have breached the contract because they are unable to safely  provide these services and amenities.  68.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 1-49 of this  Complaint.    70.   In performing its leases with Plaintiff and the Class members, Defendant has  breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by:  a.  Unfairly and in bad faith asserting that remaining in shared space is  a reasonable option for Plaintiffs and proposed Class members.  Dormitories,  whether on or off campus, are not designed to safely house students in the event of  a pandemic, and, in order to stay safe, a vast majority of the students must move  out in order to practice safe social distancing in accordance with CDC  recommendations.  b.  Unfairly and in bad faith representing that its properties serve as a  preferred student living community and provide residence life programs to  compliment students’ academics.  However, once the schools have closed and the  students it purports to serve have been forced to leave, the reality reveals itself that  Defendant does not consider its provision of room, board, and services to be tied  whatsoever to the schools or to the students’ academics, as it has failed to refund  unearned payments for room, board, and fees.  c.  Unfairly and in bad faith failing to refund any monies paid by the  Plaintiffs and proposed Class that remain unused as a result of the COVID-19  pandemic.   71.  As a result of Defendant’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair  dealing as set forth above, Plaintiff and the proposed Class members have been damaged.  73.  Plaintiff brings this on her own behalf and on behalf of the proposed Class against  Defendant.    74.  Plaintiff and members of the Class conferred benefits on Defendant by paying  room, board, and fees, despite the closing of colleges and universities and attendant  recommendations for social distancing and returning home.    75.  Defendant has knowledge of such benefits.    76.  Defendant has been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from  Plaintiff and Class members’ payments.  Retention of those moneys under these circumstances is  unjust and inequitable because Defendant is charging its customers full price of a semester’s worth  of room, board, and fees of which Plaintiff and Class members cannot reasonably avail themselves.    77.  Because Defendant’s retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred on it by  Plaintiff and members of the Class is unjust and inequitable, Defendant must pay restitution to  Plaintiff and members of the Class for their unjust enrichment, as ordered by the Court.   78.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs  1-49 of this Complaint.    79.  Plaintiff bring this claim on their own behalves and on behalf of the proposed Class  against Defendant.    80.  Defendant deprived Plaintiff and the other members of the Class of the value they  paid for themselves (or the students on whose behalf they paid for) of their right to the services  and amenities provided in the lease agreement.   82.  Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to the return of the prorated, unused  amounts paid for room, board, and fees through the end of the semester.  83.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs  1-49 of this Complaint.    84.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  proposed Class against Defendant.    85.  Defendant received money in the form of room, board, and fee payments that was  intended to be used for the benefit of Plaintiff and the Class; however, those fees were not used  for the benefit of Plaintiff and the Class, and Defendant has not given back or refunded the  wrongfully obtained money and fees to Plaintiff and the Class.   86.  Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs  1 – 49 of this Complaint.   87.  Plaintiff brings this claim on her own behalf and on behalf of the proposed Class  against Defendant.    89.  Defendant has violated Florida Statute § 559.72(7) by willfully engaging in other  conduct which could reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the debtor Plaintiff or any member  of her family, or willfully engage in other conduct which can be reasonably be expected to abuse  or harass the debtor or any member of her or his family.   90.  Defendant has violated Florida Statute § 559.72(9) by attempting to enforce a debt  when Defendant knows that the debt is not legitimate, or to assert the existence of some legal right  when Defendant knows that right does not exist.   A. Defendant Advertises and Sells “Student Housing” to College Students.   BREACH OF IMPLIED CONVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING   BREACH OF CONTRACT   CONVERSION   FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT    MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED   RESCISSION    UNJUST ENRICHMENT  