TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WCTV) – A judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought on the City of Tallahassee and Florida State University by the NAACP surrounding the sale of the hospital. <\/p>\n
Circuit Judge Lee Marsh granted the city and university\u2019s motion to dismiss on Aug. 31, saying the Tallahassee Branch of the NAACP lacks standing. <\/p>\n
The NAACP and several Tallahassee residents filed a lawsuit in May<\/a> seeking to void the sale of the hospital.<\/p>\n The City of Tallahassee and FSU filed motions to dismiss the NAACP\u2019s case in July<\/a>, saying that they lacked standing because \u201cthey have not suffered an injury caused by FSU or the City.\u201d <\/p>\n In that suit, the NAACP claimed that Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare would be operating without a valid license if a new lease wasn\u2019t signed between TMH and FSU, after the city transferred the hospital\u2019s assets, citing a state law that governs these types of transfers. <\/p>\n The Monday ruling claims that statute does not apply in this case. The statue says a \u201ccounty, district or municipal hospital may sell or lease the hospital to a for-profit or not-for-profit Florida entity.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe statue\u2019s text distinguishes governmental operation from private acquisition, comparing operation \u2018by a governmental entity\u2019 against operation \u2018by a not-for-profit or for-profit entity,\u201d and referring throughout to a \u2018private entity purchaser,\u2019” the ruling reads. \u201cA conveyance to an agency of the State falls outside the transaction the statue regulates.\u201d <\/p>\n The NAACP\u2019s suit also claimed that the transfer agreement does not protect indigent care.<\/p>\n The city and FSU argued the terms of the Use and Restrict Agreement contradict that claim. <\/p>\n \u201cFSU shall ensure that the Charity Care Policy is continuously maintained as a component of the Hospital Use in a manner consistent with or more generous than the indigent care requirements set forth in the City-TMH Lease Agreement,\u201d the use and restriction agreement reads.<\/p>\n Monday\u2019s ruling said the NAACP\u2019s claim around indigent care and healthcare funding are \u201cimpermissibly speculative.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cTheir theory depends on a chain of contingences\u2014that the City will fail to appropriate sale proceeds, that Plaintiffs will later require hospitalization, and that their out-of-pocket costs will then arise,\u201d the ruling reads.<\/p>\n Marsh\u2019s ruling emphasized that the ruling is only on a matter of policy. <\/p>\n \u201cThe decision to transfer TMH assets is a matter of policy, and this court cannot step in and second guess whether that is a good or bad policy. This court can only decide on whether or not the policy is legal,\u201d the ruling reads.<\/p>\n The suit was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot file the same suit or again.<\/p>\n WCTV has reached out to the NAACP and FSU for comment.<\/p>\n To keep up with the latest news as it develops, follow WCTV on Facebook<\/a>, Instagram<\/a>, YouTube<\/a>, Nextdoor<\/a> <\/a>and X<\/a> (Twitter<\/a>).<\/p>\n Have a news tip or see an error? Write to us here<\/a>. Please include the article\u2019s headline in your message.<\/p>\n Be the first to see all the biggest headlines by downloading the WCTV News app. Click here<\/a> to get started.<\/p>\n Copyright 2026 WCTV. All rights reserved.<\/p>\n