Colbert Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. James

• Decision Date: 21 October 2011
• Docket Number: 1100181.
• Citation: Colbert Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. James, 83 So.3d 473, 278 Ed. Law Rep. 1234 (Ala. 2011)
• Parties: COLBERT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. v. Felecia JAMES, individually and as mother of J.H., a minor child.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

278 Ed. Law Rep. 1234

83 So.3d 473

COLBERT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.

v.Felecia JAMES, individually and as mother of J.H., a minor child.

1100181.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 21, 2011.

Stanley E. Munsey, Tuscumbia; and Heath F. Trousdale, Florence, for appellantsColbert County Board of Education and the individual members of the Board.

Brandy Murphy Lee of Lee Law Firm, LLC, Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The Colbert County Board of Education(“the Board”); and the individual members of the Board; ¹Billy Hudson, superintendent of the Colbert County School System; Jackie Witt, principal of Colbert County High School; and Jeff Burbank, an assistant principal at Colbert County High School(hereinafter referred to collectively as “the individually named defendants”), appeal from the trial court's judgment granting Felecia James's motion for a preliminary injunction.We dismiss the appeal in part, reverse the trial court's judgment entering the preliminary injunction, and remand the cause.

Facts and Procedural History

On or about May 21, 2010, an incident occurred at Colbert County High School(“CCHS”) involving J.H., James's minor child, and another minor enrolled in CCHS.The incident, the details of which are in dispute, led Burbank to suspend both students for three days for allegedly fighting on school property during school hours.Burbank also required each of the suspended students to attend the Colbert County School System's alternative school (“the alternative school”) for 15 days at the beginning of the following academic school year, i.e., the 2010–2011 school year.It also appears that there was a notation placed in J.H.'s academic file to the effect that he had been suspended and placed in the alternative school because of fighting.

James appeared before the Board to discuss the situation on June 24, 2010.The Board apparently took no action, and, on July 20, 2010, James, “individually and as mother and guardian of J.H.,” sued the Board and the individually named defendants asserting state-law and federal-law claims and seeking injunctive relief, declaratory relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, interest, and “any other relief to which [James] may be entitled.”²On July 21, 2010, James filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction, alleging, in pertinent part, as follows:

“1.[The Board and the individually named defendants have] wrongfully imposed discipline on [J.H.].

“2. [J.H.'s] school record wrongfully shows he was found to be fighting at school.

“3.[The Board and the individually named defendants] intend on further wrongfully imposing discipline on [J.H.] when school begins on Monday, August 9, 2010 and [the Board is] scheduled to impose three (3) weeks of the first six (6) week grading period in suspension/alternative school due to the wrongful application of the [Board's] policies, procedures, and practices as well as [the Board and the individually named defendants'] failure to provide [J.H.] procedural and substantive due process.

“4.[James] has a likelihood of success on the merits.See complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A.³

“5.There is no adequate remedy available by law.

“6.[J.H.] will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.

“7.The hardship imposed on the [Board and the individually named defendants] will not unreasonably outweigh the benefit accruing to the requesting party.

“8.A temporary restraining order and injunction will not prejudice the [Board and the individually named defendants].

“9.The temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction are proper.SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, N.A. v. Webb–Stiles Co.,931 So.2d 706, 708(Ala.2005)(quotingOrmco Corp. v. Johns,869 So.2d 1109, 1113(Ala.2003), quoting in turnPerley v. Tapscan, Inc.,646 So.2d 585, 587(Ala.1994)).

“10.[James] has made a diligent effort to contact [the Board] to discuss resolution without success.

“11.No bond is necessary because no damage to the [Board and the individually named defendants] will attach with the entry of a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction.

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, [James] respectfully requests the Court grant a temporary restraining order and injunction prohibiting the [Board and the individually named defendants] from imposing wrongful discipline on [J.H.] and requiring removal of references to wrongfully imposed discipline on [J.H.] pending further order of this Court.”

The Board and the individually named defendants did not file a response to James's motion for injunctive relief, although they did file an answer to James's complaint.A hearing on James's motion was set for August 3, 2010.

