CHRISTIANSEN v. West BRANCH Cmty. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 28 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-CV-131-LRR,10-CV-131-LRR |
| Parties | TERRY CHRISTIANSEN, Plaintiff, vs. WEST BRANCH COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WEST BRANCH COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; CRAIG ARTIST, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUPERINTENDENT OF WEST BRANCH COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; SARA OSWALD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OF WEST BRANCH COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; KATHY KNOOP, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF WEST BRANCH COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; CHRISTOPHER KOBER; TERESA KOBER; and HENRY MAXWELL KOBER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION.......................................2
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY........................3
III. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND.......................4
IV. ANALYSIS...........................................5
a. Parties' arguments.........................5
b. Applicable law............................ 6
i. Removal procedure and unanimity requirement. . 6
ii. Form of consent...................... 7
c. Applying the law......................... 10
i. Procedural due process ................ 21
ii. Substantive due process ................ 21
V. CONCLUSION....................................... 24
I. INTRODUCTION
The matters before the court are: (1) Plaintiff Terry Christiansen's "Motion to Remand" (docket no. 8); (2) Defendants West Branch Community School District, Board of Directors of the West Branch Community School District, Craig Artist, Sara Oswald, and Kathy Knoop's (collectively, "West Branch Defendants") "Motion to Dismiss" ("West Branch Motion") (docket no. 6); and (3) Defendants Christopher Kober, Teresa Kober and Henry Maxwell Kober's (collectively, "Kober Defendants") "Motion to Dismiss" ("Kober Motion") (docket no. 7).
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Petition at Law ("Complaint") (docket no. 4-1) in the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, case no. LACV034637 against Defendants West Branch Community School District; Craig Artist, individually and as Superintendent of West Branch Community School District; Kathy Knoop; Christopher Kober; Teresa Kober; and Henry Maxwell Kober. On September 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Amended Petition at Law ("Amended Complaint") (docket no. 4), adding as Defendants Sara Oswald, individually and as Middle School Principal of West Branch Community School District and Kathy Knoop, individually and as a member of the Board of West Branch Community School District. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges ten causes of action: (1) wrongful termination; (2) breach of contract; (3) violation of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) wrongful accusation of improper physical contact; (5) defamation; (6) violation of liberty interest; (7) interference with business and contractual relationships; (8) malicious prosecution; (9) abuse of process; and (10) negligence. Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment.
On October 19, 2010 the West Branch Defendants removed the action to this court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. On October 27, 2010, the West Branch Defendants filed the West Branch Motion. On November 5, 2010, the Kober Defendants filed the Kober Motion. On November 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand. On that same date, Plaintiff filed Resistances (docket nos. 10 & 9, respectively) to the West Branch Motion and the Kober Motion. On November 19, 2010, the West Branch Defendants filed a Response (docket no. 12) to Plaintiff's Resistance to the West Branch Motion.
On November 16, 2010, the Kober Defendants filed a Consent to Removal (docket no. 11). On November 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Response (docket no. 13) to the Kober Defendants' Consent to Removal. On November 26, 2010 the West Branch Defendants filed a Resistance (docket no. 14) to the Motion to Remand. On December 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Reply (docket no. 15) to the West Branch Defendants' Resistance to the Motion to Remand.
III. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff is a licensed professional educator in the State of Iowa. Since approximately 2003, the West Branch Community School District employed Plaintiff in various capacities, including teacher, coach and bus driver. On or about September 19, 2008, after middle school football practice, several students engaged in a water fight on a school bus that Plaintiff was preparing to drive. One student, Henry Maxwell Kober, was disruptive and made an offensive gesture toward Plaintiff. Plaintiff asked Henry to leave the bus, but Henry did not leave. After Plaintiff approached him, Henry "ultimately left the bus and then accused [Plaintiff] of improper physical contact." Amended Complaint at ¶ 11. Plaintiff maintains that the accusation is untrue.
Henry told his parents, Christopher and Teresa Kober, and other unnamed individuals, that Plaintiff assaulted him. Christopher and Teresa Kober then told Kathy Knoop, a member of the West Branch school board, and other unnamed individuals that Plaintiff assaulted Henry. Kathy Knoop then told the West Branch Police Department and other unnamed individuals that Plaintiff assaulted Henry. Subsequently, Sara Oswald, West Branch Community School District Middle School Principal, initiated an investigation into the matter. Craig Artist, the West Branch School District Superintendent, recommended that the school district hold a hearing to terminate Plaintiff's employment. After a hearing, the West Branch Community School District terminated Plaintiff's employment contract. Plaintiff did not appeal his termination.
Craig Artist and Henry, through his parents, Christopher and Teresa Kober, submitted complaints with the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners alleging that Plaintiff made inappropriate physical contact with Henry. Plaintiff was criminally charged for the alleged assault in Cedar County, Iowa, and was acquitted after a jury trial. Plaintiff alleges that Henry's allegations damaged Plaintiff's reputation, caused the termination of multiple contracts and resulted in the loss of income.
IV. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that the court should remand this action to the state court for two reasons: (1) the notice of removal is defective and (2) ten of the eleven counts in the Amended Complaint involve Iowa state law issues which should be resolved by Iowa state courts.
In the Motion to Remand, Plaintiff argues that the West Branch Defendants' Notice of Removal (docket no. 2) is defective because the Kober Defendants did not join in the Notice of Removal and the time for doing so expired. After Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand, the Kober Defendants filed the Consent to Removal, in which they state:
[The Kober Defendants] hereby consent to the removal of the above-entitled matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Said Defendants previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in this action, which they believed constituted a consent to the removal. However, in the event that it did not, [the Kober Defendants] are filing this Consent to reflect their desire that it be removed.
Consent to Removal at 1-2. In Plaintiff's Response to Consent to Removal, Plaintiff argues that the Consent to Removal is invalid because it was filed after the 30 day removal period had expired. Plaintiff further argues that the Kober Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should not be construed as consent to removal.
The West Branch Defendants, in their Resistance to the Motion to Remand, argue that the Kober Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss should operate as consent to the Notice of Removal[.]" Resistance to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand at ¶ 8. The West Branch Defendants further argue, "Even if [the Kober Defendants'] Motion to Dismiss did not operate as a consent to removal, they cured this defect by filing a formal Consent on November 16, 2010." Brief in Support of Resistance to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (docket no. 14-1) at 6.
Under the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant in a state court action may "remove to federal court any civil action over 'which the [federal] district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States." Williams v. Ragnone, 147 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)). A defendant seeking to remove a civil action from state court must file in the appropriate United States District Court a notice of removal within 30 days after the defendant has been served with the initial pleading. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) & (b). Courts have interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1446 as requiring that all defendants consent to the removal in order for the removal to be effective. See, e.g., Pritchett v. Cottrell, Inc., 512 F.3d 1057, 1062 (8th Cir. 2008); Thorn v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 305 F.3d 826, 833 (8th Cir. 2002) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial