Doe ex rel. Doe v. White, Case No. 08-1287.
| Court | United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Central District of Illinois |
| Citation | 627 F.Supp.2d 905 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 08-1287. |
| Parties | Jane DOE, 10, a minor, through her mother and next friend, Julie DOE, 10, Julie Doe, 10, Jane Doe, 11, a minor, through her parents and next friends, Jane and John Doe 11, Jane Doe, 11 and John Doe, 11, Plaintiff, v. Jon WHITE, McClean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors, Jim Braksick, Alan Chapman, Dale Heidbreder, and John Pye, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 30 March 2009 |
v.
Jon WHITE, McClean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors, Jim Braksick, Alan Chapman, Dale Heidbreder, and John Pye, Defendants.
Page 906
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 907
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 908
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 909
Ellyn J. Bullock, Ellyn J. Bullock LLC, Champaign, IL, for Plaintiff.
Brett N. Olmstead, Lindsay B. Kearns, Beckett & Webber PC, James C. Kearns, Tamara K. Hackmann, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen, Urbana, IL, Peter W. Brandt, Livingston Barger Brandt & Schroeder, Bloomington, IL, for Defendants.
MICHAEL M. MIHM, District Judge.
Plaintiffs, minors and their parents, are pursuing state and federal claims arising from former teacher Jon White's alleged sexual misconduct against two of his first grade female students, and the alleged
Page 910
response (or lack thereof) of school administrators. Defendants include Jim Braksick, who was the Principal of the minors' school; Dale Heidbreder, who was the Assistant Principal of the minors' school; Alan Chapman, who was the Superintendent for the School District; and John Pye, who was the Assistant Superintendent of Operations and Human Resources for the School District.
On March 3, 2009, Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore filed a Report & Recommendation addressing Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, Motions to Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages, and Plaintiffs' Responses to these Motions. The Magistrate Judge sufficiently set forth the relevant facts and procedural history and they need not be restated here. More than ten (10) days have elapsed since the filing of the Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir.1988); and Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir.1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.
The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's well-reasoned and comprehensive recommendations. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that:
1) The motion to strike punitive damages by Defendant School District (# 4) be GRANTED;
2) The motion to strike punitive damages by Defendant Heidbreder (# 15) be DENIED, without prejudice to renewing upon a more fully developed record and thorough briefing;
3) The motion to dismiss by Defendant White (# 27) be GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. The Court recommends that the parents' claim against White for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") (Count IV) be dismissed as barred by the two-year statute of limitations in 735 ILCS 5/13-200. The Court otherwise recommends denial of White's motion to dismiss.
4) The motions to dismiss by the School Administrators (Heidbreder, Braksick, Pye, and Chapman) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part (# 7, # 9, # 11, # 13). The Court recommends that the parents' claim for IIED (Count V) and claim for common law fraud (Count XVIII) be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations in 745 ILCS 10/8-101. The Court further recommends that the claims based on violations of ANCRA be dismissed for failure to state a claim (Counts XI, XIII, and XX). The Court recommends that the motions be otherwise denied.
5) The motion to dismiss by the School District be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part (# 5). The Court recommends that the following respondeat superior claims against the School District be dismissed: Count VI (parents' IIED claim); Count XIX (parents' fraud claim); Counts XII, XIV, XXI (minors' hate crime claim); and, Count IX (IIED claim), but only to the extent it is based on White's conduct. The Court recommends the motion be otherwise denied.
Accordingly, this Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [# 47] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety.
This matter is again REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Cudmore for further proceedings.
BYRON G. CUDMORE, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs pursue state and federal claims arising from former teacher Jon
Page 911
White's alleged sexual misconduct against his two of his first grade female students, and the alleged response (or lack thereof) of school administrators.
This case is before the Court for a Report and Recommendation on motions to dismiss by Defendants (d/e's 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 27), and motions to strike punitive damages by the School District and Defendant Heidbreder (d/e's 4, 15).
To state a claim under federal notice pleading standards, all the Complaint must do is set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief...." Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Factual allegations are accepted as true and need only give "`fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776-77 (7th Cir.2007), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)(other citation omitted). However, the plaintiff's "`... allegations, [must] show that it is plausible, rather than merely speculative, that he is entitled to relief.'" Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1083 (7th Cir.2008)(quoted and other citations omitted). Federal notice pleading standards apply to state claims proceeding in federal court. Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Technical Financing, 536 F.3d 663, 670(7th Cir.2008); Beanstalk Group, Inc. v. AM General Corp., 283 F.3d 856, 863 (7th Cir.2002).
