Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

WENDY RUIZ; NOEL SAUCEDO;

)

CAROLINE ROA; KASSANDRA

)

ROMERO; and JANETH AMERICA

)

PEREZ, on behalf of themselves and

)

all others similarly situated,

)

Civil Case No. _________________

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

GERARD ROBINSON, Florida

)

Commissioner of Education, sued

)

in his official capacity; FRANK T.

)

BROGAN, Chancellor of the State

)

University System, sued in his official

)

capacity;

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

1. This action challenges the policies of the Florida State Board of Education and the

Florida Board of Governors that treat United States citizen students who reside in Florida as

“non-residents” solely because their parents are undocumented immigrants. These policies

invidiously discriminate against such United States citizen students in violation of the United

States Constitution.

2. Florida’s public colleges and universities classify applicants and students who are

unable to show that their parents have lawful immigration status as “non-residents,” even though

the applicants are United States citizens who reside in Florida. Being classified as a non-resident

more than triples the cost of tuition. As a result, many talented American students must either

1

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 2 of 16
forego higher education or incur extraordinary costs, in both money and time, in order to obtain the same education made available to other Florida residents at a small fraction of the cost.
3. The individuals who bring this action were born in the United States, graduated from Florida high schools, and have lived in Florida for many years. Some have lived in Florida all of their lives. They went to the same high schools, held down the same part-time jobs, and participated in the same after-school activities as their counterparts who are granted in-state tuition status. The only difference between the plaintiffs and the students granted in-state tuition is that the plaintiffs cannot prove that their parents have lawful immigration status. Defendants’ actions violate fundamental constitutional rights. Plaintiff students seek declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
PARTIES PLAINTIFFS 4. Plaintiff WENDY RUIZ is a United States citizen who was born in Miami, Florida, in 1992, and lives with her parents in Miami-Dade County. Wendy has a Florida birth certificate, a Florida high school diploma, a Florida voter’s registration card, a Florida bank account, a Florida learner’s license, and other proof of her continuous residence in Florida. Wendy is an honors student in her second year at Miami Dade College. Wendy, however, is classified as a “non-resident” based on the inability to show proof of her parents’ lawful immigration status. As a result of being charged the higher “non-resident” tuition rate, Wendy cannot afford to take a full course load and will need three years to complete her two-year degree at Miami Dade College. 5. In January 2010, Wendy tried to enroll at Florida International University (“FIU”), located in Miami, Florida. FIU’s online application process required Wendy to provide
2

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 3 of 16
information about her parents’ lawful immigration status, a requirement she could not meet. When Wendy was unable to provide this information, FIU’s application did not permit her to proceed, and she was therefore unable to enroll in the university.
6. Plaintiff NOEL SAUCEDO is a United States citizen who was born in Miami, Florida, in 1991, and lives with his parents in Miami-Dade County. Noel has a Florida birth certificate, a Florida driver’s license, a Florida bank account, and a Florida high school diploma. Noel is a second-year student at Miami Dade College and has resided in Florida since 2006. In the spring of 2010, Noel was awarded a full scholarship for the two-year program at Miami Dade College. Unable to show his parents’ lawful immigration status, however, Noel was classified as a “non-resident,” thereby requiring him to pay the higher tuition rate and reducing his scholarship to a negligible amount. As a result of being charged the higher “non-resident” tuition rate, Noel cannot afford to take a full course load and will need three years to complete his two-year degree at Miami Dade College.
7. On or around March 2010, Noel tried to enroll at Florida International University (“FIU”), located in Miami, Florida. FIU’s online application process required Noel to provide information about his parents’ lawful immigration status, a requirement he was not able to meet. When Noel was unable to provide this information, FIU’s application did not permit him to proceed, and he was therefore unable to enroll in the university.
8. Plaintiff CAROLINE ROA is a United States citizen who was born in Miami, Florida, in 1993 and has lived in Miami-Dade County her entire life. Caroline lives with her sister in Miami-Dade County, where her only living parent, her father, also lives. Caroline has a Florida birth certificate, a Florida high school diploma, a Florida voter’s registration card, a
3

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 4 of 16
Florida bank account, and other proof of her continuous residence in Florida. She aspires to study psychology and work for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
9. On or around August 2011, after Caroline was accepted to Miami Dade College, school officials informed her that she did not qualify for in-state tuition, even though she had resided in Miami-Dade County since birth. School officials explained to Caroline that her residency for tuition purposes was based on her father’s legal residence. Because Caroline could not show proof of her father’s legal immigration presence in the United States, she could not qualify for in-state tuition rates. Unable to afford non-resident tuition rates, Caroline has not enrolled in college. Instead, she works two jobs in the hope of one day being able to afford college.
10. Plaintiff KASSANDRA ROMERO is a United States citizen who was born in Los Angeles, California, in 1993, and lives with her family in Palm Beach County, Florida. Kassandra has resided in Florida with her family since 1998. She has a California birth certificate, a Florida high school diploma, a Florida driver’s license, and other proof of her continuous residence in Florida. Although Kassandra registered for classes at Palm Beach State College, in June 2011, school officials informed her that she would have to show proof of her parents’ legal immigration status in order to qualify for in-state tuition rates. Unable to meet that requirement and unable to afford non-resident tuition rates, Kassandra withdrew from college. She currently works at a restaurant.
11. Plaintiff JANETH AMERICA PEREZ is a United States citizen who was born in Miami, Florida, in 1992. She has a Florida birth certificate, a Florida high school diploma, a Florida driver’s license, and other proof of her continuous residence in Florida. Janeth lives with her mother in Homestead, Florida. She has resided in Florida her entire life. Janeth applied
4

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 5 of 16
and was accepted to Miami Dade College, where she intended to study to become an earth science teacher. If able to complete her education and become a teacher, Janeth plans to teach in her home state of Florida.
12. Upon enrolling at Miami Dade College, Janeth was classified as an out-of-state student because she was unable to show documentation of her mother’s immigration status. Because of the higher costs of out-of-state tuition, Janeth was forced to drop her classes and currently works at a plant nursery.
DEFENDANTS 13. Defendant GERARD ROBINSON is the Florida Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner is the Executive Director of the Department of Education and is the chief executive officer for the state’s “K-20” system. Florida’s K-20 system includes the state’s 28 community colleges (also known as the “Florida College System”), of which Miami Dade College and Palm Beach State College are a part. The Florida State Board of Education, a division of the Department of Education, is a body corporate and the chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in Florida, including the state’s community college system. The Florida State Board of Education oversees the adoption and enforcement of all laws and rules related to education. It is statutorily charged with adopting rules to determine the residency status of community college students for tuition purposes. Defendant Robinson is sued in his official capacity. 14. Defendant FRANK T. BROGAN is Chancellor of the State University System. As Chancellor, Defendant Brogan leads the Florida Board of Governors and serves as the chief executive and administrative officer of the State University System. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida
5

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 6 of 16
International University. The Florida Board of Governors operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Board of Governors is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. The Chancellor of the State University System consults with the Commissioner of Education to establish statewide K-20 advisory groups and the Articulation Coordinating Committee, which makes recommendations related to statewide policies on admissions, articulation, and other matters affecting the State University System. Defendant Brogan is sued in his official capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the United States Constitution and laws of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of Plaintiffs’ civil rights and to secure equitable or other relief for the violation of those rights. 16. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57. 17. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the Southern District of Florida. Each one of the class representatives lives in the Southern District of Florida, applied to colleges or universities operating in the Southern District of Florida, and was deemed not to be a Florida resident for tuition purposes in the Southern District of Florida.
6

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 7 of 16
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 18. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 19. The class is defined as: All past, present, and future United States citizens who are, were, or will be able to establish Florida residency for purposes of determining in-state tuition rates at Florida public institutions of higher learning but for their parents’ immigration status at the time of the application to or matriculation in such institutions. 20. The class meets all the requirements of Rule 23(a). Although the precise size of the class cannot be determined at this time, statistical evidence shows that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 21. Roughly 4.5 million U.S.-born citizens of unauthorized immigrant parents live in the United States. Pew Hispanic Center, Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010, at 13, Feb. 1, 2011, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf. Approximately 825,000 unauthorized immigrants reside in Florida alone. Id. at 14. Moreover, the children of unauthorized immigrants make up 6.8% of the students enrolled in the nation’s elementary and secondary schools. Pew Hispanic Center, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, April 14, 2009, at i, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdf. 22. There are questions of law or fact common to the class, including: (1) whether Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring a Florida resident to show proof of his or her parents’ legal immigration status in order to establish residency for the purpose of in-state tuition violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; and (2) whether Defendants’ policy and practice are preempted by the United States Constitution and federal law. These questions predominate over any questions affecting only the individual plaintiffs.
7

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 8 of 16
23. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class because Defendants’ policy and practice of denying in-state tuition rates to United States citizen children who reside in Florida based on their parents’ immigration status applies with equal force to the proposed class.
24. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all members of the proposed class because they seek relief on behalf of the class as a whole and have no interests antagonistic to other members of the class. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel with extensive expertise in class action litigation, including litigation regarding constitutional law.
25. Finally, Defendants have acted and will act on grounds generally applicable to the class in creating and implementing the policy and practice of denying in-state tuition to United States citizen children of undocumented immigrants, thereby making appropriate final declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 26. Florida Statutes Section 1009.21 provides for the classification of students as residents or non-residents for the purpose of assessing tuition in institutions of post-secondary education, including Florida colleges and universities. 27. Under Section 1009.21, “legal resident” or “resident” is defined as “a person who has maintained his or her residence in this state for the preceding year, has purchased a home which is occupied by him or her as his or her residence, or has established a domicile in this state pursuant to s. 222.17.” Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(1)(d). The statutory definition of “legal resident” or “resident” does not mention immigration status. 28. Section 1009.21 defines a “dependent child” as “any person, whether or not living with his or her parent, who is eligible to be claimed by his or her parent as a dependent under the federal income tax code.” Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(1)(a). Dependent students are those who are
8

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 9 of 16
under age 24 and claimed as dependents on their parents’ tax returns, if filed. A student younger than 24 may be classified as independent if the student is married, the student has his or her own dependents, or the student served in the United States military. See Guidelines on Florida Residency for Tuition Purposes, § 3.1 (Oct. 27, 2010), http://files.facts.usf.edu/pdfDocuments/manuals/Residency_Guidelines_October_2010.pdf.
29. For a dependent child to qualify as a resident for tuition purposes, “his or her parents must have established legal residence in this state and must have maintained legal residence in this state for at least 12 consecutive months immediately prior to his or her initial enrollment in an institution of higher education.” Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(2)(a)(1). The statute does not require any information relative to the parents’ federal immigration status.
30. An applicant for admission need only “make a statement as to his or her length of residence in the state” and “establish that his or her presence or, if the applicant is a dependent child, the presence of his or her parents in the state currently is, and during the requisite 12month qualifying period was, for the purpose of maintaining a bona fide domicile, rather than for the purpose of maintaining a mere temporary residence or abode incident to enrollment in an institution of higher education.” Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(2)(a)(2).
31. Florida Statutes Section 1009.21(13) directs the Florida State Board of Education and the Florida Board of Governors to adopt rules to implement the statutory law regarding the determination of resident status for tuition purposes.
32. The Florida State Board of Education’s administrative rule governs residency determinations for the Florida College System’s community colleges. F.A.C. § 6A-10.044.
33. The Florida Board of Governors’ administrative rule governs residency determinations for the State University System. F.A.C. § 72-1.001.
9

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 10 of 16

34. These administrative rules require that a non-United States citizen seeking to

establish Florida residency for tuition purposes present “evidence . . . verifying that he or she is

legally present in the United States.” F.A.C. §§ 6A-10.044(4) and 72-1.001(5). If the student is

a dependent, the parent must present evidence of the parent’s legal immigration status. F.A.C. §

72.1-001(5)(a)(3).

35. The rules further provide that both the student “and parent if the student is a

dependent, must present evidence of legal presence in the United States.” F.A.C. §§ 6A-

10.044(4)(a), 72-1.001(5)(a)3 and (5).

36. Miami Dade College’s policy, for example, provides that “non-U.S. citizen

students and/or parents must provide evidence of eligible legal immigration status in the U.S.

before being considered for Florida resident fees.” Miami Dade College, Florida Residency for

Tuition

Classification

-

Required

Documentation,

http://www.mdc.edu/main/flresidency/classification.asp.

TUITION DIFFERENTIAL

37. Tuition rates for students classified as non-residents are dramatically higher than

those for students classified as Florida residents.

38. At Miami Dade College, the cost per term in the two-year associate degree

programs is $1,265.76 for residents, compared to $4,523.64 for those classified as non-residents.

The cost per term in the four-year baccalaureate programs is $1,399.68 for residents, compared

to $6,246.24 for non-residents. See Miami Dade College, Tuition and Fees Academic Year 2011-

2012, http://www.mdc.edu/main/academics/tuition.asp. Per year, those classified as non-resident

students have to pay $6,515.76 more in tuition and fees toward an associate’s degree, and

$9,693.12 more toward a bachelor’s degree than a resident student.

10

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 11 of 16
39. At Palm Beach State College, resident students in the associate degree programs are charged only $96 per credit hour, whereas those classified as non-residents are charged $349. For 24 credits over the academic year, those classified as non-residents are charged $6,072 more in tuition toward an associate’s degree. Resident students in the bachelor’s degree program are charged $113.64 per credit hour, whereas those classified as non-residents are charged $520.90. For 24 credits over the academic year, those classified as non-residents are charged $9,774.24 more in tuition toward a bachelor’s degree than those classified as residents. See Palm Beach State College, Tuition and Fees 2011-2012, http://www.palmbeachstate.edu/TuitionFees.xml.
40. At Florida International University, the annual tuition and fees total $5,678.02 for Florida residents, compared to $18,077.02 for those classified as non-residents. Per year, nonresident students are required to pay $12,399 more in tuition and fees. See Florida International University, Costs: Academic Year 2011-2012, http://admissions.fiu.edu/costs/costs.php.
41. In short, United States citizen students who reside in Florida but whose parents are undocumented immigrants are charged three to four times as much as other Florida residents for the same education at Florida’s public colleges and universities. As a result, many talented American students are forced either to delay or entirely forego a college education.
PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF FACTS 42. Plaintiffs are United States citizens. They are dependent college students or applicants, under the age of 24, who resided in Florida for more than 12 consecutive months prior to attempting to enroll in college. Plaintiffs, however, are unable to establish that their parents have lawful immigration status for purposes of tuition residency classification. As a result, Plaintiffs have been wrongfully classified as non-residents and charged three to four times
11

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 12 of 16
higher tuition rates than other Florida resident students. The increased tuition has forced Plaintiffs to delay their higher education or to forego it entirely.
43. Plaintiff Wendy Ruiz is enrolled in her second year at Miami Dade College. Wendy was classified as a non-resident student for tuition purposes because she could not establish her parents’ lawful immigration status. Because of the dramatic difference in tuition caused by this classification, Wendy is financially unable to take all the credits necessary to complete her associate’s degree program within the typical two years. Instead, she will have to delay her education and take at least three years to complete her degree.
44. Plaintiff Noel Saucedo is enrolled in his second year at Miami Dade College, where he studies hospitality and tourism. Noel had received the Migrant Scholarship, which would have covered all the costs of a two-year degree. However, because Noel was classified as a non-resident student, he was told the scholarship would be reduced to a negligible amount of approximately $900. As a result of his classification as a non-resident, Noel has had to pay significantly more than anticipated to attend college and has to work to earn the money to do so. Noel works at a gas station in order to earn the additional money he needs to pay the nonresident tuition rates. His entry into the tourism field has been delayed because he cannot afford to complete his degree in two years.
45. Plaintiff Caroline Roa attempted to enroll at Miami Dade College for the 20112012 academic year. After being accepted, school officials informed her that in order to qualify for in-state tuition, Caroline would need to be an independent student or show proof of her father’s legal immigration status. Caroline, however, is a dependent student who is unable to establish her father’s lawful immigration status. If Caroline were classified as a resident student, she would qualify for the American Dream scholarship, which would cover the cost of her tuition
12

