Lafleur v. State Univ. Sys. of Fla.

J. LAFLEUR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF FLORIDA, et al., Defendants.

No. 8:20-cv-1665-KKM-AAS

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

August 2, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants move to dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended complaint and to strike the plaintiffs' claim for punitive and treble damages. (Docs. 20, 36). Plaintiffs oppose the defendants' motion. (Docs. 31, 41). The undersigned RECOMMENDS that the defendants' motion (Doc. 20) be GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND

This putative class action brings claims by students who attend universities in the State of Florida and request a return of a portion of tuition and fees because the universities moved classes to online learning in response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Doc. 15). Plaintiffs Jarrett LaFleur, Amber Grey, Lindsey Relue, Joshua Harkness Stacey Lee Field, Nick Capps, and Alyssa Coates are students enrolled at universities within the State University System of Florida. (Id.). The plaintiffs allege they did not receive the in-person benefits and services they contracted and paid for when Florida universities transitioned to remote online learning in Spring 2020 and canceled events, clubs, and organizations. (Id.).

In their five-count amended complaint, Plaintiff LaFleur and the other six named plaintiffs sue Defendants State University System of Florida (State University System) and Timothy M Cerio, Richard Corcoran, Aubrey Edge, Patricia Frost, H Wayne Huizenga, Jr., Darlene Luccio Jordan, Sydney Kitson Charles H. Lydecker, Brian Lamb, Alan Levine, Ally Schneider, Steven M. Scott, Eric Silagy, William Self, Kent Sermon, and Norman D. Tripp in their capacity as members of the Board of Governors (the Board of Governors) (collectively, the defendants), ^[1] alleging state and federal claims. (Id.).

Specifically, the plaintiffs' amended complaint asserts claims against the defendants for breach of contract (Count I), violations of the Takings Clause and due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts II and III), conversion (Count IV), and unjust enrichment (Count V). (Id.). The defendants move to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint and move to strike the plaintiffs' claim for punitive and treble damages. (Doc. 20). The plaintiffs responded in opposition to the defendants' motion. (Doc. 31). The defendants replied in opposition to the plaintiffs' response. (Doc. 36). The plaintiffs sur-replied. (Doc. 41). Both parties filed supplemental authority supporting their respective positions. (See Docs. 23, 33, 48, 50, 52, 71, 73).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

This court has diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), and federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343(a)(3). Substantive issues for state law claims, including sovereign immunity, are governed by Florida law. See Fluid Dynamics, LLC v. City of Jacksonville, 752 Fed.Appx. 924, 925-26 n.1 (11th Cir. 2018).

“The Eleventh Amendment restricts the judicial power under Article III.” Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 72-73 (1996). Asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity tests subject matter jurisdiction. Seaborn v. State of Fla., Dep't of Corr., 143 F.3d 1405, 1407 (11th Cir. 1998). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) governs motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter. Meyer v. Fay Servicing, LLC, 385 F.Supp.3d 1235, 1238 (M.D. Fla. 2019). These challenges take two forms-facial and factual. Id. at 1239. On facial attacks, like this one, “the Court takes the allegations in the complaint as true.” Id.

Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim follow the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard. A complaint must recite “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A facially plausible claim allows a “court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

III. ANAYLSIS

The defendants argue the plaintiffs' amended complaint should be dismissed because: (1) the State University System is not a legal entity with the capacity to be sued (Doc. 20, pp. 3-6; Doc. 36, pp. 1-2); (2) sovereign immunity bars the plaintiffs' state law claims (Doc. 20, pp. 6-11; Doc. 36, pp. 2-3); (3) the defendants do not qualify as a “person” under Section 1983 and plaintiffs' constitutional claims are barred (Doc. 20, pp. 11-12); and (4) the plaintiffs' state law claims fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted (Id. at pp. 13-17). The defendants also argue the plaintiffs' claim for punitive and treble damages should be stricken and the plaintiffs' class claims should be dismissed. (Doc. 20, pp. 17-20; Doc. 36, pp. 3-4).

