FL Supreme Court to hear arguments in UF COVID-19 shutdown lawsuit

GAINESVILLE, Fla. - The Florida Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday over the COVID-19 shutdown and how it impacted students at the University of Florida. 

Classes at universities across Florida went to online-only from March to August 2020, but students say they were still charged for certain on-campus services that they weren't allowed to use.

READ: Publix announces 8 limited-time ice cream flavors for summer

That includes fees for transportation, healthcare, and athletics services, totaling nearly $82 per credit hour on top of tuition, the lawsuit alleges. The class-action lawsuit calls for those fees to be returned to students and is one of numerous similar cases that were filed in Florida and across the country. 

Attorneys for UF graduate student Anthony Rojas went to the Supreme Court last year after a divided panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal said an Alachua County circuit judge should have dismissed the lawsuit. 

"Reduced to its core, UF’s argument is that it did not have to provide any services in exchange for the fees it charged, because UF allegedly did not specifically put in writing that it would provide services in exchange for those fees," the brief said. "This argument defies both common sense and Florida law." 

A key issue is whether UF breached a contract with Rojas. The appeals court’s majority opinion concluded that "assorted documents attached to the complaint do not constitute an express written contract." 

As a result, it said UF is shielded by sovereign immunity, a legal concept that generally protects government agencies from liability. 

"One of the things we pay for is the gym," Anthony Rojas said. "I worked at the gym, and it closed. We thought, ‘Oh we have these people’s money, but we're not going to get anything for it.'"

Under sovereign immunity, agencies can face breach-of-contract lawsuits if it is shown that contracts have been violated. In a January brief, attorneys for the university supported the appeals court’s conclusion about a lack of a contract. 

SIGN UP: Click here to sign up for the FOX 13 daily newsletter

"Petitioner’s (Rojas’) complaint alleges an ‘express’ contract for the payment of fees requiring the university to provide ‘specific on-campus services and resources,’" the UF brief said. "The university does not deny that it must provide ‘educational services’ in exchange for tuition and fees paid, but petitioner does not present any document requiring on-campus services and facilities to be provided in the Spring and Summer 2020 semesters for the fees that were paid. Thus, there is no express, written contract for in-person services and resources as petitioner demands in his complaint." 

Oral arguments are set to begin Wednesday morning.

The News Service of Florida contributed to this report.