14.  Plaintiff restates each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs of  this Complaint as if fully rewritten.   15.  Plaintiff began her education with Chamberlain University in September 2018, by  enrolling in the University’s Bachelor of Science in Nursing (“BSN”) program.   16.  Prior to Plaintiff agreeing to attend Chamberlain University, the University made  several representations to Plaintiff, including but not limited to, that Plaintiff would be receiving  a live on-campus education at the University’s Cleveland campus, that Plaintiff would be receiving  hands-on instruction, that Plaintiff would be receiving clinical experience essential to her  education, that Plaintiff would be given access to on-campus resources and facilities, and that  Plaintiff would be given the opportunity for one-on-one and small group instruction.   17.  These representations were made to Plaintiff not only in her enrollment agreement,  but additionally through the University’s website, printed literature, videos, campus tour and  application process.   18.  Based on these representations by the University, Plaintiff agreed to enroll in the  University’s BSN program, with the understanding that Plaintiff would be required to complete  122 credit hours to earn her degree at cost to Plaintiff of $675 per credit and an estimated total cost  of $88,045.   19.  The University has generally charged Plaintiff $675 per credit hour for all  semesters, including the March 2020 semester and beyond.  5   20.  Chamberlain University operates on a year-round, two month “session” academic  calendar wherein each full calendar year contains six sessions. Plaintiff and the members of the  Class are charged tuition and Mandatory Fees each semester, i.e. every two months.    21.  The credits that Plaintiff and the Class members pay for and receive from  Chamberlain University have very limited or zero transferability to other academic institutions.    22.  The March 2020 semester at the University began on or about March 1, 2020.  On  March 14, 2020, the University informed Plaintiff and the Class members that all campuses would  be closing until further notice.    23.  The practical effect of the University’s decision to close all campuses was that all  classes were transitioned to online format only and Plaintiff and the Class members no longer had  access to on-campus facilities and resources.   24.  On March 20, 2020, the University informed Plaintiff and the Class members that  campuses would remain closed and coursework would be delivered online only until at least April  10, 2020.   25.   On March 27, 2020, the University informed Plaintiff and the Class members that  campuses would remain closed and coursework would be delivered online only through the end   of the May 2020 session (June 27, 2020). The University did not provide Plaintiff and the Class  members any discount on tuition or Mandatory Fees for the May 2020 session.   26.  On June 9, 2020, the University informed Plaintiff and the Class Members that  coursework would continue to be delivered online only through the end of the July 2020 session  (August 29, 2020). Plaintiff and the Class Members were informed that “limited clinicals and  campus clinical demos” would resume and that the University would be providing more  6  information. The University did not provide Plaintiff and the Class members any discount on  tuition or Mandatory Fees for the July 2020 session.   27.  On July 15, 2020, the University informed Plaintiff and the Class Members that  coursework would continue to be delivered online only through the end of the September 2020  session (October 24, 2020). Plaintiff and the Class Members were informed that clinicals and  campus clinical demos would continue to be limited. The University did not provide Plaintiff and  the Class members any discount on tuition or Mandatory Fees for the September 2020 session.   28.  On September 30, 2020, the University informed Plaintiff and the Class Members  that coursework would continue to be delivered online only through the end of the November 2020  session (December 19, 2020). Plaintiff and the Class Members were informed that clinicals would  continue to be limited and that only campus simulation, skills labs, return demonstrations,  fingerprinting and course testing would be resuming in person on campus. The University did not  provide Plaintiff and the Class members any discount on tuition or Mandatory Fees for the  November 2020 session.   29.  On November 30, 2020, the University informed Plaintiff and the Class Members  that coursework would continue to be delivered online only through the end of the January 2021  session (February 27, 2021). Plaintiff and the Class Members were informed that clinicals would  continue to be limited and that only campus simulation, skills labs, return demonstrations,  fingerprinting and course testing would be resuming in person on campus. The University did not  provide Plaintiff and the Class members any discount on tuition or Mandatory Fees for the January  2021 semssion.   30.  The University touts the quality of its on-campus education by representing to  applicants that “[f]rom the classroom to high-tech simulation labs, you will have hands-on  7  experiences that will prepare you for all the scenarios being a nurse can present, and make you  confident that you are prepared for your career.”3   31.  Moreover, the University represents to Plaintiff and the Class Members that their  on-campus education will include access to the University’s SIMCARE CENTER which “gives  nursing students the opportunity to practice clinical skills on high-tech manikins…” and “lets  students use advanced technology in a seemingly real clinical setting, so that students learn how  to react to scenarios such as seizures, cardiac arrest and childbirth.”4   32.  Additionally, the University represents to Plaintiff and the Class members that their  on-campus education will include access to the University’s Center for Academic Success which  is to provide students with in-person tutoring and a variety of academic and clinical resources.5   33.  The online learning options being offered to the University’s students are sub-par  in practically every aspect relative to the on-campus live coursework that Plaintiff and the Class  members bargained for.    34.  The difference in quality between a live in-person education and an online  education is particularly stark in the field of nursing. The University’s live on-campus instruction  is often designed around the use of computerized manikins that allow instructors to physically  demonstrate nursing skills and then allows students to replicate that instruction. The online classes  on the other hand, are much more dependent on power point presentations, present little to no  opportunity or one-on-one instruction, are fraught with technical difficulties and offer an inferior  forum for students, including Plaintiff, to interact with instructors.   3 https://go.chamberlain.edu/BSN (last visited Jan. 13, 2021).  4 https://www.chamberlain.edu/nursing-school/ohio/cleveland (last visited Jan. 13, 2021).  5 Id.   8   35.  When Plaintiff and the Class members agreed to attend Chamberlain University  and pay the requisite tuition, they did so in consideration of receiving the promised in-person  coursework and on-campus resources, including but not limited to, the SIMCARE CENTER and  the Center for Academic Success.   36.  By closing their campuses, offering no clinical instruction, and then significantly  restricting the opportunity for clinical instruction, the University has not provided the education  that it agreed to provide in exchange for the tuition and Mandatory Fees charged. However, the  University has failed to refund Plaintiff and the Class members the tuition and Mandatory Fees  that have been paid.   37.  Plaintiff and the Class members are therefore entitled to a pro-rated refund of the  tuition and Mandatory Fees they paid.  38.  Plaintiff brings this case individually and, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Ohio Rules of  Civil Procedure, on behalf of the class defined as: All persons who paid tuition and the Mandatory  Fees for a student to be enrolled at any Chamberlain University campus for the March 2020 Session  through the January 2021 Session (the “Class”).   39.  This action has been brought and may properly be maintained on behalf of the Class  proposed herein under the criteria of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   40.  The requirements of Rule 23(a)(1) have been met.  The Class is so numerous that  joinder of all members is impracticable.  Although the precise number of Class members is  unknown to Plaintiff, the identity of all such students is known to the University and can be  identified through the University’s records.  Class members may be notified of the pendency of  9  this action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S.  Mail, electronic mail, Internet postings, and/or published notice.   41.  The requirements of Rule 23(a)(2) have been met.  There are questions of law and  fact common to the members of the Class including, without limitation:  a. Whether the University accepted money from Plaintiff and the Class  members in exchange for the promise to provide an in-person and on- campus live education, as well as certain facilities and services  throughout the relevant sessions;  b.  Whether the University breached its contracts with Plaintiff and the  members of the Class by failing to provide them with an in-person and  on-campus live education after March 14, 2020;  c. Whether the University breached its contracts with Plaintiff and the  members of the Class by failing to provide the services and facilities to  which the Mandatory Fees pertained after mid-March 2020;   d. Whether Defendant has been unjustly enriched by retaining a portion of  the tuition and Mandatory Fees during the period of time the University  has been closed, and Plaintiff and the members of the Class have been  denied an in-person and on-campus live education and access and the  services and facilities for which the Mandatory Fees were paid;  e. The amount of damages and other relief to be awarded to Plaintiff and  the Class members.   42.  The requirements of Rule 23(a)(3) have been met.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of  the claims of the members of the Class because Plaintiff and the other Class members each  10  contracted with Defendant for it to provide an in-person and on-campus live education for the  tuition they paid and the services and facilities for the Mandatory Fees that they paid, that the  University stopped providing in mid-March.   43.  The requirements of Rule 23(a)(4) have been met.  