Derry v. Marion Cmty. Sch.
| Decision Date | 12 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | Cause No. 1:08–CV–187–TLS. |
| Citation | 272 Ed. Law Rep. 958,790 F.Supp.2d 839 |
| Parties | Robert Allen DERRY and Brenda Lynn Derry, Plaintiffs,v.MARION COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, Dr. Jeff Hendrix, Superintendent, and Marion Community Schools School Board, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Shane Eric Beal, Marion, IN, for Plaintiffs.Cathleen M. Shrader, Barrett & McNagny LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, Judy L. Woods, Michelle L. Cooper, Susan Traynor Chastain, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on an Application for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order [DE 1], filed by the Plaintiffs on August 6, 2008, in Grant Superior Court, and a Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 14], filed by the Defendants on September 15, 2008.
Even though the uniform policy that is the subject of this lawsuit was adopted on May 28, 2008, and was publicized soon thereafter, the Plaintiffs did not file their Application for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order [DE 1] until August 6, 2008. Along with their Application, the Plaintiffs filed an Affidavit and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Counsel for the Plaintiffs certified that he sent the Affidavit and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order via facsimile to Dr. Hendrix and via mail to the administration building of Marion Community Schools. In their Application for Preliminary Injunction, the Plaintiffs claim that the uniform policy adopted by the Defendants for McCulloch Middle School requires the Plaintiffs, who are the parents of two students at that school, to purchase uniforms for their children and that these costs place an undue burden on their family. The Plaintiffs also claim that the policy deprives the families of McCulloch Middle School students of the same education at the same cost as students at other schools in the district and that the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the policy goes into effect, causing them to purchase the uniforms. The Plaintiffs also contend that the policy violates the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On August 8, 2008, the Defendants removed the action to this Court, premising this Court's subject matter jurisdiction upon federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
On August 11, 2008, the Court conducted a telephone motion conference with the parties. Because the Defendants had received notice, the Court indicated that the Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order was no longer an issue and that the parties should confer and agree to a schedule for discovery, briefing, and a hearing on the Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction. The parties indicated that, although school started on August 11, 2008, there was a “grace period” until September 2 for students to comply with the uniform policy.
On August 12, 2008, the parties submitted via email a Proposed Scheduling Entry, part of which was docketed as Motion Scheduling Entry [DE 10], but the Plaintiffs' and the Defendants' Proposed Scheduling Entry [DE 19] was not formally filed until September 24, 2008. In their joint Scheduling Entry, the parties clarified the Plaintiffs' claims as follows:
[T]hey are being denied equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the Marion Community Schools intends to implement a uniform policy through a pilot program in one school building instead of immediately implementing the uniform policy in all school buildings throughout the School Corporation. The Plaintiffs are also alleging that the uniform policy violates the equal opportunity for education policy set forth in Indiana Code 22–9–1–2. The Plaintiffs are not claiming that they cannot financially afford to purchase school uniforms for their children.
(Scheduling Entry, DE 19, at 1.) The parties also agreed that the students would not be penalized for violations of the uniform policy prior to October 3.
On August 12, the Court conducted a telephone scheduling conference with the parties and adopted the parties' discovery and briefing schedule. The Court scheduled a hearing for September 30 to receive evidence and to hear argument on the Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction. The Court indicated that the posting of security pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) would also be addressed at the time of the hearing.
The parties were to submit written discovery by August 15 and responses to written discovery by August 27. Depositions were to be taken by September 5. On September 15, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 14] together with a Memorandum in Support [DE 15] and evidentiary materials. On September 23, the Plaintiffs filed their Designation of Evidence [DE 16], Motion and Memorandum of Law in Opposition [DE 17], and a Declaration of Robert Allen Derry [DE 18]. On September 24, the Defendants filed a Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 20].
On September 30, the Court conducted a hearing at which the parties indicated they had no evidence or argument to present in addition to the evidence and argument presented in the Motion for Summary Judgment and related briefing. The parties agreed that the Defendants would withhold implementing the uniform policy until October 14. The Court directed the parties to file a joint stipulation of facts and their proposed conclusions of law.
On October 3, the parties filed Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Joint Stipulation of Material Facts not in Dispute [DE 23]. On October 6, the Plaintiffs filed their Proposed Findings [DE 25], and the Defendants filed their Proposed Conclusions of Law [DE 26].
In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the Plaintiffs must make four threshold showings: (1) that they are reasonably likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that they will suffer irreparable harm that outweighs the harm that the nonmoving parties will suffer if the injunction is granted; (3) that there is no adequate remedy at law; and (4) an injunction will not harm the public interest. Christian Legal Soc'y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir.2006). As to the first factor, the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits, the Seventh Circuit has instructed:
In the first phase of the analysis, the court decides only whether the plaintiff has any likelihood of success—in other words, a greater than negligible chance of winning—but in the second phase, the court evaluates that likelihood of success as the analysis turns to a “sliding scale” under which a lesser likelihood of success can be made sufficient by a greater predominance of the balance of harms. In performing this balancing, the court bears in mind that the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit.
AM Gen. Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d 796, 804 (7th Cir.2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In granting a preliminary injunction, a court does not render “a decision on the merits of the plaintiff's suit”; rather, such a decision reflects a determination that “the suit has enough merit—which need not be great—to justify an order that will freeze the situation, in the plaintiff's favor, for such time as it may take to determine whether the suit is, or is not, meritorious.” Ayres v. City of Chicago, 125 F.3d 1010, 1013 (7th Cir.1997). If the plaintiff meets the threshold burden to demonstrate the four factors, the court must weigh the factors against one another in a sliding scale analysis, which is to say the court “must exercise its discretion to determine whether the balance of harms weighs in favor of the moving party or whether the nonmoving party or public interest will be harmed sufficiently that the injunction should be denied.” Christian Legal Soc'y, 453 F.3d at 859 (internal citation omitted).
As for motions for summary judgment, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that such motions be granted “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Rule 56(c) further requires the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery, against a party “who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A court's role is not to evaluate the weight of the evidence, to judge the credibility of witnesses, or to determine the truth of the matter, but instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Doe v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 42 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir.1994). To determine whether any genuine issue of fact exists, a court must pierce the pleadings and assess the proof as presented in depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits that are part of the record. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c), Advisory Committee Notes, 1963 Amendments. The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of proving there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. In response, the nonmoving party cannot rest on bare pleadings alone but must use the evidentiary tools listed above to designate specific material facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Insolia v. Philip Morris Inc., 216 F.3d 596, 598 (7th Cir.2000). A material fact must be outcome...
To continue reading
Request your trial