A federal judge from the Southern District of Florida has dismissed a class action lawsuit brought by Texas A&M University fans against the 12th Man Foundation, the nonprofit group that is overseeing the “reseating” of the recently revamped Kyle Field.
In so ruling, the court found that the name plaintiff, Barbara Brunner, a Texas A&M alumnus who lives in Fort Lauderdale, didn’t satisfy the requirements that would support the claim being filed in Florida. Previously, a Texas court had ruled that Texas law prevented a similar claim from being filed in Texas, since more than two-thirds of the plaintiffs resided in that state, triggering the prohibition on suing a Texas entity.
The origins of the lawsuit was the Foundation’s decision to expand the stadium, leading to increased costs for long-time ticketholders, who wanted to maintain their seats and other privileges in the new stadium. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the Foundation’s strategy was to “reclaim and resell, at a higher price, the highest value benefits to a ‘new generation’ of Aggie alumni.” This, they alleged, not only violated the law, but also the school’s Code of Honor, which reads that an Aggie “does not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those that do.”
Brunner attended Texas A&M in the 1980s and became the first student endowed donor, purchasing seats for at least $30,000. Bruner and the other plaintiffs claim the donations was supposed to ensure lifetime ticket and parking benefits without the need for additional contributions as well as a promise that their seat location would never change. The foundation has violated those agreements, they claim, through the creation of the Priority Points Program and the requirement for additional contributions to retain their same or comparable seat locations at the rebuilt stadium. Under the new seating plan, she claims she would have had to pay an additional $40,000 over the next 15 years to hold on to the seats. Brunner is being represented by attorney Debra Brewer Hayes of Kingwood, Texas.
If the plaintiffs can get the claim to a point where it is considered on its merits, they may have a chance. The Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled for similarly situated plaintiffs in 2014 in George M. Lee, III, and Elizabeth Sims v. The University of South Carolina and The University of South Carolina Gamecock Club (SLA Vol. 11, Iss. 10).
It wrote: “The clear and unambiguous language of the agreement prohibits the university from imposing additional fees that (the plaintiff) must pay before being allowed the opportunity to purchase tickets. Were we to accept the university ‘s view of the agreement, it would mean Lee received little or nothing in the bargain, for the University would always have the ability to demand additional consideration for the opportunity to purchase tickets. That is the very thing foreclosed by the agreement.”
