Doe v. Del. Valley Sch. Dist.
Decision Date | 11 November 2021 |
Docket Number | 3:21-CV-1778 |
Citation | 572 F.Supp.3d 38 |
Parties | John DOE #1, in his own capacity and as parent of child Doe 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DELAWARE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Kenneth R. Behrend, Kevin M. Miller, Pro Hac Vice, Behrend Law Group LLC, Pittsburgh, PA, Vern S. Lazaroff, Lazaroff & Fetzko, Port Jervis, NY, for Plaintiffs.
William J. McPartland, Marshall Dennehey, Moosic, PA, for Defendants Delaware Valley School District, Brian Carso, Rosemary Walsh.
Charles Kannebecker, Weinstein Schneider Kannebecker & Lokuta, Milford, PA, William J. McPartland, Marshall Dennehey, Moosic, PA, for Defendants Jack Fisher, Jessica Decker, Dawn Bukaj, Cory Homer, Pam Lufty, Felicia Sheehan.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ "Motion for 1) Temporary Restraining Order; 2) Order Restraining the School Board of the Delaware Valley School District and the Board Members; and 3) Order to Show Cause why a Preliminary Injunction Should not Issue" (Doc. 5).
On October 18, 2021, Plaintiffs, consisting of five John/Jane Does, filed a "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Constitutionally Protected Due Process Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983" (Doc. 1), naming as Defendants the Delaware Valley School District ("DVSD") and DVSD Board of Directors Jack Fisher, Jessica Decker, Dawn Bukaj, Brian Carso, Cory Homer, Pan Lufty, Felicia Sheehan, and Rosemary Walsh, each in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges "Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Violation of the ADA" (Count I); "Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973" (Count II); " 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of Substantive Due Process (5th and 14th Amendments)" (Count III); " 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of Substantive Due Process (Fourteenth Amendment)" (Count IV); " 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Right to Free Association (First Amendment)" (Count V); and "Violation of Fundamental Rights Protected under the Pennsylvania Constitution" (Count VI). (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs’ Complaint further contains a "Request for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction". (Id. at ¶¶ 175-176).
On October 18, 2021, Plaintiffs also filed a "Motion for 1) Temporary Restraining Order; 2) Order Restraining the School Board of the Delaware Valley School District and the Board Members; and 3) Order to Show Cause why a Preliminary Injunction Should not Issue" (Doc. 5) and supporting brief (Doc. 6), to which Defendants have filed briefs in opposition (Docs. 17, 18). Plaintiffs’ Motion requests the following relief:
(See Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order, Doc. 5-1, at 3-5).1
(Doc. 12, ¶ 2).
On October 28, 2021, the Court held an evidentiary hearing and oral argument on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief. At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of Dr. James Cruse, Plaintiffs Jane Doe #1, John Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, John Doe # 2, Jane Doe #3, and Defendants DVSD Board Directors Dawn Bukaj, Jack Fisher, and Brian Carso. The following day, this Court extended its TRO for a period of 14 days or until its issuance of an Order ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc. 32). The TRO is thus scheduled to expire on Friday, November 12, 2021.
However, on November 10, 2021, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision finding the "Order of the Acting Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health Directing Face Coverings in School Entities", the Order at issue in the present case which Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have violated, to be "void ab initio " and unenforceable. (See Doc. 38-1). The Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, representing Pennsylvania Acting Secretary of Health Alison Beam, filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that same day. That appeal operates as an automatic supersedeas in favor of the Commonwealth, see Pa. R.A.P. 1736, and the Acting Secretary of Health's Order thus remains in effect as of the issuance of this Court's present memorandum opinion.
As a result of the automatic supersedeas , and the expiration of this Court's TRO on Friday, November 12, 2021, a decision on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief remains necessary.2
Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 5) having been fully briefed and an evidentiary hearing having been held, the motion is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief will be denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial