Clonlara, Inc. v. Runkel
| Decision Date | 18 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 86-75439. |
| Citation | 722 F. Supp. 1442 |
| Parties | CLONLARA, INC., John and Sandra Bennett, Leonard and Julia Kuhar, Plaintiffs, v. Phillip RUNKEL, (Superintendent of Public Instruction), James H. Doyle, (Superintendent, Huron Valley Schools), James Faust (Pupil Personnel Officer, Huron Valley Schools), Huron Valley School Board of Education, John M. Hoben (Superintendent, Plymouth-Canton Schools), Shirley Waters (Pupil Personnel Officer, Plymouth-Canton Community Schools), Plymouth-Canton Board of Education; Michigan Association of School Administrators; Michigan Pupil Accounting and Attendance Association, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Kurt Berggren, Ann Arbor, Mich., for Clonlara, Inc., John and Sandra Bennett and Leonard and Julia Kuhar.
Paul J. Zimmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for Phillip Runkel, Super. of Public Instruction.
John A. Klarr, Southfield, Mich., for James H. Doyle, Super. of Huron Valley Schools, James Faust, Pupil Personnel Officer, Huron Valley Schools and Huron Valley Schools Bd. of Educ.
Anthony Kenney, Detroit, Mich., for John Hoben, Super. of Plymouth-Canton Schools, Shirley Waters, Pupil Personnel Officer, Plymouth-Canton Schools, Plymouth-Canton Schools Bd. of Educ.
Thomas H. Blaske, Ann Arbor, Mich., for Michigan Ass'n of School Administrators.
Joan M. Fencik, Chicago, Ill., for Michigan Assoc. of School Administrators.
Joe Mosier, Lansing, Mich., for Michigan Pupil Accounting and Attendance Ass'n.
This matter is before the court on Magistrate Virginia M. Morgan's Report dated June 9, 1989, and specific recommendations dated the same date. Plaintiff has filed timely objections and defendant Phillip Runkel has filed responses to said objections. The plaintiffs' objections essentially argue the scope of the recommended relief as opposed to the substance.
The court is very familiar with the issues raised in this matter as well as the positions of the parties. The court has had an opportunity to thoroughly review the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Morgan.
The court's review of the Report and Recommendation and the law in this particular matter indicates that Magistrate Morgan reached the proper conclusions in her Report and Recommendation and the court shall therefore accept and adopt the magistrate's Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion and amended motion by Phillip Runkel to dismiss and/or for summary judgment on plaintiff's first amended complaint is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion by MASA to dismiss and for summary judgment is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions by MPAAA to dismiss and for summary judgment are granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions by plaintiffs for summary judgment and alternatively for opportunity to do discovery and file an amended complaint are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment by defendants Huron Valley Schools, James Doyle, James Faust, John Hoben, Shirley Waters, and Plymouth-Canton Community Schools is granted.
In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order accepting Magistrate's Report and Recommendation entered this date,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion and amended motion by Phillip Runkel to dismiss and/or for summary judgment on plaintiff's first amended complaint is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion by MASA to dismiss and for summary judgment is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions by MPAAA to dismiss and for summary judgment are granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions by plaintiffs for summary judgment and alternatively for opportunity to do discovery and file an amended complaint are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment by defendants Huron Valley Schools, James Doyle, James Faust, John Hoben, Shirley Waters, and Plymouth-Canton Community Schools is granted.
June 9, 1989
VIRGINIA M. MORGAN, United States Magistrate.
This case is a federal civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 alleging a deprivation of the right to educate one's children in the privacy of the home, a denial of due process, and a conspiracy to violate civil rights. Plaintiffs allege that they have a "fundamental right to privacy, protected by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, which includes a right to raise, nurture and control the education and upbringing of their children." (Complaint, ¶ 86). Plaintiffs have also alleged various state claims. The individual plaintiffs, John and Sandra Bennett, and Leonard and Julia Kuhar, are parents who were prosecuted on the criminal charge of truancy. In defense, the parents alleged that they were educating their children at home using a "Home Based Education Program" (HBEP) purchased from Clonlara, Inc. (Clonlara). They claim here that the criminal prosecution is a denial of due process "because the statutes provide no clear and ascertainable standard by which to differentiate between criminal and non-criminal behavior in the context of home education." (Complaint, ¶ 96).
Clonlara, Inc., the corporate plaintiff, is a private school in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Clonlara sells HBEP packages to parents interested in educating their children at home. Clonlara also offers an on-site private day school in Ann Arbor where students attend class at the institution.
Plaintiffs initiated this suit on June 20, 1986 and filed their amended complaint November 2, 1987. Plaintiffs' amended complaint names nine defendants and sets forth eight causes of action, five of which are state law claims.
Currently pending before the court are the following motions:
These motions have been fully briefed by the parties. Oral argument was scheduled. However, at the scheduled time for argument, counsel waived formal argument on the motions. Instead, the parties addressed specific questions posed by the court. All of the above-listed motions have been referred for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Since the motions are overlapping and repetitive, the recommendation will address the parties' contentions in the outline of the claims themselves.