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 13 of 16
at Miami Dade College entirely. Without the scholarship, Caroline cannot afford her college education. As a result of being classified as a non-resident, Caroline was unable to enroll at Miami Dade College. Instead, she currently works two jobs in the hope of one day being able to afford college.
46. Plaintiff Kassandra Romero was admitted to Palm Beach State College on August 15, 2011. After registering for classes, she found she had been charged the non-resident tuition rate, which totaled more than $4,000 for four classes. She was told by a college employee that she needed to show proof that her father was a legal resident. Kassandra was unable to provide such documentation. As a result of being classified as a non-resident, Kassandra was forced to withdraw from school.
47. Plaintiff Janeth America Perez attempted to enroll at Miami Dade College prior to the August 22, 2011, school start date. Janeth submitted her application and request for financial aid. She enrolled, but was forced to withdraw before the start of classes because the non-resident tuition costs were too high. She was classified as a non-resident despite having been born in Miami and having lived in Florida her entire life. As a result of being classified as a non-resident, Janeth was unable to remain at Miami Dade College. She works full-time at a plant nursery instead.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT ONE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
48. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
13

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 14 of 16
49. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
50. Defendants’ policy and practice of classifying dependent United States citizen students who reside in Florida as “non-residents” based on their parents’ federal immigration status denies these United States citizens equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
51. Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the United States Constitution.
COUNT TWO SUPREMACY CLAUSE;
42 U.S.C. § 1983 52. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. 53. The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, provides that federal law is “the supreme law of the land.” The Clause states: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. 54. Defendants’ policy and practice of classifying dependent United States citizen students who reside in Florida as “non-residents” based on their parents’ federal immigration status violates the Supremacy Clause. Defendants’ policy and practice constitutes a regulation of immigration and citizenship, thereby usurping powers that are exclusively vested in the federal government.
14

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 15 of 16
55. Defendants also violate the Supremacy Clause by imposing burdens on United States citizens that are contrary to federal law. Defendants’ policy and practice conflicts with federal law and seeks to regulate the field of immigration and citizenship.
56. Plaintiffs seek relief under the United States Constitution, and as an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs request that the Court: a. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; b. Certify this matter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and (b)(2) with the class as defined above and with the below signed counsel appointed as class counsel; c. Declare that the challenged policy and practice of classifying dependent United States citizen students who reside in Florida as non-residents for tuition purposes solely because of their parents’ immigration status violates the United States Constitution; d. Enjoin Defendants from requiring that dependent United States citizen students who reside in Florida provide proof of their parents’ immigration status for tuition purposes; e. Grant Plaintiffs the reasonable costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and f. Grant such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
15

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2011 Page 16 of 16

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of October, 2011,

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

By: /s/ Miriam Haskell

.

Miriam Haskell

Tania Galloni, Fla. Bar. No. 619221 Miriam Haskell, Fla. Bar. No. 69033 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 4770 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 760 Miami, Florida 33137 T: (786) 347-2056 F: (786) 238-2949 tania.galloni@splcenter.org miriam.haskell@splcenter.org

Jerri Katzerman* Maria Morris* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, Alabama 36104 T: (334) 956-8200 F: (334) 956-8481 jerri.katzerman@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org *Application for admission pro hac vice forthcoming

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

 
 Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

WENDY RUIZ; NOEL SAUCEDO;

)

CAROLINE ROA; KASSANDRA

)

ROMERO; and JANETH AMERICA

)

PEREZ, on behalf of themselves and

)

all others similarly situated,

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

GERARD ROBINSON, Florida

)

Commissioner of Education, sued

)

in his official capacity; KATHLEEN

)

SHANAHAN, sued in her official

)

Capacity; ROBERTO MARTINEZ,

)

sued in his official capacity; SALLY

)

BRADSHAW, sued in her official

)

capacity; GARY CHARTRAND, sued )

in his official capacity; A.K. DESAI,

)

sued in his official capacity;

)

BARBARA S. FEINGOLD, sued

)

in her official capacity;

)

JOHN R. PADGET, sued in his official )

capacity; FRANK T. BROGAN,

)

Chancellor of the State University System, )

sued in his official capacity;

)

DEAN COLSON, sued in his official

)

capacity; MORTEZA “MORI”

)

HOSSEINI, sued in his official

)

capacity; RICHARD A. BEARD III,

)

sued in his official capacity;

)

JOSEPH L. CARUNCHO, sued in his

)

official capacity; CHRIS CORR, sued in )

his official capacity; PATRICIA FROST, )

sued in her official capacity;

)

THOMAS G. KUNTZ, sued in his

)

official capacity; MICHAEL LONG,

)

sued in his official capacity;

)

AVA L. PARKER, sued in her

)

official capacity; TICO PEREZ, sued

)

Civil Case No. 1:11-cv-23776-KMM

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 2 of 27

in his official capacity; JOHN ROOD,

)

sued in his official capacity;

)

GUS A. STAVROS, sued in his

)

official capacity; JOHN W. TEMPLE,

)

sued in his official capacity;

)

NORMAN D. TRIPP, sued in his official )

capacity; and RICHARD A. YOST,

)

sued in his official capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

AMENDED COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

1. This action challenges the policies of the Florida State Board of Education and the

Florida Board of Governors that treat United States citizen students who reside in Florida as

“non-residents” solely because their parents are undocumented immigrants. T hese policies

invidiously discriminate against such United States citizen students in violation of the United

States Constitution.

2. Florida’s public colleges and universities classify applicants and students who are

unable to show that their parents have lawful immigration status as “non-residents,” even though

the applicants are United States citizens who reside in Florida. Being classified as a non-resident

more than triples the cost of tuition. As a result, many talented American students must either

forego higher education or incur extraordinary costs, in both money and time, in order to obtain

the same education made available to other Florida residents at a small fraction of the cost.

3. The individuals who bring this action were born in the United States, graduated

from Florida high schools, and have lived in Florida for many years. Some have lived in Florida

all of their lives. They went to the same high schools, held down the same part-time jobs, and

participated in the same after-school activities as their counterparts who are granted in-state

tuition status. The only difference between the plaintiffs and the students granted in-state tuition

2

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 3 of 27
is that the plaintiffs cannot prove that their parents have lawful immigration status. Defendants’ actions violate fundamental constitutional rights. Plaintiff students seek declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
PARTIES PLAINTIFFS 4. Plaintiff WENDY RUI Z is a United States citizen who was born in Miami, Florida, in 1992, and lives with her parents in Miami-Dade County. Wendy has a Florida birth certificate, a Florida high school diploma, a Florida voter’s registration card, a Florida bank account, a Florida learner’s license, and other proof of her continuous residence in Florida. Wendy is an honors student in her second year at Miami Dade College. W endy, however, is classified as a “non-resident” based on t he inability to show proof of her parents’ lawful immigration status. As a result of being charged the higher “non-resident” tuition rate, Wendy cannot afford to take a full course load and will need three years to complete her two-year degree at Miami Dade College. 5. In January 2010, W endy tried to enroll at Florida International University (“FIU”), located in Miami, Florida. FIU’s online application process required Wendy to provide information about her parents’ lawful immigration status, a requirement she could not meet. When Wendy was unable to provide this information, FIU’s application did not permit her to proceed, and she was therefore unable to enroll in the university. 6. Plaintiff NOEL SAUCEDO is a United States citizen who was born in Miami, Florida, in 1991, a nd lives with his parents in Miami-Dade County. N oel has a Florida birth certificate, a Florida driver’s license, a Florida bank account, and a Florida high school diploma. Noel is a second-year student at Miami Dade College and has resided in Florida since 2006. In
3

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 4 of 27
the spring of 2010, Noel was awarded a full scholarship for the two-year program at Miami Dade College. Unable to show his parents’ lawful immigration status, however, Noel was classified as a “non-resident,” thereby requiring him to pay the higher tuition rate and reducing his scholarship to a negligible amount. A s a result of being charged the higher “non-resident” tuition rate, Noel cannot afford to take a full course load and will need three years to complete his two-year degree at Miami Dade College.
7. On or around March 2010, Noel tried to enroll at Florida International University (“FIU”), located in Miami, Florida. FIU’s online application process required Noel to provide information about his parents’ lawful immigration status, a requirement he was not able to meet. When Noel was unable to provide this information, FIU’s application did not permit him to proceed, and he was therefore unable to enroll in the university.
8. Plaintiff CAROLINE ROA is a United States citizen who was born in Miami, Florida, in 1993 and has lived in Miami-Dade County her entire life. C aroline lives with her sister in Miami-Dade County, where her only living parent, her father, also lives. Caroline has a Florida birth certificate, a Florida high school diploma, a Florida voter’s registration card, a Florida bank account, and other proof of her continuous residence in Florida. S he aspires to study psychology and work for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
9. On or around August 2011, after Caroline was accepted to Miami Dade College, school officials informed her that she did not qualify for in-state tuition, even though she had resided in Miami-Dade County since birth. S chool officials explained to Caroline that her residency for tuition purposes was based on her father’s legal residence. Because Caroline could not show proof of her father’s legal immigration presence in the United States, she could not qualify for in-state tuition rates. U nable to afford non-resident tuition rates, Caroline has not
4

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 5 of 27
enrolled in college. Instead, she works two jobs in the hope of one day being able to afford college.
10. Plaintiff KASSANDRA ROMERO is a United States citizen who was born in Los Angeles, California, in 1993, a nd lives with her family in Palm Beach County, Florida. Kassandra has resided in Florida with her family since 1998. She has a California birth certificate, a Florida high school diploma, a Florida driver’s license, and other proof of her continuous residence in Florida. Although Kassandra registered for classes at Palm Beach State College, in June 2011, school officials informed her that she would have to show proof of her parents’ legal immigration status in order to qualify for in-state tuition rates. Unable to meet that requirement and unable to afford non-resident tuition rates, Kassandra withdrew from college. She currently works at a restaurant.
11. Plaintiff JANETH AMERICA PEREZ is a United States citizen who was born in Miami, Florida, in 1992. She has a Florida birth certificate, a Florida high school diploma, a Florida driver’s license, and other proof of her continuous residence in Florida. J aneth lives with her mother in Homestead, Florida. She has resided in Florida her entire life. Janeth applied and was accepted to Miami Dade College, where she intended to study to become an earth science teacher. If able to complete her education and become a teacher, Janeth plans to teach in her home state of Florida.
12. Upon enrolling at Miami Dade College, Janeth was classified as an out-of-state student because she was unable to show documentation of her mother’s immigration status. Because of the higher costs of out-of-state tuition, Janeth was forced to drop her classes and currently works at a plant nursery.
5

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 6 of 27
DEFENDANTS 13. Defendant GERARD RO BINSON is the Florida Commissioner of Education and a member of the Florida Board of Governors. The Commissioner is the Executive Director of the Department of Education and is the chief educational officer for the state of Florida. Fla. Stat. §§ 20.15(2), 1001.10(1). He is “responsible for giving full assistance to the State Board of Education in enforcing compliance with the mission and goals of the K-20 education system” which includes Florida’s public colleges. Fla. Stat. § 1001.10( 1). Florida’s K-20 system includes the state’s 28 community colleges (also known as the “Florida College System”), of which Miami Dade College and Palm Beach State College are a part. T he Florida State Board of Education, a division of the Department of Education, is a body corporate and the chief implementing and coordinating body of publ ic education in F lorida, including the s tate’s community college system. The Florida State Board of Education oversees the adoption and enforcement of all laws and rules related to Florida’s public K-20 education system. It is statutorily charged with adopting rules to determine the residency status of community college students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). The Commissioner must “[i]ntegrally work with the boards of trustees of the Florida College System institutions” to ensure the State Board of Education’s policies are implemented. F la. Stat. § 1001.11 (1)(d). Defendant Robinson is sued in his official capacity. 14. Defendant KATHLEEN SHANAHAN is Chair of the Florida State Board of Education. As chair, Defendant Shanahan presides over meetings and operations of the state board. The Florida State Board of Education, a division of the Department of Education, is a body corporate and the chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in Florida, including the state’s community college system. The Florida State Board of Education oversees
6

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 7 of 27
the adoption and enforcement of all laws and rules related to Florida’s K-20 public education system. It is statutorily charged with adopting rules to determine the residency status of community college students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Shanahan is sued in her official capacity.
15. Defendant ROBERTO MARTINEZ is a member and Vice Chair of the Florida State Board of Education. As a m ember, Defendant Martinez participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the state board. The Florida State Board of Education, a division of the Department of Education, is a body corporate and the chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in Florida, including the state’s community college system. The Florida State Board of Education oversees the adoption and enforcement of all laws and rules related to Florida’s public K-20 education system. It is statutorily charged with adopting rules to determine the residency status of community college students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Martinez is sued in his official capacity.
16. Defendant SALLY BRADSHAW is a member of the Florida State Board of Education. As a member, Defendant Bradshaw participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the state board. The Florida State Board of Education, a division of the Department of Education, is a body corporate and the chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in Florida, including the state’s community college system. The Florida State Board of Education oversees the adoption and enforcement of all laws and rules related to Florida’s public K-20 education system. It is statutorily charged with adopting rules to determine the residency status of community college students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Bradshaw is sued in her official capacity.
7

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 8 of 27
17. Defendant GARY CHARTRAND is a member of the Florida State Board of Education. As a member, Defendant Chartrand participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the state board. The Florida State Board of Education, a division of the Department of Education, is a body corporate and the chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in Florida, including the state’s community college system. The Florida State Board of Education oversees the adoption and enforcement of all laws and rules related to Florida’s public K-20 education system. It is statutorily charged with adopting rules to determine the residency status of community college students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Chartrand is sued in his official capacity.
18. Defendant A.K. DESAI is a member of the Florida State Board of Education. As a member, Defendant Desai participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the state board. The Florida State Board of Education, a division of the Department of Education, is a b ody corporate and the chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in Florida, including the state’s community college system. The Florida State Board of Education oversees the adoption and enforcement of all laws and rules related to Florida’s public K-20 education system. It is statutorily charged with adopting rules to determine the residency status of community college students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Desai is sued in his official capacity.
19. Defendant BARBARA S. FEINGOLD is a member of the Florida State Board of Education. As a m ember, Defendant Feingold participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the state board. The Florida State Board of Education, a division of the Department of Education, is a body corporate and the chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in Florida, including the state’s community college system. The Florida State
8

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 9 of 27
Board of Education oversees the adoption and enforcement of all laws and rules related to Florida’s public K-20 education system. It is statutorily charged with adopting rules to determine the residency status of community college students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Feingold is sued in her official capacity.
20. Defendant JOHN R. PADGET is a m ember of the Florida State Board of Education. As a member, Defendant Padget participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the state board. The Florida State Board of Education, a division of the Department of Education, is a body corporate and the chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in Florida, including the state’s community college system. The Florida State Board of Education oversees the adoption and enforcement of all laws and rules related to Florida’s public K-20 education system. It is statutorily charged with adopting rules to determine the residency status of community college students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Padget is sued in his official capacity.
21. Defendant FRANK T. BROGAN is Chancellor of the State University System. As Chancellor, Defendant Brogan leads the Florida Board of Governors and serves as the chief executive and administrative officer of the State University System. Florida statute provides that “[t]he the Board of Governors may appoint a Chancellor to aid the board in the implementation of its responsibilities” as they relate to Florida’s public universities. Fla. Stat. §20.155(3). The Florida Board of Governors c onsists of 11 p ublic uni versities i n t he S tate of Florida, including Florida International University. The Florida Board of Governors operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. T he Board of Governors is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of
9

