Florida High School Athletic Association v. Melbourne Central Catholic High School, Case No. 5D03-3437 (Fla. App. 5th Dist. 3/26/2004)
| Decision Date | 26 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5D03-3437. |
| Citation | 867 So.2d 1281 |
| Parties | FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. MELBOURNE CENTRAL CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL, ET AL., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Leonard E. Ireland, Jr. and Jennifer R. Williams of Clayton-Johnston, P. A., Gainesville, for Appellant.
Douglas D. Marks of Boyd & Marks, L.L.C., Melbourne, for Appellee.
The Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) appeals the entry of a temporary injunction prohibiting it from enforcing its decision that Robert Morris, a student at Melbourne Central Catholic High School (MCC), was ineligible to represent MCC in interscholastic sports during the 2003-2004 school year. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a). For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
The FHSAA, a non-profit corporation, is designated by statute to regulate high school athletic programs in member schools. See § 1006.20, Fla. Stat. (2003).1 Organized under the laws of Florida, FHSAA is a voluntary, not-for-profit corporation comprised of members, including public, private, parochial and institutional schools in Florida. As required by law, FHSAA, acting through its member schools, adopts rules regarding eligibility and similar matters related to interscholastic athletic competition.
Robert Morris attended MCC during his sophomore year of high school and for the first semester of his junior year. Morris performed well academically, played football, and was considered a player with talents sufficient to be considered for a college football scholarship. Following the conclusion of the first semester of his junior year, Morris transferred to Palm Bay High School. Upon transferring, Morris was told by MCC officials that he was free to return to MCC if things did not work out for him at Palm Bay.
During the summer of 2003, Morris attended a football camp at the University of Florida. Tim Lester, a coach at the camp, had recently agreed to coach football at MCC for the upcoming season. Lester testified that he had never been to MCC and did not know who Morris was. Nevertheless, Lester and Morris had contact with each other during the camp, confined solely, according to Lester, to a discussion regarding Lester's NFL career. However, when school began again in the Fall of 2003, Morris withdrew from Palm Bay and returned to MCC.
FHSAA has promulgated rules which prohibit the recruiting of students for athletic purposes. Based on a belief that a rule violation may have occurred, FHSAA began an investigation of MCC regarding alleged recruiting violations. On August 6, 2003, FHSAA notified MCC of alleged recruiting violations and requested a response.2 On August 12, 2003, MCC responded to FHSAA's request, and on August 20, 2003, after considering MCC's response, FHSAA ruled that Morris was ineligible to represent MCC in interscholastic sports for a period of one year.
FHSAA relied primarily on FHSAA bylaw 11.4.12 in establishing that Morris had been recruited by Lester. FHSAA bylaw 11.4.12 raises a presumption of recruiting, and provides, in pertinent part:
Participation by a student in non-school athletics (i.e. AAU, American Legion, club settings, etc.) on a team that is affiliated with any school other than the school which the student attends, or attended the prior year, followed by enrollment by that student in the affiliated school shall be considered prima facie evidence of recruiting by the school to which that student enrolled, or that the student enrolled in that school in whole or in part for athletic reasons . . . . A team affiliated with the school is one that is organized by and/or coached by any member of the coaching staff at, or any other person affiliated with, that school; and/or on which the majority of the members of the team (participants in practice and/or competition) are students who attend that school.
Pursuant to the appeals process set out in section 1006.20(7)(a)3 and FHSAA bylaws, MCC and Morris appealed the ineligibility ruling to FHSAA's sectional appeals committee. On September 11, 2003, the sectional appeals committee denied the appeal. MCC and Morris were advised that they had a right to appeal the sectional appeals committee's denial to the FHSAA Board of Directors at its next scheduled meeting on September 28, 2003. MCC and Morris elected not to follow the appeals process required by section 1006.20(7)(e) and FHSAA bylaws, and, instead, filed the instant action in the circuit court, seeking a temporary injunction restoring Morris's eligibility.
FHSAA moved to dismiss the circuit court action, contending that MCC and Morris had failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. On October 13, 2003, a hearing was held on Morris's motion for temporary injunction and on FHSAA's motion to dismiss. Several days later, the circuit court entered a temporary injunction, restoring Morris's eligibility and enjoining FHSAA from enforcing its decision that Morris was ineligible to represent MCC in interscholastic athletic competition for the 2003-2004 school year. This appeal followed.
"A temporary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should be sparingly granted." Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d 486, 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Generally, a party seeking a temporary injunction must establish: (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (2) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) that the threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs any possible harm to the respondent; and (4) that the granting of a temporary injunction will not harm the public interest. Id. at 489-90.
As a general rule, one seeking judicial review of administrative action must first exhaust such administrative remedies as are available and adequate to afford the relief sought. A reviewing court may not entertain a suit when the complaining party has not exhausted available administrative remedies. Orange County, Fla. v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n, 397 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on the need to avoid prematurely interrupting the administrative process, and to enable the agency or association to apply its discretion and expertise in the first instance to technical subject matter. Baillie v. Dep't of Nat. Res., Div. of Beaches & Shores, 632 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The exhaustion doctrine promotes judicial efficiency by giving the agency or association an opportunity to correct its own mistakes, thereby mooting controversies and eliminating the need for court intervention. DeCarlo v. Town of West Miami, 49 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1950).
In its order, the circuit court made the following findings:
1. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint is premised upon the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The general rule is that a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies. An issue exists in this case as to whether the Plaintiff is subject to this rule in connection with the Defendant Florida High School Athletic Association. There are no cases directly on point on this issue. However, the court need not address this issue as the Supreme Court of Florida has stated in Flo-Sun, Inc. v. Kirk, 783 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 2001), in discussing the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and primary jurisdiction, that some agency errors are so egregious and devastating as to render administrative remedies too little, too late. In Lewis Oil Company, Inc. v. Alachua County, 496 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) the court stated that administrative remedies must be both available and adequate.
2. The court finds that even if the doctrine of administrative remedies were applicable to the Plaintiff the administrative remedies afforded to him were futile based upon the following findings:
a) The only thing that matters to Plaintiff Morris is his ability to play in ten football games.
b) By the time the first hearing was afforded him on September 11, 2003 three football games had been played.
c) The September 11, 2003 [sic] was not focused on Morris and this procedure was inappropriate denying him an adequate remedy. This is especially true since the other recruiting violations focused on at the September 11, 2003 hearing were determined by the Defendant to be unfounded.
d) The appeal of the September 11, 2003 hearing to the Board of Directors of the FHSAA was not until September 28, 2003. By this time five football games had been played. Plaintiffs did not pursue this appeal.
e) While Defendant contends that this appeal is still available to the Plaintiffs, this appeal would not be heard until; two weeks after the football season had ended.
f) At the time of the hearing on this matter there were four football games remaining to be played.
g) The court will take judicial notice that it took the Plaintiffs thirty (30) days to get a hearing on their motion for temporary injunction.4
3. The Defendants next argue that for the court to grant the relief sought by the Plaintiffs the court would be impermissibly interfering in the affairs of a private organization. The cases of Florida Youth Soccer Association v. Sumner, 528 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Florida High School Activities Association v. Bradshaw, 369 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) and Sult v. Gilbert, 3 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1941) involved no constitutional issues. In Lee v. Florida High School Activities Assoc., 291 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) the court found that the Association's conduct is state action subject to the requirements of due process. The court finds that this constitutional standard has been violated for the same reasons articulated in paragraph 2 of this order.
4. On the basis of the foregoing, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial