Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

F.B. and M.B. filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their minor child, L.B., under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that Our Lady of Lourdes Parish and School failed to comply with procedural standards and requirements mandated by the Act's implementing regulations. L.B. had ADHD and reduced vision, and her parents claimed that the school initially provided necessary accommodations but later failed to do so after a change in school administration. This led to L.B. receiving failing grades and eventually being expelled from the school.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the case, holding that Section 504 does not create a private right of action for claims based solely on an alleged failure to comply with procedural standards and requirements of the implementing regulations. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring their claims. The court found that the plaintiffs' alleged injury, L.B.'s expulsion, was not fairly traceable to the school's failure to comply with the procedural regulations of Section 504. Additionally, the court determined that the relief sought by the plaintiffs would not redress their alleged injury. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "F.B. v. Our Lady of Lourdes Parish and School" on Justia Law

John Doe 2, a student athlete at North Carolina State University, alleged that he was sexually abused by Robert Murphy, the university’s Director of Sports Medicine, under the guise of medical treatment. Doe claimed that the university was deliberately indifferent to prior complaints of Murphy’s sexual misconduct. The district court dismissed Doe’s complaint, finding that he failed to plead facts supporting an inference that the university had actual notice of Murphy’s sexual harassment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court concluded that a report of “sexual grooming” could not provide actual notice to the university of sexual harassment. The district court assumed without deciding that the report was made to an official with the requisite authority for Title IX purposes but found that the report did not describe an incident of sexual harassment and thus could not support a plausible inference of actual notice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that a report of “sexual grooming” can objectively be construed as alleging sexual harassment, thus providing actual notice to the university. The court found that the district court erred in its conclusion and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the report was made to an appropriate official with the authority to address complaints of sexual harassment and to institute corrective measures on behalf of the university. View "John Doe 2 v. North Carolina State University" on Justia Law

Howard University’s Board of Trustees amended the institution’s bylaws to remove trustee positions that had been filled by alumni, students, and faculty for several decades. A group of alumni sued the University and the Board in D.C. Superior Court, seeking a declaration that the Board’s amendment was ultra vires because it violated the governing bylaws. Howard removed the case to federal court, arguing that the governance dispute hinged on the University’s federal charter. The alumni moved to remand the case back to state court.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the alumni’s motion to remand, holding that the suit implicated a significant federal issue under Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing. The District Court then granted Howard’s motion to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and held that the District Court erred in exercising jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals determined that the case did not arise under federal law nor present a significant, disputed federal issue under Grable. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Jenkins v. Howard University" on Justia Law

In 2022, the Kentucky General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1), which restructured the relationship between the Jefferson County Board of Education and its superintendent. The bill required the Board to delegate day-to-day operations to the superintendent, limited the Board's meeting frequency, and granted the superintendent additional administrative powers. The Jefferson County Board of Education filed a declaratory judgment action, claiming S.B. 1 violated Sections 59 and 60 of the Kentucky Constitution, which prohibit local or special legislation.The Jefferson Circuit Court ruled in favor of the Board, declaring S.B. 1 unconstitutional. The court found that the bill effectively applied only to Jefferson County, thus constituting impermissible local legislation. The court also ruled, sua sponte, that S.B. 1 violated the equal protection rights of Jefferson County residents. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on the grounds of Section 59 but did not address the equal protection ruling.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that S.B. 1 did not violate Sections 59 and 60 of the Kentucky Constitution. The Court reasoned that the bill's language created an open classification applicable to any county with a consolidated local government, not just Jefferson County. The Court also found that the Board had standing to challenge the bill and that the superintendent was not a necessary party to the action. The Court declined to address the equal protection issue, as it was not properly raised or developed in the lower courts. View "COLEMAN V. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Junhai Bai and Xiaofei Li, filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District and teacher Stephanie Yip, alleging that their minor daughter, L.B., was physically abused by Yip. The complaint detailed incidents of abuse, including insufficient food and water, physical assault, and resulting injuries such as a concussion and chest contusion. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages for mental harm, impairment of working ability, future illness risk compensation, and family care.The San Francisco City & County Superior Court sustained the defendants' unopposed demurrer and granted their unopposed motion to strike portions of the complaint, allowing leave to amend but without specifying a deadline. Plaintiffs filed a revised version of their complaint several weeks after the time to amend had expired. The trial court did not consider this filing as an amended complaint. Defendants then moved to dismiss the action under section 581, subdivisions (f)(2) and (f)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the court granted.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that under the decision in Gitmed v. General Motors Corp., the filing of an amended complaint, even if untimely, precludes dismissal under section 581, subdivision (f)(2), unless and until the amended complaint is stricken. The court found that the plaintiffs' revised pleading should have been treated as an amended complaint, which should have precluded the dismissal of the action. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and the order granting the motion to dismiss, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Bai v. Yip" on Justia Law

R.A. filed a lawsuit against her son G.A.'s special education teacher, Robin Johnson, and several school officials, alleging that Johnson mistreated G.A. during the first and second grades. The complaint claimed that Johnson subjected G.A. to physical and emotional abuse and that the school officials negligently failed to intervene despite knowing about the abuse. The school officials moved to dismiss the negligence claims, arguing they were protected by public official immunity. The district court denied the motion, and the school officials filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina initially denied the school officials' motion to dismiss the state law claims, leading to an appeal. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the school officials were entitled to public official immunity and that the state law claims against them should be dismissed. Despite this, the district court allowed R.A. to file an amended complaint with additional details from new evidence, which the school officials again moved to dismiss. The district court denied this motion, interpreting the appellate mandate as allowing dismissal without prejudice.The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case again and held that the district court violated the mandate rule by not dismissing the claims with prejudice as instructed. The appellate court emphasized that its prior decision required dismissal with prejudice and that the district court's interpretation was incorrect. The court reiterated that the mandate rule requires lower courts to follow the appellate court's instructions precisely and that no exceptions to the mandate rule applied in this case. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, reaffirming that the state law claims against the school officials must be dismissed with prejudice. View "R.A. v. McClenahan" on Justia Law

Grace Smith, a high school junior, was repeatedly suspended from Laramie High School for refusing to comply with a COVID-19 indoor-mask mandate imposed by the Albany County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees. After her suspensions, she was arrested for trespassing on school grounds. Grace and her parents, Andy and Erin Smith, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming against the Board members, the superintendent, and the principal, alleging violations of Grace’s constitutional rights and state law claims.The district court dismissed the federal claims for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that Grace did not suffer an injury in fact necessary for standing. The court reasoned that her injuries were hypothetical because the mask mandate had expired and she was no longer a student at LHS, and that her injuries were self-inflicted. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Grace had standing to bring her claims because she suffered concrete and particularized injuries from the enforcement of the mask mandate, including suspensions and arrest. The court found that her injuries were directly inflicted by the defendants’ actions and were not self-inflicted. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Smith v. Albany County School District No. 1" on Justia Law

M.D., a high school soccer player, sought a waiver from the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission (WVSSAC) to play for both her high school and club soccer teams during the same season. The WVSSAC denied her request, leading M.D. and her parents to file a lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the WVSSAC's Non-school Participation Rule, which prohibited participation in non-school teams during the school season for team sports but not for individual sports.The Circuit Court of Ohio County granted M.D. a preliminary injunction, allowing her to play for both teams. Subsequently, the court granted her summary judgment and a permanent injunction, ruling that the Non-school Participation Rule was arbitrary and capricious because it unfairly differentiated between team and individual sports without a rational basis.The WVSSAC appealed the circuit court's decision. While the appeal was pending, the WVSSAC's Board of Control amended the Non-school Participation Rule to eliminate the distinction between team and individual sports, applying the same restrictions to all student athletes regardless of the type of sport.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and determined that the amendments to the Non-school Participation Rule rendered the appeal moot. The court found that the substantive changes to the rule addressed the issues raised by M.D., and there were no sufficient collateral consequences or issues of great public interest that warranted further review. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal as moot. View "West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission v. David D. and Elizabeth D., Parents and Legal Guardians of M.D." on Justia Law

A class of over 500,000 federal student loan borrowers sued the U.S. Department of Education for failing to process their borrower defense (BD) applications. The Department and the plaintiffs reached a settlement, which included automatic debt forgiveness for certain borrowers and streamlined adjudication for others. Three for-profit universities (the Schools) listed in the settlement as having substantial misconduct intervened, claiming reputational harm.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the settlement and denied the Schools' motion to intervene as of right but allowed them to object to the settlement. The Schools appealed, arguing that the settlement caused them reputational and financial harm and interfered with their procedural rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Schools had Article III standing due to alleged reputational harm but lacked prudential standing to challenge the settlement because they did not demonstrate formal legal prejudice. The court found that the dispute between the plaintiffs and the Department was not moot, as the Department's voluntary cessation of issuing pro forma denials did not render the case moot. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of the Schools' motion to intervene as of right, concluding that the Schools did not have a significantly protectable interest and failed to show prejudice from the denial of intervention as of right.The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal in part and affirmed the district court's denial of intervention as of right. View "Sweet v. Everglades College, Inc." on Justia Law

Justine Ferreira sought reimbursement from the New York City Department of Education (DOE) for her disabled son's private education during the 2019-2020 school year, claiming the DOE failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The DOE had developed an individualized education plan (IEP) for her son, but Ferreira disagreed with it and enrolled him in a private school, iBrain. She alleged that the DOE's proposed public school placement was inadequate.The Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) and the State Review Officer (SRO) both found that Ferreira's conduct impeded the DOE's efforts to develop a suitable IEP, as she failed to cooperate and provide necessary information. They concluded that the balance of equities did not favor reimbursement. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Torres) granted summary judgment in favor of the DOE, agreeing with the IHO and SRO that Ferreira's actions frustrated the DOE's attempts to fulfill its obligations under the IDEA.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a district court must independently evaluate the equities in IDEA reimbursement cases without deferring to the state administrative agency's conclusions. However, the court found that the district court had indeed conducted an independent review and did not abuse its discretion in denying reimbursement. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Ferreira's lack of cooperation and obstruction justified the denial of reimbursement for her son's private school tuition. View "Ferreira v. Aviles-Ramos" on Justia Law