As of March 2026, no settlement has been reached in the high-profile class action lawsuit against the University of Florida Board of Trustees concerning mandatory student fees paid during the 2020 COVID-19 campus shutdown. The case, formally captioned Rojas v. University of Florida Board of Trustees, remains active in the trial court following a landmark Florida Supreme Court decision and the university’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request. This article provides a factual overview of the litigation for students, alumni, and legal observers seeking clarity on its current status, procedural history, and potential implications under established Florida contract and sovereign immunity law.
Background of the Lawsuit
In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread campus closures across the United States, the University of Florida (UF), like many public institutions, shifted to remote learning. On-campus facilities and services were suspended for the spring and summer semesters. Students, however, had already paid mandatory fees tied to specific services under the university’s financial liability agreement and tuition statements. These included the activity and service fee, transportation access fee, health fee, and athletics fee.
Graduate student Anthony Rojas filed the putative class action in 2021, alleging breach of contract. The complaint asserted that UF failed to provide the paid-for services while requiring payment, and that the financial liability agreement—along with the tuition and fee statements—created an enforceable contractual obligation. Rojas sought refunds on behalf of himself and similarly situated students who paid the fees but did not receive the corresponding services. The suit did not seek tuition refunds but focused narrowly on these auxiliary fees.
This litigation is one of numerous similar actions filed nationwide after the pandemic. In Florida, parallel cases were brought against other state universities, many of which were stayed or dismissed pending resolution of the UF matter due to shared legal issues.
Procedural History and Key Court Rulings
The trial court in Alachua County initially dismissed an unjust enrichment claim but allowed the breach-of-contract claim to proceed, finding that the pleadings adequately alleged an express written contract. The University of Florida Board of Trustees appealed, arguing that sovereign immunity barred the claim.
In 2022, the First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the documents did not constitute a sufficiently specific express written contract to waive sovereign immunity under Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). The appellate court certified the question as one of great public importance.
On July 17, 2025, the Florida Supreme Court issued a 5-2 per curiam opinion quashing the First District’s decision. The high court held that sovereign immunity does not bar claims for breach of implied covenants or conditions in an express written contract entered by a governmental entity, provided those implied terms do not contradict, supplant, or override the express provisions. The Court rejected the requirement of “extraordinary specificity” in government contracts, noting that such a standard lacks support in Florida jurisprudence. It reframed the certified question and answered it in the negative: sovereign immunity does not preclude these types of breach claims.
The opinion emphasized a core principle of contract law: “when a party contracts to receive and pays for services a remedy will ordinarily be available if the other party subsequently fails to perform.” The case was remanded for further proceedings.
On August 28, 2025, the University of Florida withdrew its motion for rehearing before the Supreme Court. This action cleared the path for the class action to advance in the trial court, where issues such as class certification, the precise scope of any contractual obligations, and potential defenses remain to be litigated.
Legal Framework: Sovereign Immunity, Express Contracts, and Implied Covenants
Under Florida law, sovereign immunity generally protects state entities from suit unless waived by statute or express written contract. The Pan-Am doctrine recognizes a limited waiver for breach-of-contract claims when the state enters an express, written contract authorized by law. The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling clarified that this waiver extends to breaches of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, as long as they remain consistent with the contract’s express terms.
The decision aligns with longstanding contract principles applicable to both private and public entities while respecting the boundaries of sovereign immunity. It does not guarantee recovery or determine liability; those questions are reserved for the trial court on remand. The ruling has been cited as providing important guidance on how courts interpret student-university relationships in the context of mandatory fees.
Who May Be Affected and Potential Eligibility
The proposed class generally includes students enrolled at UF during the spring and summer 2020 semesters who paid the disputed mandatory fees but did not receive the associated on-campus services due to the shutdown. Exact class membership would be determined through the certification process, which has not yet occurred. Students who were already enrolled in fully online programs or who received equivalent remote accommodations may fall outside the class.
Similar fee-refund class actions have been certified or allowed to proceed at other Florida public universities, such as the University of South Florida, providing additional context for how these cases may unfold.
Comparison to Other Institutions and National Trends
Many universities nationwide reached settlements in COVID-era tuition and fee refund cases, often on a case-by-case or institutional basis rather than through universal refunds. Florida’s public universities have faced unique hurdles due to sovereign immunity doctrines not present at private institutions. The UF Supreme Court ruling may influence pending cases at other state schools, though each contract and set of facts must be evaluated independently.
No settlement has been reported in the UF matter as of the latest public records. Parties in complex class actions frequently explore negotiated resolutions after key legal thresholds—such as overcoming dispositive motions—are cleared, but any such outcome would require court approval following notice to the class and a fairness hearing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220.
Why This Matters for Students and the University
For current and former UF students, the case underscores the importance of understanding the contractual nature of university fee structures. It also highlights how public institutions balance fiscal responsibilities with student expectations during unforeseen disruptions. For the university, the litigation tests the scope of its contractual obligations under existing fee policies and may inform future emergency-response planning.
The outcome could affect budget allocations for auxiliary services and set precedent for how Florida courts interpret student agreements at public universities. However, no determination of liability or damages has been made, and the university continues to defend the claims vigorously.
Next Steps in the Litigation
With the case remanded, the trial court will address class certification, discovery, and any remaining dispositive motions. Appeals remain possible after final judgment. Students who believe they may be class members should monitor official court dockets or university communications, though participation is not automatic and would be governed by class notice procedures if certification is granted.
You May Also Like: Edward Jones Kingsview Advisors Lawsuit: High-Stakes Settlements & Precedents
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers with questions about their individual circumstances should consult a qualified attorney. Information is based on publicly available court records and news reports as of March 2026. Legal outcomes can change, and no prediction or guarantee of settlement or specific recovery is expressed or implied.
The University of Florida Class Action Lawsuit Settlement developments illustrate the evolving intersection of contract law, sovereign immunity, and higher-education policy in Florida. As the case proceeds, affected parties and legal professionals will continue to monitor proceedings in the trial court for further updates.