California State students sue system over tuition hike

Two students have filed a lawsuit against the California State University system, seeking to reverse the increased fees that were issued this semester.

Samantha Adame of San Francisco State and Travis Donselman of CSU San Bernadino have sued the CSU, claiming the system acted illegally when it billed students for additional fee increases after initial tuition was already paid.

They say that the payment of tuition is a legally binding contract, and that so-called double-billing is a breach of that contract. The class-action lawsuit could mean a refund in some fees for current students.

The duo’s lawyer in the case, Danielle Leonard, won a similar lawsuit for different plaintiffs against the University of California system in 2006.

Although a judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction in the current case, which would have ceased the payment for the fees in question, the case will continue.

“We think the students will prevail and will be issued a refund,” Leonard said.

Leonard acknowledged that this is a tough time for the university, and that budget constraints are a problem. However, she said these problems need to be resolved in the proper fashion.

“The university needs to address these constraints within the parameters of the law,” Leonard said in a phone interview. “This option should have never been on the table.”

Erik Fallis, media relations specialist for the CSU, said that there are some issues with the class-action lawsuit. One major issue, Fallis said, would be deciding who would be eligible to join the lawsuit.

Because some students received financial aid that covered the fee increases, those students would not be eligible for refunds if the plaintiffs won the lawsuit, Fallis said.

Also, Fallis said there are other students who don’t want to join the lawsuit, and are willing to pay the increased fees in order to avoid further budget problems, which could lead to receiving a diminished education.

According to Fallis, the case is not identical to the lawsuit against the U.C. system three years ago.

“By the fact that the preliminary injunction was denied, the court has decided that the facts are not the same as the UC case,” Fallis said in a phone interview Tuesday night.

Leonard disagrees.

“From what we’ve seen from the university, the facts are exactly what we saw against the UC,” Leonard said.