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 10 of 27
students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21( 13). The Chancellor of the State University System consults with the Commissioner of Education to establish statewide K-20 advisory groups and the Articulation Coordinating Committee, which makes recommendations related to statewide policies on admissions, articulation, and other matters affecting the State University System. Defendant Brogan is sued in his official capacity.
22. Defendant DEAN COLSON is Chair of the Florida Board of Governors. As chair, Defendant Colson oversees meetings and participates in decisions affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Colson is sued in his official capacity.
23. Defendant MORTEZA “MORI” HOSSEINI is Vice Chair of the Florida Board of Governors. As vice chair, Defendant Hosseini participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including
10

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 11 of 27
rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Hosseini is sued in his official capacity.
24. Defendant RICHARD A. BEARD, III, is a member of the Florida Board of Governors. As a member, Defendant Beard participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Beard is sued in his official capacity.
25. Defendant JOSEPH L. CARUNCHO is a member of the Florida Board of Governors. As a member, Defendant Caruncho participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Caruncho is sued in his official capacity.
11

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 12 of 27
26. Defendant CHRIS CORR is a member of the Florida Board of Governors. As a member, Defendant Corr participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Corr is sued in his official capacity.
27. Defendant PATRICIA FROST is a member of the Florida Board of Governors. As a member, Defendant Frost participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21( 13). Defendant Frost is sued in her official capacity.
28. Defendant THOMAS G. KUNTZ is a member of the Florida Board of Governors. As a member, Defendant Kuntz participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for
12

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 13 of 27
the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Kuntz is sued in his official capacity.
29. Defendant MICHAEL LONG is a member of the Florida Board of Governors and chair of the Florida Student Association. As a member of the Florida Board of Governors, Defendant Long participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21( 13). Defendant Long is sued in his official capacity.
30. Defendant AVA L. PARKER is a member of the Florida Board of Governors. As a member, Defendant Parker participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board
13

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 14 of 27
of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21( 13). Defendant Parker is sued in her official capacity.
31. Defendant TICO PEREZ is a member of the Florida Board of Governors. As a member, Defendant Perez participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21( 13). Defendant Perez is sued in his official capacity.
32. Defendant JOHN ROOD is a member of the Florida Board of Governors. As a member, Defendant Rood participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the
14

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 15 of 27
residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21( 13). Defendant Rood is sued in his official capacity.
33. Defendant GUS A. STAVROS is a member of the Florida Board of Governors. As a m ember, Defendant Stavros participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 pub lic universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21( 13). Defendant Stavros is sued in his official capacity.
34. Defendant JOHN W. TEMPLE is a member of the Florida Board of Governors. As a m ember, Defendant Temple participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 pub lic universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21( 13). Defendant Temple is sued in his official capacity.
15

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 16 of 27
35. Defendant NORMAN D. TRIPP is a member of the Florida Board of Governors. As a m ember, Defendant Tripp participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 pub lic universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21( 13). Defendant Tripp is sued in his official capacity.
36. Defendant RICHARD A. YOST is a member of the Florida Board of Governors. As a member, Defendant Yost participates in meetings and decision-making affecting operations of the board, which operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of Florida’s entire system of public universities. The Florida Board of Governors consists of 11 public universities in the State of Florida, including Florida International University. The Board of Governors, which “has responsibility for compliance with state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements,” Fla. Stat. § 1001.706(8), is charged with adopting rules to implement Florida’s statutes as to the State University System, including rules to determine the residency status of students for tuition purposes. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(13). Defendant Yost is sued in his official capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 37. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the United States Constitution and laws of the United
16

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 17 of 27

States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 be cause this action seeks to redress the deprivation,

under color of state law, of Plaintiffs’ civil rights and to secure equitable or other relief for the

violation of those rights.

38. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

2201 and 2202, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b), as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the

Southern District of Florida. Each one of the class representatives lives in the Southern District

of Florida, applied to colleges or universities operating in the Southern District of Florida, and

was deemed not to be a Florida resident for tuition purposes in the Southern District of Florida.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

39. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated

pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

40. The class is defined as:

All past, present, and future United States citizens who are, were, or will be able to establish Florida residency for purposes of determining in-state tuition rates at Florida public institutions of higher learning but for their parents’ immigration status at the time of the application to or matriculation in such institutions.

41. The class meets all the requirements of Rule 23(a). Although the precise size of

the class cannot be determined at this time, statistical evidence shows that the class is so

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

42. Roughly 4.5 million U.S.-born citizens of unauthorized immigrant parents live in

the United States. Pew Hispanic Center, Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and

State Trends,

2010, at 13, Feb.1, 2011, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/

17

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 18 of 27
133.pdf. Approximately 825,000 una uthorized immigrants reside in Florida alone. Id. at 14. Moreover, the children of unauthorized immigrants make up 6.8% of the students enrolled in the nation’s elementary a nd s econdary s chools. Pew H ispanic C enter, A P ortrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, April 14, 2009, a t i, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdf.
43. There are questions of law or fact common to the class, including: (1) whether Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring a Florida resident to show proof of his or her parents’ legal immigration status in order to establish residency for the purpose of in-state tuition violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; and (2) whether Defendants’ policy and practice are preempted by the United States Constitution and federal law. These questions predominate over any questions affecting only the individual plaintiffs.
44. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class because Defendants’ policy and practice of denying in-state tuition rates to United States citizen children who reside in Florida based on their parents’ immigration status applies with equal force to the proposed class.
45. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all members of the proposed class because they seek relief on behalf of the class as a whole and have no interests antagonistic to other members of the class. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel with extensive expertise in class action litigation, including litigation regarding constitutional law.
46. Finally, Defendants have acted and will act on grounds generally applicable to the class in creating and implementing the policy and practice of denying in-state tuition to United States c itizen c hildren of undoc umented i mmigrants, t hereby m aking a ppropriate f inal declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
18

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 19 of 27
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 47. Florida Statutes Section 1009.21 pr ovides for the classification of students as residents or non-residents for the purpose of assessing tuition in institutions of post-secondary education, including Florida colleges and universities. 48. Under Section 1009.21, “legal resident” or “resident” is defined as “a person who has maintained his or her residence in this state for the preceding year, has purchased a home which is occupied by him or her as his or her residence, or has established a domicile in this state pursuant to s. 222.17.” Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(1)(d). The statutory definition of “legal resident” or “resident” does not mention immigration status. 49. Section 1009.21 defines a “dependent child” as “any person, whether or not living with his or her parent, who is eligible to be claimed by his or her parent as a dependent under the federal income tax code.” Fla. Stat. § 1009.21 (1)(a). D ependent students are those who are under age 24 and claimed as dependents on their parents’ tax returns, if filed. A student younger than 24 may be classified as independent if the student is married, the student has his or her own dependents, or the student served in the United States military. S ee Guidelines on Florida Residency for Tuition Purposes, § 3.1 (Oct. 27, 2010), http://files.facts.usf.edu/pdfDocuments/manuals/Residency_Guidelines_October_2010.pdf. 50. For a dependent child to qualify as a resident for tuition purposes, “his or her parents must have established legal residence in this state and must have maintained legal residence in this state for at least 12 consecutive months immediately prior to his or her initial enrollment in an institution of higher education.” Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(2)(a)(1). The statute does not require any information relative to the parents’ federal immigration status.
19

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 20 of 27
51. An applicant for admission need only “make a statement as to his or her length of residence in the state” and “establish that his or her presence or, if the applicant is a dependent child, the presence of his or her parents in the state currently is, and during the requisite 12month qualifying period was, for the purpose of maintaining a bona fide domicile, rather than for the purpose of maintaining a mere temporary residence or abode incident to enrollment in an institution of higher education.” Fla. Stat. § 1009.21(2)(a)(2).
52. Florida Statutes Section 1009.21(13) directs the Florida State Board of Education and the Florida Board of Governors to adopt rules to implement the statutory law regarding the determination of resident status for tuition purposes.
53. The Florida State Board of Education’s administrative rule governs residency determinations for the Florida College System’s community colleges. F.A.C. § 6A-10.044.
54. The Florida Board of Governors’ administrative rule governs residency determinations for the State University System. F.A.C. § 72-1.001.
55. These administrative rules require that a non-United States citizen seeking to establish Florida residency for tuition purposes present “evidence . . . verifying that he or she is legally present in the United States.” F.A.C. §§ 6A-10.044(4) and 72-1.001(5). If the student is a dependent, the parent must present evidence of the parent’s legal immigration status. F.A.C. § 72.1-001(5)(a)(3).
56. The rules further provide that both the student “and parent if the student is a dependent, must present evidence of legal presence in the United States.” F.A.C. §§ 6A10.044(4)(a), 72-1.001(5)(a)3 and (5).
57. Miami Dade College’s policy, for example, provides that “non-U.S. citizen students and/or parents must provide evidence of eligible legal immigration status in the U.S.
20

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 21 of 27

before being considered for Florida resident fees.” Miami Dade College, Florida Residency for

Tuition

Classification

-

Required

Documentation,

http://www.mdc.edu/main/flresidency/classification.asp.

TUITION DIFFERENTIAL

58. Tuition rates for students classified as non-residents are dramatically higher than

those for students classified as Florida residents.

59. At M iami Dade College, the cost per term in the two-year associate degree

programs is $1,265.76 for residents, compared to $4,523.64 for those classified as non-residents.

The cost per term in the four-year baccalaureate programs is $1,399.68 for residents, compared

to $6,246.24 for non-residents. See Miami Dade College, Tuition and Fees Academic Year 2011-

2012, http://www.mdc.edu/main/academics/tuition.asp. Per year, those classified as non-resident

students have to pay $6,515.76 more in tuition and fees toward an associate’s degree, and

$9,693.12 more toward a bachelor’s degree than a resident student.

60. At Palm Beach State College, resident students in the associate degree programs

are charged only $96 per credit hour, whereas those classified as non-residents are charged $349.

For 24 credits over the academic year, those classified as non-residents are charged $6,072 more

in tuition toward an associate’s degree. Resident students in the bachelor’s degree program are

charged $113.64 per credit hour, whereas those classified as non-residents are charged $520.90.

For 24 credits over the academic year, those classified as non-residents are charged $9,774.24

more in tuition toward a bachelor’s degree than those classified as residents. See Palm Beach

State College, Tuition and Fees 2011-2012, http://www.palmbeachstate.edu/TuitionFees.xml.

21

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 22 of 27
61. At Florida International University, the annual tuition and fees total $5,678.02 for Florida residents, compared to $18,077.02 for those classified as non-residents. Per year, nonresident students are required to pay $12,399 more in tuition and fees. See Florida International University, Costs: Academic Year 2011-2012, http://admissions.fiu.edu/costs/costs.php.
62. In short, United States citizen students who reside in Florida but whose parents are undocumented immigrants are charged three to four times as much as other Florida residents for the same education at Florida’s public colleges and universities. As a result, many talented American students are forced either to delay or entirely forego a college education.
PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF FACTS 63. Plaintiffs are United States citizens. They are dependent college students or applicants, under the age of 24, w ho resided in Florida for more than 12 consecutive months prior to attempting to enroll in college. P laintiffs, however, are unable to establish that their parents have lawful immigration status for purposes of tuition residency classification. A s a result, Plaintiffs have been wrongfully classified as non-residents and charged three to four times higher tuition rates than other Florida resident students. T he increased tuition has forced Plaintiffs to delay their higher education or to forego it entirely. 64. Plaintiff Wendy Ruiz is enrolled in her second year at Miami Dade College. Wendy was classified as a n on-resident student for tuition purposes because she could not establish her parents’ lawful immigration status. B ecause of the dramatic difference in tuition caused by this classification, Wendy is financially unable to take all the credits necessary to complete her associate’s degree program within the typical two years. Instead, she will have to delay her education and take at least three years to complete her degree.
22

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 23 of 27
65. Plaintiff Noel Saucedo is enrolled in his second year at Miami Dade College, where he studies hospitality and tourism. N oel had received the Migrant Scholarship, which would have covered all the costs of a two-year degree. However, because Noel was classified as a non-resident student, he was told the scholarship would be reduced to a negligible amount of approximately $900. A s a result of his classification as a non-resident, N oel has had to pay significantly more than anticipated to attend college and has to work to earn the money to do so. Noel works at a gas station in order to earn the additional money he needs to pay the nonresident tuition rates. His entry into the tourism field has been delayed because he cannot afford to complete his degree in two years.
66. Plaintiff Caroline Roa attempted to enroll at Miami Dade College for the 20112012 academic year. After being accepted, school officials informed her that in order to qualify for in-state tuition, Caroline would need to be an independent student or show proof of her father’s legal immigration status. C aroline, however, is a dependent student who is unable to establish her father’s lawful immigration status. If Caroline were classified as a resident student, she would qualify for the American Dream scholarship, which would cover the cost of her tuition at Miami Dade College entirely. W ithout the scholarship, Caroline cannot afford her college education. A s a result of being classified as a non-resident, Caroline was unable to enroll at Miami Dade College. Instead, she currently works two jobs in the hope of one day being able to afford college.
67. Plaintiff Kassandra Romero was admitted to Palm Beach State College on August 15, 2011. A fter registering for classes, she found she had been charged the non-resident tuition rate, which totaled more than $4,000 for four classes. She was told by a college employee that she needed to show proof that her father was a legal resident. Kassandra was unable to provide
23

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 24 of 27
such documentation. As a result of being classified as a non-resident, Kassandra was forced to withdraw from school.
68. Plaintiff Janeth America Perez attempted to enroll at Miami Dade College prior to the August 22, 2011, school start date. Janeth submitted her application and request for financial aid. She enrolled, but was forced to withdraw before the start of classes because the non-resident tuition costs were too high. She was classified as a non-resident despite having been born in Miami and having lived in Florida her entire life. As a result of being classified as a nonresident, Janeth was unable to remain at Miami Dade College. She works full-time at a plant nursery instead.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT ONE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
69. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
70. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
71. Defendants’ policy and practice of classifying dependent United States citizen students who reside in Florida as “non-residents” based on t heir parents’ federal immigration status denies these United States citizens equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
72. Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 1983 t o redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the United States Constitution.
24

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 25 of 27
COUNT TWO SUPREMACY CLAUSE;
42 U.S.C. § 1983 73. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. 74. The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, provides that federal law is “the supreme law of the land.” The Clause states: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. 75. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees the Plaintiffs the right to be citizens of the United States “and of the State wherein they reside.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV. 76. Defendants’ policy and practice of classifying dependent United States citizen students who reside in Florida as “non-residents” based on t heir parents’ federal immigration status violates the Supremacy Clause. Defendants’ policy and practice constitutes a regulation of immigration and citizenship, thereby usurping powers that are exclusively vested in the federal government. 77. Defendants also violate the Supremacy Clause by imposing burdens on United States citizens that are contrary to federal law. Defendants’ policy and practice conflicts with federal law and seeks to regulate the field of immigration and citizenship.
25

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 26 of 27
78. Plaintiffs seek relief under the United States Constitution, and as an action pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 1983, t o redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs request that the Court: a. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; b. Certify this matter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and (b)(2) with the class as defined above and with the below signed counsel appointed as class counsel; c. Declare that the challenged policy and practice of classifying dependent United States citizen students who reside in Florida as non-residents for tuition purposes solely because of their parents’ immigration status violates the United States Constitution; d. Enjoin Defendants from requiring that dependent United States citizen students who reside in Florida provide proof of their parents’ immigration status for tuition purposes; e. Grant Plaintiffs the reasonable costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and f. Grant such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 24th day of February, 2012. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER By: /s/ Miriam Haskell Miriam Haskell
26

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2012 Page 27 of 27
Tania Galloni (Fla. Bar. No. 619221) Miriam Haskell (Fla. Bar. No. 69033) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 4770 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 760 Miami, Florida 33137 T: (786) 347-2056 F: (786) 238-2949 tania.galloni@splcenter.org miriam.haskell@splcenter.org Jerri Katzerman* Maria Morris* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, Alabama 36104 T: (334) 956-8200 F: (334) 956-8481 jerri.katzerman@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org *Admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs
27

 
 IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT CO URT FO R TH E SOUTHERN DISTRICT O F FLO RIDA
CaseN o.1:11-cv-23776-KM M W EN D Y RU IZ,etal.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
GERARD ROBIN SON,etal., Defendants. / O RDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'M OTION TO CERTIFY CLASS
THISCAUSE cnmebeforetheCourtuponPlaintiffs'M otiontoCertifyClass(ECFNo. 53).Defendants'filedaResponse(ECFNo.58)andPlaintiffsfiledaReply(ECFNo.59).The
M otion isnow ripe forreview. UPON CON SIDEM TION ofthe M otion,the Response,the
Reply,theAmended Complaint(ECF No.29),thepertinentportionsoftherecord,andbeing
othelw isefullyadvisedinthepremises,thisCourtentersthefollowingOrder. L BACKGROUND1
This is an action for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Am endmentand the Suprem acy ClauseoftheUnited StatesConstim tion. Plaintiffsallegethat certain policiesofthe Florida State Board ofEducation and the Florida Board ofGovernors
violatetheirconstitutionalrights. Plaintiffsseek declaratoryandinjtmctivereliefonbehalfof
them selvesanda1lotherssim ilarlysituated. Plaintiffsareindividualswhohave applied to publiccollegesand universitiesin the State
ofFlorida. Plaintiffsare nattlralborn citizensand have resided in Florida foratleasttwelve 1Thefactsherein aretakenfrom Plaintiffs'AmendedComplaint
.

consecutivem onthspriorto each Plaintiffapplying to a publicinstitution ofhighereducation. HoweverduetotheDefendants'policies,Plaintiffsarenoteligibletoreceivelowerm ition rates as residents of Florida. This results because Plaintiffs are dependents whose parents are undocumentedimm igrantswhocnnnotestablishlegalresidenceinFlorida.
UnderFlorida law,individualsare classified asresidentsand non-residentsin orderto
determinemitionratesforpubliccollegesand universities. SeeFLA.STAT.j 1009.21. The
definitionofaçtlegalresident''orGtresident''isçtapersonwho hasmaintainedhisorherresidence inthisstatefortheprecedingyear,haspurchasedahom ewhichisoccupiedby him orherashis
orherresidence,orhasestablishedadomicilein thisstate . Id.j 1009.21(1)(d). The
statute further distinguishes between individuals w ho are independent from those that are dependentin establishing in-state residency. A çldependent''is Gtany person,whetherornot living with hisorherparent,who iseligibletobeclaim ed by hisorherparentasa dependent
underthefederalincometax code.'' Id. j 1009.21(1)(a). To establish residency formition pumoses,Gf(a)personor,ifthatperson isadependentchild,hisorherparentorparentsmust
haveestablished legalresidence in thisstateand musthave m aintained legalresidence in this stateforatleast12 consecutivemonthsimm ediately priortohisorherinitialenrollm entin an
institutionofhighereducation.''Id. j1009.21(2)(a)1.
Pursuantto section 1009.21,the State Board ofEducation and the Board ofGovernors
are authorized to adopt additional regulations in order to implement the statute. JZ j 1009.21413). Both theStateBoardofEducationandtheBoardofGovernorshaveadopted
additionalcriteriain determ ining residency form ition purposes. See FLA.ADMIN.CODEr.6A10.044;FLA.ADMIN.CODE r.72-1.001. Both regulationsprovide,interalia,additionalcriteria indeterm iningresidencywhenan individualortheparentsofadependentarenotcitizensofthe

UnitedStates.Forexnmple,Gtltlhestudent,andparentifthestudentisadependent,mustpresent evidenceoflegalpresenceintheUnitedStates.''FLA.ADMIN.CODEr.72-1.001(5)(a)3;seealso FLA.ADMIN.CODEr.6A-10.044(4).
In lightoftheseregulations,Plaintiffsallegethatthey havebeen wrongfullyclassified as çtnon-residents'' of the State of Florida and charged higher tuition. Plaintiffs claim this classification isthe sole resultoftheirinability to establish theirparents'lawfulimm igration status.Plaintiffs'Am ended Com plaintallegesthattheDefendants'regulationsviolatetheEqual Protection ClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentandtheSuprem acy ClauseoftheUnited States Constim tion.Plaintiffsnow seekanordercertifyingthism atterasaclassaction. II.CLA SS C ERTIFICA TIO N
tToradistrictcourttocertifyaclassaction,thenamedplaintiffsm usthavestanding,and the putative class must m eet each of the requirements specified in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedme23(a),aswellasatleastoneoftherequirementssetforth inRule23(b).'' Klavv. Humana.lnc.,382F.3d1241,1250(11thCir.2004).Rule23(a)requiresaputativeclasstomeet
therequirementsofnum erosity,comm onality,typicality,and adequacy ofrepresentation. See
FED.R.Clv.P.23(a);Vegav.T-M obileU.S.A..Inc.,564F.3d 1256,1265 (11th Cir.2009). Here,PlaintiffsseekcertitkationpmsuanttoRule23(b)(2),whichrequiresû'thepartyopposing
the classhasacted orrefused to acton grotmdsthatapply generally to the class,so thatfinal
injunctive reliefor corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.''FED.R.CIV.P.23(b)(2).W hileadistrictcourtmustnotdecidethemeritsofthecmseat
the classcertification stage,itttcan and should considerthem erits...to the degreenecessary to determine whetherthe requirem ents ofRule 23 willbe satisfied.'' Veaa,564 F.3d at 1266
(citationsomitted). çTheburdenofprooftoestablish thepropriety ofclasscertification rests
3

withtheadvocateoftheclass.''Valley Dl'ug Co.v.GenevaPhnrms.sInc.,350 F.3d 1181,1187
(11thCir.2003)(citationsomitted).
In additiontotheserequirements,tGadistrictcourtshouldask itselfwhethertheneed for theclmssexiststooffsettheconcomitnntexpenseandcomplexitiesassociatedwith classaction
suits.'' McArthurv.Firestone,690 F.Supp.1018,1018(S.D.Fla.1988)(citation omitted). ççl-llhe vastmajority ofcourts ...(accept)the need requirement ...as an appropriate considerationwhencertifyingaRule23(b)(2)action.''7% CHARLESALANW RIGHT& M THUR R.MILLER,FEDERALPRACTICEAND PROCEDURE j 1785.2 (3d ed.). Although notanexpress requirement,this factor should be analyzed because Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and
declaratory reliefagainstStateofficials,wllich ifgranted,would equally benefitallmembersof
theputativeclass.SeeAccessNow lnc.v.W altDisneyW orldCo.,211F.R.D.452,455(M .D. Fla.2001)(statingthatclmsscertificationisIlnnecessarybecausetsallrelief...wouldinureto similarlysimatedpersonswithoutthenecessityofclmsscertification''). AlthoughPlaintiffsare correctthatRule 23(b)(2) was designed forallegations seeking injunctive and declaratory
relief- thatin itselfdoes notrequire an action to be certified. See Reply,at9. Here,the expense,dueprocessconsiderations,andburden ofm aintainingaclassaction outweigh granting
clmsscertification. SeeM cArthttr,690F.Supp.at1019 (statingthatEtltlhereisnobenefitto
havingaclasswhen çthereisnoreasontodoubtthatthedefendantswouldaccordtoa11members
oftheproposedclassthebenefitsofanyjudgmentaccordedtotheplaintiffs''')(citationomitted).
Plaintiffsargue thata classaction isnecessary in lightofthe possibility ofthe named Plaintiffs'claim sbecom ingm oot.Reply,at9-10. Thenam ed Plaintiffsallegethattheirclaim s
willbecomemootoncethey reachtheageoftwentp fourandareclassifiedasindependents.Ld.=
at 10. Although this Courtrecognizesthe danger ofm ootness in certain circum stnnces,this is

notasimationwhereaclassaction shouldbecertifiedforthem erepossibility ofmootness .

See

Johnsonv.Opelousas,652F.2d1065,1069-1072(11thCir.1981)(findingtrialcourtabusedits

discretion in denying certification were plaintiffonly had ten months untilhis claims where

mootedbyreachingtheageofmajority);Lebron v.W ilkins,277 F.R.D.664,666(M .D.Fla.

2011)(certifyingclassactiononmootnessgrotmdswhereapplicant'sclaim againstagencyfor

benefitstmderfederalprogram couldbemooted ifapplicantfound employment);Hnmiltonv.

Hall,N

o. 10-cv-355-M

CR-EM

T,2011

W

L

2161139 ,

at # 1 (M

.D.Fla.M

ay26,2011)(certifying

classactionbecauseçtofthetransitorynatureofincarcerationinacountyjail,theclaimsofthe

nam

ed

plaintiff could

becom

e m

oot at any

tim

e upon

her release ,

as dem

onstrated

by

the fact that

amlmberofindividualsoriginallynnmed asplaintiffsin thisactionhavealreadydism issedtheir

claimsbecauseoftheirrelease'').
DespitePlaintiffs'contention,theinstantaction doesnotpresentan im minentdangerof

thenamed Plaintiffs'claim sbecoming moot. Forexample, one ofthenam edPlaintiffsin this action isonly eighteen yearsold and withdrew from pursuingherhighereducation degreeafter

being

denied

the

in-state

m

ition

rate.

D

ecl.ofRoa ,

!!

2,6

(ECF

No.53-4);see

also

Decl.of

Romero,!! 2,6 (ECF No.53-5) (nineteen years old). As Plaintiffs'acknowledge,the

Defendants'policiesonlyperm itthePlaintiffstoberecognizedasindependentsçtwhentheyturn

24 yearsold tmlesâoneofafew narrow exceptionsism et.''Plf.M ot.forSum maryJ.,at9 n.8
(ECFNo.75).Thus,theaforemtntionedPlaintiffhasapproximattlysixyearstmtilherclaim is
m ooted by attaining independentstatus. lndeed, the oldestnam ed Plaintiffsin thisaction are
stillonly tw enty yer sold. See D ed . ofRuiz,!2(ECFNo.53-2);Decl.ofSaucedo,!2(ECF No.53-3);Decl.ofPerez,!2(ECFNo.53-6).ThisCourtdoesnottsndanimminentthreatof
m ootness which would require thiscase to be certified as a class action in orderto proted

putativeclassm embers'interests. Accordingly,thisCourtdeclinesto certifytheputativeclass
pursllnnttoFED.R.CIV.P.23(b)(2).
111.CO N C LU SIO N Fortheforegoing reasons,itis
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED thatPlaintiffs'M otionforClassCertification(ECFNo. 53)isDENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED inChambersatM iam i,Florida,thisR(dayofAugust,2012.

cc: A11cotmselofrecord

K.M CHAEL M OORE UN ITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDG E

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. II-cv-23776-KMM WENDY RUIZ, et aI.,
Plaintiffs, vs. GERARD ROBINSON, et aI.,
Defendants. _________________________________1
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This case is about regulations of the Florida State Board of Education and the Florida Board of Governors that classify students who are United States citizens and reside in the State of Florida as "out of state" residents because their parents, who also reside in Florida, are undocumented for federal immigration purposes. As a result of this classification, these Florida residents must pay significantly higher tuition rates to attend the State's public post-secondary educational institutions and are denied the preferential treatment that residents receive throughout the admissions process at several of these institutions. Plaintiffs and Defendants have each moved for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 75 & 89). Responses (ECF Nos. 85 & 89) and Replies (ECF Nos. 90 & 93) were filed by both Parties. As discussed further in this opinion, classifying U.S. citizen students who reside in Florida according to their parents' undocumented federal immigration status does not advance any legitimate State interest, much less the State's important interest in furthering educational opportunities for its own residents. Accordingly, Defendants' regulations must fail because they deny to each of these United States citizens the

equal protection of the laws as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
I. THE PARTIES·
Plaintiffs are all dependent U.S. citizens who aspire to earn post-secondary degrees from
Florida public institutions of higher education. Plaintiff Wendy Ruiz was born in Miami, Florida
in 1992 and is a U.S. citizen by virtue ofbirthright.2 Ruiz's parents have resided continuously in
Florida for the past ten years. Ruiz has resided in Florida her entire life and graduated from a
Florida public high school in 2010. During her senior year in high school, Ruiz attempted to
enroll at Florida International University ("FlU"). FlU requires applicants to disclose their
parents' federal immigration status, and after Ruiz was unable to furnish this information, she
was unable to complete the application process. Ruiz currently attends Miami-Dade College
("MDC") and because she is a dependent student who cannot prove her parents' federal
immigration status, she has been classified as an "out-of-state resident," and is required to pay a
tuition rate nearly three times higher than the tuition rate for Florida residents. Consequently,
Ruiz has been unable to afford a full course load of classes each semester and it will take her
more than two years to complete a two-year degree.
The facts herein are taken from Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Parties' Responses and Replies. 2 See U.S. CaNST. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1 ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) ("The fourteenth amendment of the constitution ... contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms oflaw. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization."). Birthright citizenship derives from "a version of the jus soli ('citizenship by right of the soil ') rule, where the alien parent's status does not matter in granting citizenship to the child." See Michelle J. Seo, Note, Uncertainty of Access: U.S. Citizen Children of Undocumented Immigrant Parents and In-State Tuition for Higher Education, 44 COLUM. J.L. & Soc. PROBS. 311, 316 (2011).
2

