Brown ex rel. S.B. v. Napa Valley Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 18 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. C-11-5673 JCS |
| Parties | DIANA BROWN, as guardian ad litem of S.B., a minor, Plaintiff, v. NAPA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT ET. AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
On November 23, 2001, Defendants1 removed the present action to federal district court. The action was originally initiated by Plaintiff Diana Brown in Napa Valley Superior Court on September 30, 2011. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Diana Brown's Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim and on the grounds that the lawsuit is untimely and barred by principles of res judicata. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Ahearing on the Motion was held on the Motion at which counsel for the parties appeared. Following the hearing the parties filed supplemental briefs addressing matters that were not addressed in the original pleadings. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Defendants have filed a request for judicial notice of two documents that they assert are matters of public record. See Docket No. 4-1 (hereinafter, "RJN"). Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of 1) a complaint filed by Plaintiff Sarah Brown and her parents Diana and Chris Brown, on September 13, 2006 in district court, Case No. C-06-5610 MEJ; and 2) Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James' July 10, 2007 Order Granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss in Case No. C-06-5610 MEJ. Plaintiff Diana Brown has not objected to Defendants' request or challenged the authenticity of any of the attached documents.
The Court takes judicial notice of pleading and order offered in Defendants' request for judicial notice, pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rule of Evidence. The Court may consider the documents of which it takes judicial notice, along with the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint, on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of San Francisco, 464 F. Supp. 2d 938, 941 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
Plaintiff Diana Brown's daughter, "SB" was born on June 14, 1998 and is afflicted with autism. Complaint ¶¶ 1, 4. Chris Brown and Guardian ad Litem Diana Brown are SB's parents. As a child with autism, SB is eligible for special education and related services in conformity with the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, U.S.C. Title 20, § 1400, et. seq., (hereafter "IDEA").
At the time of the incidents alleged in the Complaint, SB attended Bel Aire Elementary School in Napa County, California. Plaintiffs allege that while attending Bel Aire, S.B. was subjected to harsh and cruel treatment by a special education teacher, Defendant Linda Hansen "who often antagonized and provoked S.B.'s reactions and anti-social behaviors" typically associated with autism. Compl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were on actual notice of "and were keenly aware of S.B.'s well documented aversions and behaviors." Id. ¶ 6. Among the manifestations of SB's autism are frequent shrieking, yelling, poor communication skills, and poor frustration tolerance. Id. ¶ 4. As a result, S.B. requires "a great deal of consistency, predictability and structure across all of her environments . . . and although SB does not understand how her behavior affects others, she is keenly aware and sensitive to hostility and cruelty." Id.
Chris and Diana Brown filed a Government Claim3 in accordance with the California Government Tort Claims Act on May 23, 2005. That claim was denied on March 13, 2006. They then filed suit federal district court on September 13, 2006. There, the Plaintiffs asserted numerous state and federal claims arising in large part out of an incident that occurred on April 28, 2005. Plaintiffs alleged that teacher Linda Hansen, a "morbidly obese" teacher physically restrained their daughter, SB in a five point restraining hold for approximately five minutes. RJN, Exh. 1. SB sustained emotional and physical injuries as a result of the physical force used in the restraint.
On July 10, 2007, the federal claims in the lawsuit were dismissed by Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See RJN, Exh. 2. The state law tort claims were dismissed without prejudice as well.4
Thereafter, Plaintiff Diana Brown as guardian ad litem for SB initiated an administrative process, which culminated in a settlement on May 11, 2009. See Compl. ¶ 10. In the settlementagreement, the parties agreed that their efforts to settle the disputes relating to the provision of special education and related services for SB constituted statutory exhaustion. Id.
On September 30, 2011, the Plaintiff Diana Brown as guardian ad litem for SB re-filed her lawsuit, this time in Napa County Superior Court. In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts six claims arising out of the same incidents as described in the earlier federal court action: 1) assault and battery; 2) negligence; 3) 42 U.S.C. §1983; 4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 5) violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 794, et seq.; and 6) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff describes the administrative process as follows: Compl. ¶ 10.
Defendants removed the action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction on November 23, 2011, and now bring a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Defendants assert that all of Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the following reasons:
Res Judicata: Defendants assert that all of the claims are barred under the doctrine of res judicata because the same claims were litigated or could have been litigated in the earlier federal proceeding before Judge James and that the dismissal Order of July 10, 2007 constitutes a "final judgment on the merits" for purposes of res judicata.
Statutes of limitations: Defendants further assert that all claims are time-barred. Specifically, Defendants argue that the applicable statute of limitations for all of the claims in this case is two years. Defendants argue that the statute began to run as of the date of the incident giving rise to the claims in this case, or April 28, 2005. Even if the Court disagrees, and the statute began to run after the conclusion of the administrative process on May 9, 2011, the present suit, filed more than two years after that date is untimely. Defendants further assert that there are no allegations inthe Complaint that would support a finding of equitable tolling as to any of these claims and the Plaintiff's "emotional" arguments in the Opposition Brief do not provide a basis for tolling.
Failure to State a Claim: Defendants argue that the Complaint fails to state a claim against the Defendants other than Linda Hansen. Specifically, Defendants argue that the Complaint is void of factual allegations against the remaining individual defendants in the Complaint - Glaser, Strongman, Murer, Miller and Nemko. Further, Defendants argue that these individual Defendants must be dismissed due to Plaintiff's "failure to identify them in a timely Government Claim." Defendants' Motion at 6.
In her opposition brief, Plaintiff makes the following arguments:
Res Judicata: Plaintiff asserts that res judicata does not bar her claims because Judge James' July 10, 2007 Order dismissing the Complaint without prejudice did not constitute a "final judgment on the merits" in order to establish issue or claim preclusion based upon a prior federal suit.
Equitable tolling: Although Plaintiff does not use the term "equitable tolling" in her Opposition Brief, she contends that there were extenuating circumstances that prevented her from filing the present suit earlier. Plaintiff argues that she pursued her administrative remedies, which should toll the statute of limitations at least until May 9, 2011, and argues that the statute of limitations period for the claims should be further tolled because she was unable to file suit sooner based upon the fragile, and at times catatonic, mental state of her daughter, the need to "stabilize her condition," and the fact that the family was "forced" to move out of the jurisdiction, to the Fairfield, California area to find a new school for SB.
Failure to State a Claim Against Defendants Other Than Linda Hansen: Plaintiff asserts that the claims are adequately alleged because federal court requires only "notice pleading" and that Defendants are on notice of the actions giving rise to liability against them. Plaintiff does not address Defendants' arguments with respect to the individual Defendants, i.e., that they were not named in the Government Claim and thus, under the CTCA, the claims against them must be dismissed.
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint." N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n,...
To continue reading
Request your trial