FELIPE RIVADENEIRA
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court cannot dismiss a breach of contract claim against a state university on sovereign immunity grounds at the motion to dismiss stage when the plaintiff has proffered documents that could potentially constitute an express contract; the determination is more appropriate at summary judgment.
[1] A state university's sovereign immunity defense to a breach of contract claim cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage when the plaintiff has proffered documents…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a determination regarding whether the parties' 'legal, binding contract' included a promise to provide on-campus services in exchange for fees is more appropriate at the summary judgment stage”
Court's reasoning for reversing dismissal based on sovereign immunity at motion to dismiss stage
Felipe Rivadeneira filed a class action suit against the University of South Florida Board of Trustees alleging breach of contract for the university'…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Class Action Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Felipe Rivadeneira appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his class action suit against the University of South Florida Board of Trustees (USF) with prejudice on the ground of sovereign immunity. In University of South Florida Board of Trustees v. Moore, 347 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), this court upheld the trial court's denial of sovereign
immunity at the motion to dismiss stage based on its conclusion that Moore had proffered documents that could potentially constitute an express contract. We held that "a determination regarding whether the parties' 'legal, binding contract' included a promise to provide on-campus services in exchange for fees is more appropriate at the summary judgment stage." Id. at 549.
We are unable to distinguish this case from Moore, and being bound to follow that case, we must reverse. As in Moore, our ruling is "without prejudice to USF's right to assert the defense [of sovereign immunity] in a motion for summary judgment." See id. at 551. We also certify the following question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court: SHOULD A MOTION TO DISMISS A BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM AGAINST A STATE UNIVERSITY ALLEGING THE UNIVERSITY'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ITS STUDENTS WITH ACCESS TO ON-CAMPUS SERVICES AND FACILITIES BE GRANTED BASED ON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IF THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES BUT THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS ALLEGED TO COMPRISE THAT CONTRACT DO NOT SPECIFICALLY OBLIGATE THE UNIVERSITY TO PROVIDE THE ON-CAMPUS SERVICES AND FACILITIES THAT THE STATE UNIVERSITY ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO PROVIDE?
Reversed, remanded, and question certified. KELLY, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.