Joki v. State

Decision Date27 April 2017
Docket NumberDocket No. 43907
Citation394 P.3d 48,162 Idaho 5
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
Parties Russell JOKI, individually and as Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem of Peyton Lee Gifford-Joki, a minor of age 16 enrolled at Meridian High School; and Sarah C. Holt, individually and as Parent and Guardian Ad Litem of Sabrina Holt and Sophia Holt, children enrolled in Chief Joseph Elementary School in Meridian, Idaho; each Plaintiff in their own behalf and in behalf of all parents, grandparents, and guardians ad litem of all school age children in grades K-12 in the Meridian Joint School District #2, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The STATE of Idaho, The Idaho State Legislature, The Idaho State Board of Education, and The Honorable Tom Luna, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Defendants-Respondents, and Meridian Joint District #2, Defendant.

The Huntley Law Firm, PLLC, Boise, attorneys for appellants. Robert Huntley argued.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, attorney for respondents. Leslie Hayes argued.

JONES, Justice

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

This appeal arises from Russell Joki's action challenging the constitutionality of: (1) fees charged to students of Meridian Joint District #21 ; and (2) the statewide system of funding Idaho's public schools. Russell Joki and sixteen other individuals (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Joki") initiated the suit against the State of Idaho, the Idaho State Legislature, the Idaho State Board of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "State Defendants"), all 114 Idaho public school districts, and one charter school. The district court granted the State Defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, Joki argues that the district court erred in dismissing the State Defendants.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 1, 2012, Joki filed the initial complaint against the State Defendants, 114 public school districts, and one charter school. Joki sought to proceed as a representative of a class consisting of all students currently enrolled in the defendant school districts, together with their parents or guardians. In the initial complaint, Joki requested reimbursement for the damages that he and other class members suffered, and continued to suffer, as a result of the unconstitutional fees charged by the defendant school districts. On October 9, 2012, Joki filed an amended class action complaint, adding a second cause of action against the State Defendants. Specifically, Joki requested a declaratory judgment that Idaho's current system of funding education is unconstitutional. Joki cited article IX, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution as the basis for his claims, which provides, in pertinent part: "[I]t shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools." Idaho Const. art. IX, § 1.

On October 30, 2012, the State Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted on March 19, 2013. On the same day, 53 of the 114 school districts were voluntarily dismissed by Joki. On March 27, 2013, Joki submitted a motion to alter or amend the order dismissing the State Defendants. On June 27, 2013, Joki, Meridian Joint District #2, and the State Defendants stipulated that Joki may file a second amended complaint, with the provision that Meridian Joint District #2 and the State Defendants reserved the right to seek dismissal, summary judgment, and resist class certification. The district court granted Joki's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On July 16, 2013, Joki filed the second amended complaint, which sought: (1) reimbursement from Meridian Joint District #2 or the legislature of certain fees imposed by the school districts; and (2) a declaratory judgment against the State Defendants that the current system of funding education in Idaho is unconstitutional.

On July 17, 2013, the State Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In an accompanying memorandum, the State Defendants argued that the claims against them fell squarely within the terms of the Constitutionally Based Educational Claims Act, Idaho Code sections 6-2201 –2216 (hereinafter referred to as the "CBECA"), and should be dismissed according to the provisions therein. In response, Joki argued that the CBECA did not require the dismissal of the State Defendants. Specifically, Joki asserted that according to this Court's holding in Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity v. State , 140 Idaho 586, 97 P.3d 453 (2004) (hereinafter referred to as " ISEEO IV "), the CBECA was unconstitutional as applied to his second cause of action.2

On November 27, 2013, the district court issued a memorandum decision and order regarding the State Defendants' motion to dismiss. The district court found that the CBECA applied to Joki's claim for fee reimbursement and required the dismissal of the State Defendants. The district court reasoned that the CBECA applied to Joki's claim because, under the CBECA, a district court may issue any order that it determines would assist the local school district in administering constitutionally required educational services.3 Further, the district court reasoned that the State Defendants could only be added as defendants after the following occurred: (1) a bench trial; (2) a finding that a school district failed to provide constitutionally required educational services; (3) the issuance of a corresponding remedial order; and (4) continued noncompliance by a school district. Joki did not comply with the aforementioned procedural requirements; accordingly, the district court granted the State Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Next, the district court analyzed Joki's request for a declaratory judgment that the current system of funding education in Idaho is unconstitutional. The district court acknowledged Joki's argument that in ISEEO V this Court found the system of funding school facilities in Idaho was unconstitutional. However, the district court held that Joki's complaint failed to state a claim to enforce ISEEO V . The district court emphasized that ISEEO V addressed the narrow issue of funding for school facilities, not the education system as a whole. Because Joki's complaint did not allege inadequate school facilities, the district court concluded that Joki failed to state a claim to enforce ISEEO V . Further, the district court reasoned that even if Joki were to allege facts within the purview of this Court's holding in ISEEO V , the CBECA would nevertheless apply and require Joki to first exhaust the remedies under the CBECA before pursuing action against the State Defendants. In sum, the district court held that the CBECA governed all of Joki's claims, as brought against the State Defendants, and required dismissal.

