FOLLOW US

A University of Florida student on Wednesday urged the state's high court to revive his lawsuit over the cancellation of on-campus services during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that sovereign immunity doesn't bar his breach-of-contract claim against the college.

Representing UF student Anthony Rojas, Douglas F. Eaton of Eaton & Wolk PL told the Florida Supreme Court in Tallahassee that it should overturn the dismissal of his client's lawsuit based on sovereign immunity. Eaton argued that the university was holistically bound by specific contractual terms to provide on-campus services in exchange for fees paid by students.

"Everybody agrees that there exists a contract here," Eaton said. "The question is what are the terms? And I think we can all agree that if all of the terms we set forth in our statement of case and facts were included on a single piece of paper, with two signatures on it, with the party and the University of Florida, this wouldn't be a case of controversy."

Rojas, a graduate student, brought his suit against the university in May 2020, accusing it of breaching a contract and unjustly enriching itself when it didn't refund certain fees after it shut down the campus during the pandemic to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Eaton said that "university bulletins and publications" can also comprise a contract between the college and the student, including what's stated on UF's website.

Eaton told the court that there are four specific fees required by Florida law that universities must charge on-campus students, although off-campus students don't have to pay them.

Justice Charles T. Canady pointed to the activity and service fee, which he said "shall be expended for lawful purposes to benefit the student body in general."

"It seems to me, when I read that, that suggests this is really something closer to what the university is arguing is more like a tax," Justice Canady said. "Just putting aside the sovereign immunity question, as a matter of just contract interpretation and once you accept that this is part of the contract, what is provided for here does not give an individual right to access particular services at a particular time."

Joseph W. Jacquot of Gunster Yoakley & Stewart PA, representing UF, told the Florida Supreme Court that Rojas' complaint "negates the existence of a prior express contract to waive sovereign immunity."

"The petitioner alleges the complaint attachments are an 'express contract for specific on-campus services during the spring and summer 2020 terms,'" Jacquot said. "Yet none of the parties agreed to such specific services. And the web pages are non-exclusive examples of possible uses of the fee."

Appearing for the amici curiae supporting the school, Myles S. Lynch of the Florida Office of the Attorney General said sovereign immunity can "only be waived by the Legislature through general law."

"As the party claiming the state waived its sovereign immunity, Rojas had the burden of identifying such a law in his complaint," Lynch said. "He did not attempt to meet that burden. He misinterprets this court's precedence as saying a state official waives sovereign immunity by entering into a contract. The state official entering into the contract does not and cannot waive a state's sovereign immunity themselves."

Justice John D. Couriel asked Lynch, "How is it in the interest of the state of Florida for the attorney general to be taking the position that the universities of the state should be judgment-proof with respect to the fees that they charge?"

"How can the state do business if that's the rule?" Justice Couriel added.

Lynch said that the Florida Legislature never intended for contract actions like Rojas' "to be on the table."

"Because the Legislature created this quasi taxpayer-government relationship, the Legislature decided to treat it differently," Lynch said. "There's no clearly intended contract to be covered for."

Rojas is represented by Douglas F. Eaton of Eaton & Wolk PL.

The University of Florida is represented by Joseph W. Jacquot of Gunster Yoakley & Stewart PA.

The amici are represented by Myles S. Lynch of the Florida Office of the Attorney General.

The case is Rojas v. University of Florida Board of Trustees, case number SC2023-0126, in the Supreme Court of Florida.