Lloyd v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty.

• Decision Date: 29 October 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 9:21-cv-81715-KMM
• Parties: Dustin LLOYD, individually and on behalf of his minor children, P.L., G.L., and E.L., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

570 F.Supp.3d 1165

Dustin LLOYD, individually and on behalf of his minor children, P.L., G.L., and E.L., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 9:21-cv-81715-KMM

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed October 29, 2021

Cory Carsan Strolla, Law Offices of Cory Strolla, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, Joel D. Medgebow, Medgebow Law, P.A., Coconut Creek, FL, Louis Frank Leo, IV, Florida Civil Rights Coalition, P.L.L.C., Saint Johns, FL, for Plaintiffs Dustin Lloyd, William O'Connor, Jr., Amber Santamarina, Shana Borowski, Emily Matchica, Joyce Van Etten, Lindsay Pasquale, Victor Nin, P. L., G. L., E. L., T. O., B. S., K. B., S. M., C. S., E. C., J. C., J. N.

Louis Frank Leo, IV, Florida Civil Rights Coalition, P.L.L.C., Saint Johns, FL, for Plaintiffs P. C., L. S., W. S., Landon Swan, Rebecca Disney, W. S.(2).

Sean Christian Fahey, The School District of Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

K. MICHAEL MOORE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant School Board of Palm Beach County ("School Board"), Defendant Michael Burke ("Burke"), and Defendant Frank Barbieri, Jr.’s ("Barbieri") (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss. ("Mot.") (ECF No. 23). Therein, Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl.") (ECF No. 16) should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See generally Mot. Plaintiffs Dustin Lloyd, William O'Connor, Amber Santamarina, Shana Borowski, Emily Matchica, Joyce Van Etten, Lindsay Pasquale and Victor Nin (the "Parent Plaintiffs") filed a response, ("Resp.") (ECF No. 24), individually and on behalf of their minor children, P.L., G.L., E.L., T.O., B.S., K.B., S.M., C.S., E.C., J.C., and J.N. (the "Minor Plaintiffs"). Defendants filed a reply. ("Reply") (ECF No. 25). The Motion is now ripe for review.

I. BACKGROUND¹

On August 24, 2021, the School Board of Palm Beach County sent a letter ("Letter") (ECF No. 16-2) to parents to inform them that the School Board had approved a policy making facial coverings mandatory for students (hereinafter, the "Mask Mandate"). Am. Compl. ¶ 128; see also Letter at 1. The School Board's Mask Mandate affords one limited exception for students with documented disabilities. Letter at 1. Additionally, the School Board's Letter lays out the following "interventions and progressive discipline" for students who refuse to wear a facial covering:

1. Facial coverings will be offered to students who arrive at school without one.

2. Non-compliance may include, but is not limited to, the following in a progressive order of corrective strategies.

a. Conference with student

b. Conference with parent/guardian

c. Reiterate expectations and safety/health benefits

d. Loss of privileges (during school hours)

e. Loss of extra-curricular activities

f. Temporary removal from class

g. In-school suspension.

h. [Out-of-school] suspension.

Am. Compl. ¶ 129; Letter at 2. The Letter further states that the Mask Mandate would remain in place for ninety (90) days and be subject to periodic reassessment. Am. Compl. ¶ 126; Letter at 1.

On August 26, 2021, the Defendants received a letter from Florida Department of Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran and the State Board of Education, which informed them that an investigation was being opened as to the School Board's compliance with the Florida Department of Health Emergency Rule 64DER21-12. Am. Compl. ¶ 119. The regulation referenced in Commissioner Corcoran's letter was an emergency rule promulgated by the Florida Department of Health, which requires, as relevant to the issue of mask-wearing in schools, that "[s]tudents may wear masks or facial coverings as a mitigation measure; however, the school must allow for a parent or legal guardian of the student to opt-out the student from wearing a face covering or mask." Emergency Rule 64DER21-12(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Reg., Vol. 47/153 (Aug. 9, 2021), https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?id=64DER21-12.

