University of Florida closure case due to COVID-19 moved to Supreme Court

TALLAHASSEE, Florida. – A potential class action lawsuit has been filed in the Florida Supreme Court over a dispute over whether the University of Florida should refund student fees due to campus closures at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lawyers for UF graduate student Anthony Rojas filed a notice this week that is the first step towards a Supreme Court case. The move comes after a division of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals said in November that the Alachua County District Judge should have dismissed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement of fees paid for transportation, medical, and athletic services that were not provided from – for a malfunction.

[TRENDING: ‘Terrifying video’ shows robbery of Amazon delivery driver| Bill to penalize left-lane drivers | Death investigation shuts down I-4 in Orlando | Become a News 6 Insider]

The UF case is one of many similar lawsuits filed statewide and nationally after students were sent home from campuses in 2020 to try to prevent the spread of the virus. The classes were held online.

The notice, posted Friday on the Supreme Court’s website, does not cite the arguments Rojas’ lawyers will make. But it states that the decision of the 1st District Court of Appeal “clearly and directly contradicts the decision of another District Court of Appeal on the same point of law.”

Florida’s 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last year denied a request from the University of South Florida to dismiss a similar potential class action lawsuit filed on behalf of student Valerie Marie Moore. The Supreme Court on January 5 refused to hear USF’s appeal.

As another example of conflicting judgments on this issue, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a similar case involving Miami Dade College.

In the UF case, Rojas argued that the university was in breach of contract when it failed to provide fee-related services. But in the November 22 majority decision of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Rachel Nordby wrote that “the various documents attached to the complaint do not constitute an express written agreement.”

As a result, she wrote that the UF is protected by sovereign immunity, a legal concept that generally shields public authorities from liability. Under sovereign immunity, agencies may face breach of contract lawsuits if contracts are proven to have been breached.

“We sympathize with Rojas and all other students whose on-campus experience has been curtailed and nullified by the university’s response to COVID-19,” Nordby wrote in a seven-page opinion, joined by Chief Justice Laurie Roe. “And if a sufficient agreement had been attached to his complaint, we would have approved the trial court (the decision not to dismiss the case) without hesitation. But without such express written consent…sovereign immunity prohibits the action.”

But Judge Scott Makar disagreed, pointing to a number of documents that Rojas’ lawyers included in the case, such as a so-called “financial liability agreement” and a statement of tuition and fees for the 2019-2020 academic year.

Makar wrote that “the explicit wording of the financial liability agreement by itself characterizes the relationship between the university and its students as an ‘agreement’ to be construed under Florida law.”

“Few doubt that there is any written contract that has legal force; otherwise, it would be difficult for the university to charge fees for tuition and services due to a lack of reciprocity,” he wrote.

Get today’s headlines in minutes with Your Florida Daily:

Content Source

Dallas Press News – Latest News:
Dallas Local News || Fort Worth Local News | Texas State News || Crime and Safety News || National news || Business News || Health News