McManus v. The Aleutian Region Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 17 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 3:20-cv-00099-TMB |
| Parties | WAYNE MCMANUS and SHILO MCMANUS, Plaintiffs, v. THE ALEUTIAN REGION SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 4 & 5 (DKT. 31)
The matter comes before the Court on Defendant Aleutian Regional School District (“ARSD”) and individually named Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts 4 and 5 of the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) 12(b)(1) and (6) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.[1] Pro se Plaintiffs Wayne and Shilo McManus (“Plaintiffs” or the “McManuses”)[2] filed an Opposition.[3] Defendants filed a Reply, and Plaintiffs filed several additional documents, including documents which the Court construes as a surreplies.[4] The matter is fully briefed and ready for decision; the Parties did not request oral argument, and the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without argument. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion to Dismiss Counts 4 and 5 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
This action arises out of a dispute between Plaintiffs and their former employer, ARSD. The Court previously granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, and the Court included in its Order the legal standards for some of Plaintiffs' claims.[5] On March 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against ARSD and Joseph B. Beckford, the ARSD Superintendent, Crystal Dushkin, Mark Snigaroff Sr., Kathleen McCune, Rebecca Dunton, Sally Swetzof, Mary Swetzof, [6]William J. Dushkin, and Luke Snigaroff, in their individual capacities (collectively, “Defendants”).[7]
In Count 4 of their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs claim that certain Defendants defamed Plaintiffs and “are liable for the damages to the McManuses' reputations in the community.”[8]Plaintiffs allege that ARSD and Defendants Joseph Beckford, Mark Snigaroff, Crystal Dushkin, Mrs. Bennett, [9] Kathleen McCune, and Rebecca Dunton “published false and defamatory statements to others that the McManuses were unprofessional, confrontational, and caused concerns for ‘the safety and emotional well-being of their students.'”[10] Plaintiffs argue “[t]hese false accusations are sufficiently disqualifying as to constitute a backlisting.”[11]
Plaintiffs further allege that during a public meeting in Adak, Alaska in April 2018, Defendant Joseph Beckford wrongly “denied that [Shilo] McManus was the supervisor of the custodians” and “indicated that problems were due [to] the McManuses creating a ‘hostile environment.'”[12] Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Mary Swetzof “published false and defamatory remarks [about Plaintiffs] in a three page [L]etter to ARSD dated May 1[, ] 2018[.]”[13] Plaintiffs allege that this May 1, 2018 [L]etter included statements that Plaintiffs “made ‘inaccurate reports about systems and housing' . . . in reference to protected activities” and characterized the McManuses as “‘not responsible, reliable, or truthful adults[.]'”[14] Plaintiffs allege that during a January 13, 2021 School Board meeting, Defendant Mary Swetzof “repeated the false claims made in her [May 1, 2018 L]etter . . . that the McManuses were supposed to clean the school and did not.”[15]
Plaintiffs also incorporate by reference their allegations that ARSD retaliated against Plaintiffs for reporting mismanagement and personal issues at the school, as did Defendants Joseph Beckford, Crystal Dushkin, and Mary Swetzof, who “collaborated to fabricate a story about the McManuses[.]”[16] Plaintiffs describe ARSD's retaliation as taking various forms, including evicting Plaintiffs from their home and “blacklist[ing] [Plaintiffs] with a letter” which stated false reasons for their non-retention.[17] Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that ARSD violated Plaintiffs' right to free speech by limiting their time during public comments and “initially refusing to allow [Shilo] McManus to speak at all, ” and “omitting [Plaintiffs'] comment from board minutes.”[18]Plaintiffs argue ARSD, “through its board and Superintendent Beckford and Hanley have a pattern[, ] practice and policy of discriminating against women” as evidenced by Defendant Joseph Beckford's refusal to meet with Shilo McManus regarding misconduct by her subordinate, meeting with her male subordinate and male community members.[19]
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, damages, including “punitive damages in the amount of $1, 000, 000.00, or other such amount as determined at trial, ” and attorney fees and costs.[20]
In Count 5 of their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs claim that certain Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Alaska Landlord Tenant Act.[21] Plaintiffs allege they entered into a month-to-month rental agreement with ARSD but do not specify when.[22] Plaintiffs allege ARSD failed to maintain a “fit premises as required by [Alaska Stat. Ann. §] 34.03.160” and, as a result, Wayne McManus “became sick in December from conditions in [the] rental unit, ” and his symptoms persisted until he moved out.[23] Plaintiffs allege that Wayne McManus “was forced to live [in] an alternate [housing] unit away from his family, and then to sleep on the floor of the school when the alternate unit was rented out.”[24] Plaintiffs' children were unable to join Wayne McManus “in the alternate unit because fumes from a leaking furnace” made Shilo McManus ill.[25]
Plaintiffs allege that when they complained about the substandard living conditions, ARSD retaliated against them.[26] Plaintiffs allege that on April 27, 2018, ARSD, through Defendant Joseph Beckford, provided Plaintiffs with notice that ARSD and Defendant Joseph Beckford were evicting Plaintiffs from their residence, effective May 2, 2018.[27] Plaintiffs allege their lease with ARSD was through the end of May 2018.[28] Further, Defendant Joseph Beckford threated “to withhold approximately $3000.00 in airfare” that ARSD was mandated to provide Plaintiffs under their employment contract and Alaska Stat. Ann. § 23.10.380.[29] Plaintiffs also state that the “Alaska Department of Labor did not consider ARSD's stated cause [for eviction] ‘good and sufficient' as required by statute.”[30] Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to damages “for the unlawful eviction, stress, suffering, and emotional stress” due to ARSD's “negligent maintenance of [its] housing units.”[31]
ARSD moves, on behalf of all Defendants, to dismiss Counts 4 and 5 of the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.[32] Defendants argue first that the Court should dismiss Counts 4 and 5 because these Counts are state law claims over which the federal Court lacks jurisdiction.[33] Next, Defendants argue, Count 4 should be dismissed for failure to state a defamation claim upon which relief can be granted.[34] Defendants argue that even accepting Plaintiffs' allegations as true, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint does not state a valid claim for relief against Defendants Joseph Beckford, Mark Snigaroff, Crystal Dushkin, Katherine McCune, and Rebecca Dunton.[35] Defendants argue that “Plaintiffs have not alleged facts that would plausibly lead to the conclusion that any unprivileged and false statement of fact was published, much less the existence of per se actionability or special harm.”[36] Defendants argue Plaintiffs may not “rely solely on generalized statements and recapitulations of the elements” of a defamation claim.[37]
As to Count 5, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged that individual Defendants were acting as Plaintiffs' landlords or owed Plaintiffs any duties under Alaska's Landlord Tenant Act.[38] Insofar as Plaintiffs attempt to assert claims under Alaska Stat. Ann. § 34.03.100 or Alaska Stat. Ann. § 34.03.160 against any individual Defendant, such claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.[39] Further, Plaintiffs' allegations center on Defendants' purported failure to maintain fit premises in the residential accommodations provided to Plaintiffs.[40] Defendants argue none of these allegations “bear any relationship to the other allegations or factual circumstances described elsewhere in the first Amended Complaint or to any federal claim[.]”[41]
Plaintiffs filed an Opposition in which they argue the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction to hear their state law claims even if the Court dismisses their federal law claims.[42]
Plaintiffs argue that Counts 4 and 5 clearly “stem from the federal retaliation claims, as themselves being acts of retaliation against protected activities and constitutional rights.”[43]
In response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count 4 Plaintiffs point to several incidents to support their defamation claim against Defendants: (1) ARSD issued letters of non-retention to Plaintiffs; (2) Defendant Joseph Beckford made statements that Shilo McManus was not delegated authority to supervise custodial or maintenance work; and (3) Defendant Mary Swetzof made false claims that Plaintiffs failed to follow a reading program “‘after the first quarter, '” that Plaintiffs “‘made continuous complaints about the first janitor, and made a hostile work environment for the second [janitor], '” that Plaintiffs disregarded “‘their duty to upkeep the school, '” that Plaintiffs made “‘false reports, or irrational attempts to further [a] hidden agenda, '” and that Plaintiffs “ ‘are...
To continue reading
Request your trial