McDonald v. Univ. of Utah, Cheryl Wright, Scott Wright, M. David Rudd, Russ Isabella, Deseret Digital Media, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:15-cv-00283 |
| Parties | GEORGE MCDONALD and DIANA SCHAFFER, individually and on behalf of their minor child, G.S., Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, CHERYL WRIGHT, SCOTT WRIGHT, M. DAVID RUDD, RUSS ISABELLA, DESERET DIGITAL MEDIA, INC., DESERET NEWS, DESERET NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY, RICHARD D. HALL, and PAUL S. EDWARDS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
This case arises out of a Deseret News article published in early 2013 about a University of Utah education program called iSTAR. The article contained a photograph of minor G.S.'s face, the caption of which identified him by name and incorrectly stated that he has autism.
Based on the article, G.S. and his parents, George McDonald and Diana Schaffer, assert against the University of Utah and the four University of Utah employees responsible for iSTAR (University Defendants) several state claims and a federal claim. Plaintiffs bring similar claims against Deseret Media, Inc., Deseret News, Deseret News Publishing Company, and two Deseret employees responsible for the article's publication (Deseret Defendants).
The Deseret Defendants and the University Defendants separately move for judgment on the pleadings. The court grants both motions in part, dismissing the sole federal claim asserted against the Deseret Defendants and the University Defendants. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, and remands the case to state court.
G.S. is an intellectually gifted child with extraordinary visual-spatial skills. In late 2010, G.S. began attending a University of Utah education program called iSTAR. iSTAR focuses on neurodiverse youth with atypical brain development or function, and strives to help those youth reach their full potential by emphasizing spatial-visual skills. Professor Cheryl Wright, Professor Scott Wright, Chair of the Department of Family and Consumer Studies Russ Isabella, and then Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Science M. David Rudd were responsible for the program's formation and supervision.
G.S. excelled in the program, and became a role model for other participants. Although most program participants had autism, the University Defendants knew G.S. had neither autism nor any other autism spectrum disorder. Indeed, Schaffer, G.S.'s mother, told Professor Cheryl Wright that G.S. does not have autism, and that he was not to be depicted in any local media.
Professors Cheryl and Scott Wright hosted a media workshop and an evening seminar on January 3, 2013, to promote iSTAR. In attendance was a photographer from the Deseret News, a newspaper of general circulation published in the Salt Lake City area. The professors told the Deseret News photographer that all the children enrolled in iSTAR, including G.S., had autism.
G.S. and McDonald, G.S.'s father, attended the evening seminar. While at the seminar, the Deseret News photographer took a photograph of G.S. without McDonald's knowledge or consent. Professor Cheryl Wright encouraged G.S. to pose for the Deseret News photographerwhile McDonald was not looking.
On January 7, 2013, the Deseret News published a print and an online article about iSTAR. The print version of the article contained a clearly identifiable color photograph of G.S.'s face. The photograph's caption identified G.S. by name and labeled him autistic.
Plaintiffs sued the University Defendants and the Deseret Defendants in Utah state court based on the article's publication in the Deseret News. Plaintiffs assert state claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, abuse of personal identity, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private facts, and negligent supervision. Plaintiffs also claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Defendants timely removed the case to this court.
The Deseret Defendants and the University Defendants now separately move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings. Courts evaluate motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) using the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).2 To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must "state a claim upon which relief can be granted," meaning Plaintiffs must allege "enough factual matter, taken as true, to make [their] 'claim to relief . . . plausible on its face.'"3 "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."4While the court "accept[s] all well-pleaded facts as true and view[s] them in the light most favorable" to Plaintiffs,5 the court will not accept as true "legal conclusions" or "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements."6
The court's analysis proceeds in three parts. The court first analyzes Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim against the Deseret Defendants, before discussing Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim against the University Defendants. Concluding that the § 1983 claims should be dismissed, the court then explains why it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.
Plaintiffs allege under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the Deseret Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution when they published the article in the Deseret News. The Deseret Defendants urge the court to dismiss Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim because Plaintiffs have inadequately alleged that the Deseret Defendants, as private entities, are state actors. The court agrees.
A plaintiff asserting a § 1983 claim must adequately allege state action.7 For a private party's conduct to constitute state action, the constitutional deprivation "must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person for whom the State is responsible," and "the [private] party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor."8 The Supreme Court has identified four tests to determine whether private parties, like the Deseret Defendants, mayfairly be said to be state actors: "(1) the public function test, (2) the nexus test, (3) the symbiotic relationship test[,] and (4) the joint action test."9 "Under each of these four tests, 'the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right' must be 'fairly attributable to the State.'"10
Plaintiffs here invoke only the joint actor test. State action exists under that test "if the private party is a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents."11 This inquiry focuses on whether state officials and private entities "acted in concert" in causing a deprivation of constitutional rights.12 Courts have found joint action where there is a "substantial degree of cooperative action between state and private officials," where "there is overt and significant state participation in carrying out the deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights," or where state and private actors "share a specific goal to violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights by engaging in a particular course of action" giving rise to the violation.13 To the contrary, courts have found no joint action where either a state official or a private actor independently decides to perform an unconstitutional act notwithstanding the other's assistance.14
Plaintiffs argue that joint action exists because the University Defendants participated in or influenced the Deseret Defendants' decision to publish G.S.'s photograph and to label him autistic. In the alternative, Plaintiffs maintain that there was a substantial degree of cooperationbetween the University Defendants and the Deseret Defendants.15
The Tenth Circuit's decision in Anderson v. Suiters is instructive. In Anderson, the plaintiff sued a reporter and a media outlet for which the reporter worked under § 1983 after the media outlet broadcast a videotape showing the plaintiff being raped.16 The Tenth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff inadequately pleaded that the media defendants acted jointly with the state officer who received the videotape from the plaintiff to violate her right to privacy.17 The plaintiff did not allege that the media defendants knew the plaintiff turned the videotape over to the officer on a condition of confidentiality.18 Nor did the plaintiff allege enough facts showing that the officer and the media defendants had a shared purpose.19 The plaintiff's allegations instead indicated that "the parties had their own, separate goals: [the officer] wanted to appear on camera, and the media defendants wanted exclusive access to the investigation."20 The plaintiff also failed to allege that the officer or any other state actor obtained editorial control over the media defendants' use of the videotape.21 And while the plaintiff alleged that the officer called the plaintiff on the reporter's behalf to encourage her to speak with the reporter, that fact did not show joint action to violate the plaintiff's right to privacy by airing sexually explicit portions of the videotape.22
A similar result is warranted here. Plaintiffs have not alleged that the Deseret Defendants knew Schaffer told the University Defendants that G.S. is not autistic, and that he was not to be depicted in any local media. Nor have Plaintiffs alleged that the state officials and private actorsshared the common purpose of violating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. While Plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial