uf cro X" ,ti uironh.orrega, RECEIVED FOR FILING individually, v. CaseNo'

Transcription

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JI.]DICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA MICHELLE FERRARA, on behalf of herself and a class consistine of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, uf cro X" v. CaseNo',tI Af PALM BEACH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,INC., A corporation, and COPY uironh.orrega, RECEIVED FOR FILING individually, DEC 2g 2911 DefendantscLEsJffBJ^FiFf[.*tt*s Representation CIRCUITCIVIL DIVISION CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JTIRY DEMAND PlaintiffMichelle Ferrara" on behalf of herself and the class of those similarly situated, by and through her attorneys, alleges as follows: Nature ofaction l. This is a class action seeking damages for Plaintiff and a class of all other similarly situated current and former students of Palm Beach Institute of Technology, Inc. (*PBIT"). Plaintiffand members of the class enrolled at PBIT between the school's inception in 2006 and the present. 2. PBIT is a for-profit school offering diplomas in diagnostic medical sonography and related fields. 6; tej : la-l1't I

2 3. Prior to enrollmen! Plaintiffand members of the class were told by PBIT officials that PBIT was in the process of seeking accreditation and that the school would attain accreditation prior to their graduations. Plaintiff and members of the class relied on tltese, 4. In fact, upon infonnation and beliel PBIT did not even seek accreditation until representations in deciding to emoll at PBIT. 201l, and its application for accreditation in 201I was denied. 5. Despite assurances to Plaintiff and members of the class that PBIT was in the process ofseeking accreditation and would have accreditation prior to their graduations, PBIT has never been accredited and remains unaccredited to this day, resulting in substantial harm to Plaintiffand members ofthe class. Parties. Jurisdiction and Venue 6. Plaintiff Michelle Ferrara resides in the city of Lake Worth, located in Palm Beach County, Florida. 7. Defendant Palm Beach Institute of Technology, [nc. is a Florida corporation with its principal place ofbusiness located in Pahn Beach County, Florida. 8. On information and belief, Defendant Victor H. Ortega resides in West Palm Beach, Florida" and regularly conducts business in Palm Beach County. 9. This Court has originaljurisdiction over this action pursuant to Fla. Stat Venue exists pursuant to Fla. Stat. $ I l. The amount in controversy exceeds $15,000 exclusive of interest and costs. General Alleeations 12. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference all preceding allegations.

3 13. In approximately 2006, Defendants opened Palm Beach Institute of Technology ("PBIT') in West Palm Beach, Florida, and began providing sonography (ultrasound) instruction to students. PBIT later added programs in related fields, including echocardiogaphy' electroneurodiagnostic technology, and medical assisting. 14. In approdmately 2008, Defendants opeiled a second PBIT campus in Ft. Myers, Florida and began providing sonography instruction to students. 15. At all relevant times, PBIT has not been accredited by any accrediting agenay, including any agency recognized by the United States Department of Education. 16. At all relevant times, PBIT acted through one or rnore offrcials who were acting within the course and scope of their employment and/or representative capacity, including, but not limited to, Defendant Ortega. 17. Prior to enrolling at PBIT, Plaintiffmet with Defendant ftega at the school's West Palm Beach campus in or about December 2008, at which time she was told that PBIT was already seeking accreditation and that the school would be accredited prior to her graduation from the Diagnostic Medical Sonography program. 18. Thereafteg Plaintiffenrolled in and commenced pursuit ofthe Diagnostic Medical Sonography program at PBIT's West Palm Beach campus in January 2009 based on PBIT's representations that it was attaining accreditation and that the school would be accredited prior to her graduation. 19. At all relevant times, PBIT officials, including Defendant Orteg4 routinely represented to prospective students prior to their enrollment that PBIT was attaining accreditation and that the school would be accredited prior to the students' graduations. 20. Plaintiffpaid approximately $24,000 in tuition to PBIT.

4 2I. Plaintiff financed her payment of oition to PBIT with a loan from Sallie Mae and incurred loan fees and interest charges. 22. Plaintiffgraduated from the Diagnostic Medical Sonography program at PBIT on or about January 29, At the time of Plaintiffs graduation, PBIT had not attained accreditation. PBIT remains unaccredited to this day. 24. Throughout the approximately two years that Plaintiffwas enrolled as a student at PBIT, PBIT officials, including Defendant Orteg4 regularly represented to Plaintiff and other students that PBIT was in the process of becoming accredited and would have accreditation very soon, 25. Upon information and belief, PBIT applied for accreditation for the fust time in approximately early 2011, near or after the time of Plaintiffs graduation from PBIT. The accrediting agency to which PBIT applied for accreditation was the Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES). 26. Upon information and belief, PBIT's application for accreditation was denied by ABHES in approximately August 201l. 27. Upon information and beliet PBIT failed to seek accreditation prior to 2011, contrary to what it represented to prospective students. 28. Upon information and beliet PBIT, through numerous acts and omissions, failed to attain acueditation despite representing to Plaintiffand other similarly situated students that it was attaining accreditation. 29. At all relevant times, Defendants profited greatly from misrepresentations to Plaintiffand members of the class regarding PBIT's pursuit and attainment of accreditation.

5 30. Defendants made these representations to Plaintiff and members of the class knowing that the facts represented would be material to prospective students in their decision to enroll at PBIT. 3 l - As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations, Plaintiff and members of the class have incurred substantial damages, including, but not limited to, payment of tuition to PBIT, payment of student loan interest and fees, other expenses incurred as a result of attending PBII loss of time and opporhnity, loss of income, loss of earning capacity, and attainment of an unaccredited academic credential that may not be recognized or accepted by employers, other academic institutions, or registry organizations for diagrrostic medical sonographers, such as the American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography (ARDMS). 32. Upon information and belief, Dr. ftega, at all relevant times, dominated and conholled PBIT to such an extent that PBIT's separate existence was, in fact non-existent, and its shareholders were alter egos of PBIT. 33. Upon information and beliei the corporate form of PBIT has been used for an improper purpose. 34. Upon information and belief, improper use of PBIT's corporate form caused harm to Plaintiff. Class Representation Allegations 35. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference all preceding allegations. 36. The Class includes all students who, like Plaintiff, were told by PBIT officials prior to enrollment that PBIT was seeking accreditation and would attain accreditation prior to the student's graduation. 37. On information and belief. the class includes more than 300 students.

6 38. This action is maintainable on behalf of a class pursuant to Fla. R. civ. P. r220oxrx3). 39. Questions of law and or fact common to the claims of Plaintiffand the claims of each member of the class predominate over any question of law or fact affecting only individual members of the class, and class representation is superior to other available methods for the fair and effrcient adjudication ofthe controversy. 40. Questions of fact regarding what actions Defendants took in pursuing accreditation for PBIT are common to Plaintiff and all members of the class, and underlie Plaintiffs claims. 41. Questions of law regarding whether Defendants acted negligently in failing to attain accreditation for PBIT are common to Plaintiff and all members ofthe class. 42. Questions of fact regarding misrepresentations that were made by Defendants regarding PBIT's effiorts to seek accreditation and the likelihood that PBIT would attain accreditation are common to Plaintiff and all members of the class. 43. Questions of law regarding whether Defendants negligently misrepresented PBIT's accreditation status are common to Plaintiff and all members ofthe class. 44. The claims of the representative plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class because the claims arise from the sane events - enrollment at PBIT after misrepresentations by Defendants regarding PBIT's accreditation status. Like all other rnembers of the class, Plaintiff has incuned substantial damages as a result of PBIT's misrepresentations, including, but not limited to, payment of tuition and fees and loss of other opportunities. 45. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of each member of the class because there are no substantial conflicts of interest between Plaintiff and

7 the class members and Plaintiff will adequately prosecute the case. Plaintiffs interests are aligned with those of the class members, all of which seek to assert claims and recover damages arising from Defendants' uniform misrepresentations and failure to attain accreditation. 46. Class members do not have a significant interest in separately controlling the prosecution oftheir own legal actions. 47. Upon inforrnation and belief, no litigation has been f,rled by other class members relating to the claims brought in this case. 48. It is desirable to concentrate the litigation in this particular forum because this is the county in which PBIT's main campus is located and this is a convenient forum for the witnesses familiar with the facts relating to this oase. 49. The difficulty in managing a class action will be minimal because class members and their locations should be rcadilv identifiable from PBIT's records. Count I Neslisence 50. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference the preceding allegations. 51. Defendants owed Plaintiffand members of the class duties of reasonable care. 52. Defendants breached tjreir duties of reasonable care in numerous ways, including, but not limited to, by negligently failing to take appropriate steps to ensure tlrat PBIT's application for accreditation would be granted and by negligently failing to attain accreditation. 53. Defendants further breached their duties of reasonable care by negligently advising Plaintiff and members of the class that PBIT was in the process of attaining accreditation and that it would have accreditation prior to Plaintiffs and class members' sraduations.

8 54. Defendants' breach of duties proximately caused Plaintiff and members of the class economic harm. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the class of those similarly situated, requests that this Court enter judgment in her favor, and against Defendants for whatever damages Plaintiff is found to be entitled to recover, plus interest and costs, including, but not limited to, direct damages, incidental damages, consequential damages, exemplary damages, injunctive relie{ pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other or further relief the Court deems just. Count II Negligent Misrepresentation 55. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference the preceding allegations. 56. Defendants made statements of material fact that were false. 57. Defendants should have known that the statements were false. 58. Defendants intended and expected that Plaintiff and members of the class would rely on their statements in deciding whether to enroll at PBIT. 59. Plaintiffand members of the class justifiably relied on the false statements made by Defendants. 60. Plaintiffand members of the class suffered an injury as a result of their reliance. WHEREFORE, Plaintifi on behalf of herself and tlte class of those similarly situated, requests that this Court enter judgment in her favor, and against Defendants for whatever damages Plaintiff is found to be entitled to recover, plus interest and costs, including, but not

9 limited to, direct damages, incidental damages, consequential damages, exemplary damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other or further relief the Court deems just. Count III Breach ofcontract 61. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference the preceding allegations. 62. Defendants entered into express or implied contracts with Plaintiff and members of the class under which Defendants agreed to provide education to Plaintiffand members of the class to permit them to graduate from PBIT with an accredited academic credential. 63. Defendants breached tleir oblisations under these contracts because PBIT never attained accreditation. 64. Plaintiff and members of the class have been damaged as a proximate result of Defendants' actions because, among other reasons, they do not have the accredited academic credential that they were promised. 65. Defendants iue aware ofthe terms of their own conhact. 66. Upon information and belief, all copies of the contract between Plaintiff and Defendants are in the possession of Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the class of those similarly situated, requests tltat this Court enter judgment in her favor, and against Defendants for whatever damages Plaintiff is found to be entitled to recover, plus interest, costs and attomey's fees, including, but not limited to, direct damages, incidental damages, consequential damages,

10 exemplary damages, injunctive relief pre- and post-judgment inierest, and any other or further relief the Court deems just. Count [V Unjust Enrichment 67. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference the preceding allegations. 68. Defendants have received benefits from Plaintiffand members of the class in the form oftuition and fees, among other benehts. 69. Defendants have appreciated the benefits. 70. It is inequitable to allow Defendants to retain these benefits granted to them by Plaintiff and members of the class. WHEREFORE, Plaintifi on behalf of herself and the class of those similarly situated, requests that this Court enter judgment in her favor, and against Defendants for whatever damages Plaintiff is found to be entitled to recover, plus interest and costs, including but not limited to, direct damages, incidental damages, consequential damages, exemplary damages, iqiunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other or further relief the Court deems just. Count V Equitable Estopnel 71. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference the preceding allegations. 72. Defendants made representations to Plaintiffand members of the class regarding a material fact, including but not limited to representations that PBIT was in the process of 10

11 attaining accreditation and that it would have accreditation prior to Plaintiffs and class members' graduations. 73. Defendants' representations are contrary to a later-asserted position. 74. Plaintiff and members of the class relied on Defendants' representations. 75. Plaintiff and members of the class sufilered a detrimental change in position caused by their reliance on Defendants' representations. WHEREFORE, Plaintifl on behalf of herself and the class of those similarly situated, requests that this Court enter judgment in her favor, and against Defendants for whatever damages Plaintiff is found to be entitled to recover, plus interest and costs, including, but not limited to, direct damages, incidental damages, consequential damages, exemplary damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other or further relief the Court deems just. Count VI' Violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act 76. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference the preceding allegations. 77. Defendana violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. $ et. seq. and Plaintiffand members of the class have suffered actual damages as a result ofdefendants' violation ofthis act. 78. Defendants engaged in deceptive acts and unfair practices by misrepresenting the extent or nature of PBIT's accreditation. 11

12 79. Defendants engaged in deceptive acts and unfair practices by representing to Plaintiff and members of the class that PBIT was in the process of attaining accreditation and that it would have accreditation prior to Plaintiffs and class members' graduations. 80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violation of this act, Plaintiffand members of the class have suffered actual damages including, but not limited to, payment of tuition to PBIT for receipt ofan unaccredited academic credential. WHEREFORE, Plaintifl on behalf of herself and the class of those similarly situated, requests that this Court enter judgment in her favor, and against Defendants for whatever damages Plaintiffis found to be entitled to recover, plus interes! costs and attomey's fees, preand post-judgment interest, and any other or further relief the Court deems just. Dated: fir*rt*,.a8, /,cil" 4100 RCA Boulevard, Suite I l0 Palm Beach Gardens, FL ; (fax) dlovell@drewlovellpa.com Of Counsel: TI{E GOOGASIAN FIRM. P.C. Thomas H. Howlett (P57346) Dean M. Googasian (P Telegraph Road Bloomfield Hills, MI I 38 thowlett@goo gas ian.com dsoogapia.n@gooeasian.com 12

13 JURYDEMAND Plaintiffhereby demands a trial by Attomeys for Plaintiff 13