However, despite the letter from Commissioner Corcoran, the School Board has kept its Mask Mandate in place, with no provision for parents to opt their children out of the mask requirement. Am. Compl. ¶ 122. On September 22, 2021, the School Board again reiterated its commitment to its masking policy. Id. ¶ 136.

Opposition to the School Board's masking policy has not been limited to Florida state officials. For example, at a School Board meeting held on September 22, 2021, a student testified:

[S]o far, we have been forced to wear masks for my entire time as a middle schooler. I have friends that I have never seen their smile. I have teachers that I have never seen their faces. It's really hard to hear people with masks on and I can't tell if my friends are happy or sad. I don't feel like talking to people much with a mask on.... The masks are hot, uncomfortable and hard to breathe and talk with. I loved going to school, but now I hate it because of the masks. I never got in any trouble before, but now I get yelled at if my mask accidently flips down.... I wore a mask all through sixth grade and now seventh. By my calculations, I've spent 6,300 hours in a mask in the past year. How much longer do we kids have to be the only ones forced to wear these masks?

Id. ¶ 138.

Minor Plaintiffs are children between the ages of five (5) and seventeen (17) who attend school within the School District of Palm Beach County. See id. ¶¶ 9–32. Minor Plaintiffs allege that they have been disciplined, or threatened with discipline, for noncompliance with the School Board's Mask Mandate. Id. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that they face a continuing threat of progressive discipline, including a potential for out-of-school suspension. Id. Parent Plaintiffs have not consented to the masking of their children and have submitted "opt-out" forms to Defendant School Board. Id. ¶ 34.

On September 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs subsequently filed the operative Amended Complaint on September 27, 2021. See Am. Compl. at 1.

Therein, Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution ("Count I"), see id. ¶¶ 259–72; (2) a § 1983 claim for violation rights to privacy, parental rights, and right to bodily autonomy under of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution ("Count II"), see id. ¶¶ 273–80; (3) a § 1983 claim for violation of the right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution ("Count III"), see id. ¶¶ 281–95; (4) a § 1983 claim for violation of the right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution ("Count IV"), see id. ¶¶ 296–309; (5) a declaratory judgment action based upon invalid exercise of statutory authority under Florida law ("Count V"), see id. ¶¶ 310–31; (6) a declaratory judgment action based upon a violation of the right to due process under Art. I § 9 of the Florida Constitution ("Count VI"), see id. ¶¶ 332–41; (7) a declaratory judgment action based upon a violation of the right to equal protection under Art. I § 2 of the Florida Constitution ("Count VII"), see id. ¶¶ 342–59; (8) a declaratory judgment action based upon a violation of the right to privacy under Art. I § 23 of the Florida Constitution ("Count VIII"), see id. ¶¶ 360–64; (9) a declaratory judgment action based upon a violation of the Florida Parent's Bill of Rights ("Count IX"), see id. ¶¶ 365–72; and (10) a "permanent injunction" action against the Mask Mandate based upon the foregoing claims ("Count X"), see id. ¶¶ 373–85.

Now, Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, in its entirety, for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief should be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mot. at 2–3. Additionally, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Burke and Barbieri should be dismissed because they are duplicative of the claims asserted against Defendant School Board. Mot. at 2.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a court may dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This requirement "give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal citation and alterations omitted). The court takes the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Pielage v. McConnell , 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008).

A complaint must contain enough facts to plausibly allege the required elements.

Watts v. Fla. Int'l Univ. , 495 F.3d 1289, 1295–96 (11th Cir. 2007). A pleading that offers "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "[C]onclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal." Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis , 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002).

III. DISCUSSION

For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) and the Amended Complaint is properly dismissed, in its entirety.

A. Plaintiffs’ Claims under the FDCA Are Not Cognizable under § 1983.

In Count I of the...