MARAKOU v. ST THOMAS UNIVERSITY INC (2020)

Affirmed. See Redditt v. State, 84 So. 2d 317, 321 (Fla. 1955) (“Assignments [of error] must relate to judicial acts; hence, in the review by appeal we should usually affirm when no assignment of error is stated and argued.”); Barrett v. City of Margate, 743 So. 2d 1160, 1162-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“The complaint, whether filed by an attorney or pro se litigant, must set forth factual assertions that can be supported by evidence which gives rise to legal liability. It is insufficient to plead opinions, theories, legal conclusions or argument.”); see also Jallali v. Nova Se. Univ., Inc., 992 So. 2d 338, 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“A court will not interfere with a private university's enforcement of its regulations unless the university has acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in violation of a constitution or statute, or for fraudulent purposes.”) (citations omitted); Militana v. Univ. of Miami, 236 So. 2d 162, 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (“On the question of determining whether a student has failed to meet the academic requirements of a school, there is a wide discretion permitted by school authorities, and courts will not interfere, unless the school authorities are shown to have acted in bad faith or exercised their discretion arbitrarily.”).

PER CURIAM.