1. This is a class action brought on behalf of all people who paid the costs of room and board  and/or attendant service fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at private dormitories  throughout the State of Florida, each managed by Defendant Asset Plus Corporation.  Upon  the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, these people lost the benefits of the room and board  and/or the services for which they had paid.  Defendant has responded to the pandemic and the  resultant constructive eviction of its tenants by retaining the unearned costs and fees,  implementing a policy whereby it refuses to grant any refunds to its leaseholders.   2. In or around March 2020, Florida colleges and universities announced that, because of the  global COVID-19 pandemic, all classes would be moved online for the remainder of the Spring  2020 semester.  Students who lived in on-campus housing were told they had to move out or  were strongly encouraged to do so, such that they had no meaningful choice but to comply.   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.  Many students chose to leave campus  to be with their families, or 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.  In  addition, the services that their fees were intended to cover are no longer available to them.   26. 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.   27. 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.   28. Plaintiff is a member of the Class she seeks to represent.   29. Defendant has thousands of customers that have paid room, board, 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.   30. 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.   31. 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 her son being ordered to leave  campus and return home by school and government officials.   33. The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication  of the claims of the Class members. Each individual Class member may lack the resources to  undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and extensive  litigation necessary to establish Defendant’s liability. Individualized litigation increases the  delay and expense to all parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial system presented by  the complex legal and factual issues of this case.  Individualized litigation also presents a  potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments.  In contrast, the class action device  presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication,  economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of Defendant’s  liability.  Class treatment of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and claimants are  before this Court for consistent adjudication of the liability issues.  34. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs  of this Complaint.   35. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Class  against Defendant.    36. At all times relevant to this action Defendant is subject to and must abide by the law of Florida,  including Florida Statute § 559.72.   38. 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.   39. Defendant’s actions have directly and proximately resulted in Plaintiff’s prior and continuous  sustaining of damages as described by Florida Statute §559.77.   4. The decision to transition to online classes and to request or encourage students to leave  campus were responsible decisions to make, but it is unfair and unlawful for Defendant to  retain unearned fees and costs, passing the losses on to the students and their families.  Other  higher education institutions across the United States that likewise have switched to e-learning  and have similarly requested that its students leave campus have recognized the upheaval and  financial harm befalling students and their families from these decisions, and they have  provided appropriate refunds.  That’s the right thing to do.  Defendant, unfortunately, has taken  the opposite approach.   40. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs  of this Complaint.    41. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Class  against Defendant.    43. 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.  44. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs  of this Complaint.    45. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Class  against Defendant.    46. 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.    47. Defendant has knowledge of such benefits.    48. 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 or  room, board, and fees of which Plaintiff and Class members cannot reasonably avail  themselves.    5. Accordingly, Defendant has improperly retained monies paid by Plaintiff and the other Class  members for room, board, and fees, while otherwise not affording them the benefits for which  they paid.  Even if Defendant claims that it did not have a choice, it nevertheless has improperly  retained funds for services it is not providing.  No matter the excuse, Defendant’s actions are  unlawful and unfair, and equity demands disgorgement of the fees and monies paid.   50. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs  of this Complaint.    51. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Class  against Defendant.    52. 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.   53. Plaintiff and members of the Class had a right to a refund of their room, board, and fees while  the schools the dormitories catered to were and remain closed; Defendant intentionally refused  issuance of any refund or credit after the schools were closed; Plaintiff and Class members  were harmed through Defendant’s unlawful retention of room, board, and fees; Defendant’s  conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff and Class members’ harm.   54. Plaintiffs 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.  55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs  of this Complaint.    56. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Class  against Defendant.    6. Plaintiff brings this class action for injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief, and for any  available legal remedies resulting from Defendant’s illegal, unfair, or deceptive conduct related  to retaining the costs of room, board, and fees paid by Plaintiffs and the other Class members  after they (or the students on behalf of whom Plaintiffs and Class members paid these  expenses) were made or encouraged to vacate their campus residence to complete the semester.   Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing   Conversion   Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act   Money Had and Received   Unjust Enrichment  