Davids v. N. Iowa Cmty. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 16 July 2015
• Docket Number: No. C 14-3002-MWB,C 14-3002-MWB
• Parties: DUANE A. DAVIDS and JULIE A. DAVIDS, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH IOWA COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, JULIE BALVANCE, JAMIE THOMSEN, MICHAEL HOLSTAD, RANDE GIESKING, MATT DUVE, RENAE SACHS, TOM RYGH, ANDREA BAKKER, DIEDRE WILLMERT, and LARRY HILL, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

DUANE A. DAVIDS and JULIE A. DAVIDS, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH IOWA COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, JULIE BALVANCE, JAMIE THOMSEN,MICHAEL HOLSTAD, RANDE GIESKING, MATT DUVE, RENAE SACHS, TOM RYGH, ANDREABAKKER, DIEDRE WILLMERT, and LARRY HILL, Defendants.

No. C 14-3002-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

July 16, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 3

A. Factual Background ............................................................... 3

1. Facts deemed admitted .................................................... 3

2. The parties ................................................................... 4

3. The dispute .................................................................. 5

B. Procedural Background ........................................................... 7

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 10

A. Summary Judgment Standards ................................................. 10

B. The Davidses' Federal Claims .................................................. 11

1. The statutory vehicles for the claims ................................. 11

2. The right at issue ......................................................... 14

a. Arguments of the parties ....................................... 14

b. Analysis ............................................................ 16

3. The equal protection claims ............................................ 21

a. Arguments of the parties ....................................... 21b. Analysis ............................................................ 22

i. The § 1983 equal protection claim ................... 22

ii. The § 1985 equal protection conspiracy claim ....................................................... 24

4. The due process claims .................................................. 26

a. Arguments of the parties ....................................... 26

b. Analysis ............................................................ 27

i. The "substantive" due process claim ................ 27

ii. The "procedural" due process claim ................. 29

5. The claim that § 282.8 is unconstitutional .......................... 30

a. Arguments of the parties ....................................... 30

b. Analysis ............................................................ 31

C. The Davidses' State-Law Claim ................................................ 34

1. Arguments of the parties ................................................ 35

2. Analysis .................................................................... 36

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 37

Do the plaintiffs, who reside in an Iowa school district, have viable constitutional and state-law claims arising from the Iowa school district's refusal to pay for the plaintiffs' children to attend school in Minnesota? The Iowa school district and its past and present board members and officials say no and seek summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs contend that they have viable constitutional claims of violations of equal protection, substantive due process, and procedural due process that impinge on their right to a free public education for their children. They also contend that they have a viable state-law claim that the defendants' failure to reimburse the Minnesota school district for educating their children, while receiving funds for each of their children, constitutes unjust enrichment and/or fraud.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

The factual background stated here does not necessarily encompass all of the parties' factual allegations in support of and resistance to summary judgment. Rather, it states sufficient facts, undisputed and disputed, to put in context the parties' arguments on summary judgment. Unless otherwise indicated, the facts stated here are undisputed.

1. Facts deemed admitted

The plaintiffs failed to respond to the defendants' Statement Of Material Facts In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 14-3) in the manner required by applicable local rules. In pertinent part, N.D. IA. L.R. 56 requires the plaintiffs to file "[a] response to the [movant's] statement of material facts in which the resisting party expressly admits, denies, or qualifies each of the moving party's numbered statements of fact." N.D. IA. L.R. 56(b)(2) (emphasis added). In their resistance brief, however, the plaintiffs simply state that they "have read the Statement of Material Fact in Support of the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and would state as follows," then make three additional statements. See Plaintiffs' Brief In Support Of Plaintiffs' Resistance To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs' Brief) (docket no. 23-1), 3-4. Worse still, the plaintiffs' three additional statements, which I will quote, below, are not factual statements at all, but arguments and legal conclusions. The local rule also provides, "The failure to respond, with appropriate citations to the appendix, to an individual statement of material fact constitutes an admission of that fact." N.D. IA. L.R. 56(b). Consequently, I have deemed all of the defendants' allegations in their Statement Of Material Facts In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 14-3) to be admitted.

