Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A student, E.I., attended El Segundo Middle School during the 2017-2018 school year and experienced bullying from classmates, particularly Skylar. Despite E.I. and her parents repeatedly reporting the bullying to school officials, including the principal and counselor, the school failed to take effective action. The bullying included verbal harassment, social media abuse, and physical aggression, which led E.I. to self-harm and develop PTSD and depression. The school’s anti-bullying policies were not adequately followed by the staff.The case was initially reviewed by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, where a jury found the El Segundo Unified School District negligent and awarded E.I. $1 million in damages. The District moved for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which were denied by the court.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The District argued several points on appeal, including errors in allowing reliance on certain Education Code provisions, claims of immunity under Government Code section 820.2, insufficient evidence of causation, improper consideration of a negligent training and supervision theory, admission of expert testimony, and attorney misconduct during closing arguments. The appellate court found that many of the District’s arguments were either waived or lacked merit. The court held that the District was not immune from liability under Government Code section 820.2, as the actions in question were operational rather than policy decisions. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the jury’s causation finding and determined that any potential errors were not prejudicial. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of E.I. View "E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

A transgender girl, D.P., and her mother challenged a new policy by the Mukwonago Area School District that required D.P. to use the boys’ bathroom or a gender-neutral alternative. They argued that the policy violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. They filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the policy's enforcement during litigation, citing the precedent set by Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the temporary restraining order and, shortly after, converted it to a preliminary injunction without holding a hearing. The judge found that the case was controlled by the Whitaker precedent and concluded that D.P. was likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. The school district appealed, arguing that the judge erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing and urging the court to overrule Whitaker and a related case, A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that an evidentiary hearing is not always required before issuing a preliminary injunction, especially when the opponent does not request one or identify material factual disputes. The court also declined to revisit or overrule Whitaker and Martinsville, reaffirming that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the preliminary injunction based on binding circuit precedent. The court concluded that the slight differences in D.P.'s case did not warrant a different outcome. View "Doe v Mukwonago Area School District" on Justia Law

Ashley Hushen and Alexandra Weary, along with their mothers, reported allegations of sexual harassment by a classmate, Benjamin Gonzales, to their high school administrators. The school conducted a Title IX investigation, resulting in Benjamin's three-day suspension and subsequent juvenile charges for unlawful sexual contact. Benjamin was acquitted of all charges, and the school reopened the investigation, ultimately concluding that Benjamin had not violated school policies. The students involved felt traumatized by the process, and by the time the proceedings concluded, they had graduated.Benjamin later sued Ashley, Alexandra, and their mothers for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on statements made during the Title IX investigations. The defendants filed a special motion to dismiss under Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that their statements were absolutely privileged as they were made during a quasi-judicial proceeding. Both the trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the Title IX proceedings were not quasi-judicial due to procedural shortcomings, allowing Benjamin's lawsuit to proceed.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and clarified that the determination of whether a proceeding is quasi-judicial is separate from whether it offers sufficient due process. The court held that a proceeding is quasi-judicial if it involves determining the interests, rights, or duties of specific individuals and applying current law or policy to past or present facts. The court concluded that the Title IX investigation met these criteria and was therefore quasi-judicial. Consequently, the statements made during the investigation were protected by absolute privilege, and the lawsuit against Ashley, Alexandra, and their mothers could not proceed. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Hushen v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

E.R., the appellant, filed a complaint against the Beaufort County School District, alleging that the district failed to respond appropriately to her reports of sexual abuse and harassment while she was a student. E.R. claimed she was sexually assaulted by three male students and subsequently bullied and harassed by other students. Despite reporting these incidents to school officials, she alleged that no appropriate action was taken.The case was initially filed in South Carolina state court, asserting claims under Title IX and state law for negligence and gross negligence. The school district removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss it, arguing that the claims were untimely under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), which has a two-year statute of limitations. The district court agreed, applying the SCTCA's statute of limitations to both the Title IX and state law claims, and dismissed the case as it was filed more than two years after E.R. turned 18.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the appropriate statute of limitations for Title IX claims is the state's general personal injury statute of limitations, not the SCTCA's two-year period. The court reasoned that Title IX claims should borrow the statute of limitations from the most analogous state law cause of action, which in this case is the general personal injury statute. Since South Carolina's general personal injury statute of limitations is three years, E.R.'s claims were timely.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of E.R.'s complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "E.R. v. Beaufort County School District" on Justia Law

Micayla Augustyn, a student at Wall High School, received special education services under an individualized education plan (IEP). As she neared the end of her fourth year, a dispute arose between her mother and the Wall Township Board of Education regarding her graduation. The Board wanted her to graduate, while her mother believed she needed another year due to the Board's failure to implement required accommodations. Mediation failed, and Augustyn filed a Petition for Due Process before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), claiming the Board failed to provide a free and appropriate education (FAPE) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).The ALJ dismissed her grade revision claim, stating it was not suitable for a special education due process hearing. Augustyn appealed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which ruled in her favor, stating that a due process hearing was the appropriate venue for her grade revision claim. The District Court remanded the matter for further proceedings and awarded Augustyn attorneys' fees as a prevailing party under the IDEA, but significantly reduced the fee amount.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed that Augustyn was a prevailing party entitled to attorneys' fees, as she successfully vindicated her statutory right to a due process hearing. However, the court found that the District Court erred in reducing the fee award based on improper considerations, such as the Board's financial ability to pay and the procedural nature of Augustyn's victory. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court's order and remanded for a recalculation of the appropriate lodestar reductions. View "Augustyn v. Wall Township Board of Education" on Justia Law

Minor Doe, Father Doe, and Mother Doe filed a lawsuit against the Western Dubuque Community School District and several school officials after Minor Doe was assaulted by another student during class. The plaintiffs claimed negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and loss of consortium. The school did not contact medical personnel or the parents after the incident, and Minor Doe was later diagnosed with a concussion.The Iowa District Court for Dubuque County dismissed the case on four grounds: failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act (IMTCA), improper use of pseudonyms, failure of the breach of fiduciary duty claim as a matter of law, and the consortium claim failing without the underlying causes of action. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the case based on the IMTCA’s qualified immunity provision and the use of pseudonyms. The court held that the IMTCA’s qualified immunity provision does not apply to common law claims and that pseudonymous petitions are generally disfavored but may be allowed in certain circumstances. The court found that the plaintiffs should have been given an opportunity to amend their petition to use their real names. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim, stating that schools and their officials do not generally have fiduciary relationships with students.The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the negligence and consortium claims and remanded the case for further proceedings, while affirming the dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim. View "Doe v. Western Dubuque Community School District" on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on March 10, 2025, preventing the Government from terminating various education-related grants. The order also required the Government to pay past-due grant obligations and continue paying future obligations. The District Court concluded that the respondents were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The Government filed an application to vacate the District Court's order on March 26, 2025, which was extended on March 24, 2025. The application was presented to Justice Jackson and referred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the District Court's order had characteristics of a preliminary injunction, making it appealable. The Government argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the APA, as the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to claims seeking money damages or to orders enforcing contractual obligations to pay money.The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Government's application to stay the District Court's order pending the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and any subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court found that the respondents had not refuted the Government's claim that it would be unlikely to recover the grant funds once disbursed and that respondents would not suffer irreparable harm while the TRO is stayed. The stay will terminate automatically if certiorari is denied or upon the sending down of the judgment of the Supreme Court if certiorari is granted. The Chief Justice would have denied the application. View "Department of Education v. California" on Justia Law

The case involves the State of Alaska's statutes that allow local school districts to operate correspondence study programs and provide public funds for educational expenses. Parents of public school students sued the State, arguing that these statutes violated the Alaska Constitution by allowing public funds to be used for private school tuition, which they claimed was unconstitutional.The Superior Court of Alaska ruled that the statutes were facially unconstitutional and invalidated them entirely. The court did not address the narrower question of whether the statutes were unconstitutional when applied to allow public funds to be used for private school tuition. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Alaska.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case and determined that the Superior Court's ruling went too far. The Supreme Court noted that the statutes allowed for a substantial number of constitutionally valid uses of allotment funds, such as purchasing books, supplies, and other educational materials. The court emphasized that even if using allotment funds for private school tuition were unconstitutional, it would not justify invalidating the entire statutes.The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court instructed that the proper parties must be joined, and the Superior Court must first determine whether the statutes actually permit the use of allotment funds for private school tuition before addressing the constitutionality of such use. The Supreme Court did not decide whether using allotment funds for private school tuition is constitutional, leaving that question open for further consideration. View "State of Alaska, Dept. of Education & Early Development v. Alexander" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a student at Stony Brook University, challenged the University's determination that he violated the University's Code of Student Responsibility by committing sexual misconduct against another student, S.G. The University conducted an investigation after receiving a report of the incident, during which S.G. provided a written statement detailing the encounter. P.C. declined to meet with the investigator. He was charged with sexual harassment, nonconsensual sexual contact, and nonconsensual sexual intercourse. A hearing was held, and the Review Panel found P.C. responsible for the charges, leading to his suspension.P.C. appealed the decision, arguing that the evidence did not support the findings and that the Review Panel improperly considered his decision to remain silent. The Appeals Committee upheld the Review Panel's determination and the disciplinary penalty. P.C. then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting that the determination lacked substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious.The Supreme Court transferred the case to the Appellate Division, which granted the petition, annulled the Appeals Committee's determination, dismissed the charges, and directed the University to expunge the matter from P.C.'s academic record. The Appellate Division majority found that substantial evidence did not support the conclusion that S.G. did not consent to the sexual activity and that the Review Panel improperly relied on P.C.'s decision not to answer questions.The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the Appellate Division's order, holding that substantial evidence supported the University's determination that P.C. violated the Code of Student Responsibility. The Court found that S.G.'s testimony and P.C.'s text messages provided sufficient evidence of nonconsensual sexual activity. The Court also rejected P.C.'s argument that the University's determination was arbitrary and capricious, concluding that the University followed its rules and procedures. The petition was dismissed. View "Matter of P.C. v Stony Brook Univ." on Justia Law

A tenured professor at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, Jason Kilborn, included an expurgated racial slur in a law school exam question. This led to an investigation by university officials, who found that Kilborn had created a racially hostile environment and violated the university's nondiscrimination policy. Consequently, Kilborn was suspended from teaching until he completed a diversity training program and was denied a two percent raise. Kilborn sued several university officials, alleging violations of his constitutional rights to free speech and due process.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Kilborn's federal claims with prejudice, finding that his speech was not constitutionally protected. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Kilborn appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the dismissal of Kilborn's First Amendment retaliation claim, concluding that his speech was constitutionally protected under the Supreme Court's decisions in Connick v. Myers and Pickering v. Board of Education. The court found that Kilborn's speech addressed matters of public concern and that the university's actions could be seen as pretextual. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Kilborn's remaining federal claims, including his compelled speech and procedural due process claims. The court also vacated the dismissal of Kilborn's state law claims for further consideration by the district court. View "Kilborn v. Amiridis" on Justia Law