The plaintiffs respond that: (1) the State University System is a legal entity created by the Florida Constitution (Doc. 31, p. 4); (2) the defendants waived sovereign immunity (Id. at pp. 5-11); (3) the constitutional claims should not be dismissed (Doc. 31, p. 11; Doc. 41); and (4) the amended complaint adequately states a claim for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion (Doc. 31, pp. 12-18; Doc. 41). The plaintiffs also argue punitive and treble damages are available, and any dismissal should be without prejudice. (Doc. 31, pp. 18-20).

A. State University System's Capacity to be Sued

The capacity of an entity to be sued is governed by the law of the state where the district court is located. Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b); United States v. Olavarrieta, 812 F.2d 640 (11th Cir. 1987). Under Florida law, only legal entities, personal or corporate, can be sued. Florida Med. Assoc., Inc. v. Spires, 153 So.2d 756 (Fla 1st DCA 1963). The Florida Constitution empowers the Florida Legislature to authorize suits against the state or any of its agencies. See Daniels v. State Rd. Dep't., 170 So.2d 846, 849 (Fla. 1964) (“[m]any state agencies, although purely public bodies, are or have been in the past designated as a ‘body corporate' by statute and given many of the attributes of a private corporation, such as the right to sue and be sued”).

The State University System, including the board of governors and boards of trustees, was created by Article IX, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution. Section 7 of Article IX provides, in part:

(b) State University System. There shall be a single state university system comprised of all public universities. A board of trustees shall administer each public university and a board of governors shall govern the state university system.

(c) Local Boards of Trustees. Each local constituent university shall be administered by a board of trustees consisting of thirteen members dedicated to the purposes of the state university system. The board of governors shall establish the powers and duties of the board of trustees. Each board of trustees shall consist of six citizen members appointed by the governor and five citizen members appointed by the board of governors. The appointed members shall be confirmed by the senate and serve staggered terms of five years as provided by law. The chair of the faculty senate, or the equivalent, and the present of the student body of the university shall also be members.

(d) Statewide Board of Governors. The board of governors shall be a body corporate consisting of seventeen members. The board shall operate, regulate, control, and be fully responsible for the management of the whole university system. These responsibilities shall include, but not be limited to, defining the distinctive mission of each constituent university and its articulation with free public schools and community colleges, ensuring the wellplanned coordination and operation of the system, and avoiding wasteful duplication of facilities or programs.

The board's management shall be subject to the powers of the legislature to appropriate for the expenditure of funds, and the board shall account for such expenditures as provided by law. The governor shall appoint to the board fourteen citizens dedicated to the purposes of the state university system. The appointed members shall be confirmed by the senate and serve staggered terms of seven years as provided by law. The commissioner of education, the chair of the advisory council of faculty senates, or the equivalent, shall also be members of the board.

Art. IX, § 7(b)-(d), Fla. Const. The board of governors is the responsible constitutional body for establishing system-wide policies and the boards of trustees are responsible for implementing these policies in their respective institutions. See id.; § 1001.70, Fla. Stat.

Under Section 1001.72(1), Florida Statutes, each state university's board of trustees “shall be a public body corporate . . . with all of the powers of a body corporate, including the powers to . . . sue and be sued, to plead and be impleaded in all courts of law of equity . . .” Similarly, the board of governors is a body corporate under Florida law. See Article IX, § 7(d), Fla. Const.; § 1001.70, Fla. Stat.

The plaintiffs provide no statutory provision or otherwise direct where the Florida Legislature provided the State University System with the capacity to be sued.^[2] The Board of Governors-not the State University System-is the correct entity to sue. See § 1001.72(1), Fla. Stat. Thus, the claims alleged against the State University System should be dismissed. See U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Univ., No. 2:06-CV-326-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL...