Goldstein v. University of Central Florida Board of Trustees
A UCF student brought a putative class action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment seeking refunds of mandatory fees after the university closed campus and went remote during COVID-19. The Sixth DCA affirmed dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds, holding that the documents attached to the complaint (a Statement of Charges and a Student Financial Responsibility Statement) did not constitute an express written contract obligating UCF to provide on-campus, in-person services, and that section 1009.24 imposes no such obligation or refund right that could be incorporated into a contract.
Key facts
- UCF student filed a putative class action against the University of Central Florida Board of Trustees seeking refunds of mandatory fees after the university closed campus and transitioned to remote instruction during COVID-19.
- The student alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment based on a Statement of Charges and Student Financial Responsibility Statement attached to the complaint, claiming the university failed to provide the on-campus, in-person services for which the mandatory fees were charged.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision aligns the Sixth DCA with Rojas (1st DCA), Verdini (3d DCA), and Heine (4th DCA) in rejecting COVID-era student fee refund class actions against Florida public universities, and distinguishes the Second… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.