Plaintiff Noel Saucedo was born in Miami, Florida in 1991 and is a U.S. citizen by virtue of birthright. Saucedo and his parents have resided in Florida since 2006 and Saucedo graduated from a Florida public high school in June 2010. Like Plaintiff Ruiz, Saucedo attempted to enroll at FlU but could not complete the application because he was unable to provide proof of his parents' federal immigration status. Saucedo later received a full scholarship to attend MDC's two-year program. Saucedo, however, is a dependent student who cannot prove his parents' federal immigration status, and for this reason, MDC classified Saucedo as an out-of-state resident. As a result, Saucedo is required to pay a higher tuition rate than resident students and his scholarship was reduced. Despite having initially received a full-scholarship, Saucedo is unable to afford a full course load of classes each semester and it will take him more than two years to complete a two-year degree.
Plaintiff Caroline Roa was born in Miami, Florida in 1993 and is a U.S. citizen by virtue of birthright. Roa's father-her only living parent-has resided in Florida for the past twentytwo years. Roa has resided in Florida her entire life and graduated from a Florida public high school in 2011. Roa was accepted to MDC, however, for the same reasons as Saucedo and Ruiz, Roa was classified as an out-of-state student and required to forfeit an academic scholarship that would have covered her full tuition and costs associated with attending MDC. Roa was consequently unable to attend college.
Plaintiff Kassandra Romero was born in Los Angeles, California, in 1993 and is a U.S. citizen by virtue of birthright. Romero and her parents have resided continuously in Florida since 1998 and Romero graduated from a Florida public high school in 2011. In early 2011 Romero registered to attend Palm Beach State College ("PBSC"). Shortly before classes were scheduled to begin, however, PBSC officials informed Romero that she would need to provide proof of her parents' federal immigration status to qualify for the in-state tuition rate. Romero
3

was unable to prove her parents' federal immigration status. Consequently, Romero was unable to afford to attend PBSC and was forced to withdraw. Romero is currently not attending a postsecondary educational institution.
Plaintiff Janeth America Perez was born in Miami, Florida in 1992 and is a U.S. citizen by virtue of birthright. Perez's mother has resided in Florida for the past twenty-five years, and Perez has resided in Florida her entire life. Upon graduating from a Florida public high school in 2011, Perez applied to MDC and was accepted. Perez, however, was classified as an out-of-state resident because she was unable to prove her parents' federal immigration status. Unable to afford MDC's higher tuition rate for out-of-state residents, Perez was forced to withdraw from MDC. Perez currently attends a Job Corps program3 and plans on attending college in the future.
Defendant Gerard Robinson is the Florida Commissioner of Education and a member of the Florida Board of Governors. The Commissioner is the Executive Director of the Department of Education and is the chief educational officer for the State of Florida. FLA. STAT. §§ 20.15(2), 1001.10(1). The Commissioner is "responsible for giving full assistance to the State Board of Education in enforcing compliance with the mission and goals of the K-20 education system except for the State University System." FLA. STAT. § 1001.10(1). This includes the State's twenty-eight community colleges, which includes MDC and PBSC. The State Board of Education and the Board of Governors are responsible for adopting rules to determine the residency status of community college students for tuition purposes. FLA. STAT. § 1009.21(13). Robinson is sued in his official capacity.
Defendant Frank T. Brogan is Chancellor of the State University System. The Chancellor of the State University System is appointed by the Board of Governors and is tasked
3 Job Corps is a program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor that offers technical training and education programs for students ages sixteen through twenty-four.
4

with aiding the Board of Governors in implementing its responsibilities. FLA. STAT. § 20.155(3).
The Florida Board of Governors oversees eleven public universities in the State of Florida,
including FlU, and is responsible for operating, regulating, and controlling the management of
the State University System. Id. § 20.155(4). Brogan is sued in his official capacity. The
remaining Defendants4 are all Chairs or Members of the Florida State Board of Education or the
Florida Board of Governors. All Defendants are sued in their official capacity.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1331 because this
action arises under the United States Constitution. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.c. § 1343 because this action seeks to redress the deprivation "of any right, privilege or
immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing
for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States." Venue
is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) because each Plaintiff lives in the Southern District of
Florida and applied to public post-secondary educational institutions in the Southern District of
Florida.
4 The remaining Defendants are Kathleen Shanahan, Chair of the Florida State Board of Education; Roberto Martinez, Member and Vice Chair of the Florida State Board of Education; Sally Bradshaw, Member of the Florida State Board of Education; Gary Chartrand, Member of the Florida State Board of Education; A.K. Desai, Member of the Florida State Board of Education; Barbara S. Feingold, Member of the Florida State Board of Education; John R. Padget, Member of the Florida State Board of Education; Dean Colson, Chair of the Florida Board of Governors; Morteza "Mori" Hosseini, Vice Chair of the Florida Board of Governors; Richard A. Beard, III, Member of the Florida Board of Governors; Joseph L. Caruncho, Member of the Florida Board of Governors; Chris COIT, Member of the Florida Board of Governors; Patricia Frost, Member of the Florida Board of Governors; Thomas G. Kuntz, Member of the Florida Board of Governors; Michael Long, Member of the Florida Board of Governors and Chair of the Florida Student Association; Ava L. Parker, Member of the Florida Board of Governors; Tico Perez, Member of the Florida Board of Governors; John Rood, Member of the Florida Board of Governors; Gus A. Stavros, Member of the Florida Board of Governors; John W. Temple, Member of the Florida Board of Governors; Norman D. Tripp, Member of the Florida Board of Governors; and Richard A. Yost, Member of the Florida Board of Governors.
5

III. BACKGROUND Individuals are classified under Florida law as residents and non-residents in order to
determine tuition rates for public colleges and universities. See FLA. STAT. § 1009.21. A student who qualifies as a resident is also afforded preferential treatment throughout the admissions process by several of Florida's post-secondary educational institutions. PI. 's Resp., at 3. The definition of a "legal resident" or "resident" is "a person who has maintained his or her residence in this state for the preceding year, has purchased a home which is occupied by him or her as his or her residence, or has established a domicile in this state ...." Id. § 1009.21(1)(d). The statute further distinguishes between individuals who are independent and those that are dependent in establishing in-state residency. A "dependent" is "any person, whether or not living with his or her parent, who is eligible to be claimed by his or her parent as a dependent under the federal income tax code." Id. § 1009.21(1)(a). To establish residency for tuition purposes, "[a] person or, if that person is a dependent child, his or her parent or parents must have established legal residence in this state and must have maintained legal residence in this state for at least 12 consecutive months immediately prior to his or her initial enrollment in an institution of higher education." Id. § 1009.21 (2)(a) 1.
Pursuant to section 1009.21, the State Board of Education and the Board of Governors are authorized to adopt additional regulations in order to implement the statute. Id. § 1009.21(13). Both the State Board of Education and the Board of Governors have adopted additional criteria in determining residency for tuition and other purposes. See FLA. ADMIN. CODE r. 6A-1O.044; FLA. ADMIN. CODE r. 72-1.001. Both regulations provide, inter alia, additional criteria in determining residency when an individual or the parents of a dependent are not citizens of the United States. For example, "[t]he student, and parent if the student is a
6

dependent, must present evidence of legal presence in the United States." FLA. ADMIN. CODE r. 72-1.001(5)(a)3; see also FLA. ADMIN. CODE r. 6A-10.044(4).
In light of these regulations, Plaintiffs allege that they have been wrongfully classified as "non-residents" of the State of Florida and, inter alia, charged higher tuition rates than individuals who qualify as residents. Plaintiffs allege this classification is the sole result of their inability to establish their parents' lawful immigration status and claim that this classification violates their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
IV. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment may be entered only where there is no genuine issue of material fact. Twiss v. Kury, 25 F.3d 1551, 1554 (l1th Cir. 1994). The moving party has the burden of meeting this exacting standard. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). Moreover, "A party must support its assertion that there is no genuine issue of material fact by 'citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . . , admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.'" Ritchey v. S. Nuclear Operating Co., No. 10-11962, 2011 WL 1490358, at *1 (lIth Cir. Apr. 20, 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(l)). An issue of fact is "material" if it is a legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case. Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (lIth Cir. 1997). An issue of fact is "genuine" if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. Id.
In applying this standard, the district court must view the evidence and all factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Id. "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmovant's] position will be insufficient;
7

there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [nonmovant]." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). V.ANALYSIS
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state shall deny "any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. Thus the Equal Protection Clause reflects a fundamental tenant that "'all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike. ", Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 217 (1982) (quoting F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920».5 At its inception, the reach of Equal Protection Clause was interpreted narrowly by the Supreme Court. In The Slaughter-House Cases, the Supreme Court noted that it "doubt[ed] very much whether any action of a State not directed by way of discrimination against the negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of[the Equal Protection Clause]." 83 U.S. (17 Wall.) 36,81 (1872). This of course proved false and just over a decade later the Supreme Court relied on the Equal Protection Clause to strike down a San Francisco city ordinance that discriminated against Asians and Asian-Americans. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886). The Supreme Court has since expanded the reach of the Equal Protection Clause to encompass numerous types of legislative classifications in order to preserve substantive values of equality and liberty. See LAURENCE H. TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1465 (2d ed. 1988).
With this expansion, the Supreme Court has recognized that some legislative classifications threaten the substantive values of equality and liberty more so than others.
5 As the United States Supreme Court has noted on numerous occasions, however, the Constitution does not "require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." Plyler, 457 U.S. at 217 (quoting Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 (1940».
8

Legislative classifications that impinge access to a fundamental right; distribute burdens of benefits inconsistent with a fundamental right; or prejudice groups based on, inter alia, immutable qualities, are subject to "strict scrutiny." See Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist. No. li, 395 U.S. 621 (1969) (holding that a state statute that restricted voting in school district elections to those who had children enrolled in the local public school or owned or leased taxable property in the district violated the Equal Protection Clause); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 627 (1969) (holding that denial of welfare benefits based on duration of residency "constitutes an invidious discrimination" and violates the Equal Protection Clause); Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944) (holding that classifications based on race are subject to the "most rigid scrutiny"); see also TRIBE, supra, at 1464. Such legislative classifications are only permissible to promote a "compelling" state interest. See San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1,97 (1973).
Legislative classifications in the context of economic and commercial matters are afforded a lower level of scrutiny and are generally reviewed to ensure that the state classification bears only a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. See Mass. Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 314 (1976) (upholding a Massachusetts' statute that imposed a mandatory retirement age upon police officers because the classification was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting the public by "assuring physical preparedness of its uniformed police"); see also Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 97 (citing cases). The Supreme Court has more recently held that some legislative classifications, such as classifications based on gender or illegitimacy, are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny that falls somewhere between strict scrutiny and rational basis. Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977) (illegitimacy); Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) (gender). Under intermediate scrutiny, legislative classifications are generally upheld if the classification is "substantially
9

related" to "important governmental objectives." Boren, 429 U.S. at 198 ("[C]lassifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives."). Intermediate scrutiny provides a more flexible approach than strict scrutiny and "does not leave 'ungoverned and ungovernable' an entire legislative area." Mary Jean Moltenbrey, Alternative Models of Equal Protection Analysis: Plyler v. Doe, 24 B.C.
L. REv. 1363, 1378 (1983) (quoting Gerald Gunther, The Supreme Court. 1971 Term -
Forward: In Search of an Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: A Model for a Newer Equal
Protection, 86 HARV. L. REv. 1, 23 (1972)). "The intermediate standard of review has thus
enabled the Court to deal with classifications such as alienage, which may be appropriate for some legislative purposes but not for others." Id. This is because, as the Supreme Court has noted, to require all classifications based on alienage to meet strict scrutiny would "obliterate all the distinctions between citizens and aliens, and thus depreciate the historic values of citizenship." Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291, 295 (1978) (quoting Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1,14 (1977) (Burger, C. J., dissenting)); Moltenbrey, supra, at 1378.
With this in mind, this Court now considers the standard appropriate for the evaluation of the challenged regulations promulgated by the Florida State Board of Education and the Florida Board of Governors.
A. Level of Scrutiny By virtue of their classification, Plaintiffs are denied a benefit in the form of significantly lower tuition rates to the State's public post-secondary educational institutions. This creates an additional obstacle for Plaintiffs to attain post-secondary education from one of the State's public institutions that is not faced by other residents. Plaintiffs also face additional obstacles to the extent Plaintiffs are not afforded the preferential treatment residents receive throughout the admissions process at several of the State's public post-secondary educational institutions.
10

Public education is "not a 'right' granted to individuals by the Constitution. See Plyler, 457 U.S. at 221 (citing Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 35). The Supreme Court, however, has noted the importance of education. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court held that Texas' denial of primary education to children who were undocumented for federal immigration purposes did not further a substantial state interest. Highlighting the importance of education, the Supreme Court observed that, "The'American people have always regarded education and [the] acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance. '" Id. at 221 (quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390,400 (1923». "In addition, education provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all [and] has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society." Id.
Though Plyler addressed a state's denial of primary education to individuals based on immigration status,6 the importance of post-secondary education cannot be overlooked. In the thirty years that have elapsed since the Supreme Court decided Plyler, the needs of the labor force have changed dramatically and the importance of post-secondary education has increased significantly. Higher education is a prerequisite to pursue careers in science, medicine, engineering, and law. Those with post-secondary education attain higher earnings and suffer lower unemployment rates. According to the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2011 the unemployment rate among persons age twenty-five or older with a bachelor's degree was 4.9% compared to 9.4% for those with only a high-school diploma. The same study found that those with a bachelor's degree had median weekly earnings of $1,053 compared to $638 for those with only a high-school diploma. See UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, EDUCATION PAYS (Mar. 23, 2012),
6 Plyler v. Doe is also distinguishable because the plaintiffs in Plyler were undocumented for federal immigration purposes. Here, the Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens by virtue of birthright. See supra note 2.
11

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_OO1.htm. A separate study found that the gap in earnings between those with college degrees and those without college degrees is continually widening. "In 2008, median earnings for women ages 25 to 34 with a bachelor's degree or higher were 79% higher than median earnings for women with a high school diploma. The earnings premium for men was 74%. These earnings differentials were 60% and 54%, respectively, a decade earlier." SANDY BAUM, JENNIFER MA & KATHLEEN PAYEA, COLLEGE BD. ADVOC. & POL'y CTR., EDUCATION PAYS 2010: THE BENEFITS OF HIGHER EDUCATION FOR INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETY 4 (2010); see also DAVID AUTOR, CTR. FOR AM. PROGRESS, THE POLARIZATION OF JOB OPPORTUNITIES IN THE U.S. LABOR MARKET: IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS 5 (2010) ("After three decades of sustained increases, the return to skills as typically measured by the earnings ratio of college graduates relative to high school graduates is at a historic high. In 1963, the hourly wage of the typical college graduate was approximately 1.5 times the hourly wage of the typical high school graduate. By 2009, this ratio stood at 1.95. The entirety of this 45 percentage point rise occurred after 1980.").
Therefore the State's regulations present "obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit." Plyler, 457 U.S. at 222. This outcome does not alone warrant heightened scrutiny, as residency requirements for access to in-state tuition benefits have long been held constitutional so long as they do not unreasonably burden other rights. See Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 453-54 (1973) ("The State can establish such reasonable criteria for in-state status as to make virtually certain that students who are not, in fact, bona fide residents of the State, but who have come there solely for educational purposes, cannot take advantage of the in-state rates."); see also Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321, 326-29 (1983). The State regulations do, however, distribute different benefits and create different obstacles between similarly situated individuals. Dependent U.S. citizen students who have lived in Florida for their entire life,
12

graduated from a Florida public high-school, and whose parents have "lived in the state for the
us. preceding year," FLA. STAT. § 1009.21(1)(d), and are citizens, receive tuition benefits that
significantly lower the cost-of-attendance to the State's public post-secondary educational institutions as well as preferential treatment in admissions. Conversely, dependent U.S. citizen students who have lived in Florida for their entire life, graduated from a Florida public highschool, and whose parents have "lived in the state for the preceding year" but are undocumented for federal immigration purposes do not receive tuition benefits or preferential treatment during admissions. Thus, the State regulations deny a benefit and create unique obstacles to attain public post-secondary public education for U.S. citizen children who would otherwise qualify for in-state tuition but for their parents' undocumented immigration status.
The Supreme Court has applied a form of heightened scrutiny when evaluating alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause that arise from a state's denial of a benefit to a child or creation of an additional obstacle to a child solely by virtue of the parent's unlawful or immoral behavior. In Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988) the Supreme Court used heightened scrutiny to evaluate a Pennsylvania statute that created obstacles to attaining parental support based on a child's illegitimacy. Id. at 461; see also Plyler, 457 U.S. at 220; Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91, 98-99 (1982). This reflects a fundamental principle of American jurisprudence: "imposing disabilities on the ... child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth and penalizing the ... child is an ineffectual-as well as unjust-way of deterring the parent." Plyler, 457 U.S. at 220 (quoting Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 (1972) (footnote omitted)). Here, the State regulations deny a benefit to Plaintiffs and impinge Plaintiffs' ability to attain post-secondary education at the State's public institutions solely by virtue of their parents' undocumented status, and in a very real way the regulations
13

punish the citizen children for the acts of their parents. Thus the State regulations' classification is subject to heightened scrutiny and will not run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause so long as it is "substantially related" to "important governmental objectives."
Defendants argue that they are merely complying with federal law and therefore heightened scrutiny is unwarranted. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 ("PRWORA"), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq., provides that
Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1623 (emphasis added). Defendants claim that because the State does not extend tuition benefits to all U.S. citizens the regulations are compliant with federal law. Defendants further assert that because PRWORA authorizes a state to "require an applicant for State and local public benefits ... to provide proof of eligibility," id. § 1625, that PRWORA explicitly authorizes the State to ask for proof of eligibility regarding the dependent applicants' parents. Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., at 11. Defendants fundamentally misconstrue PRWORA and in doing so purport to classify Plaintiffs-all of whom are U.S. citizens by virtue of birthright-by their parents' alienage. Under the plain language of PRWORA, "[t]he term 'alien' means any person not a citizen or national of the United States." 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(3). As Plaintiffs are not "aliens," PRWORA cannot serve as a basis to restrict public benefits to them. This is further bolstered by the fact that public post-secondary education and lower tuition rates for in-state residents are properly viewed as attaching to the student and not to the household. It is the Plaintiffs who, upon graduating from a post-secondary educational institution, receive their names on diplomas, and it
14

is Plaintiffs-not Plaintiffs' parents, cousins, or siblings-who are entitled to the benefits conferred by such a degree. See OP. COLO. ATT'y GEN. No. 07-03, 2007 Colo. AG LEXIS 3 (2007) (analyzing PRWORA and concluding that "[c]urrent state and federal law permit the state to grant in-state tuition status to students who are U.S. citizens but whose parents or guardians are undocumented aliens, as long as the student can properly establish his or her lawful presence in the United States and the other statutory requirements for establishing eligibility for in-state tuition are met. Because it is the student, rather than the parents, who is the legal beneficiary of in-state tuition status, the fact that the parents may be in the country illegally is not a bar to the student's receipt of that benefit." (emphasis added». As Plaintiffs note, post-secondary education tuition is "the responsibility and obligation of each student, not his or her parents, even if the student is a dependent when that tuition obligation is incurred." Pl.'s Resp., at 4. "[T]he University of Florida has expressed in no uncertain terms that students are responsible for tuition payment, late fees, and returned check charges, and has warned that it will maintain a 'financial hold' on the records of students who have delinquent fees and charges." Id.: see also REGULATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ch. 6CI-3.035 (2012), available at, http://regulations.ufl.edu/chapter3/30375.pdf ("A student is liable for Tuition Costs associated with all courses for which the student is registered at the end ofthe drop/add period.").
Therefore, Defendants by their own admission classify Plaintiffs by virtue of their parents' undocumented status. The Supreme Court has recognized that alienage classifications are not subject to strict scrutiny because to do so would "obliterate all the distinctions between citizens and aliens, and thus depreciate the historic values of citizenship." Foley, 435 U.S. at 295 (quoting Nyquist, 432 U.S. at 14 (Burger, C. J., dissenting». Here, however, Defendants classify U.S. citizens as aliens, and in doing so, create a second-tier of U.S. citizenship that depreciates the historic values of Plaintiffs' citizenship by affording Plaintiffs some of the benefits that other
15

similarly situated U.S. citizens enjoy but not all of the benefits. Such a classification provides an independent basis for the application of heightened scrutiny. See Lewis v. Thompson, 252 F.3d 567 (2d Cir. 200 I) (holding that the "highly deferential standard appropriate in matters of immigration" was not applicable because the claim was asserted on behalf of a citizen who was denied automatic eligibility for Medicaid benefits due to his parent's alienage and therefore heightened scrutiny was appropriate).
B. Application Defendants' sole justification for the classification propounded by the State regulations concerns the State's limited financial means and the quality of public post-secondary education. According to Defendants, "If Florida were required to extend the benefit of in-state tuition rates to all United States citizens regardless of their State of residency, the annual impact would be approximately $200,000,000 in reduced tuition revenue. This result would have a significant negative impact on Florida's public universities and colleges." Defs' Mot. for Summ. l, at 3-4.7 Defendants' claim is premised on Defendants' flawed interpretation of PRWORA-that by offering in-state tuition rates to the U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants the State would be forced to offer in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens. This is simply incorrect. As noted, PRWORA is inapplicable as Plaintiffs are not "aliens" but rather U.S. citizens and the benefit of in-state tuition rates and public post-secondary education accrues to the student and not the household. See supra Part V.A. Affording U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants-who would otherwise meet Florida's residency requirement but for the parents' undocumented immigration status-the same privileges and opportunities as U.S. citizen
7 Defendants misconstrue the class of persons seeking reduced tuition and other benefits based on Florida residency and not regardless of Florida residency.
16

children of U.S. citizens who meet Florida's residency requirement would not prevent the State from continuing to distinguish between in-state residents and out-of-state non-residents.8
Although not argued by the State, this Court has independently undertaken consideration of other bases upon which to uphold the challenged regulations. Even turning to the traditional state interests offered in support of residency requirements for access to in-state tuition rates, however, the relationship between Plaintiffs' residency, their parents' immigration status, and these State interests is far too tenuous to justify the State's classification of Plaintiffs and withstand heightened scrutiny. See Boren, 429 U.S. at 204 ("[T]he relationship between gender and traffic safety becomes far too tenuous to satisfy Reed's requirement that the gender-based difference be substantially related to achievement of the statutory objective."). As Plaintiffs emphasize, "Florida does not have a state income tax through which public education is funded [therefore] it cannot be argued that a reduced resident tuition rate is intended to return taxed income." Pl.'s Sur-Reply, at 4 n.1 (ECF No. 70). "Plaintiffs and their parents make the same contributions through transactional taxes within the state of Florida as those classified as in-state residents." Id. Accordingly, the State's classification bears no relationship to any State interest in distributing funds to its own citizens9 from whom a significant portion of the funds originate.
The classification also bears no relationship to any State interest in ensuring that in-state tuition benefits are provided only to those who evince an intent to remain in Florida postgraduation and, by virtue of their public post-secondary education, will contribute to the State's
8 Indeed, nothing herein should be construed so as to preclude the State of Florida from requiring proof of Florida residency from a dependent U.S. citizen student and the student's parents in order to classify the student as a resident or non-resident for tuition and other related purposes, only that a U.S. citizen student who resides in, and whose parent resides in Florida cannot be denied in-state residency based on a parent's inability to provide proof of his or her federal immigration status. 9 This is similar to the argument advanced by the State of Minnesota in Starns v. Malkerson, 326 F. Supp. 234, 240 (D. Minn. 1970), affd, 401 U.S. 985 (1971).
17

economy. See Starns v. Malkerson, 326 F. Supp. 234, 241 (D. Minn. 1970), affd, 401 U.S. 985 (1971 ) ("[Minnesota] has a valid interest in providing tuition-free education to those who have demonstrated by a year's residence a bona fide intention of remaining here and who, by reason of that education, will be prepared to make a greater contribution to the state's economy and future."). To justify such an interest based on the classification at issue would necessitate finding that U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants-who would otherwise meet Florida's residency requirement but for their status as dependents and their parents' undocumented immigration status-are less likely to remain in the State and contribute to the State economy than U.S. citizen children of U.S. citizens who meet Florida's residency requirement. There is simply no support for such a finding. VI. CONCLUSION
The State's definition of "legal resident" is facially neutral regarding federal immigration status. See FLA. STAT. § 1009.21(1)(d). However, as applied, Defendants' additional criteria10 for determining residency for public post-secondary education purposes classifies Plaintiffs in such a way as to deny Plaintiffs the same benefits and important opportunities as similarly situated individuals by virtue of their parents' undocumented immigration status. The relationship between Plaintiffs' residency, their parents' immigration status, and the State's interest in providing quality public post-secondary education is far too tenuous to justify the State's regulations and withstand heightened scrutiny. Accordingly, Defendants' regulations violate the Equal Protection Clause to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In light of this Court's ruling with respect to Count I of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, this Court does not reach Count II of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint made pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
\0 See FLA. ADMIN. CODE r. 72-1.001(5)(a)3; FLA. ADMIN. CODE r. 6A-I0.044(4). 18

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.

70) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. This Court awards summary judgment

in favor of Plaintiffs with respect to Count I of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29).

Count II of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is DENIED AS MOOT. Final judgment will be

entered by separate order. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF

No. 81) is DENIED.

thi~y DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida,

of August,20l2.

cc: All counsel of record

~Jh. }AAffiL . ICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19

 
 Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2012 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR TH E SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CaseNo.1:11-cv-23776-KM M W ENDY RUIZ,efal.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
GERARD ROBW SON ,efal., D efendants.
FINAL JUDGM ENT
THISCAUSEcamebeforetheCourtuponPlaintiffs'AmendedComplaint(ECFNo.29),
which alleged thatDefendants'administrative regulationsclmssifying dependentUnited States citizen students who reside in Florida as fçnon-residents'' based on their parents' federal im migration sut'us are tmconstitutional. On August31,2012,this Courtentered the Order GrantinginPartPlaintiffs'M otion forSummaryJudgmentandDenyingDefendants'M otion for
SummaryJudgment(thettsllmmaryJudgmentOrder'') (ECFNo.94).Therein,thisCourtruled
thatDefendants'regulationsviolate the EqualProtection Clauseto the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United StatesConstim tion.
Subsequentto entering theSum maryJudgm entOrder,thisCourtheard oralargumenton the scopeoftheFinalJudgmentto be entered in the above-styled action. Atthe hearing,this Court directed the parties to subm it proposed FinalJudgm ent orders and to subm it briefs
regardingthescopeofpermanentinjtmctiverelief.Thepartiescomplied. SeeECFNos.100,
101,102,103,106.ThisCourthmsconsidered the Parties'r gum entsand briefs.
1

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2012 Page 2 of 3
Ptlrsllsntto FederalRule ofCivilProcedure 58,and in accordance with the remsoning statedinthisCourt'sSumm aryJudgm entOrder,itisherebyORDERED AND ADJUDGED :
1. FinalJudgm entishereby enteredinfavorofPlaintiffson CountOneoftheAmended
Complaint. Sections 6A-10.044(4)(a) and 72-1.001(5)(a)3 of the Florida
Administrative Code arehereby declared to be in violation ofthe EqualProtection Clause to the Fourteenth Am endmentofthe United States Constitution insofaras theseprovisionsrequiredependentUnited Statescitizen smdentswho can otherwise establish Florida residency and the Florida residency of their parents to also provide evidence oftheirparents'federalim migration stattzs and/or legalpresence in the United States in orderto qualify ms tçresidents for tuition purposes''and thereby becom e eligible forlow erin-state tuition ratesatFlorida'spublic universitiesand
colleges. Defendantsand theirsuccessors,in theiroftk ialcapacities,are hereby ENJOINED
from interpreting Sections 6A-10.044(4)(a) and 72-1.001(5)(a)3 of the Florida
Adm inistrative Code so asto requiredependentUnited Statescitizen sm dentswho canotherwiseestablishFloridaresidency andtheFloridaresidency oftheirparentsto also provide evidence of their parents' federal im migration status and/or legal presenceintheUnited Statesin ordertoqualify astçresidentsfortuition purposes''at Florida'spubliclmiversitiesand colleges.
3. The injunctive relief herein shallapply prospectively with respect to residency
determ inations for dependent United States citizen sm dents who can otherwise establish Florida residency and the Florida residency oftheirparents comm encing with the Spring2013 academ icterm .
2

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2012 Page 3 of 3
4. Defendantsand theirsuccessorsare ORDERED to instnzctthe presidentsofeach of Florida'spublic collegesand universitiesto provide written notice to al1dependent United States citizen students of the change in intem retation of Sections 6A-
10.044(4)(a)and72-1.001(5)(a)3oftheFloridaAdministrativeCodeconsistentwith
thisFinalJudgmentOrderand thisCourt'sSummaryJudgm entOrderwithin twenty
(20)days ofthe date ofthis Order,unlessupon a shoning ofgood cause,an
additionalperiodoftim eisrequired.
5. TheCourtRETAINSjurisdictiontodetermineattorneys'feesandcostsandtoinstlre
com pliance with thisO rder. 6. The Clerk ofthe CourtshallCLOSE thiscmse. Al1pending m otionsaredenied as
M o o'r.
DONEANDORDEREDinchambersatMiami,Florida,thisld-WjayofOctober,2012.

cc: Allcotmselofrecord

$#
. M ICHA EL M O ORE UNITED STATESDISTRICT JUDGE

3

 
 Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 110 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2012 Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 11-23776-CTV-KMM
WENDY RUIZ; NOEL SAUCEDO; CAROLINE ROA; KASSANDRA ROMERO; and JANETH AMERICA PEREZ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GERARD ROBINSON, Florida Commissioner of Education, sued in his official capacity; KATHLEEN SHANAHAN, sued in her official capacity; ROBERTO MARTINEZ, sued in his official capacity; SALLY BRADSHAW, sued in her official capacity; GARY CHARTRAND, sued in his official capacity; AK. DESAL, sued in his official capacity; BARBARA S. FEINGOLD, sued in her official capacity; JOHN R. PADGET, sued in his official capacity; FRANK T. BROGAN, Chancellor of the State University System, sued in his official capacity; DEAN COLSON, sued in his official capacity; MORTEZA "MOR1" HOSSEINI, sued in his official capacity; RICHARD A BEARD, III, sued in his official capacity; JOSEPH L. CARUNCHO, sued in his official capacity; CHRIS CORR, sued in his official capacity; PARTICIA FROST, sued in her official capacity; THOMAS G. KUNTZ, sued in his official capacity; MICHAEL LONG, sued in his official capacity; AVA L. PARKER, sued in her official capacity; TICO PEREZ, sued in his official capacity; JOHN ROOD, sued in his official capacity; GUS A STAVROS, sued in his official capacity;
Page 2 of3

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 110 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2012 Page 2 of 3
JOHN W. TEMPLE, sued in his official capacity; NORMAN D. TRIPP, sued in his official capacity; and RICHARD A. YOST, sued in his official capacity;
Defendants. I
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS AND EXPENSES All Plaintiffs and all Defendants, by their respective counsel of record , hereby enter into this agreement ("Settlement Agreement") to settle all claims by Plaintiffs against Defendants for attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs or their counsel in or in connection with the above-captioned action, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida as Case Number 11-23776-CN-KMM (the "Litigation"), including a ll statutory costs and non-statutory costs and expenses, for the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), to be paid to the Southern Poverty Law Center Trust Account within thirty (30) days of execution of this Settlement Agreement by both of said counsel of record. The parties enter into this Settlement Agreement with the advice of counsel, and aver that it is the result of arms ' length negotiation and is fair and reasonable. The Plaintiffs agree to accept the settlement amount in full satisfaction of all attorneys ' fees and costs and expenses incurred in this litigation accruing or claimed at any time, including any appellate fees and costs and expenses, all unclaimed amounts for time or costs or expenses not yet raised in any motion or petition, and any attorneys' fees or costs or expenses which might have been claimed in the future, in the Litigation. In consideration thereof, Plaintiffs hereby jointly and severally release and forever discharge each and every one of the Defendants of and from all claims for attorneys' fees and litigation costs
Page 3 of3

Case 1:11-cv-23776-KMM Document 110 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2012 Page 3 of 3

and expenses which Plaintiffs have had, now have, or may have against the Defendants or any one or

more of them, in the Litigation.