On June 27, 2014, the district court denied Joki's motion for class certification due to "concerns over the suitability of [Joki] as representative[ ] of the proposed class." Ultimately, on December 7, 2015, the district court entered judgment in favor of Joki against Meridian Joint District #2 in the amount of $85. Joki appealed the dismissal of the State Defendants.

III. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Whether the district court erred in dismissing the State Defendants.

2. Whether Joki is entitled to attorney's fees.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When this Court reviews an order dismissing an action pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), we apply the same standard of review we apply to a motion for summary judgment. After viewing all facts and inferences from the record in favor of the non-moving party, the Court will ask whether a claim for relief has been stated. The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the party is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.
In addition, this Court reviews an appeal from an order of summary judgment de novo , and this Court's standard of review is the same as the standard used by the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Ergo, a district court's dismissal of a complaint under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) shall be reviewed de novo .

Coalition for Agriculture's Future v. Canyon County , 160 Idaho 142, 145, 369 P.3d 920, 923 (2016) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

V. ANALYSIS
A. The district court did not err in dismissing the State Defendants.

In asserting that the district court erred in dismissing the State Defendants, Joki makes two arguments. First, Joki argues that the general responsibilities of the State Defendants demonstrate that they were proper defendants. Second, Joki argues that the CBECA does not apply to his action. Specifically, Joki argues that the CBECA does not apply because: (1) the CBECA is an unconstitutional amendment to the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) the CBECA was designed to address allegations of a public school's failure to provide educational services , which he is not alleging; rather, he is alleging that the fees levied by the school districts are unconstitutional.

The State Defendants argue that the district court properly dismissed the claims against them because Joki failed to comply with the procedural mandates of the CBECA. That is, Joki failed to obtain authorization from the district court to add the State Defendants. In response to Joki's claim that the CBECA is either unconstitutional or does not apply, the State Defendants make three assertions: (1) in Osmunson v. State , 135 Idaho 292, 17 P.3d 236 (2000), this Court upheld the constitutionality of the CBECA; (2) Joki misstates this Court's holding in ISEEO IV , 140 Idaho 586, 97 P.3d 453 ; and (3) Joki's claims fall squarely within the purview of the CBECA.

Article IX, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution provides that it is the duty of the legislature "to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools." Idaho Const. art. IX, § 1....

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Zeyen ex rel. & Dist. ex rel. & v. Pocatello/Chubbuck Sch. Dist. No. 25, Corp.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 23, 2019
    ...District 25 claimed it stopped charging fees that were associated with academic credit beginning with the 2016-17 school year. Second, Joki v. State was on appeal to this Court. 162 Idaho 5, 394 P.3d 48, 6 (2017). This Court heard oral argument in the Joki case in January 2017 and took the ......
  • Zeyen v. Boise Sch. Dist. No. 1
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Idaho
    • February 26, 2021
    ...met. Id. at 1209. Since that decision in 2005, plaintiffs have filed three state court actions along with this suit. In Joki v. Idaho , 162 Idaho 5, 394 P.3d 48 (2017), the plaintiffs initially sued the State and 114 school districts seeking to represent a class consisting of all students c......
  • City of Idaho Falls, an Idaho Mun. Corp. v. H-K Contractors, Inc.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • April 24, 2018
    ...whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the party is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Joki v. State , 162 Idaho 5, 8, 394 P.3d 48, 51 (2017) (quoting Coalition for Agriculture's Future v. Canyon County , 160 Idaho 142, 145, 369 P.3d 920, 923 (2016) ) (int......
  • Emp'rs Res. Mgmt. Co. v. Ronk
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 3, 2017
    ...from the record in favor of the non-moving party, the Court will ask whether a claim for relief has been stated. Joki v. State , 162 Idaho 5, 8, 394 P.3d 48, 51 (2017). "[A]s a practical matter, a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is likely to be granted only in the unusual case in which the pl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT