Gamma Phi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. University of Miami
| Decision Date | 23 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-425,98-425 |
| Citation | 718 So.2d 910 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2192 GAMMA PHI CHAPTER of Sigma Chi Fraternity and Gamma Phi Chapter of Sigma Chi Building Fund Corporation, Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carlson & Bales and Curtis Carlson and Julie A. Moxley, Miami, for appellants.
Isicoff and Ragatz and Eric Isicoff and Teresa Ragatz, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and LEVY, JJ.
On this appeal from an order denying injunctive relief, we affirm. Accordingly, the Stay previously entered in this case is hereby vacated.
In Gamma Phi Chapter v. University of Miami, 703 So.2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), we held:
We conclude that, as a matter of law, the sanctions--including a suspension of "rushing"--imposed by the University on the appellant fraternity by virtue of the letter of October 15, 1997 adversely affected its "substantial property, contract or other economic rights" and were based on an ex parte fact-finding process which was neither adequate nor fair.
We then directed:
The order below is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded with directions permanently to enjoin the efficacy and enforcement of those sanctions, without prejudice to the University's institution and pursuit of properly conducted proceedings against the fraternity.
On remand, the Vice President of Student Affairs appointed a panel of five members consisting of two students, two faculty members, and a volunteering attorney not employed by the University, to hear the case. After the school gave notice of its intent to proceed, the fraternity went back to circuit court in an attempt to enjoin the hearing. The University maintained that the procedure implemented was as provided in its Student Handbook. The fraternity argued that fraternity disciplinary matters had previously been decided by the Interfraternity Council and the instant action should likewise be decided by that Council.
We affirm the trial court's denial of injunctive relief. Like the court below, we deem it inappropriate to exercise our judicial power where there has not yet been an exhaustion of an available administrative remedy. See Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 128 So.2d 586 (Fla.1961); See also Gulf Pines Memorial Park, Inc. v. Oaklawn Memorial Park, Inc., 361 So.2d 695 (Fla.1978); Lambert v. Rogers, 454 So.2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Eastern Air Lines Inc. v. Hillsborough County Aviation Auth., 454 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Accordingly, the order below is affirmed and the stay vacated.
Although I believe that the appellants' position may have substantial merit, see, e.g., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SIRPAL v. University of Miami
...remedies before filing suit, or the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Gamma Phi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Univ. of Miami, 718 So.2d 910, 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding fraternity must exhaust its administrative remedies as provided in the University's Handbook); ......
-
Dinehart v. Town of Palm Beach
...345 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 128 So.2d 586 (Fla. 1961); Gamma Phi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. University of Miami, 718 So.2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); State, Dep't of Revenue v. Brock, 576 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 584 So.2d 997 (Fla......
-
Stroop v. University of Miami
...Inc. v. Rae, 753 So.2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), review denied, 770 So.2d 160 (Fla.2000); Gamma Phi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. University of Miami, 718 So.2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Montalvo v. University of Miami, 705 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Pushkin v. Lombard, 279 So.2d 79 (F......
-
Baptist Health Systems of South Florida, Inc. v. RAE, MD, 3D99-2849.
...the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the temporary injunction. See Gamma Phi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. University of Miami, 718 So.2d 910, 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Pushkin v. Lombard, 279 So.2d 79, 81 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 284 So.2d 396 (Fla.1973) Accor......