The facts as alleged in plaintiffs' first amended complaint are as follows: Clonlara began its HBEP in 1979 and notified the "appropriate State authorities." Since 1985, three families, the Gibsons,1 the Bennetts and the Kuhars have been prosecuted for truancy. These three families were using Clonlara's HBEP to educate their children. Clonlara alleges that since 1985 thirty of its HBEP customers have been harassed by school district pupil personnel officers. The officers and the customers are unidentified. Three unidentified parents have allegedly discontinued enrollment in Clonlara's HBEP program and other unidentified families have allegedly been discouraged from enrolling in the program. No affidavits have been submitted from any parents including the Bennetts and the Kuhars.
In September of 1985, the Bennetts were contacted by Shirley Waters, the attendance supervisor in the division of pupil personnel services of Plymouth-Canton Community Schools (PCCS). Waters sought information concerning the Bennetts' children's educational instruction.
Following several months of correspondence between Waters and the Bennetts, on May 8, 1986, the Bennetts were charged with four counts of truancy in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated (MCLA) § 380.1599. After a bench trial on January 12 and 13, 1987, both the Bennetts were convicted of four counts of truancy. The Bennetts have appealed their convictions, and the cases are presently pending before the Michigan Court of Appeals.
The Kuhars, during the time in question in this suit, also resided in PCCS district. In April of 1985, Hoben, superintendent for PCCS, contacted the Kuhars. He told them that if their home school program did not meet curriculum requirements, truancy prosecution might be initiated. On April 25, following some correspondence, Hoben indicated that he would not certify the Kuhars' home curriculum as comparable. In June 1985, Waters wrote Kuhars seeking evidence that the Kuhars' child had received 180 days of certified teacher instruction. In December 1985, Waters wrote the Kuhars stating that their child needed to be at a public school or in a state approved non-public school. Julia Kuhar apparently was, at one time, a certified teacher but her certification had lapsed. In March 1986, Waters initiated truancy charges as the complaining witness. The Kuhars were arraigned on those truancy charges. These charges were dismissed on August 8, 1988, after Julia Kuhar was recertified. A true copy of the dismissal has been submitted to this court. Plainti...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Solid Waste Management Ass'n v. Voinovich
...S.Ct. 1917, 1924, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976). Beyond the Constitutional requirements, there are also prudential limits. Clonlara, Inc. v. Runkel, 722 F.Supp. 1442 (E.D.Mich.1989). A plaintiff must also fall within the "zone of interest arguably protected by the constitutional provision in questi......
-
People v. Bennett
...are at least two that are directly relevant. One is of particular importance because defendants were parties. In Clonlara, Inc. v. Runkel, 722 F.Supp. 1442 (E.D.Mich., 1989), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that defendants (and one other home-schoo......
-
Quad Cities Waterkeeper v. Ballegeer
...have their interests in a clean environment protected, plaintiffs could not assertion associational standing); Clonlara, Inc. v. Runkel, 722 F.Supp. 1442, 1449–51 (D.Mich.1989) (holding that where a non-profit corporation's alleged members merely purchased a service but did not elect member......
-
People v. Bennett
...are at least two that are directly relevant. One is of particular importance because defendants were parties. In Clonlara, Inc. v. Runkel, 722 F.Supp. 1442 (E.D.Mich., 1989), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that defendants (and one other home-schoo......
-
Compel, resist and amend discovery
...to make the motion, such as: 1. Inadvertence and excusable neglect in not completing discovery earlier. Clonlara, Inc. v. Runkel, 722 F. Supp. 1442, 1448 (E.D. Mich. 1989). 2. Undue prejudice. Howze v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 750 F.2d 1208, 1213 (3d Cir. 1984). 3. Expectation of outst......
-
Discovery
...exist to extend discovery. Permissible grounds include the following: • Inadvertence and excusable neglect. Clonlara, Inc. v. Runkel , 722 F.Supp. 1442, 1448 (E.D. Mich. 1989). • Undue prejudice to a party. Howze v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. , 750 F.2d 1208, 1213 (3rd Cir. 1984). • Expec......
-
Compel, resist and amend discovery
...to make the motion, such as: 1. Inadvertence and excusable neglect in not completing discovery earlier. Clonlara, Inc. v. Runkel, 722 F. Supp. 1442, 1448 (E.D. Mich. 1989). 2. Undue prejudice. Priestley v. Newlin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120007, *4-5 (D.N.H. Aug. 20, 2015) . 3. Expectation of......
-
High School Academic Freedom: the Evolution of a Fish Out of Water
...Null v. Board of Educ., 815 F. Supp. 937 (S.D. W. Va. 1993)(challenging home schooling requirements); Clonlara, Inc., v. Runkel, 722 F. Supp. 1442 (E.D. Mich. 1989)(same); Hanson v. Cushman, 490 F. Supp. 109 (W.D. Mich. 1980)(same); Curtis v. School Comm., 652 N.E.2d 580 (Mass. 1995)(challe......