D'Amario v. The University of Tampa

Background

This was a class action brought by Jade D’Amario and Joshua Dunn on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against The University of Tampa. The proposed settlement class consisted of students and former students who paid, or had payment made on their behalf, for tuition and fees for educational services during the Spring 2020 semester and who remained enrolled as of March 1, 2020.

The court had conditionally certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and had preliminarily approved the parties’ settlement. The court then considered the settlement, the motion for final approval, the motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and incentive awards, the parties’ arguments, and the record at the October 18, 2022 final approval hearing.

Rulings on the Settlement

The court found that the notice provided to the settlement class through email, U.S. mail, and a settlement website complied with Rule 23 and due process. The notice informed class members about the case, their rights to object or exclude themselves, and their right to appear at the final approval hearing. Five individuals timely requested exclusion and were not part of the settlement class.

The court also found that The University of Tampa properly and timely notified the appropriate government officials under the Class Action Fairness Act. After reviewing the settlement, the court found it fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class. The court relied on the value of the settlement compared with the claims’ disputed factual and legal issues, asserted defenses, litigation risks, discovery completed, and the likelihood of success. It also found that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations and that there was no collusion.

The court found that the class representatives and class counsel adequately represented the settlement class. It finally approved the settlement in all respects, directed the parties to implement it, and incorporated the settlement agreement into the final judgment.

Dismissal, Release, and Bar on Further Claims

The court dismissed the action on the merits and with prejudice. Upon the settlement’s effective date, the plaintiffs and all non-opt-out settlement class members—and the other persons and entities covered by the settlement agreement—were deemed to release the University and the other released parties from claims arising from the University’s actions or decisions concerning the Spring 2020 academic term. The release included claims concerning the end of physically in-person, on-campus education and services and the transition to remote education.

The release applied to claims that were brought or could have been brought in the action, including specified known, unknown, actual, potential, filed, unfiled, fixed, contingent, claimed, and unclaimed claims. The court ordered that the release and settlement would have preclusive effect on covered pending and future proceedings. Settlement class members were permanently barred and enjoined from filing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating in actions based on or arising from the released claims.

Fees, Incentive Awards, and Administration

The court approved $1,133,333.33 in attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, including class counsel’s unreimbursed litigation costs and expenses. It also approved incentive awards of $10,000 each for Jade D’Amario and Joshua Dunn based on their efforts and commitment on behalf of the settlement class. The payments were to be made according to the settlement agreement.

Any settlement payments not cashed within 90 days after issuance will return to The University of Tampa for a special student-focused scholarship fund administered by the University. The parties could make amendments or modifications consistent in all material respects with the final judgment and not limiting settlement class members’ rights. Until the settlement’s effective date, the court retained jurisdiction over matters involving administration, completion, enforcement, and interpretation of the settlement agreement. The court directed entry of the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and found no reason to delay enforcement or appeal.

Classification Basis

This is classified as a procedural order because the court approved a settlement and entered a judgment ending the case without deciding, through adversarial merits findings, which side would prevail on the underlying claims.