Bj's Wholesale Club v. Bugliaro, 273 So. 3d 1119

Plaintiff Laura Bugliaro sued BJ’s Wholesale Club alleging that BJ’s charged and collected “sales tax” on the full undiscounted price when members used discounts partially funded by BJ’s at its 31 Florida stores.
Bugliaro sought injunctive relief under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and included a request for damages/refund in the operative complaint.
On cross-motions for summary judgment the trial court previously found BJ’s had improperly charged taxes on the BJ’s-funded portion of discounts.
Bugliaro moved to certify a statewide class of “all non-tax-exempt members of BJ’s Wholesale Club’s 31 Florida stores who will…be charged…sales tax on the full, undiscounted price of products purchased with a discount funded in part by BJ’s.”
The trial court granted class certification and appointed Bugliaro as class representative; the State of Florida Department of Revenue and BJ’s separately appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the proposed class was not ascertainable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear Count I	Bugliaro treated Count I as purely injunctive and thus not subject to administrative exhaustion	The complaint seeks damages/refunds (incorporated elsewhere), triggering administrative exhaustion under §215.26	Court: No jurisdiction; exhaustion required because Count I includes refund relief
Whether administrative remedies were exhausted before suit	Bugliaro implied exhaustion was unnecessary for injunctive claim	State/BJ’s argued statutory prerequisite to pursue refunds in court requires prior administrative proceedings	Court: Plaintiff and class were required to exhaust administrative remedies with Dept. of Revenue before filing
Whether the proposed class is ascertainable	Bugliaro argued the class definition identifies affected members who shopped in Florida stores	BJ’s argued members are nationwide and membership isn’t tied to a state/store; class definition is vague/overbroad	Court: Class not ascertainable — definition is over- or under-inclusive and impedes identifying/notifying members
Whether class certification should stand	Bugliaro argued Rule 1.220 requirements met based on common proof and prior summary judgment ruling	BJ’s and State argued procedural and definitional defects (jurisdiction, ascertainability) defeat certification	Court: Reversed certification for lack of jurisdiction and non-ascertainable class; remanded for further proceedings

Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (standard of review for class certification orders)
Alderwoods Grp., Inc. v. Garcia, 119 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (legal conclusions underlying certification reviewed de novo)
Karhu v. Vital Pharms., Inc., [citation="621 F. App'x 945"] (11th Cir. 2015) (ascertainability requires objective criteria to identify class members)
Little v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 691 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2012) (denying certification where class definition was overbroad)
Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Broward Cmty. Coll. v. Caldwell, 959 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives trial court of jurisdiction)