Notwithstanding my conclusion that I must deem the defendants' factual allegations to be admitted, I will identify relevant additional facts on which the plaintiffs rely. The plaintiffs have identified their Affidavit (docket no. 23-3), along with a copy of the Iowa-Minnesota Tuition Reciprocity Agreement, as their Statement Of Material Facts In Support Of Their Resistance To The Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 23-2), with no citations to the supporting record for any factual allegations. This is another failure to comply with applicable local rules, which require that "[e]ach individual statement of additional material fact must be . . . supported by references to those specific pages, paragraphs, or parts of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, exhibits, and affidavits that support each statement, with citations to the appendix containing that part of the record." N.D. IA. L.R. 56(b).¹ Presumably, the plaintiffs consider their affidavit to be "self-supporting," without citation to further support in the record. I will assume, without deciding, that the plaintiffs are correct.

2. The parties

Plaintiffs Duane and Julie Davids are residents of Lakota, Kossuth County, Iowa. They pay both property taxes and income taxes in Iowa. The Davidses have lived in the North Iowa Community School District (NICSD) for 24 years. They have three children who, at pertinent times, were of school age, although one is now an adult. All three children have or are attending schools in the Blue Earth Area Public School District (Blue Earth District) in Minnesota, not schools in the NICSD. The Davidses' residence is 7.75 miles from the NICSD Elementary School and the NICSD High School, 17.6 miles from the Blue Earth District Elementary School, and 18.1 miles from the Blue Earth DistrictHigh School. The defendants in this action are the NICSD; Julie Balvance, Jamie Thomsen, Michael Holstad, Rande Giesking, Matt Duve, and Renae Sachs, who are current members of the NICSD Board of Directors; Tom Rygh, Andrea Bakker, and Diedre Willmert, who were members of the NISCD Board of Directors as of August 11, 2008; and Larry D. Hill, who is the former superintendent of the NICSD.

3. The dispute

The NICSD admits that it has received funding from the Iowa Department of Education (IDOE) for the purpose of educating each of the Davidses' children. The Davidses have admitted that, if they had chosen to send their children to school in the NICSD, their children would have received a free education, paid with public funds. The NICSD maintains—and the Davidses have not properly disputed—that the Davidses' children would have been eligible for "open enrollment" in another school district in Iowa, for which the NICSD would have provided funding pursuant to state law, had the Davidses completed the appropriate "open enrollment" paperwork by the appropriate deadlines.

In 2008, the Davidses asked the NICSD to negotiate a tuition reimbursement/sharing agreement with the Blue Earth District. The parties agree that the Blue Earth District is and has been willing to enter into a tuition reimbursement agreement with the NICSD. The parties also agree that Iowa and Minnesota have entered into a Tuition Reciprocity Agreement, but they apparently dispute whether that Tuition Reciprocity Agreement requires, or only authorizes, districts in the two states to enter into sharing or reimbursement agreements for students who are residents of one state to be educated in the other. In response to the Davidses' request, on August 11, 2008, the NICSD Board approved a measure to have Superintendent Hill investigate whether a tuition reimbursement would be feasible for the NICSD. The NICSD Board ultimately chose not to enter into a sharing agreement with the Blue Earth District, however. TheBoard did not believe that it was in the NICSD's best interest to provide financial support to resident students attending out-of-state schools. Specifically, the NICSD Board believed that such a sharing agreement could have increased the number of students leaving the NICSD and, thus, could have been detrimental to the NICSD. The NICSD Board believed that whether or not to enter into a sharing agreement was left to the local school board's discretion, pursuant to IOWA CODE § 282.8. The Davidses attempted to appeal the NICSD Board's decision not to enter into a sharing or reimbursement agreement with the Blue Earth District to the IDOE, but the IDOE refused to hear...