I. Punitive Damages
Plaintiffs agree that punitive damages are not available against Defendant McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors (the "School District") because the School District is a "local public entity" immune from punitive damages. 745 ILCS 10/1-206 (local public entity includes school district and school board); 745 ILCS 10/2-102 (local public entity not liable for punitive damages).
Plaintiffs object, however, to the dismissal of punitive damages against Defendant Heidbreder (the Assistant Principal), on the grounds that 745 ILCS 10/2-102 does not provide "blanket immunity" for employees of public entities. 745 ILCS 10/2-102 states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local public entity is not liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action brought directly or indirectly against it by the injured party or a third party. In addition, no public official is liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action arising out of an act or omission made by the public official while serving in an official executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, brought directly or indirectly against him by the injured party or a third party.
Heidbreder does not argue that he was acting as a "public official" in an "official executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity." He asserts only that he is immune from punitive damages because he is an employee of a public entity.
Heidbreder's immunity from punitive damages under Section 10/2-102 depends on his status as a public official and whether he was "serving in an official executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity." Neither Heidbreder nor Plaintiffs address this question. In any event, the Court believes the determination would be premature and should be made on a more developed record, given the apparent paucity of case law interpreting this statute. See Lifton v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 290 F.Supp.2d 940, 946 (N.D.Ill.2003)(denying principal's
Page 912
motion to dismiss punitive damages as premature); Carroccia v. Anderson, 249 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1029 (N.D.Ill.2003)(declining to decide "public official" question on motion to dismiss-noting that statute was unclear and had not been interpreted by Illinois courts); Harris v. City of West Chicago, Illinois, 2002 WL 31001888 (N.D.Ill.2002)(not reported in F.Supp.2d) (dismissing punitive damages claim against district and assistant principal); Bedenfield v. Shultz, 2002 WL 1827631 (N.D.Ill.2002)(police officer acting sued in individual capacity not immune from punitive damages under 10/2-201)(noting split). The court accordingly will recommend denial of Heidbreder's motion.1
II. Motion to Dismiss by Defendant White
A. IIED Claim by the Minor Plaintiffs Against White (Count VII)
The minor plaintiffs (the "minors") pursue claims against Defendant White (their former teacher) for battery (Count I), hate crimes (Count II), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VII). White moves to dismiss only Count VII, the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, on the grounds that the minors do not allege the "specific facts necessary" to state a claim. He contends that a conclusory allegation that the minors suffered severe emotional distress from his sexual grooming, harassment and abuse is not enough.
The Illinois Supreme Court defines the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress as:
conduct ... truly extreme and outrageous. Second, the actor must either intend that his conduct inflict severe emotional distress, or know that there is at least a high probability that his conduct will cause severe emotional distress. Third, the conduct must in fact cause severe emotional distress .... [citation omitted]. "The law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it. The intensity and duration of the distress are factors to be considered in determining its severity." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, comment j, at 77-78 (1965).
McGrath v. Fahey, 126...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 1-18-0593
...failures to follow the sibling transportation policy and the guidelines for principals served by CWAs/bus aides. See Doe v. White , 627 F. Supp. 2d 905, 923-24 (C.D. Ill. 2009) (not applying section 2201 immunity on a motion to dismiss where questions remained about whether all the actions ......
-
Jane Doe v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 18 C 3201
...when acting in the exercise of such discretion even though abused. 745 ILCS 10/2–201 ; see also, e.g. , Doe ex rel. Doe v. White , 627 F.Supp.2d 905, 922 (C.D. Ill. 2009). Where applicable, Section 2-201 provides immunity from liability for both negligent and willful and wanton misconduct. ......
-
Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. 5 Bd., Directors, 09-1936.
...case pending against these McLean County defendants brought by McLean County students abused by White. Doe ex rel. Doe v. White, 627 F.Supp.2d 905 (C.D.Ill. III. Conclusion The McLean County School District lacked the control over Doe-2's injury that could give rise to Title IX liability, a......
-
Posey v. Pruger, Case No. 10 C 3574
...caused an injury by means of a policy decision, and who also have the authority to exercise discretion. See Doe ex rel. Doe v. White, 627 F. Supp.2d 905, 922 (C.D. Ill. 2009); Torres v. City of Chicago, 123 F. Supp.2d 1130, 1133 (N.D. Ill. 2000). A policy decision under Illinois law require......