The opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
Appellant,
v.
VALERIEMARIE MOORE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Appellee.
No. 2D2023-1966
January 24, 2025
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for
Hillsborough County; Darren D. Farfante, Judge.
Richard C. McCrea, Jr., and Cayla M. Page of Greenberg Traurig, P.A.,
Tampa, for Appellant.
Douglas F. Eaton of Eaton & Wolk, PL, Miami, for Appellee.
BLACK, Judge.
The University of South Florida Board of Trustees appeals from the
nonfinal order granting ValerieMarie Moore's motion for class
certification. We affirm.
Our review of the nonfinal order granting class certification is for
an abuse of discretion. See Gundel v. AV Homes, Inc., 290 So. 3d 1080,
1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (quoting Waste Pro USA v. Vision Constr. ENT,
Inc., 282 So. 3d 911, 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)). The trial court's factual
findings must be supported by competent substantial evidence, and we
review its conclusions of law de novo. See id. (quoting Waste Pro USA,
282 So. 3d at 916). "The trial court's inquiry at the class certification
stage is restricted 'to the substance of the motion and not the merits of
the cause of action or questions of fact for a jury.' " Waste Pro USA, 282
So. 3d at 916 (quoting Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91,
105 (Fla. 2011)). And after conducting "a rigorous analysis to determine
that the elements of [Florida Rule of Civil Procedure] 1.220, the class
action rule, have been met," Gundel, 290 So. 3d at 1084 (alteration in
original) (quoting Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 867-68 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2006)), the court "should resolve doubts with regard to certification
in favor of certification, especially in the early stages of litigation," Sosa,
73 So. 3d at 105.
Ms. Moore filed a breach of contract action on behalf of herself and
other University of South Florida students against the Board of Trustees.
Ms. Moore sought class certification based on the claim that fees had
been paid for on-campus services that the University of South Florida did
not provide to any student during the spring, summer, and fall 2020
academic semesters and the spring 2021 academic semester due to the
closure of its campuses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Following an evidentiary hearing and after consideration of the
evidence and the parties' filings, the trial court issued a detailed order
setting forth the necessary analysis, determining that the elements of
rule 1.220 applicable in this case have been met, and defining the class
as "all students enrolled at the University of South Florida who paid fees
for services, facilities, resources, activities, and/or events that were not
2
provided to students during" the identified academic semesters. Ms.
Moore is an appropriate class representative: her claim is typical of the
defined class as a student having paid fees for on-campus services
pursuant to a contract for at least one of the identified semesters. See
Ferreiro v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., 928 So. 2d 374, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
Further, class certification is appropriate so long as fees were paid and
not the subject of waivers, regardless of whether the students themselves
paid the fees or the fees were paid by other means on behalf of the
students. Cf. Disc. Sleep of Ocala, LLC v. City of Ocala, 245 So. 3d 842,
849-50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ("A case or controversy exists if a party
alleges an actual or legal injury that the relief sought will address. . . .
Appellants have alleged an economic injury, fulfilling the actual injury
requirement of standing in their claim for declaratory relief and damages
against the City." (citation omitted)); Little v. Grand Canyon Univ., No.
CV-20-00795-PHX-SMB, 2022 WL 266726, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2022)
("[The] argument that Plaintiff lacks standing because his parents paid
his fees and costs must be rejected. While Plaintiff's parents paid his
fees and costs, he is ultimately the individual who had a contract with
[the university]. In other words, if he had failed to pay, he—not his
parents—would be on the hook. It does not matter how he procured the
money to pay his obligations to [the university], it was ultimately his
obligation."); Salerno v. Fla. S. Coll., 488 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1216-17
(M.D. Fla. 2020) ("Florida Southern College argues that the[] facts
demonstrate that the only relationship from which any legal obligations
may arise is between the College and [the student]. The Court agrees.
Notably, [the student's mother] does not rebut this evidence or
adequately explain how any action on Florida So[u]thern College's part
injured her. It is also of note that the lack of injury to [the mother] is
3
clear regardless of whether [she] provided financial support to her
daughter. That arrangement was between mother and daughter.").
The court's order is supported by competent substantial evidence
and the law; the court did not abuse its discretion in granting Ms.
Moore's motion.
Affirmed.
MORRIS and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
4