On July 29, 2010, the Board and the individually named defendants filed a motion for a summary judgment asserting absolute immunity on the part of the Board and State-agent immunity on the part of the individually named defendants.⁴A hearing on the summary-judgment motion was set and then continued to January 10, 2011.⁵

Following the August 3, 2010, hearing on James's motion for injunctive relief, the trial court entered a preliminary injunction against the Board and the individually named defendants on August 4, 2010, holding as follows:

“Upon consideration of the evidence and submissions, the Court finds that [James] will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction; [James] has no adequate remedy at law; [James] has at least a reasonable chance of success on the ultimate merits; and the hardship imposed on the [Board and the individually named defendants] will not unreasonably outweigh the benefit accruing to [James].SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, N.A. v. Webb–Stiles Co.,931 So.2d 706, 708(Ala.2005)(quotingOrmco Corp. v. Johns,869 So.2d 1109, 1113(Ala.2003), quoting in turnPerley v. Tapscan, Inc.,646 So.2d 585, 587(Ala.1994)).

“Specifically, [J.H.] will suffer irreparable harm with implementation of discipline (three weeks of alternative school) currently imposed as it will carry forward to the school in which he is newly enrolled if the Court does not enjoin the implementation of said discipline.[James] has at least a reasonable chance of success on the ultimate merits that [J.H.] was denied due process or the conduct of the [Board and the individually named defendants] otherwise violates the Constitution or laws of the United States, or the Constitution of this State, or laws, rules, or regulations of this State enacted or promulgated for the purpose of regulating the activities of a governmental agency; or the [Board and the individually named defendants] acted willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his or her authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.Ex parte Jones,(Ala.2010)(quotingEx parte Cranman,792 So.2d 392(Ala.2000));Ex parte Rizk,791 So.2d 911(Ala.2000).The implementation of said discipline will also likely cause ... J.H. to suffer irreparable harm to his right to education and opportunities resulting [therefrom] due to the stigma and discipline that is recorded ... in his student records.[J.H.] may lose his membership in leadership and extra-curricular activities in addition to losing the opportunity to be college educated or accepted otherwise in school.Therefore, the [Board and the individually named defendants] are hereby enjoined from imposing the discipline to [J.H.] as indicated in [J.H.' s]‘Notice of Student Suspension’ and are hereby directed to remove any and all reference to said discipline and ‘fighting’ from [J.H.'s] school records.The Court also hereby finds that there is no hardship, prejudice, damage or harm to the [Board and the individually named defendants] in ordering said injunction.Otherwise stated, the hardship to the [Board and the individually named defendants] will not unreasonably outweigh the benefit accruing to [J.H.].”

On August 4, 2010, the same day the trial court entered the judgment issuing the preliminary injunction, the Board and the individually named defendants, except Burbank, filed a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., to alter, amend, or vacate the trial court's judgment.Those defendants argued that there was no evidence before the trial court upon which it could have entered a preliminary injunction against the Board and the individually named defendants because, they argued, no evidence had been submitted.Those defendants argued that the trial court erred in entering the preliminary injunction relying solely on James's complaint and her unverified motion requesting injunctive relief.

On September 17, 2010, James filed a response to the Board and the individually named defendants' summary-judgment motion and the Rule 59(e) motion.James attached numerous affidavits to her response and states in her brief on appeal that those affidavits “were present at the hearing before the [trial court] on August 3, 2010.”James's brief, at p. 37.A hearing on the Rule 59(e) motion was set for September 22, 2010, but was continued to January 10, 2011.The trial court never ruled on the Rule 59(e) motion; thus, that motion was denied by operation of law on November 2, 2010.SeeRule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P.The Board and the individually named defendants appealed on November 8, 2010.

Standard of Review

This Court set forth the standard for reviewing a trial court's decision to enter a preliminary injunction in Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins,12 So.3d 1173, 1175–76(Ala.2008):

“We have often stated: ‘The decision to grant or to deny a preliminary injunction is within the trial court's sound discretion.In reviewing an order granting a preliminary injunction, the Court determines whether the trial court exceeded that discretion.’SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, N.A. v. Webb–Stiles Co.,931 So.2d 706, 709(Ala.2005).

“A preliminary injunction should be issued only when the party seeking an injunction...