Plaintiff is an adequate class  representative because her interests do not conflict with the interests of the other Class members  who she seeks to represent, Plaintiff has retained competent counsel who are experienced in  complex class action litigation, and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously.  Class  members’ interests will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and her counsel.   44.  Class certification of Plaintiff’s claims is also appropriate pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3)  because the above questions of law and fact that are common to the Class predominate over  questions affecting only individual members of the Class, and because a class action is superior to  other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.  The damages or  financial detriment suffered by individual Class members are relatively small compared to the  burden and expense of individual litigation of their claims against the University.  It would, thus,  be virtually impossible for the Class, on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress for the  wrongs committed against them.  Furthermore, 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.  11  45.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the factual allegations above as if fully alleged  herein.   46.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class.   47.  By paying the University tuition and the Mandatory Fees, the University agreed to,  among other things, provide an in-person and on-campus live education as well as access to on- campus clinics, services and facilities.  As a result, Plaintiff and each member of the Class entered  into a binding contract with the University.   48.  Defendants are in possession of all contracts, materials, circulars, advertisements,  and the like between the Plaintiff and members of the Class, on hand one, and the University, on  the other. Plaintiff, on the other hand, is not in possession or does not have access to all of the  contracts, materials, circulars, advertisements and the like that embody the agreement between  Plaintiff, the members of Class and the University. Moreover, attachment of such voluminous  materials hereto would be impractical if not impossible.   49.  The University has failed to provide the contracted for in-person and on-campus  live education, as well as the services and facilities to which the Mandatory Fees pertained, yet the  University has retained monies paid by Plaintiff and the Class for a live in-person education and  access to these services and facilities.  Plaintiff and the members of the Class have therefore been  denied the benefit of their bargain.   50.  Plaintiff and the members of the Class have suffered damage as a direct and  proximate result of the University’s breach in the amount of the prorated portion of the tuition and  Mandatory Fees they each paid equal to the reduction in contracted for education and services  12  during the March 2020 Session and all future sessions where the campuses were closed or students  were moved to distance/virtual learning.   51.  The University should return such portions to Plaintiff and each Class Member.  52.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the factual allegations above, as if fully alleged  herein.   53.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class  in the alternative to the First Claim for Relief.   54.  Plaintiff and members of the Class conferred a benefit on the University in the form  of tuition and Mandatory Fees paid for the benefit of an in-person and on-campus live education  and the services and facilities to which the Mandatory Fees pertained.  The payment of tuition and  Mandatory Fees for the semester were intended to provide these benefits to Plaintiff and the  members of the Class throughout the entire semester.     55.  The University has retained the full benefit of the tuition and Mandatory Fee  payments by Plaintiff and the members of the Class for the semester, yet has failed to provide the  quality of education and services and facilities for which tuition and the Mandatory Fees were  paid, including those for an in-person and on-campus live education, and access to the University’s  services and facilities.     56.  The University’s retention of all of the tuition and Mandatory Fees paid by Plaintiff  and members of the Class during the period of time the University has been closed, and Plaintiff  and the members of the Class have been denied an in-person and on-campus live education and  13  access and the services and facilities for which the Mandatory Fees were paid, is unjust and  inequitable under the circumstances.    57.  Undoubtedly, the costs incurred for having an online only program is significantly  lower than the overhead needed to provide classes and services on campus.    58.  Allowing the University to retain the tuition and Mandatory Fees paid for in-person  on campus education and experiences, after reducing the benefit provided and the costs incurred  by the University, unjustly enriches the Defendants.   59.  Accordingly, the University should return the prorated portion of the tuition and  Mandatory Fees that Plaintiff and the Class members  each paid equal to the reduction in benefit  for education and services since the March 2020 Session.  BREACH OF CONTRACT  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   UNJUST ENRICHMENT  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  