Am. Civil Liberties Union of Minn. v. Tarek Ibn Ziyad Acad.

• Decision Date: 20 April 2011
• Docket Number: Civil No. 09–138 (DWF/JJG).
• Citation: 272 Ed. Law Rep. 475,788 F.Supp.2d 950
• Parties: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MINNESOTA, Plaintiff,v.TAREK IBN ZIYAD ACADEMY; Islamic Relief USA; Brenda Cassellius, in her capacity as Minnesota Commissioner of Education; Asad Zaman; Asif Rahman; Mahrous Kandil; Mona Elnahrawy; Moira Fahey; and Mohammed Farid, individually and in their capacities as Directors of Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

788 F.Supp.2d 950

272 Ed. Law Rep. 475

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MINNESOTA, Plaintiff,

v.TAREK IBN ZIYAD ACADEMY; Islamic Relief USA; Brenda Cassellius, in her capacity as Minnesota Commissioner of Education; Asad Zaman; Asif Rahman; Mahrous Kandil; Mona Elnahrawy; Moira Fahey; and Mohammed Farid, individually and in their capacities as Directors of Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, Defendants.

Civil No. 09–138 (DWF/JJG).

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

April 20, 2011.

Christopher Amundsen, Esq., Ivan M. Ludmer, Esq., Peter M. Lancaster, Esq., Dustin Adams, Esq., Katie C. Pfeifer, Esq., Mark D. Wagner, Esq., and Shari L J. Aberle, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP; and Teresa J. Nelson, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, counsel for Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.Erick G. Kaardal, Esq., and William F. Mohrman, Esq., Morhman & Kaardal, counsel for Applicants for Intervention.Shamus P. O'Meara, Esq., Mark R. Azman, Esq., and Margaret Ann Mullin, Esq., Johnson and Condon, PA, counsel for Defendant Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, Asad Zaman, Asif Rahman, Mahrous Kandil, Mona Elnahrawy, Moira Fahey, and Mohammed Faird, as to all claims asserted against these Defendants.Sarah E. Bushnell, Esq., and Max H. Kiely, Esq., Kelly & Hannah, PA; and Scott J. Ward, Esq., and Timothy R. Obitts, Esq., Gammon & Grange, PC, counsel for Defendant Islamic Relief USA.Kathryn M. Woodruff and Tamar N. Gronvall, Assistant Attorneys General, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, counsel for Brenda Cassellius.Benjamin Loetscher, Esq., and Ferdinand F. Peters, Esq., Ferdinand F. Peters, Esq. Law Firm, counsel for Movants Muslim American Society of Minnesota, Minnesota Education Trust, MAS–Minnesota Property Holding Company, Blaine Property Holding Company, and Minnesota Education Trust.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment brought by Defendants Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (“TiZA”) and its directors, Asad Zaman, Asif Rahman, Mahrous Kandil, Mona Elnahrawy, Moira Fahey, and Mohammed Farid (the “Individual Defendants”) (collectively, the “TiZA Defendants”); a Motion for Summary Judgment on Crossclaim for Indemnification Against TiZA brought by Defendant Islamic Relief USA (“Islamic Relief”); and a Motion for Summary Judgment on Crossclaim for Indemnification Against TiZA brought by Defendant Commissioner of Education (the “Commissioner”).¹ For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motions.²

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (“Plaintiff”) is “a not-for-profit, non-partisan, membership-supported organization dedicated to the protection of civil liberties.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 4.) TiZA is a charter school organized under the Minnesota Charter School Law (“MCSL”) with campuses in Blaine and Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. Islamic Relief is a California not-for-profit organization that acts as TiZA's sponsor.³ The Minnesota Department of Education (“MDE”) is a state agency charged with carrying out the MCSL and disbursing state funds. The MDE was originally named as a defendant, but all claims against the MDE have been dismissed. (Doc. No. 60 at 6 n. 2.) The Commissioner is charged with approval and oversight of charter schools and with certification of schools' entitlement to state funding. ( Id. at ¶ 8.)

This case has already involved extensive motion practice, which will not be recounted in full here. Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations that TiZA Defendants have used tax funds to establish a school that promotes the religion of Islam in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. In 2009, TiZA Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's original complaint. The Court granted in part and denied in part that motion. (Doc. No. 60.) In August 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, alleging violations of the Establishment Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. (Doc. No. 66.) Both Islamic Relief and the Commissioner brought cross-claims against TiZA for indemnification. (Doc. Nos. 74 & 96.) TiZA Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint and for judgment on the pleadings. By an order dated May 7, 1010, 2010 WL 1840301, the Court denied the motion. (Doc. No. 260.)

The Court now addresses the present motions for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

I. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is proper if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The Court must view the evidence and the inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Enter. Bank v. Magna Bank of Mo., 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir.1996). However, as the Supreme Court has stated, “[s]ummary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed ‘to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.’ ” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 1).

The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Enter. Bank, 92 F.3d at 747. The nonmoving party must demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record that create a genuine issue for trial. Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir.1995). A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

II. TiZA Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

TiZA Defendants move for summary judgment on numerous grounds. The Court will address each in turn.

A. Plaintiff's Authority to Maintain this Action

TiZA Defendants assert that the Plaintiff cannot maintain this action because the ACLU of Minnesota does not exist. In particular, TiZA Defendants submit that ACLU–MN is the assumed name of Minnesota Civil Liberties Union (“MCLU”), and that Plaintiff failed to file an annual renewal notice with the Secretary of State in 2005 for MCLU. As a result of that failure, the Secretary of State dissolved MCLU as of January 26, 2006. (Decl. of Shamus P. O'Meara (“O'Meara Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) TiZA Defendants assert, therefore, that Plaintiff, as the assumed name of a dissolved non-existent corporation, cannot maintain this lawsuit.

Plaintiff responds that a corporate filing lapse does not affect its ability to maintain this suit because it brought the suit in its capacity as a “not-for-profit, non-partisan, membership supported organization.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff maintains that as an unincorporated association, it has the right to sue in the name of the association. Plaintiff also maintains that it has operated continuously as a non-profit, member-supported organization since its inception.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 provides in part:

(b) Capacity to Sue or Be Sued. Capacity to sue or be sued is determined as follows:

(1) for an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity, by the law of the individual's domicile;

(2) for a corporation, by the law under which it was organized; and

(3) for all other parties, by the law of the state where the court is located, except that:

(A) a partnership or other unincorporated association with no such capacity under that state's law may sue or be sued in its common name to enforce a substantive right existing under the United States Constitution or laws ...

Fed.R.Civ.P. 71(b)(1)-(3) (emphasis added). Further, Minn.Stat. § 540.151 provides in part:

When two or more persons associate and act, whether for profit or not, under the common name ... whether such common name comprises the names of such persons or not, they may sue in or be sued by such common name, and the summons may be served on an officer or a managing agent of the association.

Minn.Stat. § 540.151. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that this Minnesota Statute “permits persons associated under a common name to sue under that name” and that associations can have standing to assert their members' rights. Minn. Assoc'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Allina Health Sys. Corp., 276 F.3d 1032, 1049–50 (8th Cir.2002).

Here, the record establishes that Plaintiff brought this action as a “not-for-profit, non-partisan, membership supported organization” and not in its corporate capacity. The record also establishes that Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of its members. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's failure to make required corporate filings in a timely manner does not warrant the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims.⁴

B. Claim on Behalf of its Purported Members

TiZA Defendants argue that Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiff cannot maintain a § 1983 lawsuit on behalf of its members. TiZA Defendants assert that because § 1983 rights are personal and § 1983 is a civil rights tort statute, an organization may not bring suit to redress the federally-protected rights of its members.

The Court disagrees. In its previous order, the Court concluded that Plaintiff has taxpayer standing to assert its Establishment Clause claims. (Doc. No. 60 at 12.) ⁵ Further, under Eighth Circuit law, Plaintiff may pursue its § 1983 claims on behalf of its members. In Coalition for Sensible & Humane Solutions v. Wamser, 771 F.2d 395, 399 (8th Cir.1985), a nonpartisan, unincorporated coalition of individuals and organizations formed to...