1.  This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all people who paid tuition and fees for  the Spring 2020 academic semester at Stevens, and who, because of Defendant’s response to the  Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for  which they paid, and/or the services for which their fees paid, without having their tuition and  fees refunded to them.     14.  Plaintiff and Class members are individuals who paid the cost of tuition and other  mandatory fees for the Spring 2020 Semester at Stevens.   15.  Spring Semester 2020 classes at Stevens began on or about January 21, 2020.   Classes and final exams for the semester are scheduled for end on or around May 18, 2020.   16.  Plaintiff and Class members paid the cost of tuition for the Spring Semester 2020.   They also paid other mandatory fees associated with the Spring Semester 2020, including but not  limited to a General Service Fee and a Student Activity Fee.   17.  Undergraduate tuition for the Spring 2020 semester at Stevens is approximately  $26,067.  Mandatory undergraduate fees include a $710 per semester General Service Fee and a  $230 per semester Student Activity Fee.     19.  The tuition and fees described in the paragraph above is provided by way of  example; total damage amounts – which may include other fees that are not listed herein but that  were not refunded – will be proven at trial.    In Response To COVID-19, Stevens Closed Campuses And Cancelled All In-Person Classes   20.  On March 12, 2020, Stevens announced that because of the global COVID-19  classes would be held only in online format until at least April 5, 2020.  On March 17, 2020,  Stevens announced that all classes would continue in online format through the end of the Spring  2020 semester.   21.  Since March 11, 2020, Stevens has not held any in-person classes.  The closure of  Stevens’s campuses has been extended through the end of Spring Semester 2020.  Classes that  have continued have only been offered in an online format, with no in-person instruction.  Even  classes for students with concentrations in areas where in-person instruction is especially crucial  (such as music, theatre, nursing, and the sciences) have only had access to minimum online  education options.    22.  As a result of the closure of Defendant’s facilities, Defendant has not delivered  the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Plaintiff and the putative class  contracted and paid for.  Plaintiff and the putative class are therefore entitled to a refund of all  tuition and fees for services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Defendant has not  provided.  Even if Defendant did not have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it  nevertheless has improperly retained funds for services it is not providing.    24.  Defendant markets the Stevens on-campus experience as a benefit of enrollment  on Stevens’s website:   25.  The online learning options being offered to Stevens students are subpar in  practically every aspect and a shadow of what they once were, from the lack of facilities,  materials, and access to faculty.  Students have been deprived of the opportunity for  collaborative learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique.    27.  Through this lawsuit Plaintiff seeks, for herself and Class members, Defendant’s  disgorgement of the pro-rated portion of tuition and fees, proportionate to the amount of time  that remained in the Spring Semester 2020 when classes moved online and campus services  ceased being provided.  Plaintiff seeks return of these amounts on behalf of herself and the Class  as defined below.  28.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all people who paid Stevens Spring  Semester 2020 tuition and/or fees for in-person educational services that Stevens failed to  provide, and whose tuition and fees have not been refunded (the “Class”).  Specifically excluded  from the Class are Defendant, Defendant’s officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children,  corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners, joint ventures, or  entities controlled by Defendant, and their heirs, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities  related to or affiliated with Defendant and/or Defendant’s officers and/or directors, the judge  assigned to this action, and any member of the judge’s immediate family.    29.  Plaintiff also seeks to represent a subclass consisting of Class members who  reside in New Jersey (the “Subclass”).    3.  On March 9, 2020, Stevens announced via letter from Marybeth Murphy (Vice  President for Enrollment Management and Student Affairs) and Warren Petty (Vice President for  Human Resources) that Stevens was working to transition all classes to online format as quickly  as possible.1  On March 12, 2020, Stevens announced via letter from Christophe Pierre (Provost)  that classes would continue to be taught completely online until at least April 5.2  Finally, on  March 17, 2020, Mr. Pierre announced that classes would continue in online format through the  end of the Spring 2020 Semester.3   31.  Numerosity.  The members of the Class and Subclass are geographically  dispersed throughout the United States and are so numerous that individual joinder is  impracticable.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiff reasonably estimates that there are tens of  thousands of members in the Class and Subclass.  Although the precise number of Class  members is unknown to Plaintiff, the true number of Class members is known by Defendant and  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 and third-party  retailers and vendors.      33.  Typicality.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of  the Class in that, among other things, all Class and Subclass members were similarly situated and  were comparably injured through Defendant’s wrongful conduct as set forth herein.  Further,  there are no defenses available to Defendants that are unique to Plaintiff.    34.  Adequacy of Representation.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the  interests of the Class and Subclass.  Plaintiff has retained counsel that is highly experienced in  complex consumer class action litigation, and Plaintiff intends to vigorously prosecute this action  on behalf of the Class and Subclass.  Furthermore, Plaintiff has no interests that are antagonistic  to those of the Class or Subclass.   35.  Superiority.  A class action is superior to all other available means for the fair  and efficient adjudication of this controversy.  The damages or other financial detriment suffered  by individual Class and Subclass members are relatively small compared to the burden and  expense of individual litigation of their claims against Defendant.  It would, thus, be virtually  impossible for the Class or Subclass on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress for the  wrongs committed against them.  Furthermore, even if Class or Subclass members could afford  such individualized litigation, the court system could not.  Individualized litigation would create  the danger of inconsistent or contradictory judgments arising from the same set of facts.   Individualized litigation would also increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court  system from the issues raised by this action.  By contrast, the class action device provides the  benefits of adjudication of these issues in a single proceeding, economies of scale, and  comprehensive supervision by a single court, and presents no unusual management difficulties  under the circumstances.   37.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this complaint.   38.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class  and Subclass against Defendants.   39.  Through the admission agreement and payment of tuition and fees, Plaintiff and  each member of the Class and Subclass entered into a binding contract with Defendant.    4.  Thus, Stevens has not held any in-person classes since March 11, 2020.  Classes  that have continued have only been offered in an online format, with no in-person instruction.   41.  Defendant has failed to provide the contracted for services and has otherwise not  performed under the contract as set forth above.  Defendant has retained monies paid by Plaintiff  and the Class for their Spring Semester 2020 tuition and fees, without providing them the benefit  of their bargain.   42.  Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass have suffered damage as a direct  and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, including but not limited to being deprived of the  education, experience, and services to which they were promised and for which they have  already paid.    43.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff, the Class, and  Subclass are entitled to damages, to be decided by the trier of fact in this action, to include but no  be limited to reimbursement of certain tuition, fees, and other expenses that were collected by  Defendant for services that Defendant has failed to deliver.  Defendant should return the pro- rated portion of any Spring Semester 2020 tuition and fees for education services not provided  since Stevens shut down on March 11, 2020.    45.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this complaint.   46.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class  and Subclass against Defendant.   47.  Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass conferred a benefit on Defendant  in the form of monies paid for Spring Semester 2020 tuition and other fees in exchange for  certain service and promises.  Tuition for Spring Semester 2020 was intended to cover in-person  educational services from January through May 2020.  In exchange for tuition monies paid, Class  members were entitled to in-person educational services through the end of the Spring Semester.   48.  Defendant voluntarily accepted and retained this benefit by accepting payment.   49.  Defendant has retained this benefit, even though Defendant has failed to provide  the education, experience, and services for which the tuition and fees were collected, making  Defendant’s retention unjust under the circumstances.  Accordingly, Defendant should return the  pro-rated portion of any Spring Semester 2020 tuition and fees for education services not  provided since Stevens shut down on March 11, 2020.   5.  As a result of the closure of Defendant’s facilities, Defendant has not delivered  the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Mr. Mitelberg and the  putative class contracted and paid for.  The online learning options being offered to Stevens  students are subpar in practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to  faculty.  Students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person  dialogue, feedback, and critique.  The remote learning options are in no way the equivalent of the  in-person education that Plaintiff and the putative class members contracted and paid for.   50.  It would be unjust and inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefit, and  Defendant should be required to disgorge this unjust enrichment.   52.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class  and Subclass against Defendant.   53.  Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass have an ownership right to the  in-person educational services they were supposed to be provided in exchange for their Spring  Semester 2020 tuition and fee payments to Defendant.     54.  Defendant intentionally interfered with the rights of Plaintiff, the Class, and  Subclass when it moved all classes to an online format and discontinued in-person educational  services for which tuition and fees were intended to pay.   55.  Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass demand the return of the pro- rated portion of any Spring Semester 2020 tuition and fees for education services not provided  since Stevens shut down on March 11, 2020.   56.  Defendant’s retention of the fees paid by Plaintiff and members of the Class and  Subclass without providing the educational services for which they paid, deprived Plaintiff, Class  and Subclass members of the benefits for which the tuition and fees paid.   57.  This interference with the services for which Plaintiff and members of the Class  and Subclass paid damaged Plaintiff and Class members in that they paid tuition and fees for  services that will not be provided.   58.  Plaintiff, Class and Subclass members are entitled to the return of pro-rated  portion of any Spring Semester 2020 tuition and fees for education services not provided since  Stevens shut down on March 11, 2020.  6.  Nonetheless, Stevens has not refunded any tuition or fees for the Spring 2020  Semester.   8.  Plaintiff seeks, for himself and Class members, Defendant’s disgorgement of the  pro-rated portion of tuition and fees, proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the  Spring Semester 2020 when classes moved online and campus services ceased being provided.   Plaintiff seeks a return of these amounts on behalf of herself and the Class as defined below.  Breach Of Contract  (On Behalf Of The Class And Subclass)   Conversion  (On Behalf Of The Class And Subclass)   Plaintiff And Class Members Paid Tuition And Fees For Spring Semester 2020   Unjust Enrichment  (On Behalf Of The Class And Subclass)  