Nothing in this Settlement Agreement should be construed as an admission of liability by

Defendants, and this Settlement Agreement cannot be used as an admission by either party in this or

any other proceeding.

The attorneys executing this Settlement Agreement hereby represent that they are authorized

to enter into this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Parties as indicated below.

For Plaintiffs:

For Defendants: PAMELA JO BONDI Attorney General

Tania Gall i

Date

Florida Bar No. 619221

Southern Poverty Law Center

4770 Biscayne Blvd ., Ste 760

Miami, Florida 33137

Tel. (786) 347-2056

Fax (786) 237-2949

tania. gal loni@splcenter.org

Counsel for All Plaintiffs

Blaine H. Winship, Esq. Florida BarNo. 03569 13 Special Counsel Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Suite PL-0 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Tel. (850) 414-3300 Fax(850)488-4827 B Iaine. Wins hip @ myflorida lega l.co m
Counsel for All Defendants

 
 Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 1 of 17

U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11−cv−23776−KMM

CLOSED,EGT

Ruiz et al v. Robinson et al Assigned to: Judge K. Michael Moore Referred to: Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Wendy Ruiz

Date Filed: 10/19/2011 Date Terminated: 10/25/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Jerri K. Katzerman Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8320 Email: jerri.katzerman@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maria V. Morris Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8320 Email: maria.morris@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tania Galloni Southern Poverty Law Center 4770 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 760 Miami, FL 33137 (305) 537−0573 Fax: (786) 237−2949 Email: tania.galloni@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miriam Fahsi Haskell 4770 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 760 Miami, FL 33137 7863472056 Email: miriam.haskell@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Noel Saucedo

represented by Jerri K. Katzerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maria V. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 2 of 17

Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miriam Fahsi Haskell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Caroline Roa

represented by Jerri K. Katzerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maria V. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miriam Fahsi Haskell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kassandra Romero

represented by Jerri K. Katzerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maria V. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miriam Fahsi Haskell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Janeth America Perez on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Jerri K. Katzerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maria V. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 3 of 17
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam Fahsi Haskell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Gerard Robinson Florida Commissioner of Education, Official Capacity
Defendant Frank T. Brogan Chancellor of the State University System, Official Capacity
Defendant Roberto Martinez Official Capacity
Defendant Kathleen Shanahan Official Capacity
Defendant Sally Bradshaw Official Capacity
Defendant Gary Chartrand Official Capacity
Defendant A.K. Desai Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship Office of the Attorney General General Civil− State Programs PL−01, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850−414−3657 Fax: 850−488−4872 Email: Blaine.winship@myfloridalegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 4 of 17

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Barbara S. Feingold Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John R. Padget Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dean Colson Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Morteza "Mori"Hosseini Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Richard A. Beard, III Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Joseph L. Caruncho Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Chris Corr Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Patricia Frost Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Thomas G. Kuntz Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael Long Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address)

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 5 of 17

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ava L. Parker Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Tico Perez Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Gus A. Stavros Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John W. Temple Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Norman D. Tripp Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Richard A. Yost Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Rood Official Capacity

represented by Blaine H Winship (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Law Clinic

represented by Valory Toni Greenfield Florida Legal Services Inc Miami Advocacy Office 3000 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 102 Miami, FL 33137 305−573−0092X205 Fax: 305−576−9664 Email: valory@floridalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cindy LeAnn Huddleston Florida Legal Services, Inc.

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 6 of 17

2425 Torreya Dr Tallahassee, FL 32303 850−385−7900 Email: cindy@floridalegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathy Newman Grunewald Florida Legal Services, Inc. 2425 Torreya Drive Tallahassee, FL 32303 (850) 385−7900 Fax: (850) 385−9998 Email: kathy@floridalegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus The Children's Trust

represented by Charles Morris Auslander Greenberg Traurig 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 305−579−0624 Fax: 961−5624 Email: cmauva1979@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/19/2011
10/19/2011 10/19/2011 10/21/2011
10/21/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filing fee $ 350.00 receipt number 113C−4163507, filed by Wendy Ruiz, Kassandra Romero, Caroline Roa, Noel Saucedo, Janeth America Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet with Attachment, # 2 Summon(s) Gerard Robinson, # 3 Summon(s) Frank T. Brogan)(Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 10/19/2011)
2 Judge Assignment to Judge K. Michael Moore (abe) (Entered: 10/19/2011)
3 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Summon(s))(abe) (Entered: 10/19/2011)
4 PAPERLESS ORDER REFERRING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE EDWIN G. TORRES. PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the above−captioned Cause is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to any and all pretrial discovery matters. Any motion affecting deadlines set by the Court's Scheduling Order is excluded from this referral, unless specifically referred by separate Order. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 10/21/2011. (rg1) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
5 PAPERLESS PRETRIAL ORDER. THIS ORDER has been entered upon the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel is hereby ORDERED to forward to all defendants, upon receipt of a responsive pleading, a copy of this order. It is further ORDERED that S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1 shall apply to this case and the parties shall hold a scheduling conference no later than twenty (20) days after the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, or within sixty (60) days after the filing of the complaint, whichever occurs first. However, if all defendants have not been served by the expiration of this deadline, Plaintiff shall move for an enlargement of time to hold the scheduling conference, not to exceed 120 days from the filing of the Complaint. Within ten (10) days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a joint scheduling report. Failure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth above may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs. The parties should note that the time period for filing a joint scheduling report is not tolled by the filing of any other pleading, such as an amended complaint or

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 7 of 17

11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/21/2011
11/21/2011
12/08/2011 12/12/2011

Rule 12 motion. The scheduling conference may be held via telephone. At the conference, the parties shall comply with the following agenda that the Court adopts from S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1: (1) Documents (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.1 and 2) − The parties shall determine the procedure for exchanging a copy of or a description by category and location of all documents and other evidence that is reasonably available and that a party expects to offer or may offer if the need arises. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). (a) Documents include computations of the nature and extent of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party unless the computations are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). (b) Documents include insurance agreements which may be at issue with the satisfaction of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D). (2) List of Witnesses − The parties shall exchange the name, address and telephone number of each individual known to have knowledge of the facts supporting the material allegations of the pleading filed by the party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). The parties have a continuing obligation to disclose this information. (3) Discussions and Deadlines (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.2) − The parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. Failure to comply with this Order or to exchange the information listed above may result in sanctions and / or the exclusion of documents or witnesses at the time of trial. S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.M. Telephonic appearances are not permitted for any purpose. Upon reaching a settlement in this matter the parties are instructed to notify the Court by telephone and to file a Notice of Settlement within twenty−four (24) hours. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 10/21/2011. (rg1) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
6 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Maria V. Morris. Filing Fee $ 75.00. Receipt # 28563. (ksa) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
7 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Jerri K. Katzerman. Filing Fee $ 75.00. Receipt # 28563. (ksa) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
8 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filings 6 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion 6 is GRANTED. Maria V. Morris may appear Pro Hac Vice in this matter. The Clerk of the Court shall provide electronic notification of all electronic filings to maria.morris@splcenter.org. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/21/2011. (rg1) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
9 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filings 7 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion 7 is GRANTED. Jerri K. Katzerman may appear Pro Hac Vice in this matter. The Clerk of the Court shall provide electronic notification of all electronic filings to jerri.katzerman@splcenter.org. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/21/2011. (rg1) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
10 First MOTION for Extension of Time to convene scheduling conference by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. Responses due by 12/27/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
11 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time to Hold Scheduling Conference 10 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion 10 is GRANTED IN PART. The Parties have until January 17, 2012, to submit their Joint Scheduling Report. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 12/12/2011. (rg1) Modified Text on 12/13/2011 (ra). (Entered: 12/12/2011)

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 8 of 17

12/14/2011 12/14/2011
12/15/2011 12/16/2011 12/16/2011 12/19/2011
12/19/2011 01/05/2012 01/17/2012 01/20/2012

12 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE Executed Acknowledgment filed by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit proof of service upon defendants)(Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
14 NOTICE of Filing SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1 Complaint, by Wendy Ruiz, Kassandra Romero, Caroline Roa, Noel Saucedo, Janeth America Perez. Frank T. Brogan served on 12/5/2011, answer due 12/27/2011; Gerard Robinson served on 12/5/2011, answer due 12/27/2011. (ls)(See Image at DE # 12 ) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
13 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Blaine H Winship on behalf of Frank T. Brogan, Gerard Robinson (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
15 Clerks Notice to Filer re 12 Acknowledgment of Service. Wrong Event Selected; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong event. The document was re−docketed by the Clerk, see [de#14]. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ls) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
16 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer RE: Complaints re 1 Complaint, by Frank T. Brogan, Gerard Robinson. (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
17 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Complaint, to Hold Joint Scheduling Conference, and to File the Joint Scheduling Report 16 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion 16 is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants have until January 5, 2011, to respond to Complaint. Deadlines for submission of the Joint Scheduling Report established in the Court's December 12, 2011, Paperless Order 11 are not changed. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 12/19/11. (tas) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
Reset Answer Due Deadline: Defendants shall have until 1/5/12 to respond to the complaint per DE 17 . (tas) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
18 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support by Frank T. Brogan, Gerard Robinson. Responses due by 1/23/2012 (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
19 SCHEDULING REPORT − Rule 16.1 by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
20 PAPERLESS ORDER SCHEDULING TRIAL IN MIAMI. This case is now set for trial commencing the two−week trial period of September 24, 2012 at 9 a.m. in Courtroom 13−1, (thirteenth floor) United States Courthouse, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. All parties are directed to report to the calendar call on September 20, 2012 at 2 p.m., at which time all matters relating to the scheduled trial date may be brought to the attention of the Court. A final pretrial conference as provided for by Rule 16, Fed. R. Civ. P., and Rule 16.1(C), S.D. Fla. L.R., is scheduled for September 11, 2012 at 11 a.m. A bilateral pretrial stipulation and all other pretrial preparations shall be completed NO LATER THAN FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. All motions to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties must be filed by the later of forty−five (45) days after the date of entry of this Order, or forty−five(45) days after the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant. Any and all pretrial motions, including motions for summary judgment, must be filed no later than sixty (60) days prior to the trial date. Responses to summary judgment motions must be filed no later than fourteen (14) days after service of the motion, and replies in support of the motion must be filed no later than seven (7) days after service of the response, with both deadlines computed as specified in Rule 6, Fed. R. Civ. P. All discovery shall be completed seventy (70) days prior to the date of trial. The failure to engage in discovery pending settlement negotiations shall not be grounds for continuance of the trial date. All exhibits must be pre−marked, and a typewritten exhibit list setting forth the number and description of each exhibit must be submitted at the time of trial. For a jury trial, counsel shall prepare and submit proposed jury

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 9 of 17

01/20/2012 01/20/2012

instructions to the Court. For a non−jury trial, the parties shall prepare and submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law fully supported by the evidence which counsel expects the trial to develop and fully supported by citations to law. The proposed jury instructions or the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be submitted to the Court no later than five (5) business days prior to the scheduled trial date.. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 1/20/2012. (rg1) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
21 PAPERLESS ORDER OF REFERRAL TO MEDIATION. Trial having been set in this matter, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Southern District Local Rule 16.2, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. All parties are required to participate in mediation. The mediation shall be completed no later than sixty (60) days before the scheduled trial date. 2. Plaintiff's counsel, or another attorney agreed upon by all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties, shall be responsible for scheduling the mediation conference. The parties are encouraged to avail themselves of the services of any mediator on the List of Certified Mediators, maintained in the office of the Clerk of this Court, but may select any other mediator. The parties shall agree upon a mediator and file a Notice of Mediator Selection within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order. If there is no agreement, lead counsel shall notify the Clerk of Court in writing within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order, and the Clerk shall designate a mediator from the List of Certified Mediators, which designation shall be made on a blind rotation basis. 3. A place, date and time for mediation convenient to the mediator, counsel of record, and unrepresented parties shall be established. If the parties cannot agree to a place, date, and time for the mediation, they may motion the Court for an order dictating the place, date, and time. 4. The appearance of counsel and each party or representatives of each party with full authority to enter in a full and complete compromise and settlement is mandatory. If insurance is involved, an adjuster with authority up to the policy limits or the most recent demand, whichever is lower, shall attend. 5. All discussions, representations and statements made at the mediation conference shall be confidential and privileged. 6. At least ten (10) days prior to the mediation date, all parties shall present to the mediator a brief written summary of the case identifying issues to be resolved. Copies of these summaries shall be served on all other parties. 7. The Court may impose sanctions against parties and/or counsel who do not comply with the attendance or settlement authority requirements herein or who otherwise violate the terms of this Order. The mediator shall report non−attendance and may recommend imposition of sanctions by the Court for non−attendance. 8. The mediator shall be compensated in accordance with the standing order of the Court entered pursuant to Rule 16.2.B.6, or on such basis as may be agreed to in writing by the parties and the mediator selected by the parties. The cost of mediation shall be shared equally by the parties unless otherwise ordered by the Court. All payments shall be remitted to the mediator within 30 days of the date of the bill. Notice to the mediator of cancellation or settlement prior to the scheduled mediation conference must be given at least two (2) full business days in advance. Failure to do so will result in imposition of a fee for one hour. 9. If a full or partial settlement is reached in this case, counsel shall promptly notify the Court of the settlement in accordance with Local Rule 16.2.F, by the filing of a notice of settlement signed by counsel of record within ten (10) days of the mediation conference. Thereafter, the parties shall forthwith submit an appropriate pleading concluding the case. 10. Within five (5) days following the mediation conference, the mediator shall file a Mediation Report indicating whether all required parties were present. The report shall also indicate whether the case settled (in full or in part), was continued with the consent of the parties, or whether the mediator declared an impasse. 11. If mediation is not conducted, the case may be stricken from the trial calendar, and other sanctions may be imposed. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 1/20/2012. (rg1) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
22 Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. Responses due by 2/6/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration with Attachments of Professor E. Roman (Legal Scholar), # 2 Exhibit Declaration of W. Ruiz (Named Plaintiff), # 3 Exhibit Declaration of N. Saucedo (Named Plaintiff), # 4 Exhibit Declaration of C. Roa (Named Plaintiff), # 5 Exhibit Declaration of K. Romero (Named Plaintiff), # 6 Exhibit Declaration of J. Perez (Named Plaintiff), # 7 Exhibit Declaration of S.

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 10 of 17

01/23/2012
02/02/2012 02/06/2012 02/06/2012 02/06/2012 02/15/2012 02/24/2012
02/28/2012
02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012

Rincon (Class Member), # 8 Exhibit Declaration of A. Moten (Class Member), # 9 Exhibit Declaration of A. Dinis (Children's Rights Attorney), # 10 Exhibit Declaration of J. Katzerman (Plaintiffs' Counsel), # 11 Exhibit Declaration of T. Galloni (Plaintiffs' Counsel), # 12 Exhibit Declaration of M. Morris (Plaintiffs' Counsel))(Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
23 RESPONSE to Motion re 18 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. Replies due by 2/2/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Florida Residency Guidelines for Tuition Purposes, # 2 Exhibit Florida Department of Education Organizational Chart, # 3 Exhibit Press Release: New national rankings released for states' tuition and fees)(Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
24 RESPONSE/REPLY in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint by Frank T. Brogan, Gerard Robinson. (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
25 Request for Clerk to Appoint Mediator(Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
26 Clerk's Appointment of Mediator: Robert A. Lazenby added (pt) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
27 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 22 Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class by Frank T. Brogan, Gerard Robinson. (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
28 REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class filed by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. (Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
29 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Wendy Ruiz, Kassandra Romero, Caroline Roa, Noel Saucedo, Janeth America Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Summon(s) Kathleen Shanahan, # 2 Summon(s) Roberto Martinez, # 3 Summon(s) Sally Bradshaw, # 4 Summon(s) Gary Chartrand, # 5 Summon(s) A.K. Desai, # 6 Summon(s) Barbara S. Feingold, # 7 Summon(s) John R. Padget, # 8 Summon(s) Dean Colson, # 9 Summon(s) Morteza Hosseini, # 10 Summon(s) Richard A. Beard III, # 11 Summon(s) Joseph L. Caruncho, # 12 Summon(s) Chris Corr, # 13 Summon(s) Patricia Frost, # 14 Summon(s) Thomas G. Kuntz, # 15 Summon(s) Michael Long, # 16 Summon(s) Ava L. Parker, # 17 Summon(s) Tico Perez, # 18 Summon(s) John Rood, # 19 Summon(s) Gus A. Stavros, # 20 Summon(s) John W. Temple, # 21 Summon(s) Norman D. Tripp, # 22 Summon(s) Richard A. Yost)(Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
30 PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING AS MOOT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 18 and Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class 22 . These Motions are mooted by Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint 29 . The Parties have leave to renew their Motions as appropriate. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 2/28/2012. (rg1) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
31 Summons Issued as to Kathleen Shanahan. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
32 Summons Issued as to Roberto Martinez. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
33 Summons Issued as to Sally Bradshaw. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
34 Summons Issued as to Gary Chartrand. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
35 Summons Issued as to A.K. Desai. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
36 Summons Issued as to Barbara S. Feingold. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
37 Summons Issued as to John R. Padget. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
38 Summons Issued as to Dean Colson. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
39 Summons Issued as to Morteza Hosseini. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
40 Summons Issued as to Richard A. Beard, III. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
41 Summons Issued as to Joseph L. Caruncho. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 11 of 17

02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 03/01/2012
03/07/2012
03/19/2012 03/19/2012
03/19/2012

42 Summons Issued as to Chris Corr. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
43 Summons Issued as to Patricia Frost. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
44 Summons Issued as to Thomas G. Kuntz. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
45 Summons Issued as to Michael Long. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
46 Summons Issued as to Ava L. Parker. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
47 Summons Issued as to Tico Perez. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
48 Summons Issued as to John Rood. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
49 Summons Issued as to Gus A. Stavros. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
50 Summons Issued as to John W. Temple. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
51 Summons Issued as to Norman D. Tripp. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
52 Summons Issued as to Richard A. Yost. (ls) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
53 Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. Responses due by 3/19/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration with Attachments of Professor E. Roman (Legal Scholar), # 2 Exhibit Declaration of W. Ruiz (Named Plaintiff), # 3 Exhibit Declaration of N. Saucedo (Named Plaintiff), # 4 Exhibit Declaration of C. Roa (Named Plaintiff), # 5 Exhibit Declaration of K. Romero (Named Plaintiff), # 6 Exhibit Declaration of J. Perez (Named Plaintiff), # 7 Exhibit Declaration of S. Rincon (Class Member), # 8 Exhibit Declaration of A. Moten (Class Member), # 9 Exhibit Declaration of A. Dinis (Children's Rights Attorney), # 10 Exhibit Declaration of J. Katzerman (Plaintiffs' Counsel), # 11 Exhibit Declaration of T. Galloni (Plaintiffs' Counsel), # 12 Exhibit Declaration of M. Morris (Plaintiffs' Counsel))(Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
54 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 29 Amended Complaint,,, by Noel Saucedo, Wendy Ruiz, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Janeth America Perez. All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Return of Service (Richard A. Beard, III), # 2 Return of Service (Sally Bradshaw), # 3 Return of Service (Joseph L. Caruncho), # 4 Return of Service (Gary Chartran), # 5 Return of Service (Dean Colson), # 6 Return of Service (Chris Corr), # 7 Return of Service (A.K. Desai), # 8 Return of Service (Barbara S. Feingold), # 9 Return of Service (Patricia Frost), # 10 Return of Service (Morteza Hosseini), # 11 Return of Service (Thomas G. Kuntz), # 12 Return of Service (Michael Long), # 13 Return of Service (Roberto Martinez), # 14 Return of Service (John R. Padget), # 15 Return of Service (Ava L. Parker), # 16 Return of Service (Tico Perez), # 17 Return of Service (John Rood), # 18 Return of Service (Kathleen Shanahan), # 19 Return of Service (Gus A. Stavros), # 20 Return of Service (John W. Temple), # 21 Return of Service (Norman D. Tripp), # 22 Return of Service (Richard A. Yost))(Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
55 Notice of Mediation Hearing before Mediator, Robert A. Lazenby filed by Robert A. Lazenby. Mediation Hearing set for 5/8/2012 10:00 AM (Nicholson, Allene) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
56 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Blaine H Winship on behalf of Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
57 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer RE: Complaints re 29 Amended Complaint,,, by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori" Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. Responses due by 4/5/2012 (Winship, Blaine)

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 12 of 17

03/19/2012 03/20/2012 03/20/2012 03/21/2012 03/21/2012 03/22/2012 04/06/2012 04/16/2012
04/16/2012
04/17/2012

Modified Relief on 3/21/2012 (ls). (Entered: 03/19/2012)
58 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 53 Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori" Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. (Winship, Blaine) Modified Link on 3/21/2012 (ls). (Entered: 03/19/2012)
59 REPLY to Response to Motion re 53 Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class filed by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. (Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
60 MOTION to Dismiss 29 Amended Complaint,,, by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. Responses due by 4/6/2012 (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
61 Clerks Notice to Filer re 57 MOTION for Extension of Time additional ten days to respond to Amended Complaint re 29 Amended Complaint,,,. Filer Selected the Wrong Motion Relief(s); ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong motion relief(s) when docketing the motion. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future motions filed must include applicable reliefs. (ls) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
62 Clerks Notice to Filer re 58 Memorandum,. Document Not Linked; ERROR − The filed document was not linked to the related docket entry. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ls) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
63 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time 57 . This Motion is mooted by Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint 60 . Consequently, upon consideration of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the Record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendants' Motion 57 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 3/22/2012. (bce) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
64 RESPONSE in Opposition re 60 MOTION to Dismiss 29 Amended Complaint,,, filed by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. (Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 04/06/2012)
65 RESPONSE/REPLY to 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, 60 MOTION to Dismiss 29 Amended Complaint,,, by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
66 REPLY to Response to Motion re 60 MOTION to Dismiss 29 Amended Complaint,,, filed by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori" Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. (ls)(See Image at DE # 65 ) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
67 Clerks Notice to Filer re 65 Response/Reply (Other),,. Wrong Event Selected; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong event. The document was re−docketed by the Clerk, see [de#66]. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ls) (Entered:

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 13 of 17

04/20/2012 04/23/2012 04/24/2012 04/25/2012
04/25/2012 04/26/2012
04/27/2012
07/16/2012
07/19/2012 07/20/2012 07/20/2012

04/17/2012)
68 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Sur−Reply)(Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
69 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply 68 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff's Motion 68 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 4/23/2012. (bce) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
70 REPLY to Response to Motion re 60 MOTION to Dismiss 29 Amended Complaint,,, (Sur−Reply) filed by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit California Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit Colorado Attorney General Opinion)(Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
71 Defendant's MOTION to Dispense with Mediation by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
72 RESPONSE to Motion re 71 Defendant's MOTION to Dispense with Mediation filed by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. Replies due by 5/7/2012. (Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
73 REPLY to Response to Motion re 71 Defendant's MOTION to Dispense with Mediation filed by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
74 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Waive Mediation 71 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion 71 is GRANTED. The requirement in the Court's January 20, 2012, Paperless Order 21 that the Parties participate in mediation is waived. The Parties shall split equally any costs associated with the canceled mediation. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 4/27/2012. (bce) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
75 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. Responses due by 8/2/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of W Ruiz, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of N Saucedo, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of C Roa, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of K Romero, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of J Perez, # 7 Exhibit Declaration of J Singh, # 8 Exhibit Declaration of M Morris, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of J Katzerman)(Haskell, Miriam) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
76 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Valory Toni Greenfield on behalf of University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Law Clinic (Greenfield, Valory) (Entered: 07/19/2012)
77 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Charles Morris Auslander on behalf of The Children's Trust (Auslander, Charles) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
78 MOTION for Leave to File Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae, MOTION for Leave to Appear as Amicus . Attorney: Valory Greenfield( Responses due by 8/6/2012) by University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Law Clinic.

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 14 of 17

07/23/2012
07/24/2012 07/26/2012
07/30/2012
08/02/2012 08/02/2012 08/02/2012
08/02/2012 08/03/2012 08/09/2012

(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Proposed Brief of Amicus University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Law Clinic and The Children's Trust in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment)(Greenfield, Valory) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
79 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 78 MOTION for Leave to File Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae MOTION for Leave to Appear as Amicus . Attorney: Valory Greenfield by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
80 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Cindy LeAnn Huddleston on behalf of University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Law Clinic (Huddleston, Cindy) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
81 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. Responses due by 8/13/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13)(Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
82 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Clinic's Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief 78 . Defendants filed a Response 79 objecting to the Motion. UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the Response, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion 78 is GRANTED. The University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Clinic shall have leave to file an Amicus Curiae Brief on or before August 3, 2012. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 7/30/2012. (bce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
83 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Kathy Newman Grunewald on behalf of University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Law Clinic (Grunewald, Kathy) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
84 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Kathy Newman Grunewald on behalf of University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Law Clinic (Grunewald, Kathy) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
85 RESPONSE in Opposition re 75 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Responsive Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
86 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 75 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment by The Children's Trust, University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Law Clinic. (ls)(See Image at DE # 84 ) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
87 Clerks Notice to Filer re 84 Amicus Curiae Appearance. Wrong Event Selected; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong event. The document was re−docketed by the Clerk, see [de#86]. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ls) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
88 ORDER DENYING 53 Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/9/2012. (rg1) (Entered: 08/09/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 15 of 17

08/13/2012 08/13/2012 08/14/2012 08/21/2012
08/23/2012 08/31/2012 09/04/2012
09/05/2012 09/14/2012
09/24/2012

89 Combined RESPONSE in Opposition re 81 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit − Responsive Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit − Reply Declaration of Maria Morris)(Galloni, Tania) Modified to add missing event 90 reply to response to motion on 8/14/2012 (ls). (Entered: 08/13/2012)
90 REPLY to Response to Motion re 75 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. (ls)(See Image at DE # 89 ) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
91 Clerks Notice to Filer re 89 Response in Opposition to Motion,,. Two or More Document Events Filed as One; ERROR − Only one event was selected by the Filer but more than one event was applicable to the document filed. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but in the future, the Filer must select all applicable events. (ls) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
92 Joint MOTION to Vacate All Pretrial and Trial Dates Pending Resolution of Cross−Motions For Summary Judgment by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. Responses due by 9/7/2012 (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
93 REPLY to Response to Motion re 81 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
94 Order Granting In Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 75 and Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 81 . Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/31/2012. (dwe) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
95 PAPERLESS ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING. A hearing on the scope of the Final Judgement to be entered in the above styled case is set for Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 13−1, (thirteenth floor) United States Courthouse, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. In lieu thereof, the Parties may submit a joint proposed Final Judgement consistent with the terms of this Court's Order Granting In Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 94 . All other previously scheduled dates for trial and pretrial preparations in this action are cancelled. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 9/4/2012. (dwe) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
Hearing set for 9/27/2012 11:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge K. Michael Moore. (dwe) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
96 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 60 and the Parties' Joint Motion to Vacate All Pretrial and Trial Dates 92 . On August 31, 2012, this Court entered an Order Granting In Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 94 . In light of this Court's August 31, 2012 Order, and upon consideration of the Motions, the pertinent portions of the Record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 60 is DENIED AS MOOT. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Parties' Joint Motion to Vacate All Pretrial and Trial Dates 92 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 9/14/2012. (dwe) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
97 NOTICE RESCHEDULING HEARING. Please take note the Hearing previously scheduled for 09/27/2012 on the scope of the Final Judgment to be entered in this case has been rescheduled to 11:00 AM on 10/04/2012 in Miami Division before Judge K. Michael Moore. (rg1) (Entered: 09/24/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 16 of 17

09/27/2012 10/04/2012 10/12/2012
10/12/2012
10/15/2012 10/18/2012 10/18/2012 10/19/2012 10/22/2012
10/22/2012
10/23/2012

98 PAPERLESS NOTICE CHANGING TIME OF HEARING ONLY: Please take note the Hearing previously scheduled for 11:00 am on the scope of the Final Judgment to be entered in this case has been rescheduled to 10:30 AM on 10/04/2012 in Miami Division before Judge K. Michael Moore in Courtroom 13−1, United States Federal Courthouse, Miami, Florida. (rg1) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
99 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge K. Michael Moore: Hearing regarding scope of Final Judgment held on 10/4/2012. Court Reporter: Judy Wolff, 305−523−5294 / Judy_Wolff@flsd.uscourts.gov (rg1) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
100 NOTICE by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost of Filing Proposed Final Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Final Summary Judgment)(Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
101 MEMORANDUM of Law Regarding Scope of Permanent Injunctive Relief by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
102 NOTICE by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo of Filing Plaintiffs' Revised Proposed Final Order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Galloni, Tania) Modified on 10/16/2012 (ls). (Entered: 10/15/2012)
103 MEMORANDUM of Law re 101 Memorandum,, Regarding Scope of Permanent Injunctive Relief by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit MDC Academic Calendar, # 2 Exhibit MDC Residency Appeal Form, # 3 Exhibit UF Establishing Florida Residency)(Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
104 RESPONSE to 101 Memorandum,, by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo. (ls)(See Image at DE # 103 ) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
105 Clerks Notice to Filer re 103 Memorandum,. Wrong Event Selected; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong event. The document was re−docketed by the Clerk, see [de#104]. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ls) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
106 MEMORANDUM of Law re 103 Memorandum, 101 Memorandum,, Defendants' Reply Memorandum Regarding Scope of Permanent Injunctive Relief by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori"Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. (Winship, Blaine) (Entered: 10/22/2012)
107 REPLY to 104 Response/Reply (Other), 103 Memorandum, by Richard A. Beard, III, Sally Bradshaw, Frank T. Brogan, Joseph L. Caruncho, Gary Chartrand, Dean Colson, Chris Corr, A.K. Desai, Barbara S. Feingold, Patricia Frost, Morteza "Mori" Hosseini, Thomas G. Kuntz, Michael Long, Roberto Martinez, John R. Padget, Ava L. Parker, Tico Perez, Gerard Robinson, John Rood, Kathleen Shanahan, Gus A. Stavros, John W. Temple, Norman D. Tripp, Richard A. Yost. (ls)(See Image at DE # 106 ) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
108 Clerks Notice to Filer re 106 Memorandum,,. Wrong Event Selected; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong event. The document was re−docketed by the Clerk, see [de#107]. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ls) (Entered: 10/23/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-23776 As of: 12/23/2012 10:56 AM EST 17 of 17

10/25/2012 12/20/2012

109 FINAL JUDGMENT. Case closed. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 10/25/2012. (rg1) (Entered: 10/25/2012)
110 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT On Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Costs and Expenses by Janeth America Perez, Caroline Roa, Kassandra Romero, Wendy Ruiz, Noel Saucedo (Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 12/20/2012)