Summary
The Eleventh Circuit held that sovereign immunity barred a suit seeking to require the Florida Prepaid College Board to honor alleged contractual benefits under college tuition savings plans. The court concluded that the requested relief amounted to specific performance of a contract to which the State was a party and therefore could not proceed under Ex parte Young. The court vacated the dismissal with prejudice and remanded for dismissal without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment barred the plaintiffs' suit under Ex parte Young because the requested injunction would require specific performance of contracts to which the State was a party.
- Whether the district court erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice after determining that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Holdings
- The suit could not proceed under Ex parte Young because the requested relief would require the State to specifically perform its obligations under contracts to which it was a party, and sovereign immunity therefore barred the action.
- The district court erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice; a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the plan purchasers’ suit may not proceed under Ex parte Young because it seeks relief that amounts to “specific performance of a contract to which the State was a party.”” (7)
“Although the district court correctly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, it erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice.” (9)
“We VACATE and REMAND for the district court to dismiss without prejudice.” (9)
Factual background
The Florida Prepaid College Board sold tuition savings plans promising to cover tuition at Florida public colleges and to transfer an amount capped by Florida public-college rates if a beneficiary attended a private or out-of-state college. After Florida authorized a separate tuition-differential fee in 2007, the Board amended the plan contracts to provide that the fee was not covered. When the plaintiffs' daughters later chose out-of-state colleges, the Board refused to transfer an amount equivalent to the tuition-differential fee. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Board members, alleging violations of the Contracts and Takings Clauses.
Procedural history
Darlow and Lavina sued members of the Florida Prepaid College Board after the Board declined to transfer to their daughters' out-of-state colleges an amount equivalent to a Florida tuition-differential fee. A magistrate judge recommended denying the Board members' sovereign-immunity motion, but the district court rejected that recommendation and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Eleventh Circuit held that sovereign immunity barred the requested relief but vacated the dismissal with prejudice and remanded for dismissal without prejudice.
Remand instructions
Remand for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.